Great Guy.

Review #1834: Great Guy.

Cast: 

James Cagney (Johnny Cave), Mae Clarke (Janet Henry), James Burke (Patrick James Aloysius Haley), Edward Brophy (Pete Reilly), Henry Kolker (Abel Canning), Bernadene Hayes (Hazel Scott), Edward McNamara (Captain Pat Hanlon), Robert Gleckler (Marty Cavanaugh), Joe Sawyer (Joe Burton), and Edward Gargan (Al) Directed by John G. Blystone (#926 - Our Hospitality)

Review: 

I don't think you need to say many words about a semi-obscure 1930s movie, but why the hell not? Even an average movie from the era could be interesting, provided it does not bore the senses, if only because sometimes you can find something quizzical when doing a quick look for an "old-fashioned" movie. Besides, there is more to films of the 1930s than just looking at the year of 1939 and all of those classic times. At any rate, James Cagney started his film career during this particular decade. He had a decade of vaudeville and stage work behind him before Warner Bros. signed him to a contract (one that went from short-term to long-term extension), and The Public Enemy (1931) cemented him as a star. The film was based on the stories of James Edward Grant, who had written several stories involving the character played by Cagney that appeared in The Saturday Evening Post in 1933 and 1934. Henry McCarty and Henry Johnson wrote the screenplay while Henry Ruskin contributed additional dialogue (Horace McCoy apparently had been listed in earlier reports as a contributor but was dropped). The film was released by Grand National Films, who managed to snag James Cagney because he had sued Warner Bros. for breach of contract, owing to conflicts about top billing and monetary disputes. Grand National was a newly formed independent studio led by Edward L. Alperson. Cagney starred in two films for the studio: this film and Something to Sing About (1937), but neither were particularly successful for the studio, which would liquidate in 1939 after releasing a hundred films in its time, with many of the films being available in the public domain. Cagney returned to Warner Bros. after getting a substantially better deal. In the end, Cagney acted regularly in films until the 1960s that thrived in a variety of roles that ranged from "tough guy" to comedic. The film was directed by John G. Blystone, who directed dozens of films in both the silent and sound eras (after starting as a shorts director in the 1910s) before his death in 1938 at the age of 45.

So yes, this is a film...drama (calling it a noir is a bit too far) involving a fight against systemic cheating, with a man from the New York Department of Weights and Measures. Technically, there is a bit of light tone present here, since Cagney isn't the violent lead here (instead, he plays someone who just happens to have been a prizefighter before becoming a department man). Instead, it is a light film of 66 minutes that moves on one beat of a likably rigid lead fighting against the dangers of...shopkeepers that give you less product for their weight and gasoline guys that don't give you the proper gallon of gas. To be honest, I actually didn't know the Weights and Measures Department was actually real, because it sounds like the line to a cheeky joke one makes involving making a super-serious movie that is actually time for deadpan, but it actually is a real thing. In that sense, maybe it makes sense that this is a light film, one that can be watched with mild curiosity that doesn't have too many pretensions about being tightly packed suspense. Of course, it isn't anybody's idea of a great Cagney film to start with, but he is still game for what is needed in terms of drawing charisma where it is needed in confidence that carries the film through the potential leaky holes for a reasonable winner. It becomes a winner because of Cagney rather than in spite of him, since he elevates material that is borderline serviceable and makes it work just enough. Of course, the others aren't too bad themselves, with Clarke getting a few little moments with Cagney to make diverting chemistry together in differing approaches to the "racket" of things in life. Burke provides a few little moments with light humor as the momentary partner with Cagney (which mainly involves Irish references). The film does lack a suitable threat, since shifty aldermen (an okay Kolker and an ornery Gleckler) and heavies (Burton) could probably be utilized a bit more usefully. The only substantial fight scene is at the end, if only because having a scene where a cop "looks to smoke all of his cigar before intervening" is different from the usual showdown. As a whole, Great Guy is brisk and mildly involving that may be curious enough to just slip through as a win depending on the viewer and their attention to seeking out the films of James Cagney. To me, it is fine enough to work, for which one can thank Cagney and his confident swagger for making one want to stick through and keep the eyes open for what could happen next.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Northman.

Review #1833: The Northman.

Cast: 

Alexander Skarsgård (Amleth), Nicole Kidman (Queen Gudrún), Claes Bang (Fjölnir the Brotherless), Anya Taylor-Joy (Olga of the Birch Forest), Ethan Hawke (King Aurvandill War-Raven), Willem Dafoe (Heimir the Fool), Elliott Rose (Gunnar), Gustav Lindh (Thorir the Proud), Eldar Skar (Finnr the Nose-Stub), Phill Martin (Hallgrimr Half Troll), Ingvar Eggert Sigurðsson (He-Witch), Björk (the Seeress), and Olwen Fouéré (Ashildur Hofgythja) Directed by Robert Eggers (#780 - The Witch)

Review: 

If I told you that this was a Viking rendition of Hamlet, would you be as interested to hear about the movie as opposed to just stating the cast and director? Well, one does prefer a bit of a history lesson, I suppose. Amleth is a legend in medieval Scandinavian lore, as told by Saxo Grammaticus, a Danish historian who wrote about him in the 13th century based on the oral traditions of long ago, which explains why the film is set in the year of 914 (by coincidence, "Hamlet" happens to be an anagram of "Amleth"). As such, this is a loose adaptation of the legend, one that was written by Eggers and Sjon, an Icelandic poet, novelist and lyricist. This isn't exactly an adaptation of Hamlet as it is more a parallel of it, but since one has likely seen many interpretations of revenge and madness, this isn't exactly a surprise: it involves a family mixed in blood and fate. Undeniably, it helps to have a little familiarity with Eggers as a director before one goes off seeing a film like this, since it helps to see the progression of a director who seems interested in exploring lost imaginations through all the research and rigid shooting methods that were apparent in his prior films with The Witch (2015) and The Lighthouse (2019); it is the traditions of the past that he wants to see through that mean most. Skarsgard and co-producer Lars Knudsen had wanted to do a Viking project for some time, but it was only in 2019 that Eggers was tapped to direct the film, and there were historical consultants utilized for the film that would do a mix of historical accuracy and educated guesswork; for example, initiation rituals are not exactly specified beyond a few descriptions of sprinkled blood of dead animals (now, catching a thrown spear to throw it right back, that came from an Icelandic saga). At any rate, it is the biggest budgeted film done by Eggers (at around $70-90 million), owing to attempts to try and balance the demands of the studio for accessibility over deliberate pacing/artsy - 137 minutes is the run-time for the film.

It does start a bit sluggish, but once one is hooked into its blunted edge of darkness, you are in. It never tries to be anything other than what it wants to be in a saga that has plenty of blood to go along with an unyielding sense of revenge. Well, that, and the honor of being able to die by the blade. It draws on mythology and archeology to make a formidable freak-out film that doesn't settle for just mundane magic.  Eggers has cultivated a brutal yet beautiful vision of history while making a film that would make Conan the Barbarian (1982) blush. Any debate over whether style or substance wins the day seems unnecessary when it comes the real question about just how far a vision can go in not wanting to compromise for the sake of it. For me, I was totally fine with the movie as a whole, because I admired what I was seeing in its blood-soaked sorcery without needing to squirm at attempts to divert itself away. This also includes the climax, which manages to maintain its destiny of vengeance with durability. This is a movie that starts with folks taking substances while acting as wolves and ends with a fight on a volcano...in the nude. It may be weird, but I admire its sensibility and its gradual pacing, and it is the cast that helps to elevate the material just as far as it wants to go. Skarsgård makes an ideal lead in terms of a man going berserk with trance-like fury that exists along the other people for one purpose: primal ones. Kidman takes some time to get properly involved in the action, but when she does get there, she sinks her teeth right in when it comes to committed steely nature, particularly when Kidman and Skarsgård encounter each other alone. Taylor-Joy seeps into the mystical side for a few useful moments (generally spent with Skarsgård), earthy and familiar without mundane. Given that one could almost flip the perspective around for a different film (a man threatens to take one's whole family away because of something they did years ago...think about it), it is interesting to see just how Bang would end up, because he makes a soothing adversarial presence, one that doesn't have to chew scenery to make the inevitable conclusion with the lead any more interesting than it needs to be (heck, they don't even say words in that moment). Hawke and Dafoe aren't in the film for too long, but they are each useful for what needs to happen with the youthful title character (as played by Oscar Novak), made clear by their one big scene together: a ritual together, complete with folks acting like dogs...and hallucinogens, which certainly raises the hair on the skin. Just saying what happens in a movie like this isn't quite enough, one really should just see for themselves what happens in a movie that presents vengeance and traditions of the Viking age in all of its clear glory without pretense or false note. I think it hits most of its marks for what it aims for, and fans of Eggers will certainly enjoy what they see here, and I think others will generally find their patience rewarded.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent.

Review #1832: The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent.

Cast: 

Nicolas Cage (Nick Cage / Nicky Cage), Pedro Pascal (Javi Gutierrez), Sharon Horgan (Olivia Henson), Tiffany Haddish (Vivian, a CIA agent), Ike Barinholtz (Martin, a CIA agent), Alessandra Mastronardi (Gabriela), Jacob Scipio (Carlos), Neil Patrick Harris (Richard Fink), Lily Sheen (Addy Cage), and Paco León (Lucas Gutierrez) Directed by Tom Gormican.

Review: 

Would you be surprised to know that Nicolas Cage did not sign up to do this movie on the first time he was asked? It makes sense if you hear a premise like the one the script (written by Tom Gormican and Kevin Etten) has, which only seemed to mildly offend him. It was a letter written by Gormican that swayed Cage, however, one that showed an interest in Cage's earlier work that also happens to feature a younger CG creation of himself that confronts him from time to time (the Wild at Heart version, specifically) without being tied to his actual family life. Of course, as Cage as stated about himself, "I never had a career, I only have work." Cage has worked for forty years in television and film, as you already might know, one that has seen a distinct variety of movies (good and bad), so you don't need me to say that his "mega-acting" is quite an appeal to folks interested in the art of stars for actors. Cage also decided to serve as a co-producer on the film, which meant that he served as a sort of mediator between studio and director in the filmmaking process. Gormican had one previous directing credit to his name in That Awkward Moment (2014) and one other credit with the television series Ghosted (2017-18) as creator/producer.

Look, do you want to see a movie that features a sequin pillow of Nicolas Cage or not? It isn't quite the first film featuring a funhouse mirror portrayal of an actor played by themselves, as evidenced by Being John Malkovich (1999), but these two films are fairly distinct enough anyway. Sure, there are quite a few references to Cage present in this film, but it really is a fun time to see play out without just being a "Greatest Hits" album. Call it what you will, meta, surreal, odd, but I cannot lie that I had a really interesting time with this movie, even as someone who is only mildly familiar with all of the things that make its starring actor so compelling. Of course, it isn't just a love letter to one particular star, because it is an action comedy, it just happens to be one that has a good deal of heart and knowing sense of engagement in weirdness that is lifted by its main stars for a rewarding good time. It doesn't exactly sell every action beat, but it does at least sell the rest well enough anyway. Cage is playing a heightened version of himself, but it is a version that folks can appreciate because it is Cage playing Cage, and it is captivating to see how he goes through a mirror-house version of himself that has self awareness without sniveling desperation; the double of himself is a bit odd to see opposite him (of course, this isn't his first rodeo when it comes to doubles, as evidenced by Adaptation twenty years prior), but it does at least serve some sort of purpose in the end. Interestingly enough, Pascal follows along with resounding success, one with plenty of energy and chemistry to share with Cage in a portrayal of a devoted fan/action man #2 that makes for a handful of humorous moments together. Horgan serves as the calm medium for a few diverting scenes with Cage, while Haddish and Barinholtz take up a few moments as the other part of the film: setting up the action plot that (meta or not) is tacked on from a few too many action plot-points, which goes okay. The other actors do just fine in small gasps, although my amusement worked out best for the climax when it comes to one last little joke. The run-time of 107 minutes generally works out to its advantage in delivering a fairly creative role for Cage to chew on that does not underplay or overstay its welcome, which is generally what one should expect. As a whole, whether one is a Cage connoisseur or not, you will likely get exactly what you think you expect from a movie like this, one that is pretty good in the right places to make a decent day at the movies.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

High Plains Drifter.

Review #1831: High Plains Drifter.

Cast: 

Clint Eastwood (The Stranger), Verna Bloom (Sarah Belding), Mariana Hill (Callie Travers), Billy Curtis (Mordecai), Mitchell Ryan (Dave Drake), Jack Ging (Morgan Allen), Stefan Gierasch (Mayor Jason Hobart), Ted Hartley (Lewis Belding), Geoffrey Lewis (Stacey Bridges), Dan Vadis (Dan Carlin), Anthony James (Cole Carlin), Walter Barnes (Sheriff Sam Shaw), Paul Brinegar (Lutie Naylor), Richard Bull (Asa Goodwin), Robert Donner (Preacher), John Hillerman (Bootmaker), John Quade (Freight Wagon Operator), and Buddy Van Horn (Marshal Jim Duncan) Directed by Clint Eastwood (#1252 - Space Cowboys, #1310 - Million Dollar Baby, #1476 - Pale Rider, #1501 - Unforgiven, #1550 - Gran Torino, #1638 - Bird, and #1757 - Sudden Impact)

Review: 

"The townspeople did not represent the true spirit of the American pioneer, the spirit that made America great." 

It's interesting to consider the reactions one can have over a Western that dared to do something different with the genre, if only because not many Westerns get criticized by a Western icon - because that quote above is by John Wayne, referring to this feature film, which was the first Western directed by Clint Eastwood (apparently, he had sent a letter to Wayne after this film was released to perhaps star together on a film - go figure). This was his second feature, with the first having been Play Misty for Me (1971), and Eastwood would end up directing a total of six features in the 1970s (all but one featured him as star). Of course, Eastwood had plenty of time to incorporate his vision of the Western hero with six seasons of Rawhide and stardom in Sergio Leone's "Man with No Name" trilogy around him. It wasn't even the first starring feature of his to feature a lead character dedicated to serving some sort of retribution to others that had brought upon him, as could be evidenced by Hang 'Em High (1968). Eastwood's influences in Don Siegel and Sergio Leone prove apparent here, probably helped by the fact that Eastwood included their names on gravestones in the film. The film was evidently inspired by a murder in 1964 of Kitty Genovese, who reporters had said numerous people heard or saw the crime from their apartment building but did nothing (of course, this report was later found to be highly inaccurate). Ernest Tidyman, who had won an Academy Award for his work on The French Connection (1971), wrote the screenplay, although Dean Riesner (a writer on numerous Eastwood films) provided key re-writes.

It's too bad that Wayne thought there was some sort of disagreeable element to making a portrayal of the Old West that differed from what had been seen in dozens of films before it (perhaps he saw something in this film that reminded him of High Noon (1952) when it comes to examining one's conscience, since Wayne also disliked that movie). Well, at least the ones before The Wild Bunch (1969), anyway, because heaven knows the genre has only managed to have one or two highlights in the next couple of decades, and High Plains Drifter is probably one to spotlight for the 1970s, paranoia and all. I welcome any kind of movie that has interest in showing the fear of a town in what they know about themselves, where trying to teach a town courage ends up exposing a lack of moral courage from before. Of course, this is a movie that makes itself starkly different from other films with its hero in the first 25 minutes, so there is that to consider. Eastwood has made an effective film here, one filled with iconoclastic spirit that points the mirror firmly at oneself when it comes to showing conscience and justice. It isn't surprising that the script proposal presented to Eastwood was offbeat enough for him to like it, because it is a lead role that continues what Eastwood liked to do best: the less one says, the stronger one becomes in the imagination of the audience. This results in an efficient production and performance, one that maneuvers his way through with raw enigmatic energy; interestingly, the original script had him as the brother of a marshal, but this was changed to something that could lend itself to discussion. The rest of the cast follows along with worthy reflection, most notably with Curtis. While most of the folks here are representations of the ooze of the morals in town, Curtis is different even when presented as a yes-man to the folks around him, if only because of his eyes, ones that have seen pain despite plenty of friendliness to go around. Bloom is the only other one with a semblance of conscience here, one that eventually festers to the surface that results in a few interesting moments shared with Eastwood, while Hill represents the other side of feminine influence in the town of alleged morals with proper wiles. Ryan is the other highlight among the smarmy folks, one who serves as the ideal conniving presence without having to chew scenery to do so, with the others following along in that regard. Lewis, Vadis, and James do well as the adversaries in simple ruthlessness without needing to see more than what is needed. If you think about it, Pale Rider (1985) is the cousin to this feature when it comes to long & tall mysterious strangers arising from somewhere in a small town, but I think High Plains Drifter is slightly better, if only because it has a jagged edge of humor and allegory that makes its result all the more whole, one that utilizes its 105 minute run-time for gratifying effect in haunting display, complete with a Dee Barton music score to generate a first-rate Western. It isn't perfect, but it makes a worthy first impression when looking on the career of Clint Eastwood - the star and director.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Note: This one was for Dad.

Sonic the Hedgehog 2.

Review #1830: Sonic the Hedgehog 2.

Cast: 

James Marsden (Tom Wachowski), Jim Carrey (Dr. Robotnik), Ben Schwartz (Sonic), Tika Sumpter (Maddie Wachowski), Idris Elba (Knuckles), Natasha Rothwell (Rachel), Adam Pally (Wade), Shemar Moore (Randall), Lee Majdoub (Agent Stone), Colleen O'Shaughnessey (Tails), Melody Nosipho Niemann (Jojo), Tom Butler (Commander Walters), Brad Kalilimoku (Drench), Krista Alvarez (Faucet), and Donna Jay Fulks (Longclaw) Directed by Jeff Fowler (#1353 - Sonic the Hedgehog)

Review: 

You remember the Sonic the Hedgehog games, I am sure. I know I do, because I am quite a fan of these games (as created by Yuji Naka and Naoto Ohshima), which have been published by Sega since June 23, 1991 that generally involves quick gameplay alongside springs and loops; not every game has been great, but it has a special place among video games (to the point where June 23 is a special day among folks like me). Of course, I'm also sure you remember the first Sonic film, if only because it was just two years ago (released on Valentine's Day right before you-know-what in 2020) that one got to see a reasonable adaptation of a video game series that I am a reasonable fan of, even if had a weird road to adaptation, such as a loud response to the original design of the title character. It was fine, although I would maintain that all the hubbub about a design would have been for naught if it had been an animated film rather than live action when it comes to capturing some sort of imagination. I decided to re-watch the original film before seeing this one, and honestly the quality of the film was basically the same as I remembered it, which was average, one that played it a bit safe with some of its actions that tried to cultivate a down-to-earth feel to the character that probably benefitted most from Carrey and Marsden being around. The writers for the original film in Pat Casey and Josh Miller return, with each writing the screenplay and story while John Whittington co-wrote the screenplay. 

Look, it does okay as a sequel. It manages to include a few more references to the video games that it admires well while also doing a useful job in satisfying the family-friendly crowds. The bar for video game movies is still pretty low to begin with, but I think one can say this film is slightly above the previous film despite the fact that it only just manages to scratch the surface of where one could go with actually making a film of this material that doesn't seem like a smaller adventure of the games. I find it quite odd that a film series focused on the message of family and working together works best when it actually allows itself to breathe with its video game characters rather than straining in references. The two films are quite similar in their styles, for better or worse: they have decent action pieces, a decent cast, and yet each have a weird imbalance of trying to do humor. Besides, now we have a movie of 122 minutes (twenty-three minutes longer than the first one), which only proves that some movies do need trimming - if one needs a dance contest in their movie, send a strongly worded letter to me, since I rolled my eyes.

At any rate, Schwartz maintains the engaging appeal that comes with this title character is playful in a manner that keeps the spirit of the games around without too many childish annoyances. O'Shaughnessey & Elba make an interesting pair of voices to join along the small furry video game creature crowd, since the former has voiced the character for a number of years and the latter is a fairly recognizable name actor. In that sense, they fit fairly well for the roles in general charm, one that doesn't have to force the lines through for humor (such as with Elba, who seems to have fun with it). Marsden & Sumpter may not have as much to do, but at least they fill their time in the family angle with reasonable conviction that doesn't make one waver when it comes to trying to make one believe that movies about fast blue hedgehogs need families. Carrey has continued to hone-in the heightened egomaniac that he was going for in the first film, which results in a satisfying performance, absurd enough in bombast that continues to make a proper foil (now, the part at the end with him turning into a special effect in a green-lined suit, that is debatable). Rothwell is part of the most puzzling sequence of the film, which involves a wedding played as fake that "sort of" moves the plot along (which is where Moore and Butler come in), but it only reminds me to make sure I don't check my watch often (this is also true for Pally). I should mention that even with all these little quibbles, there is at least a semblance of adventure and promise that is filled, one that yearns to keep its audience engaged without insulting them. If one expects a movie around the same quality as the Sonic film before it, they should be reasonably satisfied, and I suppose that is more than enough.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Topper Takes a Trip.

Review #1829: Topper Takes a Trip.

Cast: 

Constance Bennett (Marion Kerby), Roland Young (Cosmo Topper), Billie Burke (Clara Topper), Alan Mowbray (Wilkins, Topper's butler), Verree Teasdale (Mrs. Nancy Parkhurst), Franklin Pangborn (Louis), Alexander D'Arcy (Baron de Rossi), Spencer Charters (Judge), Irving Pichel (Prosecutor), and Asta the dog (Mr. Atlus) Directed by Norman Z. McLeod. (#688 - Horse Feathers and #1346 - Topper)

Review: 

You remember the 1937 movie Topper, do you? Well, maybe not, but I'm sure a little refresher would not hurt. The original film featured Cary Grant, Constance Bennett, Roland Young, Billie Burke, and Alan Mowbray in an adaptation of the 1926 novel of the same name by Thorne Smith. The movie was about newly-dead folks who come back as ghosts and decide to do a good deed in order to be stuck in limbo, which involves helping their stuffy and tired friend - wacky hijinks ensue, at least what you would call hijinks from the 1930s. McLeod, a director of comedies such as Monkey Business (1931), returns as director and all except Grant in the main cast return for this film, while Jack Jevne and Eddie Moran return to write the sequel, with Corey Ford joining as screenwriter. Perhaps not surprisingly, the film features footage taken from the 1937 film as a recap, complete with a thanks given to Grant for allowing the footage to be used. A sequel followed in 1941 called Topper Returns, which retained Young and Burke. 

Instead of a husband learning to loosen up (alongside his social climbing wife), now we have a story about a ghost trying to bring them back together as opposed to divorce - perish the thought of him trying to explain that the only friend he is seeing is a friendly ghost, who now is accompanied by a ghost dog. Oh, and there is a trip to Paris that sees all of them together and I think you know how it ends. Honestly, the only thing that might be a highlight is the effects by Roy Seawright, who received the only Academy Award nomination for the film for Best Special Effects. Bennett and Young are fine actors, but man I was not really that invested in this film. It exemplifies all the average qualities of an average movie that is just not quite my thing, since it is barely funny and barely that compelling, mostly because I see a movie that is going through the motions with ghost hijinks that aren't really that clever to see actually play out. 80 minutes go by with creaky maneuvering that never really incites a big guffaw or even a big groan, not even for the dog (of The Thin Man notice). Young is staid as ever, but it felt more interesting the first time around with him as a foil. Bennett may be playful, but the movie is sorely lacking her having Grant to play on as a proper freewheeling duo with charm for the proper bubbly flavor. Instead, it comes off as milk that seems spoiled in the wrong light. Burke seems there for the ride more than anything, not really making it any funnier or less enjoyable, which basically means a neutral result (Mowbray is hardly noticeable). It's hard to even come up with many highlights or odd scenes to really spot besides just saying "oh, that's a thing". There are basically two roads of thought when it comes to films from the 1930s: good ones you can recommend without too much trouble, and ones that are harder to watch or recommend. So, with the sequel to Topper, it's all up to you.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

As boring as this review might seem, at least one interesting thing happened this week: 

THE RIO GRANDE VALLEY VIPERS WON THE NBA G-LEAGUE CHAMPIONSHIP! Imagine seeing your region winning a championship for the fourth time in twelve years. What a feeling.

Rebecca (1940).

Review #1828: Rebecca. 

Cast: 
Joan Fontaine (The second Mrs. de Winter), Laurence Olivier (George Fortescue Maximilian "Maxim" de Winter), Judith Anderson (Mrs. Danvers), George Sanders (Jack Favell), Reginald Denny (Frank Crawley), Gladys Cooper (Beatrice Lacy), C. Aubrey Smith (Colonel Julyan), Nigel Bruce (Major Giles Lacy), Florence Bates (Mrs. Edythe Van Hopper), Edward Fielding (Frith), Melville Cooper (Coroner at trial), Leo G. Carroll (Dr. Baker), and Leonard Carey (Ben) Directed by Alfred Hitchcock (#219 - Rope, #223 - North by Northwest, #446 - Spellbound, #447 - Psycho, #450 - Vertigo, #455 - Rear Window, #553 - Strangers on a Train, #800 - Shadow of a Doubt, #910 - Notorious, #963 - The Lodger: A Story of the London Fog, #964 - The Ring (1927), #965 - Downhill, #970 - Mr. and Mrs. Smith, #977 - Frenzy, and #1343 - The 39 Steps, and #1739 - The Birds)

Review:

It does become interesting to consider just how many movies one can see of the late Alfred Hitchcock, particularly since his line of work has taken up nine percent of all films I've ever seen, which is a weird way of saying seventeen films. Of course, the real story is the fact that this was not only the 26th feature film directed by Hitchcock, it was his first directed in Hollywood. Hitchcock was forty years old when he decided to move to Hollywood, having believed that he reached his peak in his native Britain, and it was the efforts of producer David O. Selznick that led to him moving; the two signed a seven-year contract; Hitchcock would end up producing more films by himself than with Selznick, and they would have their disagreements in terms of personality and professionalism when it came to this film, to where they only worked on one other film together in Spellbound a couple of years later, most notably because Hitchcock liked to film a controlled cut without too much extra footage. As such, this is an adaptation of the novel of the same name that had been written by Daphne du Maurier, and it was Hitchcock who had adapted her previous book Jamaica Inn in 1939. Incidentally, the book had been adapted on radio by Orson Welles in 1938, and a stage adaptation had been done by Du Maurier in 1939. Selznick aimed to be quite faithful to the book, as much as one can do with the Production Code, which had one particular rule about spouse death. Hitchcock was a busy man, since this was also the year of release for Foreign Correspondent, which like this film would be nominated for an Academy Award for Best Picture (other films nominated were films such as The Grapes of Wrath, The Great Dictator, and The Philadelphia Story). As it happened, Rebecca would win the award, making it the only Hitchcock film to ever win the honor; Selznick, as the recipient of the award, became the first back-to-back winner for a producer. As such, the screenplay was done by Robert E. Sherwood and Joan Harrison, while the adaptation was done by Philip MacDonald and Michael Hogan. 

Several actors were considered for the main roles, such as Ronald Colman, William Powell, Olivia de Havilland, Loretta Young, among others. Sometimes one needs a Gothic vision to really see the talents of Hitchcock come alive, if only because one wants to see just where the rabbit hole goes in mystery and tortured romance, where the unsaid is more biting than the action. 130 minutes never felt so magnificent when it comes to how Hitchcock has handled the macabre with the terror that comes from memories of a deceased wife that haunts both an estate and the husband himself (incidentally, one never sees the title character nor knows the name of the one of the main characters) that creates such diverting paranoia without becoming a costume show; George Barnes and his cinematography help in that regard to make a stirring film look as alive as it does, and it probably isn't surprising that Barnes won an Academy Award for his work. Of course, the cast is just as effective as the crew. Olivier portrays the vulnerability required with such brooding patience that makes for quite a volatile and curious interaction with Fontaine, one ripped by the past that holds him down further than anything else could, which means one is watching a gripping performance that isn't just a show for Olivier (a talented actor already noted for his performance in Wuthering Heights the year before). Fontaine (the younger sister of actress Olivia de Havilland) had a few key roles in films before this film, most notably Gunga Din (1939), but this was the film that made her a key star (Fontaine however did not care for her typecasting for just melodramatic roles, which would include films done by Selznick like Jane Eyre (1943) and even another du Maurier adaptation in Frenchman's Creek the next year). It doesn't take much to see why she became a star, because her performance is quite excellent, one with the exact type of withering vulnerability required in showing doubt that doesn't become overshadowed by the other members of the cast, and the growing confidence by the second half only helps to make a well-rounded performance of curiosity. Anderson (considered one of the great stage actors of her time) makes a compelling adversarial presence, one who lurks around Fontaine that practically glides from scene to scene (complete with a lack of blinking) that makes the final result all the more haunting. Sanders, when he does show up, makes a perfect cad to view against the others, and the rest of the cast keeps the proceedings dignified and well invested. As a whole, the movie is a classic worth viewing among all the other Hitchcock classics for what is seen and what isn't seen in this Gothic mystery that has the highlights from its director and producer in Selznick without becoming consumed by itself. One can debate just where the film rests among the classics, but one knows by the time the film ends that it is up there in the margins somewhere for what it ends up doing with a master at work.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Tobacco Road.

Review #1827: Tobacco Road.

Cast: 

Charley Grapewin (Jeeter Lester), Marjorie Rambeau (Sister Bessie Rice), Gene Tierney (Ellie May Lester), William Tracy (Dude Lester), Elizabeth Patterson (Ada Lester), Dana Andrews (Capt. Tim Harmon), Ward Bond (Lov Bensey), Slim Summerville (Henry Peabody), Grant Mitchell (George Payne), and Zeffie Tilbury (Grandma Lester) Directed by John Ford (#398 - The Last Hurrah, #1324 - 3 Bad Men, #1349 - Stagecoach, #1372 - Fort Apache, #1392 - The Searchers, #1409 - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, and #1778 - 3 Godfathers)

Review: 

"We have no dirt in the picture. We’ve eliminated the horrible details and what we’ve got left is a nice dramatic story. It’s a tear-jerker, with some comedy relief. What we’re aiming at is to have the customers sympathize with our people and not feel disgusted.”

Sometimes even a famous director has a film falls through the cracks. This is one of those films, even with the source material it arose from: the 1932 novel of the same name, which had been written by Erskine Caldwell, which in turn was successful and controversial enough to spawn a play that had been written by Jack Kirkland that premiered on December 4, 1933. The play ran for nearly eight years over the span of two theatres for 3,182 performances, which is the second-longest running non-musical on Broadway. When it came time to possibly sign the right for a film adaptation, Kirkland wanted someone who would help to picturize the film with honesty and fearlessness (as they put it), or at the very least one that could make a useful profit. Of course, the idea to make a movie out of it took a number of years and negotiations due to objections from the Production Code, which thought the contents of the play would not be suitable for a film, which scuttled RKO Radio Pictures from their idea to do a film with Charles Laughton as the lead (as opposed to the lead star of the production, Henry Hull). By 1940, the responsibility would spring for 20th Century Fox, who the Production Code likely favored because they had just adapted The Grapes of Wrath (1940) into a feature film, and the director and writer would be the same for this one: John Ford and Nunnally Johnson, respectively. The studio decided to avoid any potential judgement by shooting in Sherwood Forest and Encino in California as opposed to Augusta, Georgia (since the title of the book refers to a road for tobacco, not the rivalry of the same name that involves the state of North Carolina). The film ended up making almost $2 million in box office returns on release, which means a fair success. Honestly, even peering at the synopsis of the book or play makes one curious on just how one really thought that making a rural comedy with such strange enthusiasm was a good idea. Aspects are familiar, since the play features tattered clothed sharecroppers with bad soil that means one can't make the crop or a proper living, and the family sees one of their own get married to a preacher before having to face the prospect of the bank taking over the property, complete with a prideful patriarch that wouldn't dream of working in a cotton mill. The play has been cited as a "challenging play", since it isn't just a tragedy or a comedy but a mix that ended up with bans in major cities as immoral; of course, the film doesn't feature the cleft lip for the character of Ellie May or the boneless nose of Sister Bessie, although apparently the constant honking of the car horn from the Dude character is actually in the book. The film runs at 84 minutes.

Of course, some folks (me) did not actually watch The Grapes of Wrath, but I am sure there are more folks who haven't seen Tobacco Road, particularly with all the other John Ford films out there; of course, I do imagine there are some folks who aren't quite as familiar with Ford's non-Western output. I am astounded at the idea that one could turn a book that features folks being burned to death and grotesque descriptions and utter depravity...and turn it into a weird mix of comedy and drama with a hopeful bow on top of it all but such is the life under a Production Code. Grapewin certainly must have been the lucky one in the whole proceedings, since it might have been strange to see a different studio try to consider someone like Walter Brennan or even Henry Fonda for the role. Instead, it went to a man that ran away from home to dabble in the circus and Broadway before becoming a film actor, with one of his films coincidentally being The Grapes of Wrath; one can only imagine how it feels to have a starring role at the age of 72. Actually, he does fine with the performance here, if only because he maintains a stubborn sense of lazy pride is probably the most endearing of the cast-mates, engaging without awful caricature. Rambeau does chew the scenery a bit as a ham, but at least it is a serviceable ham performance that homes in some sort of interest when it comes to weird hypocrisy that entails a bit of singing. Tierney is seemingly used just for shots of longing that might have worked in a more desperate film. Patterson does fine alongside Grapewin in terms of long-standing diligence in the face of squalor. Tracy fares the worst, if only because one does not want to hear so much hooting and hollering, which indeed includes him honking a car horn from time to time. Andrews and Bond are in the background for most of the film as if they are just name actors, but at least they seem game for "mild presence" and "goofball foil" types. Honestly, while I can understand the appeal of optimistic features, the movie just doesn't seem to ring the right notes to actually make it sound believable enough to work for a whole time. It seems too easy, too nice-looking, and too loud to really belong to the pantheon of memorable Ford films. Maybe there is something "subversive" in the maintained status of a proud family from Georgia or something, but one knows that even an average Ford film is still better than a mediocre movie, since it does manage to be efficient with its time in not wasting all of it. I can't exactly recommend the movie as one to start on when it comes to looking at John Ford, but I can say that it does what it wants to do in mild amusement and engagement without becoming completely interminable, so I suppose that can be more than enough for those curious enough for a film from long ago.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Suspect (1944).

Review #1826: The Suspect. 

Cast: 

Charles Laughton (Philip Marshall), Ella Raines (Mary Gray), Dean Harens (John Marshall), Stanley Ridges (Inspector Huxley), Henry Daniell (Gilbert Simmons), Rosalind Ivan (Cora Marshall), Molly Lamont (Mrs. Edith Simmons), and Raymond Severn (Merridew) Directed by Robert Siodmak (#468 - Son of Dracula and #797 - People on Sunday)

Review: 

Sure, perhaps there is something captivating about how obscure a movie is, because there certainly are a handful of thriller adaptations to come across when studying the 1940s, but surely there is a good reason why this one fell through the cracks. Maybe it was the title, because there are at least six other movies out there with that title. The film is an adaptation of the book This Way Out, which was written by James Ronald. As such, the screenplay was done by Bertram Millhauser and Arthur T. Horman. The film was directed by Robert Siodmak, probably best noted for his future effort in The Killers (1946) in a 39-year career, and he was given the task of handling an actor that apparently suffered from bouts of uncertainty. Of course, Laughton was an Academy Award winning actor that could play classical or modern parts, so who wouldn't take the risk if you are Universal Pictures? Besides, he had the name value that compared well when faced with a mix of American and British character actors with either some experience behind them (like Ridges or Daniell) or less (Raines).

It turns out one has a very mediocre thriller on their hands, one that is about as hypnotic as an old frog. The aspects that are interesting prove to be flourishes rather than anything particularly interesting, whether that involves a somewhat interesting chemistry between Laughton and Raines or the idea of some sort of actual suspense in the crime angle. The 85 minutes are brisk, but it probably isn't surprising that the film did not exactly become a known name since its premiere in 1944. The streets of 1902 seem nearly comatose when it comes to characters with complexity or challenge, if only because the main character's weakness is being too decent. So yes, it is probably the politest portrait of a murderer one could watch, which means that it is more of a Laughton showcase. To be fair, he does deliver an interesting performance here, since this is a middle-aged role that requires a bit of earthy presence (i.e., not just a smart-mouthed youth), one that needs patience and dignity, and you get the idea. There isn't a hammy performance with him on this one, since he calmly walks through the film with no trouble in displaying the quandaries presented here, maneuvering through the slowly building gears of turmoil while trying to stay as himself, which only seem to make him burrow down rather than up even after one is done seeing the chemistry-building scenes with Raines, since that is generally the most curious part of the movie in seeing the mismatch (well, whatever you want to call it). Besides, Ivan and Daniell are only mildly interesting as the heels to Laughton, ones who aren't exactly the kind of folks you frown to see go away - one knows crime doesn't pay (to the standards of the film board of the time) anyway. Ridges is stuck in the middle with no real distinguishing qualities that seems a problem when one is trying to see an investigation and trap take place. You would think the poison sequence would generate something other than mild bemusement, but not quite. There is an attempt of distinguished air here that doesn't seem fitting for a movie that begs for something more, as if you know what you are getting into before you really see it. One sort of struggles to say things about the movie beyond just Laughton, because if had included a lesser actor, one could have lapsed into a snooze. But, since here we are with this, I guess you won't be irritated too much. Honestly, this is a toss-up kind of movie, where one will either find it to be splendid enough despite its failings or just too unremarkable to be worth one's time. For me, I just can't see myself recommending it.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Double Indemnity.

Review #1825: Double Indemnity.

Cast: 
Fred MacMurray (Walter Neff), Barbara Stanwyck (Phyllis Dietrichson), Edward G. Robinson (Barton Keyes), Porter Hall (Mr. Jackson), Jean Heather (Lola Dietrichson), Tom Powers (Mr. Dietrichson), Byron Barr (Nino Zachetti), and Richard Gaines (Mr. Norton) Directed by Billy Wilder (#106 - Some Like It Hot, #194 - Ace in the Hole, #422 - The Fortune Cookie, #641 - The Apartment, #809 - Sunset Boulevard), #1384 - Stalag 17, and #1390 - The Seven Year Itch)

Review: 
"I never heard that expression film noir when I made Double Indemnity  ... I just made pictures I would have liked to see. When I was lucky, it coincided with the taste of the audience. With Double Indemnity, I was lucky."

If you can believe it, this was only the fourth directorial effort from Billy Wilder (along with his third since moving to America), who had more experience with scriptwriting (such as Ninotchka (1939), for example). It would also be his first notable effort, one that received considerable attention from audiences and critics (nominated for seven Academy Awards, including Best Picture) that he later called one of his best films. It was an adaptation of the crime novel of the same name by James M. Cain, which was first published in serial form for Liberty magazine in 1936 before being published in 1943 alongside two other stories (Career in C Major and The Embezzler were those stories); he based his novella on a 1927 murder by Ruth Synder, who had her boyfriend kill her husband after having him sign an insurance policy (with a certain clause), with the novel having an insurance agent as the inside man, inspired by conversations had with insurance men. Cain was a journalist before he was a writer, which he started with his first novel in The Postman Always Rings Twice in 1934 (which has had numerous film adaptations). His other most notable work was with Mildred Pierce (1941), which was adapted into a film as well. The plot changed slightly from translation onto the film screen, most notably with the final fate of its main characters, since it wasn't exactly something the Production Code would approve of (of course in the novella, the leads almost escape on an ocean liner together). In fact, the story was mired in development hell for years because of it being deemed "thoroughly unacceptable for screen presentation"; one of the biggest objections made by the Hays Office was to the omission of a gas-chamber execution scene (Wilder did film the scene, but he felt that the closing scene between the two male leads served as a more fitting one). The writers tasked to adapt the film was none other than Wilder and Raymond Chandler, a noted crime fiction writer who dabbled as a screenwriter; Wilder guided the structure and some of the dialogue while Chandler (in Wilder's words) comprehended the dialogue and start his own construction (i.e., not simply just incorporate Cain's words into dialogue). Cain was quite proud of the final result, one that he loved for the changes made because he wished he had thought of those himself.

It may be a cliche to say this by now, but this is one of the prime film noirs of its time (amusingly, not even a moral panic complaint by Kate Smith could stop audiences). It has all the aspects of a great film that would become a habit for its director in later years, one with tight execution and a solid acting trio. It is the kind of movie where 107 minutes runs so smoothly, doing so with great arrangement from Wilder and cinematography by John F. Seitz that capture the shadows one requires from a movie filled with such compelling people and dark corners. One can see the pulpy dialogue from Chandler and Wilder come across with such vivid effectiveness, one that glides across the screen with how it moves the process along in terms of pulp brilliance. MacMurray was generally known for his work in "nice guy" roles (at one point, the filmmakers actually considered George Raft, and yet it is this role that proved one of his most memorable in a lengthy career, one that sees him work so well in cultivating malleable curiosity, driving the story along with dutiful energy (not exactly just a "weak-willed guy", for example); one will find something interesting about the final scene before the climax in the little scene that happens afterwards, where MacMurray tells another character about going to the person they love. Stanwyck (as with her co-star) had a bit of reluctance in doing the role, but she makes it count for such alluring double-sidedness, one who glides across topics like murder without batting an eye, smoldering the screen in a way that makes the interactions between the two of them all the more interesting, right down to their fateful last scene; truly, she exemplifies the femme fatale role to a T. Robinson proves the contrast in a character role that has plenty of time to share with MacMurray in a mentor role that is graceful along with making a bond just as interesting as the MacMurray-Stanwyck sequences. The others (such as Powers as the limp mark) do fine in sharing the stage with the key three. As a whole, the movie is balanced in its aspects that work for any viewer (with or without experience in the noir sense), maneuvering through its quick setup (a man confessing his story on phone) with no cheap tricks that result in a kinetic success. There are a handful of interesting noirs but only so many that are really considered great, and this one belongs firmly in the latter category with no question, serving as one of Wilder's finest achievements in effective casting, music, and all-around atmosphere. 

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Red (2010).

Review #1824: Red.

Cast: 

Bruce Willis (Frank Moses), Morgan Freeman (Joe Matheson), John Malkovich (Marvin Boggs), Helen Mirren (Victoria Winslow), Karl Urban (William Cooper), Mary-Louise Parker (Sarah Ross), Rebecca Pidgeon (Cynthia Wilkes), Brian Cox (Ivan Simanov), Richard Dreyfuss (Alexander Dunning), Julian McMahon (Vice President Robert Stanton), Ernest Borgnine (Henry, the records keeper), and James Remar (Gabriel Singer) Directed by Robert Schwentke. 

Review: 

Red (standing for Retired: Extremely Dangerous), if you didn't know, was originally a comic miniseries (or as the film credits put it, a graphic novel), done by writer Warren Ellis and artist Cully Hamner that was published from 2003-04 by Homage Comics (a subdivision of comic imprint Wildstorm, which in term was a publishing imprint of DC Comics until its shutdown in 2010). So technically speaking, one is dealing with a comic book movie, although it apparently is lighter in tone (as scripted by Jon Hoeber and Erich Hoeber) than the actual comic, judging by the cursory glance at the plot (Ellis once stated that while the script wasn't exactly the book, he felt it wasn't a bad script, noting the tight casting). This happened to be released in the same year of The Expendables, which also recruited a bunch of familiar names for an action film with a few select quips (which incidentally had Willis in a cameo). This was the fifth feature film for its director in Schwentke, a West German graduate of Columbia College Hollywood.

You get what you pay for when it comes to recognizable names maneuvering their way through an ensemble designed to draw smiles without too many story beats to count on (in other words, smiling at Borgnine is more interesting than the climax reveal). By this point in his career, Willis was 45. In the decade of the 2010s, he would do a variety of action appearances...alongside plenty of direct-to-video work ("on demand", specifically). It probably isn't a surprise that Willis was the prime actor in mind when it came to casting, since his sly charm is suitable for what is needed here in the small parts before the action pastiche moments come around, which turn out fine (modern movies have certain aims and limits, remember). Freeman doesn't exactly have much to really do here, seemingly overshadowed by the eccentrics like Malkovich with calmness that only works to a certain extent, likely because the film pulls a fake-out involving the character being "dead" for a time. Malkovich makes for a paranoid ham for some splendid amusing moments, which work out for the best without turning into a drudge. Urban lumbers through as the foil for most of the film which works out for engaging action moments. Parker seems bemused just to be there, contributing a few chuckles while having a quirky chemistry with Willis that at the very least doesn't become consumed in all the cliches needed. Mirren seems pleased to be there with graceful engagement that works when finally presented as the last piece of the ensemble for useful effect. One could only hope for further time with Dreyfuss, who has exactly two scenes with a bit that seems honed right in with cliches from the 1980s that is lost in the shuffle. Granted, the movie is going for a light touch when it comes to story, but still. One knows Cox is putting on an accent, but he seems firmly game to make the bit count, which works pretty well for those small moments with Mirren. 

The 111-minute run-time is fairly serviceable, in that the film manages to have enough action set-pieces to go along with occasional chuckles without slowing to a halt too many times, although the climax does nearly slug itself out with abrupt set-ups to nearly derail it. Honestly, the movie is fine. Granted, it might not exactly win many favors as an action spectacle, but it is at the least something that proves suitable for enjoyment with fair style and sly charm. Technically speaking, this is a cast that might have been really, really captivating a couple of years ago, if only to note the names that come together to (put it lightly) "kick ass". It moves through the cheesy aspects with an awareness that it is meant to be that way, not trying to take itself too seriously, which results in a decent movie with only a few surprises but a suitable ensemble film. It could have been better with the number of names involved, but the fact that it slugs through the finish line without many stilted bumps in terms of action sequencing and light touches means that it will prove worthy of your time.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.