Cape Fear (1962).

Review #2336: Cape Fear.

Cast: 

Gregory Peck (Sam Bowden), Robert Mitchum (Max Cady), Polly Bergen (Peggy Bowden), Lori Martin (Nancy Bowden), Martin Balsam (Mark Dutton), Jack Kruschen (Dave Grafton), Telly Savalas (Charlie Sievers), and Barrie Chase (Diane Taylor) Directed by J. Lee Thompson.

Review: 

Yes, even British directors can fall in and out of "social realism" films to do some adventures. Actually, I had assumed I had covered a film by J. Lee Thompson before, but as it turns out, Thompson's wide variety of films had slipped thought the cracks. He actually had an interest in plays before becoming a screenwriter with at British International Pictures (after spending time in the Royal Air Force in World War II). He had worked as a dialogue director on a handful of films (one included Jamaica Inn [1939]) before finally becoming a feature director with Murder Without Crime (1950). Thompson's most noted effort of the first few years probably was Woman in a Dressing Gown (1957), which dealt with a failing marriage. However, he became an action guy with Ice Cold in Alex (1958) that saw him reach a peak with The Guns of Navarone (1961), which came about because Alexander Mackendrick got replaced late. Described as a director who "sort of sold out", Thompson would work in a variety of film and TV that ranged from directing the fourth and fifth film of the Planet of the Apes series to other fare like Happy Birthday to Me (1981) and nine Charles Bronson vehicles that closed his career with Kinjite: Forbidden Subjects (1989). Thompson died in 2002 at the age of 88. At any rate, Cape Fear is adapted from the 1957 novel The Executioners, as written by John D. MacDonald in 1957. Peck and his production company had purchased the rights to the book not long after it came out, and the experience he had with Thompson on Navarone got him to hire him to direct the ensuing film (it was Peck that suggested the film title, apparently believing the book title was a "turn-off", where upon he looked up places on the Atlantic coast and found the Cape Fear region in North Carolina). The movie was written by James R. Webb, the writer for various screenplays such as Vera Cruz (1953) and The Big Country (1958). Naturally, a remake was done in 1991 (by Martin Scorsese, no less). Interestingly, both film adaptations are distinct in their freewheeling from the book that ranged from the time spent in jail (13 in the book, 8 in this film, and 14 in the 1991 movie), the nature of Bowden's relation to Cady (one as a witness to Cady's crime during wartime, a witness as a prosecutor, or as a defense attorney to Cady). Peck, Mitchum, and Balsam also made small appearances in the remake.

For whatever reason, audiences of the time seemed to be a bit weirded out at the rough-and-tumble elements of a thriller movie because, uh, even a movie that doesn't say the word "rape" could be thought of as a tough sit. Nowadays, one just sees a movie filled with impending terror that makes the best of its Hitchcock ambitions (why else would one have Bernard Herrmann for the music) for a pretty neat thriller. Peck may be a bit overshadowed here, but he maintains the general dignity that comes with trying to maintain a grip on one's principles (so not a saint but clear in his motivations). His onscreen family with Bergen and Martin sell that shaky dynamic that arise in growing ugliness that one is exposed to that is sold well. Balsam and the others are relatively on point in filling the edges in the growing claustrophobia (incidentally, this was released the same year that a relatively young Savalas was nominated for an Oscar for Birdman of Alcatraz [1962]). Undeniably, Mitchum is the star here, and it was said that he took the role only when he was gifted a bottle of bourbon (his other best-known role in malice is probably The Night of the Hunter [1955], incidentally). You can just feel the malice ooze from him in each scene he appears in, mostly because his contempt for Peck shines ever so brightly in general menace. He maneuvers around like a snake awaiting a target to strike with its fangs that perhaps is just as unnerving in his maneuvering that dominates the first half of the film, whether it involves the legal system or, well, people. You just have to experience the slime for yourself, particularly the sequence with the eggs. The sequence he shares with Peck prior to the climax involving the extent of where one would go in single-minded pursuit is especially a standout. The climax is relatively fine when it comes to setting up the entrapment for a queasy mood, albeit within the confines of what you might expect from its era. As a whole, it is a fairly tight thriller that hits most of the beats required in rough enjoyment with star value and a worthy look to accompany it in thrilling execution. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Friends of Eddie Coyle.

Review #2063: The Friends of Eddie Coyle.

Cast: 

Robert Mitchum (Eddie Coyle), Peter Boyle (Dillon), Richard Jordan (Dave Foley), Steven Keats (Jackie Brown), Alex Rocco (Jimmy Scalise), Joe Santos (Artie Van), Mitchell Ryan (Waters), Helena Carroll (Sheila Coyle), Jack Kehoe (The Beard), Margaret Ladd (Andrea), and James Tolkan (The Man's Contact Man) Directed by Peter Yates (#506 - Bullitt, #927 - Krull, and #1197 - The Deep)

Review: 

In 1970, George V. Higgins saw his first novel in The Friends of Eddie Coyle become published. Formerly, he had served his native Commonwealth of Massachusetts as a deputy assistant attorney general alongside as an Assistant United State Attorney. Higgins dabbled as a novelist when not involved in private practice in law that distilled the words that he would hear from gangsters and made them the kind of thing you would hear in a great potboiler. Better writers than me can lend you some context within the scene of Boston and gangs (as presented here). It made some sense to have Peter Yates as director, as his third effort with Robbery (1967) had given him a chance to direct Bullitt (1968), a movie packed with a car chase so notable that I'm sure those who view it now will talk about with fanfare; Yates directed a variety of genres besides crime of course, but, well, we are here to talk about a film that was underappreciated by audiences in its time. This is the first of only two adaptations of a Higgins book, with the only other one being Killing Them Softly (2012). Paul Monash wrote the screenplay while serving as producer. Of the films that Yates made, he stated that the three films he was most proud of was Breaking Away (1979), The Dresser (1983), and this film.

When it comes to the grimy classics of a decade as ideal for grimy films as the 1970s were, you can't really go wrong with this one. Life is hard, but it sure is harder if you are stupid, as is reflected within the dialogue that is told with such dedicated efficiency. Before you get to films of the region such as The Town (2010) or The Departed (2006), you might want to consider this one when it comes to looking at the people that dwell in the corners of crime. This isn't merely just the big-timers or two-bit hustlers, it involves folks wrapped firmly in the middle, the kind that are referred to with irony as having friends. It rewards those who value character presences such as Boyle or Keats to serve in the lines behind the immeasurable Mitchum. One of the cast members actually was formerly involved in organized crime within the East in Rocco, who was linked loosely with the Winter Hill Gang in the Boston area that had seen him accused of being involved in an assault on a diner owner. Apparently, when Mitchum had asked to see a local gangster for research, Rocco tapped him to see Howie Winter, who was still part of the gang. Of course, Mitchum having an accent that has been looked upon favorably among select folks in the region is not a surprise given the veteran actor's immense talent that relies heavily on seeing this one man in the time he has remaining in such a weary existence that knows his strengths and weaknesses when it comes to the life put upon him. This includes moments spent with Carroll to remind oneself of just what is really at stake when it comes to playing information or not (it isn't a movie built on overt violence, basically). Only Mitchum could waltz right into a role like this with such natural skill that it seems that nobody could have done it better. He may be a hustler of guns, but he is our hustler and his dilemma matters more than anything to us, particularly since we know the game that comes in Boyle, who provides such a worthy mobster presence in subtlety on the level of a snake. Jordan is the leading authority (with pretty good results) to watch upon these distinct elements of crime that is thoroughly unglamourous. Violent or not, you know what kind of underworld you are in with this film in folks such as Keats and Rocco that obviously accomplish what is required in the shades of laying out plans in their own scope that can only go the way things go with the unending world of crime moving on with or without the best laid-out plans working right. The robbing aren't the most important part, because it is a slow boiler all about seeing what happens to Mitchum as a battle of pride, one that works out to effective drama with no sense of false note moral by its end. In that sense, it is a worthwhile crime film wrapped firmly in its Boston surroundings for a worthwhile time of grime. Bleak and unflinching, it stands worthy of its time rather than one that flinches away.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Track of the Cat.

Review #1387: Track of the Cat.

Cast: 
Robert Mitchum (Curt Bridges), Teresa Wright (Grace Bridges), Diana Lynn (Gwen Williams), Tab Hunter (Harold Bridges), Beulah Bondi (Ma Bridges), Philip Tonge (Pa Bridges), William Hopper (Arthur Bridges), and Carl Switzer (Joe Sam) Directed by William A. Wellman (#349 - Wings, #494 - The Public Enemy, #866 - Nothing Sacred, and #973 - A Star is Born)

Review: 
"Get a director and a writer and leave them alone. That's how the best pictures get made."

Whether the film turned out to be a classic or not, one can respect the diverse range that William A. Wellman brought to film during his time as a director. "Wild Bill" Wellman (who earned the nickname for his World War I air-service) had actually started in film as an actor, owing to his looks that were noticed by Douglas Fairbanks (after trying his hand as a salesman and hockey). However, he soon found the profession of acting to be "unmanly", deciding to shift his focus to jobs behind the camera that would gradually shift to directing. He debuted unofficially as a director with The Twins of Suffering Creek (1920) while starting his career with Fox Film Corporation with low-budget films. However, he soon found himself thrust into directing a World War I pilot melodrama with Wings (1927), which was a hit with audiences. Wellman was known for his high-strung temperament with his actors along with his fast nature of making films, usually settling with just one or two takes for a shot. He did a variety of genres in a career of over thirty years, from war / aviation films to romantic melodramas to comedies to westerns, which helped him earn three Academy Award nominations for directing and one win for Best Story while directing seven actors to Academy Award nominations.

This was the fifth-to-last film of his career, released in the same year that he had done a notable work (in this case aviation) with The High and Mighty (whose star John Wayne served as producer for this feature). However, Track of the Cat did not prove as successful, with Wellman even describing it as "a flop artistically, financially, and Wellmanly" (of course he also once stated that for every good picture, he made at least five stinkers), with one key regret involving not showing the blank panther up close. The film was adapted from the 1949 novel The Track of the Cat from novelist and teacher Walter Van Tilburg Clark, whose previous work The Ox-Bow Incident had been adapted by Wellman into a film a few years earlier, with novelist A.I. Bezzerides writing the screenplay. Wellman aspired to make a black-and-white film in color, where shooting was done with subdued and stark shades of grey, black, and white, which certainly stick out when there is a moment with an element of noticeable color, such as a red coat in the midst of snowy Washington. On the one hand, the film does look quite haunting for a Western, one that seems quite brooding and ambitious to churn out melodrama on an path different from others. Perhaps this turns out better for others who watch it, because I found the ultimate result a middling disappointment, seeming to lack a real purpose of existing beyond interesting imagery and occasional highlight moments. Honestly, I went into the film with a very small rundown on what the film actually was (too much of a plot check can be too much of a plot check), intrigued by Mitchum and Wright with a curiosity over a hunt for a cat. Well, one does certainly see a cat-hunt, but the time is mostly spent of family squabbling that meanders and feels lacking in real tension to make it seem worth it, where spending time in an actual cold mountain with someone you don't like might actually be preferable. I liked seeing Mitchum from time to time, because he has the confidence for a brusque role (by just being nonchalant) despite being fragmented from the others after the first third of the film or so. Wright does fine with a reserved role that is begging for more to do like the character reflects, since Bondi proves to have the most grip with self-righteous furor to go with a browbeaten Hunter that comes into his own with mixed results. As strange as it is to have a young actor play an elderly mystical character, it might seem stranger to note that it is played by former Our Gang star Carl Switzer, who doesn't talk too much during the feature, although he does do a decent job with what he is given. Perhaps the book is more reaching on a philosophical level than the film proves, but I generally found the movie to be just okay at its attempts at something to latch onto. The CinemaScope does tend to make the film look pretty well, but it is what goes on for 102 minutes that make things drop with a thud when it matters most. It is a kind of Western that might appeal to someone looking for something different to look at and think about if the mindset is in the right place.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

The Racket (1951).

Review #1008: The Racket.

Cast: 
Robert Mitchum (Captain Thomas McQuigg), Lizabeth Scott (Irene Hayes), Robert Ryan (Nick Scanlon), William Talman (Officer Bob Johnson), Ray Collins (District Attorney Mortimer X. Welch), Joyce MacKenzie (Mary McQuigg), Robert Hutton (Dave Ames), Virginia Huston (Lucy Johnson), and William Conrad (Detective Sergeant Turk) Directed by John Cromwell.

Review: 
When I reviewed the original 1928 version of The Racket (#901), I described it as an efficient film that ran at a fine pace that pushed the right buttons and served its purpose as a crime drama that had originally served as a stage play the previous year. In any case, it is interesting reviewing the remake that was made just two decades later, with the man who had starred as McQuigg in the original Broadway production serving as director. In any case, this is a movie that isn't much of an improvement on the original, though it is also a movie that is at best moderately satisfying to the standard of film noir crime drama that you might expect. The best thing about the movie is the scenes involving Mitchum and Ryan, such as their first scene together, when the latter ends up having to deal with his brother's involvement with a singer and an ensuing conversation about his care for him - along with dialogue about how the other will try to pull one over the other. There isn't much going for the film that you could already see in other gangster films (or even the original version), and the characters themselves aren't really all too interesting. Sure, Mitchum and Ryan pull off fine performances, and the rest of the cast are fairly decent, but they can't really elevate these characters to anything too special or compelling, although Conrad is certainly interesting to watch even when in the background. It seems to hint at something more with the corruption element, but it never really comes off as anything too revealing nor does it seem like it wants to say something more relevant than what you might expect. Oddly, though Cromwell is the only credited director, four other directors directed supplemental scenes in the film due to re-shoots ordered by Howard Hughes (owner of the studio that released the film, RKO Radio Pictures): Nicholas Ray (director of Rebel Without a Cause (#181) and Bigger Than Life (#928), Tay Garnett (director of films such as the 1946 version of The Postman Always Rings Twice), Sherman Todd (who also served as editor of the film) and Mel Ferrer (actor/director). Notable scenes that Ray directed include the beginning scene with the the Crime Commission, a police locker sequence, and other bits and pieces.

At 88 minutes, it's not exactly a slog of a film to go through, and it is a movie that is on a basic level entertaining, but it's really hard to recommend this film over other films (The Big Combo (#934), He Walked by Night (#947), or the 1928 original). On a grading scale, this would fall along a C level, but I can't blame someone for finding it useful to watch at least once. It's a mess, but it is a fine mess that shines in all sorts of directions for everyone, for better or for worse, being a pretty good example of a toss-up.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Crossfire.

Review #715: Crossfire.

Cast
Robert Young (Captain Finlay), Robert Mitchum (Sgt. Peter Keeley), Robert Ryan (Montgomery), Gloria Grahame (Ginny Tremaine), Paul Kelly (Mr. Tremaine), Sam Levene (Joseph Samuels), Jacqueline White (Mary Mitchell), Steve Brodie (Floyd Bowers), and George Cooper (Cpl. Arthur Mitchell) Directed by Edward Dmytryk.

Review
For some of you reading this at home, a b-movie refers to a movie that was low-budget, or a movie that wasn't exactly promoted as the marquee for a studio's year, though b-movies could also be profitable, given that they were fast and cheap to make and screen to theaters, ranging from science fiction to westerns, while used as part of a double feature. Ah, a film noir. But it is not so much a film noir as it is a comment on perception of others and how hatred sometimes meshes with that perception, with deadly results like this film. It's a quick movie, but it's a movie that knows what it wants to do, and it succeeds at being an effective look into people and prejudice. Young and Mitchum are good at chemistry in regards to solving the case, and the time they have on screen together is riveting. For a movie that has few characters, Crossfire manages to be engaging and compelling enough to watch to the end, to the inevitable conclusion, though at least it's a movie that tries to deliver a message while being quick and enjoyable. Whether it succeeds at being engaging is up to the viewer, but it does in my book. And I avoided making references to the board game Crossfire for the entirety of the review, which I guess is surprising. As for the movie, I'd recommend it for anyone looking to watch late 40's cinema with a touch of noir.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Scrooged.

Review #075: Scrooged.

Cast
Bill Murray (Francis Xavier "Frank" Cross), Karen Allen (Claire Phillips), John Forsythe (Lew Hayward), John Glover (Brice Cummings), Alfre Woodard (Grace Cooley), Bobcat Goldthwait (Eliot Loudermilk), David Johansen (the Ghost of Christmas Past), Carol Kane (the Ghost of Christmas Present), Robert Mitchum (Preston Rhinelander), Nicholas Phillips (Calvin Cooley), and Michael J. Pollard (Herman) Directed by Richard Donner.

Review
This film is a humorous take on the classic Charles Dickens tale, A Christmas Carol. It is a decent flick that makes sure that it doesn't do bad in its job. Murray does a good preformance. This film isn't exactly a good film in the sense that it doesn't really do much other then what it's supposed to do (It decides to pick this theme rather then another), but it at least tried to be entertaining, and while it may not have been as funny as it could've been, it at least tried.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.