The Burble

The Burble has moved

2007-02-10T10:26:00.000-04:00

Now located at Piddleville:
http://piddleville.com

(See post below.)

The Burble in transition

2007-01-14T21:42:00.000-04:00

I'm in the process of making changes (I may have mentioned this already) and the change really amounts to this: The Burble is moving to Piddleville.

Piddleville is actually where it began. And if I could get the technical gobble-dee-gook worked out, this whole site would be there now. But all in good time ...

In the meantime, Piddleville is where I am now.

If you have this page linked, thank you, very much. Please do me a favour and change that like to Piddleville: http://piddleville.com

And I will shortly be posting about some old movies that will scheduled to land in Piddleville any day now.

Captain Jack, Columbo and Cicely

2006-12-10T18:17:00.000-04:00

Well, I still don't have a new home so I'm living out of a suitcase and that means I don't have my TV or my DVDs and that explains, in part, why there have been so few updates here. But ya know ...

I haven't been completely bereft. I've been watching Columbo: the Complete Sixth & Seventh Seasons and also watching Slings & Arrows: Season 2 ... on my computers. So the screens have been smaller but the shows have been fabulously enjoyable. Big thumbs up for both. (This means I've the complete Columbo series now and, if things keep going as they have been, I'll have the complete Slings & Arrows series if and when it ends.)

And now I've Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest. It's going to kill me to watch it on a laptop but, without my TV, that's how it must be. C'est la vie. I'm looking forward to it, though (even on a laptop) as Gore Verbinski is one of my favourite directors. He has a great sense for telling stories.

I also picked up Northern Exposure: the Complete Fifth Season. Just because.

And that's my update. I live. I post. Just not so often as before ... but that will correct itself eventually. Once all the life nonsense is settled.

A post to update things

2006-11-12T23:23:00.000-04:00

On the right my profile is not showing my updated info so this post is mainly to see if by posting I can get it to appear. I have moved. My location is now Fredericton, New Brunswick. I have left Edmonton and moved east.

Will my Blogger profile reflect this? Let's hope so.

To go ... or 'To Be'? A brief update

2006-10-22T11:25:00.000-04:00

I haven't posted on The Burble in a while because I'm in the process of a major change, which you can catch up on at Writelife. In the meantime, I saw a reference to 1942's To Be or Not To Be (Carole Lombard, Jack Benny) so it thought I'd highlight a review I did on that some time ago. It went this way:

Prior to its DVD release, I knew nothing about the movie To Be Or Not To Be. When it came out, I was excited because I saw it had been directed by Ernst Lubitsch (Trouble in Paradise, The Shop Around the Corner) - one of my favourite directors of older movies.

Then I saw it starred Corole Lombard ...

(Read more ...)

Tag: Classic Film, Movie Classics, Movies, DVDs, Carole Lombard, Jack Benny

A mesmerizing movie about westerns

2006-09-02T15:38:00.000-04:00

I watched one of favourite westerns again last night, Once Upon a Time in the West. So I thought I'd repost this. I wrote it a couple of years ago - whenever the two disc DVD set came out. (And a great DVD set it is - and so cheap now!) ...

From it’s incredible opening to the closing credits, Once Upon a Time in the West is a mesmerizing movie about westerns. In a way, it isn’t even about westerns it simply evokes them with a stream of iconic images.

The movie takes a simple, almost cookie cutter story, and uses it as a basis (and excuse) for a film that is essentially concerned with western myths and iconography. (Sergio Leone had done this before, as in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.)

It’s a post-modern film; it takes a kind of deconstructionist approach to movie-making (which may seem a tiresome idea today but was unusual in 1969).

At the centre of the film’s narrative is Claudia Cardinale as Jill. Around her three other characters revolve: Henry Fonda as Frank, Jason Robards as Cheyenne and Charles Bronson as the man with no name (often referred to as Harmonica).

The owner of a railroad company, Morton (Gabriele Ferzetti), hires a psychotic gunfighter, Frank (Henry Fonda) to get rid of anyone in the way of the completion of his railroad. Frank does, by massacring the family of new bride, ex-whore, Jill.

With her new family dead, Jill must decide what to do with the land she has inherited. It seems worthless but proves to be very valuable, so valuable it is the reason her family has been killed. It’s a basic western formula: bad guys after the good guy’s land. He must defend it and himself, except in this case “he” is “she.”

At the same time, bad-guy Frank starts being stalked by a mysterious stranger (Charles Bronson). Frank doesn't recognize him, he has no idea what the stranger wants. As for Jason Robards' Cheyenne, he gets involved in all of this because Frank has framed him for the killing of Jill's family.

For a film almost three hours long, it doesn’t seem much to work with. But Leone is interested in the storyline only to the extent that it provides him something to improvise on western themes and imagery. He plays with these and it is what he does with them that makes this such a great movie.

I can't imagine how this would look in pan-and-scan form. Leone makes incredible use of the screen's width, visually stretching it out with foregrounds oriented to one side and breathtaking backgrounds to the other.

He also contrasts the breadth and spaciousness of his wide shots with the most extreme of close-ups. He shoots human faces almost as if they, too, were landscapes. The opening sequence is a spectacular example of this as he lingers on the bored killers' faces. He shows us every detail from lines to whiskers. You almost get the sense he uses only two shots - very close or very long.

He also uses his trademark technique of drawing scenes out to their absolute limit. The opening goes something like eight minutes before anyone says anything and it is a scene simply about three guys waiting at a train station. You get an almost visceral sense of their tedium.

With scenes like gunfights, they are choregraphed to evoke iconic imagery and are paced, again, incredibly slowly to draw them out to their limits. When violence does erupt, it is explosive and very brief. Leone has little interest in violence itself but is obsessed with its rituals.

Whether the movie is about anything is debateable. Leone seems interested primarily in style and evoking the western. (Once Upon a Time in the West is littered with references to earlier Hollywood westerns like High Noon, The Searchers and numerous John Ford films. It's even partly shot in Monument Valley where Ford shot so many of his westerns.)

If there is a comment in the film, perhaps it is a critique of myths of America. In the film, everyone is dissatisfied. Everyone wants something more, from the railroad baron and his hired killer Frank, to the woman Jill and Jason Robards. In the land of the free, no one seems to be content with their lot (except, perhaps, for the murdered McBain.)

There may be something to the use of the railroad, too. Its arrival signals the end of the mythological West and the beginning of the modern age in the last American frontier. The train represents encroaching European civilization and the end of the mythical West, just as the film Once Upon a Time in America is a eulogistic end of the western.

But in the end, the film is simply a great homage to westerns, as well as a kind of eulogy to them. It's a stream of riveting images; an almost symphonic evocation of filmmaking style.

Tags: Movies, DVD, Once Upon a Time In The West, Sergio Leone, Western

Planes, Trains and Automobiles - revisited

2006-08-24T01:13:00.000-04:00

This is another one of those movies that I've lost track of the number of times I've watched. But over the years, yes, I've watch Planes, Trains and Automobiles a lot. The performances are great, the pacing is bang on and it never, ever, loses its focus. Yes, it's a pretty simple story but that's where a lot of its power comes from.

Anyway ... I watched it again last night. So I decided to post this, a review I threw together a few years ago:

What a joy it is to watch a movie you had forgotten about and weren't expecting a lot from, to discover it is nothing less than wonderful. Planes, Trains and Automobiles is an absolute gem of a movie. Perhaps one of the reasons it succeeds so well is because it is so simple and maintains its focus.

Steve Martin (Neal) is heading home to Chicago for Thanksgiving. So is John Candy (Del). They are travellers with personalities at opposite ends: Neal is a prim and proper, an anal businessman, while Del is a talkative, somewhat crass low-rent guy who sells shower curtain rings. Circumstances, increasingly ludicrous yet believable, keep throwing them together. Martin's character feels nothing but irritation about his situation and Candy's character while Candy's Del is oblivious - he just goes with the flow. Together, they take planes, trains, cars, trucks and so on as they try to get home.

It's a variation of the buddy, road-movie type of film. But I think it shows why these kinds of movies are so popular when they're well done. It is all about the characters and their relationship. In this case, Steve Martin and John Candy are a perfect pairing. I've always liked Martin best when he plays more of a straight character. In this film, he plays straight though this doesn't mean he's not comedic. On the contrary, he is more comedic because of this. Everything happens to him and his reactions are priceless.

Candy, on the other hand, has never been more loveably obnoxious. He's the boob, the stooge. Always well-intentioned, almost everything he does causes disaster for Martin's Neal. It's very much a Laurel and Hardy or Martin and Lewis kind of combination that they play. A lot of the humour is slapstick - visual - and it works well. While many comedies are amusing, I find I don't often laugh as I watch them, though I may smile. In this movie, I laughed. And that is the litmus test for comedy.

The film, however, doesn't work just because of its comedy. And the comedy doesn't work in a vacuum. The characters created by writer-director John Hughes' script, and brought to life by Martin and Candy, are what allow everything to play out successfully. It's in the developing relationship, and the degree of depth the actors give their characters, that guides the movie forward.

The movie isn't just about getting laughs; it has a theme which is the value of home and relationships. Thematically, it's similar to It's A Wonderful Life. It's not particularly profound; it's rather simple. But again, this simplicity is part of what allows the film to work and also part of its appeal. It's accessible and understandable to pretty much everyone. The key in making a movie such as this is avoiding a saccharine quality. This movie, while it may have a wisp of that, doesn't succumb and this gives it credibility. The humour, too, takes the edge off any hint of sappiness.

I think, too, there's something worth an essay or two in the fact that movies like Planes, Trains and Automobiles (and many Capra films like It's A Wonderful Life) can be and are watched over and over again. Why is something so simple so compelling? Why do other, more apparently profound films, hard to view more than once without becoming bored, while films like this can be seen again and again? As with children when they want to hear the same story over and over, certain stories, certain themes, address something we need to have repeated for one reason or another. I think it probably has something to do with truth - not the truth of tangible reality, but some truth or truths about us, people, and our relationships with one another.

This reads a bit lofty for a review of a good, simple film that makes us laugh, so let me quickly move on to the DVD ...

If you haven't seen Planes, Trains and Automobiles, or if it has been a while since you've seen it, this one is highly recommended. It's what a comedy should be - funny. In fact the only reservation I have about the movie, the only thing I could find fault with, is the music. It sets the film far too firmly in the 1980's. If the music were removed, the film is timeless. But don't worry - the music isn't bad. Just anachronistic. And it doesn't interfere with the enjoyment of the film. (But let me add - I loved the carousel sounding rendition of the Red River Valley song.)

Tags: Movies, DVD, Steve Martin, John Candy, Planes, Trains and Automobiles

12 movies I watch over and over

2006-08-22T01:48:00.000-04:00

I decided, for whatever it's worth, to make a list of movies I watched over and over. These aren't necessarily my favourites, though some are, and it doesn't mean I think they are necessarily the greatest films ever made. But these definitely are movies I watch repeatedly.

Not sure what it says about me, but here they are:

1. The Philadelphia Story (1940)
2. The Night of the Iguana (1964)
3. My Man Godfrey (1936)
4. Dirty Rotten Scoundrels (1988)
5. Million Dollar Baby (2004)
6. Sunset Boulevard (1950)
7. The Awful Truth (1937)
8. The Terminal (2004)
9. The Shawshank Redemption (1994)
10. Ikiru (1950)
11. A Love Song for Bobby Long (2004)
12. The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976)

Tags: Movies, DVD

Separate Tables - an acquired taste?

2006-08-20T14:00:00.000-04:00

This feels like a very British film although, as director Delbert Mann points out in his commentary, Separate Tables (1958) is directed by an American (Delbert Mann), has stars like Burt Lancaster, Rita Hayworth and Rod Taylor, was shot entirely on a set – probably in Calfornia, though I don’t recall now.

Be that as it may, it feels very British because it also stars Deborah Kerr, David Niven, and Wendy Hiller, not to mention numerous other British actors in supporting roles. The set is also extremely well done as the Beauregard Hotel, a seaside hotel in Bournemouth, England.

Having a look online at the few scant reviews of this movie that are out there it’s fascinating to see their polarization. People either love this movie or really hate it. Personally, having seen the film three or four times now, I’d be with the former group.

It’s a bit discouraging seeing the comments by those who hate the film. The complaint is essentially that it’s boring and the reason for that is the characters aren’t interesting. They’re dull losers.

Losers may be a bit strong, but I do understand where that comment is coming from. Yet that’s exactly why I like this film. This is a story about lonely people. As one character mentions at one point, the people in the hotel have removed themselves from the world. They are isolates – it’s in their nature. (That last is the character’s view – I’m not sure I’d agree with that.)

There are two essential storylines in the film (based on two one-act plays by screenwriter Terrence Rattigan, who also wrote the play, and John Gay). One has to do with the stormy relationship between Hayworth and Lancaster – he’s hidden himself at the hotel, one of their oldest permanent guests, from his previous life, which was as the husband of Hayworth’s character, Ann Shankland. (That role was originally going to be played by Vivien Leigh but apparently she dropped out when her then husband Laurence Olivier decided not to direct the movie.)

The other storyline, and the one that bookends the film, concerns David Niven’s character, Major Angus Pollock, and Deborah Kerr’s character, Sibyl.

Niven is a blowhard of sorts, though not an obnoxious one – just a bit pathetic. As it turns out, almost everything he says is a lie about himself and his position in the world. He puffs himself up with tales of his days in the army.

Sibyl is a meek, frightened girl dominated by her mother. She’s repressed in almost every way a person can be repressed. And she’s credulous. She believes everything the Major says.

Their crisis occurs when the Major’s lies are revealed in, for the time and place, a shocking way. Although he tries to cover it up, the hotel’s guests discover he’s been arrested and has pleaded guilty to charges of indecent behavior. In our current day terms, he’s revealed as a kind of sexual pervert, although his actions are incredibly tame by today’s standards. He’s simply a sad, pathetic man – which is how he is revealed.

There is a wonderful scene where Niven as the Major explains to Sibyl (Kerr) that in many ways they are two of a kind – both are afraid of life, relationships, sex. Sibyl is appalled at the idea but you can see how she recognizes the truth in what he says.

It’s this aspect of the film I find compelling. It’s a study of loneliness, and a kind of exploration of it. Although the Major’s “indecency” is extremely tame for today, by 1958 standards I suppose you could call it shocking. This aspect is not really important, however. What’s important is how it illustrates how human need, not addressed, comes out in other ways, in this case the Major’s behavior which he says he doesn’t understand himself. But it’s clear that, to a large extent, it’s because, as he puts it, he’s “afraid of women.” He’s lonely, unable to interact in terms of the usual ways of people so, again as he puts it, he can only approach women “in the dark.”

He and Sibyl, however, have connected not in any sexual kind of way but in the sense they each recognize a kindred spirit. Both are afraid. Each finds a kind of solace in the other and a kind of freedom from their debilitating limitation.

However, this makes for a movie that is character study with lots of dialogue and no fight sequences, car chases or explosions. You have to find people interesting to find this movie interesting. But if you do, this is a wonderful film. In fact, I kind of like its quieter, gentler pace.

The title, Separate Tables, is also interesting in that it suggests, pretty clearly, that all of these people are separated, isolated. Yet, as we see (especially in the closing scene), the appearance of separation is, to some extent, just that - appearance. As one character (Lancaster's, I think) mentions, they communicate across the distance between them, between the tables, because, though separated, they are close enough for that. As isolated as we may think we are, we're never completely alone.

It may be an acquired taste, but if it’s to yours I think, like me, you’ll find Separate Tables an extremely rewarding movie.

Stars? I give it 3 1/2 out of 4.

Tags: Movies, DVD, Separate Tables

The Searchers looking better than good

2006-08-15T16:35:00.000-04:00

I’ve been making my way through all those John Ford-John Wayne movies that finally came (see posts below). I’ve also received my copy of Stagecoach – Special Edition (and watched it last night). So my head’s pretty full of Ford imagery and Wayne’s voice.

But let’s start with The Searchers, possibly the best of the lot. In this set, I have Ultimate Edition. Let’s just say there are a lot of features, all pretty good (some much better than good), and of course the film.

I wrote about the previous DVD a few years ago and, while I don’t usually comment on the video qualities (not my strong suit), in that case I did, saying, “For such a great film, it's unforunate the DVD is less than spectacular. While not poor, it falls far short. There are scratches etc. throughout. The sound is also a bit lame, though not unbearably so.”

Well, this new edition corrects all that. It looks and sounds great. I loved it.

Below, I’m putting in my review from a few years ago. I find it interesting because I don’t necessarily agree with all I have to say in it now. Perhaps it has more to do with emphasis. I’d like to watch the movie again and, one day soon I hope, write a new review, if only to collect a few new observations and update some of my previous thoughts.

For now, however, here’s the old one, flaws and all:

The Searchers – earlier review

In the list of great westerns, The Searchers ranks very high. It's one of the great movies, period. But it's a troubling one, too. While cinematically brilliant with its stunning photography of Monument Valley and now famous shots, it's the story of a racist, a man filled with hate.

John Wayne plays Ethan Edwards, an ex-Confederate soldier who returns home several years after the war has ended and who, while no longer fighting, stubbornly asserts that while others may have surrendered, he never did.

Where he has been or what he has been doing for the past few years is never explained. He is left mysterious to us and in a dark way. We see he's a man with a grudge. There's an anger in him that he contains, though just barely. We also see traces of his racism and innate hate in his attitude toward the informally adopted son of his brother's family, Martin played by Jeffrey Hunter. Martin is one-eighth Indian, and this is the reason Ethan treats him poorly.

There is then a Comanche raid on his brother's home. The family is killed except the two daughters, who are taken. Later, one of the daughters is killed and there is only the youngest daughter, Debbie, left alive. She is still with the Indian raiding party. (The older Debbie is played by Natalie Wood; the younger Debbie by her sister Lana Wood.)

Ethan is now consumed with his hate for Indians as he and Martin set off to find Debbie. Martin's reasons for going are twofold: he wants to get Debbie back but also wants to protect her from Ethan, whom he senses is a threat to her.

Ethan is. His plan is to find Debbie and kill her since, in his mind, she is now Comanche. As the film progresses we see the pair on their quest. We see more and more of Ethan's racist hate as their journey goes on.

Director John Ford tries to balance the darkness of this with lighter moments and storylines, such as Martin's relationship with the young woman Laurie (Vera Miles), an unspoken romance that is failing for want of articulation.

However, the lighter elements seem a bit forced. It's Ethan's story that is the heart of the movie.

But what is that story, and what is Ford attempting? An audience of today is likely to be appalled by Ethan's overt hate and racist attitude. Roger Ebert suggests that a contemporary audience (roughly 1956-57) would probably identitfy with his attitudes and this is likely true - perhaps not with the overt hate but certainly with the racist attitude toward native North Americans.

I think a clue to what Ford is attempting lies in the character of Scar (Henry Brandon), the Comanche chief responsible for the raiding party and the taking of Debbie. His character isn't deeply drawn but we do get one scene where he explains himself, at least to an extent. He tells of how his two sons were killed by white people and how, because of that, he is taking revenge.

This is essentially what Ethan is doing. Scar is the native mirror of Ethan, ruled by hate and revenge. Both men are racists and it is their hate than informs it. It is revenge that Ethan seeks but revenge is also the reason for the tragedy that sends him on his hateful quest.

If this is what Ford's movie is about, and I think it is, then what we have in The Searchers is flawed masterpiece. It's a great film that doesn't quite achieve what it attempts.

The failing is in the character of Scar, Chief Cicatrice. The film needs a much deeper exploration of the man. An audience needs to get to know and understand him better. He simply doesn't have enough screen time.

There aren't enough scenes that allow him to be humanized (as there are in a film like Dances With Wolves where we can connect and relate to the native North Americans).

This failing is reflective of the period the film was made. Not only were full characterizations of Indians unheard of, where they do have a presence that goes beyond being extras, the characters are played by white people.

This makes The Searchers something of a conundrum. It is a film about racism and its evils that fails because of an innate social racism that conditioned the making of it. This is not to say the film is racist. I don't think that is either a conscious or unconscious intent. But to some degree we're defined and thus limited by our place in social and cultural history, and so was Ford. The flaws in The Searchers are due these kinds of limitations.

Tags: Movies, DVD, John Wayne, John Ford, The Searchers

Wayne and Ford arrive – not without incident

2006-08-12T14:32:00.000-04:00

I’m currently absorbed by movies made by John Ford and of course they all star John Wayne. Yes, my John Wayne - John Ford Film Collection finally arrived. Not without incident, however (though quickly and easily resolved, thanks to Amazon.ca).

For reasons I do not understand, this set from Warner is one of the few where what you get in the U.S. is not what you get in Canada. The American set has 8 films; the Canadian 7. In Canada, the DVD you do not get is Stagecoach – Two Disc Special Edition.

This is a huge omission. One of the main reasons I ordered the set was Stagecoach (the other was The Searchers).

As mentioned, I don’t know why this is difference between the U.S. and Canada editions exists, but I do understand there are sometimes copyright, distribution, legal etc. differences between the two countries. The problem I had was that initially, and up to the time the actual set began showing up in stores (as far as I can tell), the U.S. information on the set’s details was the same. So someone like me, ordering the set, thought he or she was getting one thing when in fact they were getting something else. And let’s be honest, anyone ordering a fairly big set like this is probably into John Ford-John Wayne films and the absence of Stagecoach is a very big deal.

However ... Thankfully, Amazon can teach other companies a few things about customer service. Granted, it took me a while to find a place to actually send them an e-mail, but once I did and pointed out the problem they immediately acknowledged the problem, apologized for it, and offered me some options. I chose to order Stagecoach separately – at no charge. (Actually, it is charged to my credit card but Amazon processed a refund for it that will appear on my credit card billing.)

You’ll also notice that if you look for John Wayne - John Ford Film Collection on Amazon.ca now, there is no reference to Stagecoach. The information has been corrected to reflect what the Canadian set contains.

It would be nice if Warner acted a bit more like Amazon. I could find no contact link for Warner Home Video in Canada. I finally found a contact thing on the U.S. site, sent them an e-mail, but have heard nothing from them. I love Warner DVDs. They are easily the best for classic film – the movies themselves and the quality of the discs. But like most film companies, certainly the big Hollywood companies, beyond taking customers' money they have absolutely no interest in having anything to do with us. This, more than anything to do with technology, is the biggest threat to the commercial film business.

In the meantime ... If you live in Canada, here’s what you get in the Canadian edition of the John Wayne - John Ford Film Collection:

- The Long Voyage Home (1940)
- They Were Expendable (1945)
- 3 Godfathers (1948)
- Fort Apache (1948)
- She Wore a Yellow Ribbon (1949)
- The Searchers - Ultimate Collector's Edition (1956)
- The Wings of Eagles (1957)

Of these, I’ve so far watched The Searchers, Fort Apache, She Wore a Yellow Ribbon and They Were Expendable. I don’t know if it’s because they were westerns, but I loved the first three – They Were Expendable, not so much.

If I get time, I’ll scribble a few thoughts on these movies. I’ll say this, though ... Having seen the first two of Ford’s cavalry trilogy (Fort Apache and She Wore a Yellow Ribbon), I’ve dug out Rio Grande so I can rewatch that one too (haven’t seen it for a while). I also dug out The Quiet Man, which I haven’t seen for a while either. It’s one of my favourite of all the Ford-Wayne movies – and who in their right mind doesn’t love Maureen O’Hara?

Tags: Movies, DVD, John Wayne, John Ford, Amazon, Warner, Warner Home Video

The little tramp and the flower girl

2006-08-07T13:56:00.000-04:00

I have had Charlie Chaplin's City Lights sitting on my shelf for probably a year or more. Believe it or not, I had never seen it before. So why did it take so long for me to finally get around to watching it?

Because the idiots who put the DVD together have, at the bottom of the cardboard cover, this: B&W/186 Mins.

I suppose I could have checked IMDB to see that the runtime was 87 minutes. And I should have known it was nowhere close to 186 minutes. But that would have required thought - not always my strong suit.

Everytime I'd take a look at this thing, thinking I'd watch it, I kept thinking, "Wow. A three hour silent movie ..." And I'd put it off to another time. (And no, it's not silent - it's just sans dialogue.)

Anyway ... I finally watched it last night (it's actually about an hour and a half long) and it is, as others have asserted many times, brilliant. I absolutely loved it.

I'll tell you what amazes me: this silent (dialogue free) film that, at the time of this watching, is 75 years old, in black and white, had me laughing out loud. I can't think of a single contemporary film, certainly nothing in the last few years, that has prompted me to laugh out loud. Yes, I've enjoyed and been amused by a number - but laugh out loud? Particularly when I'm home, alone, watching it on DVD? Nope.

But City Lights had me laughing.

I loved the opening when the cover is pulled off the statue and there's the tramp, sleeping. I also loved how Chaplin uses sound in the film - though not dialogue. It begins with the opening and the trumpet or kazoo like sounds used to mock the speechifying at the statue's unveiling.

Later, there is the whistle scene ... Utterly silly but it had me laughing. (And scenes like these are so cleverly and finely constructed! The rhythms are perfect.)

And of course, there is the prizefight scene (and the scene in the dressing room leading up to it). This is so magnificantly choreographed. And again ... out loud laughs.

Finally, there is the love story that threads through the film, the tramp and the flower girl, that concludes in the brilliant final recognition scene. There's no pint in me going on about it - it's one of cinema's famous scenes, and others have extolled its virtues better than I will. Let's just say, it's a scene that should not be missed.

It's really quite astonishing how well and completely Chaplin tells his story without words. It's a great reminder of how film is a visual medium. It also demonstrates, as important as the camera is to film, it is performance that tells the story. Granted, the camera has to be positioned and framed well, and editing captures and underscores the rhythm, but without the essential performance (which is dependent on the script) you won't have much of a film - at least, nothing much more than some pretty pictures.

Tags: Movies, DVD, Charlie Chaplin, City Lights

Some regard for human frailty

2006-08-06T12:24:00.000-04:00

I've been doing a bit of "re-watching" of some all-time favourites, such as The Philadelphia Story, which I ran in the DVD player last night. I've lost track of how many times I've seen this movie.

In re-watching films like this I usually find, as with The Philadelphia Story, that during the first few minutes, as great as they are, I have a sense of, "Gee, I've seen this so many times; do I really want to see it again?" Yet in a very short time I'm into the film's stream and fully engaged as if I'm seeing it for the first time.

Actually, this is something of a problem. Studying, reviewing, critiquing bad movies is relatively easy because you aren't very involved with the film. You can step back and see it objectively - or hopefully you can.

But with a really good film, it's sometimes difficult to identify why it is so good because, at least in part, it engages you so fully you forget you are watching a movie and, being caught up in the film's story, you neglect to note some of the technical aspects of the story-telling, such as structure.

For me, this is certainly the case with The Philadelphia Story. Moments after it starts I'm into the film and, no matter how strong my intent was to view it from a technical perspective, I can't. I'm too busy enjoying it.

I can, however, make a few guesses as to why this movie works so well. There are, of course, the performances. While we all note how good Cary Grant, Katherine Hepburn and Jimmy Stewart are, and how well they work as an ensemble, it goes well beyond that to the greater ensemble. By this I mean the many wonderful supporting performances - one of the keys to many of the great old Hollywood films and a definite key here.

Another reason it works so well is because the various "acts" of the film fit so well together. You often hear of some films, "It was great till the third act, then it just turned into a car chase," or "It was okay but the second act dragged." In the case of The Philadelphia Story, there is a wonderful balance between the acts (perhaps because it began as a play). In fact, it's difficult to say where the transitions are because everything seems to unfold so naturally. The movie feels seamless.

It also seems to me that another reason the film works brilliantly is because it is so well focused on its essential theme which, I think, is articulated first by Cary Grant as C. K. Dexter Haven (and later repeated by Hepburn's Tracy Lord):

"... You'll never be a first-class human being or a first-class woman until you've learned to have regard for human frailty."

This is focused in Tracy, who is contemptuous of her ex-husband (Grant) and her father (John Halliday as Seth Lord).

The film is all about "human frailty" ... it's a kind of celebration of it, and it's reflected everywhere in the movie. (Such as Ruth Hussey as Liz when, questioned by Grant, she refers to Jimmy Stewart's character Macaulay Connor and suggests that, yes, she's in love with him but is willing to wait for him to ... well, grow up is essentially what she means.)

It all reminds me of a line at the end of Mark Helprin's novel Memoir from Antproof Case, which goes:

"Though the world is constructed to serve glory, success, and strength, one love's ones parents and one's children despite their failings and weaknesses - sometimes even more on account of them."

I'm surprised I've managed to write as much as I have about the movie. I had been scratching my noggin to think of what to say other than, "I really, really like it!" But I suppose I've discovered at least three of the reasons why it works so well for me: focus, balance and performance. And of course, it's theme of human failings goes over big with me.

To me, this is a perfect diamond of a film. It's easily one of the best romantic comedies ever made.

(On another note, for what it's worth ... I finally received the e-mail saying my Amazon order has shipped. That means my John Wayne-John Ford Film Collection is finally on the way. It should arrive Tuesday - at least, I hope it does.)

Tags: Movies, DVD, The Philadelphia Story, Cary Grant, Katherine Hepburn, Jimmy Stewart

The Syriana snooze

2006-07-21T01:57:00.000-04:00

I'm still waiting for the John Wayne-John Ford Film Collection. In the meantime, I watched Syriana tonight. I wasn't too impressed.

The movie has received a number of very good reviews. One of them, on DVD Town, prompted me to comment and I offer that comment below:

This is one of those movies I feel garners praise less for its merits as a film than for its subject matter. It's certainy a story that should be told but geez ... it's really boring. Especially, as you mention, that first hour.

But you also articulate why this is a dull movie: "To some viewers, "Syriana" may seem to have too many characters, none of whom we get to know very well. But I don't think the characters are supposed to matter much in the film."

That's exactly why it's dull. The main character in the film is oil. What kind of emotional connection do you make with that?

I don't have problems with ensemble pieces - some of my favourite movies are of this type. But the absence of a character focus really makes watching this film feel like sitting through a dull lecture.

As admirable as the intentions were, the execution left a great deal to be desired, for me.

Tags: Movies, DVD, Syriana

Waiting on John Wayne and John Ford

2006-07-15T15:18:00.000-04:00

Except for a couple of films from th 1980's (Terms of Endearment and Trading Places), I haven't been watching older films recently. I certainly haven't been watching movies from the 30s, 40s and 50s, even though I love old movies.

The reason is simple. Even though I have some pretty good ones lined up to be watched (and rewatched, like In a Lonely Place, which I want to see again), I can't do it because I'm anxious. I am anticipating. I'm waiting for my shipment of the John Wayne-John Ford Film Collection.

I think the set has something like ten discs, including the movies I'm especially keen on: The Searchers Ultimate Edition (two disc set) and Stagecoach Two-Disc Special Edition.

Also included in this collection:

- The Long Voyage Home
- Fort Apache
- She Wore a Yellow Ribbon
- They Were Expendable
- The Wings of Eagles
- 3 Godfathers
- A Turning of the Earth: John Ford, John Wayne and the Searchers (documentary on the making of The Searchers)

So. You can see why I'm distracted and anxious. I really want this. And it hasn't even shipped yet!

Oh well. Soon, soon.

Yes, I liked The Matador

2006-07-05T01:41:00.000-04:00

First, in a world where most movie comedies lack the essential element (humour!), The Matador is a wonderful movie. Dry and stupid, slapstick and witty. Compare to Failure to Launch or The Break-Up and weep. Note to directors: after script, casting is everything.

That I could watch and enjoy a film under these intemperate conditions (33C degrees!!!) speaks volumes.

More seriously, few comedy/romantic comedies these days are able to finesse the balance between humour and serious elements (meaning independent movies are drearily earnest while Hollywood comedies assume audience stupidity and penile fixations).

Why are there so few movies like The Matador?

Melancholy romance: The Ghost and Mrs. Muir

2006-06-26T18:34:00.000-04:00

I haven't posted anything about an older film for a bit, so I thought I'd post my take on The Ghost and Mrs. Muir (1947). (This was written a year or two ago when the DVD came out.) ...

If you’re looking to be frightened by a ghost movie, this is not the movie for you. While to some extent it is dressed up in the look of one, it’s a romance, and a melancholy one at that.

The Ghost and Mrs. Muir is a beautiful example of black and white filmmaking. There are some great shots and it's interesting to see how the movie uses camera technique and other tools to create mood etc. as opposed to using special effects. (For example, Harrison as the ghost appears out of shadows rather than "materializing.")

The movie is about a recent widow (Gene Tierney) who leaves the oppressive environment of her mother-in-law and sister’s home to take her daughter and live by the sea. She rents a home on the coast, one the real estate man urges her not to take. He reluctantly confesses it is haunted and, because of this, a problem house.

But Tierney’s Lucy Muir falls in love with Gull Cottage and takes it. After a few introductory “haunting” type scenes (less scarey than moody), she meets the ghost, a sea captain played by Rex Harrison. The relationship begins, and so does the real story.

While never explicitly stated (until the end), as an audience we know a romantic relationship is developing – each is falling in love with the other. I think this is because they recognize they share the same independent, uncompromising spirit. One is more overt (the ghost) and the other more restrained (Lucy), but both are informed by individuality.

Of course, the relationship is doomed since she is a living woman and he is a ghost.

Eventually the captain leaves Mrs. Muir because of this. He wants her to live as a flesh and blood woman and to find love with a living man, though he warns, “… there may be breakers ahead.”

There are and Lucy hits them.

The movie shows us an unusually independent woman. She asserts herself again and again though always with a contradictory sense of apology.

Tierney plays Lucy in a playful way (as the DVD notes say, almost screwball). This quality she gives the character allows the film to show us the passage and transformations of time. The playfulness gives her a youthful quality in the first half of the film. As the movie progresses, and time passes, this becomes less and less, replaced by an introverted quietness. This interpretation, along with the wonderful score by Bernard Hermann, creates the melancholy feeling the movie’s opening scenes announced.

As time passes and the ghost of the sea captain is no longer in her life, Gene Tierney’s character becomes a lonely woman, almost eccentric.

The film gives us the inevitable Hollywood happy ending but it’s not enough to take away the essential sadness at the heart of the film. Tierney’s Lucy is a wonderful woman but out of step with her environment.

The only person she truly connects with, and who appreciates her independent spirit, is a ghost. The price for her independence is loneliness.

Tierney plays her part perfectly. Harrison, on the other hand, is a little over the top.

The Ghost and Mrs. Muir is a marvellous film. While it contains a lot of humour, it's primarily a romance, a sweetly melancholic one.

I love Gilbert Grape

2006-06-19T02:50:00.000-04:00

I’ve only a moment but I wanted to say, for what it is worth, I love What’s Eating Gilbert Grape. I just watched it again, this time in the new DVD “Special Collector’s Edition” which includes commentary by director Lasse Hallström and writer Peter Hedges (along with some special features).

I think, for me, Hallström may be one of those “under the radar” directors. There seem to be a number of his films I love, not just Gilbert Grape; movies like An Unfinished Life and My Life as a Dog. Not being a director of blow-everything-up movies but of quieter, gentler films (for the most part), his work in the big arena seems to go unnoticed (though he has done pretty well, despite that).

Whatever … I seem to watch Lasse Hallström’s films over and over because I enjoy them so much. In the case of What’s Eating Gilbert Grape I’d also point out that there is some splendid photography thanks to cinematographer Sven Nykvist.

If you haven’t seen it, or if you have but haven’t seen it for a while, do yourself a favour and watch it.

And for those of you into the star thing: Johnny Depp! Leonardo DiCaprio! What more could you ask for?

Matrix meets Shopgirl - one loses

2006-06-16T02:25:00.000-04:00

I tried watching The Matrix Reloaded tonight. After 30 minutes I was so bored I gave it the heave-ho. I put Shopgirl into the DVD player.

I was no longer bored. While I would call it a "flawed film," Shopgirl is pretty good as far as being what it is trying to be, and being engaging. And as opposed to the The Matrix Reloaded, there was a legitimate story and actual characters - always a plus.

I realise they are very different movies, aiming at different audiences and with different goals in mind. But one comes close to being what it aspires to be and the other ... well, it's a lot of noise, cool pictures and green tinted images.

Anyway ... that was my movie experience tonight.

(I should probably add, I've seen both films previously. I didn't care for The Matrix Reloaded the first time. That's why I tried it again. I thought I'd give it a second chance. I've seen Shopgirl previously, and only sort of liked it. I liked it more this second time - usually a sign that a film that has somthing going for it (like a modicum of substance.)

The combustible Ava Gardner

2006-06-04T14:21:00.000-04:00

I recently finished reading Ava Gardner: ‘Love is Nothing’ by Lee Server and it’s nothing if not entertaining. Somewhere, he makes mention of her living life “like a rocket.”

It’s an apt description but I think I’d say she lived like she drove cars – fast, carefree and just a little bit out of control (and with more than a few crashes).

It really is an extraordinary life and, if the end has a bit of sadness to it, it should be seen in context. Her highs were very high and the lows – well, very low. It strikes me as a life characterized by extremes.

I found the biography very good and, as one reviewer mentioned (I can’t remember who it was), while Server details the good and the bad he does appear to have an affection for his subject. But then, really, who didn’t? One thing the biography makes fairly clear is how easily most people found Ava to like, even to love.

And yes, the book covers all the marriages and the affairs and, good grief, there were a helluva a lot of them.

As for her film work, one thing that comes across (for me, at least) is how much we missed of some fine acting – for several reasons. In part, a studio that seemed incapable or indifferent to placing her in good roles, and also Ava’s own insecurities and capriciousness. She was better than she knew, better than the studio allowed her to be and so she probably never achieved what she might have on film.

We do, however, have Ava Gardner in some gems, like The Killers and (my favourite) The Night of the Iguana. (Server often mentions the film Pandora and the Flying Dutchman and, while Gardner is quite fine in the film, as is James Mason, the movie as a movie is a bit of a turkey.)

If I have any objection to the biography I think it is that an explanation for the kind of personality Ava Gardner had may be absent, though I’m not sure anyone could actually explain what went into making Ava Gardner. This is not to say the book omits anything or is remiss in anyway. But she seems to have experienced major swings in mood (many, I would imagine, caused by alcohol – she was, I think, an alcoholic, taking it in like water). She was also plagued by insecurities.

And really, what explains that relationship with Sinatra? Alcohol and combustible personalities … It’s an explanation but I’m not sure that fully accounts for it.

Whatever the reasons, Ava Gardner’s life is utterly fascinating. And perhaps more than just the endless incidents and relationships, it may be its inexplicable quality that makes it most compelling.

Also see:
Ava Gardner, last studio-made star, subject of new biography

Tags: Ava Gardner, Lee Server

What a difference - Kingdom of Heaven

2006-05-29T02:22:00.000-04:00

The theatrical version of Ridley Scott's Kingdom of Heaven was an okay action film. This was the version initially released on DVD. Now they've released the 4-dics version - the Director's Cut, what Scott calls his favourite version.

It's like a completely different movie and it rocks! Maybe the best thing he's done. I can't get over how much better it is than the theatrical version - they've added 50 minutes (from 144 minutes to 194) but the edit has also changed, to some degree. And what they've added isn't extended battle scenes but character development and plot (especially in the beginning). Wow.

Anyway ... I'm not much of a Ridley Scott fan but I absolutely loved this. And while it's longer, somehow it doesn't seem a long film.

For me, the difference between the two versions is amazing. Usually these director cuts are a waste of time. This time, it's a better movie. A much better movie.

What kind of movie is The Big Heat?

2006-05-20T12:26:00.000-04:00

I watched The Big Heat (1953 – Fritz Lang) again this week. I love this movie. Lee Marvin and Gloria Grahame are fabulous. (In both cases, the performances are up there with their best – and in Grahame’s case, I think it is the best, at least of what I’ve seen).

And Glenn Ford plays the central "hero" character bang on. Although this lead character, Bannion, makes this film noir not really a noir. Although it feels like one and has that look.

But he’s not really flawed in a self-destructive way like noir heroes (or anti-heroes) normally are. No, he’s really a good guy with a hate on. This is really more a template for those films Clint Eastwood became successful with (like Dirty Harry or his westerns). It’s a revenge story.

But however it’s described or categorized, The Big Heat is one of my favourite movies. (And I’ve always loved Gloria Grahame’s look – must be her mouth and that pout. Or is it the eyes? I’m not sure …)

By the way ... The DVD (Columbia Pictures, or Sony if you prefer), released in late December 2001 I believe, is adequate although there is a great deal of wear, such as flecking, at the beginning and end of the film. In other words, it could stand a bit of restoration work.)

Tag: Classic Film, Movie Classics, Movies, DVDs, The Big Heat, Gloria Grahame

Why I like Tom Cruise

2006-05-14T02:05:00.000-04:00

It boils down to this: he’s been in a lot of movies that I love. I pay as little attention as possible to his public appearance hoo-hah, his marriage to Katie whoever, the baby, Scientology … blah blah blah. Though, obviously (since I’ve mentioned them) I can’t escape that crap.

But for the most part I don’t pay attention. I roll my eyes and change the channel or whatever.

Everything about the Tom Cruise public image makes him someone that makes me want to tear my hair out. And I wish to heaven he’d stop making the work-out movies like those endless Mission Impossible films. (As an aside, when any film is associated with the term “franchise” I head for the hills. It means it’s a hamburger.)

But … Cruise has been in great movies and, part of why they have been great is – hang on to your drawers – Tom Cruise. That’s the puzzler about him. He’s remarkably good. So why is he connected with all the other nonsense?

Well, people are odd. All of them. Including, and perhaps moreso than others, Tom Cruise.

But look at what he’s been involved with (when not flying planes or jumping on Oprah’s couch):

- Collateral
- The Last Samurai
- Minority Report
- Jerry Maguire
- A Few Good Men
- Rain Man

Those films make it difficult for me to dismiss Mr. Cruise. In fact, I prefer to dismiss the other nonsense and see him in terms of those films. He’s really very good at what he does. Perhaps too much so – maybe when you are that good it gets too easy to be self-indulgent and follow whatever random notion captures your imagination.

Whatever the true view of Tom Cruise is there’s no denying he’s good at what he does when he commits to it. So my hope is the current nonsense passes soon and, as I suspect is the case, he gets back quickly to simply bringing great performances to films of good stories.

Tom Cruise, the actor (as opposed to the celebrity) is extraordinarily good at his job. The celebrity is simply annoying. The actor, on the other hand, is about as good as it gets.

Mrs. Stone’s grim spring

2006-05-13T14:02:00.000-04:00

Much as I like Vivien Leigh, and the work of Tennessee Williams, I can’t say I was terribly taken by The Roman Spring of Mrs. Stone (1961 - directed by José Quintero). I’m pretty sure this was the first time I had seen it and I’m also pretty sure I’ve never read the short novel it was based on (by Williams).

I think I like the idea of the movie less than the actual film itself. I wish there were more films about people in their latter years. But this one was just too … I dunno. Bland, I guess (though that seems an odd descriptive for something based on a work by Tennessee Williams).

Part of the problem is there is a bit of an anachronistic feel to the film. It looks and feels very sixties – but maybe that’s just the hairstyles and clothes. More seriously, it is just too somber. Not that that is inappropriate, but it is unrelieved. So there is no sense of balance.

Oddly, there was drama going on around the filming, at least with Vivien Leigh and her break up with Lawrence Olivier, and that probably informed her performance, which is quite good.

And Lotte Lenya is extremely good as an evil procuress. As for Warren Beatty, I was fine with his performance (though others are not so kind) but still would have preferred an actual Italian in the role.

Yes, I think my biggest problem is the seriousness of tone that never lets up. Somewhere in all this there should have been some “oomph,” whatever that might be. On the whole, I found Mrs. Stone’s spring slow-moving and grim.

Much more like fall.

Tonight I watched The Night of the Iguana

2006-05-04T02:32:00.000-04:00

Today was a happy day as my order arrived – the DVD set Tennessee Williams Film Collection. So that’s six movies plus a disc with a documentary (Tennessee Williams’ South).

While I’ve always liked Williams, and thus have a fondness for films based on his plays (and one novel), I really bought this set for one movie, the one I watched tonight: The Night of the Iguana (1964), directed by John Huston (and starring Richard Burton, Ava Gardner and Deborah Kerr).

While I don’t think it’s a great movie I certainly think it’s very good. And I suppose it’s also what the movie is about, and how it is about it, that appeals to my own tastes in film and art generally.

It’s about frail people at the edge of endurance. The how, that appeals to me, is that it is through character and dialogue (Williams is, after all, a playwright) and it’s done with great empathy – kindness, I suppose, though it also has its harshness.

Williams work, at least as done cinematically, does have a certain histrionic quality seen at this distance (2006, whereas most of the films were made in the fifties and early sixties) but that doesn’t really bother me. I find it pretty easy to settle into the tone of the films. But that may not be so for everyone.

In The Night of the Iguana, by the way, as much as I like Richard Burton, and particularly like Deborah Kerr (her character has some of the best speeches), it is Ava Gardner who really stands out for me. Her performance is wonderful.

And now I have five more films to look forward to. The only problem is deciding which one is next. The set, by the way, includes these films:

- A Streetcar Named Desire (1951) Two-Disc Special Edition
- Baby Doll (1956)
- Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (1958) Deluxe Edition
- The Roman Spring of Mrs. Stone (1961)
- Sweet Bird of Youth (1962)
- The Night of the Iguana (1964)

Tag: Classic Film, Movie Classics, Movies, DVDs, Tennessee Williams, The Night of the Iguana

Reading about Clark Gable, movie star

2006-05-02T20:50:00.000-04:00

I'm currently reading Clark Gable: a Biography by Warren G. Harris. While not great, it's certainly pretty good. I'm almost finished it and I have to be honest, what I find most interesting is how uninteresting Clark Gable is.

Perhaps a more rigorous biography might have helped this - a bit more psychological focus, assuming there is sufficient information available to do that.

The book itself is interesting enough, but it just seems a bit odd that someone of that "star" stature should be so ... well, bland. But perhaps that's the real story of Gable - a huge success in that Hollywood world, yet really just an average guy.

Of course, I should also say that while I've never disliked Clark Gable movies, and there are few I like quite a lot (Gone With the Wind and Run Silent Run Deep, for instance) I've never been a huge fan of his.

Tag: Classic Film, Movie Classics, Clark Gable

Shopgirl – and a couple of other films

2006-04-27T02:15:00.000-04:00

Yes, the Carole Lombard movies are behind me. I’ve been watching other movies and a number of them are relatively recent films. Three of the best I’ve seen recently are:

- Shopgirl
- An Unfinished Life
- Mrs. Henderson Presents

In fact, I watched Shopgirl tonight and loved it. All three of these films are good and not one is a Hollywood action-thriller-special effects extravaganza. What they all have in common is a good story and interesting characters.

At the same time, they have enough Hollywood sensibility not to be drearily realistic films – not that films such as that are terribly realistic, they just think they are because they begin and end in tragedy.

That is definitely not these films.

Tags: Movies, DVD, Shopgirl

Six Carole Lombard movies - a wrap

2006-04-24T18:44:00.000-04:00

Hopefully this will be the last of my Carole Lombard postings for a while. Much as I like Carole Lombard, it's time to move on. But I did what I had wanted to do - scribble some comments on each of the six films that made up Carole Lombard - the Glamour Collection. If you want to have a look, here's what I thought about each one:

- Man of the World (1931)
- We're Not Dressing (1934)
- Hands Across the Table (1935)
- Love Before Breakfast (1936)
- The Princess Comes Across (1936)
- True Confession (1937)

Interestingly, there was only one that I didn't particularly like.

Carole Lombard - the Glamour Collection:
- Amazon.com (U.S.)
- Amazon.ca (Canada)

Tag: Classic Film, Movie Classics, Movies, DVDs, Carole Lombard

True Confession – truly wonderful

2006-04-23T02:02:00.000-04:00

Of the six movies on the set Carole Lombard: The Glamour Collection the last is True Confession (1937) and I think this may be the best. I loved this one.

Once again it teams Carole Lombard with Fred MacMurray – and they make a great combination. This time, however, MacMurray gets to play something a little bit different. No longer the cocksure young man with a secret or two and a bit cagey, here he plays the gullible innocent.

While this film is kind of romantic-comedy, it probably more properly belongs in the screwball category. Here, Lombard is the ditzy star and she’s absolutely wonderful.

The basic premise of the film is a husband and wife (MacMurray and Lombard). He’s innocent and bullheadedly honest and she’s a compulsive liar. In fact, Lombard does a little thing of putting her tongue in her cheek each time she embarks on another lie.

He’s a struggling lawyer. He won’t take cases unless his clients are innocent. The family bank account is suffering because of his high standards, and because he refuses to allow his wife (Lombard) to work. Meanwhile she is at home, desperate for her husband to get some cases and passing her time typing out stories – an outlet for her imagination (and lies).

She has also managed to land herself a job – pretty high pay for little work as a secretary. As it turns out, her potential employer has some less than respectable notions of secretarial work. Lombard also must keep the job hidden from her husband.

As it turns out, she must flee her potential employer in order to maintain her wifely virtue … and the potential employer ends up dead. Murdered. Lombard is the prime suspect.

Although she didn’t do it, her husband (MacMurray) is to defend her, believes she did but thinks he has a defense for her, so she admits to the crime.

And so on. Lombard’s troubles compound with her insistence on telling ever more elaborate lies, and with her husband’s insistence on truth and honesty (and his irritating innocence).

And then into the mix comes a cynical and cultured, but down on his luck, legal aficionado, John Barrymore.

The pacing is fast and the situations ludicrous and hilarious. While the business of the tongue in the cheek may be a little over done, Lombard is as funny as she ever was. This is Lombard at her absolute peak as a comic-romantic actress. This is Lombard as the queen of screwball. With the possible exception of My Man Godfrey, I don’t think I’ve ever seen her better.

Personally, I watch Carole Lombard movies to see this Carole Lombard. (Fred MacMurray is pretty darn good too – as are the supporting performers in this film, especially Una Merkel as Lombard’s best friend.)

This movie’s a gem. Recommended.

True Confession:
- Amazon.com (U.S.)
- Amazon.ca (Canada)

Tag: Classic Film, Movie Classics, Movies, DVDs, Carole Lombard, Fred MacMurray

Lombard does Garbo – sort of

2006-04-22T13:08:00.000-04:00

Slowly, I am making my way through Carole Lombard: The Glamour Collection. There’s just one movie left to watch as last night I took in the awkwardly named The Princess Comes Across (1936).

I have to assume the 1935 film Hands Across the Table had some success as The Princess Comes Across teams Lombard once again with Fred MacMurray. The 1935 film is a good movie (thus far the best of this six movie collection) and this attempt to recapture its successful elements works pretty well also, though not to quite the same degree.

It also does a few new things. It’s essentially a romantic comedy but it also blends in a murder mystery, so there are some suspense elements. These, however, aren’t particularly strong – the emphasis is on romance-comedy.

The film also seems to have some fun with having Carole Lombard do something of a send-up of Greta Garbo. Lombard plays a woman from Brooklyn, a struggling actress, who has scammed her way onto a cruise ship and into a movie by pretending to be a Swedish princess. When in her princess mode, Lombard puts on an accent and strikes an attitude that is pure Garbo. It’s very successful and also very funny.

MacMurray, on the other hand, is basically playing the same character he does in Hands Across the Table (though with a different name). Here, he’s a musician – a concertina playing band leader. But he’s also a smart-alecky, young man “on the make,” so to speak. He’s very breezy, throws out one liners and, soon, is in love with the princess.

He eventually discovers, or at least suspects, there is something not quite right about “the princess” but doesn’t let on that he knows. As with the earlier teaming with Lombard, both actors play characters who are in love but keeping secrets from the other – each is trying to maintain the upper hand.

In this sense, it is pretty standard 30’s romantic-comedy material. But with films like this the success lies less in the originality of the script than in the execution. In this case, with Lombard and MacMurray making a good pairing, the execution is pretty darned good – though I think Hands Across the Table works a bit better.

The one criticism I would have with The Princess Comes Across would be with the murder mystery aspect. That element often seems to strike a wrong note in the context of the rest of the film. I don’t think it is so much that the murder element doesn’t belong as it isn’t handled terribly well.

But that’s a fairly small quibble. Overall, this is a pretty good example of a 30’s romantic comedy and worth a viewing. And if you like Carole Lombard you’re sure to get a kick out of her take on Greta Garbo.

The Princess Comes Across:
- Amazon.com (U.S.)
- Amazon.ca (Canada)

Tag: Classic Film, Movie Classics, Movies, DVDs, Carole Lombard, Fred MacMurray

Love Before Breakfast – awful, just awful

2006-04-17T03:05:00.000-04:00

Although this is a structurally sound film, the end result is not and it is due to the characterizations, at least for me.

This is a Carole Lombard film but unlike Hands Across the Table, this film, Love Before Breakfast, is a mess. In the first half of the film we get Preston Foster as the love interest, Scott Miller. But he’s so obnoxious as the wealthy guy who has decided he wants Lombard’s Kay Colby character, you just want him to blow up or something. Good grief, he’s annoying.

In the film’s second half, his character Miller more or less gets his way and what we end up with is Lombard playing a twit – and now you want her to blow up or something.

In other words, the extremes they put the characters to in order to manage the storyline are ... well, too extreme. Neither is particularly likeable; both are actually quite annoying.

So while in a formal sense you can see how it probably should work in terms of execution it’s a disaster.

It’s a shame too, because some of the root elements are there. And certainly the actors are, at least as far as Lombard goes. But the role dissolves into such an idiot you just can’t get behind the story.

This is a good example of what does not work in romantic comedies.

Tag: Classic Film, Movie Classics, Movies, DVDs, Carole Lombard

Watching Visonti’s The Leopard

2006-04-15T12:34:00.000-04:00

As it’s a fairly pricey three disc set, I’ve been holding off on getting the DVD of Lucino Visconti’s The Leopard (1963) from The Criterion Collection. But I found it this weekend at 20% off and I think that’s about as cheap as I’ll ever find it, so I finally picked it up.

So last night I watched it, the Italian version – not the dubbed American version which is also included, though from everything I’ve heard about that version I’m not sure why they bothered.

I think this is the first time I’ve seen it from start to finish. When I was younger, I saw it in bits and pieces on TV – both the Italian and American versions. It’s long and epic and elegiac. And it’s beautifully shot.

The film shows “… the tumultuous years of Italy’s Risorgimento – when the aristocracy lost its grip and the middle classes rose and formed a unified, democratic Italy.” It certainly does, but it does this through the eyes of Prince Don Fabrizio Salina (Burt Lancaster) and because it does the film has the elegiac quality I mentioned. The Prince is probably the only one who knows and understands what is happening. He realizes he is old now; his world has past so he sees the events that go on around him with somewhat tired, bemused eyes – tinged a bit with regret but accepting nonetheless.

Visually, Lancaster is perfect as the Prince. He has the stature and bearing, as well as the world-weariness necessary for the role. (Although Visconti wasn’t exactly thrilled to get Lancaster, “a cowboy.”)

As the world is changing around him, the Prince sees someone will have to take his place. With not a great deal to choose from, he focuses on his nephew Tancredi (Alain Delon) as the best bet. The Prince also sees Tancredi will need to make a marriage that will provide him a fortune (as the Prince’s estate will be divided among all his children). This, he determines, should be the beautiful Angelica Sedara (Claudia Cardinale), daughter of Don Calogero Sedara, mayor of the town of Donnafugata. This would be a good marriage for the Prince’s family as the mayor, something of an oaf, has managed to become wealthy through land.

The Prince, in other words, is trying to arrange his world (his family) for when he he is gone – and it won’t be the same world he has known.

And it’s this that is most fascinating about The Leopard. While the social change may be inevitable and necessary, something is also lost and we see what is being lost in some of the low comedy and the boorish manners of the classes that are rising. In the first part of the film where we see the violence of the rebellion, there is also a sense of comedy to it. The rebels win less because of their ability to defeat the soldiers they face than through sheer numbers and disorganization.

Perhaps Claudia Cardinale best captures the change Visconti wants to show. She’s stunningly beautiful and appears perfectly suited for the formality of the world she’s entering (the Prince’s aristocratic world of privilege). Later, we see her at the dining table chewing her bottom lip nervously. Later still, her elbow is on the table, her chin resting in her hand as she slumps over listening to Tancredi and others. While she has the look to capture everyone, she doesn’t have the social niceties.

The Leopard (Il Gattopardo):
- Amazon.com (U.S.)
- Amazon.ca (Canada)

Tag: Classic Film, Movie Classics, Movies, DVDs, Lucino Visconti

Love and money – Hands Across the Table

2006-04-11T02:10:00.000-04:00

I’ve just watched Hands Across the Table (1935), yet another of the six films in the Carole Lombard: The Glamour Collection and it is nothing less than fantastic. I loved it.

It’s a wonderful romantic comedy.

Unlike the previous two films where Lombard was really playing second fiddle to lead male actors (William Powell and Bing Crosby) this is clearly Carole’s film augmented by a great and spirited performance from a young Fred MacMurray.

Thematically and structurally the story is pretty conventional (though maybe not so conventional in 1935, but certainly in terms of today). A young woman who has grown up poor, scrimps to save as a manicurist, believes she absolutely must marry for money – love is nonsense, money is the only intelligent choice.

She meets a man she believes has money. This notion is quickly dissuaded as she learns that not only does he not have money but he’s just as she is – angling for a marriage that will pay the bills.

If you’re at all familiar with films you can guess how this plays out.

The script's originality is not the issue here, though. It’s a conventional plot. What makes this such a marvelous film are the performances and the cinematic execution, especially in 1935 terms. This film just moves. It totally engages and completely delights.

There are several great moments in it – most with between Carole Lombard and Fred MacMurray but also those with Ralph Bellamy (who again plays a nice guy who ends up losing but we feel okay with that – hmm).

I’m particularly thinking of the scenes with Lombard and the drunken MacMurray. And, later, the scenes between the same two the night before they are to go their separate ways and, finally, Carole’s crying jag in Bellamy’s room.

Ultimately, what I liked so much about this film has nothing to do with originality. It has everything to do with execution. There are fine supporting performances to buttress the great performances we get from the leads – Lombard, MacMurray and Bellamy. The pacing is crisp and the sets and lighting are excellent, particularly in some of the more serious scenes.

The film is also fun for some of the sexual aspects that get through … There’s a certain amount of suggestion and innuendo that, had the film been made a few years later, I don’t believe would have made it to the final cut.

I’ve watched three of the six films in the set Carole Lombard: The Glamour Collection and, thus far, while I’ve enjoyed them all, this is easily the best. If you like romantic comedies, or you like Carole Lombard or both, this is highly recommended.

Hands Across the Table:
- Amazon.com (U.S.)
- Amazon.ca (Canada)

Tag: Classic Film, Movie Classics, Movies, DVDs, Carole Lombard, Fred MacMurray

Watching The Last Samurai yet again

2006-04-10T02:23:00.000-04:00

As well as I can remember, I’ve never posted about Edward Zwick’s The Last Samurai (2003). This surprises me because I like the movie so much. I’ve lost track of the number of times I’ve seen it.

I know that with all the media nonsense about Tom Cruise these days that the default response is to hate anything he’s involved with but, let’s be honest, for all his annoying media hoo-hah and some of those tedious action figure movies, he’s been involved in some great films and has given some great performances.

I’m not sure how he’s managed it, but manage it he has.

But The Last Samurai … it’s essentially an epic western, which may be why I like it so much. Now, by western I’m not referring to cowboys and shootouts and so on. I’m referring to the fact that this is essentially a romantic morality tale, which the best westerns almost always are. (And by romance I’m not referring to love stories but to a way of seeing and feeling about the situation and the characters and this also is informed by the moralistic aspect of the film.)

By morality I’m referring to the way a code of honour is in the background of everything the characters do or do not do. It’s implicit in some way in all their choices and in the way they feel about those choices and the situations they are in. Here, with this film, that code of honour is much more explicit – it is the Samurai’s code which, as it turns out, is very similar to the “the western code” that informed so many of the great Hollywood westerns.

Now you may wonder why the Tom Cruise character (Nathan Algren) is so prominent in the film when the “last samurai,” and the heart of the film, is Ken Watanabe’s character (Katsumoto). I think there are two reasons for this (ignoring the third, for the moment, which would be the marketing aspects of the Tom Cruise face and name).

First of all, Cruise’s Algren is us, the western audience. While the movie is set largely in Japan and it is about samurai it is not to be taken as a Japanese film. It is Japan seen through western eyes, in this case, Algren’s. So what he sees and how he interprets it is from the perspective of the west.

This leads to the second reason his character is significant. He provides the movie's major story arc. He begins in despair – no real sense of honour remaining to him, just cynicism and a kind of animalistic sense for survival. His journey to Japan becomes a spiritual one as he finds the honour feels he’s lost (and the west has lost) lives in the way the samurai conduct themselves, their code.

The film does not go for an easy (and unrealistic) happy ending, however (though it doesn’t leave us in despair either). While it’s suggested Algren may have gone on to a happier life, or at least one less troubled, the samurai are clearly through, falling ultimately to the mindless and amoral technology of the west.

The new displaces the old but, the film suggests, there is a spiritual vacuum at its heart … though perhaps not necessarily as the final gesture of the Japanese soldiers suggests a hunger for what the samurai represented.

In the end, what I most like about the film is that I find it compelling from beginning to end. Both Cruise and Watanabe are perfect in their performances and they are supported by actors who seem to be flawless in their roles.

It’s also visually riveting – both the action scenes (and their great representation of chaos) and the more subdued, character focused scenes.

As mentioned in one of the features on the DVD, some of the best scenes involve no dialogue at all – they are strictly visual, driven by great performances and cinematography.

I really cannot imagine someone not enjoying this film. I think it’s one of the best to come out in the last few years.

Note: The Last Samurai is currently available in standard DVD (widescreen and full screen editions) and will also be released on HD-DVD on April 18, 2006.

The Last Samurai:
- Amazon.com (U.S.)
- Amazon.ca (Canada)

Tags: Movies, DVD, The Last Samurai, Tom Cruise, Ken Watanabe

Narnia – now here’s a good movie

2006-04-08T03:05:00.000-04:00

There have been a number of over-hyped movies that have come to DVD recently and I’ve seen many of them. Frankly, almost all of them left me shrugging my shoulders and wondering what the fuss was about. Lots of cinematic hoo-hah and very little substance.

But tonight I watched Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Yes, it’s rather a long title but the movie is excellent. Actually, it’s better than excellent. It’s a real movie – one with an actual story.

I suppose C. S. Lewis can be credited with that as he wrote the book. Much like The Lord of the Rings trilogy, the film succeeds to a large extent because of its source material and the way the filmmakers approach that material.

To be honest, I’ve never actually read the C.S. Lewis books (unlike Tolkien’s trilogy) so I’m just guessing here. But I can't see this kind of story coming out of the movie world unless it was based on something written in a previous era.

Anyway … I highly recommend this one. It beats the pants off of most contemporary movies and, of those contemporary movies that employ big budgets, special effects and so on, none are even close to The Chronicles of Narnia. Forget King Kong – this is the movie you should see.

Tags: Movies, DVD, Chronicles of Narnia

We’re not making a good movie

2006-04-07T01:28:00.000-04:00

I’ve just watched the second movie from the set Carole Lombard: The Glamour Collection. It’s called We’re Not Dressing (1934) starring Bing Crosby and Carole Lombard.

This isn’t Carole Lombard’s film. As with Man of the World (which featured William Powell) this movie is about Bing Crosby, the male lead. Lombard is in a supporting role – a large supporting role, mind you, but supporting nonetheless.

And this is why the film leaves a great deal to be desired. It is a Crosby vehicle. It’s about Crosby the crooner and from the very opening, the guy is singing to beat the band. That he is singing isn’t the problem. The problem is that there is so much of it and that the songs, when you get down to it, are okay at best. Most sound like pale imitations of “Cheek to Cheek.”

The movie, therefore, is more than a little flat. However, there are some wonderful moments in it, most of them being the Lombard scenes. In fact, you really wish the emphasis had been switched and it had been a Lombard movie with Crosby playing second banana.

The Lombard scenes are pure Lombard. They have the sexiness and feistiness and humour you expect from Carole Lombard. She shines whenever she appears.

Then there are George Burns and Gracie Allen, who are screamingly funny. Though I’ve heard of their team for many years it is seldom I’ve had a chance to see them. While I assume this is just a taste of what they were together, they are just so funny.

And then there are Ethel Merman and Leon Errol. They, too, are fabulously funny, especially Errol as the drunken uncle.

I kept wishing Crosby would stop singing so we could get back to the interesting characters.

The Crosby hero character, by the way, has little development and little substance. It’s just a stereotype. Clearly, his job was simply to sing his way into the heroine’s heart, and the audiences too. That’s too bad. It’s not that he is poor in the role; it’s that there is nothing to it and, since it is the focus of the film, the movie suffers greatly.

But … for some of its sporadic better moments, We’re Not Dressing is worth a look.

Lombard and Powell – Man of the World

2006-04-06T01:46:00.000-04:00

First of all, apologizes for anyone who is finding my pages annoying these days. I’ve tried out some ad things to see how they worked and what would happen. Some may remain; some may go. What I want to know is … can I generate any money from my various sites without annoying the hell out of people? If I can, that would be nice since I sink more than a few dollars into my Internet stuff. If I can offset it, I’d like to. But I don’t want to become the owner of sleazeball pages.

Anyway … the point is, I’m experimenting to see what I can do and what I can’t. It’ll all settle down soon, soon. Please be patient.

As for movies …

Tonight I watched the first of my Carole Lombard movies on from the Carole Lombard: The Glamour Collection set. Visually, it’s pretty good for movies this old though it would be nice if they had done some cleaning up. (I say that having only seen one film from the collection, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.) But for the price, the quality is pretty good. The set is two discs with six movies included. This means movies on both sides of the discs, something I don’t care for but, again, given the price I can live with it.

The first film I watched was Man of the World (1931). I knew nothing about this film so imagine my pleasure when I saw it starred William Powell. Yes, it was a film that featured the stars of my all-time favourite movie My Man Godfrey, Powell and Carole Lombard.

It’s no where near as good as that movie but Man of the World is pretty good, if a bit odd. The first half is comedic in the romantic-comedy set up tradition. Powell is a sophisticated ne’er-do-well, falls in love with the charming daughter (Lombard) of a wealthy twit, she falls in love with him … And using what has since become a formulaic idea, he must confess to her who he really is and … and this is where it takes a different tack from the usual.

Normally, he would attempt to explain himself but never get a chance to. In most movies there is a kind of coitis-interruptus when this happens. In this case, Powell does get to explain himself. That was a surprise. The film takes even stranger directions than what we’ve become accustomed to in that she accepts him despite his past (which, given he's confessed, we expect) but he is guilt ridden by the idea of his past and the notion of saddling her with it, so he torpedoes the relationship.

In other words, the comedic sensibility of the opening half of the movie shuffles off to Buffalo and the film takes a somber turn for its latter half.

Yes, it’s romantic and to an extent it works, but it is not the expected resolution of the storyline. It should also be said it has a younger William Powell playing a bit more seriously than we have come to expect from his later films. He’s good at this but the scenes, again in the latter half, are not balanced by lighter ones so there is a heaviness to the movie’s final half partly due to Powell’s character. He's just too glum.

Having said all that, I still found the film quite delightful. However, it is a bit confused, I think, in that it wants to tell both a serious story and a lighter romance at the same time and it just doesn’t work that way. You have to make a choice.

The movie is worth seeing however, especially if you’re a fan of Carole Lombard and William Powell. (This is one of Carole Lombard’s earliest films.) You can see the beginnings of what would later be a great team in My Man Godfrey.

Tag: Classic Film, Movie Classics, Movies, DVDs, Carole Lombard, William Powell

My movie backlog – Lombard, Dietrich, etc.

2006-04-05T02:26:00.000-04:00

I’ve got movies coming out the wazoo these days. I managed to pick up some great films at Blockbuster of all places as “previously viewed” for $4.99 each, like: Marx Brothers A Night at the Opera and A Day at the Races, Stephen Fry’s Bright Young Things and Yimou Zhang’s (or Zhang Yimou, if you prefer) Raise the Red Lantern.

By the way … I highly recommend Bright Young Things. It’s a good film and includes a scene with Peter O’Toole that is hysterical.

I also had two Amazon orders arrive almost simultaneously. So both the 1956 and 1923 versions of Cecil B. DeMille’s The Ten Commandments are on deck. And also arriving (and both now viewed) are Donavan’s Reef (a John Wayne flick) and Heaven Knows, Mr. Alison (Robert Mitchum and Deborah Kerr, two favourites, directed by John Huston). Of the two, I’ve got to go with Heaven Knows, Mr. Alison as the better film – by quite a bit. But more about that in another post.

Also arriving – Carole Lombard: The Glamour Collection and Marlene Dietrich: The Glamour Collection. Taken together (the Lombard and Dietrich sets), that’s 11 more movies! The upside is that those films tend to be about 70 to 90 minutes long each – which makes them suitable for double features.

The point is, I’ve got a lot of stuff to watch. Sonewhere between 15 and 20 films. Whether I get to write about it all remains to be seen. But I’ll be watching movies while the rest of you are watching American Idol. Ha!

Tag: Classic Film, Movie Classics, Movies, DVDs

Two movies, two big budgets, two duds - and Yes

2006-04-01T02:51:00.000-04:00

"A story like mine should never be told."
- Memoirs of a Geisha -

You know, there's something to that. It seems to relate to a least two films I've seen this week. Though the issue may be less that the stories shouldn't be told so much as they shouldn't be told in certain ways.

I’ve watched a couple of this week’s big DVD releases – King Kong and Memoirs of a Geisha. In both cases – way too long.

And in both cases, I was bored.

And, in both cases, the problem is sort of the same – not enough emphasis on story, too much emphasis on how wonderful the world’s they were creating were. Yes, the pictures are interesting but images alone aren’t enough.

In the case of King Kong, I would have cut the first hour in half and, in the next two hours, taken a machete to the action scenes. They weren’t bad, they were just too much. And they got boring. I was getting up and doing dishes, laundry, anything because my mind was wandering.

Same thing with Memoirs of a Geisha (which was duller than King Kong). Pretty pictures but pretty pedestrian storytelling. And dull, dull, dull.

I also couldn’t figure out why it was in English. It would have made more sense in Japanese with sub-titles for those of us who don’t speak Japanese. It makes no sense, in 2006, to have a film set in Japan, with all Asian characters, in English – especially one concerning the story this one does. In fact, the movie overall is too Hollywood for its subject matter. (Where's Yasunari Kawabata when you need him?)

Nice story, but poorly executed. Pretty though. Unfortunately, pretty is interesting for about 15 minutes and this thing is over two hours long.

I also watched Sally Potter’s Yes this week, ten times better than those other two movies (Kong and Geisha). Though I wouldn’t say it’s a great film, unlike those other two, even with some failings it is 100 times more interesting and worthy of seeing a second time. (I’m still asking myself, “Yes, but what about the husband? What about the daughter?”)

While not meant as a criticism, I also wonder why Yes is written in verse. Why write it that way rather than the usual way (non-poetic). I suspect because we’re supposed to keep in mind that this is artifice, not life as it truly is (though that’s not quite true – yes, I contradict myself). We’re supposed to be aware that things are at least slightly heightened for the purposes of art – but again, why?

I think because we’re supposed to question it. And I’ve lots of questions.

Anyway … While none of these three films is an out of the park home run, Yes beats the pants off of King Kong and Memoirs of a Geisha. I was not bored for a single moment watching that one.

And, in the end, it simply isn't worth
your while to try and clean your life away.
You can't. For, everything you do or say
is there, forever. It leaves evidence.
In fact it's really only common sense;
there's no such thing as nothing, not at all.
It may be really very, very small
but it's still there. In fact I think I'd guess
that "no" does not exist. There's only "yes".
- Yes -

Week-end in Havana – very 1940s

2006-03-26T03:40:00.000-04:00

While you couldn’t call it a great movie, I was surprised at how much fun was to be had with the musical film Week-end in Havana (1941).

For one thing, it just looks good. It’s technicolour and, from a 1940’s perspective, very exotic (it’s set in a Hollywood version of Havana, after all). But it also has four great performances - Cesar Romero, John Payne, Alice Faye and the always singular Carmen Miranda.

Romero, in particular, is wonderful. He’s dashing and he’s funny at the same time. As, in a different way, is John Payne. Alice Faye is your basic Hollywood female star, and she’s very good at it.

This is a very programmed movie, meaning its story is a Hollywood template. And yes, you know more or less how the story is going to go, but that’s fine. In fact, in many ways, that is the point of the movie. It tries to deliver what is expected of it. What makes it work is how well it does this and what it can do within those tight parameters to make it stand out.

Week-end in Havana may not be a movie for everyone; it may be just for people who like this kind of film: classic Hollywood, a musical, a standard story line. This is 1940’s escapism. But my, it is so much fun to watch! At least for me.

Notes:

- I love Cesar Romero's off-white linen suit when he dances with Alice Faye (the white shoes, not so much).

- Strangely, I found the comic romantic scene between Carmen Miranda and John Payne a tad erotic - perhaps it was Carmen's feistiness.

- There are a number of great innuendo moments in this film. John Payne opening the champagne is a good example.

- Carmen Miranda's outfits are wonderfully outrageous. I love them.

Week-end in Havana:
- Amazon.com (U.S.)
- Amazon.ca (Canada)

Tag: Classic Film, Movie Classics, Movies, DVDs, Week-end in Havana, Carmen Miranda

Pride & Prejudice – I loved it

2006-03-21T03:45:00.000-04:00

I’m extremely annoyed with myself because I had written the beginnings of a piece on the film Pride & Prejudice and I can’t seem to find it now. So, starting from scratch …

I loved this film. But let me start where my first version started. With Jane Austen.

When you go to university and get your degree in English literature you end up reading a lot of books. That makes sense; it’s reasonable. However, it should be noted that many of these books, in fact (at least initially) are mind-numbingly dull. So it’s a hard slog.

This isn’t to say the books are without worth. They would not be on the curriculum if they were. But books are more than arranged words. They are ideas. They are culture. They are societies. And they are history.

So, when reading an older book, particularly one from the 17th, 18th or 19th centuries, you are dealing with attitudes, culture, syntax and many other things that are not your own. Thus, many older works are not as readily accessible as contemporary ones. It takes some time to acclimate to the author’s style and the world he or she is telling about.

Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice was the first novel I read while studying Enlish literature that I almost immediately was absorbed by. I couldn’t believe how easily it read. I couldn’t get over how much I liked it. Yes, the sentence structure and characters and story overall seemed a bit formal, yet it read so well. It was so engaging.

Why? There is a litany of reasons you could list off, beginning perhaps with wit, but I think the main reason is behaviour. Jane Austen has human behavior nailed down.

Now, finally getting to the film, what I most like about the movie Pride & Prejudice is how it articulates and shows human behavior. I don’t have Austen’s text memorized so I can’t compare the film and the book, but I’m pretty sure the movie takes numerous liberties with her story. But that’s okay. I think it remains true to its essence, how people behave.

More than anything else, I love how the film depicts women. I think a lot of this is communicated by camera work, editing and sound/dialogue. I noticed how the camera (using a steadi-cam) is often moving, moving, moving when we have the several sisters together. In a house full of women (Mr. Bennet excepted) it captures the constant activity of women, the several conversations that occur simultaneously, just as women seem to do when they are together. One is playing piano, two are chasing one another through the house, another is working on the table setting … all are doing something, yet all are interacting with the other women in the house. And all at the same time.

And Mr. Bennet stands back bemused and befuddled by it all, and also in love with all of it.

This is what I most love about this movie – the depiction of women.

I would add, too, that for someone (me) who pays more attention to story and structure and isn’t terribly observant when it comes to the visual aspects of films, I was also struck by how this film was shot. As I mentioned above, there is a great deal of camera movement, usually in informal scenes, especially when the women are relaxed, being themselves with one another. But the film is also quite static and consciously framed in the more formal scenes. In fact, there is a certain Sergio Leone quality to the way some scenes are staged for the framing. Or so it seems to me.

In some films, this could be a problem. It would be simply too much cinematic artifice for a convincing film. But I think in this case, with the world it is showing us, it works perfectly and it’s definitely one of the aspects of the movie I most enjoyed.

I also loved all of the performances. Although a few have disagreed, I think Keira Knightly is perfect as Elizabeth Bennet, as are Donald Sutherland as Mr. Bennet and Rosamund Pike as Jane. It is, however, a bit misleading to mention those three since everyone in the film is bang on.

Finally … to be honest, the film works because it begins with such extraordinary material. Jane Austen has to be credited with that. It is simply a great story, well told. The movie itself is a success because of how it presents that story, and that lies in the excellence of the screenplay, direction and performances.

This film is about as close to a perfect love story as they get.

Tag: Movies, DVDs, Pride & Prejudice, Keira Knightly, Jane Austen

Great lines – Out of the Past

2006-03-20T03:02:00.000-04:00

I finally watched Out of the Past tonight (starring Robert Mitchum and Jane Greer). It’s a great film noir piece and there are a lot of great lines in it like, “And then I saw her, coming out of the sun …”

Yes, great lines. But my favourite line has to be:

“He couldn’t find a prayer in the Bible.”

Now that was funny. Of course, this is noir and it’s not a comedy – still, that was a funny line.

As movies go, Out of the Past is great. Unfortunately, it’s late so I can’t ramble on about it. But take my word for it, this is good and highly recommended.

Tag: Classic Film, Movie Classics, Movies, DVDs

Lombard, Dietrich ... and John Ford?

2006-03-19T14:44:00.000-04:00

Looking at some of the discs due to be released in the coming weeks and months, it seems clear companies like Warner Bros. are determined to keep me from paying off my mortgage. I mention Warner in particular because of some of their box sets and their planned HD-DVDs (due in April). Have a look at what's coming:

March 21:

- The Busby Berkeley Collection (Footlight Parade / Gold Diggers of 1933 / Dames / Gold Diggers of 1935 / 42nd Street)
- Stalag 17 (Special Collector's Edition)
- The Ten Commandments (50th Anniversary Edition)

April 4:

- Carole Lombard: The Glamour Collection (Hands Across the Table/ Love Before Breakfast/ Man of the World/ The Princess Comes Across/ True Confession/ We're Not Dressing)
- Marlene Dietrich: The Glamour Collection (Morocco/ Blonde Venus/ The Devil Is a Woman/ Flame of New Orleans/ Golden Earrings)
- Mae West: The Glamour Collection (Go West Young Man/ Goin' To Town/ I'm No Angel/ My Little Chickadee/ Night After Night)
We're Not Dressing)
- Films of Faith Collection (The Nun's Story / The Shoes of the Fisherman / The Miracle of Our Lady of Fatima)

June 6:

The John Wayne-John Ford Collection - This a 10 disc set that features 8 movies from the team of John Ford and John Wayne, including ...

- The Searchers: Ultimate Collector’s Edition
- Stagecoach: Two Disc Special Edition

Although both of these have previously been available on DVD, it looks like now they will be getting the kind of disc treament they should have. I'm hoping these will look great - in the case of Stagecoach it will be restored and remastered from the best available film elements. But the collection will also include three films previously unavailable on DVD:

- Fort Apache (1948)
- The Long Voyage Home (1940)
- Wings of Eagles (1957)

From what I understand, many of the movies in The John Wayne-John Ford Collection will be available individually, however not all of them will be. You read more about this planned release and take a look at some of the artwork by a quick visit to DVD Times.

Tag: Classic Film, Movie Classics, Movies, DVDs, Carole Lombard, Marlene Dietrich, Mae West, John Wayne, John Ford, Busby Berkeley

The Talk of the Town (1942)

2006-03-18T16:53:00.000-04:00

This is something I posted a while back that I decided to post again after seeing a few other mentions of it online. I rated it as a 3 out of 5.)

This is a movie that mixes romantic-comedy and thriller, though the emphasis would be more on the former. But because The Talk of the Town mixes the two, it falters a bit. But not a lot.

It begins smartly by establishing itself with quick, mostly non-dialogue scenes. A factory burns, a man dies in the fire. Arson is the cause, and Leopold Dilg is arrested (Cary Grant with an unlikely name). It's a rush to justice; Dilg’s guilt is a foregone conclusion.

The factory owner has the town stirred up against Dilg and everyone is calling for an execution. Dilg, with no seeming choice, escapes prison.

He flees to a house where Nora (“the prettiest girl in town”) is preparing for a tenant. She hides Dilg in the attic. The tenant, the very straight-laced and famous law professor Michael Lightcap (Ronald Coleman) arrives early and Nora is in a fix – what to do with Dilg?

Up to the moment the scene shifts to the house and Nora (Jean Arthur, hair done up and shaded a light brunette here), the movie is very dramatic. While it’s quick and very well done, the shots of a brooding Cary Grant somehow don’t work.

In fact, through the whole film Grant somehow doesn’t seem quite right when playing the brooding part.

This may be less his performance than baggage brought from other roles (pre-conceptions of the Grant character), but it doesn’t seem quite right. He’s best when he finally steps out of the shadows and starts engaging both Nora and the Professor in banter.

The story of the film is how the three main characters work to get to the truth of things and prove Dilg’s innocence. The real story, though, is how Nora and Leopold loosen up the Professor, and the conflict Nora has with whom she loves. She loves both men – who will she end up with?

In fact, this movie is really Jean Arthur’s movie, and she is wonderful in it, even if she is playing the Jean Arthur character – pretty self-assured till she’s in a fix, then a bit scrambled.

The best performance, though, may come from Ronald Coleman. His tight-bummed Professor, and the arc he follows to loosen up, is excellent. He plays serious perfectly, while also playing innocence without any false notes.

Overall, The Talk of the Town is a very good romantic comedy, though somewhat overlong. It works best when focused on its comedic aspects and seems to lose itself when veering off for a moment or two to be serious.

I think director George Stevens may have been trying to comment to some extent on mob justice, and the rule of law.

However, as in his movie Shane (and generally any film that has a message), all this does is bog the movie down with earnestness. It becomes an appeal to the head rather than the heart.

Films tend to operate best viscerally.

The Talk of the Town (1942):
- Amazon.com (U.S.)
- Amazon.ca (Canada)

Tag: Classic Film, Movie Classics, Movies, DVDs

In A Lonely Place and the tragic flaw

2006-03-14T18:02:00.000-04:00

Although I've put this assessment of In A Lonely Place online before, elsewhere, I like the movie so much I'm posting it here. And I'm thinking I'm may watch it again tonight.

Watching In a Lonely Place, I couldn't help recalling all those English Lit classes about tragedy and the hero with a tragic flaw. This is a film noir with Humphrey Bogart playing such a character and the result is a great, if heartbreaking, movie.

As someone else commented (somewhere on the Web - I don't remember where), it's a little eyebrow raising to find out the set was a replica of a place where director Nicholas Ray lived and the film is called In a Lonely Place.

This is a movie about loneliness. As with many noir films, the hero (or anti-hero) is an outsider. He's isolated from everyone around him. Here, however, he has a chance to alleviate that loneliness, finding love with a woman he feels understands him (Gloria Grahame).

Humphrey Bogart plays Dixon Steele, a Hollywood screenwriter with a less than stellar career. He's cynical about the business he's in, dislikes its commercialism, and goes about with a chip on his shoulder. He also has a volatile temper. The anger he carries around with him is generally repressed but always on the verge of boiling over. Often, it does.

He's given a novel to read to see what he can do about turning it into a script. But rather than read the novel, he gets a starry-eyed hatcheck girl to come over to his place and tell him the story (since she has read it).

Later, after leaving, the girl is found murdered. Steele becomes a suspect, the lead detective's prime candidate.

Steele has an alibi, however. It comes by way of Laurel Grey (Grahame), his neighbour across the courtyard. Steele and Grey develop a relationship and are soon in love. This love frees Dixon from his demons, at least for a time, and he starts riding a creative wave, writing the script he's been asked for but, at the same time, turning it from a trashy novel into something considerably better.

But the investigation of the murder haunts Dixon and Laurel. His temper soon resurfaces and she sees this part of him. Soon, she (and we, the audience) start to wonder if Steele is innocent or not. His temper certainly makes it seem possible he committed the crime.

Doubt and distrust begin to eat away at Dixon and Laurel's relationship and it soon starts to spiral downward.

Bogart is tremendous in this movie and you could make a good case for this being his best performance. While you can empathize with him to an extent, and want the relationship of Dixon and Laurel to work, you can't help also disliking him because of his anger and suspicions. With a personality such as his, with his emotional problems, it's easy to see how if the relationship were to work it would soon become characterized by domestic violence.

Gloria Grahame is also perfect. It's difficult to imagine anyone else in this role. You can see the love and fear battling within her. In noir movies, she's the ideal femme fatale. (See The Big Heat, for example.)

The movie also has a perfect ending. It has something of a twist to it but it doesn't seem forced or imposed. Rather, it seems inevitable.

While In a Lonely Place begins with the appearance of a potboiler murder story (which I gather the book it came from was), the murder here is just an excuse to tell the the real story - the relationship between Dixon and Laurel, and how Dixon's flaw affects and determines its end.

Note:

There is also some great black and white cinematography here. Roger Deakins has mentioned this as one of the movies that influenced the shooting of the Coen brothers The Man Who Wasn't There.

In A Lonely Place:
- Amazon.com (U.S.)
- Amazon.ca (Canada)

Tag: Classic Film, Movie Classics, Movies, DVDs, In A Lonely Place, Humphrey Bogart, Noir

I regurgitate my thoughts on Kiss Me Deadly

2006-03-12T13:51:00.000-04:00

A couple of years ago I watched Kiss Me Deadly for the first time. While I know the movie is well thought of by quite a few people, I have to be honest: I hated it. Here's a portion of the review I wrote back when I saw it:

While the tonal darkness of the film is appropropriate, the lack of balance with anything off-setting makes the overall movie feel like a lengthy root canal procedure. It's painful and unrelenting. The ending, while fitting, leaves you wondering about the point of the whole thing. The film begins in darkness and ends in deeper darkness and while this may make it almost the quinessential noir film it also reveals the weakness of the noir approach, at least when taken to excess. As with consuming too much of any good thing, you're left feeling queasy.

The film makes for an interesting study though. As one of the latter films of the initial wave of noir films (roughly mid 40's to mid 50's), it shows the style at its furthest reaches of development. Its strengths have now become weaknesses. The darkness that informed the style in its beginnings and created a tone for the telling of certain stories has now become the dominent feature of the stories. It's far too excessive here.

Noir, I think, is essentially romance turned on its head. It's about disappointment and its mood is melancholy. In Kiss Me Deadly, the undertone of romantic loss is gone and is replaced by self-indulgent cynicism (the ultimate opposite end of romance). It ends now not in disappointment but horrific "I told you so" disaster.

While I suppose it's as legitimate viewpoint as any, as a film experience it's an unpleasant one.

Recommended for noir freaks only. Definitely NOT recommended for anyone suffering from depression.

You know, I'd like to give the movie another chance. But I had such a negative response to it the first time, I find it difficult to bring myself to watch it again. But maybe one day.

(By the way ... there's an interesting discussion about in this thread, Kiss Me Deadly debate.)

Kiss Me Deadly:
- Amazon.com (U.S.)
- Amazon.ca (Canada)

Tag: Classic Film, Movie Classics, Movies, DVDs, Kiss Me Deadly, Noir

Missing jade necklaces: Murder, My Sweet

2006-03-10T03:06:00.000-04:00

Needing to get back to some older movies after a pretty lengthy drought, tonight I watched one that had been in my movies on-deck circle for some time, 1944’s Murder, My Sweet directed by Edward Dmytryk and written by John Paxton based on the Raymond Chandler novel.

First of all – it’s good. Not great, but a good noir film and it captures most of the noir elements. It stars Dick Powell in the Philip Marlowe role and, if the scribblings on the packaging are to be believed, Powell was Chandler’s “favorite screen Marlowe.”

Not mine, however. And that is not to say I didn’t like him in the role. But I came away with a great desire to go back and watch Humphrey Bogart as Marlowe in The Big Sleep (also as Sam Spade in The Maltese Falcon).

Again, this is no knock on Murder, My Sweet but, good as it is, it’s not an out of the park home run. (What’s with the baseball metaphors?)

The movie has a lot of what you would expect from a movie of this kind: a lot of uncertainty as characters appear to be good, then bad, then good again, then bad. Marlowe seems to think one thing then it’s shown he was only pretending, although a later scene shows he actually does think and feel that way. In other words, it twists quite a bit and in many cases the twists are arbitrary for the sake of being a twist and to sustain the mood. But they don’t make a lot of sense.

But that’s okay, it’s what we expect and want from a movie like this.

While this isn’t the best noir film of all time, it’s definitely a good example of the genre and an entertaining movie.

Murder, My Sweet:
- Amazon.com (U.S.)
- Amazon.ca (Canada)

Tag: Classic Film, Movie Classics, Movies, DVDs, Murder My Sweet, Philip Marlowe

Water – Deepa Mehta’s very human film

2006-03-09T03:03:00.000-04:00

I wasn’t sure what to expect from Deepa Mehta’s film Water. My impression going into it was it might be a little too earnest for my taste. But I’m happy to say that isn’t the case.

I watched it tonight and really liked it. As mentioned in one of the featurettes on the DVD, the way it is shot, the look, counterbalances to a degree the somewhat despairing aspect of the situation so you are not overwhelmed by it and continue to be carried along by the story. It’s as visually engaging as it is engaging in terms of the story, though in a different way.

(That probably makes no sense unless you’ve seen it – it simply means, it’s well lit, coloured, and shot … and the story is compelling.)

And I was happy that the theme, and how it is explored, is more than simply about women in history, some pretty awful conditions and a dreadul situation. Rather, it uses the situation of widows in India as a starting place to tell a much more encompassing human story.

I’m trying to explain this without explaining the story and probably haven’t done a good job. (I'm trying to avoid a recounting of the plot - something I generally find pointless in movie reviews and, in some cases, revealing of the movie in a way you don't want.) I’m probably sounding more muddled than anything though I think what I’ve tapped out here makes a bit more sense once you’ve seen the movie.

The point of this post, however, is that this is a good film and well worth seeing. The story captures you and carries you along. It is definitely a film to be recommended as it is wonderfully shot and constructed (both in terms of story and visually).

On the two disc DVD edition that I have, just released in Canada (I don’t think it’s available in the United States yet), there are two versions. One in Hindi with subtitles and another “alternate version” shot in English – not previously released. I have only seen the Hindi version so far so I’ve no idea what the English one is like.

But I would say this about the Hindi version. Unlike some subtitled movies, this film is very visual so following the subtitles is not that difficult. In fact, at times I forgot to read them as so much of the story is conveyed visually. (As opposed to some films where a great deal is in the dialogue and you can’t really watch the film – you’re too busy reading subtitles to follow the story.) So I think you’re probably better off watching the Hindi version. It is, after all, set in India, 1938.

Water - Special Edition (2 discs):
- Amazon.ca (Canada)

Tags: Movies, DVD, Water, Deepa Mehta

Clueless Hollywood - the Oscar scolding

2006-03-06T14:11:00.000-04:00

This morning following the Oscar broadcast I found it interesting to listen to what people were talking about.Two things seemed to dominate - the Academy's message about DVDs and Jon Stewart as host. Stewart seems to have received universal approval.

The same can't be said for the DVD message. What were they thinking? It seemed a very patronizing and ill-informed approach to a genuine problem. They seem to equate DVDs with piracy, whereas I thought they made quite a bit of money on DVD sales.

My guess is that Hollywood will go down the same road as the music industry: not understanding, accepting and adapting to changing technology and audiences but rather fighting it tooth and nail and thereby driving more and more people to pirated materials, if only because the industry is so pig-headed.

They need to also consider that, in the light of reduced revenues, while piracy may be a problem it was not movie audiences that chose to make a movie like The Dukes of Hazzard.

Tags: Movies, DVD, Hollywood, Oscars, Academy Awards

Brilliant, disturbing – The Weather Man

2006-02-27T02:57:00.000-04:00

“Always fast food. Fast food. Things that people would rather throw out than finish. It's easy, it tastes all right, but it doesn't really provide you any nourishment. I'm fast food.”

I don’t know how to describe, or recommend, the move The Weather Manwithout scaring people away from it. I’m convinced that when I make my list of best DVDs for 2006 this will be on it simply on the merits of the film. It’s easily the best thing I’ve seen in quite a long time.

But it’s also incredibly depressing.

Normally, I dislike movies that are as down as this but somehow, and I’m not sure how, director Gore Verbinski and writer Steve Conrad (not to mention Nicolas Cage in what may be his best performance) have made this an utterly compelling film.

I know Dave Spritz (Cage’s character). I sometimes fear I am Dave Spritz. As Roger Ebert points out, while this is a comedy of sorts (a satire), it’s really a tragedy. That is the arc. However, part of what makes this movie so interesting is the way the script plays with that.

In terms of how the final scenes are presented, such as the style, it feels like a kind of happy ending, almost a Hollywood ending. But once you think about what the ending is, what it means … well, then you see what Ebert means about the story being about a hero who falls from “a low height.”

It is a fall, despite the tone of the ending (which is part of the satirical element).

I suppose what I most like about the film is that it is a story of a man who is average at best (or, as the character Spritz himself puts it, “I’m fast food”) struggling in our contemporary world, one that is predicated on him being exactly that – average at best, fast food.

I should mention the other brilliant performance in the film, which is Michael Caine as Spritz’s father Robert. Caine manages to get most of the best lines and shares the movie's best scene with Cage.

And despite the humour in the film (which is really not that funny as it’s undercut, fittingly I think, by the music which continually reminds us of what we’re seeing), it is Caine’s character who really gets at what the movie’s informing theme is when he refers to “this shit life.”

The movie is about coming to terms with that, rather a dubious accomplishment as the movie suggests.

Tag: Movies, DVDs, The Weather Man, Gore Verbinski, Steve Conrad, Michael Caine, Nicholas Cage

What I’ve been watching

2006-02-12T03:30:00.000-04:00

My posts seems to be very light on content and not terribly frequent these days. So it goes when life insists you pay the rent. But …

Earlier in the week I picked up (and watched) Breakfast at Tiffany’s – Anniversary Edition. While I’ve always liked the movie, it does have a few problems (like Mickey Rooney’s Japanese guy – not a great idea).

But you have to love Audrey Hepburn in this. And the quality of this disc seems pretty good so, given the price, it’s well worth picking this up.

I also watched A Very Long Engagement, which I personally like a lot more than Amelie, also directed by Jean-Pierre Jeunet and starring Audrey Tautou. Unfortunately, I’m not sure I can articulate why I liked it so much. I’ll try to figure it out.

Let’s see … what else? Well, Hustle & Flow was pretty darned good. I also watched The Gift (from 2000), which I liked quite a bit (I like most things with Cate Blanchett).

Also watched Educating Rita (1983) – a pretty film good though not as good as I remember. (I saw it way back when it came out and absolutely loved it. Time has taken some of the glow off for me, though.)

Finally … I’ve watched Cameron Crowe’s Elizabethtown – actually, I watched it twice. Although hugely flawed, I really liked it a lot – probably because it’s a type of movie I’m drawn to and I like Kirsten Dunst. But I do think the movie overcomes its flaws and works to a degree.

While it appears I've not been watching older movies recently (and I haven't), this should change soon. In the "on-deck circle"? Chaplin's City Lights (1931). And Ford's Young Mr. Lincoln (1939). So I'm excited.

Tag: Classic Film, Movie Classics, Movies, DVDs

I'm still watching older movies

2006-01-28T04:43:00.000-04:00

It appears from my last few posts that all I'm watching is new movies. But actually, that's not quite the case. It's true I go in phases where I go for a period focused on older films then a new phase of newer ones, but the last few posts are a bit misleading. They appear to be all recent releases. But ...

One of the best of the discs I've watched recently was High Sierra (1940) ... that's the one that kind of got Humphrey Bogart going and it's absolutely wonderful. I don't know if I'll get around to writing about it, but just so you know (if you don't already), it's a bit of a noir piece.

I'm also in the process of working my way through Sam Peckinpah's the Legendary Westerns, a collection of four of his films of which I've so far watched Ride the High Country and The Ballad of Cable Hogue.

Anyway ... the point is, I am watching a good variety of new and old, I just haven't had the time to post about them.

But I'll try! I'll try!

Tags: Movies, DVD, High Sierra, Peckinpah

My top DVDs of last year revised slightly

2006-01-22T04:00:00.000-04:00

A while back I posted My Top Ten DVDs of 2005 … but I was rushed when I did it and hadn’t really given it the thought I should have. And there was one glaring omission. And that, of course, was Serenity.

How could I have missed that?

It’s easily my favourite film of last year. In fact, I spent Christmas watching Serenity and, afterwards, watching the Firefly series.

(Yes, I was compelled to pick up that DVD after seing the movie.)

What is it about Serenity that makes it so good? Well, like a really good TV series it yanks you into its characters and makes you want to know what’s happening to them. Also, despite being science fiction of sorts, it’s really a western – with all the clichés and romanticism and mythology that that implies.

It has action but, unlike some of the more idiotic action films, it knows that it’s most riveting element is its characters and so, even during action sequences, the film pauses for a line or two of dialogue that reinforces who the characters are and what their motivations are. It’s not just guys banging each other over the head and some razzle dazzle cinematic tricks.

More than anything else, though, it is just fun to watch. I’ve seen it three times now and I’m surprised that I’m not yet tired of it. I will likely watch it again soon.

I think it wins hands down as my favourite film of last year. I think it's the science fiction film I was always hoping the various Star Trek films might be.

Tag: Movies, DVDs, Serenity

Lord of War - the lecture

2006-01-19T13:53:00.000-04:00

Quickly ... watched Lord of War last night and I'm still trying to determine what I thought of it. Actually, I do know ... but I want to watch it again as my mood may have influenced my perception.

But here are a few thoughts ... the first thing that struck me was how dark the DVD is. I think they went overboard in the transfer with the contrast or whatever the tech way to describe it is called. Scenes are supposed to be dark but this seemed excessive to me. Some shots were silhouettes, but so were some shots that weren't supposed to be. At least, that's how it struck me.

I wished they had packaged the two disc set in something other than lame-ass cardboard.

The movie ... I was a bit put off because, as I've mentioned in other places, I'm not a big fan of films that use voice over narration. And this film is almost all voice over narration. So to a large degree my sense was of a story being told as opposed to being shown.

The film is very earnest about it's subject matter (the sale of guns). And while I am sympathetic to the point of view, it felt like listening to an impassioned speech. It felt like being lectured to.

As someone on another site describe it (can't remember which one), it's a bit like an extended public service announcement.

I'll give the film another chance, as I said. But I think generally I was disappointed. I believe some of the good reviews the film received were based on being told what we want to hear, rather than seeing a good story on film.

Tag: Movies, DVDs, Lord of War

The Constant Gardener - good but some reservations

2006-01-11T21:38:00.000-04:00

I orginally posted this as a comment on DVD Town (to their review of The Constant Gardener). But I thought I'd put it up here ... for what it's worth:

I just watched the film and I'm a little ... uncertain what I think. I liked the it, i'm just not sure how much I liked it.

I've read the novel and wish I hadn't - I'd prefer to see a film without preconceptions. Still, I suspect having read the novel doesn't affect the viewing all that much. The visual style, however, does.

While I had no problem in the second half of the film, once it had decided to settle on Ralph Fiennes' character, in the first half I found the documentary style (for lack of a better word) simply compounded what was already a confusing exposition.

So I'm not so sure I give this a big stylistic thumbs up. I think it might have played better with a more conventional style. I think in the first half there is simply too much information to convey for this kind of approach. I think the style, as a style, is fine but requires a more simple story to work effectively.

As you've mentioned, both in the movie and the book, the relationship is easily the most compelling element of the story. The drug company thing ... well, that's the usual movie stuff. But the relationship - now that was compelling.

But I'll have to watch it again before I decide.

Tag: Movies, DVDs, Constant Gardener

My Top Ten DVDs of 2005

2006-01-08T02:51:00.000-04:00

Yes, I'm a little slow getting this up but better late than never.

As mentioned in previous years, more than anything else this reflects what I watched - it's as much gut based as it is critical. Maybe more so. I've watched all of these several times since getting them simply because I liked them. In some cases it's based primarily on the quality of the film though the quality of the DVD and it's overall packaging is often a factor too.

Which is why I think to To Kill A Mockingbird may have been the best DVD release of 2005. Quite apart from the merits of the film, the DVD and its packaging were superb as well. (On the other hand, The Miracle of Morgan's Creek is based strictly on the film - the DVD is a pretty good transfer but nothing to write home about in terms of the features or packaging, which are all but non-existent.) And in some cases, I put collections in as opposed to single movies because - well, they were great collections.

Again, in no particular order, my top ten DVDs of 2005:

- Bringing Up Baby (1938)
- Finding Neverland (2004)
- Errol Flynn: The Signature Collection (1935 - 1941)
- A Love Song for Bobby Long (2004)
- The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (2004)
- Million Dollar Baby (2004)
- The Complete Thin Man Collection (1934 - 1947)
- Crash (2004)
- To Kill A Mockingbird - Special Edition (Legacy Series) (1962)
- The Miracle of Morgan's Creek (1944)

Tag: Classic Film, Movie Classics, Movies, DVDs, Top DVDs 2005

Still here and watching movies

2006-01-06T02:54:00.000-04:00

Yes, I've been M.I.A. for quite some time, though I've been watching movies. A LOT of movies.

For instance, tonight I watched The Skeleton Key, a movie that was okay - not great - until it got to the end where it sucked in a very major way. Predictable ending - the kind where some idiot decides he or she will be clever and do a Twilight Zone kind of end. That means (bit of a spoiler here) that the good guys come out badly and the bad guys win.

It's the kind of ending you dream up when you're 16 and think you're brilliant. I found it a very disappointing end to a movie that, up to that point, had been a parade of cliches fairly well handled.

By the way ... who was the genius who hired a great actor like John Hurt to play a part where he does nothing but groan and look pathetic? A freaking monkey could have played that. If you're going to hire good actors, give them something to do for heaven's sake.

The movie isn't as bad as I make it sound. But the more I think about it the more annoyed I get at its wasted potential.

On the other hand ... should you want to see a good movie, one of the many films I've seen recently is This Gun For Hire (1942) with Veronica Lake (looking fabulous), Robert Preston and Alan Ladd as the somewhat tortured Raven, a somewhat troubled killer. A great noir piece.

I've seen many other films recently, and hope to get to them eventually. For example, Two for the Road (1967) was pretty good (Audrey Hepburn and Albert Finney), as was Leave Her To Heaven (1950), in a bit of a soap opera-ish way (Gene Tierney, Cornel Wilde and Jeanne Crain).

And my favourite over the holiday period, the TV series Firefly and the subsequent movie Serenity. They were fabulous!

Tag: Classic Film, Movie Classics, Movies, DVDs, Skeleton Key

Lost at sea - Hitchocock's Lifeboat

2005-11-26T14:09:00.000-04:00

I haven't been feeling well the last few days and thus haven't had an inclination to do much of anything, but ... I did manage to watch a film or two, including Alfred Hitchcock's Lifeboat (1944).

It was pretty good. As with most Hitchcock, he sets himself a challenge - in this case, shooting an entire movie within the confines of a lifeboat. From the opening shot of Tallulah Bankhead in her fur coat, with her camera sitting in the boat, right to the end, everything goes on in the boat.

You would think the film would get claustrophopic, but it doesn't. In fact, the scenes move quite quickly, and compellingly.

The film works partly because of the script (a story by John Steinbeck, screenplay by Jo Swerling). Relationships form, shift and develop through the movie. And it's set on the Atlantic during World War II (when it was also shot), so part of the drama comes from the fact that one of the passengers on the lifeboat is the captain of the German boat that sank the liner the rest of the passengers had been on.

In a way, it's a standard dramatic situation - take a disparate group of people and throw them together, here in a tightly enclosed space none of them can flee.

In a way, Hitchcock has made an entire film using a single set, much as he did with Rope though his approach is very different.

Regardless of what he does, the end result is a very entertaining movie.

Tag: Classic Film, Movie Classics, Movies, DVDs, Hitchcock, Lifeboat

King Kong on deck

2005-11-22T20:54:00.000-04:00

I can't say I'm overly excited about Peter Jackson's remake of King Kong - but that may change once it's out. As a general rule, I don't like remakes.

I am excited, however, about the Amazon package that arrived today with my King Kong Collection. This includes the special edition two disc set of the original King Kong (1933), the sequel Son of Kong, and Mighty Joe Young (1949). Also arriving in the Amazon box was a completely unrelated movie, Operation Petticoat (1959), which starred Cary Grant and Tony Curtis.

Jackson's King Kong may be the exception - a good remake. But until I see it and can judge, I'm more than happy to have the original. There's a certain charm to those black and white movies.

And really, there is no remaking Fay Wray, the girl from Cardston, Alberta.

Tag: Classic Film, Movie Classics, Movies, DVDs, King Kong, Fay Wray

Hitchcock's Dial M for Murder quite slow

2005-11-20T11:32:00.000-04:00

I see most movies by myself - perhaps because I watch so many, and so many during the week. But seeing movies with others, especially with people who like movies but are not aficionados, definitely is insightful.

After dinner last night, three of us sat down to watch Alfred Hitchcock's Dial M for Murder (1954).

Well, Liz fell asleep. Mind you, she was pretty whipped. Still, tired or not, someone falling asleep, especially early in a film, is not a good sign.

As we watched, I felt it dragged quite a bit, at least in the first half, due to all the tedious exposition - especially the scene where Ray Milland goes on with no apparent end essentially establishing the set up for the second half of the film. That's the scene where he explains to Anthony Dawson, who is being blackmailed into killing Grace Kelly, the scheme.

Gord, during all of this, commented on how bad the script was. I think he was responding to how extremely long the scene is, and how it was all dialogue. Sure, people moved around, there was some camera movement and a few cuts, but you can see how it is based on a play and that means people just talking, explaining. Hitchcock does try to make it visual but still, it is all dialogue. For an audience of today, the scene is quite deadly.

It's a weakness of the murder mystery - they inevitably have to establish story elements - characters and plot points - which usually means exposition. I find this in most of the old Columbo mysteries from TV. The first 20 or 30 minutes are boring because that is where they establish the crime and the characters. It isn't till Columbo shows up that things get interesting.

So it is in Dial M for Murder. It isn't engaging until the murder attempt is made, almost halfway through the film.

In the end, Dial M is worth seeing - there are some good elements. But it's also dated somewhat and, partly due to genre and partly due to its being based on a play, it is tedious for a large part of the film.

Still, watching Grace Kelly is, as always, delightful.

Tag: Classic Film, Movie Classics, Movies, DVDs, Hitchcock, Dial M for Murder

Another of my recurring Cary Grant phases

2005-11-17T14:50:00.000-04:00

I seem to be going through one of my recurring Cary Grant phases. I finished reading Cary Grant by Marc Eliot, and it was certainly interesting. (I made a brief post about on my other blog, Crazy Ass Planet.)

Of course, since I was reading about Grant, I had to watch (or rewatch) some of his movies. That meant The Philadelphia Story, The Awful Truth, North by Northwest and Brining Up Baby. But it also meant picking up a few of his other movies, ones I either hadn't seen or didn't remember.

So I also watched People Will Talk (1951) with Jeanne Crain and directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz. Not a bad movie, but not great either. It's a little too earnest and Cary Grant is just a little too ... posed? There's very little range in his character. He's just a handsome good guy.

The other film I watched was The Bachelor and the Bobby-Soxer with Myrna Loy and Shirley Temple, directed by Irving Reis. I liked this one much more, though once again it's far from great. But, despite a pretty silly storyline, it's quite funny - largely because Grant plays comedy so well. And it is well-directed in a functional way. Grant seems much more comfortable and assured in this film than in People Willl Talk and I think it's because he was much more comfortable playing comedy, poking fun at himself, than in drama (unless he was being directed by Hitchcock).

Speaking of whom, the next on my list is Suspicion. I haven't seen that one for a while.

Tag: Classic Film, Movie Classics, Movies, Cary Grant

For your viewing pleasure, Gina Lollobrigida

2005-11-13T03:43:00.000-04:00

I don't know why, but I'm getting a lot people dropping off here looking for Gina Lollobrigida. I, too, am very fond of Gina.

I just don't know why people are looking for her here.

Actually, I do. Some time back I discovered, while searching for something else, a Gina Lollobrigida link came up - very high in the listing of results. I thought that was odd, posted about it, and used a Gina image in the post.

Now I'm one of the top, if not the top result when you search for Gina Lollobrigida images on Google.

Searchers must be very disappointed. This is not the place to be looking for Gina Lollobrigida information or images. It's just a blog about movies by a guy who likes Gina Lollobrigida, amongst many other actors. Ah well!

Tag: Gina Lollobrigida, Movie Classics, Movies

The Dude abides

2005-10-30T02:28:00.000-04:00

I watched the Collector's Edition version of the The Big Lebowski and while I still feel the same way about the film, I have to say the intro they add to this DVD edition is incredibly funny. Especially if you waste a lot of time in the world of films and DVDs. As for the movie itself, the review I wrote quite a while ago still holds. It goes like this:

It's taken me quite a while to get around to seeing The Big Lebowski, but I finally have. (I seem to be on a Coen brothers thing this week.) My gut response? It's kind of boring largely, I think, because it's more a pastiche of scenes than a coherent whole.

This is deliberate, part of the movie's style. But for me, it works against it. It's one of those ideas that is better in thought than in practice.

In talking about it on the DVD's featurette, the Coens refer to this aspect when they discuss it in terms of a Raymond Chandler story, like The Big Sleep. I can see what they mean when they say this, but I just don't think it works.

Part of the problem seems to be that they've used this "confusing plot" idea as an excuse to try interesting visuals. While those visuals certainly are cool, you can't help wondering what the hell they have to do with anything. Just as songs disrupt the narrative flow in some musicals, so these visuals disrupt the flow in The Big Lebowski.

As usual with the Coen brothers, the story idea is very engaging and quirky. Jeff Bridges is The Dude, Jeff Lebowski, an unemployed doper who spends most of his time in his bathrobe doing dope, drinking White Russians and bowling.

One day he comes home and encounters two dimwitted gangster types, someone's "muscle," who demand money they say is owed to their boss. They rough up The Dude, threaten him and urinate on his carpet. Unfortunately, they have have confused him with another Jeff Lebowski, The Big Lebowski.

Thus do The Dude's adventures begin as he tries to get his carpet replaced by the other Lebowski.

Explaining the plot is pointless. Let's simply say The Dude encounters a rich, handicapped old man who wants him as a bag man because his young, promiscuous wife (who appears in porn films) has been kidnapped. The Dude meets pornographers, German nihilists and assorted other characters along the way.

He's aided by some friends, most notably by Walter (John Goodman) a Vietnam veteran with issues.

There are a host of funny, clever scenes in the film. But as mentioned, nothing hangs together very well. The movie looks great but often loses its pacing for the sake of cleverness, either in terms of getting an interesting looking visual or, in some cases, a characterization that works against it.

For example, Bridges' character is generally stoned or otherwise unable to articulate what he is wants to say. While it's appropriate for the character, the characterization slows the movie, clogs it. It's an idea (this kind of man in this kind of situation) that likely looks great on paper but, on film, doesn't quite click.

I suppose this all points to a larger problem, the lack of a narrative arc. The characters, by and large, are the same people at the end as they were at the beginning. So it doesn't ever go anywhere.

In the end, while there is no denying there have been funny moments, The Big Lebowski isn't satisfying. It has the feel of a young person showing off how clever he can be. There is a lot of style but not a great deal of substance.

I found it more frustrating than anything else though while watching it I also had the sense it was probably a film the Coens had get out of their system in order to move on. In movies that followed The Big Lebowski the same cleverness still appears but, in those films, it serves the movies they make rather than itself.

Tag: Movies, DVDs, Big Lebowski

Yes, I watched Titanic again

2005-10-27T03:27:00.000-04:00

Well, Titanic is out now in a 3-disc DVD "Special Collector's Edition," so I felt obligated. But I'm not objecting.

All the things the film's detractors list about why they don't like it are, I think, why it is such a good movie. Maybe not great, but very, very good. Yes, it's sentimental, romantic and very much a film of cinematic artifice, but that's what makes it so good. (Remember, those same things can be said, and should be said, of Casablanca.)

The film's popularity speaks to its merit. The real question is, what is it about movies like this that resonates with audiences?

Tag: Movies, DVDs, Titanic

Recent viewings: Garbo, John Wayne, Batman

2005-10-22T12:26:00.000-04:00

I've seen a lot of different movies in the last few weeks but I haven't had time to scribble much about them. For instance, I picked up Garbo - The Signature Collection a while ago. That's the one with something like twelve movies (this includes three silent films from the late 1920's.)

Most of them are pretty good. I especially like Ninotchka (directed by Ernst Lubitsch, 1939). Very funny and I like the way the movie kind of uses the Garbo image (silent, aloof) as a part of the primary comedy. Garbo is great in it by the way.

Anna Christie (1931) ... well, I didn't like that one so much. In fact, I stopped watching after about 40 minutes because it was painful. This was her first "talkie." In fact, I think that's how they promoted it: "Garbo Talks!" Good grief, does she ever. That's all anyone does in this thing - long, long scenes of people sitting around talking. Anyway ... not the best film in the collection.

Camille (1936), on the other hand ... I really liked that one. Sentimental, yes. Romantic, yes. But a really good movie, none the less. And Garbo is extremely fetching in this one.

Other than Garbo, I watched John Wayne's Hondo (1953) a few days ago. It was released as a Special Collector's Edition at the same time as McLintock! - see the earlier post. Both of these films, by the way, were at a great price - $12.00 each when I picked them up. Of the two, I think my sentimental favourite has to be McLintock! but, honestly, Hondo is a much better film. As someone else mentioned, it has some similarities to Shane, another 1953 film.

Wayne is quintessentially John Wayne here with his North American machismo and all, and this film is one of the few movies I've actually seen that had the old Hollywood western cowboys and Indians thing going on (though, for the period, the First Nations people are portrayed with more sympathy than you might expect). Overall, it's a good western. (Of course, if you don't like westerns this is probably not your cup of tea.)

And let me mention one other movie ... Batman Begins (2005). Yes, it's very good. Of all the Batman movies I've seen, it's easily the best and definitely one of the best of the very popular glut of comic book movies that have been released. As usual with these kinds of movies, it works so well because they concentrate on character and story. But this movie reminds me a lot of the first Spiderman movie (though it's much better than that film).

The first half of the film is great. The second half, good but not great. The reason? Once he becomes Batman and the bad guys enter into things and the heroics start, it loses me (as did the first Spiderman). In other words, the man becoming the hero is far more interesting than the hero as the hero.

However, in this case, while Batman Begins loses some steam in the second half it doesn't lose a lot of it (unlike the first Spiderman).

Tag: Movie Classics, Movies, DVDs, Garbo, John Wayne, Ninotchka, Hondo

McLintock! - Wayne and O'Hara at odds

2005-10-16T16:31:00.000-04:00

I watched McLintock! (1963) last night. It’s not the greatest movie in the John Wayne canon, but you know, I’ve always liked it.

From what I’ve seen online, it doesn’t rate that high with many people, but then it’s not the most western of westerns. It’s essentially a comedy – one that is sort of a John Wayne version of Shakespeare’s Taming of the Shrew.

The movie sort of works off and on. There are about three big set pieces (like the mud fight and the inevitable confrontation between John Wayne and Maureen O’Hara). They work pretty well, but some of what goes on in between drags.

Still, I remember seeing this when I was young and loving it. I always like Wayne and O’Hara and while this is a far cry from The Quiet Man, it’s a fun film to watch. At least for me.

It’s a bit like Hatari! (another movie whose title ends in an exclamation mark). The story isn’t terribly important. Like a favourite TV show, you like it because of the characters – in this case, the usual Wayne and O-Hara characters. They’re fun to watch. You can’t help but like them.

Interesting how much brawling goes on in Wayne films. (By the way, while not a great movie, I'd definitely watch McLintock! before watching that other recent DVD release, The High and the Mighty.)

Tag: Classic Film, Movie Classics, Movies, DVDs

The western - Costner's Open Range

2005-10-15T13:08:00.000-04:00

I saw a reference to Open Range over on Purgatorian and it reminded me of how much I like the movie. Back when I reviewed it, I gave it four stars out of five. I may watch it again tonight - seems to me in retrospect I was a bit stingy with that assessment. Here's what I wrote back then:

Everytime someone makes a western numerous people comment that the western is dead. We're to take this as a film given. Personally, I'm sick to death of hearing this. If the form is dead, why do so many people still like them?

With Kevin Costner's Open Range, the comments I see over and over are something to the effect, "The western is dead but this is a really good movie." Huh?

I think there is a belief the western is kaput partly because there is a superficial understanding of what the western is. Some commentators confuse the presence of cowboy hats, horses and guns with what constitutes a western. A western, however, is a mythic morality tale where, quite often, there are cowboy hats, horses and guns.

But there are westerns set in outer space (like many Star Trek episodes) and westerns set on African safaris (like Hatari!). Some are set against backdrops of war (like Tears of the Sun).

If westerns seem "dead" it is only that we appear to be in a period of cultural fog where many of us have become so cynical we've abandoned any attempt to think morally. But thematically, despite Pulp Fiction and its knockoffs, western morality tales remain popular because they continue to address something we struggle with.

Open Range articulates this struggle well. While it may not be the greatest western ever made, it's a very good one and captures the essence of the western theme, often by reiterations of standard western scenes.

A pair of free grazers (Robert Duvall and Kevin Costner) are driving their cattle over the open range. But the open range of the American west is increasingly less open as land is fenced off by ranchers who are claiming it. The west is filling up; the last frontier is fading.

They come across a rancher who is particularly intent on getting rid of free grazers. He runs a town, keeping everyone under his dictatorial and greedy thumb. In the end, there is a showdown (in the best western tradition).

It sounds conventional because it is, but this is what the best westerns do. They don't stand out because of their innovation but because of how well they articulate the core western myths.

Films like these get at the essential paradox of America, "the land of the free." The more people seek the wide open spaces of America, the more people move into them to be free, the less free America becomes. In westerns, the most free people are also the most lonely. Their loneliness can only be alleviated by joining a community but this also means they are less free. Freedom is conditioned by the presence of others.

We also see, as in Open Range, a desire for law and order. The more people there are, the more constrained our freedom is. The question becomes, who will impose those constraints? The community, with shared values, or an individual who is more powerful than we are as individuals?

As Open Range plays out, the free grazers played by Duvall and Costner recognize the freedom they had is disappearing. Now, they have to make a choice. Knuckle under to the demands of the wealthy rancher, or become the instruments of the community's law and order?

Westerns also seem to be about maturing - growing up, to be blunt. Both as a country and as individuals. The freedom enjoyed in youth fades over time because it becomes increasingly isolated and lonely. At some point, it has to be put aside for some agreed upon constraints in order to become part of the group.

Open Range captures all this in a film that beautifully evokes the best aspects of the genre. Unlike other recent movies (like The Quick and the Dead), it doesn't appear to be interested in commenting on westerns in a modern, deconstructionist kind of way. It aspires to be a western and only a western. It keeps things simple, and this is also a key to the best films of this kind. They aren't about movies; they are about myths.

Tag: Movies, DVDs, Open Range, Westerns, Kevin Costner

The Frank Oz comedies

2005-10-10T12:49:00.000-04:00

I've always liked the comedies of Frank Oz. In fact, I would say that of the films I watch repeatedly, Frank Oz comedies are among the ones I most watch over and over. In a sense, they are a kind of cinematic comfort food. I always enjoy them and I always feel good after having watched them.

His comedies are a bit deceptive. They seem too nice (whatever that means). They seem perhaps too slick, or too something, because they have a pleasant Hollywood gloss to them, which gives them a feeling of unreality.

But that's really why they work the way they do. They aren't realistic and they aren't intended to be. They're movies about interesting, and funny, characters in absurd situations.

What I like most about his comedies, however, is that they are funny without being mean-spirited, as many comedies tend to be. It isn't the humour of a misanthrope but rather the humour of someone who finds life and people to be wonderful, but also wonderfully ridiculous.

Still, there is a certain (if minimal) element of darkness, even anger in them, but it is kept in abeyance. It’s never allowed to overwhelm the films; it simply serves as a root element from which to spring and inform the comedy. (An example would be In & Out, with intolerance at its core, or the satire of The Stepford Wives – not the best Oz film but certainly better than some gave it credit for.)

Ultimately, Frank Oz comedies are delightful confections that seem to laugh at us while loving us, and loving us especially for those things that make Oz laugh.

Comedies directed by Frank Oz:

- The Stepford Wives (2004)
- Bowfinger (1999)
- In & Out (1997)
- What About Bob? (1991)
- Dirty Rotten Scoundrels (1988)

(Of the above, I think my favourite would have to be Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, which I've watched so many times I've lost count.)

Tag: Movies, DVDs, Frank Oz

The Hours - I watch it yet again

2005-10-02T16:08:00.000-04:00

I loved The Hours. I gave it five stars out of five. And I watched it again on Thursday so I thought I'd post the review I did of it a while ago (with one minor correction):

I don't know if it's necessary to have studied English literature, or to be familiar with Virginia Woolf and her works, but it certainly helps when watching the movie The Hours. I think someone unfamiliar would still enjoy the film but whether it's as accessible, I don't know.

It's especially helpful (I think) to have read Woolf's Mrs. Dalloway since the film is, in some ways, an improvisation from the story.

The movie is wonderfully, and complexly, structured and this is one of the great appeals of the film. As it progresses, you begin to see how the various elements relate. In a sense, it is something of a mystery (though not in terms of genre). You get hints and clues as the film unfolds.

The movie is three stories, related and interwoven. There is the Virginia Woolf story (Nicole Kidman) which focuses on her life in suburban Richmond where she has been taken because of her mental difficulties (probably bipolar depression). Here, she begins writing her novel, Mrs. Dalloway.

Then there is the story of Mrs. Dalloway (Meryl Streep), not the one from the novel but a present day Mrs. Dalloway who reflects the character from the book.

I'm not sure this is actually her name, it may simply be the name she has been given by her friend and former lover, the poet played by Ed Harris (who has AIDS and is dying). This is a woman whose busy social activities (giving parties, beaming smiles) hide the emptiness and pain in her life.

Finally, there is the early 1950's suburban housewife played by Julienne Moore. She is a woman who seems always on the verge of screaming as she covers her unhappiness and tries to meet the expectations of a wife of that period. While not stated overtly, there is the implication that her real problem is that she is lesbian at a time when that was simply not an option. It is why she doesn't fit in this world however much she tries.

It's difficult to describe much more of the film without giving away its secrets. The movie has a bit of a reputation as being depressing but, while it is thematically dark (with meditations on suicide and mental anguish), it is really the very opposite of this.

This is articulated late in the film when Virginia Woolf is asked by her husband why a character in her novel must die.

Her answer states the theme of the film.

For me, one of the great pleasures of the film is seeing how the pieces connect as it plays out. The stories all interrelate and watching the film is like a voyage of discovery.

It's also an ensemble piece flush with great performances throughout. The three lead performances, Kidman, Streep and Moore are all exceptional and each in a distinct way.

I wish I had seen this film earlier than I did. It came out on DVD back in the summer of 2003. Had I seen it, it would have been on my list of Top DVDs of 2003. (I may yet add it, despite being after the fact.)

Speaking of the disc, the image is pristine and the sound is great, especially with the score by Phillip Glass.

As for the features, this is one of the better discs for those. These aren't fluff features; there is some meat to them, including director Stephen Daldry discussing the film and a fairly good background documentary on Virginia Woolf.

Tag: Movies, DVDs

Separate Tables - great actors, good story

2005-09-26T01:31:00.000-04:00

You know, I've always liked this move, this Separate Tables, directed by Delbert Mann. I think this is the kind of story I always like because of the kinds of characters it highlights.

Here, they are all lonely. But more than that, in one of the primary story lines, they are frightened people (Sibyl Railton-Bell and Major Pollock). They are not the usual heroic figures you normally get, which isn't to say there aren't aspects of them that are interesting.

In fact, it's sort of the same reason I always liked Joyce's novel Ulysses - it's the characters of Leopold and Molly Bloom I like in that.

But getting back to Separate Tables ... I wouldn't say it's a great movie but it is worth seeing because it's awfully darn good. And what a great cast: Deborah Kerr, Rita Hayworth, David Niven and Burt Lancaster. And also, one of my favourites in the movie, Wendy Hiller who won a best supporting actress Oscar for her performance. (This was back in 1958.)

By the way, it's worth listening to Delbert Mann's commentary, if only at the beginning of the film, to hear how he felt about them using the appalling theme song by Vic Damone over the opening credits. It was not supposed to be in the final cut - well, not until the boneheads said screw the director, let's make a board room decision.

It's also interesting for his comments about some other changes that occurred in the film after it was taken out of his hands.

Yes, a movie definitely worth seeing. But a bit low-key by today's standards. Be warned: this ain't no Matrix. (Thank heavens.)

(By the way ... on the subject of Rita Hayworth ... I watched 1957's Fire Down Below, which stars Rita along with Robert Mitchum and Jack Lemmon. Some nice scenery, the odd good moment, but not an award winner by a long shot. A kind of over-the-top, silly disaster movie - though that's really all in the third act.)

Poor Rita!

Tag: Classic Film, Movie Classics, Movies, DVDs

Morgan's Creek - Sturges & Co. are brilliant

2005-09-21T02:05:00.000-04:00

I watched The Miracle of Morgan's Creek tonight and all I can say is if you haven't seen it yet, you must.

It is so funny. Eddie Bracken and Betty Hutton, not to mention Willam Demarest and Diana Lynn, are so perfect, and so killingly comedic in their roles. It's beyond words.

How this ever got past the censors of the time, I dunno. But thank God it did.

I think they may be right. Preston Sturges was some kind of comic genius.

Tag: Classic Film, Movie Classics, Movies, DVDs

Some recommendations - movies, music

2005-09-17T02:21:00.000-04:00

I've got the four disc Ben-Hur - Collector's Edition but that's on hold. I didn't want to devote the time to it tonight - maybe tomorrow. A movie this good, this long, and with special features that include a silent 1925 version, well that requires a bit more available time. Something like a Saturday. (And would you look at the clock - it's Saturday now! But a little too early on a Saturday for movies ...)

Blah blah blah ... In lieu of that, I watched God and Monsters tonight. Is it really a movie from 1998? So says IMDb, so I guess it must be so. Doesn't matter ... it's a great film. Recommended. (This one actually has a story! Not to mention a brilliant performance by Sir Ian McKellen.)

Also recommended ... Highly recommended ... don't know how it happened but I picked up two Duke Ellington discs recently. Piano in the Background was first and, today, I picked up Piano in the Foreground.

I think one reason they are so good is the time period - both are roughly early 1960's recordings (like, 1961 or thereabouts). Time period is irrelevant though - these are two kick ass discs if you like this kind of music.

I wish I were more articulate when it comes to explaining why some music is so damn good, but I'm not. So you just have to take my word for it. These are very good. If my Dad were alive, he would be beating you with a stick to make you get up off your bum and get them.

Anyway ... you've been told. Gods and Monsters. Piano in the Background. Piano in the Foreground. All attractively priced, by the way. So there.

Tag: Movies, DVDs, Ian McKellen, Jazz, Duke Ellington,

To Kill a Mockingbird SE – A great DVD package

2005-09-15T02:21:00.000-04:00

I wish I could come up with a clever headline but I can’t. So ... All I want to do, since I don’t have time to write anything worthy of it, is simply say the DVD of To Kill A Mockingbird - Special Editionis easily one of the best DVDs of the year.

To begin with, it’s a great, classic film. No time to rhyme off the reasons why, but take a gander at AFI's top films (note #34). I’m not alone in thinking this.

Secondly, the package. This has some great special features, including two great documentaries – and Gregory Peck’s wonderful acceptance at the AFI tribute to him.

Special features are so often a tedious recounting of building special effects. These features are about the story, the performers and the performances.

Big, BIG thumbs up. Five stars out of five. Maybe the best DVD of the year.

Tag: Classic Film, Movie Classics, Movies, DVDs

Mr. 3000 - a stand up double

2005-09-12T02:30:00.000-04:00

I just watched Mr. 3000 and while it's not Shakespeare it's a pretty entertaining movie of a certain kind. "Of a certain kind" is important.

There are certain movies that keep getting made, over and over. The reason, I think, is because there is something in the story we like to hear. Some stories, whether they be in film or books or oral, are worth repeating. It's not a question of the story's originality, it's how well it is told.

In this case, it's a sports movie - specifically baseball. Sports movies, while peppered with sports images, are never about sports - not if they are good. They are about who we, as people, are and what kind of spirit we have.

In Mr. 3000, this comes across well. Certainly not stellar, not the best ever, but pretty well. And Bernie Mac is so engaging, and so amusing, the movie connects. I don't think this movie is a comedy, though it has its humorous moments. It's simply a nice story.

Some people don't like that kind of thing. But I do. The movie doesn't attempt to be Citizen Kane. It simply tries to be a well made feel-good film and, by and large, it achieves this. I'd give it maybe three stars out of five.

Tag: Movies, DVDs

Chinatown begins with a great script

2005-09-11T02:19:00.000-04:00

As embarassing as this is, I decided I'd post this since it's a review I did some years ago of Chinatown. Frankly, I sound like a twit who doesn't know what I'm talking about. For example, I'm a bit misleading when i talk about the sepia tone carrying on through the film. (And what's with the dancing business? What was I thinking?)

But I was on the money about the script, even if I am a little over the top and, well, twitish. So for what it's worth, by take on Chinatown:

Chinatown, a wonderful movie, is an example of what a script can do for a film.

It's like finding the right music at a party. Someone feels compelled to dance, then another and another.

Soon, everyone's up dancing. And dancing well.

In Chinatown, just about every artist is dancing their damnedest because the script has pulled them onto the floor. Director, actors, lighting people, costume designers … they're all performing at their highest level.

It's Robert Towne's script that has done this.

One of Roman Polanski's great talents is creating mood and few films do it so well and so quickly as the opening of Chinatown. I can't think of many movies I would watch simply to see the opening credits but the look and the marvellous music of the introductory credit sequence is just so good with its period lettering and sepia tone (which carries through the movie), that you're hooked even before the movie has presented its opening shot.

Modelling itself on the film noir style (particularly films like Howard Hawks' movie The Big Sleep), the film's mystery is created by presenting the story through the eyes of detective Jake Gittes, the Jack Nicholson character. We know what he knows, we're puzzled by what he's puzzled by, we're misled by what misleads him. In fact, just as Bogart was in just about every scene of The Big Sleep, Nicholson is in just about every scene in Chinatown, either as a participant or as an observer.

But the film isn't dependent on Nicholson. Faye Dunaway is perfectly cast as the enigmatic, and troubled, Evelyn Mulwray. It's hard to imagine anyone else but Dunaway in that role. The movie is also bolstered by brilliant supporting performances, particularly John Huston as Noah Cross.

I also love the leisurely way the movie unfolds. Unlike the quick cuts and thrumming soundtrack of most current movies, Polanski takes his time. And it works so well. This may be the reason why it works. You're seduced by the mood, and become involved with the characters, and thus the story.

Chinatown is a great, fascinating movie that illustrates the importance of beginning with a great script.

With the DVD … it's okay. Not great, could be a lot better, but adequate. It's largely clean and clear, but certainly not on the pristine level. This is partly due to it being an older film (1974). For extras, there is really just one (I don't count trailers as extras).

There is a documentary of sorts. It features interview clips with director Roman Polanski, writer Robert Towne, and producer Robert Evans. There are some interesting comments, but there is really no depth to it ... Par for the course with DVD extras.

Tag: Classic Film, Movie Classics, Movies, DVDs

Chinatown? Mockingbird? Decisions ...

2005-09-10T15:59:00.000-04:00

I'm not big on double features. So given the glum weather, and my decision to stay in and watch a movie at home, I have to decide which one. The problem is, I can't decide.

Chinatown or To Kill A Mockingbird?

Ack! ... I just remembered, I was also planning to watch Crash again this weekend.

What to do? What to do?

(Honestly, I'm not as pathetic as this makes me sound. Or am I? ...)

Tag: Classic Film, Movie Classics, Movies, DVDs

One day I hope to have a smiley face

2005-09-07T02:44:00.000-04:00

I don't know why, but whenever I try to fix the lame ass pictures I have of myself I get ones like this ...

Bill as man with serious despondancy problem. Or as ineffective wanker. Not sure which.

But I promise, one day I'll get one with a smile. This looks like a wannabe male model well past his expiry date. Absence of smile = hip, cool look. Sheesh!

This post can be ignored. Just some mumbling grumbling blather. (Also known as burbling.)

Suddenly, Last Summer - an oddity

2005-09-05T13:41:00.000-04:00

This film is odd, which I suppose is to be expected given that it is based on a Tennessee Williams play of the same name. The story is bizarre and horrific and fascinating. But the end result of Suddenly, Last Summer, as a movie, is both compelling and tedious at the same time.

A doctor who specializes in lobotomies is asked to perform one on a rich widow’s niece. The niece appears to have gone mad following the death of the widow’s son in Europe, the Mediterranean area.

The widow wants to preserve the memory of her son (at least, her memory of him) and the niece’s madness seems to undermine this. The truth is the widow wants the lobotomy done in order to calm the niece down and, more significantly, to remove any memory that might not be in agreement with the widow’s remembrance of her son.

The doctor, however (played my Montgomery Clift), is not about to perform the operation before first understanding the case and the reasons for the niece’s madness (the niece is played by Elizabeth Taylor, the widow by Katharine Hepburn).

So he begins to interview the niece. As he questions and probes, her story begins to unfold and with it the truth.

The film, overall, looks and feels like what it is – a play. What this means is the entire story unfolds through language. While there are some interesting images (especially that of Mrs. Venable, the widow, descending/ascending from the floor above in her private elevator), and persuasive performances, the medium of film isn’t really used to tell the story – just to capture the play on film.

The story and the language are riveting. However, at times they are tedious.

While there are some nods made to the medium of film – some flashback shots, the sets – it is really all dialogue.

The story is literally told by the characters – initially by Mrs. Venable, then in the second half by Catherine, the niece.

Frankly, I don’t know how else it could have been done while retaining the words and essence of Williams. (The adaptation was done by Tennessee Williams and Gore Vidal.) Still, while the film’s gothic look is engaging, as is the story and language, in many ways it doesn’t feel like a film.

Having said that, there are a few scenes that do make a nod to film and they are gripping, such as Catherine wandering in a mental asylum with inmates reaching for her, and a murder scene near the film’s end.

The story at the heart of Suddenly, Last Summer is a harrowing one. In some ways, the movie is a murder mystery, but one told with the linguistic, poetic voice of Tennessee Williams. From this point of view, it is fascinating. At the same time, the lengthy speeches, wonderful as many of them are, just don’t seem to belong on film.

The real problem with the movie is one I don’t know how you get around. How do you translate what Williams does in words (the speeches) into a visual language that reflects them?

Maybe you can’t.

Tag: Classic Film, Movie Classics, Movies, DVDs

'You never had a camera in my head'

2005-08-28T12:51:00.000-04:00

It's an absolutely glorious Sunday morning in my part of the world (Alberta, Canada). And I'm sipping coffee, listening to the Gipsy Kings and posting my review of The Truman Show, for whatever that's worth:

Those words ("You never had a camera in my head"), I think, capture the essence of The Truman Show best. There’s much in the world that can be controlled, but controlling what someone thinks and, maybe more importantly, feels is not so easy.

For me, this is one of the best movies of the 1990’s, and one of my favourite movies, period. Now, with the recent release of it in a special edition, I have the DVD I had been wanting – better image, informative features.

Slightly preceding the current glut of reality TV shows, the film’s concept seems simple enough, though perhaps less clever now than when it first appeared, before our reality TV world.

While the concept may seem simple – a movie about a guy whose entire life is broadcast live on television – imagine how you would execute that and make it interesting. It comes across more like a clever notion on paper, but the kind of thing that could lead you into a cinematic fiasco.

But between Andrew Niccols’ script, Peter Weir’s direction and some great casting, it works brilliantly.

Jim Carrey is Truman Burbank. His life , from birth, has been broadcast live to the world (unbeknownst to him). He lives in a town called Seahaven – always has, he’s never left – but what he doesn’t know is Seahaven is a television set in California, not a town on the Florida coast. He lives in a not-quite-perfectly controlled world.

"We accept the reality of the world with which we are presented," says Christoff (Ed Harris), the show’s creator and mastermind.

But as much as Christoff controls Truman’s world, he can’t control everything – including Truman.

There are small errors in Truman’s world and they might go unnoticed by him except the life scripted for him is not the one he would live. The more the show’s creator, actors and crew try to steer Truman and keep him on script, the more he resists.

And so Truman embarks on discovering his world, though that’s not his initial motivation.

As mentioned in the special features, Peter Weir made one change to the script that was bang on the money. Originally set in New York, and a darker film, Weir understood that for people to watch such a show (not the movie, but in the script’s world, The Truman Show), it would need to be lighter, more comforting.

So the movie is set in Seahaven, a somewhat heightened reality. It’s roots are more in the world of 1950’s television than the real world, though not to such an extent that it lacks credibility.

Another great notion in the film’s making was the casting of Carrey. He is perfect as Truman. Charismatic and affable, he brings the right amount of innocence to the role of Truman. It might not have worked in another movie, but in the world of The Truman Show it hits the mark.

I also like that there are several ways of seeing The Truman Show. There is the obvious satire on television culture and the issue of personal freedom.

(I like the irony of Christoff “a very private man” being the architect of a very public life – Truman’s.)

Another way of seeing the film, however, is as a fable of a child leaving home.

Christoff is an obvious father figure and Truman is clearly a young man trying his damnedest to leave and find his own life – but not the one Christoff dreams for him (rather like a parent trying to impose his vision on his child.)

In fact, however you view the film, it’s essentially a fable. Perhaps this is why I like the movie so much – I’ve a weakness for these types of films when they are well done.

Weakness or not, I consider this one of the best films of the last decade or so. It’s also one I think will continue to be watched over the years as it captures, quite succinctly and in an engaging fashion, something in the nature of freedom that is deeply woven into the human fabric. The film’s ending captures an archetypal, mythic moment and it’s one that resonates. I can’t recommend this one highly enough. Five stars out of five.

Tags: Movies, DVDs, Peter Weir, Jim Carrey, The Truman Show

Well, aren't I hoighty-toighty ... I'm Ulysses

2005-08-27T15:08:00.000-04:00

Thanks to Bad Maria I found a book quiz, which revealed to me:

You're Ulysses!

by James Joyce

Most people are convinced that you don't make any sense, but compared to what else you could say, what you're saying now makes tons of sense. What people do understand about you is your vulgarity, which has convinced people that you are at once brilliant and repugnant. Meanwhile you are content to wander around aimlessly, taking in the sights and sounds of the city. What you see is vast, almost limitless, and brings you additional fame. When no one is looking, you dream of being a Greek folk hero.

Take the Book Quiz
at the Blue Pyramid.

A worthy edition of The Truman Show

2005-08-27T03:19:00.000-04:00

A favourite film of mine, and one of the best - if not the best - of the 1990's, is Peter Weir's The Truman Show, starring Jim Carrey.

I've lost track of the number of times I've seen it. But I've just seen it again because they've finally brought out a worthy DVD of it - the Special Edition. The transfer is great - an improvement, definitely - and the special features (previously absent), are actually interesting. They provide great background on the film.

I'd also add I loved the film's music by Burkhard Dallwitz. I confess to knowing nothing about the man but years ago I bought the film's soundtrack because I liked the music so much. Not that it'll be everyone's cup of tea, but I liked it.

I'm hoping I can get up off my lazy behind and write a half-decent review of this movie soon. It's one I recommed very highly. (I give it five stars out of five.)

Tags: Movies, DVDs, Peter Weir, Jim Carrey, The Truman Show

More Preston Sturges - Miracle of Morgan's Creek

2005-08-23T01:20:00.000-04:00

If you're a fan of the films of Preston Sturges, you'll be happy to know The Miracle of Morgan's Creekis scheduled for DVD release on September 6th from Paramount.

The only downside to this is the DVD cover, which is awful. What were they thinking? It looks like a bad poster for a lame '60s TV show.

Sturges deserves better.

I don't know anything about The Miracle of Morgan's Creek, but I loved The Lady Eve and Sullivan's Travels. And The Palm Beach Story. So I'm hopeful.

Tag: Classic Film, Movie Classics, Movies, DVDs, Preston Sturges

Don Quixote doesn't do so well on film

2005-08-22T01:55:00.000-04:00

I just watched 1972's The Man of La Mancha (starring Peter O'Toole and Sophia Loren, directed by Arthur Hiller). And yes, as many have said, it's a mess. But you know, it's a mess that has its moments.

The real problem with this movie is not that it's a musical but that what it's based on was a musical. Because of the source material, there are musical numbers thrown in that throw everything askew. If the movie had been done simply as a romantic drama, no musical, the basic conceit of the movie and the casting (particularly the principle roles) would have worked.

But it's got to throw in those songs and every time it does the movie goes all to hell.

Also, as Roger Ebert points out, they don't really get the theme of Cervantes's Don Quixote quite right.

I watched this movie thinking about Terry Gilliam's ill-fated effort at doing a Don Quixote movie and wondering why making a movie of one of the greatest novels ever, and one of the key characters of all literature, is so hard.

It may be Don Quixote is, by its stature, too daunting. But that's kind of odd since the essence of the Knight of the Woeful Countenance is the exact opposite of that.

Anyway ... the movie, The Man of La Mancha, does have it's moments. O'Toole does some great pratfalls as the Don and Sophia Loren is ... well, she's Sophia Loren. I think the only reason I watched this movie was to see her. And you know, it was worth it.

Tag: Classic Film, Movie Classics, Movies, DVDs

Housekeeping and some new old movies

2005-08-20T13:14:00.000-04:00

I've just re-posted some reviews I did a while back of three older movies, all of which are thoroughly enjoyable - at least in my books. They are:

- The Bad and the Beautiful (1952)
- Destry Rides Again (1939)
- Auntie Mame (1958)

They're also three very different movies - a kind of melodramatic noir piece, a comedic western and ... well, IMDB calls describes Auntie Mame as comedy/drama.

Also ... a while back I mentioned that Classic Movies had a tribute to William Powell. Well, there is also a tribute up now to Myrna Loy. Could anyone not love Myrna Loy?

Finally ... I've watched all the movies in The Complete Thin Man Collection and I give it a big thumbs up. Have a look at John Puccio's review on DVD Town.

Tag: Classic Film, Movie Classics, Movies, DVDs

King Kong set to tear up the place in November

2005-08-20T01:38:00.000-04:00

Well, I'm excited. Set for release on November 22, 2005 - King Kong (2-Disc Special Edition). This, of course, is the Fay Wray classic.

I'm guessing the release must be tied into the release of Peter Jackson's King Kong. which seems to be scheduled for mid-December - just in time for Christmas!

Be that as it may ... I'm hoping the 2 disc set of the 1933 film is a good transfer. It is, after all, a fairly old film (over 70 years). It's the aspect I'm most excited about.

And geez ... come on, it's King Kong!

(And let's not forget how fetching Jessica Lange was in the 1976 version - not a great movie, but she was ... well, fetching.)

Tag: Classic Film, Movie Classics, Movies, DVDs, King Kong

I finally see Sin City (I was bored)

2005-08-17T01:55:00.000-04:00

Okay ... so I just watched Sin City. My gut response? Visually spectacular. It's everything everyone says it is. As a movie? I was kinda bored after about 20 minutes when the visual thing had worn a bit thin.

My biggest problem? This kind of movie is a fantasy - and I generally love fantasy. But it's a sixteen year old boy's fantasy. Violence, sex, yada yada. I mean, the story is stupid. Everything about it is stupid - which is okay, since it's fantasy and in fantasy everything usually is kinda stupid. I'm fine with that.

But it's a kid's fantasy. I mean, women with their butts hanging out? Guys beaten to a pulp but somehow managing to come back and blow away the bad guys? ... I would have loved this when I was sixteen.

But today? It was just boring.

The biggest problem, I think, is that it's like movies from the fifties ... take The High and the Mighty, for example, or Pandora and the Flying Dutchman. Those movies tried to be novels on film. Sin City tries to be a comic on film.

So there's a problem, for me, with the cinematic language - the storytelling technique. And this is not the same thing as the visual technique. As mentioned, visually it is stunning. But it is the images that are stunning, not the storytelling. The storytelling is tedious. They marshall a gazillion stereotypes and archetypes and myths, but do nothing with them.

And what's with the obsession with mutilation? Once again, a sixteen year old boy's vision of the world - his fantasty vision. I don't recall when I've seen so many decapitated heads or severed fingers.

Filmmakers like Rodriguez and Tarrantino are great stylists. But I wonder what guys like this could do if they ever grew up. Ultimately, spectacular though the look is, this is a movie for teenage wankers.

Tag: Movies, DVDs, Sin City

Reluctant about this week's DVD releases

2005-08-16T01:37:00.000-04:00

So two movies are out tomorrow on DVD and in both cases I want to see them but I don't want to see them. Very curious.

The one that's really being hyped is Sin City. Yes, I know I'm supposed to love it but I also know that I have a bias against these kinds of movies. That's partly due to the hype. I'd like to be able to judge it on its own merits but that's hard to do when you see something amid a swirl of hype.

And as I've mentioned before, I hated that Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow so much that it's kind of turned me against films like this. Well, at least I'm aware of my bias. But I will see Sin City so we should find out soon what I actually think about it.

The other movie I'm curious about is My Left Foot, coming out in a special edition tomorrow. Based on the subject matter, I'm not anxious to see it. Based on the reviews, I'm very keen to see it.

Well, I guess I find out what I think of both these movies tomorrow ... or, if life is not permitting, in the very near future.

Tag: Movies, DVDs

Columbo Three - what the hell happened?

2005-08-11T02:47:00.000-04:00

Here's the e-mail I sent the clowns at Universal regarding Columbo - The Complete Third Season:

This set, Columbo - The Complete Third Season, is the best argument I've seen for piracy. This chintzy, 2 disc set is one of the worst sets I've come across. I purchased Seasons 1 and 2 and was happy with just the episodes - I can live without special features.

But Season 3 with its two sided discs and flimsy cardboard box ... well, it's the last Universal DVD set I'll be buying until I see Universal demonstrate some concern for the people they are selling to and some level of self-respect. There is only one word for this set's quality - crap. How corporations can complain about piracy when they put out this level of quality is beyond me.

The puzzling thing about it is that Season 2 was such good quality in terms of the packaging. Did you get drunk and lose the house in a poker game? What's the explanation for this current rubbish?

Tag: Classic Film, Movie Classics, Movies, DVDs, Columbo

Anticipating Sin City and The Trueman Show

2005-08-07T12:56:00.000-04:00

There's an interesting interview with director Robert Rodriguez over at darkhorizons.com where he talks about the Sin City DVD (among other things).

It's is due out August 16th. But, from what I understand, this is the single disc edition.

It will come in four different covers or slipcovers. This is similar to what was done with the last disc incarnation of Reservoir Dogs.

Depending on how you feel about these things you may want to wait a bit before buying the Sin City DVD. It sounds like the single edition is coming out now partly due to the problems of piracy. The definitive edition isn't quite ready, or so it seems from what Rodriguez says, "The real DVD should come out fairly quick which will be just obviously the double disc with all the goodies on it."

I also found what he had to say about theatrical releases versus DVD releases quite enlightening:

"When I was doing Sin City, you're just very aware that, OK, there's a theatrical release which is pretty much a one-shot. People go and see it in the theatres for a couple of weeks and then they kind of forget about that, and then whatever comes out later [the DVD] is the more definitive version."

I think that's a good indication of how technology and other factors have changed and are changing how we experience movies - and, clearly, how they are made.

The single disc of the movie will probably be just fine for a lot of people. Some, however,may want to wait (though they may decide to rent it). And still others will be happy to get both. I guess it depends on how you feel about the movie and douple dips.

I'm not sure which way I'll be jumping on this one. I haven't seen the movie and I don't know if I'll love it or hate it. Everything I read tells me it's a great film - at least visually. On the other hand, I'm not overly enthused with these types of movies. Partly, I suppose, because of that turkey I saw, Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, which I thought was utterly wretched.

On the other hand (and on the subject of douple dips), The Trueman Show - Special Edition is due out August 23rd and I'm excited about that.

I've watched this one several times and just loved it. So a special edition with a two-part documentary ("How's it going to end") is welcome. According to the review at DVD Town, it's a worthwhile feature and the package, overall, is pretty good.

Tag: Movies, DVDs, Sin City

John Wayne's The High and the Mighty

2005-08-06T12:13:00.000-04:00

I really wanted to like this movie. It's an old John Wayne film, it has come out in a new special edition, restored and remastered and ... well, I was just ready to see an older movie. I was primed.

Sadly, The High and the Mighty is pretty awful.

It's a melodramatic disaster movie. But melodramatic in all the worst ways and none of the good.

To be fair to it, having been made over 50 years ago, it can be seen as a progenitor of the Hollywood disaster movies of today like, for example, Independence Day. So it was made before the formula had been tweaked and tested and nailed down.

In The High and the Mighty, you can see the formula in an embryonic stage. It takes the ensemble idea of an earlier film like a Grand Hotel (1932) - lots of characters, lots of stories interweaving - and adds a disaster scenario to it, in this case a plane in peril.

But what the movie hasn't figured out is how to take an idea like this, which probably works well enough within a novel, where there is more room to work with (a movie has time restrictions, a novel can be pretty much as long as it needs to be), and make it work for the screen.

What we end up with then is a movie that feels like endless exposition - the character introductions and back stories take up something like an hour or hour and a half, about half or two thirds of the movie. You want to yell at the screen, "For God's sake, crash the damn plane!"

Worse, with the exception of John Wayne and Claire Trevor, the characters are as interesting as cardboard, some simply being irritating twits (like the newlyweds - they should have been tossed off the plane in mid-air).

The movie really doesn't get interesting until the plane's engine knocks out and the peril is immediate, and this doesn't happen until the film is into its final lap. But by this time a viewer is pretty numb with ennui.

The bottom line is that the film has an idea - a pretty good one for the period it was made. I'm sure at the time it came out it was probably pretty exciting. But for a modern audience, it feels old - anachronistic. It lacks a sense of cinema as a form of storytelling. Rather, it uses a literary, novelistic approach - except it's done on film, rather than paper (not an uncommon problem with films of this period).

It doesn't handle its characters well. They are shallow stereotypes and their stories are told ploddingly.

The result is a movie that feels as old as it actually is - maybe older. And frankly, it's just plain dull. And that is the exact opposite of what a movie like this should be. 1 1/2 stars out of 5.

(This review is also posted on Piddleville.)

Tag: Classic Film, Movie Classics, Movies, DVDs, Movie Review

Happy with the Thin Man

2005-08-05T01:21:00.000-04:00

Let's be honest: this is a nothing post. But I have to say I'm extremely happy because I've finally picked up The Complete Thin Man Collection. Tonight, I watched Return of the Thin Man.

Very entertaining. A few more dollars were involved in making this movie, too - at least that's my guess based on the look of the film (that is, a few more dollars compared to the first film, The Thin Man).

The question is, why do I like The Thin Man movies so much? I think, like long running TV series (like M*A*S*H), it's the characters and the situation they're in. Who couldn't love Nick and Nora (William Powell and Myrna Loy)?

Only a barbarian.

Tag: Classic Film, Movie Classics, Movies, DVDs

Get ready for the uniquely distinctive Garbo

2005-08-04T02:32:00.000-04:00

Call me exciteable. Easily exciteable. But I became very merry when I learned that Garbo - The Signature Collectionwould be available from Warners on September 6th.

Yes, I already have Grand Hotel, but (annoying as that may be) movies like Anna Christie, Mata Hari, Queen Christina, Anna Karenina, Camille and Ninotchka are included and they are why I want this set.

From what I understand, this set's release coincides with Garbo's hundredth birthday on September 18th.

Well, happy birthday!

Tag: Classic Film, Movie Classics, Movies, DVDs, Garbo

A weakness for westerns (and Ann Margaret)

2005-07-31T13:08:00.000-04:00

There was really no reason for me to pick up The Train Robbers, a 1973 John Wayne western, other than the fact it was a western, for which I have a weakness.

But ... in the interests of full disclosure I must say - Ann Margaret? 1973? Well!

Who could resist the Ann Margaret of the 1970's?

Not that there's anything salacious in the film. It is a John Wayne movie after all. Still, Margaret plays a pretty good drunk in one of the campfire scenes.

And the movie overall ... well, it's good but forgettable. Except for one aspect - the look. I just loved the way this movie was shot. Director Burt Kennedy appears to have had a very definite look in mind.

Anyway ... Enough blah blah here. I've uploaded my review of The Train Robbers.

Tag: Classic Film, Movie Classics, Movies, DVDs, Westerns

Getting reacquainted with William Powell

2005-07-30T12:38:00.000-04:00

I’ve fallen behind in quite a few things this week but I thought it worth taking a moment to point out a few William Powell things, such as a William Powell Tribute over at Classic Movies. (I had no idea he started out playing bad guys in silent movies.)

There are a couple of reasons why I find Powell worth looking at now. For one, he’s one of my favourites of the old Hollywood stars. (As I’ve mentioned before, he stars in my favourite movie, My Man Godfrey with Carole Lombard.)

But also, on Tuesday (August 2nd) Warners releases The Complete Thin Man Collection on DVD. I’ve mentioned this several times – but that’s because I’m pretty jazzed about this one. (For those interested, have a look at DVD Town's review by John Puccio.)

In the meantime, and for what it’s worth, here’s what I scribbled about a couple of great William Powell movies:

- My Man Godfrey (1936)
- The Thin Man (1934)

Tag: Classic Film, Movie Classics, Movies, DVDs

For the record, I love Finding Neverland

2005-07-24T01:46:00.000-04:00

Just in case I don't ever get around to writing a review of Finding Neverland, I'd like to say I've watched it three times already (or is it four?) and have loved it each time.

Don't let the fact that it is "sweet" throw you ... It's a very good film about creativity, imagination and childhood, but from an adult perspective.

And it somehow manages to be a great film despite all that! How'd they manage to do that?

Tag: Movies, DVDs

Million Dollar Baby is great cinema

2005-07-17T15:08:00.000-04:00

Although he's one of my favourite directors I can never think of anything to write about Clint Eastwood's movies.

Which is why my take on Million Dollar Baby comes across as less than my best effort.

I think the problem is that I like the movies so much, they work so well as good, engaging stories, I forget I'm watching a movie.

In the case of Million Dollar Baby, I think it's one of the best movies of the last few years. I think it's this good because it is such a well told story. It's remarkably well constructed, well-performed and effortlessly executed. And there is no cinematic flim-flam to oversell it as an "important" movie.

It's just there. And it's great. And here's my review.

Tag: Movies, DVDs

Bad Day makes for a good night

2005-07-11T01:39:00.000-04:00

I just watched Bad Day at Black Rock (1955, directed by John Sturges). It wasn't good.

It was great.

It isn't just that it's a good story, a kind of western that isn't a western (yes, I know that makes no sense - but it does when you see it). It's such a well-executed film. It's so well-constructed, so well put together, it's a great pleasure to watch.

I know I threaten to write reviews here in The Burble all the time ... but never follow through. But this time, yes, I promise to scratch out something on this movie because it is so good.

At least, I think it is. And, dammit, I'm right. Very highly recommended.

Tag: Classic Film, Movie Classics, Movies, DVDs

The Thin Man collects himself

2005-07-10T12:44:00.000-04:00

Good grief ... Can I possibly resist this? Not likely. Set for release August 2nd from Warner Bros., The Thin Man Collection.

Now this really is classic stuff with William Powell and Myrna Loy. The downside, for me, is that it includes The Thin Man, which I already have. This is a very sneaky twist on the DVD double dip.

Still, This is a seven disc collection. At least, it's billed as such. Since I've seen only six movies listed I'm assuming the seventh disc must be a special features one. Based on what Warners included on The Errol Flynn Signature Collection, I'm hopeful it will be good.

Here are the six movies the set includes:

- The Thin Man
- After the Thin Man
- Another Thin Man
- Shadow of the Thin Man
- The Thin Man Goes Home
- Song of the Thin Man

Update: According to one review on Amazon.com the seventh disc containing special features is, "... entitled 'Alias Nick and Nora,' with two documentaries on William Powell and Myrna Loy. Other highlights are two radio adaptations of the series, as well as comedy, musical and mystery shorts, and cartoons ..."

Tag: Classic Film, Movie Classics, Movies, DVDs

Something is missing from Meet the Fockers

2005-07-10T02:01:00.000-04:00

I just watched Meet the Fockers and I think I've figured out at least one of the problems with the Meet the Parents movies.

First of all, it has to be said that both movies begin with a great comic premise. In fact, the premise alone is enough to draw you into seeing the movies - or at least, it should. Secondly, it's important to say that both movies (Meet the Parents and Meet the Fockers) are good, comic movies. They are definitely worth seeing.

But for me, in both cases, they fall short. And I've been scratching my head trying to figure out why.

While I don't think it's the only reason, one of the problems for me is the Ben Stiller character. For the most part, the movies use him as a prop rather than as a character. This is highlighted in Meet the Fockers in the jail scene where we finally see his character, Greg Focker, stop being a prop - someone to whom bad things happen - and step up to assert himself.

It's not simply that he's asserting himself in the scene, it's that we finally see something more than a schmoe to whom bad things happen.

I'm not saying he should be Hamlet. But until this scene occurs, while the movie's various comic scenes are amusing, there's not much to make it a compelling story.

I dunno. While I like both movies, both miss the mark for me because I'm never fully engaged. And I think the reason is because they make Stiller's Greg the focal point of the movie without making him particularly interesting. And I think this essentially a script problem.

Tag: Movies, DVDs

Melodramatic noir - Crawford, Curtiz and Mildred Pierce

2005-07-09T11:26:00.000-04:00

With Warner recently releasing (and re-releasing) a number of older Hollywood movies, individually and in sets (such as The Bette Davis Collection, The Joan Crawford Collection and The Complete James Dean Collection), I thought it worthwhile to take a second look at some of those movies I already had.

A few days ago I re-highlighted the review I did a while ago of Now, Voyager (Bette Davis). Now, I thought I'd highlight Mildred Pierce (Joan Crawford), a much better film and one definitely worth seeing, if you haven't already. (If you have seen it, then I'd say it's worth a second look now.) It's directed by Michael Curtiz (Casablanca, The Adventures of Robin Hood).

For lack of a better term, I'd call it melodramatic noir. While a soap opera-ish quality mixed with noir may not seem the best blend, the result is not disagreeable. In fact, it works in an odd way. And Crawford gives a marvellous performance as Mildred, a mother obsessed with giving her bitchy daughter everything she wants.

I've got my review here.

Tag: Classic Film, Movie Classics, Movies, DVDs