Showing posts with label John Huston. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Huston. Show all posts

December 20, 2025

The Man Who Would Be King.

Review #2488: The Man Who Would Be King.

Cast: 
Sean Connery (Daniel Dravot), Michael Caine (Peachy Carnehan), Christopher Plummer (Rudyard Kipling), Saeed Jaffrey (Machendra Bahadur Gurung aka "Billy Fish"), Shakira Caine (Roxanne), Doghmi Larbi (Ootah), Jack May (District Commissioner), Karroom Ben Bouih (Kafu Selim), Mohammad Shamsi (Babu), and lbert Moses (Ghulam) Directed by John Huston (#081 - The Maltese Falcon [1941], #094 - The Misfits, #224 - Casino Royale [1967], #419 - Key Largo, #1379 - The African Queen, #1622 - Beat the Devil)

Review: 
Once ago, there was a short story by Rudyard Kipling about kings of Kafiristan, a historical region in what is now Afghanistan. It was called "The Man Who Would Be King" and it was first published as part of the anthology The Phantom 'Rickshaw and Other Tales in 1888 that may or may not have been inspired by a handful of real adventurers ranging from Alexander Gardner to Frederick "Pahari" Wilson to Adolf Schlagintweit. John Huston was probably the ideal person to want to make a film based in adventure because of his already busy life. He dabbled in boxing, training for opera singing, serving as a member in the Mexican cavalry before actually dabbling in screenwriting and directing. Intrigued by the story from childhood, was fascinated by the idea of doing a feature film based on the story, initially targeting Clark Gable and Humphrey Bogart for the lead roles in the late 1950s that saw both actors die before it could get off the ground. Further years saw other names floated around from Richard Burton to even American actors (Paul Newman advised keeping it a British affair) before it finally came around to Sean Connery and Michael Caine. Huston co-adapted the story with Gladys Hill (a longtime assistant to Huston who had previously co-written Reflections in a Golden Eye [1967] and The Kremlin Letter [1970]. The movie was shot in locations around France, Morocco and at Pinewood Studios. Premiering in November 1975 before a general release on the week before Christmas, the film was a decent hit with audiences at the time while both Connery and Caine described it as one of their favorite film experiences. The fifth of John Huston's six films directed in the 1970s, he returned four years later with Wise Blood (1979). The next film to take loose inspiration from the Kipling story was The Road to El Dorado (2000).
 
The big thing about the movie is the fact that it manages to be such a fun adventure within the bounds of the thing that binds them most of all: greed. Sure, there is some brotherhood and charm within the characters played by Connery and Caine, but really it all boils down to wanting to matter as people beyond wearing some garb and getting called a god or a king of something. All fall at the end with their titles or classifications laid bare, some do it faster than others and some don't even have their story told to actually tell anyone. The inevitable peril that comes in trying to become a name among men in a world one is ravaging with their own imperial desire is still a fun one, of course, because who can resist scoundrels in adventure? Undeniably, Connery gets the better of the two roles in terms of the most curious in plundering adventure: self-mythologizing within the foundation of one who actually is quite pathetic when you get down to it. Actually, both actors are being sly in playing pathetic types because of how well we engage with them even with how we come to view them, and they are dynamite together. Plummer still makes his mark in making his role dignified even with most of it being opposite Caine. They never really become men of the people, merely just ones who believe they have them right where they want them as tools, which really could play today with how we still underestimate the spirit and belief of "the other". Jaffrey accompanies Caine and Connery with devoted energy that makes for a quality tragic figure. The 129-minute runtime rolls along with little to get in the way of its charm within the harrowing inevitability of when men try to become more than plundering conquerors. Apparently, Huston once said that he read so much of Kipling that it was in his unconscious, one that he understood in terms of a world that was different from the one we know now in terms of how we perceive places apart from us, the honor, and so on and so forth. The Man Who Would Be King is a good time for all in terms of its entertainment and its execution of adventure and tension.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

1,826 days later, it's the 15th anniversary of Movie Night originally being a thing. Sure, it started as ramblings on an online game before it became an actual blog, but the last couple of years (one that has seen at least ten reviews a month for over six years) have arguably seen it hit its stride for actual productiveness that I hope you've enjoyed. More to come in December.

November 23, 2021

Myra Breckinridge.

Review #1762: Myra Breckinridge.

Cast:
Raquel Welch (Myra Breckinridge), Rex Reed (Myron Breckinridge), John Huston (Buck Loner), Mae West (Leticia Van Allen), Farrah Fawcett (Mary Ann Pringle), Roger C. Carmel (Dr. Randolph Spencer Montag), Roger Herren (Rusty Godowski), George Furth (Charlie Flager, Jr), Calvin Lockhart (Irving Amadeus), Jim Backus (Doctor), John Carradine (Surgeon), and Andy Devine (Coyote Bill) Directed by Michael Sarne.

Review: 
“When you’re young, you do things sometimes that are impossible because they are impossible. There is a delight in attempting the extraordinary, the immensely difficult merely because it is so. Myra Breckinridge for me became more and more this kind of challenge, the chance to say what I believed was ultimately anarchic and satirical.” - Michael Sarne

“There was this strange bouquet of personalities that were attached to this film, and each one of them was bigger than life in their own sphere. And you thought, Maybe this is the best idea that ever happened, and maybe it’s the worst.” - Raquel Welch

In 1968, Gore Vidal wrote and published a novel in Myra Breckinridge. I have not read the book, but it has been called one of his most famous works, one that challenged the sexual norms of American life in culture and society while also dabbling in writing for film and television from time to time, which included un-credited work on Ben-Hur (1959); incidentally, Vidal was loosely inspired by the exploits of John “Bunny” Breckinridge, a wealthy drag queen that you would recognize from his performance in Plan 9 from Outer Space (1959). Two years later, an adaptation of the novel was done by 20th Century Fox to the derision of Vidal and numerous critics, for which a half century has not quite seen a rehabilitation of what has been considered a turkey of its time. Keep in mind, Hollywood now had a rating system rather than a Production Code, and it followed a decade that had seen films like Easy Rider (1969) and Midnight Cowboy (1969)...along with stuff such as Skidoo (1968). In other words, producers wanted to get with the "hip" crowd, but without getting too much into it. It was one of two X-rated films (well, at the time it was rated X, although now it is R) to be released by Fox alongside Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, which had unfavorable reviews as well, but it managed to be both a box office hit and find its own cult following (coincidentally, that movie also featured a film critic in its production). With this film, not only was the feature disowned by Vidal as a "joke" (albeit one he reportedly never saw), it effectively destroyed the career of the man who directed it as well in Michael Sarne (who occasionally dabbles in acting and painting). Vidal had the first crack at a script (of course Bud Yorkin was the first director in mind for the film), but it did not go well, because Fox (specifically producers David Brown and Richard Zanuck) apparently thought it needed to be as crazy and zany as one would think the ideas presented in the novel evoked. Sarne, who actually had a novelty hit as a singer in the 1960s, had exactly one other major studio film credit: Joanna (1968), which while not a hit at the time was at least given decent reviews. David Giler was brought in to try and deliver a script that would have apparently been a bit more straight-forward (while suggesting George Cukor to take over as director, which Sarne actually endorsed). Each would end up with a writing credit. If there ever was a more bewildering selection of cast mates for any particular movie, I'm sure this one would be one to discuss near the top. On one side, you have a star in Welch who wanted to try and escape the sex symbol status and try to aim for further legitimacy. On the other side introduces a(alleged) film critic with no prior acting experience in a key role. On another side, you have a famous director acting while the director behind the lines tells folks how much he hated his works (because he wanted Mickey Rooney, I kid you not). And, of course, Mae West, making a comeback movie while in the throes of feuding with Welch. Oh, and the debuts of Farrah Fawcett and Tom Selleck. If you think about it, any director that calls one of its stars an "old raccoon" (well, in retrospect, he stated she had a "marvelously artificial way of acting"), another a "old hack", and then spends valuable production time shooting food and "thinking"...probably got exactly what they deserved.  

What do you expect from a movie that has lines such as “the destruction of the last vestigial traces of traditional manhood”? Or how about "Myra Breckinridge is a dish, and don't you ever forget it, you motherfuckers - as the children say nowadays."?  My favorite was probably the one where she states as a Golden Age film nut that there wasn't an unimportant film made in Hollywood between 1935 and 1945 (????) Well, for one, you could expect a memorable experience, this much is true. Beyond the flurry of stock footage and name actors is a movie that drives exactly one thought through one's head: it is the equivalent of seeing someone trying to sing and walk while blindfolded...in a garden full of rakes (and judging by how miserable some of the folks were on the film, I would imagine that they would likely rather go through the rake rather than make the movie again if asked). In theory, this is an interesting cast to feature in a film, even with West in a pseudo-comeback move (Carradine, however, may end up being the most fitting person to have a one-note showing in an one-note movie). It starts with a bizarre dance sequence between two folks who can't quite match in rhythm (Reed and Welch) and never recovers from there. Oh, but don't even get started on the editing choices that come through a movie that acts like sitting still is a sin against nature. Sure, the biggest critique of the film at the time owed to how it managed to offend both folks that were already critical of the book (i.e. conservative audiences) AND folks that were curious to see a misguided attempt at making a studio movie of something that begs for an arthouse experience (or perhaps a French director, if we want to go further into esoteric mockery). The decision to use old film clips throughout the movie does not help matters either, since nothing of merit actually seems to be said with the clips, since this isn't exactly a worthwhile satire; sure, you can show a bunch of Laurel & Hardy clips all you want, but that isn't going to prove anything. Did I mention the twist ending? If this was the part that really sold the studio, they probably should have doubled the amount of alcohol they were drinking.  

If you can believe it, Welch actually wanted to play both Myra and Myron. I can believe that she really wanted to do a movie that would give her some sort of argument for being an actress beyond what you saw (and didn't hear). In a sea of bad decisions, she manages to do the best in terms of performance, probably because she gives it a great go for this artificial role. She can laugh at the movie now, and I can appreciate her attempts at comedy (or whatever is supposed to be present here) far more than anyone else here. Well, I would make a cutting remark about Rex Reed and his attempts at acting in a debut, but having to say "where are my tits?" is humiliating enough. Besides, he seethed at making the film and later talked plenty when it came time to write of the film and its troubled production (for which there was plenty of rope to hang).  Technically, Sarne has been quoted as saying he was "threatened" by Huston's presence, because, well, one would likely be quite speechless at having to direct a man would directed great movies and also acted from time to time in good ones (Sarne merely thought he couldn't act). Huston seems to doze his role with mild abandon, as if he knows that nothing he does here could possibly be the high or low point for an embarrassment like this, so being stuck in neutral is fair. Mae West had not appeared in a film since The Heat's On (1946). Of course, she had made a name for herself in the early sound-era with her raunchy presence...and she agreed to do this film provided she could write her own material. This somehow involves her having multiple music numbers. One could make a note about the dubiousness of West acting as if she is still 26, but stating that her performance seems like it is pulled out of a different movie is enough (that, and anybody who has a problem with Welch earns negative points); one could only wonder how making a flop like this did not stop her from trying to do another comeback a few years later with Sextette (1977) . It is the only film credit for Roger Herren, who either couldn't get film credits after this film or simply fell off the Earth. The infamous pegging scene probably didn't help. Of course, since it features stock footage being spliced in, it also manages to do exactly nothing with how confused it is. The supporting cast looks puzzled as to just what kind of movie they are in (yes, even Carmel), and yet the movie is always quite watchable in its dazzling failure of 94 minutes because it has dazzling style in clothing choices and in its shots that make the stuff shown on screen all the more baffling. 

Well, you have read a thousand words of talking about a turkey. Would I recommend trying to find this film? If you are a curious filmgoer who likes to watch dazzling bad taste...if you are a curious filmgoer who wants to see just how bad a movie can mangle attempts at satire or attempts at something involving gender...if you are a curious filmgoer who wants to see Raquel Welch in a role that shines above the cast in the most ironic of ways...if you can stomach all that, this is the movie for you. It is the mother of all ill-conceived ideas, one too curious to be thought of as the worst of anything but deserving of a great laugh at the expense of both filmmaker and studio.

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Inchon.

January 9, 2021

Beat the Devil.

Review #1622: Beat the Devil.

Cast: 
Humphrey Bogart (Billy Dannreuther), Jennifer Jones (Mrs. Gwendolen Chelm), Gina Lollobrigida (Maria Dannreuther), Robert Morley (Peterson), Peter Lorre (Julius O'Hara), Edward Underdown (Harry Chelm), Ivor Barnard (Major Jack Ross), Marco Tulli (Ravello), Bernard Lee (Inspector Jack Clayton), Mario Perrone (Purser on SS Nyanga), Giulio Donnini (Administrator), and Saro Urzì (Captain of SS Nyanga) Directed by John Huston (#081 - The Maltese Falcon (1941), #094 - The Misfits, #224 - Casino Royale (1967), #419 - Key Largo, and #1379 - The African Queen)

Review: 
This is quite an interesting film to stick out in the careers of the people who made it, since it was the sixth and last collaboration between famed director John Huston and star Humphrey Bogart. It seems to have come full circle, since they first worked together with The Maltese Falcon (1941), and it has been argued that this film serves as a spoof of the earlier film - in fact, it has even been thought of by cult audiences as a campy favorite and cult classic. The fact that the film exists in the public domain and was not an immediate success probably aids in that argument. The film was an adaptation of the novel of the same name that was written by Claud Cockburn (using the pseudonym James Helvick, owing to his Communist ties). The author was quite interested in Huston directing a movie off his book, with him reportedly reciting portions of Cockburn's novel to Bogart over the phone, which helped convince him to help fund the film through his production company Santana Productions, while Romulus Films (who had worked with Huston before with The African Queen). Cockburn (whose works were once described as preoccupied with portraying the paradox of good intentions by his son, who grew up to be a journalist in his own right that named his column after the film) started work with Huston on the screenplay, although he was not credited for this (much to some irritation). According to his son, the film needed a change for its ending during the last days of filming, and Truman Capote (famed novelist and short story writer) happened to be visiting the set while in Italy (the author was in Ireland), which led to him being drafted to do work, although it is contended that the zippy dialogue is not so much Capote but Cockburn (Capote, for his part, described it as a spoof on the type of film like The Maltese Falcon); however, Huston in his autobiography stated that him and Capote (who by one report was suggested by David O. Selznick, an eager manager of his wife Jones) would write scenes just hours before they were to be shot. To add on to all the screenplay hubbub, Anthony Veiller and Peter Viertel had been hired to pen the initial script, but it was soon rejected. 

So yes, there is quite a curiosity in the history before even watching the film, but it doesn't hide the relative enjoyment one gets from a pretty good effort in a sometimes-serious, sometimes-quirky effort from a spirited cast doing their best oddball adventure comedy, which works depending on one's patience for its trajectories. After all, Bogart called it a movie that only "phonies" like, and Jones called it a film made as a "three ring circus" by Huston that considered her character to have no reality of any kind. I think the phony line has some basis in reality when it comes to thinking about enjoying a film in irony, such as with The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975) and its supposed camp appeal, until one actually sits down and watches the film and realizes the trick (or finds enjoyment). Beat the Devil has its own trick: trying to play off adventure in a semi-serious manner that winks at you with the tenor of a old friend who has had a bit too much to enjoy in beverage but isn't being a complete cloying clod of clamminess. It might as well be the result of the version most people have seen, which was edited from its original preview version, which ran for 94 minutes (as opposed to the 90 in usual copies) - a 4K restoration that contains the original version was done five years ago, which contains no flashback structure and narration as seen here. The best parts of the film are here and there, in that the gulf between interest in the main trio of Bogart-Jones-Lollobrigida and the support of Morley-Lorre-Underdown-Barnard-Tulli is nearly dead even, to where one might desire the latter over the former. Bogart (who one might notice having a few less teeth here and there, as a result of a car accident) does fine here, befuddled at the game he has pulled himself into yet just as collected as one could expect from him without pretense. Jones may have been befuddled by her character, but at least she makes a spirited effort, which has some zippy charm placed within a serviceable chemistry with Bogart. Lollobrigida (who went from small roles in films in the late 1940s to exposure with an appearance in the Miss Italia pageant in 1950) gives off fiery & frosty spunk that pairs handily when placed next to Bogart or Underdown. Morley, no stranger to roles tinged with pompous attitude, proves quite amusing as the head crook, moseying on with push-and-go maneuvering in would-be crime blustering. Lorre (tinged with graying hair for once) go along just as interesting in offbeat charm, one that can muse about time being a crook just as well as trying to pull off a conniving scheme. Underdown plays stuffiness to a T, standing out in his own manner of off-kilter tone in a film that has quite a few nuts in the tree to begin with in its love...diamond-shaped romance. Barnard (in his last film role) and Tulli fill the ship of fools and scoundrels just fine, while Lee serves as the authority figure for the climax (after the sequence with soldiers on the beach of course). At any rate, there are some nice camera shots from Oswald Morris (one of his crew included Freddie Francis, who would become an acclaimed cinematographer and director in his own right) to go with scenery shot in Italy that makes for a weirdly intriguing ride and curiosity. It isn't the tightest-packed adventure, nor is it a broadly amusing film, this much is true. But if one looks at it closely, one will find a charming little movie that has a quiet place among the careers of Bogart and Huston as sly and slick entertainment, moving along on its own broad march of lyrics without issues such as conventions getting in the way, where it even laughs to close out its final revealing moment. Whether that will work all the way for you is up for decision, but a fair tide of cult following for this film in the six decades since release certainly helps the judgement. In other words, it will please those who seek curiosity with their adventures with chuckles.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

April 7, 2020

The African Queen.

Review #1379: The African Queen.

Cast: 
Humphrey Bogart (Charlie Allnut), Katharine Hepburn (Rose Sayer), Robert Morley (Rev. Samuel Sayer), Peter Bull (Captain of the Königin Luise), Theodore Bikel (First Officer of the Königin Luise), Walter Gotell (Second Officer of the Königin Luise), Peter Swanwick (First Officer of Fort Shona), and Richard Marner (Second Officer of Fort Shona) Directed by John Huston (#081 - The Maltese Falcon (1941), #094 - The Misfits, #224 - Casino Royale (1967), and #419 - Key Largo)

Review: 
"The directing of a picture involves coming out of your individual loneliness and taking a controlling part in putting together a small world. A picture is made. You put a frame around it and move on. And one day you die. That is all there is to it."
"The only thing you owe the public is a good performance."

Everyone needs a good adventure now and then. Who better to make an adventure than John Huston? He had grown from a bedridden childhood to a resilient early adulthood spent doing various things such as amateur boxing, acting, honorary membership of the Mexican cavalry, and eventually writing, first through magazines before finding his way to contract writing in Hollywood. However, it wasn't until 1938 that he found his way to substantial success as a serious writer, most notably with Jezebel for Warner Brothers. In 1941, he was granted a chance to direct his first film with The Maltese Falcon (1941), an influential noir classic. He directed two further films before serving in the US Army for World War II, where he made a few short films for the Signal Corps before returning to Hollywood for The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948), where he won Academy Awards for directing and screenplay. In a career that lasted until his death in 1987, he directed and wrote over thirty films, notably directing his father Walter and his daughter Anjelica each to Academy Award wins for their acting in one of Huston's films. One particular actor who benefited from Huston was Humphrey Bogart. He had started his acting career in the theatre, which resulted in a few notices before trying his hand with film parts (with his debut being a short in 1928). Bogart's role in play The Petrified Forest (1935) helped in getting his foot firmly in the door for film roles when it came time for the film adaptation the following year. High Sierra (1941) was the first collaboration between Bogart and Huston (who wrote the film), and the two would collaborate in six films together as star and director.

The film was adapted from the 1935 novel of the same name by C. S. Forester, which originally had the character of Allnut as an English Cockney (which was changed to him being a Canadian) along with an ambiguous ending for its main characters with its final line. The film had a mixed production between scenes shot in Britian and the Belgian Congo, with a good deal of the cast getting sick (except for Bogart and Huston, who apparently thrived on canned food and whiskey). In any case, one can see the tremendous craftsmanship on display in terms of directing and writing (Huston, James Agee, with un-credited work by John Collier and Peter Viertel) that go along with an incredible pairing with Bogart and Hepburn that make 105 minutes seem to go by quickly. Each play off each other with tense passion that can go for humor alongside drama without becoming a parody of itself. Bogart grabs your attention as he always does with his weary charm and plenty of concentration that is to be expected from him. As such, Hepburn matches up to him just as much in terms of great free-spirited presence that equates to an interesting match that charms the audience once it gets started. There are other members of the cast (such as Morley, who is in the first few minutes), but one spends a primary amount of time with Bogart & Hepburn and finds themselves lost as if they were actually on the boat besides them, complete with Technicolor photography from Jack Cardiff. One should not be surprised to know that this was a hit with the public, with Bogart even winning an Academy Award for his work in the film (while Hepburn and Huston received nominations for acting and directing/writing, respectively), and it is not hard to see why. It is a prime adventure story to serve as the template for plenty of other romantic adventure films, one with a dynamic duo game enough to interact with each other in amusing or touching ways that gives the audience enough curiosity for more in a decade that had plenty of crowd-pleasers to sift through.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

August 17, 2014

Movie Night: Chinatown.


Review #631: Chinatown.

Cast
Jack Nicholson (J.J. "Jake" Gittes), Faye Dunaway (Evelyn Cross Mulwray), John Huston (Noah Cross), Perry Lopez (Lieutenant Lou Escobar), John Hillerman (Russ Yelburton), Darrell Zwerling (Hollis I. Mulwray), Diane Ladd (Ida Sessions), and Roy Jenson (Claude Mulvihill) Directed by Roman Polanski.

Review
Chinatown is a movie that basks in the past with much originality, with a high crafted story by Robert Towne. Nicholson is fun to watch here, he makes for a interesting character that is fun to watch in any scene. Dunaway seems like she's playing a femme fatale, but in reality she plays anything but that, and her emotions are very expressive, you get to feel for this character, and in a way also pity her as well. It's amazing how John Huston (a director who I've covered a few times before) can be so effective as a villain when you realize his soft demeanor hides his dark side, which is evident in the end scene. Speaking of which, the end scene is probably the most memorable aspect of this movie (that, and Nicholson's bandaged face), Towne originally had written a happier ending, but it was changed by the director to make for a more cynical, but still a better ending. It's a perfectly sad ending, a way to make the movie more than just a detective story, and more importantly, a classic story. The movie has its thrills and most importantly its chills, which make for a very well-rounded movie that's heartbreaking, but also very entertaining. Take the ending for what it's worth, or don't, whatever you want.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

July 6, 2013

Movie Night: Key Largo.


Review #419: Key Largo.

Cast
Humphrey Bogart (Frank McCloud), Edward G. Robinson (Johnny Rocco), Lauren Bacall (Nora Temple), Lionel Barrymore (James Temple), Claire Trevor (Gaye Dawn), Thomas Gomez (Richard "Curly" Hoff), Harry Lewis (Edward "Toots" Bass), John Rodney (Deputy Sheriff Clyde Sawyer), Marc Lawrence (Ziggy), and Dan Seymour (Angel Garcia) Directed by John Huston (#081 - The Maltese Falcon (1941), #094 - The Misfits, #224 - Casino Royale (1967)

Review
Once again I have the chance to review a film directed by John Huston, and one with Humphrey Bogart and Edward G. Robinson, who I loved in The Cincinnati Kid (#273), with Laura Bacall and Lionel Barrymore, who I last reviewed in America (not everyday you review a star who stars in silent and talkie films), so this was irresistible. And it did not disappoint. The main four (Bogart, Robinson, Bacall and Barrymore) all do respectable jobs, but Claire Trevor stands out among the rest, especially when she sings a capella in front of everyone, a moving scene. This film has a tense pace going, never letting go of its roots, having a climatic ending and a good directing job by Huston once again.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

August 20, 2012

Movie Night: Casino Royale (1967)

Review #224: Casino Royale.

Cast
David Niven (James Bond), Peter Sellers (Evelyn Tremble), Ursula Andress (Vesper Lynd), Orson Welles (Le Chiffre), Woody Allen (Jimmy Bond), Barbara Bouchet (Miss Moneypenny), Deborah Kerr (Agent Mimi), and John Huston (M) Directed by Ken Hughes, John Huston (#081 - The Maltese Falcon and #094 - The Misfits), Joseph McGrath, Robert Parrish, and Val Guest.

Review
Well, this is...weird. It has been 45 years since its release back in 1967 (Which by sure coincidence this year is also the 50th anniversary of #150 - Dr. No, the first Bond film) I'm thinking that this was an experiment. An experiment to make an absurd, big casted film. The film does have some good moments, sometimes hampered by some dull stretches at times. Oddly, this is my first film reviewed with Sellers and Allen. When I think of Sellers, I think of Pink Panther. When I think of Allen, I think of that guy who stole the Oscar from Star Wars. Oh and that guy from Antz. Now when I think of this film, I'll think of the opening theme and comparisons to Batman (1966 - #177) It's a weird fest that can be entertaining in any mind.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

January 28, 2012

Movie Night: The Misfits.

Review #094: The Misfits.

Cast
Clark Gable (Gay Langland), Marilyn Monroe (Roslyn Tabor), Montgomery Clift (Perce Howland), Thelma Ritter (Isabelle Steers), and Eli Wallach (Guido) Directed by John Huston.

Review
This is an eery film, when you think about it. This was Monroe and Gable's last roles, and Clift was getting to his last few as well. It's well acted with an allright script from Arthur Miller (The Crucible, Death of a Salesman) as it does its script justice. It's ending is a little sad considering this again was the two's last roles. The film is sad, dramatic, and all around an allright film for what it's worth. We are close to 100 Reviews. Countdown: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6...

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

December 10, 2011

Movie Night: The Maltese Falcon (1941).


Review #081: The Maltese Falcon.

Cast
Humphrey Bogart (Sam Spade), Mary Astor (Ruth Wonderly/Brigid O'Shaughnessy), Gladys George (Iva Archer), Peter Lorre (Joel Cairo), Barton MacLane (Lieutenant Dundy), Lee Patrick (Effie Perine), Sydney Greenstreet (Kasper Gutman), Ward Bond (Detective Tom Polhaus), and Jerome Cowan (Miles Archer) Directed by John Huston.

Review
This is a classic film that should be watched at least once by people who like film. Yes, that's my first line. And it's truthful straight down to the last period. The acting is good, especially from Bogart. The film has a style to it that helps the film makes its case for a good film, if not already from the acting. The story's good, making you interested in it for the entirety of the film. This film is the stuff that dreams are made of...

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.