FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
A washed-up sportswriter (Humphrey Bogart) eager for steady income accepts a gig as publicist for a hulky but ineffective new fighter (Mike Lane) working under a corrupt promoter (Rod Steiger) — but when an ethical journalist friend (Harold J. Stone) and his wife (Jan Sterling) learns more about what he’s doing, Bogart begins to have second thoughts.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Boxing
• Corruption
• Humphrey Bogart Films
• Jan Sterling Films
• Journalists
• Mark Robson Films
• Rod Steiger Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “skillfully directed”, “remarkable, well-acted” film by Mark Robson — with an “outstanding no-punches-pulled (literally speaking) script by Philip Yordan,” based on a novel by Budd Schulberg — remains “the harshest indictment of boxing on film”, and is a “rare boxing film where the person who ‘sells out’ for money is not a fighter.” He notes that “the boxing world that is depicted is abominable. Not only is the sport itself brutal… but also most fights are shown to be rigged, and fighters are at the mercy of racketeers and money-hungry managers who should protect their fighters but treat them like cattle (to be bought, used, sold).” Peary adds, “Curiously, Max Baer plays the champ” who sadistically beats Toro [Lane], “twenty years after really mauling Primo Carnera (the basis for Toro) in [the] title bout; one wonders why he or Jersey Joe Wolcott (who plays Toro’s trainer) would participate in a film that condemns their sport” — but this comment belittles the intelligence and awareness of the boxers themselves, who surely realize (now if not then) the exploitation inherent in their own career choice, and also likely needed the money (!). Bogart looks tired and unwell in his final role, though this suits his character: he’s a man who recognizes that corruption is both tempting and relentlessly omnipresent, a formidable force to be reckoned with in a lifelong battle to privilege human dignity and respect over greed and gratification of the masses.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Strong direction by Robson
  
• Burnett Guffey’s cinematography
  
• Many effective scenes
  
  
  

Must See?
Yes, as a still-powerful indictment of corruption in sports.

Categories

• Genuine Classic

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Combustible Celluloid Review
• DVD Savant Review
• TCM Article

Synopsis:
A jingoistic teacher (Arnold Lucy) encourages his entire class of high school students to enlist in the German war effort — but Paul (Lew Ayres) and his classmates quickly find war to be far more hellish than they could ever imagine.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Lewis Milestone Films
• Soldiers
• Survival
• World War One

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that while “the most famous pacifist film is not as grisly as Erich Maria Remarque’s novel,” it “has enough horror and brutality to drive its anti-war theme home a hundred times over”. Influenced by a “rousing pro-militaristic speech by their professor”, a group of impossibly young and naive German teens quickly “discover that war has nothing to do with gallantry, duty, or the right cause” — instead, they “suffer through bombings, gassings, massacres, [and] hand-to-hand conflicts”. Peary argues that while “the dialogue scenes are static”, the “human story is powerful”, with “director Lewis Milestone’s visuals of the battle scenes… still impressive”, “effectively convey[ing] that being a soldier is a terrifying prospect.” Peary concludes his brief GFTFF review by noting “it’s unfortunate that films like this are never made when a war is in progress.”

In Alternate Oscars, Peary agrees with the Academy in naming this the Best Picture of the Year, and elaborates on what makes it so enduringly powerful. He writes that while “the boys enthusiastically enlist en masse, all hoping to be heroes”, “once in uniform, they realize that there is no glamour to war” — “instead, there are dictatorial officers, endless marchs, hunger, fatigue, nostalgia for home, rats in the trenches, mud and rain…” Indeed, there is “no heroism. Instead there is confusion, terror, hysteria, madness, amputations, [and] meaningless deaths. All that matters is survival, and those who survive are either insane, without limbs or sight, or unfit to return to civilization where old men still champion wars.” Most chilling and heart-stopping among many powerful moments is “the battle scene in which Arthur Edeson’s camera pans while charging soldiers are mowed down by machine-gun fire” — a scene “as impressive as it is terrifying”, and which “becomes even scarier when soldiers break through and jump into the trenches for hand-to-hand combat.” As Peary adds, “Significantly, not one shot is heroic or glamorizes war; instead we see how vulnerable all soldiers are and want to close our eyes until the fighting stops.” This almost unbearably impactful film will quickly convince you that war really is hell.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Powerful direction by Milestone
  
  
  
• Arthur Edesen’s cinematography
  
  
  
• Countless memorable moments
  
  

Must See?
Yes, as an enduring classic.

Categories

• Genuine Classic

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• TCM Articles
• NY Sun Review

Synopsis:
The headstrong queen (Greta Garbo) of 17th century Sweden is pressured to marry a prince (Reginald Owen), but falls instead for a handsome Spanish ambassador (John Gilbert). Will she choose loyalty to her position and her country, or her heart?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Feminism and Women’s Issues
• Gender Bending
• Greta Garbo Films
• Historical Drama
• John Gilbert Films
• Lewis Stone Films
• Romance
• Rouben Mamoulian Films
• Strong Females

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that in this “marvelous historical drama”, Greta Garbo gives “her greatest performance” as Queen Christina, “one of the best-written, strongest female characters in cinema history — a leader who steadfastly refuses to crumble under the unmitigated pressures from her powerful male advisors and relies on her distinctly female brain, heart, and instincts to rule well”. He notes that “Garbo glows in the role. Never has she displayed such vitality, intelligence, or passion. (Only in Ninotchka is she as witty.)”, and adds that “the direction by Rouben Mamoulian is exquisite; particularly impressive are his close-ups, including Garbo’s head on the pillow at the inn and the astonishing, lengthy final shot of the star’s beautiful face”. In Alternate Oscars — where he names Garbo Best Actress of the Year — Peary elaborates on her performance, noting that “never did she display such wit, intelligence, energy, or passion in a part; never did she invest so much of herself in a character.” He points out the “many moments to be treasured” throughout the film — including “Christina silently walking around the chamber which she has shared with Don Antonio [Gilbert], memorizing everything with her fingers, eyes, and body”. Indeed, a big part of what makes this film so refreshing is its frank approach to Christina’s sexuality and gender presentation: she wears what she wants to, struts with confidence, mingles with men at will, has a highly sensual affair with Gilbert, and isn’t shy about expressing her bisexual desires back at home in her court. This memorable “biopic” remains well worth a look.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Greta Garbo as Queen Christina
  
• William Daniels’ cinematography
  
  
• A refreshingly frank pre-Code script
  

Must See?
Yes, for Garbo’s iconic performance. Nominated as one of the Best Films of the Year in Peary’s Alternate Oscars.

Categories

• Noteworthy Performance(s)

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• FilmSite Review
• TCM Article
• Combustible Celluloid Review

Synopsis:
A Cockney flower-girl (Audrey Hepburn) receives phonetics lessons from an arrogant professor (Rex Harrison) who claims he can make her acceptable for “high society”.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Audrey Hepburn Films
• Battle-of-the–Sexes
• Character Arc
• Class Relations
• Cross-Class Romance
• George Cukor Films
• Mentors
• Musicals
• Play Adaptations
• Rex Harrison Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary notes that this “film version of Lerner and Loewe’s musical adaptation of [George Bernard] Shaw’s Pygmalian … copped eight Oscars, including Best Picture, Best Actor, and Best Director”, but he argues that “seeing it today is extremely disappointing” — and I agree. As Peary writes, “Even the best songs have become… tiresome” and “the musical numbers are the film’s major problem” due to both terrible “postproduction dubbing” and lack of “any large production numbers”. Peary further argues that director George Cukor “wrongly chose to keep scenes intact from the stage version, losing what potential the cinema has for heightening the theatrical experience”. Even more problematic are the ill-conceived lead characters: as Peary writes, “Shaw was known for creating strong, intelligent women characters, and Cukor was known for directing similar women in his films. Then why does Hepburn’s Eliza come across as such a pushover, happy to give up her freedom for life with a dull man who has treated her badly?”

Peary’s assessment is spot-on. However, while he argues in Alternate Oscars that “Harrison was the best thing about My Fair Lady,” I disagree: Harrison’s lack of any singing range whatsoever beggars belief about his casting, and while his chauvanistic characterization may (sadly) be true-to-life, he’s so unlikable he fails to elicit any sympathy. Hepburn’s transformation, meanwhile, doesn’t ring true in the slightest: she’s initially a shrewish nag, yet once her lessons with Harrison are done, she’s become someone entirely different. Yes, I know that “transformation” is the entire point of the play — but we should be seeing more hints poking through of her prior mannerisms than merely some Cockney grammar slip-ups. Worst of all, of course, is that we most certainly do NOT want Hepburn to fall for Harrison, yet we know this is what the story is leading us towards. The lesson is all wrong; this film has dated terribly, if it ever somehow managed to ring true.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Lovely cinematography
  
• Fine costumes and sets
  

Must See?
No, though most film fanatics will be curious to check it out for its historical relevance as an Oscar winner.

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• DVD Savant Review
• Greatest Films Review
• TCM Articles

Synopsis:
In a ritzy Berlin hotel, a down-on-his-luck thief (John Barrymore) falls in love with a lonely ballerina (Greta Garbo) whose pearls he originally intended to steal. Meanwhile, a plucky secretary (Joan Crawford) accepts work with a womanizing businessman (Wallace Beery), and a dying man (Lionel Barrymore) spends his final dollars and days living it up in the hotel.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Character Arc
• Do-Gooders
• Edmund Goulding Films
• Ensemble Cast
• Greta Garbo Films
• Joan Crawford Films
• John Barrymore Films
• Lewis Stone Films
• Lionel Barrymore Films
• Play Adaptation
• Romance
• Thieves and Criminals
• Wallace Beery Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “M-G-M classic, a Best Picture winner” — which he argues should more accurately be referred to as “Heartbreak Hotel” — is “erratically acted by the male stars, but Garbo and especially Crawford, who was never more appealing, glow — as Hollywood stars once did.” Other than noting that “Crawford’s scene with Lionel Barrymore is bizarre” (?), he doesn’t have much to say about this flick in GFTFF — though he does discuss it in more detail in his Alternate Oscars, where he votes for Scarface (1932) as the best movie of the year instead. He notes that Grand Hotel is “pretty hokey stuff to be sure”, but adds that while “Lionel’s character grates on [his] nerves and Beery struggles with a German accent”, “just watching Garbo, Crawford, and John Barrymore interact on screen is quite exciting.”

Indeed, the storyline of a “thief who gives something to people [and thus] cannot survive” (“it’s John Barrymore who helps Garbo, Lionel Barrymore, and Crawford overcome their self-pitying depression”) is an intriguing one. It’s engaging watching the ripple effect of Barrymore’s sudden burst of love and compassion for Garbo carrying out across so many individuals: the moral of this story is a powerful one, and the ending is satisfying. I’m less a fan of top-billed Garbo’s melodramatic performance (“I want to be alone!”) than Crawford’s; indeed, this was one of Crawford’s best early roles, and the pre-Code script allows us no-holds-barred access to understanding the sexual compromises women sometimes make for their careers. It’s interesting to know that, according to TCM’s article, Crawford was “afraid she would be lost among the film’s high-powered stars and also worried that her character’s best scenes would be cut by the censors”; she needn’t have worried, as her charisma shines through.

Peary agrees, naming her Best Actress of the Year in Alternate Oscars for her role as Flaemmchen, “a poor, ambitious, free-lance stenographer who picks up needed money by sleeping with her employers”. He notes that while “Crawford was already a major star when she made Grand Hotel,” this “was the picture that proved she could hold her own with the movie elite and be taken seriously as a dramatic actress.” He adds that “as with her earlier characters, there is a softness under Flaemmchen’s tough, wise-to-the-ways-of-men-and-life exterior”, noting that while he likes “most of Crawford’s early film roles”, this “is her first performance that isn’t erratic. In her movements, her sexy hip-out stance, her line readings, and her expressions, Crawford had never been more natural [or] more honest” and “real feelings come through.” He concludes his essay by noting that “Crawford is extremely sexy, with youthful energy, huge eyes, and sensual backward glances, a posed slim and angular body” — but “there is something much more than sexual magnetism at work”: “what makes Crawford so memorable… is her star quality.”

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Joan Crawford as Flaemmchen
  
• John Barrymore as the Baron
  
• Fine cinematography
  
  
• Cedric Gibbons’ set design
  

Must See?
Yes, as a still-enjoyable Pre-Code ensemble drama, and for Crawford’s noteworthy performance.

Categories

• Genuine Classic
• Noteworthy Performance(s)
• Oscar Winner or Nominee

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Spinning Image Review
• DVD Savant Review
• FilmSite Review
• TCM Articles

Synopsis:
A young widow (Goldie Hawn) whose husband (Albert Brooks) died on their wedding night listens to advice from a military recruiter (Harry Dean Stanton) on the radio and decides to turn her life around by joining the army. After initial shock and some ribbing by a hard-driving commander (Eileen Brennan), Hawn becomes a dedicated, self-sufficient soldier — but when she meets a handsome doctor (Armand Assante), she must choose between love and a career.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Albert Brooks Films
• Career-versus-Marriage
• Character Arc
• Comedy
• Feminism and Women’s Issues
• Goldie Hawn Films
• Harry Dean Stanton Films
• Military
• Strong Females
• Widows and Widowers

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “in this popular comedy Goldie Hawn is at her most appealing as a Jewish princess from Philadelphia who… actually believes the [army] recruiter’s… promises of single rooms, yachts, [and] the easy life.” He notes that while she “gets more than she bargained for” during basic training, “the army also gets more than it bargained for”, and Hawn “becomes a good soldier” — at which point “the film becomes too conventional”. He writes that:

“Significantly, the army isn’t depicted as a character builder (as in An Officer and a Gentleman). Instead the fussy, childlike Judy, whose previous life had been completely orchestrated by men, evolves into a confident, strong, independent-minded woman in spite of the army, which is represented by less than noble characters: the recruiter who lies to her, the captain (Eileen Brennan) who tries to break her, the colonel (Robert Webber) who tries to rape her, the officer who will discharge her unless she breaks off with Assante. Judy may be sweet, gullible, and vulnerable, but… like all Hawn’s best characters, she has enough intelligence/shrewdness and perseverance to triumph over those in positions of power who try to take advantage of her and yank her in one wrong direction or another.”

Peary’s points about Hawn’s character are all true enough, but I wasn’t sufficiently invested in Hawn — someone whose self-professed life dream since the age of eight was “a big house, nice clothes, two closets, a live-in maid, and a professional man for a husband” — to care very much about her outcome. Sure, it’s great that she eventually moves past these childish dreams into something more realistic and self-proficient — but unlike, say, Working Girl (1988), this feels more like a feel-good message film (specific to a certain era) than an enduring classic.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Goldie Hawn as Judy Benjamin
  

Must See?
No, but Hawn fans will of course want to check it out.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Spinning Image Review
• TCM Article