A Touch of Class.

Review #1443: A Touch of Class.

Cast: 
George Segal (Steve Blackburn), Glenda Jackson (Vickie Allessio), Hildegarde Neil (Gloria Blackburn), Paul Sorvino (Walter Menkes), K Callan (Patty Menkes), Cec Linder (Wendell Thompson), Lisa Vanderpump (Julia Allessio), Michael Elwyn (Cecil), Mary Barclay (Martha Thompson), Nadim Sawalha (Night Hotel Manager) Produced and Directed by Melvin Frank.

Review: 
"Acting is not about dressing up. Acting is about stripping bare. The whole essence of learning lines is to forget them so you can make them sound like you thought of them that instant."

Do you like a comedy of errors? One that wants to have a share of amusement with (presumably) mismatched characters who find their way towards some sort of romance? Welp, this might work out well for you, I suppose. You know the type: one's American while the other is British, one is high-strung while the other is high-tempered, one's married with kids and the other is divorced (with kids too, although they basically disappear from the film pretty quickly). It definitely seems like a film with old-fashioned roots to it (where adultery could not be as broadly covered). Technically this is correct, since Melvin Frank was a co-writer/director for over four decades, with notable co-writing credits including My Favorite Blonde (1942, his debut script with longtime partner Norman Panama), Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House (1948), and The Facts of Life (1960, co-written, co-directed, and co-produced with Panama). The last one is interesting to note, since that film (featuring Bob Hope and Lucille Ball) also featured an affair that unwittingly turns into a romance, although this occurs during a trip between neighbor couples; Frank and co-writer Jack Rose adapted this film from Frank's short story "She Loves Me, She Told Me So Last Night". Frank, alongside Rose and some of the production crew would return with Segal, Jackson, and Sorvino for Lost and Found (1979), which also dealt with the struggles that develop with lust and love between an American and a British person (although this results in marriage as opposed to an affair).

In other words, one might be thinking that they are seeing something familiar when it comes to a romantic comedy like this, particularly when it comes to the bickering. It generally works best when it is set on the chemistry between its main stars and less so when it tries to go farther than cute scenarios for its last third, with an ending that might make you shrug either out of mild acceptance or apathy as opposed to being successfully bittersweet. On the one hand, there is plenty of talent present: Segal, prevalent in the 1960s and 1970s with dramatic and comedic roles with Jackson, who had risen from work in television (1957) and the theater (1964) to add film to her respected body of work that resulted in numerous accolades (starting with Women in Love (1969), which along with this film resulted in an Academy Award for Best Actress). Not to be forgotten in the fracas is copywriter-turned-actor Sorvino, however (an underrated supporting man, particularly here). One finds plenty to find interest with the main couple, with Segal proving fair in resilient smarminess with occasional quips that make for quite a match with an amusing and passionate Jackson that is filled with just as many retorts and allure that makes one almost think they are watching a Tracy and Hepburn film. Sorvino chimes in at times with persistence and some humor (such as going out to walk the dog and returning without the dog), which makes up for an otherwise quiet supporting cast. While this can be an amusing little film with some useful views on looking transparently at a love affair, one always gets the feeling that there is something missing to really make it mean something. Sometimes one cares about the situations with these folks, and other times you are left there shrugging your shoulders, as if it somehow couldn't quite balance comedy and drama for 106 minutes. It is like if a 1940s script escaped from the lab and only changed its pants before it got caught. Does it even matter to know how their affair will turn out? Is it really something with meaningful realism if it comes off as a fitting capstone of mediocrity for a film? Of course I fall into the line that seeing someone with wife and children having an affair only to eat crow by having the affair fall flat is amusing enough, as opposed to seeing them somehow get away with it. This is a film that only seems to be there 70% of the time to make fair wit and a look upon the pitfalls of falling in love - the ultimate take-it-or-leave-it film fitting perhaps with other mediocre romances like Love Affair (1939) with a capable pair in search of much more than they ultimately get.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The St. Valentine's Day Massacre.

Review #1425: The St. Valentine's Day Massacre.

Cast: 
Jason Robards (Al Capone), George Segal (Peter Gusenberg), Ralph Meeker (George "Bugs" Moran), Jean Hale (Myrtle), Jan Merlin (Willie Marks), Clint Ritchie (Machine Gun Jack McGurn), David Canary (Frank Gusenberg), Harold J. Stone (Frank Nitti), Frank Silvera (Nick Sorello), Joseph Campanella (Albert Wienshank), Richard Bakalyan (John Scalise), Charles Dierkop (Salvanti), John Agar (Dion O'Bannion), Joseph Turkel (Jake Gusik), Bruce Dern (Johnny May), and Paul Frees (Narrator) Produced and Directed by Roger Corman (#368 - The Little Shop of Horrors, #684 - It Conquered the World, #852 - The Terror, #931 - Not of This Earth, #1007 - Attack of the Crab Monsters, #1039 - Five Guns West, #1042 - War of the Satellites, #1136 - Gas-s-s-s, #1147 - X: The Man with the X-ray Eyes, #1186 - A Bucket of Blood, and #1423 - The Wild Angels)

Review: 
"There comes a time when the public conscience needs jolting and in St Valentine's Day Massacre this is our intention. It is also certain that the movie will make money - crime is always box office."

As one would say, give people what they want and they will come see it in theaters. One can talk for ages about the ways that Roger Corman has served film well in making them fast, cheap and generally good that have served him well in a long-lasting career as producer and director. This is an unusual film in his lineup because of his collaboration with a major studio in 20th Century Fox, as opposed to his usual independent filmmaking. He had expressed an interest with making a film with a major studio, and he attracted the attention of Columbia Pictures. Cracks seemed to form almost immediately, as his submitted ideas (a biopic of Baron Von Ritchhofen, this film, and an adaptation of Only Lovers Left Alive) were considered too strange while their ideas seemed too ordinary to him, with Corman believing in giving the audience "something a little more complex artistically and intellectually. To show something you can't see on TV leads inevitably to unusual material." Perhaps predictably, he would never end up making a film for Columbia, leaving the production of A Time for Killing (1967) early on. However, he would be granted a chance with Fox, since I suppose one can't resist the urge to do business with a proven director for fast and effective moneymakers, with this being a particularly interesting year for evolving tastes (the first coming to mind being Bonnie and Clyde).

Corman would have to modify certain aspects of his plan to make the film with the studio, however. For one thing, he wanted Orson Welles to play the lead role with Robards as the character of Moran. However Fox felt that he was undirectable and could potentially try to take rein of the director's chair from Corman. Ideas to film in Chicago were soon shifted to the Fox backlot, and Corman even re-used sets from other movies. While given seven weeks and $2.5 million to make a film, he felt most comfortable with tighter budgets, although he generally felt more comfortable as producer than directing, with this being the sixth-to-last film that he directed. He strived to make an authentic and accurate gangster film, right down to the climax and having the bodies lie where they fell in the original crime photos. The portrayal of Capone by Robards was the third in a feature film (after the first by Rod Steiger in the eponymously titled film in 1959, which also had The Untouchables premiere on TV), and Corman would return to the subject as producer for Capone (1975). In that matter, this is a decent ensemble piece with careful plotting that shows its criminal underside without trouble to make a 100 minute tale resonate with a bit of shock value. It isn't one of Corman's greatest achievements, but it at least one with ambition and the tools to try and make things work out with its buildup to the massacre with gradual use of Frees as narrator to describe the characters and their actions. Robards and Meeker stand out the most in the cast. Although it might have proved more fruitful to have had Welles in the title role, Robards makes the most of it with scene-chewery that makes for well-seen bluster whenever the time is needed to raise voice. Meeker contrasts this with his own type of conniving spirit of conviction, while Segal, Stone and the others follow along in making for some interesting unsavory people to look at for a time that doesn't lead one to want some sort of authority opposition or some sort of comic relief. On the whole, this is a decent little movie from Roger Corman in something a bit different from his usual tactics of filmmaking that still retains his usual drive to make quality entertainment that lives up as a decent gem for its era.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

Review #175: Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

Cast
Elizabeth Taylor (Martha), Richard Burton (George), George Segal (Nick), and Sandy Dennis (Honey) Directed by Mike Nichols.

Review
I must mention that this is the 175th Review. Now, this is a different film then usual, a small cast with big drama. The whole cast is perfect, with Taylor and Burton being the main standouts. This drama is devastating to the bone, with moments of uncomfortable moments that only keep the tension rise until it all explodes. Their are parts with humor that only add to its atmosphere. This film is like 12 Angry Men (#035), a bunch of people all cooped in one set with tension building until it ends in excellence. Truly recommended.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.