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.

Dumbo.

Review #1768: Dumbo.

Cast: 

Edward Brophy (Timothy Q. Mouse), Verna Felton (Elephant Matriarch / Mrs. Jumbo), Cliff Edwards (Dandy Crow), Herman Bing (The Ringmaster), Sterling Holloway (Mr. Stork), Margaret Wright (Casey Junior), and The Hall Johnson Choir [Crow Chorus: Hall Johnson (Deacon), James Baskett (Fats), Nick Stewart (Specks), Jim Carmichael (Dopey)] Directed by Samuel Armstrong, Norman Ferguson (#511 - The Three Caballeros), Wilfred Jackson (#178 - Peter Pan, #373 - Cinderella, and #683 - Alice in Wonderland, #810 - Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs), Jack Kinney (#511), Bill Roberts (#511), Ben Sharpsteen (#810), and John Elliotte.

Review: 

Dumbo is one of those timeless classic movies, pure and simple. Whether two or twenty-two or even one-hundred two, it manages to captivate its audience with a short run-time (64 minutes) while being a unique feature among the number of features that was created by Walt Disney Productions (with distribution by RKO Radio Pictures, who tried to get Disney to lengthen the film a bit), particularly when you look at the studio for just the 1940s or in the eight decades that followed the release of the film. Of course, Dumbo (1941) was released as the fourth animated feature film released by the studio that followed along the heels of 1940's Pinocchio and Fantasia, which while regarded well by critics were actually not major hits for the studio at the time, owing to a lack of distribution in Europe because of World War II, while Dumbo was made for less than a million dollars and became a modest hit for the studio. It would not be an easy production, however, since an animator strike would occur for a couple of weeks in the Disney studio (which was later immortalized by the clown characters in the film, who are depicted wanting to go to the boss for a raise). The film was the second-to-last feature film to be released by Disney in the decade, with Bambi (1942) was followed by six package features). The movie is based on the story Dumbo the Flying Elephant, which was written by Helen Aberson-Mayer and Harold Pearl (while having illustrations by Helen Durney), a married couple of writers that had sold the book to a company called Roll-a-Book in 1939, who in term sold the story to Walt Disney Productions that same year (no copies of it apparently exist, since the "roll-a-book" was a cardboard contraption with a little wheel on it, although Dumbo was turned into a softcover book later); Joe Grant and Dick Huemer were tasked to write a script outline over the course of a month in 1940, which Disney made into a feature rather than a short film, and Otto Englander would head a story team to turn the outline into sketches (as such, Grant, Huemer, and Englander were credited as story writers).

What can I tell you that you did not already know about it? I hadn't seen the movie for over a decade and yet it still managed to seem quite refreshing and meaningful regardless of that fact. It has a delightful pace and quality to it, one that is quite joyful and curious with its subject matter without becoming mired in too much cotton-candy sentimentality; in other words, it doesn't just go for "cute" with its animation or even its lead character, since there isn't a voice for him (one of the few times you can say that in an animated film). The folks that are present to speak prove right for the task of delivering right to the point when it comes to engaging atmosphere, whether that means smart-mouth do-gooders (Brophy, a character actor making his first and only voice role, which was both un-credited and memorable) or amusing folks that close the film with a song led by Edwards (a face and voice familiar for his roles within film and in music, most notably with Pinocchio) and the choir of Hall Johnson and company (familiar to folks who have heard Lost Horizon (1937), while Baskett would end up starring in Song of the South). Besides, finding a way to overcome an obstacle, such as say, being made fun of because of one's look, is a tradition like no other when it comes to honing a lively fable for everyone to enjoy. Well, that and showing folks up when it comes to provine oneself, although most would only dream to be as humble as a flying elephant. Everyone will have their own little favorite moments or sequences to chuckle or appreciate, whether that involves a little bit with a train engine, or as one might expect, a dazzling sequence involving pink elephants. The animation is exactly what you would expect from Disney's animators, crisp and effective in what needs to be seen on screen that can look as interesting on the first viewing to the next one, and I'm sure most would say this applies to the films as well when it comes to having variety (i.e. one can see where they have done in features since Snow White). By the time the film soars towards its conclusion, it sticks the landing with dazzling its audience with the art of seeing flight take place that doesn't diminish whether one was familiar with the subject matter or not (there will also be that one person who does not latch onto Disney films early). In essence, it is the movie for all kids at heart, ones who appreciate the fine touch of animation done by Disney's animators (most notably with Bill Tytla and Art Babbitt) that makes a sure winner anytime for all time.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Alice in Wonderland (1951).

Review #683: Alice in Wonderland.

Cast
Kathryn Beaumont (Alice), Ed Wynn (Mad Hatter), Jerry Colonna (March Hare), Richard Haydn (Caterpillar), Sterling Holloway (Cheshire Cat), Verna Felton (Queen of Hearts), Pat O'Malley (Tweedledum and Tweedledee/The Walrus and the Carpenter/Mother Oyster), Bill Thompson (White Rabbit/The Dodo), and Heather Angel (Dinah, Alice's sister) Directed by Clyde Geronimi (#178 - Peter Pan, #373 - Cinderella, #511 - The Three Caballeros, and #660 - Sleeping Beauty), Wilfred Jackson (#178 and #373) and Hamilton Luske (#178 and #373)

Review
It's hard to make much judgement on a movie like this. On the one hand, it's an imaginative movie that also creates a world that makes no sense. The characters are drawn really well but are also insane. The movie is short but it also could've not have its ending be so abrupt. But on the whole, the movie is entertaining. Beaumont does a really good job as Alice due to watching how she responds to the inane world around her, which contrasts well, and she is a likable character. The other characters can be annoying and fun to watch, though remembering that the world they live in is figuratively nonsensical makes the movie more enjoyable. The Walrus and the Carpenter story is pretty funny, and I'm impressed it was one actor who did all the voice work for that short bit, Pat O'Malley, which is well done. If the movie had been a little longer it might've made for a little more story element (and perhaps an ending that isn't just "let's have some tea".), but the movie is fine nonetheless, and it is quickly enjoyable, and I'd recommend it. But of course I'd recommend the original novel by Lewis Carroll as well, either before or after watching this, so there you go.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Sleeping Beauty.

Review #660: Sleeping Beauty.

Cast
Mary Costa (Princess Aurora / Sleeping Beauty), Eleanor Audley (Maleficent), Verna Felton (Flora - The Red Fairy and Queen Leah), Barbara Jo Allen (Fauna - The Green Fairy), Barbara Luddy (Merryweather - The Blue Fairy), Bill Shirley (Prince Phillip), Taylor Holmes (King Stefan), Bill Thompson (King Hubert), and Marvin Miller (The Narrator) Directed by Clyde Geronimi (#178 - Peter Pan, #373 - Cinderella, and #573 - The Three Caballeros), Les Clark, Eric Larson, and Wolfgang Reitherman (#250 - The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh and #598 - The Rescuers)

Review
Sleeping Beauty was given such a middling reaction (and little profit) that it was the last fairy tale Disney film made for 30 years. But now the movie has a legacy and is now called a classic (being re-released a few times does help), so time does change. The movie is astonishing to say the least. The movie looks beautiful to watch, the way that it is animated and how the backgrounds look so colorful and detailed. I like how the three fairies are colored, it's not just a simple red-green-blue schemes, the way that it is colored makes the difference. The cast is pretty decent, with Audley standing out, mostly because of the character she plays. Sleeping Beauty herself is alright, but her screentime is limited, focusing more on the villain/fairies. Speaking of which, Maleficent is awesome. Her design and her voice are so delightful to watch, she manages to be more interesting than Sleeping Beauty herself, which is probably why they made a movie about it...55 years later (not exactly late for Walt Disney Studios), but at least the movie is still fun to watch. The songs are alright, and the movie flows quickly enough at 75 minutes to never really drag on, it's easily watchable and easily enjoyable for anyone, with a cool villain to headline it all.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Cinderella (1950).

Review #373: Cinderella.

Cast
Ilene Woods (Cinderella), Eleanor Audley (Lady Tremaine), Luis Van Rooten (Grand Duke and the King), Jimmy MacDonald (Jaq, Gus, and Bruno), William Phipps (Prince Charming), Lucille Bliss (Anastasia), Rhoda Williams (Drizella), and Verna Felton (Fairy Godmother) Directed by Clyde Geronimi, Hamilton Luske, and Wilfred Jackson (#178 - Peter Pan)

Review
Disney films seem to do relatively well here (#073 - The Lion King, #156 - Aladdin, #178, #230 - The Great Mouse Detective, #250 - The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh), and of course they have some charm and memorable moments that seem to keep popping up in people's minds year after year. Is this any different? Yea, pretty much. The approach is not bad, and it has its charms, with the mice (who apparently don't disgust the lead like some others would be, but oh well.) providing some laughs. Cinderella is an allright character, not bad. The only thing I wonder is why Prince Charming has only about, oh two lines. For a character who is matters most for the film's last act, he has less lines then the Stepsisters, which is kind of odd. I know the film is called Cinderella, but there could have been at least a little focus on the Prince and what about his motivations as a character is and not just told by the King. But the film has good animation style and it manages to keep the viewer entertained at a unusually short rate of about 75 minutes. Take it for what its worth.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.