Redux: Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Redux Review #168: Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Cast: 

Harrison Ford (Indiana Jones), Karen Allen (Marion Ravenwood), Paul Freeman (René Belloq), Ronald Lacey (Major Arnold Toht), John Rhys-Davies (Sallah), Denholm Elliott (Marcus Brody), with Alfred Molina (Satipo), Wolf Kahler (Colonel Dietrich), Anthony Higgins (Major Gobler), Vic Tablian (Barranca / Monkey Man), Don Fellows (Colonel Musgrove), William Hootkins (Major Eaton), Bill Reimbold (Bureaucrat), Fred Sorenson (Jock), Patrick Durkin (Australian Climber), Pat Roach (Giant Sherpa / 1st Mechanic), and George Harris (Simon Katanga) Directed by Steven Spielberg (#126 - Close Encounters of the Third Kind).

Review: 

"Indiana Jones was never a machine. I think one of the things we brought to the genre—and we didn’t coin the genre; it’s been around a lot longer than we’ve been around—but one of the things that George [Lucas] and I and, originally, Larry Kasdan, the writer of Raiders of the Lost Ark, brought to the genre, was the willingness to allow our leading man to get hurt and to express his pain and to get his mad out and to take pratfalls and sometimes be the butt of his own jokes. I mean, Indiana Jones is not a perfect hero, and his imperfections, I think, make the audience feel that, with a little more exercise and a little more courage, they could be just like him. So he’s not the Terminator. He’s not so far away from the people who go to see the movies that he’s inaccessible to their own dreams and aspirations."

What is it about Indiana Jones that drives so much fascination after 45 years? As the story goes, George Lucas, fresh off American Graffiti, had ideas in mind about wanting to do a movie like the ones he used to see a kid. He thought of doing an adventure with a college professor who basically was like James Bond on as "a bounty hunter of antiquities" that liked the nightclub. A little collaboration with his friend Philip Kaufman (director of films such as The Great Northfield, Minnesota Raid [1972] and The White Dawn [1974]) led to the ditching of the nightclub but also led to the pursuit of the Ark of the Covenant. Lucas paused on the idea when Kaufman was off to direct The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976) to focus on, well, Star Wars (1977). Incidentally, one person who wanted to do a Bond type of adventure thriller was Steven Spielberg; the success of Star Wars in May 1977, with Lucas and Spielberg each on vacation in Hawaii, spurred things along for an eventual collaboration (after months of Lucas waiting to see if Kaufman would do it fell through). Spielberg brought in Lawrence Kasdan, who Spielberg suggested because he had just convinced Universal Pictures to purchase Kasdan's script for Continental Divide. They spent several days in 1978 doing a pitching session that argued and paced out what would happen in the story (which you can find here, because it was taped). Kasdan was once quoted as stating that everything in the film "resonates from other movies", specifically adventure films like Seven Samurai to The Great Escape, where they chased that feeling while the film did not take itself too seriously*. Filmed in 1980, Raiders was Spielberg's sixth feature film as a director, falling right between 1941 (1979) and E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982). It was released on June 12, 1981 with mild expectations because of the impending release in America of Superman II that was coming on June 19 (incidentally, audiences could also choose between Raiders or Clash of the Titans, or History of the World, Part I); the result was a massive hit that reportedly saw over 70 million tickets be sold in a time when people could see a movie in theaters for a year. It was nominated for nine Academy Awards that went down from Best Picture to Cinematography, winning for art direction, editing, sound, visual effects, and a special one for sound editing (that year, Chariots of Fire, a movie that I'm sure everyone knows beyond that one song, won Best Picture*). There were four sequels of varying quality (Temple of Doom - really good, actually; Last Crusade - a charmer; Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - better the next time around; Dial of Destiny - fine the one time I saw it) and a television show with The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles.

It's easy to go on and on about the influences that shaped Indiana Jones (matinee serials, China [1943], Secret of the Incas [1954], others) or just go point by point about the beauty of the film from its cinematography by Douglas Slocombe or the tremendously diverting score by John Williams all the way down to Harrison Ford being the one to lead it over, say, Tom Selleck. It was released in a time where you could show multiple people get shot (along with the whole Ark thing), snakes going around dead bodies, blood splatter right as a dude gets chopped by a plane blade...and get a PG rating. The easiest way to describe the movie is that it is an adventure with tremendous respect for its viewer that has something for everyone in a manner that seems effortless but is actually the result of so many worthy things going so well. It is the kind of movie that benefits from re-watches in what you view from certain scenes the second time around, because there are moments that really are just allowed to breathe without needing dialogue, when you think about it (this may come from the fact that the movie was extensively storyboarded, because he felt he needed every storyboard to stay on schedule). You enjoy the people that enter the sphere around Jones in what they bring to the table in their own pockets of time, whether that involves a trained monkey spy or the worthy menace brought by people such as Lacey. It's a wonderful movie to look at, right down to what is right there on screen and what actually is say, a matte painting. It all rests on Ford being something beyond the matinee hero: an academic and an adventurer (okay that was paraphrasing what he once said about the character, but still). He balances the tightrope of strength and wit that can be just as vulnerable as he can be funny in an adventure that basically is a ride of humility (contrary to Han Solo, the character of Jones doesn't start out as, well a conman).

It's not all about rescuing and getting the girl on the way to glory, it is a movie where you really do have to close your eyes to see beyond what you think you know about the world. Allen is just simply charming in that sort of independence that we gravitate to even in without as much backstory to really sink into (which is where imagination comes to play when thinking about looking at the interactions between her and Ford as compared to the ones between her and Freeman). Freeman is a capable shadow of Ford, a disturbing presence in how sly one can be when collaborating with the worst of humanity because he believes in himself so highly as a fallen angel of archaeology. A fly could buzz around his mouth and all he cares about is where he looms on the chessboard. You get the delightful elegance, charm or otherwise, with Rhys-Davies (cast as a mix between his role in Shōgun and John Falstaff*) and Elliott (the always beloved British actor), did I forget that? Wrapped within its 115-minute runtime is a movie that breezes along in finding the pieces of the puzzle in its adventure ride that respects its audience in allowing it to breathe and experience the action sequences or its effects spectacle (spooky ghosts always gets a vote) that I probably appreciate even more than when I first saw it as a teenager. It's hard to really say just what is the best sequence of the whole film between, say, the opening sequence or the Map Room - you just have to see it (and I mean see it) to really believe it, where a B-movie feel leads to going along with its rhythm quickly. It's the kind of movie that makes you feel young again, and it is the kind of movie that scratches the itch every now and then to crave adventure and maybe get something from the pursuit of history. The second one plays to the lizard brain interests for intensity and comedy, the third and fourth ones pursued a family tale with leaps of faith and the fifth, well, plays to having at least one more good time in old age, so there's that as well. It is sincerity without becoming devout in the best ways imaginable. 45 years later, it is the movie with the best type of qualities: the milage of craftsmen at work all coming together for a true return to the great adventure.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

theme of the day

*Because of his work in the script, Kasdan was approached by Lucas to work on The Empire Strikes Back (1980).

*Nobody really dwells on a Welsh actor playing Sallah and neither do you.

*Of all the times to give an Academy Award to the British, good lord. I do wonder if Reds holds up enough that Warren Beatty deserved a Best Director award. 

*Incidentally, Steven Soderbergh did a cut of the film in 2014 that aimed to show how the film really shined in the staging, which he did by taking out the audio and converted it to black-and-white

*And, well, vintage footage

The Vault of Horror.

Review #2120: The Vault of Horror.

Cast: 

"Midnight Mess" segment: Daniel Massey (Harold Rogers), Anna Massey (Donna Rogers), Michael Pratt (Clive), Erik Chitty (Old Waiter), and Jerold Wells (Waiter)

"The Neat Job" segment: Terry-Thomas (Arthur Critchit), Glynis Johns (Eleanor Critchit), Marianne Stone (Jane), and John Forbes-Robertson (Wilson)

"This Trick’ll Kill You" segment: Curd Jürgens (Sebastian), Dawn Addams (Inez), Jasmina Hilton (Indian Girl), and Ishaq Bux (Fakir)

"Bargain in Death" segment: Michael Craig (Maitland), Edward Judd (Alex), Robin Nedwell (Tom),

Geoffrey Davies (Jerry), and Arthur Mullard (Gravedigger)

"Drawn and Quartered" segment: Tom Baker (Moore), Denholm Elliott (Diltant), Terence Alexander (Fenton Breedley), and John Witty (Arthur Gaskill) Directed by Roy Ward Baker (#1742 - The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires and #2106 - Scars of Dracula)

Review: 

You might remember that EC Comics was behind the Tales from the Crypt series of horror anthology comics. As created by Al Feldstein and Bill Gaines (with a good deal of art by Johnny Craig), it ran from 1950 to 1955. But there were two other horror comics that ran alongside it with The Haunt of Fear and The Vault of Horror. Of course, the comic book industry was the target of certain people thinking about the harmful effects of children (read: losers) that saw the eventual demise of the horror comics, but the legacy lived on with film anthologies that shared the name of the comics. Milton Subotsky of Amicus Productions had gotten his partner Max Rosenberg to get the rights to Crypt because he was a big fan of the comics, and this soon led to Tales from the Crypt (1972), which cribbed from two Crypt stories, two Haunt stories, and one Vault story ("...And All Through the House"). It was the fourth of seven anthology horror films made by Amicus, which they did first in Dr. Terror's House of Horrors (1965); Vault, released as the penultimate one (From Beyond the Grave [1974] closed it out), is the only of the group without Peter Cushing in it. Funny enough, with this film that shares the name of Vault, all but one story is cribbed from stories originally seen in Crypt (with the exception of "The Neat Job", which came from Shock SuspenStories). Keen eyes will note a shot is seen of a character reading a book that shows a cover of the Crypt film (well, what film wouldn't be complete without a novelization). Subotsky co-produced the film and also wrote for it. 

I would say that the film is probably on par with Crypt, which has its own degree of recognizable faces to go with quick wonky ideas for horror (which may or may not be a bit more amusing when compared to the previous effort) that may or may not be up your alley. Each of the stories, when one considers the moments spent after each story that set the next one up (the main setup of all is five characters meeting in a sub-basement), each last for varying lengths. The first story is "Midnight Mess", runs for roughly 17 minutes. The fact that it features two actual siblings for actors to go with a reveal of just what goes on with a weird town...oh hell, it is full of vampires, complete with the use of a jugular vein for a specific purpose. I was fine with it, but obviously it is the climax that makes a pretty decent punchline more than anything in particular. One wishes for four longer stories rather than five short ones. "The Neat Job" is about 15 minutes long that goes with a setup of cleanups and neurosis that, well, I think you can see where it could go when you have a specific comedic type in Terry-Thomas. It is very, uh, predictable. "This Trick’ll Kill You" is about 15 minutes and involves magicians trying to get that one great trick in their sleeves, even if it involves murder. I enjoyed it just fine, mostly because Jurgens makes a quality cad to make the pursuit and result all the more involving, particularly with that final moment in a ceiling. "Bargain in Death" is the shortest story at roughly 11 minutes, which namely involves a mostly quiet Craig awaiting the chance to rise from the grave after coming up with an insurance fraud scheme, but things go awry with the setup of arising from the dig. Easily the least memorable. "Drawn and Quartered", combined with the denouement, is the longest story at 25 minutes. This is the fun one, although it is probably the most obvious because it sees a man get the power of voodoo in his painting hand. Baker (a year away from being most famous with his role as The Doctor on Doctor Who) has a strange quality to him that is unnerving in the ideal sense, and the revenge aspect of the story is at its most obvious and amusing. Of course, the ending is as contrived as one can think when you need to protect a painting of yourself, but, well, you get the idea, they are short stories with macabre ends for each lead actor because obviously the ending has to be similar to the one from the previous film about storytellers and the dead. As a whole, it is a step down from before in Amicus, lacking great star power or a real spine tingler story to really make the results worth it. Folks who like to complete their run through anthology or 70s Brit stuff might find something useful here, but it would only be as filler rather than as a classic. 

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Next up: Island of Lost Souls.

Alfie (1966).

Review #2034: Alfie.

Cast: 

Michael Caine (Alfie Elkins), Shelley Winters (Ruby), Millicent Martin (Siddie), Vivien Merchant (Lily Clamacraft), Jane Asher (Annie), Julia Foster (Gilda), Shirley Anne Field (Carla), Eleanor Bron (the Doctor), Denholm Elliott (the Abortionist), Alfie Bass (Harry Clamacraft), Graham Stark (Humphrey), Murray Melvin (Nat), and Sydney Tafler (Frank) Produced and Directed by Lewis Gilbert (#292 - The Spy Who Loved Me, #338 - Moonraker, #354 - You Only Live Twice)

Review: 

"At that time, there had never been a cockney film. In cinema, the cockney was the man who said: "Guvnor, your car's outside." You never saw a cockney family with real problems. In the 60s, we were beginning to make films that reflected something of the British way of life. Before Alfie and its contemporaries, British film was all Noël Coward and drawing rooms."

The British can make for curious folks. Lewis Gilbert had a road fit for being involved in film business. He was the son of music hall performers and he first saw a film set in his childhood years. When World War II came, he served with the Royal Air Force in their film unit and later the First Motion Picture Unit of the U.S. Army Air Forces. He made documentary work for Gaumont British before going on to feature directing in 1947 with The Little Ballerina. Among the most noted films before Alfie involved ones based on historical events such as Reach for the Sky (1956) and Sink the Bismarck! (1960). He followed Alfie with a variety of dramas and adventures (most notably with three James Bond films) before his final film in 2002; he died in 2018 at the age of 97. The film is based on the play of the same name by Bill Naughton. He had originally come up with the idea with "Alfie Elkins and His Little Life" which was broadcast on the radio BBC Third Programme in 1962 before he was commissioned to turn it into a stage play that premiered the next year. A production on Broadway was done in 1964 with Terence Stamp as the star, but it lasted only a handful of performances. It was during these productions that Hydra Gilbert saw the production and recommended it to her husband Lewis. Naughton wrote the screenplay for this film, which was the first of three adaptations of Naughton's work that followed with The Family Way (1966) and Spring and Port Wine (1970), with Naughton writing the latter. Evidently, when it came to casting, Caine was not the first choice for the lead role nor even the second. Laurence Harvey was first considered but he did not want to play the role on Broadway, and Terence Stamp, just wasn't interested in playing the role again after the Broadway show. Incidentally, his roommate at the time was Michael Caine, who was best known for Zulu (1964) and The Ipcress File (1965); incidentally, James Booth, who starred with Caine in the aforementioned Zulu film, turned the role down. Caine got offered the role (Paramount Pictures, who distributed the film, didn't care much because the film was cheap anyway), went right in, and the rest is history. A "sequel" followed with Alfie Darling (1975) that had no Caine in the lead (Alan Price took over) and therefore no particular reason to see it before an inevitable remake was done in 2004 with Jude Law as star. 

The striking thing is that for a film of the Swingin' era of London, it actually is a pretty sobering comedy-drama film beneath the fourth wall posturing by Caine (as devised by Gilbert and company) that makes its mark in self-centered but aware amusement in what romance really means, particularly within "peace of mind". The performance of Caine carries the movie as far as you would possibly expect. He makes the exemplary example of a Casanova in all of the ways you hope to see in sad amusement. You can see how his Cockney accent and blustering attitude towards women make him more than a caricature or target for easy jokes, since all he really is one who knows only what he wants to know in pleasure without pain, one who changes partners like one changes socks that makes for a quality scoundrel. Winters is actually only in three scenes despite her billing, but she is still in good form here in terms of provocative enjoyment in taste. There is a distinct edge to how our lead treats each of the four women he tries to make a roll within Martin, Merchant, Asher, and Foster that they each handle with useful timing and pathos, right from the opening sequence where Caine is trying to explain pursuit with a married woman with the first chat he makes to the camera. Within the edges is the withering of Alfie's own life where he can't even see his own kid because of his own ways and even a bout at the sanitorium because of how he takes the news about shadows in lungs that is handled expertly. Of course, it also is a film that doesn't skimp on the key event that made the play a lightning rod for discussion: a character going through an abortion. Obviously, it isn't actually shown in either the play or the film, but the very fact it is mentioned at all was quite notable in its time. It isn't moral handwringing to say that certain actions have consequences, and it is seeing those up close that make it especially important to make a film effective, which I think is handled quite well within the time spent with Caine, Merchant, and Elliott. By the time the film ends on a last conversation to the fourth wall in "what's it all about?", you have a pretty good idea of just what it means to have seen someone look at their consequences in the face and come out still asking questions and all alone. As a whole, Alfie is a curious and suitable way to spend 114 minutes when it comes to saying something distinct about what it all means to try and play the master of all in something and end up as master of none in the home of one's mind, which makes for a pretty good comedy-drama.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

The Ringer (1952).

Review #2019: The Ringer (1952).

Cast: 

Herbert Lom (Maurice Meister), Donald Wolfit (Dr. Lomond), Mai Zetterling (Lisa), Greta Gynt (Cora Ann Milton), William Hartnell (Sam Hackett), Denholm Elliott (John Lemley), Norman Wooland (Inspector Bliss), Dora Bryan (Mrs. Hackett), and Charles Victor (Inspector Wembury) Directed by Guy Hamilton (#280 - Diamonds Are Forever, #289 - The Man with the Golden Gun, #291 - Goldfinger, #293 - Live and Let Die, #612 - The Devil's Disciple)

Review: 

Admittedly, Guy Hamilton really is just known for his work with the James Bond films if he is mentioned among British directors for random conversation, and that is fine. He directed 22 films, and four of them were part of the Bond series, but it never hurts to give focus to other works that someone does beyond saying that he directed one of the best Bond films in Goldfinger (1964) (and probably one of the lesser of them with Diamonds Are Forever, but thats another story). He had an ambition to become a filmmaker from a young age, but he had to deal with other matters first, such as serving in the Royal Navy in World War II with the 15th Motor Gunboat Flotilla. After the war, he found work as an assistant director (under the hire of Alexander Korda), which saw him work with people such as Carol Reed and for films such as The African Queen (1951). Hamilton would get his first chance to direct with this film when Reed inspired him to play hardball with Korda unless he got a directing job. Hamilton never looked back and directed for the next three decades in a variety of genres, such as the POW story The Colditz Story (1955), the historical drama The Devil's Disciple (1959, done after he replaced Alexander Mackendrick) or countless action flair like Remo Williams: The Adventure Begins (1985). The film is an adaptation of the 1929 play of the same name by Edgar Wallace, which was in turn was a re-working of his 1925 novel The Gaunt Stranger. Wallace was a prolific writer of his time in the early 20th century that ranged from journalism to nearly 1,000 short stories to even screenplays, which includes the original first draft for King Kong (1933) before his sudden death from diabetes that year. At any rate, there were four prior adaptations of Wallace's work in 1928, 1931, 1932, and 1938 (one was a silent and one was even a German-Austrian film). This was made on the tail end of the career of Alexander Korda as a producer, who made hundreds of films as either director/producer until his death in 1956 (by sheer coincidence, Korda actually expressed an interest in making a film of Ian Fleming's 1954 novel Live and Let Die, which Hamilton would later get to do as director in 1973). 

It is evident how stage-bound the film is, since it basically utilizes two places for most of its 78 minutes, which seems about right for a low-budget British production. I can say this much: it is a pretty decent way to start a career for a first-time director, one with a share of composed thrills and a solid cast to make a useful curiosity for those who like quick films to view from an age long ago. I do applaud the fact that Lom is given some room to play the lead role as a heel. He was a versatile presence in film for years because of the way he carried his voice in any type of role. It works here with a role that probably would've been an adversary in a different thriller but is instead one that is being stalked (British "stalked", not really stalked). Wolfit was actually an actor-manager who toured Shakespeare productions for many years, but he did do his share of acting from time to time (this was the second film he did from his return after not doing one from 1939-1951), although his legacy is perhaps best captured in The Dresser, a play-turned-film about a dresser close to an actor that was written by a one-time dresser of Wolfit. He fuzzes about as someone who seems to have nothing better to do than lurk between the foreground and background, which is mildly interesting when interacting with Gynt, who has charming curiosity for someone who is basically there to see watch potential downfall. It is a calm cat-and-mouse game, not one for scene-chewing. With that in mind, Zetterling is also pretty charming in a role meant to counter Lom when it comes to "normal folks". Hartnell once described himself as a "legitimate character actor" when it came to work in theatre and film, and given that he played a mix of police, solider or toadies in film, it isn't surprising to see him here, albeit with him trying to do a Cockney accent, which goes over fine for a mildly amusing role. You may or may not have a good guess on who ends up being the title character, since "master of disguise" is something that has little room for hard questioning with the amount of people who have lines in the film, but the film at least doesn't throw many red herrings to play tricks. There aren't any scenes that distract from the mystery or drive on to start waving their hand in the "move it along position", which generally means it is on the right foot. It is a quickie represented, not one going on mayhem, which is probably best represented by the eventual turn in its climax, which is quite enjoyable in the curious amoral way it closes things out without being too neat and tidy. As a whole, it probably won't be the first pick on anybody's list for thrillers, but if you came across it, you would be just fine with what you end up seeing, and it makes some sense to see Guy Hamilton go on to better things.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Redux: Trading Places.

Redux #328: Trading Places.

Cast: 

Dan Aykroyd (Louis Winthorpe III), Eddie Murphy (Billy Ray Valentine), Ralph Bellamy (Randolph Duke), Don Ameche (Mortimer Duke), Denholm Elliott (Coleman), Jamie Lee Curtis (Ophelia), Kristin Holby (Penelope Witherspoon), Paul Gleason (Clarence Beeks), Robert Curtis Brown (Todd), Alfred Drake (Securities Exchange manager), and Jim Belushi (Harvey) Directed by John Landis.

Review: 

From my review on January 1, 2013: 

What else to start the new year of 2013 but with a film review (I hear one small whisper of yay and more crickets.), and how about an 80's flick (Gee, I haven't done 63 times before. Oh wait...) to start off the new year. (Fun fact: This is my first review on New Year's Day. I must either have been lazy the last two years or I just didn't care. I still think I'm both options.) So how is this film? It's pretty good. This is Aykroyd and Murphy at their best, always seeming to change from serious one minute to comedic in another. The supporting cast is good, and even the one bit characters have a funny line. It has a serious and comedic feel to it, always tiptoeing the lines flawlessly, and having fun. Fun stuff after almost 30 years.

"It took me a long time just to understand the con, what was going on. It's just so funny, it's so long ago now, the chicanery is so much more arcane now. At least in ‘Trading Places,’ at the end of the day, there was the commodity." - John Landis

Admittedly, having young memories of watching a film like this is probably a weird thing to admit when you first watched this movie over twelve years ago when you were barely in the middle of being a teenager. But this was the first John Landis film that I ever watched, which actually was released 40 years ago today. As mentioned before, his viewing of The 7th Voyage of Sinbad (1958) inspired him to become a director, and he would grow up to work a variety of film jobs that ranged from mail boy to production assistant. He made his first feature film with Schlock (1973). The next couple of comedy films that he found his way to directing went better, and I'm sure you are already familiar with Animal House (1978) and The Blues Brothers (1980). At any rate, he came across a script treatment labeled "Black and White" by Timothy Harris and Herschel Weingrod (writers of Cheaper to Keep Her (1981), a flop) that was being sold around at Paramount Pictures. Harris had been inspired to make a script based on his experiences with two wealthy but frugal brothers that he often played tennis with that liked to bicker about everything. He approached his writing partner in Weingrod about it with the presentation of two brothers bickering over nature vs. nurture, and research in the commodities market helped shape the film in setting while not making it the whole film. Landis saw the script as one that honed familiar to films in the 1930s such as screwball comedies or ones directed by Frank Capra that dealt with societal issues with distinctly amusing and strong characters (of course with the 1980s, the changes now involve a bit more swearing and nudity, which I imagine irritated the still-living and bitter Capra). This was the seventh feature film directed by Landis, who also served as director for Twilight Zone: The Movie in 1983. Landis worked again with Murphy with Coming to America (1988) and Aykroyd with Blues Brothers 2000 (1998). Harris and Weingrod would go on to do a handful of screenplays together, which resulted in films such as Brewster's Millions (1985), Twins (1988), and Space Jam (1996).

If you think about it, there really is something special about the fact that five of the main six actors in this film (Murphy, Aykroyd, Ameche, Curtis, and Elliott) would go on to receive Academy Award nominations after the release of this film (the only one who did not was Bellamy, who already had been nominated - in 1937!). It always is interesting to see what the more interesting challenge is, comedians trying to play drama or folks trying to play comedy, but I imagine what is more challenging is to make a movie about finances that actually turns out funny. It is safe to say that Landis and company made a worthy comedy with a strong cast and entertaining direction and script that makes it an enduring screwy kind of comedy. Debate all you want over what Landis film ended up being better in terms of laughs, but it is safe to say that when in the right element, it perhaps never worked out any better in distinguished intrigue than this film. The American Dream may involve a bit too much love of money, but with this film, well, why the hell not? Next, you'll be asking if it is a dated feature when not seeing it for yourself for a film that involves folks playing nationality dress-up. Landis also saw inspiration in the basic dynamic within Mark Twain's novel The Prince and the Pauper (which involved two look-alike kids born on the same day to swap clothes). 

The original actors in mind for certain roles involved Gene Wilder & Richard Pryor for the main two roles, Ray Milland for the elderly brother role opposite Bellamy, and either John Gielgud or Ronnie Barker for the role later played by Elliott. Oh, and Curtis wasn't even a preference of the studio, because they had her pegged as a "scream queen". Ameche hadn't even acted in a film since Suppose They Gave a War and Nobody Came (1970) because apparently nobody had approached him about one (which meant that he had spent his time doing roles on stage and TV). And yet each prove quite amazing in their roles in terms of contribution of laughter that makes any scene count in conviction that really does outline how much it matters to have money in the rat race (regardless of race or class). Aykroyd in particular does a worthy job at playing the role to haughty brilliance that can be both mark and heel in consistent watchability, even when playing a miserable man watching past parties in the driving rain. Murphy, fresh off the heels of 48 Hrs. (1982), is enjoyable with spry timing (he ad-libbed a good deal of his own lines) that utilizes his talents for more than just silly humor, in part because he makes a worthy distinct image of Aykroyd when it comes to adapting to the situation around him (whether involving money or, well, you know). Oh sure, he is a scene-stealer much like his prior film appearance, but that is part of the fun. While it might have been interesting to see a pairing of Pryor and Wilder after the success of stuff such as Silver Streak, it is evident that Aykrord and Murphy were more than ready to deliver the screwball requirements. Apparently, Landis had an interesting time casting the role eventually played by Curtis because he felt it was the one character in the script that he had a problem with (because a "hooker with a heart of gold" seemed a bit on the fantasy side). I think we can say Curtis made the role count more than anyone else would have done, if only because her knowing charm and talent clearly shines through. The power of human nature is one thing, having the means to do things their way is another, basically.

The more established names are just as efficient, because Bellamy and Ameche make the ideal adversaries that you would believe would have both the attitude and insanity required to ruin a person's life over a bet to settle the pettiest of all arguments (look nature vs. nurture could make a good argument for a film, but most don't go around betting money on it). Ameche in particularly seems to relish the chance for a chance at amplified snobbery, and it is evident to see how he made an on-screen comeback with this in his credit. Bellamy is no slouch of course, because he is just as crafty in timing, and the last scene they share involving them at their new point of lowness is a worthy punchline that they each contribute well to. Elliott plays a role of such clear distinction (a butler) without coming off as just another cliche to pass off, and that I think comes from his resonance in caring about what he is doing on the screen on instinct (incidentally, he was known in previous films in a over three-decade film career as a scene-stealer).. Gleason plays a character with loose inspiration from G. Gordon Liddy and he proves quite well in scuzziness. The 116 minutes roll off pretty effectively, balancing its time with its main group to where the eventual leadup to the climax comes off without any hitches that has the task of making commodities something to watch and follow with chuckles. If you have to have folks talk about how the endgame at the market (filmed at the New York Mercantile Exchange with a good deal of actual traders participating) and are then referenced in Congressional testimony about commodities, clearly, you have done something right. It is safe to say that watching the film now has only strengthened my thoughts on it being a pretty effective film from its time that shows Landis and company at their strengths for worthy enjoyment.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

It really is 40 years to the day since this film was released, so what better way to say a movie is really good than to do a re-review? There will be a handful more redux reviews to come in the following months, so I hope you enjoy them.

Movie Night: The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz.

Review #409: The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz.

Cast
Richard Dreyfuss (Duddy Kravitz), Micheline Lanctôt (Yvette), Jack Warden (Max Kravitz), Randy Quaid (Virgil Roseboro and Lenny Kravitz), Joseph Wiseman (Benjy Kravitz), Denholm Elliott (Peter Friar), Henry Ramer (Dingleman), Joe Silver (Farber), and Zvee Scooler (Grandfather) Directed by Ted Kotcheff (#025 - First Blood)

Review
To close out Canada Day, I decided to review this film from 1974 (have decided that reviewing Prom Night [1980] would be nonsensical), with familiar actor Richard Dreyfuss as the main lead. I already have watched Dreyfuss in American Graffiti and Close Encounters of the Third Kind, which were both good. This film is where Dreyfuss gets to shine even more, perfectly acting a character who (at least I hope) is perfectly unlikable (though ironically, he believed his performance was terrible), in someways a parallel to Goin' Down the Road, both films cover the spirit of people trying to succeed in a cold-hearted world, with its small benefits and its disasters. Lanctot is alright, but Randy Quaid (Who I last saw in Independence Day, which wasn't exactly good) is better, he manages to blend well into the film, not going over the top, a subdued but fine performances as two characters. The rest of the cast are good, and it is always nice to see Denholm Elliott, no matter what he does. This is a well-made film that manages to have really good scenery but even better filmmaking, a sad film that has biting comedy at times, but it does not veer from its course, keeping itself in check, and managing to be an excellent film.  

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

And that is the last film for Canada Day, I hope you enjoyed my attempt to give Canadian films some spotlight, because at least I did.

Original image: 

Movie Night: Watership Down.

Review #300: Watership Down.

Cast

John Hurt (Hazel), Richard Briers (Fiver), Michael Graham Cox (Bigwig), John Bennett (Captain Holly), Ralph Richardson (Threarah), Simon Cadell (Blackberry), Terence Rigby (Silver), Roy Kinnear (Pipkin), Richard O'Callaghan (Dandelion), Denholm Elliott (Cowslip), Zero Mostel (Kehaar), and Harry Andrews (General Woundwort) Directed by Martin Rosen.

Review

To begin with, Watership Down is based off the novel of the same name by Richard Adams. (Reviewing films based off novels being very familiar to me already) I do wonder if there is anyone who heard their were rabbits and hills and then saw the film and realized...it was a film far from imagined and yet excellent nonetheless. The acting is good, it sounds urgent, with the lines (for me anyways) giving a sense of importance with some of the lines, which is excellent, with the acting especially by Hurt, Briers, Andrews, and Mostel being the standouts in this film. The animation is top notch, looking beautiful and dark at times. But the main thing here is its story. It is masterfully well told, with dark elements that while being tear inducing (for some people, though let me say that this does not hurt the film), is not savage (or bright) in its way of telling a story, it has fine action and a good story to make a really good film, rabbits, tears, reviews and all. Speaking of that, thank you for reading the 300th Review of Movie Night. I thank anyone who is reading this right now and I thank anyone who has helped at all in any way possible. I hope for a whole lot more reviews. Happy 300.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.

Review #170: Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.

Cast
Harrison Ford (Indiana "Henry" Jones Jr.), Sean Connery (Henry Jones Sr.), Alison Doody (Elsa Schneider), Denholm Elliott (Marcus Brody), John Rhys-Davies (Sallah), Julian Glover (Walter Donovan), Michael Byrne (Colonel Vogel), Kevork Malikyan (Kazim), and Robert Eddison (Grail Knight) Directed by Steven Spielberg (#126 - Close Encounters of the Third Kind, #168 - Raiders of the Lost Ark, and #169 - Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom)

Review
This film is lighter in tone then Temple of Doom, which is a good thing as once again Harrison Ford is excellent once again. Sean Connery is also excellent, with the father-son relationship having a dramatic and comedic standpoint, and it is good. One thing I hadn't mentioned is that apparently Lucas conceived Jones to be "James Bond without the hardware" When I think about it, that makes sense, considering the adventures to stop evil from collecting things to take over the world. With Connery in this film, it makes it even more like Bond. Before I go off into more of a tangent, I must mention that the story is good. It's different from the first two in a way I won't tell you of, which is good to keep the story fresh. And that ends the Last Crusade. Indiana Jones had 3 films in 8 years, with success following its way. Ford kept his success going from Han Solo into the 80s and beyond with this and beyond. Truly an excellent sequel with excellent directing and writing.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.