The Great Race.

Review #2396: The Great Race.

Cast: 

Jack Lemmon (Professor Fate and Prince Friedrich Hapnick), Tony Curtis (Leslie Gallant III, aka The Great Leslie), Natalie Wood (Maggie DuBois), Peter Falk (Maximillian Mean), Keenan Wynn (Hezekiah Sturdy), Arthur O'Connell (Henry Goodbody), Vivian Vance (Hester Goodbody), Dorothy Provine (Lily Olay), Larry Storch (Texas Jack), Ross Martin (Baron Rolf von Stuppe), Hal Smith (the Mayor of Boracho), Denver Pyle (the Sheriff of Boracho), and Marvin Kaplan (Fisbee) Directed by Blake Edwards (#329 - The Pink Panther, #481 - The Party, #899 - A Shot in the Dark, #1461 - 10)

Review: 

Every couple of years, some folks try to do a homage to the old favorites. But when you are Blake Edwards, why the hell not? The Oklahoma native grew up with a stepfather that was the son of a silent movie director (J. Gordon Edwards). Sure, he didn't become a film production manager like him, but Edwards did jobs as an actor before serving in the United States Coast Guard before becoming a director in the television-friendly 1950s. He became a director worth watching closely with films such as Operation Petticoat (1959), Breakfast at Tiffany's (1961), Days of Wine and Roses (1962), and, well, The Pink Panther series, obviously. With The Great Race, it took a few years to get things rolling. Apparently, the idea for the film was conceived by Edwards in 1960 that took inspiration from the 1908 automobile race from New York City to Paris, France. Arthur A. Ross was brought in to develop a story to present that eventually saw him hired to do a more substantial script. While Maurice Richlin was recruited to polish the script, only Ross got credit for the screenplay to go with a story that was credited to Ross and Edwards. Amidst bad weather and overrun that meant a budget of $12 million, the movie was not exactly a considerable success at the time of release in July of 1965*, but at least Edwards kept busy (his next film came with What Did You Do in the War, Daddy? the following year), and he kept going with his slapstick interests with such films as The Party (1968).

The last few years brought folks to view people pop in for a potential chuckle with Around the World in 80 Days (1956) and It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World (1963). So, we have a pretty neat Lemmon, a worthy sidekick to accompany him in Falk, and even a decent time to spend with Wood (to a point). Hell, and then there is Curtis, our hero to try and hold along a wobbly story, fine gags, and plenty of time to consider the scope of movies, I suppose. In short, Great Race is either on par with Around the World or a bit lower. Apparently, there were quite a few names considered for the role ranging from Paul Newman to Charlton Heston. Pity. For whatever reason, Curtis and his performance is akin to someone saying the lines bit-by-bit for a silent movie. Maybe his blandness is supposed to be the point, but my God, his presence is practically eaten by everyone else in the film. The clash between him and Wood that comes up every now and then does not really gel for anything other than cheap gags (get it, get it, a woman trying to stick up for herself). Apparently, Wood only did the film so she could get to play the lead for Inside Daisy Clover (1965). At least she has the grace and chops to try and have fun with the material in all of the bumps on the road for a character that might be thought of as a chore with a lesser actor (for starters, having a character try and rid us of Keenan Wynn's character for even just a bit of time is a foolhardy mistake if we're talking about comparing timing) in a movie with really just five people to see for more than a few minutes of a 160-minute movie. Falk (a regular supporting presence in movies at the time**) is wonderful of course, tagging with Lemmon for worthwhile hijinks, particularly in his expressions and only men of stone find ways to not like Wynn and his timing. The assortment of people who show up are fine for small bits (Provine gets a song while Martin gets to look from afar). The slapstick as a whole is fine, albeit in that dragging sense where you just have to have so much little gags to even get the actual race rolling (it starts with our dastardly villain popping balloons, for example). And then the movie goes into doing an imitation of The Prisoner of Zenda. Sure. The movie wanted to have a great big pie fight akin to, well, you know. It apparently was the longest pie fight sequence in terms of staging and whatever (basically, it took five days and thousands of pies). The quibble I have is that the one person who deserves to be pie'd is Curtis, and he barely gets hit at all. Keep in mind, Lemmon gets double duty with playing two characters as an acceptable ham, but the bland hero? Barely anything, god forbid. Call me a nut for picking and choosing to obsess over plot motivations, but getting from Point A to Point B in the resolution (i.e. the race doesn't end in a true finish because I guess it shows his love or whatever and it couldn't wait until five minutes later) is a bit hokey for a movie called "great race". As a whole, Lemmon and company hold the movie together in what could've just been a crash-out into just making the finish line with the best of intentions. You'll get some chuckles, some interesting visuals and a little bit of everything that could make a worthy candidate among the long-winded epics of its time, if you dare.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*Evidently at some point in time, the movie made $25 million. The big winner at any rate would be Treg Brown, who won an Academy Award for Best Sound Effects for this film.

**Falk was an Academy Award nominated actor by then, for Murder, Inc. (1960) and Pocketful of Miracles (1961). Of course, Columbo loomed a few years later.

Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice.

Review #1961: Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice.

Cast: 

Natalie Wood (Carol Sanders), Robert Culp (Bob Sanders), Elliott Gould (Ted Henderson), Dyan Cannon (Alice Henderson), Horst Ebersberg (Horst), Lee Bergere (Emilio), Donald F. Muhich (Psychiatrist), Noble Lee Holderread Jr. (Sean Sanders), K. T. Stevens (Phyllis), and Celeste Yarnall (Susan) Directed by Paul Mazursky.

Review: 

"You start out thinking there are rules, but as life goes on you find out it doesn't work that way."

Oh sure, Paul Mazursky was a director of social movies, but how many people made their debut in film that was a director's debut film? The Brooklyn native was the son of a piano player (who often took him to the movie theater) and a laborer; interested in acting from a young age, he graduated from Brooklyn College. Right before graduating, he mounted a production of a play, and it stoked the interest of a writer who was getting a script of his filmed; Mazursky as introduced to Stanley Kubrick for what became Fear and Desire (1952). The film wasn't a huge hit, so he waited tables alongside serving as a uniformed messenger for a delivery service for a time, and he also did his own nightclub act in the mid 1950s. He would dabble in a variety of supporting roles over the years in film and television, with his first writing job being for The Danny Kaye Show in 1963, where he reconnected with Larry Tucker. Tucker and Mazursky would write on the show for four years. They did their first script together for an idea that Bob Rafelson and Bert Schneider had about a fictional rock-and-roll group; the resulting pilot became The Monkees, the only script that the two worked on in the resulting series run. In 1968, they wrote their first film script with I Love You, Alice B. Toklas (1968). He made his debut feature as a filmmaker with Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice (1969). In addition to directing, Mazursky wrote this film with Larry Tucker (who served as producer). He would direct a variety of features over the next two decades, such as Harry and Tonto (1974; the only one of his films to win an Academy Award, which went to Art Carney for acting), An Unmarried Woman (1978), Down and Out in Beverly Hills (1986), and Enemies, A Love Story (1989). Mazursky stated his technique as one with plenty of preparation, from rehearsing with the actors for weeks to planning out shots before filming would start. A five-time Academy Award nominee, Mazursky died at the age of 84 in 2014. For this film, Mazursky was inspired by an article he read in Time magazine about Fritz Perls, a "gestalt therapist" that was described as being in a hot tub with naked people at a place called the Esalen Institute (located in the Slates Hot Springs in Big Sur, California), a place formed in 1962 dealing with New Age therapy. Mazursky was interested in seeing what the fuss was about and he went up there with his wife. The result of being the only couple at a place like that resulted in a flurry of script pages, and Mazursky later went to Tucker to collaborate on finishing the script. The film was a general success with audiences and for its crew, obviously.

How many movies were there that said one word about infidelity or even the idea of swapping wives at the time? When it comes to interpersonal relationships in society, it shouldn't be surprising that a movie like this came around as a comedy-drama. I do recall that I once knew people that were associates of people that I used to call good friends that participated in an open marriage for a brief time (because obviously you have to tell someone this rather than keep it hidden). Since I was a college student, it amused me (I am probably the type who takes bitter amusement at things), particularly in an era where phones communicate information far faster than in 1969. There was supposed to be a point to the previous sentences, but I sure as hell can't tell you what it means, aside from the fact that certain things seem far funnier when they aren't happening to you, as if making fun of annoying people is enjoyable (therapy or no therapy). In short: the times may change, but certain habits in romance do not, no matter how one tries to pass off insecurity as members of the revolution, with full honesty and emotional openness seem more like brand names than the vanguard for sexual liberation, where the adults seem more like they want to be kids. The movie is more of a well-shot curiosity rather than a fully endearing classic, but it still is generally involving enough to make its pursuit of human interest feel real. He aspired to make an atmosphere of familiarity among his actors that would make it so the actor knows the can't make a mistake, one where his style is all about making people think things are improvised, although the psychotherapy scene (involving Muhich, Mazursky's real-life psychoanalyst) was slightly improvised. On the one side of the quartet, you have the freshly born couple of "new honesty" that play deep into irony when freely talking about love affairs in Culp and Wood. Culp (fresh off the end of I Spy) is probably the most interesting to me of the four, in that he seems the most pathetic in his earnestness of new-found feeling, captured greatly in a scene where he talks with a guy who was having fun under the covers with his wife. If the 1970s would end up being called the "me decade", Culp and his mannerisms in reacting to the dawn of a time where one remodels oneself is destined for strange things galore. Wood had basically gone into semi-retirement by the time of this film, and she would appear as a main actor in four films over the next decade-and-a-half. Her vulnerability in the face of "found freedom of the sexes" is quite striking in how well she does in how rich in irony it all is. She may be enthusiastic about trying to push ahead in openness, but you still see the real person inside when it comes to seeing the cracks in trying to play enlightenment all the way through. On the other side of the quartet is a square couple in Gould and Cannon (both who rose to prominence with this film after years of Broadway and television, respectively), brittle and uptight as could be expected from people that are as effective in the teetering side of matrimony, which is probably best represented by a long ten-minute sequence between the two that sees a whole argument scrub itself in resolute realness. They are all insecure, it just so happens some of them look different when presented as fully honest or emotionally open. You generally can see at least one of these people as someone you might know, whether that involves hypocrites practicing marriage or stiff spirits. It does so without playing to some sort of moral high ground, as the director clearly likes these people enough on a level to play fair and let the audience make their own ideas. The ending is ideal in its messy resolutions that basically have the characters in a circle with one idea of what they didn't want on the pursuit of what they believe they want as people with lovers (some folks thought at the time that it was a cop-out ending, but come on now, I've seen bigger cop outs). As a whole, this is the kind of movie that moves to its own beat in portraying the human element in most of the messy qualities that come with attempts at trying to fix one's marriage or grow in emotional honesty, which results in a useful feature of its time. It isn't quite great, but it is a suitable messy movie of messy people from 1969 worth checking out as the first venture from Paul Mazursky.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Next up, an old movie on the ledger since 2019.

Splendor in the Grass.

Review #1406: Splendor in the Grass.

Cast: 
Natalie Wood (Wilma Dean "Deanie" Loomis), Warren Beatty (Bud Stamper), Pat Hingle (Ace Stamper), Audrey Christie (Mrs. Loomis), Barbara Loden (Virginia "Ginny" Stamper), Zohra Lampert (Angelina), Fred Stewart (Del Loomis), Joanna Roos (Mrs. Stamper), John McGovern (Doc Smiley), Jan Norris (Juanita Howard), and Martine Bartlett (Miss Metcalf) Directed by Elia Kazan (#104 - East of Eden, #109 - A Streetcar Named Desire, and #110 - On the Waterfront, and #1375 - Panic in the Streets)

Review: 
“I was very lucky to do the first movie that I ever did with Kazan, who really was not only a great director, he was a very, very smart producer,”

The 1960s had plenty of interesting directors and stars to accompany films that found themselves on the center of cultural changes with plenty of distinctive stars of stature and range to go alongside old and new directors to lead them forward. By this point in time, Elia Kazan had directed thirteen films in his career, with most of his success coming in the 1950s (eight of his eighteen films were in this decade), and controversy had surrounded his decision to testify during the Hollywood blacklisting that he felt was "only the more tolerable of two alternatives that were either way painful and wrong" (his decision, one I feel was the correct one, was a fiercely debated one for decades, where even being awarded an Honorary Academy Award in 1999 still inspired sour grapes refusal to applaud from certain circles). Regardless of this decision, it should not be denied that Kazan has a lasting effect as a director that extends to the actors that he directed onto the screen over the decades, which extends to the main stars here in Warren Beatty and Natalie Wood. In the case of Beatty, he had developed a love for films from an early age while watching them (such as The Philadelphia Story and Love Affair) with his sister Shirley, with Warren following in her footsteps to become an actor. He learned his craft from famed coach of acting Stella Adler, with his first few jobs being in television (most notably The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis) and one (and only) turn in the theater with A Loss of Roses (1959). Beatty, described by Kazan as having energy, intelligence and more "chutzpah" than anyone else. He was the first of numerous directors that Beatty sought to learn from, though it did not come without disagreement, such as when he snapped at Kazan once about him naming names, which he later described as an arrogant and stupid challenge. In the course of over half a century, Beatty honed his craft into beyond acting, soon founding his own production company and eventually turning to directing as well. Wood had her own path to acting, led by her ambitious mother that led to a debut in a bit part in film at the age of 4. Her debut came three years later with Tomorrow Is Forever (1946), where Orson Welles described her as "so good, she was terrifying". She would do a string of child films before transitioning into teenage rebel roles and television, and Kazan found a "desperate twinkle in her eyes" behind her well-mannered front that would serve her well in retaining herself as a presence to behold.

The film was written by William Inge, playwright and novelist behind works such as Picnic and Bus Stop who had based it off his upbringing in Kansas, which led to an Academy Award for his work on the film. When it comes to heartbreak and romantic repression, one can't really go wrong with a film like this. Anybody else other than Kazan would have made this 124 minute tale run shorter or seem less realistic with trying to soften the film's strike of melodrama and honesty. Wood makes a capable main focus, one with plenty of doubt and frustration that boils to the surface with such honest expressiveness, whether that means dealing with some form of love or with others. Beatty makes for a great debut with confidence in playing the other side of the coin in a tragedy of youth, exhausted at the expectations one must bear from their parents in what to do and who to do what with. The final sequence with them at the farmhouse is especially well-done, perfectly sealing up the pathos of what it means to have loved and lost one's innocence along the way, where time overrides all things, perhaps even happiness in some way, which makes for a somewhat depressing but fair experience.

Kazan sure picked two well counterparts to counter Wood and Beatty in Hingle and Christie. Hingle (a Weslaco High School and University of Texas graduate in radio) had met Kazan years earlier at the Actors' Studio and had done a few productions for Kazan and Inge before a 1959 freak accident involving him being stuck in a lift that led to him losing his balance in crawling out and falling over 50 feet; he fractured many parts of his left side, including a broken leg and losing a finger while having a noticeable limp. He is tremendously entertaining here with composed dominance on a family and business level, a rough but fascinating performance to match up with his on-screen son in Beatty, such as when he speaks for so long and with such spirit that Beatty can't even get in a word of reluctance on him. Although Christie did not have as prolific a career as the other main three did, she cultivated a career in Broadway alongside television spots after taking class and being on vaudeville at the age of 15. She makes for an effective strict performance to go for the grain to reflect the times of authority that doesn't seem outdated or a caricature then as now. The others (who make up a film as twentysomethings trying to play teenagers to make it look less distracting that Wood and Beatty also look a bit too old to be teens) fill the film well in making a heartland tale of heartbreak come across with fair conviction that still finds relevance after over five decades because of how it speaks to us still about expectation and reality in terms of adolescents and beyond.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Searchers.

Review #1392: The Searchers.

Cast: 
John Wayne (Ethan Edwards), Jeffrey Hunter (Martin Pawley), Vera Miles (Laurie Jorgensen), Ward Bond (Rev. Capt. Samuel Johnson Clayton), Natalie Wood (Debbie Edwards), John Qualen (Lars Jorgensen), Olive Carey (Mrs. Jorgensen), Henry Brandon (Chief Cicatriz - Scar), Ken Curtis (Charlie McCorry), Harry Carey, Jr. (Brad Jorgensen), Antonio Moreno (Emilio Gabriel Fernández y Figueroa), and Hank Worden (Mose Harper) Directed by John Ford (#398 - The Last Hurrah, #1324 - 3 Bad Men, #1349 - Stagecoach, and #1372 - Fort Apache)

Review: 
Every director surely wants to have one masterpiece in their lifetime, or at the very least wants to have their name or films endure even after their death. John Ford is certainly one man who achieved both with making numerous classics, particularly with John Wayne. It should prove no surprise that this film has endured as a classic in the eyes of many, with Wayne calling it his favorite role and one of his favorite films, and numerous directors have been inspired by the film that ranged from David Lean to Jean-Luc Godard. The film was adapted from novelist/screen-writer Alan Le May's 1954 novel of the same name by Frank S. Nugent. There had been cases where Native American had abducted children and raised them as members of their tribe only to be rescued later, most notably with the Fort Parker massacre in 1836 Texas. This is a film that features familiar aspects of a Western for its director with Wayne and Monument Valley as a primary filming location to view throughout its 119 minute run-time.

This is an interesting film in the middle of Ford's penultimate decade of directorial work, one that grew considerably in reputation over the past six decades (going from receiving no award nominations to best-of lists), which can be attributed to a stellar cast and an injection of darker hues in terms of realism when it comes to telling its story in ways more complex than the usual standards for a Western were. We are intrigued by the characters that come across this vast barren landscape, particularly when it comes to Wayne. He excels with displaying such obsession over his pursuit for vengeance that burns with plenty of conviction that drives the climax in wondering just how far one man is willing to go to finish a quest as grisly as this one is. Hunter does just as well as a foil for this rough quest that we see plainly in his calm eyes, someone who grows as the film does that make him a key for how the tension is built so well for the climax, since our focus is on these two for most of the film and the child-turned-teenage star Wood has only so much time to be on screen (basically ten minutes) that she pulls off with resolve. Miles and Bond each lend a hand as counterparts to the main duo for moments on the lighter side, whether filled with a few wisecracks or something else. The other members of the cast (some of whom were part of numerous films with Ford) do their part in filling things out neatly, whether that means a sequence involving a marriage fight or the buildup to the climax with a nervous soldier. In any case, this is an entertaining film with plenty to say of the harsh realities of the Old West on numerous angles, where losses were suffered on both sides by innocents and warriors alike that went hand in hand with the attempts of trying to build a life for themselves in vast and dangerous territory. Life can be hard if one is not up to the challenge of standing up to what may come their way, whether that involves conflict with oneself or with prejudice from others or something else entirely when it comes a wanderer and coming home. In any case, The Searchers does fairly well with making an attempt at a darker Western with an intense Wayne at the helm to sell itself off beautifully by the time it gets to its enduring last shot. Six decades of time have left plenty to shine in this Western now more than ever as a rewarding film for the ages for all who take it upon themselves to get on the frontier and find themselves watching the film for themselves.

Overall, I give it 10 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.

Brainstorm (1983).

Review #718: Brainstorm.

Cast
Christopher Walken (Michael Brace), Natalie Wood (Karen Brace), Louise Fletcher (Lillian Reynolds), Cliff Robertson (Alex Terson), Alan Fudge (Robert Jenkins), Joe Dorsey (Hal Abramson), Jason Lively (Chris Brace), Jordan Christopher (Gordy Forbes), and Donald Hotton (Landan Marks) Directed by Douglas Trumbull.

Review
Brainstorm deserves credit for its effects, which are still impressive, regardless of how old the movie is. Which is good, considering the rest of the movie isn't as impressive. Granted, the movie does have a creative premise: A research team creates a helmet that lets someone record their experience (such as racing a car, riding a horse - physically and mentally I might add) onto the device to be experienced later. Oh, and there's some evil management who want to make it militarized. I liked the movie more when it showed the helmet and what it does than the plot involving the company because it felt enjoyable and it felt less forced. The characters are fine, but this is one of those movies where the effects overtake the acting...which has been done before with other science fiction films, but it proves to be a distraction when the effects aren't chugging themselves out. I feel like the movie wants to just be about the helmet and one's experience with it instead of "nyah, we want the helmet for mind control!" Walken and Wood are at least enjoyable, though I wish Fletcher was given more time on screen. Robertson is just okay. Admittedly, the movie had a troubled production, in fact this movie was released nearly two years after Natalie Wood's death in November 1981, on a production break. After MGM tried to lock Trumbull out, the movie was finally let back into production, albeit with limited release and publicity, which ensued the movie's box office failure, and Trumbull has never directed a movie since. The movie was originally going to utilize Trumbull's Showscan process, which uses a quicker frame per second rate...but the cost of retrofitting theaters was too much for the studio. The movie does utilize a different ratio for the virtual reality scenes as opposed to the normal scenes (which is smaller), which is nice. It could be indicative of the future....someday. But until that day comes, it's an okay movie that had some troubled history.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Miracle on 34th Street (1947).

Review #303: Miracle on 34th Street.

Cast
Edmund Gwenn (Kris Kringle), Maureen O'Hara (Doris Walker), John Payne (Frederick M. Gailey), Natalie Wood (Susan Walker), Porter Hall (Granville Sawyer), William Frawley (Charlie Halloran), Jerome Cowan (Thomas Mara), Philip Tonge (Julian Shellhammer), Alvin Greenman (Alfred), Gene Lockhart (Henry X. Harper), and Harry Antrim (R. H. Macy) Directed by George Seaton.

Review
Sometimes I review Christmas films, and the films either turn out good (#075 - Scrooge and #079 - A Christmas Carol), or...not so good (#082 - Christmas with the Kranks and #301 - How the Grinch Stole Christmas), but how does this film turn out? I think you know the answer to this by now. Gwenn practically steals the show, being the big driving spirit, giving a sense of magical wonder, essentially the best Santa I've ever seen, a kind and knowing Santa Claus, beard and all. O'Hara and Payne do a great job in their first time being reviewed here, both slightly going through a transformation with their characters and for the better. Natalie Wood does a respectable job (Second time reviewing her, first being #181 - Rebel Without a Cause), doing a better job then some of the child actors reviewed here, and at the small age of 8. The story is very interesting and imaginative, giving a feeling of Christmas (even if this film was released in May) in the right way. It is a tale of belief, and it gives a sense of hope that I haven't seen in a film in a long while. Truly this is a Christmas classic that has been watched for 65 years, and it will still be watched time and time again.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Rebel Without a Cause.

Review #181: Rebel Without a Cause.

Cast
James Dean (Jim Stark), Natalie Wood (Judy), Sal Mineo (John "Plato" Crawford), Jim Backus (Frank Stark), Ann Doran (Carol Stark), Corey Allen (Buzz Gunderson), William Hopper (Judy's father), Rochelle Hudson (Judy's mother), Edward Platt (Ray Fremick), Frank Mazzola (Crunch), and Dennis Hopper (Goon) Directed by Nicholas Ray.

Review
James Dean had made only three films before his tragic death, with one reviewed here already (#105 - East of Eden), This is the second of the three, and it is excellent. Dean once again is good, with his teenage angst coming into full mode with Wood, Mineo, and Backus also doing well. I must mention a young Dennis Hopper appears in this film, who would go on to do good films on his own (Easy Rider, Hoosiers, Speed) This film also has good directing, which captures the essence of teenagers and more. Good story in this good film.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.