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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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