September 26, 2005

Separate Tables - great actors, good story

Separate TablesYou 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: , , ,

September 21, 2005

Morgan's Creek - Sturges & Co. are brilliant

The Miracle of Morgan's CreekI 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: , , ,

September 17, 2005

Some recommendations - movies, music

Gods and MonstersI'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: , , , , ,

September 15, 2005

To Kill a Mockingbird SE – A great DVD package

To Kill A Mockingbird - Special Edition DVDI 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: , , ,

September 12, 2005

Mr. 3000 - a stand up double

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: ,

September 11, 2005

Chinatown begins with a great script

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: , , ,

September 10, 2005

Chinatown? Mockingbird? Decisions ...

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: , , ,

September 7, 2005

One day I hope to have a smiley face

Me not smiling.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.)

September 5, 2005

Suddenly, Last Summer - an oddity

Suddenly, Last Summer (1959)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.

Suddenly, Last Summer (1959)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: , , ,

August 28, 2005

'You never had a camera in my head'

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:

The Truman ShowThose 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: , , , ,

August 27, 2005

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

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

The Truman ShowA 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: , , , ,

August 23, 2005

More Preston Sturges - Miracle of Morgan's Creek

The Miracle of Morgan's Creek - DVD coverIf 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: , , , ,

August 22, 2005

Don Quixote doesn't do so well on film

Sophia Loren, The Man of La Mancha (1972)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: , , ,

August 20, 2005

Housekeeping and some new old movies

The Bad and the Beautiful (1952)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: , , ,

King Kong set to tear up the place in November

King Kong (1933)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: , , , ,

August 17, 2005

I finally see Sin City (I was bored)

Sin CityOkay ... 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: , ,

August 16, 2005

Reluctant about this week's DVD releases

DVD cover My Left Foot - Special EditionSo 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: ,

August 11, 2005

Columbo Three - what the hell happened?

DVD cover image of Columbo - Season ThreeHere'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: , , , ,

August 7, 2005

Anticipating Sin City and The Trueman Show

DVD cover image of Sin CityThere'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.

DVD cover image of The Trueman Show SEOn 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: , ,

August 6, 2005

John Wayne's The High and the Mighty

DVD cover image of The High and the MightyI 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: , , , ,

August 5, 2005

Happy with the Thin Man

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: , , ,

August 4, 2005

Get ready for the uniquely distinctive Garbo

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: , , , ,

July 31, 2005

A weakness for westerns (and Ann Margaret)

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: , , , ,

July 30, 2005

Getting reacquainted with William Powell

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: , , ,

July 24, 2005

For the record, I love Finding Neverland

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: ,

July 17, 2005

Million Dollar Baby is great cinema

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: ,

July 11, 2005

Bad Day makes for a good night

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: , , ,

July 10, 2005

The Thin Man collects himself

The Thin Man poster
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: , , ,

Something is missing from Meet the Fockers

Meet the FockersI 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: ,

July 9, 2005

Melodramatic noir - Crawford, Curtiz and Mildred Pierce

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: , , ,

Briefly, I sing the praises of Tony Scott

I just finishing watching Crimson Tide and you know ... I saw it back when it came out in 1995, I've seen it several times since, and I've just seen it again. And every time I do I like it.

It's good as an action movie. But it's better than the usual run of action movies. There is a real story and very compelling characters (portrayed by Gene Hackman and Denzel Washington).

Actually, I watched this movie yet again because it was directed by Tony Scott (True Romance). And the only reason I bring that up is because a day or two ago I rewatched (yet again) Man On Fire, which I really like. And will hopefully scribble something about in a day or two.

Anyway ... want to see three really good, fast-paced yet involving movies? Try: Crimson Tide, True Romance or Man On Fire.

Better yet, try them all.

Tag: ,

July 8, 2005

A lousy week for movies on DVD

The pickin's are slim this week as far as recent DVD releases go. (They've been this way in most recent weeks.) This may partly explain why I've been so engaged by the the first season of Bewitched.

But when new releases kind of suck it's not necessarily a bad thing.

It's a chance to go back to some DVDs that have been out for a while and enjoy them - because they are worth seeing again.

One that comes to mind is Arsenic and Old Lace, an old Frank Capra film from 1944. As DVDs go, it won't win any awards for special features and so on. But it's a damn fine movie. Very funny. In black and white and starring Cary Grant, who I've always liked (and have mentioned several times).

So do yourself a favour and give it a gander. Here's my review.

Tag: , , ,

July 4, 2005

Bring a hankie for Now, Voyager

It's essentially a soap opera of the 1940's Hollywood variety. And while I wouldn't normally find that terribly appealing, I liked Now, Voyager (starring Bette Davis).

It's available individually or in The Bette Davis Collection boxed set. The collection is a bit annoying to me given that at least two of the movies included (Now, Voyager and Dark Victory) had been previously available ... and I have both. So the set is a waste of time for me.

Getting back to Now, Voyager ... Back when I first got the disc, a couple of years ago, I wrote a short review of it.

Tag: , , ,

Twentieth Century and ... Gina Lollobrigida?

I have no idea why, and I couldn't be bothered looking into it to come up with an answer, but when I did a general search on IMDb.com for Twentieth Century (thinking I'd get the 1934 movie) the first result was Gina Lollobrigida.

Not that I object to Gina Lollobrigida. When I was hitting puberty she was one of those celebrity women I thought was hotter than a pistol. In fact, the Gina Lollobrigida of my imagination is still hotter than a pistol.

But I've no idea why her name came up when I was searching Twentieth Century.

And all of the above is my way of getting around to saying I watched Howard Hawk's Twentieth Century tonight. And I'm still mulling it over as try to figure out what I think about it. More importantly, how I feel about it.

I don't think it was as good as I was hoping, as good as I was led to believe. But that doesn't mean it wasn't good ... just not up to what I had been expecting.

But I'm still thinking this one over.

Tag: , , ,

July 3, 2005

Stripes extended is very annoying

An extended version of the 1981 movie Stripes seems like ... umm, well there's sort of a sado-masochistic quality to it. I mean, when I saw there was an extended version my first question was, "Whatever for?"

Having seen Stripes - Extended Cut, I'm even more puzzled. This is not a great movie. So the idea of extending something that was dragging to begin with strikes me as an unnecessarily painful exercise.

Granted, the movie has moments. The problem is, that is all it has. Between those moments are some pretty dreary bits connecting them (and I use the word "connecting" very loosely).

My favourite part of the entire movie is John Candy. How I wish there had been more with him. Seeing him here reminded me of just how good he was and how I wish he had lived longer to make more films.

Bill Murray is also quite good. You can see him doing the obligatory "Bill Murray" performance, meeting expectations so to speak, but you also see him attempting to do something more within the limitations of what the film allowed. There's the very good scene with Murray and Warren Oates ("You want to take a swing at me?") that is more dramatic than comic - it makes you wish there had been more moments like this to put more meat on this movie's skinny bones.

This looks like, and comes across as, a movie by very young, inexperienced filmmakers, people who have good instincts (especially comic instincts) but who haven't yet figured out how to make the pieces cohere. They've understood from movies like Animal House that "slob jokes" have worked for them, but haven't yet figured out how to craft that kind of comic sensibility into a fully realized movie.

Basically, their storytelling abilities haven't matured yet.

As for the DVD

I don't know what they were thinking when they put this DVD together but it certainly wasn't the viewer. If you watch the extended version, every time an added scene begins text appears at the bottom of screen announcing it. It apears again when the added scene ends.

This is incredibly annoying and serves only to disrupt the film. It's also unncessary given that the added scenes are not of the same picture quality as the rest of the film. In other words, they look different (less clean) so you can tell they are added scenes. (I have to be honest - I only watched the first one. I couldn't bring myself to watch a movie that had text introducing certain scenes so I switched to the theatrical version. It should also be pointed out that the added scenes can be watched separately in the special features.)

Then there is the theatrical version of the movie ... It keeps freezing for a moment every time an added scene has been included in the extended version.

The end result is neither version of the movie is very good from a movie watching perspective. In both cases, the flow of the film is disrupted - either by text announcing scenes in the extended version, or brief pauses in the theatrical version.

For me, the best part of this disc was the two part documentary of the film's making, "Stars and Stripes." It's quite good.

Out of five stars, I would give Stripes - Extended Cut two.

Tag: , ,

July 2, 2005

Errol Flynn's wicked ways - book review

I finished reading Errol Flynn's autobiography My Wicked, Wicked Ways and I loved it. I definitely recommend it to anyone who wants an entertaining read.

Flynn comes across as a great raconteur, a teller of tall tales. His favourite subject is himself but, that's to be expected I suppose in an autobiography.

He may not be the most reliable authority on Hollywood, but he's certainly the most fun. His style is breezy and funny.

So ... I've updated and added to what I wrote earlier (now that I've finished the book) and have posted it as a book review.

Tag: , ,

June 29, 2005

National Treasure not so precious

I just watched National Treasure. Well, it was entertaining in a TV kind of way, I suppose. But I've gotta tell you ... it ain't no Indiana Jones, as some people suggested.

The thing is, it had it's moments. But a few moments don't make a good movie.

I'd say it's a rental. Too much sticking to formula to be anything more than that.

Tag: ,

June 27, 2005

Bewitched is bewitching (the TV show, that is)

I picked up the first season of Bewitched and I'm loving it. (For what it's worth, I got the black and white version, the way it was originally made, rather than the colourized version. Geez, if you’re the kind of moron who insists that everything be in colour, why are you watching old television or old movies? You like it the way it was made or you don't.)

Anyway ... The series is essentially silly. It's a silly premise. The storylines are silly. And it's one of the few things I've seen recently that I actually laugh out loud as I watch. This is big - I don't normally laugh out loud.

Maybe you need to have a certain sense of humour to appreciate it. Maybe you simply have to be old enough to be acclimated to the period style (and it's very period, at least the first season is - it is SO early sixties).

But this first season of Bewitched makes me laugh. And good heavens, I absolutely love Aunt Clara (Marion Lorne) and Gladys Kravitz (Alice Pearce, and later Sandra Gould) and her oblivious hubbie, Abner (George Tobias).

Just in case I haven't been very clear: I am absolutely loving Bewitched.

Tag: , ,

June 26, 2005

Ford's Drums Along the Mohawk

Heaven knows if you want to watch a John Ford movie there are a lot to choose from. Personally, I'm not sure which one would be my favourite (though I do have a hankering for both My Darling Clementine and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance).

So now I've just watched one of his 1939 efforts, Drums Along the Mohawk. (The other one from 1939 is The Young Mr. Lincoln - both movies star Henry Fonda).

While I enjoyed Drums Along the Mohawk, I can't say it's one of the better John Ford movies. And although some restoring went into the film we get on the DVD, I can't say the film is in the best condition.

But you can read what I thought of this movie in my review.

Tag: , , ,

Correcting my Tom Cruise post

I had to do an edit on my earlier post "Tom Cruise, Matt Lauer and a media muddle" because, frankly, I'm a lazy moron. Not paying attention, I confused the terms psychiatry and psychology, and they are not the same. (As a writer, I should be sent to my room with no supper for this.)

Online, you can find a number of definitions for the terms. From the EMHS Glossary of Medical Specialties, I found these:

Psychiatry
The study, treatment and prevention of mental disorders, including the prescription of drugs, by a medical doctor who specializes in human behavior.

Psychology
The care of behavioral and emotional problems by a professional other than a medical doctor through psychotherapy, counseling and psychoanalysis.

Anyway ... I stand self-corrected.

Tag: ,

Not the man I use to be

I was just going over my posts from a year ago, June 2004. They were much more entertaining than what I've been writing recently. Mind you, they weren't terribly focused, but at least they were mildly amusing.

It appears I've gone all to hell. Must work on that.

(How quickly we fade!)

June 25, 2005

Tom Cruise, Matt Lauer and a media muddle

A few days ago there was the story about Tom Cruise on the Today Show being interviewed by Matt Lauer and how it turned into some brouhaha about drugs, psychiatry and so on.

Of course, the media gave us snippets - clips, quotes, etc. But I kept wondering, "Yeah, but what was actually said? What was the context?" Frankly, I don't trust those sound bites.

So ... here's what was actually said: 'I'm passionate about life' (transcript of the interview).

It seems to me the conversation was a bit muddled (as these things often are). I wouldn't call it an argument - maybe, stretching things, you could say it was a disagreement but I'd say it was more two people talking at cross purposes.

In a way, I agree with what both were saying. Cruise is correct in his assessment that drugs mask problems. This is because they tend to address symptoms. Where I think he's off base, at least a bit, is in the implicit assumption that psychiatry is all about drugs. Helping someone recognize and change destructive patterns of behaviour, without the use of drugs, is also a form of psychiatry. I'm not an expert but I don't believe treatment necessarily has to include drugs.

I suspect, from what he said, that his definition of psychiatry and mine (and perhaps Lauer's) are a bit different and, if that's the case, it explains some of the muddle. I don't equate treatment with the application of drugs (though it can include this). However, Cruise may be correct in that this may be increasingly what psychiatric treatment amounts to (as opposed to focusing on non-drug related ways of dealing with mental disorders).

Cruise, I believe, would take issue with how disorders are treated and, perhaps in some cases, even that a disorder exists.

But the issue he is really addressing is the missue and abuse of drugs - whether that be the "recreational" and street variety or the ones we like to think are medically warranted. Sometimes these latter kinds are, but we often start using them higgledy-piggledy for just about everything. ("Hmmm ... stay home and get a good night's sleep? Or take Prozac? I'll take the Prozac.")

Anyway ... read what was actually said and decide for yourself who was right, if anyone. I think you'll find it was what it was - a guy talking off the top of his head, not a research paper and, as when people talk in this way (as interviews are designed for), you'll see some is a bit muddled but his essential point comes across: people use drugs for issues that don't really require them. What's required is information, focus, a non-drug related strategy and, most important, support from people who care.

Tag: ,

Falling behind and The Best Years of Our Lives

It was quite a week at work etc., so I haven't scribbled anything about movies - though I've seen some good ones. For instance, I finally watched Hotel Rwanda. Also Truffault's 1962 movie, Jules and Jim.

Last night? It was Howard's End.

Yet I haven't had time to write anything about them (or to revisit Femme Fatale, which I said I would).

I do have a review, though, of the 1946 Academy Award winner (7 of them!), William Wyler's The Best Years of Our Lives. It's a wonderful movie which, as I mention, didn't generate much enthusiasm in me until I actually watched it. Here's the review.

Tag: , , ,

June 19, 2005

The Scallywag Errol Flynn

I usually read several books at the same time. Actually, to be accurate, I don’t read them at the same time. I have several going at once and I alternate back and forth between them.

One of the books I’m currently reading, and having a helluva great time enjoying, is My Wicked, Wicked Ways: The Autobiography of Errol Flynn, originally published somewhere around 1959, available now through Cooper Square Press (part of Taylor Trade Publishing group).

Good heavens, what a read. Is anything he says true? Well, maybe. Probably, at least some of it. But that’s not really the point, not for me.

It reads as if it’s the transcript of a recording of a great raconteur, a teller of tall-tales whose favourite tale is his own life. You get the sense of a man who is totally self-absorbed but, somehow, has such a winning personality you love him for it.

I originally picked up the book because I was interested in finding a unique character I might make use of in a story, a model for a supporting player. Well, geez … did I ever get my money’s worth in Flynn. It’s not simply a matter of a long, episodic tale but also one of style. The words, syntax … everything that goes into creating a “voice” in writing, is here.

It’s the breezy voice of a kid who never grew up.

For me, the incidents are less important than the personality that comes across (although the incidents are quite remarkable). Together, personality and incidents, it makes for an incredibly entertaining book.

Flynn is a character, in the truest sense. He’s marvellous and if I had known him, I don’t think I would have trusted him any further than I could throw him.

(By the way, it sounds as if the writing of My Wicked, Wicked Ways was a great story too, or so the book’s introduction suggests.)

My Wicked, Wicked Ways:
- Amazon.com
- Amazon.ca
Tag: , ,

Revising my opinion of Femme Fatale

I think I may have to revise my opinion of Femme Fatale. Maybe even update my rating. On a second look, it's much better than I had originally thought. In noir terms, it's very good and, I think, it's the kind of movie that builds a reputation as time goes on. In other words, thirty years from now it may be viewed as a classic.

Or not. I'm still mulling this one over. But it definitely is a movie that needs to be seen twice. (But that prompts the question, is a movie a "good" movie if you need to see it a second time to get it?)

Tag: ,

June 18, 2005

Survey says people prefer movies at home

A recent AP-AOL poll about movies has turned up a number of interesting things, such as a general preference people have for watching movies at home.

To start, I'd be interested in knowing when this poll was taken. What sort of answers do you get when you ask these questions in the early part of the year as opposed to the end of the year when the industry is releasing its "better" films as studios grab at Academy Awards?

Still, there are some interesting results. Like three quarters of those polled saying they prefer watching movies at home.

"Young adults, single people and those with college degrees were most likely to say they preferred going to the movie theater."

That's not surprising. Older people, particularly those with families, save money on ticket prices, snacks and baby-sitting by simply renting or buying a DVD.

Home theatres are bigger and better now too so, while the theatre still has that big screen, it doesn't feel like such great advantage unless you're a genuine cinema aficionado. Besides, depending on what theatre you see a film in, the big screen may not be all that hot. I’ve been in theatres where the movie didn’t appear bright enough, wasn’t quite fitted to the screen and didn’t sound all that great.

An advantage home viewing has over the theatre is control. I’ve actually been in theatres watching a movie and tried to press the pause or back button then realized, “Hey, wait! I have no remote!”

Another interesting tidbit from the poll was this:

“People were most fond of comedies, followed by dramas and action-adventure movies.”

Again … when were the questions asked? If Hollywood has a glut of action-adventure movies, there is a good chance people will say they want comedies simply because the action-adventure films have worn out their welcome.

My own take on all of this is that, like all polls, the results can be read numerous ways. But I do think you can safely conclude people are generally finding the convenience and control of home viewing has greater appeal than the traditional appeal of theatres, the spectacle of the big screen. It’s not that home viewing is a better way to see a movie, it’s simply that its advantages are increasing whereas the advantage of the theatre is roughly static. Or, if not static, the additional attractions added to the theatre experience are not of the same kind as home viewing, convenience and control.

And the movie business continues to be run by business people who believe hoo-hah, the usual snake-oil flash, is a safer bet than a good story. I have a bias, true, but I think a good story beats flash almost every time. It certainly does where longevity is concerned. Flash may take the opening weekend, but a good story often means doing well over several weekends and in DVD sales and rentals.

Does this mean more money? Maybe not. Maybe that one big opening weekend is where all the money is to be made. But I think it's also safe to conclude that a movie designed for a big opening weekend take doesn't have "legs." My impression is that they are largely forgettable.

Tag: ,

Time for a gander at Femme Fatale?

Hmm. I don't know why, but I looked back today at what I wrote a few years ago about Brian De Palma's 2002 movie, Femme Fatale.

(That's the one with Rebecca Romijn-Stamos and Antonio Banderas.)

It didn't seem to go over terribly well with audiences and I apparently was less than overwhelmed by it too. Yet I mentioned it probably required a second look. Whatever the reasons are, I've never found the time to take that second look. So I think tonight might be the night.

I looked at a few of the reviews the movie received when it came out and many of them were quite positive. (Roger Ebert gave it 4 stars. Mind you, he's a De Palma fan.)

Last night, by the way, I took in Jaws. I'd been putting off getting the DVD for quite a while. But someone seemed to want me to get it since they keep releasing new editions of it every few years. I grabbed (at a pretty good price) the latest, two-disc affair: Jaws - 30th Anniversary Edition.

By the way, when you haven't seen a film, such as Jaws, for quite a few years some of those scenes can still make you jump.

That's good movie-making.

Tag: ,

June 14, 2005

No cigar for Libeled Lady

I've always liked William Powell and Myrna Loy (whom I like almost as much as the team of Cary Grant and Irene Dunne), and I'm particularly thinking of The Thin Man.

With that in mind, I re-watched Libeled Lady (which also stars Spencer Tracy and Jean Harlow). You know, I love all the actors in this movie.

I especially love Myrna Loy throughout, Jean Harlow in the last half, and William Powell being the on-screen William Powell from beginning to end. (Spencer Tracy ... well, maybe I wasn't quite so thrilled with him - the role less, rather than the performance.)

But while this movie has its moments, it doesn't really cohere well as a film. I'm not really sure where the problem lies. The story conceit is sort of okay for a comedy. But it just doesn't gel. Somehow, it tries too hard. Honestly, I just don't know what the problem is here. But as movies go, it's a little bit forgettable.

Of course, it doesn't help that the DVD is a pretty weak transfer. There is a lot of scratching on this one. No effort at cleaning it up.

Bottom line? There are amusing moments in this poorly transferred DVD but overall it doesn't hang together well as a 98 minute movie.

Tag: , , ,