Showing posts with label Eva Marie Saint. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Eva Marie Saint. Show all posts

May 31, 2026

The Russians Are Coming the Russians Are Coming.

Review #2544: The Russians Are Coming the Russians Are Coming.

Cast: 
Carl Reiner (Walt Whittaker), Eva Marie Saint (Elspeth Whittaker), Alan Arkin (Lieutenant Rozanov), Brian Keith (Link Mattocks), Jonathan Winters (Norman Jonas), Paul Ford (Fendall Hawkins), Theodore Bikel (Captain), Tessie O'Shea (Alice Foss), John Phillip Law (Alexei Kolchin), Ben Blue (Luther Grilk), Andrea Dromm (Alison Palmer), and Sheldon Collins (Pete Whittaker) Produced and Directed by Norman Jewison (#127 - Rollerball, #273 - The Cincinnati Kid, #544 - In the Heat of the Night, #691 - The Thomas Crown Affair, #1484 - Moonstruck)

Review: 

Vaguely, I remember this movie being on the consideration list years ago. In the old days of Blockbuster (before people decided Netflix was somehow better*), I remember my dad buying the movie for a rental, but I sure don't remember if he saw it all the way through. Anyway, in the dog days of spring, it feels prudent to cover some of the directors that I haven't really given as much attention as I wish I did. After graduating from middle-ground comedies with The Cincinnati Kid (1965), here comes The Russians Are Coming, the Russians Are Coming (1966), the sixth feature film by Norman Jewison, who also produced the film. In 1963, Jewison was given a book by a friend of his with The Off-Islanders by Nathaniel Benchley. The plot involved a Russian sub accidentally running aground on a New England coast island. Jewison was intrigued about the idea of making a political satire. The Mirisch Corporation and United Artists were interested in financing the film, at least with a good writer behind it. After taking out an option for the novel, Jewison was told by his agent Charlie Baker that the one person who could do the screenplay best was William Rose (writer of such films as The Ladykillers [1955] and It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World [1963]). Aside from having to find a proper conclusion point to the film (namely in the catalyst for both sides to see their similarities), the final draft came around with relatively few bumps in the road, at least when compared to having to make a submarine (the U.S. Navy was not giving one away for filming, with Jewison claiming they made one out of Stryofoam and plywood,, although other sources say they borrowed the one that had been used in Morituri [1965]) and turning the Northern California coast into looking like New England. Released in May 1966 with a budget of nearly $4 million, the movie was a solid hit with audiences, and the film was nominated for four Academy Awards, one for Best Picture.* Jewison followed up the film with In the Heat of the Night (1967) with even further audience attention.

So, you've got a comedy about a few good buffoons all alike on an international level that works best for those who love a silly farce. Sure, the Cold War may be dead and buried now, but you can see the appeal that the film had for people who saw something entertaining in its view of human nature that has a few chuckles within mob mentality, misunderstandings, a unifying moment from an unlikely source and so on. You can mostly understand what goes on with the Russian characters (as played mostly by a group of Americans, although the dialogue director was a Russian with Leon Belasco) without really needing subtitles before it crashes along with the island folk and their own offbeat dreams and delusions (order, being a writer, you name it), with Saint and Keith mostly being the normal ones of the bunch (with kids such as Collins, geez...). Not to knock down Reiner much, but you know Arkin is the highlight pretty early, mainly because he has the confidence and charm to carry the film in all of its odd leanings (namely tomfoolery), and he does so it without straining to go along with the dialogue. You get straight-laced neatness from Keith and a good deal of bubbling annoyance from Winters. Sure, the budding romance between Dromm and Law can only go so far beyond "two cats awkwardly looking at each other", but so it goes. I do like that the climax manages to give the folks a way to come together without straining for a corny message or playing to some cheap cop-out, instead making a pyramid of understanding that beyond the odds and ends of paranoia and maneuvering, there are a few things we'll do with others when things get tough. The 126-minute runtime can be one to trudge along with if you don't go along with all of its frantic misadventures, and I get that, in the same way that I can see someone finding their eyes starting to grow tired in madcap mish-mashes such as say, Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, World. But your milage may vary. As a whole, The Russians Are Coming the Russians Are Coming is a solid enough comedy for its time that will probably work just enough for you to have some enjoyment within the time old (and multi-cultural) comedy of understandings.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.


It may interest you to know that the San Antonio Spurs are in the NBA Finals. What a nice time :)

*A physical place to rent or buy movies will always be better than a streaming platform. Duh?

*That year, the nominees were: Alfie, The Sand Pebbles, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, and the winner...A Man for All Seasons. All four nominations (Jewison for Best Picture, Arkin for Best Actor, Rose for Adapted Screenplay, Hal Ashby & J. Terry Williams for Editing) lost but each ended up being nominated for future efforts, with Ashby, Arkin, and Rose all eventually winning an Academy Award.

April 28, 2018

Superman Returns.


Review #1077: Superman Returns.

Cast: 
Brandon Routh (Clark Kent / Superman), Kate Bosworth (Lois Lane), Kevin Spacey (Lex Luthor), James Marsden (Richard White), Parker Posey (Kitty Kowalski), Frank Langella (Perry White), Sam Huntington (Jimmy Olsen), Eva Marie Saint (Martha Kent), Marlon Brando (Jor-El), Kal Penn (Stanford), and Tristan Lake Leabu (Jason White) Directed by Bryan Singer (#008 - X-Men, #010 - X2, and #584 - X-Men: Days of Future Past)

Review: 
In honor of the 80th anniversary of Superman's debut in Action Comics #1, I figured that this would be the best time to finally cover this movie. I hope you enjoy this review, which I didn't try to stretch too long.

In 1978, Superman (#547) graced the big screen with an epic scale that had a collection of fine actors and a look that still manages to shine through after four decades, with this serving as a pioneer for comic book films. The sequel (#785) continued the good fortune of scope and a bit of amusement, having enough charm and magic to work, even if it was not as good as the first one. The two films that followed (#786 & #787) were terrible in their own right, having ridiculous plots along with bad execution and substance, and it would be nineteen years until Superman returned to the big screen. The film was a mild success at the box office, but it would be seven years before a new Superman film was released, which resorted to being an origin story. This film ignores the latter two films in an attempt to channel the energy of the first two films and make for great entertainment. Does it succeed?

I will first state that on the surface it is certainly an interesting idea to try and emulate the first two Reeve films, as some sort of attempt to pass the torch from the first two films onto this. After all, footage of Marlon Brando from the first film (with some help from some CGI) is utilized in the film, with John Ottman's music being a homage to the music from John Williams from the first one. For all the attempts of the film to follow the same beats, the best thing that can be said for Superman Returns is that it plays itself safe enough to at least feel like it wants to be a winner. The problem is that it doesn't really do much to prove that it is a winner beyond all doubt. It has a fine look to it at points with the cinematography by Newton Thomas Sigel, and the effects are at least satisfactory for the expectations one would expect for the film, but other times it might seem more like it is going through the motions.

Perhaps it is the length of 154 minutes that undercuts the film and makes it feel a bit of chore, but I never hated the experience for being so long. The film rests upon Routh and his shoulders, and at times he does seem like he can live up to the task with some of the sequences. However, he never really clicks into full gear to where we really want to connect with him, particularly when paired with Bosworth. You might say that the gap that the film establishes between the last time the two characters had met (roughly five years) means that the awkward exchanges between the two makes sense, but the real problem is that they don't seem particularly interesting to watch in said exchanges. You could say that they seem a bit too young for the roles (after all, both actors were under 30 when cast), but it really seems more a problem of execution that does them in. After all, it's not like Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder were old when they portrayed their roles, but they had a certain charm and care to them that sold itself in each scene they were in, as opposed to this film. The fact that the film wants to channel the first two films makes the comparisons between those and this film hurt the latter upon examination.

Spacey proves to be fairly sour in his role, and he seems to relish in his lunatic role that actually manages to pull the film toward some sort of gain for most of his scenes, especially when paired with Posey, a fairly good charmer. I think the film probably could've done a bit better with some more scenes between Spacey and Routh, since it takes them nearly two hours to meet. However, that would likely mean having to try and make the film shorter with cuts, since I don't think making it longer would help it at all. Marsden doesn't really make too much of an impression for me, not so much a dull performance as it is just a slightly thankless role. Langella is fine for his time on screen. The film tries to go through so many motions with its plot that it just feels like it is trying to not bloviate itself into oblivion. From its parts with the scheme (which is amusing to ponder about) to its part with Lois and her son to a fairly okay climax, the movie likely has too much going on to really make a good focus. I never hated the experience with the film, but I also never found myself believing in what the film was trying to sell me. I feel that the film probably should've tried to be a reboot (much like Batman Begins (#062), released the year before) instead of trying to play itself a bit too safe with its homage of what had worked better decades prior. Can I recommend the film? I can in the sense that it will likely work just fine for people who are willing to buy into its homage attempt and willing to let the entertainment roll through without skepticism.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

March 14, 2014

Movie Night: Grand Prix.


Review #559: Grand Prix.

Cast
James Garner (Pete Aron), Eva Marie Saint (Louise Frederickson), Yves Montand (Jean-Pierre Sarti), Toshiro Mifune (Izo Yamura), Brian Bedford (Scott Stoddard), Jessica Walter (Pat Stoddard), Antonio Sabàto (Nino Barlini), Françoise Hardy (Lisa), Adolfo Celi (Agostini Manetta), and Claude Dauphin (Hugo Simon) Directed by John Frankenheimer.

Review
Grand Prix was filmed in Super Panavision 70 and the cinematography by Saul Bass and Lionel Lindon, directed by first timer on Movie Night, John Frankenheimer (most known for directing the original The Manchurian Candidate, French Connection II...and the Island of Dr. Moreau), with a blend of actors from all around the world, all for a grand epic that many people call the best racing movie ever. The cinematography is beautiful to look at, seeing the perspective of the cars racing at times is incredible to watch, even the crashes are spectacular to watch in all the spectacle. This movie captures the passion, the mood, and the excitement of racing effectively. The plot isn't exactly as developed, but at least the actors are good, especially James Garner (Fun fact: He did his own racing in this film while the other three only did close up shots), who is fun to watch. This is a movie full of fun that doesn't feel like 3 hours, it feels like a good ol' trip to the grandstand, crashes and all.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

August 19, 2012

Movie Night: North by Northwest.

Review #223: North by Northwest.

Cast
Cary Grant (Roger Thornhill), Eva Marie Saint (Eve Kendall), James Mason (Phillip Vandamm), Martin Landau (Leonard), and Leo G. Carroll (The Professor) Directed by Alfred Hitchcock (#219 - Rope)

Review
This was the last film Hitchcock made in the 1950's, which had Dial M for Murder, Vertigo, The Man Who Knew Too Much, and other various films, and this does feel like the end of one decade and the thesis of the next decade. It feels like a spy film with its involvement of a plot with agents, numerous chase scenes, a leading man and lady, mistaken identity, a villain, and an important object. Grant and Saint do a wonderful job, which usually is essential to make a film, but there is more to it as well, with suspenseful action and soundtrack with a dynamic climatic fight on Mount Rushmore to make a classic romantic thriller. It truly is a great film.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

March 14, 2012

Movie Night: On the Waterfront.

Review #110: On the Waterfront.

Cast
Marlon Brando (Terry Malloy), Karl Malden (Father Barry), Lee J. Cobb (Michael J. Skelly aka "Johnny Friendly"), Rod Steiger (Charley "the Gent" Malloy), Eva Marie Saint (Edie Doyle), Pat Henning (Timothy J. "Kayo" Dugan), John F. Hamilton ('Pop' Doyle), Ben Wagner (Joey Doyle), and James Westerfield (Big Mac) Directed by Elia Kazan (#104 - East of Eden and #109 - A Streetcar Named Desire)

Review
This film is truly a classic, with great acting from Brando, Saint, and Malden, along with Cobb (who I've already talked about a little in 12 Angry Men). The film is dramatic in tone, never letting go and making you think along with being interested. It shows the lesson to not give in due to suspicions of being left out or possibly death. The film's most famous scene has a reason to be famous, and I feel the last scene is a bit memorable in it's drama and other such things. It's funny how I was slated to review this early, back in February (February 11th to be exact), but I didn't get to personal reasons. But now, I have watched the film in its entirity. And I don't regret it.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.