Dr. Cyclops.

Review #2452: Dr. Cyclops.

Cast: 

Albert Dekker (Dr. Alexander Thorkel), Thomas Coley (Bill Stockton), Janice Logan (Dr. Mary Robinson), Charles Halton (Dr. Rupert Bulfinch), Victor Kilian (Steve Baker), Frank Yaconelli (Pedro Caroz), Paul Fix (Dr. Mendoza), and Frank Reicher (Professor Kendall) Directed by Ernest B. Schoedsack (#283 - King Kong, #604 - Mighty Joe Young, #709 - The Most Dangerous Game, #914 - Son of Kong, #2057 - Blind Adventure)

Review: 

Okay, here's a semi-interesting thing about the movie: it was made in three-strip Technicolor that was apparently a first for the horror movie. The movie was apparently planned out on blueprints before shooting when it comes to certain sequences (you may wonder what the title refers to: late in the movie, the group takes the doctor's glasses and smash one of the lenses, which therefore means he can see from one eye, get it?). The movie was written by Tom Kilpatrick and an uncredited Malcolm Stuart Boylan (a screenwriter that apparently was the co-founder of the U.S. Coast Guard Auxillary)* This was the penultimate movie for Schoedsack as a director, who had a mix of noted work such as say, co-directing The Most Dangerous Game (1932) and King Kong (1933) to go along with stuff such as Outlaws of the Orient (1937). The last movie he did was nine years later with Mighty Joe Young [1949], as his vision became diminished in later years when testing equipment in World War II.

I really wish I could get into this, because there are some interesting things to look at and the movie has one useful performance. But it isn't that much more than schlock when you really get down to looking at it beyond the projection effects, particularly since most of the characters are really, really, not that interesting. You would think a movie that starts with a flourish of color to go with showing the initial weirdness of our title character...and that's really it. To put it mildly, Dekker is the only one who bothers to try for the movie because he has one interest in mind: shrinking stuff. But beyond the coke-bottle glasses and the bald head that reminds one of perhaps a mole-man, he only makes the movie semi-watchable because you would rather the film just be about his mayhem. Instead, he kind of takes a backseat once he shrinks folks down (the setup is ridiculous too: he summons a bunch of people to prove his stuff works, tells them to immediately leave and then gets mad - what did he think was going to happen?). No I'm not kidding, he has a sleeping habit that the shrunken folks take advantage of up to a point, with them at one point sneaking away to mess around with the new room they've discovered along with looking at books (the funny thing is his shrinking thing kind of stinks anyway, since they are only temporarily shrunk down to 12 inches). A good chunk of what people like about the movie relies on either the effects or Dekker, because the other people are really plain, with Logan being the only one that makes an attempt at something beyond stock. Dekker only has mild intensity and I really think the visual (bald, glasses) is more interesting than the actual character: it begs for something really bitter and spiteful when you're talking about someone who likes to deal in shrinkage. The effects are pretty fine quality (albeit one that makes sure to not go in close-up and makes sure to try and blend as much as possible with say, a killer cat) but again, the tension isn't really there to accompany the wonder you want to have in a sci-fi horror movie. The movie doesn't even give the villain a grisly death: they just cut a rope and boom, he falls into a pit (call me sick, but I thought they were going to try and find a way to get the shrinking machine onto his sorry self or their initial plan: wait until he was asleep to blow his face off with a gun). As it stands, it never really gets to its full potential and is therefore just a mild curiosity that looks a bit interesting but can't make it all fit together.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

*Wikipedia once claimed it was based on the story "Dr. Cyclops" by Henry Kuttner, a prolific writer of stories in his day (such as "The Twonky" and "Vintage Season", which were also turned into movies). But hey.

Red River.

Review #1773: Red River.

Cast: 

John Wayne (Thomas Dunson), Montgomery Clift (Matthew "Matt" Garth), Walter Brennan (Nadine Groot), Joanne Dru (Tess Millay), Coleen Gray (Fen), Harry Carey (Mr. Melville), John Ireland (Cherry Valance), Noah Beery Jr. (Buster McGee), Harry Carey Jr. (Dan Latimer), (Two Jaw Quo), and Paul Fix (Teeler Yacey) Produced and Directed by Howard Hawks (#951 - The Big Sleep, #1352 - His Girl Friday, #1399 - Rio Bravo, #1687 - O. Henry's Full House), with co-direction by Arthur Rosson.

Review: 

I'm sure we all know the name Howard Hawks as a director. At least, I would hope so, in part because how diverse he managed to be within his filmmaking that spanned four decades within all of the major studios and multiple genres. He did films in his particular way that inspired plenty of future directors even after his death. Red River (1948) was the first of five Westerns that he would direct in his career, and it also would be the first of five films Hawks directed with Wayne as star. The film is adapted from Blazing Guns on the Chisholm Trail, a 1946 novel originally serialized in The Saturday Evening Post (albeit without the "Blazing Guns" part of the title, which was added for the hardcover publication) that was written by Borden Chase. When Chase chafed at changes to the story (one that resembled Mutiny on the Bounty, albeit with a fictionalized angle at a cattle drive), Charles Schnee was brought in to do the screenplay as well, with the two not actually writing together. Chase would write a variety of screenplays and stories, such as with Winchester '73 while Schnee would write and produce for films such as The Bad and the Beautiful. By this point in time, Arthur Rosson had moved from featuredirecting to do work as a second unit director, most notably for Cecil B. DeMille, but for this film he was given credit as a co-director, as he had shot some of the cattle drive and action sequences (as such, he gets credit here as a director, instead of using that weasely "co-director" label that is still present with certain animated features). The film was shot in 1946 but was delayed for two years, with a great deal of editing done by Christian Nyby. Somehow, right as the film had premiered in 1948, Howard Hughes claimed similarities between this film and The Outlaw (1943) with its climatic fight, and you may remember Hawks had been fired from the earlier film. This resulted in a few seconds being cut out in order to fast-track the film for the studio rather than deal with a frivolous lawsuit they would have won handily over Hughes and the content of his alleged Western. There existed two different versions of the film: The pre-release cut lasted 133 minutes while featuring shots of a diary for transition shots; the cuts forced by the lawsuit resulted in a 127 minute film (Hawks also commissioned Brennan to provide a voiceover instead of those shots). When interviewed late in his life (specifically an interview with Peter Bogdanovich), Hawks stated his preference for the shorter version, but it has not stopped the debate over just what version seems better.

You have to remember that Wayne is a movie star bigger than life, an icon that certainly stood differently in presence depending on just who was directing him. The lasting quote about him in this film comes from long-time collaborator John Ford, who famously stated (whether facetious or not) that he didn't know he could act. Well, Wayne does what he does in terms of handling the frontier front and center, only this time with an imitation of Captain Ahab with a granite foundation that works quite well with a look at a different Wayne (if only slightly): middle age. 1948 was the first year folks could see Clift on screen as an actor (he had starred on the stage for over ten years), with this coming out after The Search. He does quite well here, standing well against Wayne in conviction in not getting lost within such presence. You see the conflict within him about the measure of what being a man is, especially after being part of a makeshift family only to leave and comeback from it. It may be a Western, but it also could be thought of as a family tragedy too, since this involves the inevitability of what has to happen between father and son when it comes to being a man. Brennan accompanies the two with the expected supporting presence that matches with both with resourceful chemistry (as would be expected from a semi-regular on Hawks films). When Dru finally comes onto the screen, she brings an added edge needed when either paired with Clift or Wayne in a scene (the best one is the first though, involving her mood during a fight before casually taking an arrow to the arm). The rest of the character presences make their parts count well, whether that means a casual Ireland or the various associates that stand starkly to the granite-laced Wayne in terms of drive, which only makes the build to the climax all the more interesting. Apparently, Clift didn't care much for the overall conclusion (or his overall acting), which is strange, because it actually is quite interesting in sticking out from just being a fistfight. It doesn't seem like the "farce" that he thought it was in my mind - besides, Chase's story has one of them die, and we are talking about a film involving both family conflict amid a clash of relentless drive and youth along with moving cattle (Hawks and Chase did not exactly get along anyway). It seems quite foolish to learn a lesson right before they die anyway, and the film is called "Red River", not "Showdown at Red River", so there. The movie isn't perfect, but the ending isn't a letdown in the long run. It is an odyssey, pure and simple.

At any rate, Hawks created a worthy epic that isn't weighed down by needing a large scope or folks to try and reach over the presence of Wayne, because he has the skills of editor Nyby to go with Dimitri Tiomkin as a driving music composer and Russell Harlan in sweeping cinematographer to go with a dynamic cast that does what is needed in worthy entertainment. It is the classic imperfect Western for its time, one that moves steadfast for what Hawks wants to display about the nature of being a man that couldn't have been done by anyone else but him. In that sense, he did it exactly to his standards.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars

Zabriskie Point.

Review #957: Zabriskie Point.

Cast:
Mark Frechette (Mark), Daria Halprin (Daria), Rod Taylor (Lee Allen), Paul Fix (Roadhouse owner), G. D. Spradlin (Lee's associate), Bill Garaway (Morty), and Kathleen Cleaver (Kathleen) Directed by Michelangelo Antonioni.

Review:
Zabriskie Point is a movie that goes on a search for the culture and feel of its time, and the result is that it still appears to wander aimlessly for its goal by the time the film gets to a conclusion. This was the second of three films that Antonioni (a famed Italian director who had previously won pretentious international film festival awards such as the Palme d'Or from Cannes and the Golden Lion from Venice prior to this film) made that was part of a deal with producer Carlo Ponti that was distributed by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) with full artistic freedom, with the other two being Blowup (1966) and The Passenger (1975); the title of the movie comes from a part of the Amargosa Range, located east of Death Valley in Death Valley National Park. The locations used throughout the film do lend themselves to some interesting shots and some standout cinematography by Alfio Contini.

It's hard to say why this is a movie I didn't find enjoyable. I think the answer lies within its execution of telling its story/message, which muddled any sort of enjoyment in watching it. What is it trying to say that you couldn't already find from watching footage from the actual era it wants to so badly invite itself into? You might as well watch a documentary on the culture of the times (or go up to someone who lived in that era and ask) over this. Frechettte and Halprin (both in their first ever starring roles) never seem to really come off as believable in their scenes together; I never got the feeling that I should care about their so-called love story nor what happens to them. Their first scene together involves him flying a plane over her car, with her going from upset to curious and smiling...and I guess there's a point in all of this. The supporting cast is fairly decent, but they aren't particularly memorable. Through its 112 minute run time, there isn't really a point where the movie is consistent entertainment. There is some action near the end, but it comes off just a bit too late to make much of an impact. It has nice looking scenes and a fairly interesting soundtrack (with music coming from Pink Floyd, Roy Orbison, the Rolling Stones and several others), but the film never clicks itself into something worth caring about. It has the pretensions of being a movie for the culture but without any of the zip needed to get across the finish line. It may work better for others more willing to let the film have some slack (or for people who understand the film better than I do), but I can't really give too much of a recommendation for the film as is. I can't be too harsh on it, but I also can't be to generous to it, either. You might find something from the film that I didn't, and that is understandable, even if I really couldn't find too much from it.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: To Kill a Mockingbird.

Review #116: To Kill a Mockingbird.

Cast
Gregory Peck (Atticus Finch), Mary Badham (Jean "Scout" Finch), Phillip Alford (Jem Finch), John Megna (Charles Baker "Dill" Harris), Frank Overton (Sheriff Heck Tate), Rosemary Murphy (Miss Maudie Atkinson), Ruth White (Mrs Dubose), Brock Peters (Tom Robinson), Estelle Evans (Calpurnia), Paul Fix (Judge John Taylor), Collin Wilcox (Mayella Violet Ewell), James Anderson (Robert E. Lee "Bob" Ewell), Alice Ghostley (Aunt Stephanie Crawford), and Robert Duvall (Boo Radley). Directed by Robert Mulligan.

Review
It has been fifty years since this film was released (51 since the publication of the book by Harper Lee), and it still holds up after all this time. The best acting in this film comes from the grand Gregory Peck, who does so well in his performance that he blends in after a while. The story teaches a lesson in issues (that I will not cover as I think you know it already). It is a good film, with good acting, good courtroom drama (not much of it, but still good drama), and most of all, Robert Duvall's first acting role. He may have no lines, but he still stands out in this great film.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.