Boomerang! (1947)

Review #2372: Boomerang! (1947)

Cast: 

Dana Andrews (State's Attorney Henry L. Harvey), Jane Wyatt (Madge Harvey), Lee J. Cobb (Chief Harold F. "Robby" Robinson), Cara Williams (Irene Nelson), Arthur Kennedy (John Waldron), Sam Levene (Dave Woods), Taylor Holmes (T. M. Wade), Robert Keith ("Mac" McCreery), Ed Begley (Paul Harris), and Karl Malden (Det. Lt. White) Directed by Elia Kazan (#104 - East of Eden, #109 - A Streetcar Named Desire, #110 - On the Waterfront, #1375 - Panic in the Streets, #1406 - Splendor in the Grass)

Review: 

"I really will be able to do this picture the way I think pictures should be made. It was our neo-realism."

Sure, it's easy to forget that some movies really can play fast and loose with facts. Here we have Elia Kazan's third feature film as a director, which came in the wake of his debut two years prior in A Tree Grows in Brooklyn (1945). 1947 actually brough three different movies for Kazan as a director: The Sea of Grass (1947) was an MGM Western featuring Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn that for some reason managed to have Kazan express his dislike in later years. Gentleman's Agreement, released in November of 1947, wound up winning Kazan an Academy Award for directing. But Boomerang! (which as with Gentleman was released by Fox) was the second movie to come through for audiences, being released in March of 1947. The movie took its material from a 1945 article in The Reader's Digest called "The Perfect Case", which had been written by Fulton Oursler based on an actual crime that happened in 1924; Richard Murphy wrote the film script. In that year, in the city of Bridgeport in Connecticut, after eight days of anguish over the murder of Father Hubert Dahme, Harold Israel, a vagrant, was arrested and charged for the murder. Israel had given a confession and had been found with a revolver, but through the efforts of state attorney in Fairfield County Homer Stille Cummings, Israel was found innocent, and the indictment was dropped*. Cummings in general was a fascinating person: the Yale graduate actually had served as Mayor of Stamford, Connecticut for four years in the 1900s and he later served in committee work with the national Democratic Party. And, true to the end of the movie, Cummings actually did become U.S. Attorney General, serving six years from 1933 to 1939 (among the things he did in office was make bank robbery a federal crime). Israel essentially faded away into history, dying in the mid 1960s, although he was reported as having been married with children years after being freed, although the case was never solved. He wasn't particularly big on the first two movies he did when it came to their production style (done entirely on sound stages), but the chance to do shooting in Stamford, Connecticut interested him, since Kazan stated that at the time, he "shared the appetites" of neorealist filmmakers (such as Vittorio De Sica with Shoeshine, for example); a few non-professional actors are present in some shots. Kazan's next movie would be Pinky (1949); of his first five films, apparently, he was only big on A Tree Grows in Brooklyn.

Technically the movie is cited as being a "semi documentary", which is probably helped by the narration heard every so often from Reed Hadley, who had been used to narrate prior films such as The House on 92nd Street (1945) (the narrative touch was big with producer Louis de Rochemont, who was involved with documentary stuff). This is the kind of movie that probably would be interesting to compare with Kazan's subsequent Panic in the Streets (1950) in straight to the bone procedurals. Kazan wasn't as fond of Boomerang! in his later years, basically calling it "the same studio machine - brought outdoors", but he at least stated his learned certain little tricks and techniques because of making the movie (he also once stated he could do a film anywhere and didn't need sets or movie stars). Sure, maybe the actors are still "movie actors", but at least there is an interesting atmosphere of doubts and failings, where a murder investigation turns itself into a city-wide infection that leaves only the reporters with any sort of satisfaction at the end of things. The police** don't win in the end and even the people that knew the victim don't win any sense of peace in the end, suffice to say. Andrews is pretty reliable in uncomplicated feelings that arise in not rolling with just being a cog in the machine of others around them, which works out for the usual reliable presence you would hope for. Cobb probably sticks out just as much in what he gets from his routines, one who shows the weary nature that comes from pressure that probably works the best among the cast, although Kennedy makes for a useful near-sacrificial lamb in worried nature. Of course, the 88-minute runtime does mean there are moments spent with other people about stuff tangentially related to the murder, specifically with Begley and the conniving nature that comes in bits and parts before it literally shoots itself for the climax. Sure, it doesn't have as much power as it likely could have (Williams comes to mind in that regard), but the routines with the ins and outs of the world of people is interesting enough to hold the movie down to at least some fascination. Sure, Kazan may be a bit hard on himself with his own assessment, but it is at least a solid movie to recommend for those who like an old-fashioned yarn.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*Strangely, I am reminded of another actual case involving coerced confessions and Connecticut with Peter Reilly, who in 1973 was convicted of murder at the age of 18 when cops essentially lied to and coerced him to confess by refusing to let him sleep in a long interrogation - this was a case that happened in the 1970s, mind you.

**Remember: don't fuck around if in the web of a cop, whether that means knowing your rights and asking for a lawyer. Peter Reilly became a reform advocate, particularly for a bill in his state named SB1071. This was a bill trying to curb on deceptive tactics by cops for people under the age of 18, and go figure, not every state has this on their books, but Connecticut now does. See, I don't hate cops, I just know they can give you bad juju if something is in the wrong place.

How the West Was Won.

Review #2228: How the West Was Won.

Cast (i.e. who features most prominently in each segment)

"The Rivers" segment: James Stewart (Linus Rawlings), Carroll Baker (Eve Prescott), Debbie Reynolds (Lilith Prescott), Karl Malden (Zebulon Prescott), Agnes Moorehead (Rebecca Prescott), Walter Brennan (Col. Jeb Hawkins), and Brigid Bazlen (Dora Hawkins) Directed by Henry Hathaway (#1314 - True Grit and #1687 - O. Henry's Full House)

"The Plains" segment: Debbie Reynolds (Lilith Prescott), Gregory Peck (Cleve Van Valen), Robert Preston (Roger Morgan), Thelma Ritter (Agatha Clegg), and David Brian (Lilith's attorney) Directed by Henry Hathaway.

"The Civil War" segment: George Peppard (Zeb Rawlings), Andy Devine (Corporal Peterson), Harry Morgan (Gen. Ulysses S. Grant), John Wayne (Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman), Russ Tamblyn (Confederate deserter), Carroll Baker (Eve Prescott Rawlings), and Raymond Massey (President Abraham Lincoln) Directed by John Ford (#398 - The Last Hurrah, #1324 - 3 Bad Men, #1349 - Stagecoach, #1372 - Fort Apache, #1392 - The Searchers, #1409 - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, #1778 - 3 Godfathers, #1827 - Tobacco Road)

"The Railroad" segment: Henry Fonda (Jethro Stuart), George Peppard (Zeb Rawlings), and Richard Widmark (Mike King) Directed by George Marshall (#650 - The Ghost Breakers)

"The Outlaws" segment: George Peppard (Zeb Rawlings), Lee J. Cobb (Marshal Lou Ramsey), Eli Wallach (Charlie Gant), Carolyn Jones (Julie), Debbie Reynolds (Lilith Prescott van Valen), and Mickey Shaughnessy (Deputy Stover) Directed by Henry Hathaway

With Spencer Tracy (Narrator).

Review: 

Yes, there was a union between Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer and Cinerama. MGM had plenty of success with making epics that attracted folks to not just go with television such as, say, Ben-Hur (1959), so it makes sense to say that there was two films distributed by MGM involving another big-related process in film. The Wonderful World of the Brothers Grimm was released in the three-strip Cinerama process in August of 1962 before November saw the release of How the West Was Won, which apparently took inspiration from a series of articles by Life magazine (take one guess what the title of those articles was) that was first published in 1959. As one might remember, Cinerama (as invented by Fred Waller) was a process involving widescreen with a considerably distinct presence: three projectors projecting images onto a curved screen (the panoramic image on a screen curved 146 degrees around the front of an audience. This Is Cinerama (1954) was the showcase that rocked folks as a grand travelogue; as one might notice, trying to shoot actors with this setup was tough when it comes to sightlines and requiring plenty of detail dressing of clothing for sets. Hathaway was quoted famously as calling it "Goddamn Cinerama" (along with calling it "nothing but a big window display") when noting the fact that the closest as one could get with the process was a waist shot; because of the wide view, one apparently couldn't watch the actors without somehow being in the shot. Bottom line, one would see various films done in varying levels of camera lenses such as Ultra Panavision 70 to Super Panavision 70, as Cinerama became single camera for later films such as It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World (1963). At any rate, here we have a big Western covering various moments of the Old West for MGM, with directors chosen specifically because they were "old pros" (as opposed to "no young geniuses", as quoted by producer Bernard Smith); Ford and Marshall had directed films since the late 1910s while Hathaway started in 1932 before each director eventually ended their careers by the turn of the 1960s into 1970. Going by the word of Hathaway, production was semi-rough, owing to both the Cinerama filming process and (in his words), "an idiot for a producer" to the point where production almost ended before the filming of the fifth and final segment; he also claimed to write the second segment of the film, as he was originally brought in to help with scripting problems, although the final print listed James R. Webb as the only screenwriter. The movie was a roaring success and has a pretty good reputation for itself among epics, particularly since one can watch it on home video (since the 21st century) with pretty good restoration (as one must do when it comes to making screens look whole).

There are plenty of peaks and valleys with this film, most of which come from the fact that the quality of enjoyment comes and goes depending on which segment one is on in the 164-minute epic. The opening segment has a near sixty-year-old Stewart playing a guy meant to be 28, while Reynolds and Peppard are the only actors in the most segments (three) to go with borrowing footage from The Alamo [1960] and needing four cinematographers. You get plenty to see in this endurance round of anthology action: river pirates, rapids, wagon attacks, a John Wayne cameo, stampedes, and a railroad attack all in one. It is pretty much Hathaway's film to hold court involving drive and desire in the frontier, as the Civil War and railroad segments (as done by Ford and Marshall) don't exactly rise too far above stagy scenario-making (apparently, Hathaway did re-shots for the railroad segment). The first two segments are probably the strongest in terms of general construction, even if one is always seeing the strain of trying to make a worthwhile epic that has to rely on plenty of pictorial views and a bit of bombastic acting (as one might see coming when having to deal with weird cameras) to go with the motions. The third segment is mostly set around the aftermath of the Battle of Shiloh that has brief moments in the start and finish involving the Rawlings family farm. Most of it though...is a couple of folks listening to a conversation of two U.S. generals (William Tecumseh Sherman and Ulysses S. Grant). Apparently, Spencer Tracy was once tapped to play Grant, but this eventually washed away to just have him provide the narration from time to time. As tempting as it is to wonder how cool it would've been to see Tracy and Wayne on the same screen...it probably wouldn't have made it any less stagey, because really it isn't as involving as it could've been. Regardless of the detail taken for costuming (again, one had to be careful and not skimp in front of those Cinerama cameras), it just comes up feeling hollow for actual interest because you know you've seen (and heard) Wayne and Morgan in better Westerns. The fourth segment and fifth are pretty mild on each count, but at least the latter segment has the railroad spectacle to let the film coast on a good note despite the fact that I can barely remember Peppard as a lead presence here. It is a hard thing to do for a film that has him (by his idea) do a Stewart impersonation in the middle of things because hey, do you remember that Stewart played the character's dad for one segment? The highlights are the sequences involving action because of the staging that allows for things to just move on their own, as opposed to acting that is mostly just fine (it is hard to really pick a favorite), but you have a cadre of character actors to go with name guys doing a fraction of the work that straddles just above being accused of phoning it in and settling right into "stagey but comfortable". As a whole, it is a grand old epic that is good enough in the categories that matter in spectacle to make a serviceable recommendation for those interested in what the film tries to show within a distinct camera setup and approach.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Gunfighter.

Review #2223: The Gunfighter.

Cast: 

Gregory Peck (Jimmy Ringo), Helen Westcott (Peggy Walsh), Millard Mitchell (Marshal Mark Strett), Jean Parker (Molly), Karl Malden (Mac), Skip Homeier (Hunt Bromley), Anthony Ross (Deputy Charlie Norris), Verna Felton (Mrs. August Pennyfeather), Ellen Corby (Mrs. Devlin), and Richard Jaeckel (Eddie) Directed by Henry King (#1687 - O Henry's Full House)

Review: 

On July 14, 1882, a body was found in the Arizona Territory with a gunshot in the head. It was revealed to be an outlaw associated with various cowboys in Cochise County along with Tombstone and people such as Wyatt Earp. It was none other than Johnny Ringo. The real Ringo was a pretty cut-rate killer, but the Ringo for this film is vastly different, and for good reason. The film was written by playwright/sometimes screenwriter William Bowers and William Sellers, as based on a story by Bowers and Andre de Toth (a steady director in his own right, such as Westerns), albeit with uncredited contributions by producer Nunnally Johnson (a playwright in addition to producing and writing films, most notably The Grapes of Wrath [1940]) and apparently Roger Corman. Corman, who worked as a messenger at Fox, was so annoyed at his suggestions being used without getting credit, soon left Fox for study at the University of Oxford. Anyway, this was the first film done in the 1950s for its director King, who had been working consistently since 1915 in a variety of genres that spanned from the original Stella Dallas (1925) to Twelve O'Clock High (1949). Fans of the Western will recognize parts of The Shootist (1976) that sure seem to have been inspired by this film (an old, famed outlaw coming into a town and seeing familiar faces). John Wayne, who starred in that film, apparently had a motivation to want the lead part for that film because of the fact that he had rejected starring in this film because of its initial starting point being at Columbia Pictures (as headlined by an executive he hated). Incidentally, Bowers stated that he had wrote the film with Wayne in mind but when approached by Wayne, he rejected selling it to him in favor of shipping it elsewhere (which resulted in more money but also the enmity of Wayne). 

There are plenty of Westerns about people with the hands to match with anyone when it comes to gunfighting, but you don't get as many in terms of interesting looks at the people who wish the attention would just end. It starts, interestingly enough, with a gunfighter shooting someone in defense in which we don't see their hands when it comes to that fateful gunshot. It is an efficient 85-minute movie that feels like it is occurring in real time when it comes to the tension that lies within trying to stay in town when others only a tool of confrontation. The choices matter most of all in this Western rather than grand landscapes or big towns when one man arriving into town is an event on itself. Sure, one could wonder what the film would be with Wayne, but Peck (drabbed in a period-looking moustache and all) erases those doubts with an efficient performance that is imposing to go along with a semblance of pity that reminds one of seeing an old alley cat; it may not surprise you to know that this was one of six films Peck did with King. He does so well with the film that he sells that fateful final scene (establishing just who really shot who to death) with all of the punch it is worth in expressing the "known gunfighter". Mitchell provides the ideal side of the coin in terms of reformed men with just as much dignity when matched with Peck for a solidly reliable performance. The rest of the cast is pretty good, with Malden being the most enjoyable in terms of character presence (he was in the original Broadway production of A Streetcar Named Desire), although Homeier's smarmy dandy presence is a suitable antithesis to Peck when it comes to opportunism that can be slapped away just as easily. The tension comes not in wondering if you are going to get some sort of, well, gunfight but instead comes from the tension of wondering just what will happen to our lead in his quest for some sort of fulfillment that doesn't involve a gun. It sure is packed with elements that make one seemed as trapped in a manner that might make you think you were in a noir. In the end, there is plenty to enjoy in terms of a solid cast and atmosphere that executes on a level worth every moment in the art of choices made through a gun in a frontier starved for attention. 

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Patton.

Review #1434: Patton.

Cast: 
George C. Scott (Major General George S. Patton), Karl Malden (Major General Omar N. Bradley), Michael Bates (General Bernard Montgomery), Edward Binns (Lieutenant General Walter Bedell Smith), Lawrence Dobkin (Colonel Gaston Bell), John Doucette (Major General Lucian Truscott), James Edwards (Sergeant William George Meeks), Frank Latimore (Lieutenant Colonel Henry Davenport), Richard Münch (Colonel General Alfred Jodl), Morgan Paull (Captain Richard N. Jenson), Siegfried Rauch (Captain Oskar Steiger), and Paul Stevens (Lieutenant Colonel Charles R. Codman) Directed by Franklin J. Schaffner (#347 - Planet of the Apes and #580 - The Best Man)

Review: 
Acting changes the inner spirit. It's fulfilling, but psychologically very costly. You can't steal enough money in a lifetime to make up for the damage. I'm ashamed for the bitterness it created in me, but it exists. Even when you're successful it's hard to rise above it. It's like a growth.


Perhaps it is not too hyperbolic to describe this as the military biopic to try and end all military biopics. The director responsible for such a grand portrait of a man bigger than life was Franklin J. Schaffner, a veteran of World War II for the Navy that worked for over a decade in television with programs such as such as Studio One and Playhouse 90 before adding films to his repertoire with The Stripper (1963). This film proved to be the pinnacle of his career, although he had (and would make) other noted films such as The Best Man (1964), Planet of the Apes (1968) and Papillon (1973). Adapting the larger-than-life general to the screen was a long process, not helped by being denied access to Patton's diaries. Francis Ford Coppola and Edmund H. North would write the script based on two works: Patton: Ordeal and Triumph from Ladislas Farago (a Hungarian military historian and journalist) and A Soldier's Story, written by Omar Bradley (General of the Army and consultant for the film). At the helm as star was George C. Scott, who made a name for himself on stage, television and supporting roles in film starting in 1958 that eventually grew into further prominent work by the time the 1960s had ended. He had acquired the part after Rod Steiger rejected it (he stated that he did not want to glorify war, but he subsequently called it his "dumbest career move"), with this serving as the role Scott became best known for in his career, and he would later return to the role in a TV movie The Last Days of Patton sixteen years later. Schaffner, Coppola, North, and Patton would each win an Academy Award for their work (although Scott would famously refuse to accept the award, having objected to the voting process and competition for actors as a whole).

One thing that can immediately be said about the film that applies to Scott as well is the fact that neither ever seem to flinch for 170 minutes. Whether one sees an enigma with the person portrayed on screen or not, one cannot deny the gripping performance from Scott, who is relentless in conviction and stature that springs right from the opening scene with the speech to the Third Army, standing right by an American flag. The sequence (which utilized statements from the actual speech, albeit toned down in language) is a magnificent way to open the film, filled with no-nonsense bluster and rallying spirit for a war movie made in the midst of another war (perhaps one can infer something from this, as was the case with the other hit war film in M*A*S*H, which was beaten in the race for Best Picture at the Academy Awards that year). One doesn't think about the other members of the cast much when it comes to a film like this, nor do they really think about all the history leading up to Patton being where he is as the man of the moment - one might even believe that Scott and Patton have melded together to make for one encompassing performance that we care for in all of its imperfect perfections. Probably the one person who makes for substantial screen time to follow alongside Scott is Malden, who makes for a reserved but dignified contrast when he shows up from time to time, while the others fill their parts with care that don't fall prey to the contrivances that can sometimes pop up in a biopic (of course this is a movie that covers Patton from just 1943-1945). The battle sequences certainly work out in terms of scope, no doubt aided by being filmed in 65mm Dimension 150 and Jerry Goldsmith's sweeping musical score. While a film will never completely tell the tale of any one man (particularly one as colorful as Patton), this one manages to draw a composed picture on its subject with bombast and precision, which work out most of the time as an enigmatic but involving epic for the era.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

One-Eyed Jacks.

Review #1405: One-Eyed Jacks.

Cast: 
Marlon Brando ("Kid" Rio), Karl Malden (Dad Longworth), Ben Johnson (Bob Emory), Katy Jurado (Maria Longworth), Pina Pellicer (Louisa), Slim Pickens (Lon Dedrick), Larry Duran (Chico Modesto), Sam Gilman (Harvey Johnson), Timothy Carey (Howard Tetley), Míriam Colón (Eedhead), and Elisha Cook, Jr. (Carvey) Directed by Marlon Brando.

Review: 
"You work yourself to death. You're the first one up in the morning... I mean, we shot that thing on the run, you know, you make up the dialogue the scene before, improvising, and your brain is going crazy"

Being an outsider can prove interesting when it comes to cinema, whether you are an actor or director. Marlon Brando certainly proved himself in cultivating a career in the former category with characters on the outside with a great deal of naturalization in acting that made him a presence to behold on screen for several decades, from the highest of highs to lowest of lows, and the 1960s were certainly an interesting one for him in his life and career. He appeared in thirteen films in this decade, which is considerable since it was the most he did in one decade in a 39 film career that spanned over five decades. He grew a reputation as demanding and troublesome on set in this decade with films that audiences felt where inconsistent in quality, ranging from Mutiny on the Bounty (1962, where he had conflicts with director Lewis Milestone), A Countess from Hong Kong (1967, where initial joy to work with Charlie Chaplin turned to disappointment over his directorial style) to Burn! (1969, which he felt was some of his best acting). In any case, this film proved to be a unique experience for Brando, who would direct for the first and only time in his career. He stepped into this because of massive turnover when it came to writing and directing for a film under his production company Pennebaker Productions. For example, the first draft of the script (an adaptation of the 1956 novel The Authentic Death of Hendry Jones by Charles Neider) was done by Rod Serling. Then the plan shifted to having re-writes by Sam Peckinpah with direction from Stanley Kubrick. Calder Willingham and Guy Trosper both contributed to further re-writes, and they ultimately became the writers credited on-screen in the final product. A disagreement between Kubrick and Brando resulted in the former leaving the production weeks before it was slated to began, and the latter volunteered to serve as director.

Perhaps it should prove unsurprising that the film ran for 141 minutes, since Brando had apparently did a first cut that ran for over four hours, since he shot hours and hours of footage that amplified a budget from under two million to six, and it did not return well at the box offices. It certainly is an interesting Western, one that sets a trail of clichés about revenge with attempts to make complex characters with intensity and realism that make a curious movie in Brando's filmography. In a role that seems to pull from historical figures like Billy the Kid, Brando pulls off a tremendous performance, a contradiction of reserved intensity that certainly threads a different needle than the usual "main hero" present in Westerns (fitting in a decade with plenty to offer in that department) that seems fitting of psychoanalysis more than adulation. Malden, noted in his career for his versatility as a character actor with everyman qualities of intensity and authenticity, accompanies him as a father figure with his own complexity as adversary and authority figure filled with half-truths. Johnson and Pickens accompany the film at times with composed grime, while Jurado (who carved an image for herself in both Mexican and American cinema) makes for a calming presence and Pellicer (who appeared in five films before committing suicide at the age of 30) makes for quiet chemistry with Brando. This is a film that soaks with paradoxes of moralities and myths, packing a swift climax that makes a fitting end for such nihilism, even if Brando felt a bit disappointment in how the characters seemed to be "black and white, not gray and human as I planned them." It meanders at times, but at least the cinematography by Charles Lang is nice to look at to make things palpable. On the whole, this is a film with plenty of intensity and ego on display in it its star and director, a fitting curiosity that any actor/director would surely be proud to have done, warts and all.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Meteor.

Review #1204: Meteor.

Cast: 
Sean Connery (Dr. Paul Bradley), Natalie Wood (Tatiana Donskaya), Karl Malden (Harry Sherwood), Brian Keith (Dr. Alexei Dubov), Martin Landau (General Adlon), Trevor Howard (Sir Michael Hughes), Richard Dysart (Secretary of Defense), Henry Fonda (The President), and Joseph Campanella (General Easton) Directed by Ronald Neame (#673 - Scrooge)

Review: 
What is a meteor? One definition (at least according to a cursory Google search) is that it is a " small body of matter from outer space that enters the earth's atmosphere, becoming incandescent as a result of friction and appearing as a streak of light." Perhaps the definition doesn't give the movie's big threat proper credit, since this is a disaster film released to ride on the popularity of films of its ilk released in the 1970s such as the Airport films (1970, 1974, 1977, 1979), The Poseidon Adventure (1972) and countless others  - with this one being distributed by American International Pictures and funding from Hong Kong studio Shaw Brothers. This was one of numerous AIP films in the 1970s that differed from the usual fare they had delivered in previous decades, with less focus on horror and more focus on other genres (whether it involved kung fu, blaxploitation, or something else), with an increase in budgets. This film, unlike others released by the studio, proved to be a failure, making less than $10 million on release with a budget over $15 million. This led to the demise of AIP, which soon merged with Filmways, Inc and stopped distributing films by 1980. In any case, the hands that attempted to guide the film might have seemed promising. Stanley Mann and Edmund H. North were the writers for the film, with the latter being responsible for writing films such as The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951) and Patton (1970). Much like the disaster films mentioned already, this one also boasts a collection of big-name actors of its time to supplant the roles.

With all of that in mind, it sure is strange that this film turns out to be a dud. How does one make a film racked with only the bare minimum of suspense and mild special effects? How does one make a film where the energy of the cast and the people they are playing fight blandness? By the time the actual meteor shows up for its climax, the level of excitement jumps up a percentage point, since it means it's almost over, even if the tension levels by this time are nearly non-existent. This probably would've fared better as a comedy, actually. Imagine a bunch of people flailing around talking about a giant rock hitting the Earth in your driest voice, and you have this movie basically summed up. As nice as it is to see Connery be pulled into this ridiculous mess, he isn't too particularly interesting - whether that it is due to the script or due to being on autopilot waiting to get done with this mess (and the check to clear) is up to you. Him and Wood don't have much chemistry with each other, but it really is more because it just feels like filler before scenes of exposition/meteor stuff take the stage again. Keith is fine, and he does provide a bit of humor to a film that is practically begging for some action. Malden proves okay with his gruff if not stock kind of role. Landau goes over-the-top for a role without any real sort of depth to it besides being adversarial to the others. The other members of the cast make brief appearances that come and go as they please. The effects are okay, but they don't really elevate this material to any real sense of enjoyable spectacle, with one sequence utilizing footage from Avalanche (1978) alongside tons of artificial snow for background shooting. The sequence involving the subway and the mud surely must've proven interesting to think of as effective in concept - but it just seems more of a waste of money and time (along with a pain for any actor having to act in mud). This mish-mash in quality for the effects can be attributed in part because numerous visual effects teams came and went during production due to being fired for the quality of effects delivered on a small budget (no doubt due to the budget focus on the actors) - the shots involving building collapsing near the end was actually just re-used footage from building demolitions. Ultimately, it is the lack of any interesting characters or situations that prove fatal to the film. It becomes evident quickly that there isn't much in the way of tension, since the idea of the meteor actually hitting the Earth never really seems all that likely. The film actually ends with a notation about a report named "Project Icarus", a student project done in 1967 at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology that involved students in a systems engineering class to make a plan to use rockets to deflect or destroy an asteroid in the event of a possible collision with Earth, which led to a book release the following year. One would likely be better off reading the report than watching the film, actually. It disappoints on a basic level as entertainment with its actors and it disappoints on a level of spectacle that makes this a chore for all but people with nothing better to do.

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Cincinnati Kid.

Review #273: The Cincinnati Kid.

Cast
Steve McQueen (Eric "The Kid" Stoner), Edward G. Robinson (Lancey "The Man" Howard), Karl Malden (Shooter), Ann-Margret (Melba), Rip Torn (Slade), Tuesday Weld (Christian), Joan Blondell (Lady Fingers), Jack Weston (Pig), and Cab Calloway (Yeller) Directed by Norman Jewison (#127 - Rollerball)

Review
Based off the novel by Richard Jessup, the Cincinnati Kid is a good ol' flick. Interesting enough, this is my first film review with Steve McQueen and Edward G. Robinson (Karl Malden has already been reviewed here before: #109 - A Streetcar Named Desire and #110 - On the Waterfront) How are the main leads? They are, without a doubt, good. You feel for both of the characters, not really wanting either one to lose, though the supporting cast's portrayals of the others do help out make the film more defined. It makes poker a bit more interesting then usual in a film that fits in as a good classic.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

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.

Movie Night: A Streetcar Named Desire.

Review #109: A Streetcar Named Desire.

Cast
Vivien Leigh (Blanche DuBois), Marlon Brando (Stanley Kowalski), Kim Hunter (Stella Kowalski), Karl Malden (Harold Mitchell), Rudy Bond (Steve Hubbel), Nick Dennis (Pablo Gonzales), and Peg Hillias (Eunice Hubbel) Directed by Elia Kazan (#104 - East of Eden)

Review
This film was adpated from the classic play by Tennessee Williams, with Brando, Hunter, and Malden as the roles, with Jessica Tandy as DuBois. In the film, he was replaced by another player of the play (in London). Anyway, the film has good acting, dramatic style, and just plain old fashion writing that you don't see a lot anymore. Leigh steals the show, as she should be, commanding this role easily (winning an Oscar for it along with Hunter and Malden, strangely Brando lost in his catagory). The film is not flawed, not too different from the play, given the circumstances and all. In short, a good film.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.