Over the past week, I've seen a couple of movies that don't exactly warrant a whole post, at least because I wouldn't be able to stretch the words to make it worth writing. However, I still would like to share my thoughts on these movies no matter how few words I am able to write about them and the simplest way to do that is to combine them for one post. Today's selection is pretty diverse featuring two movies from 2014, one nominated for Best Picture and one lesser-known critically acclaimed film. The other two films are films from the past 20 years that include one nominated for Best Picture and one lesser-known critically acclaimed film. I didn't plan that, but this works well. And oh fuck it I'll share my thoughts on Straight Outta Compton too because why not.
Straight Outta Compton (2015)
I loved this movie unabashedly. I have seen far too few movies to be able to declare it one of my top movies of 2015 - because I think I can count on one hand the movies I've seen released in 2015 - but it wouldn't surprise me if it ended up there. Admittedly, I am the perfect audience member for this. I am heavily into rap and am a pretty big fan of NWA, Ice Cube, and Dr. Dre (Here's where I confess I've listened to basically no Eazy E songs that aren't "Boyz in the Hood.")
Nonetheless, this is a great movie. I've seen people say that this is no different than other music biopics and here's where I am perhaps not the greatest to determine if it's actually good: I haven't seen many music biopics. They traditionally haven't interested me enough and the really acclaimed ones tend to take a backseat to really acclaimed original movies. (Documentaries suffer the same fate) So if it follows the traditional beats of a music biopic, I am not the one who can complain about that.
Another common complaint is that it completely ignores the real misogyny and violence towards women perpetrated by specifically Dr. Dre. (To say nothing of the casting call for A, B, and C grade looking females in the leaked casting calls for extras) I can't defend this. I will note that this is totally not uncommon for true stories, to completely shun aside terrible aspects of real people that tend to make them more interesting characters. But let's be honest. If we were to grade real life stories based off their true-to-life accuracies, not many would get a good grade. Hell, even if you want to be more specific and only include movies where real people have a known terrible view or action, it is not uncommon to completely ignore that.
I'm writing way more words on this movie than I expected, but the most complex and interesting character, not to mention the one that featured the best performance, was Eazy E. Do you have a problem with Dre? Fine, he's not really a major part of the movie. He gets his storyline and he's not irrelevant or anything, but this movie is definitely about the conflict between Eazy E and Ice Cube and the manager who got between them. It's not a new thing or anything, but it's well done. Oh yeah and the soundtrack is awesome. Never discount that.
(Oh yeah added point: I hated the Tupac cameo. Anachronistic as hell and unnecessary.)
Grade - A-
Theory of Everything
I don't have a lot of thoughts on this I swear. I thought the movie was ok, enhanced by how god damn beautiful it was and also by the performances. Eddie Redmayne gets all the love, but Felicity Jones is my MVP of that movie. I'm more fascinated by what she really went through and the love triangle in real life than I am by the actual movie. I wasn't a huge fan of when Hawking gets smitten with another girl because... I don't know it just didn't seem believable. Not that he would be smitten, but she's into him right off the bat because - well because it happened in real life, but they didn't seem to really earn it in the movie. Charlie Cox is also good because Charlie Cox is good in everything. (I had never seen him in anything before 2015 and then WHAM Daredevil WHAM Boardwalk Empire WHAM this movie. I am not complaining)
Grade - B
Election
Wow this movie sure goes through a lot of plot. If I were to try to summarize everything that happened I would not succeed. This was one of the more unpredictable movies I've ever seen. I had no idea where it was going. It's funny. Reese Witherspoon plays the role Reese Witherspoon seemed born to play. Matthew Broderick is actually good in something for once. Chris Klein is hilarious (what the hell happened to his career? How is his most recent work frequent guest star on Wilfred and TV movies. I love him in Wilfred, but he seems like he could be a star)
I also don't think I've seen a movie have a bunch of different perspectives from characters in voiceover. Sometimes it was overused. But what I liked about it - and it takes a little to get this tone - is that everything is completely skewed by who's speaking. Yes, it's a satire on elections, but it's also pretty spot on about how people can see themselves and how they actually are. I think I'll like this movie more on repeat viewings.
Grade - A-
Little Miss Sunshine
What an incredible cast. You know when you see a movie that has reached its absolute potential based on the writing? That's this movie. There is no way to have a better cast. My only complaint is that Alan Arkin died too early and he was in my opinion the funniest and best part of the first half. But it's a small thing. I also wasn't a fan of the ending as I'm not really a fan of those type of endings in general. It's also a movie where it's kind of distracting that EVERY character has this thing. Grandpa gets horny and does drugs. Kid doesn't talk for months. Uncle is suicidal. The other three are more normal. Hell, the only one I really have an issue with is the kid who doesn't talk, because it seemed like the writers had all the other characters figured out and needed a way to have this kid have a thing and he picked a thing that 99.9 percent of the population doesn't do. We have delusional asshole dads. We have moms who just want the family to stay together. We have horny, drug-abused old men. We obviously have suicidal people. People who refuse to talk for months? Not so much.
Also, Steve Carrell delivers a much, much better performance here than in Foxcatchers and while this is a comedy, he plays it like a drama basically. My two cents.
Grade - A-
Top Five
It's been a while since I've watched a movie as carefree and fun as Top Five. It's so enjoyable. It's charming, it's sweet, it's hilarious. It's absolutely hilarious. It's a movie featuring every comic black actor ever and all of them are used pretty well. Even Leslie Jones, who is extremely one note on Saturday Night Live, shines here and works. There is also a hilarious cameo that I did not see coming and there's no way I'm spoiling it for others. Rosario Dawson is of course fantastic. I was not a huge fan of how they wrote her boyfriend due to... well I want you to watch this movie so I can't really spoil anything. Great movie.
Grade - A- (I know popular grade, but there's always one thing I don't like about the movie to keep it from a perfect A)
Monday, September 14, 2015
Thursday, September 3, 2015
X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014)
I am not a comic book fan. It's one of those properties I'd probably enjoy, but I didn't grow up with them and there's no way I'll ever start. I have too many movies to watch, too much television, and too many books to read. Comic books are a distant thought to me. Comic book movies, on the other hand, I have seen. I'm tired of them, but I have seen more than a few of them. Of the X-Men franchise, the only movie I haven't seen is The Wolverine. (Apparently this movie contradicts that movie.)
I'm not sure I have many thoughts on this movie. I enjoyed it a lot. The special effects were breathtaking. The stakes were the end of the world, which is becoming increasingly common and thus increasingly dull. However, the movie made sure to keep the conflict personal. The time travel aspect, also weirdly an increasingly common trope to rejuvenate franchises, isn't too confusing. People who have a tendency to overthink time travel will probably find fault with it and I'm usually one of those people, but it never took me out of the movie while I was watching it.
I'm not sure how the X-Men comics are, but in the movies it's ultimately about the tragedy of Erik Lehnsherr and Charles Xavier's doomed friendship. And because the actors playing them have been Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan - and now James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender - it's nearly always effective. I particularly liked how in the present, you see Erik saying how he wished he could have had a few years back being enemies with Xavier while in the past, he's unwittingly creating the future that will doom him. That's the surprising part about this movie. Magneto is, at least in my opinion, the most sympathetic character and one who breaks your heart.
If I have a problem with the movie, it's probably with Jennifer Lawrence's Raven, or Mystique. Despite moving the plot of the movie along, I felt she was underserved as a character. I was less affected by her internal struggle than I should have been, because it mostly felt like it was just a plot machination to me. I can see a future where she goes on a rampage and wants to kill the people who want to see her dead, but I don't think this reboot version had gotten her to that point yet. As presented in First Class, that's Magneto's thing, not Mystique's yet. The movie skipped over the part where she makes the "heel turn" in my opinion. And then at the end she sort of out of nowhere becomes a good guy. It's not really out of nowhere, but I don't know I didn't think it would happen at that point.
I also thought the ending was a little too pat and probably makes this movie suffer at least a little bit on rewatch. So none of the somewhat shockingly painful deaths for all the mutants mattered. It never even technically happened. (Those deaths.... damn is all I can say. Apparently saying fuck is more harmful than watching that.)
3/4 stars
I'm not sure I have many thoughts on this movie. I enjoyed it a lot. The special effects were breathtaking. The stakes were the end of the world, which is becoming increasingly common and thus increasingly dull. However, the movie made sure to keep the conflict personal. The time travel aspect, also weirdly an increasingly common trope to rejuvenate franchises, isn't too confusing. People who have a tendency to overthink time travel will probably find fault with it and I'm usually one of those people, but it never took me out of the movie while I was watching it.
I'm not sure how the X-Men comics are, but in the movies it's ultimately about the tragedy of Erik Lehnsherr and Charles Xavier's doomed friendship. And because the actors playing them have been Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan - and now James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender - it's nearly always effective. I particularly liked how in the present, you see Erik saying how he wished he could have had a few years back being enemies with Xavier while in the past, he's unwittingly creating the future that will doom him. That's the surprising part about this movie. Magneto is, at least in my opinion, the most sympathetic character and one who breaks your heart.
If I have a problem with the movie, it's probably with Jennifer Lawrence's Raven, or Mystique. Despite moving the plot of the movie along, I felt she was underserved as a character. I was less affected by her internal struggle than I should have been, because it mostly felt like it was just a plot machination to me. I can see a future where she goes on a rampage and wants to kill the people who want to see her dead, but I don't think this reboot version had gotten her to that point yet. As presented in First Class, that's Magneto's thing, not Mystique's yet. The movie skipped over the part where she makes the "heel turn" in my opinion. And then at the end she sort of out of nowhere becomes a good guy. It's not really out of nowhere, but I don't know I didn't think it would happen at that point.
I also thought the ending was a little too pat and probably makes this movie suffer at least a little bit on rewatch. So none of the somewhat shockingly painful deaths for all the mutants mattered. It never even technically happened. (Those deaths.... damn is all I can say. Apparently saying fuck is more harmful than watching that.)
3/4 stars
Tuesday, September 1, 2015
The Longest Day (1962)
I'm impressed this movie exists. This is entirely too ambitious to have any right to actually have become a finished product -much less a non-embarrassing, successful, critically well-received picture with a few star actors committing remarkably little screen time in the service of the film. I really wish I had been able to watch this in 1962 though, because you can just tell it was a much better movie then.
Now? Well, it's a little unfair, because Band of Brothers, Saving Private Ryan, Schindler's List, and The Pacific also exist. (I'm sure I missed a few as World War II is not a war lacking in representation in television and movies). Specifically, the whole beach battle scene was distracting because - through absolutely no fault of The Longest Day - Saving Private Ryan just captures the horror much better. It's really not fair.
The Longest Day is a movie that, for every positive I can come up with, a negative comes right along with it. The scope is insane. It's both a strength and a weakness. I've never seen a movie mostly successfully include as many sides of a war as it did. It was surprisingly fair to the Germans too. Of course they came across looking the worst in this movie, but not near as much as you'd expect. This pretty much came at the expense of the characters though.
It relied too heavily on us knowing the actors portraying the characters and that's sort of an issue when that includes Fabian in the year 2015. He's an admittedly minor character, but in what I think was his death - I don't know if it was - the movie treats it like it's a big deal and I had no idea who the fuck he was. That's essentially my problem with the movie. It's an hour and a half of war action scenes involving characters I am not remotely invested in which means I have to completely get drawn into the spectacle itself. That honestly probably would have been enough to get me to love the movie in 1962, but the technology has improved so vastly since then, it doesn't stand a chance of gripping me for an hour and half now.
Also, it's a smart idea to include comedy in your blockbuster war movies so that you aren't depressed the whole time. Problem: any time the movie attempts comedy, it's awful. I'm pretty sure they were going for a fair amount of comedic scenes and there may have been one or two scenes where I didn't laugh, but thought it was amusing. Maybe. I hate to keep harping on how much better certain things are in 2015, but comedy is certainly one of them.
There were a few scenes that were so spectacular that I was amazed. There is a scene where the German pilots - the two stranded ones who need to go alone against the entire opposing force - fly across the beach and it's one take. The camera goes along the beach, the machine gun fires, and you see the people fall as they should. And it keeps going and it must have been ridiculously hard to time and they pulled it off beautifully. The scene where a man lays stuck in his parachute hanging from the church building and he watches all his comrades get slaughtered was tragic. The scene where the nuns come and kick ass and just walk through battle to start healing the soldiers. These are scenes that will come with no such negative attached to them.
Also I will note that the cast is incredible. I do not however understand why John Wayne was cast. He's not bad. But you can't watch his scenes and think he's anything but John Wayne and that's super distracting when the movie is mostly going for authenticity. Robert Mitchum fares better, although I was not a huge fan of him just walking around the beach without a gun like he's fucking Superman. Henry Fonda really should not work, but he's playing a revered, mythical-like person in Teddy Roosevelt Jr. so you can get away with casting an actor with his ubiquity and star power and not get taken out of a scene. Plus, Fonda plays the everyman in his movies. John Wayne plays John Wayne. Sean Connery shows up too. He's energetic and barely in it.
A problem created by the ambition of the project is there's too many characters. It's not even necessarily the number of characters, but characters who seem important turn out to not be that important and other characters who seem important get ignored with an hour left in the movie never to return. The French resistance? Was that really worth showing? They blew up a train, presumably one that prevented reinforcements, but I wasn't ever sure what the train was for or how much it ended up helping. And I believe that's their last scene out of like three total scenes. I don't think Fonda's character got an ending. He found out they missed their landing and then directed the soldiers were to go and I don't believe he got another scene. It definitely didn't capture just how vital Roosevelt Jr.'s actions were to winning.
- This is a three hour movie so I have a lot of thoughts apparently. I really liked the introduction scene where they kept cutting to different characters with snappy music and their title popping up on the screen. Kind of wish they somehow maintained that tone.
- Possibly unfair complaint, but I don't remember a movie where deaths seemed to matter less than in this one. I don't know how to explain that, but at the least this movie doesn't come close to giving death the proper weight it deserves. (This is fairly typical in movies that glorify war admittedly and this movie certainly glorifies war)
- The acting in this is... inconsistent. I said it has a strong cast and it does, but some of the time I was impressed by the acting and some of the time it was off-putting when the actor went into over-the top 40s war soldier mode. (I like Richard Beymer a lot in Twin Peaks, but not so much in this movie until the last scene)
- The movie also had a tendency to explicitly express something that was already obvious by the way it was filmed. And I didn't like the scenes where the characters seem to know way too much about the future - "People will laugh at us because we will lose the war because Hitler was sleeping" - I mean come on...
- For all my complaints this is wonderfully directed. Action was clear, it was not boring for the most part despite its length, and a few shots were magnificent.
3/4 stars
Now? Well, it's a little unfair, because Band of Brothers, Saving Private Ryan, Schindler's List, and The Pacific also exist. (I'm sure I missed a few as World War II is not a war lacking in representation in television and movies). Specifically, the whole beach battle scene was distracting because - through absolutely no fault of The Longest Day - Saving Private Ryan just captures the horror much better. It's really not fair.
The Longest Day is a movie that, for every positive I can come up with, a negative comes right along with it. The scope is insane. It's both a strength and a weakness. I've never seen a movie mostly successfully include as many sides of a war as it did. It was surprisingly fair to the Germans too. Of course they came across looking the worst in this movie, but not near as much as you'd expect. This pretty much came at the expense of the characters though.
It relied too heavily on us knowing the actors portraying the characters and that's sort of an issue when that includes Fabian in the year 2015. He's an admittedly minor character, but in what I think was his death - I don't know if it was - the movie treats it like it's a big deal and I had no idea who the fuck he was. That's essentially my problem with the movie. It's an hour and a half of war action scenes involving characters I am not remotely invested in which means I have to completely get drawn into the spectacle itself. That honestly probably would have been enough to get me to love the movie in 1962, but the technology has improved so vastly since then, it doesn't stand a chance of gripping me for an hour and half now.
Also, it's a smart idea to include comedy in your blockbuster war movies so that you aren't depressed the whole time. Problem: any time the movie attempts comedy, it's awful. I'm pretty sure they were going for a fair amount of comedic scenes and there may have been one or two scenes where I didn't laugh, but thought it was amusing. Maybe. I hate to keep harping on how much better certain things are in 2015, but comedy is certainly one of them.
There were a few scenes that were so spectacular that I was amazed. There is a scene where the German pilots - the two stranded ones who need to go alone against the entire opposing force - fly across the beach and it's one take. The camera goes along the beach, the machine gun fires, and you see the people fall as they should. And it keeps going and it must have been ridiculously hard to time and they pulled it off beautifully. The scene where a man lays stuck in his parachute hanging from the church building and he watches all his comrades get slaughtered was tragic. The scene where the nuns come and kick ass and just walk through battle to start healing the soldiers. These are scenes that will come with no such negative attached to them.
Also I will note that the cast is incredible. I do not however understand why John Wayne was cast. He's not bad. But you can't watch his scenes and think he's anything but John Wayne and that's super distracting when the movie is mostly going for authenticity. Robert Mitchum fares better, although I was not a huge fan of him just walking around the beach without a gun like he's fucking Superman. Henry Fonda really should not work, but he's playing a revered, mythical-like person in Teddy Roosevelt Jr. so you can get away with casting an actor with his ubiquity and star power and not get taken out of a scene. Plus, Fonda plays the everyman in his movies. John Wayne plays John Wayne. Sean Connery shows up too. He's energetic and barely in it.
A problem created by the ambition of the project is there's too many characters. It's not even necessarily the number of characters, but characters who seem important turn out to not be that important and other characters who seem important get ignored with an hour left in the movie never to return. The French resistance? Was that really worth showing? They blew up a train, presumably one that prevented reinforcements, but I wasn't ever sure what the train was for or how much it ended up helping. And I believe that's their last scene out of like three total scenes. I don't think Fonda's character got an ending. He found out they missed their landing and then directed the soldiers were to go and I don't believe he got another scene. It definitely didn't capture just how vital Roosevelt Jr.'s actions were to winning.
- This is a three hour movie so I have a lot of thoughts apparently. I really liked the introduction scene where they kept cutting to different characters with snappy music and their title popping up on the screen. Kind of wish they somehow maintained that tone.
- Possibly unfair complaint, but I don't remember a movie where deaths seemed to matter less than in this one. I don't know how to explain that, but at the least this movie doesn't come close to giving death the proper weight it deserves. (This is fairly typical in movies that glorify war admittedly and this movie certainly glorifies war)
- The acting in this is... inconsistent. I said it has a strong cast and it does, but some of the time I was impressed by the acting and some of the time it was off-putting when the actor went into over-the top 40s war soldier mode. (I like Richard Beymer a lot in Twin Peaks, but not so much in this movie until the last scene)
- The movie also had a tendency to explicitly express something that was already obvious by the way it was filmed. And I didn't like the scenes where the characters seem to know way too much about the future - "People will laugh at us because we will lose the war because Hitler was sleeping" - I mean come on...
- For all my complaints this is wonderfully directed. Action was clear, it was not boring for the most part despite its length, and a few shots were magnificent.
3/4 stars
Saturday, February 14, 2015
Charade (1963): Thriller, Comedy, Brutal Deaths
Charade is a mix in styles, with a romantic comedy pervasive throughout the film, a thriller about where the money is, and a comedy in parts. I'm never one to mind when a film mashes genres, especially when it's done effectively. Thanks to the stars of Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn, I think they pull off the weird tone.
Cary Grant plays a debonair, clever man of mystery who seems to seamlessly and effortlessly fit into unusual circumstances. So pretty much what you think of when you think of a Cary Grant character. Audrey Hepburn plays a fashionable woman of wealth who carries herself with class and seems bewildered by everything happening around her. So.. well you get the idea. The two actors played roles presumably written specifically with them in mind.
The supporting cast is surprisingly fantastic. The three men vying for Audrey's fortune include James Coburn and George Kennedy (most recognized for Cool Hand Luke). Both are pretty shallow characters, but thanks to the actors playing them, they work way better than they should, particularly Coburn (who is awesome). Walter Matthau is also featured in this film and he's solid enough.
This is the second movie I've seen this week that I think I'd like better on second viewing, weirdly enough. And this movie is remarkably similar to How to Steal a Million, so watching them back-to-back leaves a certain repetitiveness. Because How to Steal a Million came first, it left a better impression, but I suspect Charade is a better movie.
3.5/4 stars
This is the second movie I've seen this week that I think I'd like better on second viewing, weirdly enough. And this movie is remarkably similar to How to Steal a Million, so watching them back-to-back leaves a certain repetitiveness. Because How to Steal a Million came first, it left a better impression, but I suspect Charade is a better movie.
3.5/4 stars
Friday, February 13, 2015
Becket (1964): O'Toole and Burton in Historical Drama
This was a thoroughly enjoyable film, albeit one I'll probably not remember in a month. It's a well-done historical drama with world-class actors. The story is based on a true story, I'm sure, and not completely accurate. I feel like there was a point where I cared if a film was historically accurate, but now I really do not care at all. It's so much easier that way, because I'm not aware of a film 100 percent accurate anyway.
This is my second Peter O'Toole vehicle and he's perfunctory. A few moments, he went a little more over-the-top than I liked, but his role kind of called for the showy, blustering performance that he gave. A king in the 11th century is one of the few roles where I can be like "Yeah this dude probably acted as entitled and arrogant as the actor portraying him."
Oddly enough, Richard Burton was something I had not yet experienced. It's sort of unbelievable I haven't watch a movie of his yet. He does not disappoint. I was under the impression - I wouldn't say I didn't think he was a good actor - but I wasn't exactly having high hopes if you know what I mean. Well, he's good enough in this that I will seek out his other movies.
The director himself, Peter Glenville, was a formerly stage director who moved to the stage. According to IMDB, this appears to be his best movie and if the ratings are to believed, his last good one. Again, I liked this movie enough to where I will seek out his past movies. If nothing else, Becket has given me a shit ton of other movies to watch (not that I need to find more with the "Great Movies" by Ebert, Oscar winners, and Criterion providing a wealth of options.)
Note: the grade I give somewhat seems at odds with what I wrote, but for some reason this movie seemed more "by-the-numbers." Everyone did everything right - a few melodramatic scenes at the end excepted - and yet I don't know if I will want to watch this again. (Which to be fair, is the case with most movies)
3/4 stars
This is my second Peter O'Toole vehicle and he's perfunctory. A few moments, he went a little more over-the-top than I liked, but his role kind of called for the showy, blustering performance that he gave. A king in the 11th century is one of the few roles where I can be like "Yeah this dude probably acted as entitled and arrogant as the actor portraying him."
Oddly enough, Richard Burton was something I had not yet experienced. It's sort of unbelievable I haven't watch a movie of his yet. He does not disappoint. I was under the impression - I wouldn't say I didn't think he was a good actor - but I wasn't exactly having high hopes if you know what I mean. Well, he's good enough in this that I will seek out his other movies.
The director himself, Peter Glenville, was a formerly stage director who moved to the stage. According to IMDB, this appears to be his best movie and if the ratings are to believed, his last good one. Again, I liked this movie enough to where I will seek out his past movies. If nothing else, Becket has given me a shit ton of other movies to watch (not that I need to find more with the "Great Movies" by Ebert, Oscar winners, and Criterion providing a wealth of options.)
Note: the grade I give somewhat seems at odds with what I wrote, but for some reason this movie seemed more "by-the-numbers." Everyone did everything right - a few melodramatic scenes at the end excepted - and yet I don't know if I will want to watch this again. (Which to be fair, is the case with most movies)
3/4 stars
One-Eyed Jacks (1961): Marlon Brando's Directorial Debut
I had hopes to watch more Marlon Brando movies, but only two were legally available that I haven't seen yet. However, I can appreciate the symmetry of watching his first ever movie and his first ever directorial movie. (He only directed one movie) One-Eyed Jacks is about a criminal outlaw in Mexico who is betrayed by his partner. He goes to jail while his partner becomes a respected sheriff of a town in California.
Perhaps the most curious thing about this movie is that it was originally slated to be directed by Stanley Kubrick and to be written by Sam Peckinpah. It's hard to know how good Peckinpah was as a writer, because his credits include TV episodes and combined efforts on movies he directed (Which could have easily been very minimal contribution). As a director, I haven't seen any of his movies, but he has a fairly solid list of films. I would be interested in seeing this directed by Kubrick - and I say that as someone who has been severely underwhelmed by the majority of his movies.
Anyway, One-Eyed Jacks is a solid Western, if a bit long. My problem was that almost all of the action occurs in the first half hour. In that half hour, the entire premise is set and the only thing left to do is for Brando to get revenge on Karl Malden's character. He meets him about 20 minutes later and then there's still an hour and a half of movie left. I have no idea how Brando's original cut for this movie was FIVE hours long.
The other problem was that the central love story, between Rio (Brando) and Louisa is entirely unconvincing. I think it was Brando's fault, because while he nailed the tough exterior shell of a person, I didn't really buy that this woman changed him. Most of the problem is that they knew each other for like a couple days.
This has a strong supporting cast. I surprisingly liked Karl Malden in this more than Brando. Slim Pickens is memorable in a somewhat minor part. Katy Jurado doesn't get a whole lot to do, but she's effective as Malden's wife. And Iiked Larry Duran as Chico, Rio's partner. This movie makes me think Brando would have been a good director if he had made more or if he was willing to cut more scenes.
3/4 Stars
Perhaps the most curious thing about this movie is that it was originally slated to be directed by Stanley Kubrick and to be written by Sam Peckinpah. It's hard to know how good Peckinpah was as a writer, because his credits include TV episodes and combined efforts on movies he directed (Which could have easily been very minimal contribution). As a director, I haven't seen any of his movies, but he has a fairly solid list of films. I would be interested in seeing this directed by Kubrick - and I say that as someone who has been severely underwhelmed by the majority of his movies.
Anyway, One-Eyed Jacks is a solid Western, if a bit long. My problem was that almost all of the action occurs in the first half hour. In that half hour, the entire premise is set and the only thing left to do is for Brando to get revenge on Karl Malden's character. He meets him about 20 minutes later and then there's still an hour and a half of movie left. I have no idea how Brando's original cut for this movie was FIVE hours long.
The other problem was that the central love story, between Rio (Brando) and Louisa is entirely unconvincing. I think it was Brando's fault, because while he nailed the tough exterior shell of a person, I didn't really buy that this woman changed him. Most of the problem is that they knew each other for like a couple days.
This has a strong supporting cast. I surprisingly liked Karl Malden in this more than Brando. Slim Pickens is memorable in a somewhat minor part. Katy Jurado doesn't get a whole lot to do, but she's effective as Malden's wife. And Iiked Larry Duran as Chico, Rio's partner. This movie makes me think Brando would have been a good director if he had made more or if he was willing to cut more scenes.
3/4 Stars
Thursday, February 12, 2015
Sabrina (1954): The Titans of Hollywood
Well this movie is what happens when you have an All-Star cast in a extremely classic story. Poor girl goes unrecognized by rich guy, poor girl changes so she looks rich, rich guy notices her, and then she falls in love with her true love. This has a slight trick in that the "true love" is only going out with her so she will get over the rich guy at first.
Anyway, all's that needs to be said in order to be convinced to watch this movie is: Humphrey Bogart, Audrey Hepburn, William Holden, Billy Wilder. One of the greatest directors ever with AFI's #1 star of all-time, Audrey Hepburn is certainly one of the icons of film, and then William Holden is sort of underrated normally, much less amidst the other three.
I don't think Audrey Hepburn could have pulled this off at any other time in her career. This was basically her breakout role, and I'm as surprised as anyone that her poor girl who doesn't get noticed essentially works. Who knew? (I think a lot of it is that the clothes she wears as the chauffeur's daughter are really unflattering.
And I suppose I can't be the only one who's sort of creeped out by the age difference between Hepburn and Bogart, am I? I mean Bogart was 54 and at best, he looked like he was approaching 50. Hepburn was 23 and she looked even younger. Different time, and it's not that distracting to the movie, but it's still sort of odd. (Though Bogart did marry a 20-year-old Lauren Bacall about 10 years earlier)
Here's yet another film that uses a well-worn romantic comedy trope and succeeds in spite of it, possibly because it did it first, but also because of the talent. And it just doesn't feel well-worn when you watch it like newer movies that use it would. Not much to say, except that it's a pretty enjoyable film.
3.5/4 stars
Anyway, all's that needs to be said in order to be convinced to watch this movie is: Humphrey Bogart, Audrey Hepburn, William Holden, Billy Wilder. One of the greatest directors ever with AFI's #1 star of all-time, Audrey Hepburn is certainly one of the icons of film, and then William Holden is sort of underrated normally, much less amidst the other three.
I don't think Audrey Hepburn could have pulled this off at any other time in her career. This was basically her breakout role, and I'm as surprised as anyone that her poor girl who doesn't get noticed essentially works. Who knew? (I think a lot of it is that the clothes she wears as the chauffeur's daughter are really unflattering.
And I suppose I can't be the only one who's sort of creeped out by the age difference between Hepburn and Bogart, am I? I mean Bogart was 54 and at best, he looked like he was approaching 50. Hepburn was 23 and she looked even younger. Different time, and it's not that distracting to the movie, but it's still sort of odd. (Though Bogart did marry a 20-year-old Lauren Bacall about 10 years earlier)
Here's yet another film that uses a well-worn romantic comedy trope and succeeds in spite of it, possibly because it did it first, but also because of the talent. And it just doesn't feel well-worn when you watch it like newer movies that use it would. Not much to say, except that it's a pretty enjoyable film.
3.5/4 stars
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
Out of the Past (1947): High Body-Count
Film noir as a genre is notorious for not having happy endings. Even with that in mind, Out of the Past has a particularly unhappy ending with just about everyone leaving this Earth. Again, film noir is notorious for having femme fatales, but I think Kathie (Jane Greer) is the most duplicitous and self-serving of any I've seen so far.
Out of the Past is a movie that if I'm being honest, will probably understand and like more on second viewing and probably even more upon the third. The second half of the movie in the present has somewhat of a confusing plot to me - I figured it out in the end, but I can't help feeling my enjoyment of it suffered in the moments when I was wondering what the fuck was happening.
As Roger Ebert notes, this movie is basically a series of one-liners, which could be a problem in any other genre, but really isn't in film noir. And I know I'm picking these movies, but I keep getting blessed with amazing casts. This is the best Kirk Douglas has ever been in the admittedly small amount of movies I've seen him in. (Somewhat underwhelming in Spartacus, decent in Detective Story) And Robert Mitchum was created on this Earth to be a lead in a film noir. Finishing out the main cast, Jane Greer's voice pretty much ensures the doom of any man she meets.
Given the cast, the quality of the movie is not surprising. It is slightly surprised to see the director is Jacques Tourneur, who doesn't seem like a bad director at all, but his most well-known films are "Cat People" and "I Walked with a Zombie" so not the type of director you'd expect. (Both films, I should note, have pretty good ratings on IMDB)
4/4 Stars
Out of the Past is a movie that if I'm being honest, will probably understand and like more on second viewing and probably even more upon the third. The second half of the movie in the present has somewhat of a confusing plot to me - I figured it out in the end, but I can't help feeling my enjoyment of it suffered in the moments when I was wondering what the fuck was happening.
As Roger Ebert notes, this movie is basically a series of one-liners, which could be a problem in any other genre, but really isn't in film noir. And I know I'm picking these movies, but I keep getting blessed with amazing casts. This is the best Kirk Douglas has ever been in the admittedly small amount of movies I've seen him in. (Somewhat underwhelming in Spartacus, decent in Detective Story) And Robert Mitchum was created on this Earth to be a lead in a film noir. Finishing out the main cast, Jane Greer's voice pretty much ensures the doom of any man she meets.
Given the cast, the quality of the movie is not surprising. It is slightly surprised to see the director is Jacques Tourneur, who doesn't seem like a bad director at all, but his most well-known films are "Cat People" and "I Walked with a Zombie" so not the type of director you'd expect. (Both films, I should note, have pretty good ratings on IMDB)
4/4 Stars
His Girl Friday (1940): Fast-Paced Script but Few Laughs
I'm of two minds about His Girl Friday. One the one hand, I didn't find it funny and it's a comedy. Of course, this movie puts me at a question of: Would I find any 1940s comedy funny? I've been trying to watch older movies for a while now, and I don't think I've ever chosen a comedy. Sure, some of them have humor in them, but they're not really outright comedies.
Basically, I couldn't tell if this film wasn't funny, if it's comedic pieces just haven't translated to a person in the 21st century, or if it is funny to some but not to me. I don't judge a comedy based on the laughs I get from it, but I usually judge whether it's funny or not by that standard. And I didn't really laugh throughout the movie. Hence my first point.
On the other hand, I can acknowledge that this is probably one of the most deeply-packed, clever scripts of any movie. It reminds me of Aaron Sorkin in more ways than one: he's a writer who has deeply-packed, fast-paced scripts that I acknowledge are good, but for some reason I just am not a fan of his. (Well there's plenty of reasons actually)
The two leads are well-cast and the rest of the cast seems able to catch up to the demands of the script. Sometimes - it happens less often now - but sometimes I'll catch a movie with a person who use to be a star and I've never heard of them. Well, I'll watch one of their movies and then I'll wonder why this is the first time I've ever seen them. That's Rosalind Russell for me. She's somewhat of a revelation for me and I intend to seek out more of her movies in the future. And Cary Grant is well Cary Grant.
I think the biggest hurdle for me was that I wasn't all that interested in the murderer or that subplot. Which is kind of a major part of the movie. I'm all for its annihilation of the news agency. I'm also surprised at how well the premise of the movie - a man tries to stop his ex-wife from remarrying - works. I know hoary plots didn't always use to be that way, but you'd still expect you'd get tired of it. But the script just blazes on, telling you to forgot about that, now we have a new scene going on and you better pay attention. (If there's one thing I can say, it's that this movie demands all 91 minutes of your attention.)
Side note: Did this movie actually say that Bruce Baldwin "looks like that actor Ralph Bellamy" - who by the way was the actor who played Bruce. I'm guessing this was extremely original in 1940, but it took me out of the scene completely.
3/4 stars
Basically, I couldn't tell if this film wasn't funny, if it's comedic pieces just haven't translated to a person in the 21st century, or if it is funny to some but not to me. I don't judge a comedy based on the laughs I get from it, but I usually judge whether it's funny or not by that standard. And I didn't really laugh throughout the movie. Hence my first point.
On the other hand, I can acknowledge that this is probably one of the most deeply-packed, clever scripts of any movie. It reminds me of Aaron Sorkin in more ways than one: he's a writer who has deeply-packed, fast-paced scripts that I acknowledge are good, but for some reason I just am not a fan of his. (Well there's plenty of reasons actually)
The two leads are well-cast and the rest of the cast seems able to catch up to the demands of the script. Sometimes - it happens less often now - but sometimes I'll catch a movie with a person who use to be a star and I've never heard of them. Well, I'll watch one of their movies and then I'll wonder why this is the first time I've ever seen them. That's Rosalind Russell for me. She's somewhat of a revelation for me and I intend to seek out more of her movies in the future. And Cary Grant is well Cary Grant.
I think the biggest hurdle for me was that I wasn't all that interested in the murderer or that subplot. Which is kind of a major part of the movie. I'm all for its annihilation of the news agency. I'm also surprised at how well the premise of the movie - a man tries to stop his ex-wife from remarrying - works. I know hoary plots didn't always use to be that way, but you'd still expect you'd get tired of it. But the script just blazes on, telling you to forgot about that, now we have a new scene going on and you better pay attention. (If there's one thing I can say, it's that this movie demands all 91 minutes of your attention.)
Side note: Did this movie actually say that Bruce Baldwin "looks like that actor Ralph Bellamy" - who by the way was the actor who played Bruce. I'm guessing this was extremely original in 1940, but it took me out of the scene completely.
3/4 stars
Tuesday, February 10, 2015
How to Steal a Million (1966): Star-Driven Caper
I enjoyed this film much more than I expected, largely off the backs of the charism of Audrey Hepburn and Peter O'Toole. I'm also a sucker for a good caper film and while not completely innovative, it was still cool to see it in action. Given the fact that this is a pretty simple concept, executed near perfectly by director William Wyler, I don't have much to say about this movie.
In addition to his role in Ben-Hur, Hugh Griffith makes a memorable role in the form of an art forger and father to Hepburn. I will say this and this could just be a cultural and/or time period thing: it is obnoxious how many times Hepburn says "Papa" in this movie. If you drink every time she said Papa and nowhere else in the movie, you might die.
I think this is my first Peter O'Toole film oddly enough. Not sure what exactly I expected, I'm not surprised he's considered a legend. His voice alone is legendary. He seems to casually inhabit the carefree, smooth art expert, criminology expert, and whatever else he says he is. I feel like in the wrong hands this role could be harder, but he pulls it off so easily and it doesn't even look like he's trying.
I have two relatively minor complaints about the movie. The first is that it's a little long for the type of movie it is. They could have shed about 20 or 30 minutes without the movie suffering. Secondly, the constant kissing between O'Toole and Hepburn got extremely irritating. We get it. You guys know love each other. But overall, I am pleasantly surprised how much I enjoyed this light-hearted fare.
(Also, Audrey Hepburn's outfits kind of stole the show)
3.5/4 stars
In addition to his role in Ben-Hur, Hugh Griffith makes a memorable role in the form of an art forger and father to Hepburn. I will say this and this could just be a cultural and/or time period thing: it is obnoxious how many times Hepburn says "Papa" in this movie. If you drink every time she said Papa and nowhere else in the movie, you might die.
I think this is my first Peter O'Toole film oddly enough. Not sure what exactly I expected, I'm not surprised he's considered a legend. His voice alone is legendary. He seems to casually inhabit the carefree, smooth art expert, criminology expert, and whatever else he says he is. I feel like in the wrong hands this role could be harder, but he pulls it off so easily and it doesn't even look like he's trying.
I have two relatively minor complaints about the movie. The first is that it's a little long for the type of movie it is. They could have shed about 20 or 30 minutes without the movie suffering. Secondly, the constant kissing between O'Toole and Hepburn got extremely irritating. We get it. You guys know love each other. But overall, I am pleasantly surprised how much I enjoyed this light-hearted fare.
(Also, Audrey Hepburn's outfits kind of stole the show)
3.5/4 stars
Of Human Bondage (1934): Bette Davis' First Oscar Nomination
Bette Davis was the Meryl Streep of her time. The question is whether she's alike with her in just Oscar nominations or alike with her in having a remarkable amount of "mediocre" movies. (Necessary caveat: I haven't seen most of her films. It just seems that way from a distance.) Davis is at something of an advantage: inherently, I go into most 1930s movies with a certain amount of skepticism. So she receives the same treatment as "It Happened One Night" whereas with modern movies, I pretty much try to watch movies I feel pretty confident in being good. (I'll answer your question: Yes, I am not at all confident Meryl Streep movies are good before watching them.)
Anyway, the first Davis film is pretty much her star-making film. She sought out the role after a few "stars" rejected it because... well the character isn't exactly likable. That's one of the cool things about Bette Davis: she didn't really give a shit if the movie made her look bad. Which was even more of a risk back then than it is now.
Anyway, Of Human Bondage is about a man who falls in love with a "cold and unfeeling" waitress who basically manipulates him whenever she needs him. Well, this is certainly an interesting look into 1930s attitudes. One of the characters has a "women not only belong at home, but they shouldn't eat at the same table as men, because it may give them ideas." Thankfully, Philip, the main character, doesn't seem to share those views so it looks like more of a critique of that view than an actual belief by the filmmakers.
This may be the wrong film to watch if you want a good Bette Davis performance. She's theatrical, over-the-top, and attention-seeking by design in order to enhance her profile. It worked marvelously, but it makes this movie suffer. If anything, she's almost too successful at creating her character, because it becomes almost ridiculous why Philip keeps taking her back. I realize that's the point, but there's a way to make that point and also make us understand why Philip keeps doing it and I don't think the movie manages that.
Basically, if you were selling me to watch this movie, you'd say it's a 1930s movie about a woman who constantly manipulates a man because he loves her. That sounds like a potential disaster, and the fact that it isn't is somewhat of an accomplishment. And I don't want to make the point that Davis is bad in this movie - she's best when she throws a fit when Philip finally has enough where the theatrics actually fit the scene. When you take into account that her performance was purposefully like that, she succeeds. I just didn't like it for the type of movie this is. Leslie Howard plays his character much more natural, which actually kind of surprises me because most movies this old didn't have anybody acting with realism. Nonetheless, he works.
Oh yeah and I was more impressed with the directing in this film by John Cromwell than I was by Hitchcock's The Secret Agent. The quality of this film was also way better, but that surprised me. Watch this for Bette Davis and Leslie Howard, but otherwise if you aren't planning to make the rounds on certain actors and actresses like Davis, I'd probably skip this.
2.5/4
Anyway, the first Davis film is pretty much her star-making film. She sought out the role after a few "stars" rejected it because... well the character isn't exactly likable. That's one of the cool things about Bette Davis: she didn't really give a shit if the movie made her look bad. Which was even more of a risk back then than it is now.
Anyway, Of Human Bondage is about a man who falls in love with a "cold and unfeeling" waitress who basically manipulates him whenever she needs him. Well, this is certainly an interesting look into 1930s attitudes. One of the characters has a "women not only belong at home, but they shouldn't eat at the same table as men, because it may give them ideas." Thankfully, Philip, the main character, doesn't seem to share those views so it looks like more of a critique of that view than an actual belief by the filmmakers.
This may be the wrong film to watch if you want a good Bette Davis performance. She's theatrical, over-the-top, and attention-seeking by design in order to enhance her profile. It worked marvelously, but it makes this movie suffer. If anything, she's almost too successful at creating her character, because it becomes almost ridiculous why Philip keeps taking her back. I realize that's the point, but there's a way to make that point and also make us understand why Philip keeps doing it and I don't think the movie manages that.
Basically, if you were selling me to watch this movie, you'd say it's a 1930s movie about a woman who constantly manipulates a man because he loves her. That sounds like a potential disaster, and the fact that it isn't is somewhat of an accomplishment. And I don't want to make the point that Davis is bad in this movie - she's best when she throws a fit when Philip finally has enough where the theatrics actually fit the scene. When you take into account that her performance was purposefully like that, she succeeds. I just didn't like it for the type of movie this is. Leslie Howard plays his character much more natural, which actually kind of surprises me because most movies this old didn't have anybody acting with realism. Nonetheless, he works.
Oh yeah and I was more impressed with the directing in this film by John Cromwell than I was by Hitchcock's The Secret Agent. The quality of this film was also way better, but that surprised me. Watch this for Bette Davis and Leslie Howard, but otherwise if you aren't planning to make the rounds on certain actors and actresses like Davis, I'd probably skip this.
2.5/4
Laura (1944): Film Noir at its Finest
I don't know if I'd go as far as to say film noir is my favorite genre, but it's certainly close. And Laura might be the very best of them. I will confess I haven't seen quite of the few well-regarded classics so you could take my opinion with a grain of salt - more so than usual. But still, Laura is a fantastic film.
Laura is a true mystery - I genuinely didn't know who had done it until it was revealed. Even when the mystery was revealed, I suspected there was a chance McPherson was getting fooled. The movie accomplishes this by presenting a few legitimate suspects - so many that I think it doesn't matter who was actually guilty in the end.
You'll note I'm not spoiling who did it. I suspect not everyone who happens upon this blog will have seen this movie and while the mystery is far from the only reason this film is a classic, it's still a damn good mystery. Ultimately, I think they made the right decision for the killer: in hindsight, he probably makes more sense than the others.
As Roger Ebert notes in his Great Movies review, neither Gene Tierney nor Dana Andrews steals the show. It's Clifton Webb as Waldo Lydecker, who also happens to get the best lines. He's not a good person, but he's so clever with his insults that it's almost impossible not to enjoy watching him. Gene Tierney accomplishes the difficult task of being sort of a vaguely defined character and yet you can completely buy that she captures the infatuations of all these men. I don't know how 1940 film noir films do this, but it seems to be the one genre that manages to make me understand guys all falling for the same girl. Maybe it is the 1940s female stars, who certainly weren't better actresses than ones nowadays but somehow had... something else.
Anyway, I loved it and it's a must for any fan of film noir.
4/4 stars
Laura is a true mystery - I genuinely didn't know who had done it until it was revealed. Even when the mystery was revealed, I suspected there was a chance McPherson was getting fooled. The movie accomplishes this by presenting a few legitimate suspects - so many that I think it doesn't matter who was actually guilty in the end.
You'll note I'm not spoiling who did it. I suspect not everyone who happens upon this blog will have seen this movie and while the mystery is far from the only reason this film is a classic, it's still a damn good mystery. Ultimately, I think they made the right decision for the killer: in hindsight, he probably makes more sense than the others.
As Roger Ebert notes in his Great Movies review, neither Gene Tierney nor Dana Andrews steals the show. It's Clifton Webb as Waldo Lydecker, who also happens to get the best lines. He's not a good person, but he's so clever with his insults that it's almost impossible not to enjoy watching him. Gene Tierney accomplishes the difficult task of being sort of a vaguely defined character and yet you can completely buy that she captures the infatuations of all these men. I don't know how 1940 film noir films do this, but it seems to be the one genre that manages to make me understand guys all falling for the same girl. Maybe it is the 1940s female stars, who certainly weren't better actresses than ones nowadays but somehow had... something else.
Anyway, I loved it and it's a must for any fan of film noir.
4/4 stars
Sunday, February 8, 2015
The Secret Agent (1936): An Odd Hitchcock Film
Alfred Hitchcock is credit with directing 70 films. He did not make 70 good films. The Secret Agent is far from a bad film, but it's certainly one of the weaker Alfred Hitchcock movies I've seen. Which sure, is like saying 1930 was one of Babe Ruth's weaker years. (I'll save you the trouble. He had 7.8 WAR that year, which was his 12th highest WAR of his career) It's not his best, but it's still Alfred Hitchcock.
Once again, I am blessed to pick a movie with a pretty damn good cast. Madeleine Carroll is unquestionably the standout as Elsa Carrington. She's the first of the Hitchcock blondes and she belongs right up there with Grace Kelly and Kim Novak. It's a little sad to see how her career kind of just ended because she got involved with World War II and that's just the way Hollywood worked back then, particularly with women. (Though James Stewart did have some difficulty getting back into the public eye as well and Carroll sort of seemed to give up.)
Oddly, though perfectly competent, the weakest performance is probably John Gielgud. It's not so much that he's bad, but his chemistry with Carroll is nearly nonexistent, so much so that their romance halfway through the film is inexplicable. Robert Young, on the other hand, seems like a much more viable and realistic romance partner for Carroll. So you can imagine it's confusing when the "wrong" romance works better than the supposedly good one. Oh yeah and Peter Lorre plays a very enthusiastic assassin who's also a Mexican. Hello 1936 alert. He plays him so over-the-top that it kind of works.
The strongest part was the beginning. It was a very funny opening sequence with Ashenden (Gieglud) finding out he's actually dead. I honestly thought this was going to be a dark comedy in the vein of "One, Two Three" and I think this movie would have worked a lot better if they had committed to it. As it stands, the ending ends up completely rushed and sort of abrupt. Oddly, despite the fact that he's a master of suspense, I don't think it was very tense leading up to the end.
I'd probably still recommend this though, mostly for Hitchcock and Carroll. Interestingly, the New York Times review says "This picture as a whole is marred by inexpert camera technique, film editing.." It was written in 1936, which I found strange only because this movie does not stand out for having bad camera tecnique anymore than other 1930 movies. The version I watched wasn't the highest quality so it's almost impossible for me to notice it anyway. It could also mean that some people, even writers for the NYT, didn't know what the fuck they were talking about. I'm inclined towards the latter. (Also interestingly, Salon ran a piece saying 1936 may have been Hitchcock's best year, which is laughable to me. Needless to say, this movie has quite a few different reactions.)
2.5/4
Once again, I am blessed to pick a movie with a pretty damn good cast. Madeleine Carroll is unquestionably the standout as Elsa Carrington. She's the first of the Hitchcock blondes and she belongs right up there with Grace Kelly and Kim Novak. It's a little sad to see how her career kind of just ended because she got involved with World War II and that's just the way Hollywood worked back then, particularly with women. (Though James Stewart did have some difficulty getting back into the public eye as well and Carroll sort of seemed to give up.)
Oddly, though perfectly competent, the weakest performance is probably John Gielgud. It's not so much that he's bad, but his chemistry with Carroll is nearly nonexistent, so much so that their romance halfway through the film is inexplicable. Robert Young, on the other hand, seems like a much more viable and realistic romance partner for Carroll. So you can imagine it's confusing when the "wrong" romance works better than the supposedly good one. Oh yeah and Peter Lorre plays a very enthusiastic assassin who's also a Mexican. Hello 1936 alert. He plays him so over-the-top that it kind of works.
The strongest part was the beginning. It was a very funny opening sequence with Ashenden (Gieglud) finding out he's actually dead. I honestly thought this was going to be a dark comedy in the vein of "One, Two Three" and I think this movie would have worked a lot better if they had committed to it. As it stands, the ending ends up completely rushed and sort of abrupt. Oddly, despite the fact that he's a master of suspense, I don't think it was very tense leading up to the end.
I'd probably still recommend this though, mostly for Hitchcock and Carroll. Interestingly, the New York Times review says "This picture as a whole is marred by inexpert camera technique, film editing.." It was written in 1936, which I found strange only because this movie does not stand out for having bad camera tecnique anymore than other 1930 movies. The version I watched wasn't the highest quality so it's almost impossible for me to notice it anyway. It could also mean that some people, even writers for the NYT, didn't know what the fuck they were talking about. I'm inclined towards the latter. (Also interestingly, Salon ran a piece saying 1936 may have been Hitchcock's best year, which is laughable to me. Needless to say, this movie has quite a few different reactions.)
2.5/4
The Men (1950): Marlon Brando's Screen Debut
For this week, I will be taking a break from television to watch 10 movies, picked out because of a particular actor, director, or both. I picked the movies purely off their availability. Marlon Brando was one of the actors I wanted to watch over the week, and unfortunately only two of his films that I haven't seen are on streaming services (legal ones that is).
Marlon Brando began his career on the stage and it didn't take long for him to establish himself as a star. At 23-years-old in 1947, he began a three-year run on Broadway as Stanley in a Streetcar Named Desire. Thus, that's why he was able to become a lead actor in his film screen debut, The Men.
The Men is a brutal look into the lives of paraplegic World War II veterans. It's specifically about Ken, played by Marlon Brando, who purposefully avoids his love Ellen, because he knows he'd be too much of a burden. As you'd expect, the movie is about him gradually coming to terms with allowing himself to be with her, although it deviates enough from what you'd expect to keep it interesting.
For a lesser-known film, this is a pretty fantastic cast. Teresa Wright, most-known for Shadow of a Doubt and The Best Years of Our Lives, is convincing enough as the love interest. Wright's given a tough role, because her character is ill-defined. She has no definable traits outside of wanting to get back together with Ken.
The veterans and the main doctor treating them are more successful. Everett Sloane is perhaps the most impressive as Doctor Brock, a man who doesn't want to give the veterans any hope of walking, but does want them to lead as productive lives as they can in a wheelchair. Jack Webb, who one year later who star in Dragnet,* plays Norm, an extremely smart guy who nonetheless has a weak spot with woman. Richard Erdman, most known now for Leonard on Community, plays Leo, who seems to have a quip about everything and is only slightly intolerable. And surprisingly, there's Arthur Jurado playing Angel, and this is the only role he's ever played, but he's quite good as the hard-working yet doomed patient.
*Interesting fact: Jack Weeb not only starred in both incarnations of the series, but himself directed 179 episodes himself. I can't imagine that happening nowadays and I still don't really understand how people can direct something if they are the main character in it.
The Men is a good first movie for any actor, but it's a short movie and somehow feels like it could even be even shorter. Too much of the dialogue simply repeats things we already know and scenes with Brando talking about how he didn't want to see Wright's character quickly got repetitive. I still think it's a good movie for its spotlight on a group of people who still are underrepresented in media, but the film could have done more with it.
3/4 stars
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)