One Hundred and One Dalmatians.

Review #1944: One Hundred and One Dalmatians.

Cast: 

Rod Taylor (Pongo), Lisa Daniels and Cate Bauer (Perdita), Betty Lou Gerson (Cruella de Vil / Miss Birdwell), Ben Wright (Roger Radcliffe), Lisa Davis (Anita Radcliffe), Frederick Worlock (Horace Baddun / Inspector Graves), J. Pat O'Malley (Jasper Baddun / Colonel), Martha Wentworth (Nanny / Queenie / Lucy the White Goose), Thurl Ravenscroft (Captain), David Frankham (Sergeant Tibbs), Mimi Gibson (Lucky), Barbara Beaird (Rolly), Mickey Maga (Patch), Sandra Abbott (Penny), Tudor Owen (Old Towser), George Pelling (Danny), and Junius Matthews (Scottie) Directed by Wolfgang Reitherman (#250 - The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh, #598 - The Rescuers, #660 - Sleeping Beauty), Clyde Geronimi (#178 - Peter Pan, #373 - Cinderella, #511 - The Three Caballeros, #660, and #683 - Alice in Wonderland) and Hamilton Luske (#178, #373, #683)

Review: 

By the 1950s, Walt Disney and his film studio would enter a time of transition. The animation studio had done six package films from 1942 to 1949 before returning with Cinderella (1950). That same year, Disney would get behind their first live-action effort with Treasure Island, having experimented with a mix of live-action and animation with previous features such as Song of the South (1946). Disney had further ideas beyond films, such as the theme park built in Anaheim, California, a park that bears his name opened to the public in 1955. Sleeping Beauty (1959) was the first animated film in Super Technirama 70 widescreen. The high costs of the film did not help make it a success on release, and Disney had thoughts about closing down the animation department due to costs (the aforementioned Beauty film was made for $6 million, while the resulting Dalmatian film was made for $3.6 million). The movie is an adaptation of The Hundred and One Dalmatians, a 1956 children's novel by Dodie Smith. Disney had bought the rights to doing a film on the novel in 1957 (Smith, a Dalmatian owner, had apparently wrote the book with a secret hope that Disney would make a film of it, as noted in correspondences to Disney). Bill Peet was tasked to write the story for the film. Peet had been involved in the story department for several Disney films since Pinocchio (1940), having started his work at the Disney studio as an "in-betweener" in making up frames of drawings on animated shorts. He was also involved in the character development stage for what became Cruella de Vil along with developing all of the storyboards for the film (when generally an animated film had numerous storyboard artists) while directing the recording of the voices. There was one method to cut costs. This was the first film to be made entirely with a copying technology utilized by the Xerox Corporation. So yes, one took a Xerox camera to get drawings by animators directly to animation cels without needing to do the inking process (no drawings needed to be painted over); the Xerox process had been done in a few small scenes prior to this film. Ken Anderson, a fellow loyal employee of Disney for decades, was art director and production designer on this film. This was the 17th animated film by Disney and the first of three released in the 1960s, aided by the success seen by this film with audiences. A live-action remake was done in 1996, which in turn inspired a sequel four years later and a live-action "prequel" in 2021.

Honestly, the reason I hadn't covered many Disney films over the past few years is because I wanted to make it seem quite special to do one from the studio, which has released 61 animated feature films since 1937. One Hundred and One Dalmatians isn't the best film released by the Disney studio of its era, but it clearly is a charmer. It certainly has conventional techniques in its storytelling that make its 79 minute runtime an interesting presence in the Disney lexicon. Disney did not care much for the look of the film in art because he thought it lost the "fantasy" element, since the line drawings were now being printed on a separate animation cel right before it was laid over the background. But it makes sense for what needs to happen here, with smooth movement that is generally warm and inviting in a story about kidnapping pets to turn into coats. The voice talent is mostly for the animals than the humans, probably because the casting wanted deep voices for the former to begin with. Taylor had one notable film credit with The Time Machine (1960), although he had prior extensive experience in radio work in his native Australia. He makes a solid presence as the leader of the dog bunch that makes for a few chuckles. Daniels and Bauer split the voice role because Daniels had left production months into voicing - honestly, I couldn't quite tell the difference, but each do fine in grace to match with Taylor. Wright and Davis make decent human focuses to go with the proceedings, but obviously Gerson is the general highlight, utilizing a choice of voice that was meant to be a "phony theatrical voice, someone who's set sail from New York but hasn't quite reached England"- this works well in over-the-top villainy that is distinct and worth remembering, while Worlock and O'Malley make neat comic relief. The other voices are used for moments from time to time involving general animal amusement, such as communicating great distances with barks or cows giving milk to hungry dogs. This was the last directorial effort for Luske, a Disney mainstay for two decades who had one more highlight with his work on Mary Poppins (1964), which saw him direct the animated sequence that saw him awarded an Academy Award for Best Visual Effects; Luske died at the age of 64 in 1968. This was also the final directorial effort by Geronimi, who had left Disney for UPA and television in 1959. Reitherman, who directed his first film with Sleeping Beauty (1959), would direct a handful of Disney features for the next 15 years. As a whole, it is a nice and light feature, packed with fair adventure and charm that one would hope from a film like this, one that shows landscapes with vast curiosity just as much as it shows neat adventure with dogs in contemporary times. It's a cute little good movie, and that makes it something special even after six decades.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays, folks. With this 163rd review, I have matched 2021 in the amount of films spotlighted on Movie Night. For the sixth time in the history of Movie Night (12/20/2010-present, 4,387 days if you want to be precise), there was over 150 reviews in one year, and this doesn't even include the Redux Reviews, for which there were sixteen of them. The next couple of months will be interesting ones, seeing the second rendition of New Directors Month in January along with the third editions of Black History Month (February) and Women's History Month (March). Oh, and a certain milestone is coming. We'll see a few more reviews over the final week of 2022; there has been a certain pattern with these reviews to cover a few names neglected over the past few years, so we shall see what is next...

The Birds.

Review #1739: The Birds.

Cast: 

Tippi Hedren (Melanie Daniels), Rod Taylor (Mitch Brenner), Jessica Tandy (Lydia Brenner), Veronica Cartwright (Cathy Brenner), Suzanne Pleshette (Annie Hayworth), Ethel Griffies (Mrs. Bundy), Charles McGraw (Sebastian Sholes), and Lonny Chapman (Deke Carter) Directed by Alfred Hitchcock (#219 - Rope, #223 - North by Northwest, #446 - Spellbound, #447 - Psycho, #450 - Vertigo, #455 - Rear Window, #553 - Strangers on a Train, #800 - Shadow of a Doubt, #910 - Notorious, #963 - The Lodger: A Story of the London Fog, #964 - The Ring (1927), #965 - Downhill, #970 - Mr. and Mrs. Smith, #977 - Frenzy, and #1343 - The 39 Steps)

Review: 

The thing about doing a creature feature is that one has to really allow themselves to become immersed in the idea that the director (or writer) wants to show in taking something you could see any day of the week and make it something that could potentially unnerve you, or at the very least pique your curiosity. I suppose if anybody seemed up to the task of trying to make a movie about birds, Alfred Hitchcock (described by some as "The Master of Suspense") would spring to mind quickly. Of course, this happens to be the first film that was directed by Hitchcock after the success of Psycho (1960), which has been argued to be his most famous work. Perhaps the biggest credit is the use of the sodium vapor process to get the shots of the birds to look effective (as opposed to the bluescreen process), and Hitchcock brought in Ub Iwerks (of Walt Disney Studios, the leader in the process) to work on the film - the process involves a variety of things such a yellow screen, an optical printer and two different elements of the footage. Evan Hunter (best known for his work in crime fiction with the 87th Precinct novels and a writer on Alfred Hitchcock Presents for two episodes) was brought in to write the script (for his part, he would later state that Hitchcock would "take outrageous liberties with what I had written" with what he allowed his actors to do with the script). This was adapted from the short story of the same name by Daphne Du Maurier, which had first been published in 1952 as part of her collection The Apple Tree (radio adaptations had been done of the story, incidentally). Hitchcock had adapted her works before with Jamaica Inn (1939) and Rebecca (1940). Apparently, Du Maurier did not like this adaptation, probably because it changes the setting from England to California while going from a focus on a family in a cottage to an offbeat coupling and a controlling parent. Of course, one inspiration that helped Hitchcock involved him hearing about a 1961 attack in Capitola, California that involved birds crashing into buildings with disorientation (three decades later, it was discovered that this occurred due to the birds eating algae that had become toxic). Hitchcock would ultimately do three further films in the 1960s that resulted in varying levels of success before he closed his career with thrillers in Frenzy (1972) and Family Plot (1976). 

Perhaps there was too much responsibility placed on the shoulders of a green actress. Hedren (a model for over a decade) was approached by Hitchcock after he had seen her in a commercial while watching The Today Show, and she soon signed a seven year contract; she had assumed she would soon be on the aforementioned Presents program, but actually he aimed for turning her into a film actress that would debut in a lead role (complete with screen tests and training); perhaps amusingly, she would appear in the "sequel" three decades later with The Birds II: Land's End (1994), which is about as much one needs to really know about. Of course, maybe one really needs a certain type of understanding of what it means to cultivate suspense that might seem familiar for those who would see future films such as Jaws (1975) or Tremors (1990). Perhaps one cannot be too harsh for a film that is meticulously executed in its shots and effects, one that is a worthy movie to look at with patience. All of this is a crock for me to say what became evident before the last shot: dignified lingering in a bit of muck is at the end of the day still one that has a bit of muck on it that needs picking no matter how pretty it is. Simply put, it lingers for quite a bit of time on folks that barely justifies having two hours with them, as if I really need an entire justification for someone wanting to go on a whim to somebody's place and give them lovebirds; it is far more interesting with thrills than anything it tries to do in humor or with family drama, that much is for sure. Maybe the tension reflects the times that the birds attack, but we are still talking about a movie that only gets some of its tense atmosphere with the right amount of cohesiveness. You can put all the window dressing you want about what the film represents in themes, but I don't see it as being any more useful in execution than something like Them! (1954), which if you recall involved mutated ants. But at least one can say the effects are well done, particularly since it was a blend of animated and live birds for various shots. So yes, there is a main group of actors, and they are fairly decent here despite my misgivings about just who matters or doesn't matter. Hedren might seem a bit anxious here, but she does eventually grow into the suspense (i.e. when the film stops trying to make me care so much about her journey into the Bay) that helps us get more and more gripped in tensing one's nerves. Taylor is stuck in the middle, as if one is begging him to be more involved with the birds than with the aforementioned Bay element, and the parts with Tandy are more "move the hand along" than anything - overall, not flat, but still. Tandy is okay, but being okay in a Hitchcock film with clinging mothers is a weird distinction (of course Cartwright being just an okay kid also makes it weird). Pleshette honestly is the most inviting presence, and she only has a few moments to really spring interest in being the earthy contrast when paired against Hedren (again, this is probably personal preference).

Honestly, testing one's patience in life could probably be assessed by how you view the sequence in the diner, where there is a discussion that goes on and on about supposed bird attacks and so on (gee, are the birds around?); one bird attack later where everyone is a bit rattled, a hysterical lady yammers on about who to possibly blame and honestly the one thing that works comes when Hedren slaps her and moves on to other things. I suppose I am not fair to the first hour, since the birds attack twice in that same span of time. But hey, there are moments that plod along in each hour, more so in the sequence involving an incessant playing of "Risseldy Rosseldy" in an attempt to build suspense that only results in an earworm. I guess there are benefits to making a monster movie that doesn't explain its story or end its reign of terror with a pat resolution (Hitchcock did not even want to have any kind of credits to follow after the last shot of the film, but Universal added in a brief studio logo shot). Oh please, my brain says: how much does one need to say about why birds are attacking when most people have both positive and negative memories that involve birds in the first place? But I guess that makes it an interesting predecessor to later films that wouldn't spring to easy solutions (such as say Halloween, for example), and for that one has to appreciate its efforts. Besides, if one really wants to watch someone try to make a movie about birds with absolute zero execution of tension or characters (complete with a brief shot of Hedren!), Birdemic (2010/2013) is right there to make you appreciate filmmaking or the bounds of using your time wisely. As a whole, being an overrated movie can still mean one has made a good movie if the right hands are at the wheel, and Hitchcock for the most part does what is needed to make things stay on course for a thriller. It certainly was an interesting step for Hitchcock in his fifth decade of filmmaking, that much is for sure, and it works out for any Hitchcock devotee for all of its qualities (flaws or no flaws) whenever your curiosity for birds is at hand.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Spider Baby (1967).

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: The Time Machine (1960)

Review #247: The Time Machine.

Cast
Rod Taylor (H. George Wells), Alan Young (David Filby/James Filby), Yvette Mimieux (Weena), Sebastian Cabot (Dr. Philip Hillyer), Tom Helmore (Anthony Bridewell), and Whit Bissell (Walter Kemp) Directed by George Pal.

Review
The Time Machine is adapted from the 1895 novel by H. G. Wells (Herbert George Wells), who also wrote The Invisible Man, The War of the Worlds, and The Island of Dr. Moreau and many more. The film, like The Invisible Man (1933 - #039), brings a lot of intrigue and spectacle. Taylor does an excellent job in a film that doesn't have much cast but has much fun and effects. After over 50 years, this film still is useful and charming enough to watch. Definitely more recommended then the 2002 remake (A remake of a classic even if the classic hasn't aged away? I'm so shocked...) It might be a bit slow at points, but this is a fun film all in all. Countdown to 250: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3...

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.