Change Your Image
dancarrison
Reviews
His Kind of Woman (1951)
NOT a noir classic
His kind of woman? You could have fooled me; there was absolutely no chemistry between Mitchum and Russell. They could have been brother and sister. Mitchum's character spent the entire movie--until the very end in which they did click somewhat--pushing her away.
Tediously long. Every scene seemed prolonged. Mitchum grabs a gun during a desperate struggle, but we have to watch him load it, bullet by bullet, while threatened from all sides. Chased by the gangster-sailors on Raymond Burr's yacht, Mitchum races from one compartment in the engine room to another, until we in the audience could probably pass the Merchant Marine exam. The scene with the Nazi doctor trying to administer a sedative was irritatingly prolonged, foiled by one mishap after another. I found myself rooting for the Nazi doctor. Except that Mitchum didn't need a sedative: he was half asleep through the entire movie.
Vincent Price was born to play the role of a ham actor who faces real danger with flamboyant courage. And Raymond Burr was marvellous as the ruthless gangster kingpin. I didn't know that Burr could play it so tough, and pull it off. But he did.
The plot was ridiculous, but that's true of many noir classics, which were redeemed by solid acting and crisp direction. Not so in this tedious, endless pot boiler.
Johnny Eager (1941)
Well done, but with a creepy Van Heflin
This film is a lot of fun once you can accept the premise of the plot. It certainly strains credulity: a paroled taxi driver by day who fools all the suckers because he's a gangster by night--and somehow evades discovery while visiting notorious nightclubs in evening clothes.
Taylor plays a real jerk who is capable of framing an innocent girl who loves him--and he plays it well. Supporting thugs and gangsters are also great. Lana Turner is fetching. A number of scenes are used in that wonderful Carl Reiner parody, Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid.
A couple of other reviewers had the temerity to object
to the Van Heflin role, and I agree with them. I found him creepy. His pathetic facial expressions, his insinuating body langauge, made me uncomfortable. I mentally "backed away" from him as he approached the camera for close-ups. And, so, I found the relationship between Robert Taylor and Van Heflin to be disconcerting and unbelievable.
Tough guy Taylor was great, though. After watching the film, I wise cracked and pushed my way around the house, until my wife snapped me out of it.
The Artist (2011)
A Contrarian Review
As everyone has said, this film is a beautiful tribute to the Silent Era of movie-making, although I think it had precious little to do with the production aspect. But, very well done, I concede.
The problem I had was the plot--and the spectacle of seeing a mature actor despondent because he is no longer marketable, and, later, joyous because his career has been revitalized and the audience is cheering again.
When in reality, the character has merely kicked the can down the road a bit. How long will his revitalization last? Another year or two? When he becomes unmarketable, as all actors do sooner of later, will he become suicidal yet again?
I would have preferred him transitioning to a career independent of the whims of the public. Instead he remains its slave. His joyous return to stardom is, in that sense, pathetic. I felt even more sorry for him at the end.
Another thing that bugged me was his casual treatment of his dog: walking across the busy street with the dog unleashed, letting the dog trot after him in very crowded sidewalks, never appearing to feed it or to give it water, oblivious to its safety when he sets a fire.... It just bothered me.
The Purple Plain (1954)
Uneven Direction
I'd never seen The Purple Plain, I suppose because I thought it was a Western. So I eagerly looked forward to watching it on a cable channel. But it was disappointing. The actors were fine; it was poorly directed.
Gregory Peck appears--convincingly--as a mentally unstable pilot, capable of all kins of irrational actions. His supporting characters shake their heads; they all agree that he is "around the bend."
Then, inexplicably, in the second half of the film, he's no longer crazy. Instead, he is solid, resourceful and cheerful in the face of danger. The problem is: there are no sequences in the film that reveal his character's return to sanity. He was crazy, then he wasn't crazy.
Was it love for the village missionary girl? That relationship, as well, was not developed enough to be credible. They go for walks together, and rather abruptly, look into each other's eyes. It's 115 degrees in the shade; Peck's uniform is soaked with sweat, yet he says he never wants to leave Burma. What??
The film just doesn't ring true. The plane crash was well done, but the three survivors only having a thermos of water between them is hard to believe. It's World War Two; doesn't a fighter bomber carry an emergency kit? The Sun blazes overhead, yet Peck does not stoop to pick up a hat, and stumbles for the rest of the movie across the hot sands bareheaded. His injured companion is in such pain that he can barely move, yet falls asleep while Peck carries him across his shoulders, bouncing across the uneven ground.
The actors do a fine job; it's the direction that suffers.
Spellbound (1941)
Very well done story of possession
This film must be watched bearing in mind the context. It's 1941 for crying out loud--it's not The Exorcist. Green vomit hadn't yet been invented, thank God. And, furthermore, this is a British film, which means it is even more restrained than an American film. But that's its strength. It is slow, yes, but deeply penetrating because of its pace.
If you get antsy watching actors seated in a room talking; if you crave special effects; if silence bores you, then you probably won't like it. I imagine that you probably would not enjoy classic Victorian novels, either. But I do, and this movie puts me in a similar frame of mind.
Great actors all. Everyone believes in their respective roles. Wonderful dark-room photography, reminiscent of Capra's midnight filming in Arsenic and Old Lace.
Well worth watching.
Oliver Twist (1948)
Breathtaking B&W
Another reviewer has claimed that this is the most beautiful black and white film ever made. I have to agree. The storm scene in the beginning is a marvel; I have watched it over and over again. It's odd that I don't feel this way about David Lean's color films. Color is, of course, more "realistic" since we see in color. Why is it, then, when advertisers want to get "gritty" (realistic) they switch to B&W?
The only fault I found with this film is the emphasis on multi-layed, many pocketed clothing worn by the lower classes--as if they were magicians capable of pulling rabbits out of the recesses of their jackets. The shabbiness was overdone; it made the characters look like puppets scurrying around in a whirl of rags.
Great film. Great B&W photography; I've never seen its equal.
Elmer Gantry (1960)
Great Film--until the ending
I've read many of the great reviews here and agree that this is a timeless classic. Superb acting by all. Wonderful direction.
Except for the very end. It was so unnecessary. Gantry had already seen, to his dismay, that Sister Sarah was already lost to him by her obsessive devotion to the cause, and by a new obligation she felt as a healer. He could have wandered away at the point. The unbelievable ending (who would urge people to stay within a burning tent?) was a great disappointment.
After watching the film, I could see where all those Burt Lancaster impressions came from: the head thrown back and the gusty laugh; the display of teeth. But he was great, no doubt about it. Jean Simmons was as heartbreakingly beautiful as ever. What a goddess! The performances of Arthur Kennedy and Dean Jagger were first rate. The audience scenes in the tent scenes were not over the top, but superbly directed.
Holiday (1938)
I haven't been a fan of Hepburn BUT
Not a big fan of Katharine, but she was radiant in this--and beautiful in a way that I hadn't suspected from her other films. There were some closeups of her face that were startlingly lovely. Her performance was wonderfully restrained in one way only: although she played a most spontaneous creature, she kept her professional ego in check; she wasn't subconsciously accepting the Academy Award after her best scenes.
Grant was great and surprisingly athletic. Supporting cast also great.
I think the rich high society friends of the father's suffered under Cukor's direction, appearing stereotypically as snobs, but Lew Ayers made up for that with his humane performance.
Wonderful film!
The Bedford Incident (1965)
Widmark is great in this
I differ with the reviews that suggest Widmark is another Ahab, if that is supposed to a character-weakness. If you'll remember the novel, Moby Dick, the crew was crazy about Ahab, and willing to follow him to the ends of the earth. The crew of the Bedford is equally loyal to Widmark.
The scary thing is that I, too, was carried away by Widmark; I, too, would have followed him into harm's way. Only after the film ended did I realize the danger of following such a leader. And that is a testimonial to the way Widmark fulfilled his role in the film. He was fantastic. Poitier and Balsam were reliably good, as well.
The direction was taut and very realistic, except that I don't think Naval officers wear their formal uniforms and white caps at sea. Also, I'd never heard of nuclear torpedos. Earlier in the film, Widmark says that a destroyer is basically made of aluminum and that "one hit and it's over." So, why the need for a nuclear torpedo?
The Secret of Stamboul (1936)
one of the best
Really a well done production, with everybody giving it their all. A delight to see Peter Haddon again, who played Lord Peter Wimsey in The Silent Passenger. Frank Vosey is incomparably evil as the head of the Turkish Secret Service--the stuff of nightmares. Mason and Hobson are great; the setting is realistic. Great fun. (You'll probably find this under the title, The Spy in White)
Atlas Shrugged: Part I (2011)
Wait a minute: this is pretty good!
So many of the reviews panning this film are actually panning the ideas presented, but consider the challenge to the director--to any director--of translating an overtly philosophical novel into an entertaining movie. Not easy.
Was it "made on the cheap" as a number of critics have stated? Yes, it was. "By no-name actors"? I suppose so. But I have seen many films made with elaborate budgets by big-name actors that were complete busts.
All in all, I think the director and the actors--every one of them--did a credible job. Perhaps the one exception is the hero himself, John Gault, who looms out of the night to confront productive citizens with their own unwitting sanctions of the oppressive movements taking place in society. Take off the that Indiana Jones hat and smile a bit, Mr. Gault.
But otherwise, the acting is pretty damn good, by all of the leads and by all of the supporting cast. You get the feeling that they were seriously giving it their best.
Unfortunately, Part One set the bar pretty high--and the subsequent second and third parts failed to match the sense of earnestness evident in this interesting film. It would have been wonderful if they had been able to keep the original cast.
So give the producers and the director some slack, and enjoy the story. The fine acting makes up for the tight budget.