Change Your Image
planktonrules
I also write for Influx Magazine--where many of my opinions and reviews are also posted.
http://www.influxmagazine.com/
http://www.planktonrules.com/
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur2467618/comments?order=date&summary=off
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Smuggler's Island (1951)
An adventure film with little in the way of excitement and energy.
"Smugler's Island" is the sort of adventure film you might watch and soon after forget that you ever saw it in the first place. It's because the film is incredibly mediocre...neither good nor bad...just a very standard adventure story and no more. I can't help but wonder if perhaps the cast had been different (such as Robert Mitchum playing Jeff Chandler's role) or a re-write might have helped.
Steve (Chandler) is an American expatriate who lives in Macao, a colony on the coast of China that was controlled by Portugal until 1999. There he makes money doing odd jobs with his boat. However, in the case of Vivian Craig (Evelyn Keyes), she wants him to do something VERY dangerous and potentially VERY rewarding. She wants him to use his boat and diving equipment to retrieve $200,000 in missing gold. But there turn out to be several important things she failed to mention...such as her being married. She also doesn't mention that some very bad people are likely to get in their way!
While the movie is okay, one scene in particular is among the worst I've seen in recent memory. Vivian is angry at Steve and slaps him. He slaps her back! But soon the pair have a liplock on each other that is one of the most passionate kissing scenes you can imagine...just after the two slapped each other! Talk about weird!
As for the rest of the film, it features some decent diving sequences and action...but also Marvin Mitchell playing an Asian guy! His accent is actually pretty good, but Mitchell looks about as Asian as Ricardo Montalban! Overall, a film that really looks as if Univesal Pictures really wasn't trying very hard....just trying to get it done and then on to the next project.
Flame of Araby (1951)
Beautiful to look at...but terrible.
In the 1940s and 50s, Hollywood did a horrible job in portaying ancient Muslim lands and its people. For the most part, the dialog was terrible and VERY stilted. Additionally, the actors chosen for the leads often looked about as Muslim as Mantan Moreland or Anna May Wong! Think about it...the red-headed Maureen O'Hara as well as Marlene Dietrich playing fiery Muslim women in films like this one and "Kismet"! When seen today, the films generally seem very misguided and naive...and for some, insulting.
"Flame of Araby" is certainly NOT among the better films set in ancient Muslim lands. O'Hara is completely ill-suited for the role...showing way too much skin, way too much independence and way too much fire for a woman of this time and place. Likewise, her hero and eventual lover (Jeff Chandler) is an odd choice, being a Jewish-American from Brooklyn! All this MIGHT have worked had the film had believable dialog...which it doesn't.
Overall, it's a silly and possibly insulting hodgepodge that seems very dated today. The story about court intrigue, red-bearded pirates and horses also seems odd...as well as the Alabama Hills shooting location...perfect for westerns but simply bizarre for this confection.
The Battle at Apache Pass (1952)
Two steps forward, one step back...
The 1950s saw some improvements in the way Native Americans were being portrayed in movies. Instead of being just mindless savages, films began showing these people as people...and often people who were honorable and were forced by white society to fight. However, unfortunately, at the same time, studios continued the dreadful practice of having the lead Indians played by white folks in dark makeup...such as having the Jewish-American actor Jeff Chandler play the Chiracahua Apache chief, Cochise! Such casting was not unusual, as Chandler had perviously played Cochise in "Broken Arrow" and various other non-Natives played chiefs in various films of the day...including, of all people, Rock Hudson in "Taza, Son of Cochise"! Clearly this is a case of Hollywood taking two steps forward in its portrayal of the American Indians...and one step back!
Despite some VERY stilted language and Chandler playing Cochise, the film does have some very positive things about it. The warrior Geronimo, an important character in the story, is played by an honest-to-goodness Native (Jay Silverheels). The story, also, is very favorable towards these people and essentially puts the blame on some of the Indian wars on the whites...which was the actual case with Cochise and the so-called 'Battle of Apache Pass'. FInally, and most importantly, the film IS entertaining and exciting.
Deported (1950)
A most unusual Jeff Chandler film!
When the story begins, the mobster, Vic (Jeff Chandler), is arriving in Italy. But it's not for vacation nor pleasaure...Vic was deported back to the country of his birth, as he's an 'undesireable' and just finished a five year sentence in prison. As for Vic, he doesn't seem especially reformed though his uncle and his family who take him in don't realize why Vic is in Italy...and they take him under their wing. But Vic has $100,000 in stolen dough hidden back in the States...and he plans on retrieving it and enjoying life with his ill-gotten gains.
The story is a definite change of pace for Chandler...not only because he plays a jerk but because of its locale. The film was actually made in Italy and it's nice seeing locations such as Siena. The story itself is pretty good and I think it's good enough that I actually considered giving the picture an 8.
Abandoned (1949)
Tough and gritty...and a lot of Noir elements to make it interesting.
If you ask a dozen film experts about what constitutes a movie that is 'film noir', you will likely get a dozen different answers. But a couple things will be constant...the toughness of the plot, the violence of the screenplay and the terrific camerawork and shadows. In this sense, clearly, "Abandoned" would qualify as Noir.
When the film begins, Mark, a nosey reporter (Dennis O'Keefe) notices that a lady is being followed. It seems that a very shady private dick (Raymond Burr) is following Paula (Gale Storm) and Mark intervenes. After chasing away the evil detective, Mark learns from Paula that she's in town looking for her sister...who has been missing for some time. The trail, it turns out, leads to a baby selling racket...and one which apparently killed this sister and stole her baby! Can the pair manage to get a lead on who is behind all this?
I loved the camerawork...particularly in the early portions of the film. The angles and shadows are great...and very moody. I also loved the incredibly violent and gritty ending where evil clearly is punished big time! Overall, a well written and acted film that never is dull and is well worth your time.
The Great Sioux Uprising (1953)
The very definition of mediocre!
Have you ever watched a film and thought to yourself "This isn't bad....but it also isn't good, either". Well, that's the impression I had in watching "The Great Sioux Uprising".
The story is set in the west during the Civil War. Apparently, the Union army needs horses and they've contracted with an unscrupulous dirt-bag to get them. But Stephen Cook (Lyle Bettger) doesn't seem to care where he gets them or if he starts a war with the various Indian tribes...all he wants is the money. So, it's up to a traveling doctor (Jeff Chandler) to save the day.
The action is fair. The villain is fair. The story is fair. The treatment of the natives in the film...fair. Nothing really stands out as good nor bad. It's purely a time-passer and nothing else.
All Fall Down (1962)
"You are a drifter, a sponger and a parasite!"
"All Fall Down" is a film indicative of changing times in America and Hollywood in the 1960s. Instead of the idyllic family, this film and many others of the time showed a darker, more cynical side of life...with selfishness, dysfunction and hypocrisy.
When the story begins, Clinton (Brandon de Wilde) has traveled on a long bus trip to spend time with his worthless brother, the oddly named Berry-Berry (Warren Beatty). However, he is surprised to find Berry-Berry in jail for beating a woman...though still, inexplicably, Clinton idolizes this jerk. But after bailing him out, Berry-Berry isn't very appreciative and soon sends Clinton packing...as Berry-Berry has found an older woman to exploit. It's apparent that Berry-Berry prefers using rich women instead of working...and he's pretty much the character mentioned by one of these women in the summary above.
The scene now switches to Clinton and his parents in Cleveland. His father (Karl Malden) is an alcoholic and his mother (Angela Lansbury) lives in denial about him, the state of their rocky marriage as well as her son Berry-Berry. She mostly just talks a lot...and you can see that pretty much everyone in the Willart family is a mess. What's next for his screwy folks? See the film....and see what life is like when the entire Willart clan come together in one home.
The acting is good in this film as is John Frankenheimer's direction. As for the story, it is harsh and realistic...but also unpleasant and not especially fun to watch. In this regard, it reminds me of other films of the era like "Hud", "Splendor in the Grass", "Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf" and "Come Back Little Sheba"...all very good but equally unpleasant movies. Many like them. I just think life's too short to watch too many of these sorts of gritty pictures.
Under the Volcano (1984)
Extremely well acted...extremely unpleasant as well.
"Under the volcano" reminds me a lot of Nicholas Cage's "Leaving Las Vegas". Both films are about men who are literally drinking themselves to death...and both screenplays were written by men who met their end very early in life...one by suicide and one who drank himself to death. And, both films are very similar in that they are dreadful to watch despite some riveting performance by their respective leading men.
Geoffrey (Albert Finney) is the an ex-British consul living in Mexico. The reason he's an ex is that he spends all his waking hours drinking himself into oblivion. As a result, he's not only lost his job but his wife as well by the time the story begins. Inexplicably, the wife (Jacqueline Bisset) returns after being gone a year...even though it's obvious that Geoffrey will never sober up and get his life together. Through the course of the film, the pair also spend a lot of time with a mutual friend, Hugh (Anthony Andrews), an idealist who has apparently lost his ideals.
The film is like watching a traffic wreck in very slow motion. You know what is coming...but there's nothing that will stop the inevitable. Overall, it makes for an incredibly unpleasant viewing experience...one most viewers simply would not enjoy nor appreciate despite Finney's excellent acting.
The Inspector's Double (1916)
A case of identical strangers.
"The Inspector's Double" is a very enjoyable comedy from 1916. However, I only gave it a 7 because of the condition of the film. Initially, it looks okay with some minor degradation along the sides. But by the end of the film, it's a total mess...completely degraded and the very ending is missing! Still, it is clever and enjoyable....and worth seeing.
The story uses a trope that today might be seen as ridiculous...but it was 1916 and as such it worked well. A health inspector finds a wallet and so he does the right thing...taking it to the man's house. However, he doesn't realize that the man whose wallet he found is the spitting image of him...and the man's wife thinks it's her hubby who has arrived home. He, naturally, doesn't know her or recognize her...and she assumes it's her husband and he's lost his mind. So, she calls the local assylum and soon attendants arrive to take away the 'insane husband'! What's next? See the film.
As I said above, the very ending is simply degraded so much that there is no ending in the film. But the film still works...and the laughs are actually pretty restrained for the slapstick era. Overall, clever and fun....though annoying that the health inspector and his double are BOTH obvious Chaplin impersonations...a common thing since Chaplin was so popular during this era.
Along Came Polly (2004)
Going to the embarrassment and gross a few times too often.
Ben Stiller plays a pathetic guy whose wife cheats on him during his honeymoon. But he wants to get married very badly and soon meets an old schoolmate (Jennifer Anniston) and he seems intent on forcing this to work.
I wanted to like "Along Came Polly". After all, I've enjoyed several of Ben Stiller's films and thought I'd enjoy this one. However, it's NOT a film I liked nor would I recommend it.
My problem with the film is that it tries very hard to embarrass and to gross out the audience. A little of this can be great....but this much is a problem...especially when this takes the place of genuinely funny situations. Instead of humor, the film indulges itself with such unfunny and nasty stuff as jokes about farts, irritable bowel syndrome, hairy sweaty men and several scenes involving toilets and urinals. As a result, instead of being funny, the film just seems forced...and like a comedy written by 7th graders. If the film was gross or embarrassing but still funny, it might have worked....but it really just wasn't particularly funny.
In addition to a lot of cheap laughs, the film has some horribly written characters. In particular, Philip Seymour Hoffman plays Ben Stiller's friend...but WHO would be friends with this jerk?! He's 100% unlikable, narcissistic and gross. Now having an awful friend or brother could work (such as John Candy in "Splash") but here the guy is so unlikable and one dimensional he just seems badly written. Add to that the disgusting boss (Alec Baldwin) and you have a film more intent on pushing the audience's buttons than entertaining them.
Love, Oil and Grease (1914)
I cut it some slack since it was made in 1914.
In the 1910s, Lloyd Hamilton and Bud Duncan co-starred in a string of comedy shorts. The films were modestly successful, though apparently the pair hated each other....and in the 1920s, Lloyd became a solo act. As for the tiny Duncan, his roles were fewer and farther between.
In this story, Hamilton and Duncan go to work as auto mechanics....even though they know nothing about car repairs. Despite this, a lot of the short has to do with car salesmen and customers and when Duncan and Hamilton are in scenes, it mostly consists of slapstick...such as throwing things, pratfalls and the like. As a result, there isn't a lot of depth to it and the laughs are pretty forced.
Is this a bad film? No...for 1914 it's decent. But it's also not all that good either and you might be better off seeing some of Hamilton's solo work...it's just better than the films I've seen that he made with Duncan.
Bomba: The Jungle Boy (1949)
Essentially, "Tarzan Jr."....complete with the usual poorly integrated stock footage.
During the 1930s-50s, the Tarzan films were very popular AND cheap to make...a great combination for the studios. While MGM made the best of these films, smaller studios often tried their hand at Tarzan-like movies...and their results were pretty predictable. In other words, the films were made on the cheap and integrated a LOT of stock footage into them...stock footage that rarely fit the stories. Such is clearly the case with "Bomba: The Jungle Boy"...the first of a dozen Bomba films Monogram made in the late 40s and into the 50s.
The story finds a man and his daughter (Peggy Ann Garner) on a photo safari in Africa. Eventually, Patricia (Garner) happens upon the wild boy, Bomba, as he arrives to save her from a leopard. They soon get separated from her party and so her father goes looking for her. During this period, Patricia strikes up a friendship with Bomba.
The film has tons of stock footage. On one hand, at least it's mostly of African animals! Many cheap Tarzan knockoffs (and even some Tarzan films) show animals from all over the world in Africa--such as American alligators and Asian elephants! So, this is a plus. But on the other hand, the stock footage NEVER looks to be integrated into the movie...never. It's grainy and just looks like stock footage and often tehre really isn't much reason for it apart from the fact that they could get it cheap or free. As for the acting, Garner isn't bad. As for the rest, well, Garner isn't bad! Overall, yet another of these African white jungle man/boy/girl films...and it's VERY much like Tarzan but in teenage form....and Patricia is much like a younger and chaste version of Jane. Familiar...and cheap.
Border Devils (1932)
If the sound quality stinks, try turning on the closed captions with this one...though you wouldn't be missing much!
"Border Devils" is a very bad B-movie. It's from the ultra-low budget Weiss Brothers Studio and you can tell it's cheap because there is no incidental music and the acting is really bad. Often, actors talk over the other actors' lines or just deliver their dialog like they never completed the second grade! It's a shame, as the film does have a couple decent actors in it...Harry Carey and George 'Gabby' Hayes. As for Hayes, he made it in his 'pre-codger' days...before the donned the beard, took out his false teeth and acting like a stereotypical cowboy sidekick!
Jim (Harry Carey) and his friend come back after a long hard ride. They drink some water and it turns out to be laced with some drug, and the two soon pass out. While they are unconscious, they kill one of them and make it look like Jim did it! After Jim is arrested, his friend Neil helps him escape...and soon Neil is killed as well! So, Jim pretends to be Neil and tries to join up with the gang he thinks are behind the killings.
The plot isn't bad...but the acting and dialog are strictly third-rate. The film also lacks energy as well as any reason to care about Jim and his plight.
Southwest Passage (1954)
It started off well...but ended with a whimper.
As you watch "Southwest Passage", you can see that it was originally a 3D movie. All too often, folks strike at the camera with whips or pitchforks in a cheesy way to thrill the audience....a common cliche 3D filmmakers often put into their films.
When the story begins, three folks are running from the law. Soon one of them is shot and the remaining two (John Ireland and Joanne Dru) make their way to a caravan heading to California. The folks they meet up with turn out to be Cavalry folks escorting some Muslim men and their camels, as apparently the military is considering importing camels because of their ability to live in the desert. Unfortunately, while this seems like an interesting idea, the film seems to have forgotten this plot about midway through the film. The rest is mostly cliches...with the usual Indian attacks and and ending that really made little sense. It could have been worse...but should have been a lot better.
Sing 2 (2021)
Buster's back...and he's lying once again!
"Sing" was a CGI cartoon that surprised me. I honestly expected to hate it but was blown away by the high quality of the production. This is mostly because Sony/Univeral has been very lazy with many of their CGI films...with way, way too many Minion films...to the point where many (me definitely included) have come to hate the characters. And so, I expected a lazy film...and found a well-crafted and picture instead. Fortunately, while I slightly prefer the first film, this sequel also did not disappoint.
In some ways, "Sing 2" is better than "Sing". Most of this is because after five years, CGI technology has improved. Here in "Sing 2", the computer graphics are simply spectacular--with amazing hair, emotions, movement, shading, detail and more. In fact, compared to recent Disney/Pixar films such as "Luca" and "Turning Red", "Sing 2" is simply better looking...as if the studio REALLY tried hard to create the best product possible...not just create yet another sequel.
As far as the story goes, it's very enjoyable...but also very reminiscent of the original. For instance, Buster is STILL a liar who spends most of the movie avoiding his comeuppance! But in this case, he is now a success...but wants to take his show to the next level with a successful Wolf financing the deal. On hand is a surprisingly compelling and well done role for Bono...who shows an amazing ability to create an all-new voice for his character.
Overall, apart from lacking a bit of originality, it's a wonderful film. Kids will love it, but I really think adults will enjoy it even more...making it a film parents won't need to just 'endure'...but enjoy as well.
Sing (2016)
A simple movie....made really, really well.
I had no interest in seeing "Sing" but my oldest daughter insisted I should watch it. I am very glad I listened to her, as I really enjoyed the film.
The story is very simple...a conniving producer, Buster Moon (Matthew McConaughey), is in desperate trouble...he's nearly broke and his dream of being a beloved Broadway style producer are a bust. In desperation, he concocts a scheme...to hold a singing contest. But instead of paying the winner $1000, there's a typo...and the finalists all expect the prize to be $100,000! There's more trouble as well...such as the bank wanting to foreclose on the theater! Additionally, each of the finalists have a backstory which add to the tension and give the story some depth.
The plot is super-simple. So why did I give this CGI film from Sony/Universal a 9? Well, everything about the film worked perfectly...the voice actors, the writing and, especially, the truly amazing CGI. For 2016, it's every bit as good (if not better) than a Pixar or Disney release....with amazing shading, lighting and textures. Add to this one important thing....it's fun! Overall, a truly excellent film...one that had me wanting a sequel...something I RARELY want!
The Beginning or the End (1947)
Not without a few flaws, but still worth seeing.
"The Beginning or the End" is a film that is shot documentary style about the Manhattan Project...the WWII project behind the creation of the first atomic bombs. But unlike a real documentary, some of the facts have been changed...such as the omission of the contributions of the non-American scientists as well as a subplot involving the death of one of the scientists. If you read the IMDB trivia, it explains the first problem....though they still should have emphasized their contributions even if the actual scientists didn't want their names used. As such, it's not a perfect history lesson....but it still is interesting and well worth seeing. It helps that MGM used some of their top character actors in this film...though interestingly the film DID lose money...a lot of money. Perhaps audiences were so afraid of the bomb that they didn't want to see the film and be reminded of this!
By the way, there is only one bad part of the film...the very ending. It's schmaltzy and ridiculous (especially occurring right in front of the statue of Lincoln at the Lincoln Memorial in DC)...and was very badly handled...especially since this never actually occurred...a reason I am only giving the film a 7.
That's Him (1918)
Snub playing a violent bandit?!
"That's Him" is a Harold Lloyd film starring Lloyd and his familiar supporting characters, Bebe Daniels and Harry 'Snob' Pollard. The three made many films together in the 1910s and when Lloyd branched out with his own production company, he got two more leading ladies (one of which he ended up marrying) and there was no second male lead in these films. While I love Snub, Lloyd seemed to do better on his own.
The story begins with a struggling couple (Lloyd and Daniels) but their troubles soon seemed to be over when Harold receives a telegram saying he's just inherited $1,000,000! Included are train tickets to go to the city to collect the money. Unfortunately, Harold forgets to bring the tickets and so he rushes home to get them. On the way, he meets up with a robber (Pollard) who ends up shooting him...but since this is a slapstick film, Harold is just fine and he shoots Snub several times...and he, too, is just fine! What's next? Well, a LOT of other problems...all of which conspire to try to get him to miss the train.
It's highly unusual to see Snub playing a crook...and a violent one at that. Usually he's either a sweeter guy or perhaps Harold's rival in love. What's not as unusual is seeing Harold playing a bit of an action hero...especially when a gang of toughies attack.
Overall, a good Harold Lloyd for this time period. His work in the 1920s was incredible...and significantly better than "That's Him". But for 1918, it's very good and worth seeing. The print, sadly, is a bit grainy and I was able to find it on the Criterion Channel.
By the way, it was not unusual for films of the 1910s to feature white folks in black makeup playing black roles. It wasn't nice...but that was the norm...and you'll see the conductor on the train is clearly a white guy using burnt cork makeup.
Internes Can't Take Money (1937)
Probably not the Dr. Kildare you expected!
"Internes Can't Take Money" is the first Dr. Kildare movie and unlike the long string of Dr. Kildare/Dr. Gillespie movies from MGM, this Paramount film has an entirely different cast, style and, in some cases, characters. It's really odd when you've seen the MGM films...and I think it's best to see the movie without trying to compare it to the later series.
While Joel MacCrea plays Dr. Kildare, in this case he's NOT a doctor right out of medical school but a full-fledged doctor at the hospital. And, there also is no cranky/avuncular Dr. Gillespie as his mentor.
While Kildare is a major character, the story seem to revolve more around Janet (Barbara Stanwyck)...a woman just out of prison whose baby was stolen from her by her rat of a husband. The husband is now dead and she has no idea where to find the girl. So, she spends much of the film looking in vain for the kid...and nice Dr. Kildare eventually helps her with this task...along with some significant help from a mobster (Lloyd Nolan)!
The style of this film is nothing like the later Kildare films and it's less a hospital movie and more a crime film. As such, it's enjoyable and well acted...though the story is, at times, a bit hard to believe. Still, it is worth seeing.
Ambulance (2022)
Tense and at times riveting...but not much in the way of plot or complexity.
There's only one reason I decided to watch "Ambulance"...it stars Jake Gyllenhaal. He is a most unusual actor because he's taken on so many unconventional and unusual roles. I specifically look for his films as they debut. However, in the case of this film, his role seemed very generic...a role nearly any other actor could have done about as well.
Danny (Gyllenhaal) is a career bank robber...one of the best in the business. His adopted brother, Will (Yahya Abdul-Mateen II) has been living life on the straight and narrow and has had no interest in crime. But when Will finds he needs money for cancer treatment and doesn't have it, he goes to Will and agrees to do one job. But the 'job' ends up falling apart and soon the entire Los Angeles police department seem to be on their tail...in an ambulance with an injured cop and an EMT.
There isn't any sort of plot to the film other than the robbery and the getaway. As a result, it's hard to feel emotionally invested in Danny or Will...though the film seems to try hard to get you to care about Will and his personal problems. Considering how many folks get killed in the robbery, I had a hard time with this and just wanted to see all the baddies caught. I also have a rather low tolerance for action films with nothing but action and police cars that roll over and explode with the slightest provocation. It just seemed pretty mindless after a while. Additionally, the rapid edits and overlong ending didn't help matters any.
For some, they will probably enjoy the film. I didn't...but I really am a bad choice to see this sort of movie...I just don't like this sort of thing. I want a film with depth and multidimensional characters. I also was disappointed because the film didn't seem like a good showcase for Gyllenhaal's extensive talents. Not terrible but a film I have no interest in seeing again nor can I really recommend it. In many ways, pretty much what you expect from director Michael Bay....action, action and more action...but little else.
City Slickers (1991)
Enjoyable and with a bit more depth than I expected.
Mitch (Billy Crystal) and his two friends, Phil and Ed (Daniel Stern and Bruno Kirby) are approaching 40 and each, in their own way, are struggling with mid-life crises. Ed is a bit of a nut...and enjoys doing weird and dangerous things on vacation and he and Phil decide to surprise Mitch. The surprise? The three of them are going to spend their vacations on a ranch doing a real cattle drive...and it's not some dude ranch. Through the course of the drive, the three learn to deal with mid-life and make course corrections in order to make the most of the time they have left.
While Jack Palance dominates the portion of the film he's in, despite receiving a Best Supporting Actor Oscar, he's really not in the film all that long. I say this because you might expect it to be a Jack Palance film...but it's really more about the three friends and their struggles with masculity and age.
While the film is a comedy and is supposedly on a list of best comedies, I think the comedic portions are less than the serious parts. In other words, if you're looking for a rollicking comedy, this isn't it...though I am not complaining at all about this. It's enjoyable and has a bit more depth than I expected...and it's well worth seeing.
Escape to Burma (1955)
It's just okay...and with these stars it should have been better.
"Escape to Burma" stars Barbara Stanwyck and Robert Ryan...but exceptional actors. Sadly, however, the material is just okay...and the setting really didn't work.
The story is, naturally, set in Burma (nowadays, called Myanmar). The prince has died and his father is livid and swears to kill the person responsible. Soon after this, Jim (Ryan) arrives at a plantation owned by Gwen (Stanwyck) and she almost immediately seems smitten by him. He's also very helpful and she soon makes him her new foreman. However, soon a government official shows up...announcing that Jim is wanted for the Prince's murder. Jim, of course, insists he didn't do it and Gwen helps him escape. What's next? See the film.
The story is okay. But the big reason I wasn't thrilled with the movie is that all the 'Burmese' people look about as Burmese as Keye Luke or Mantan Moreland! Most of them were just extras with body paint to make them look 'exotic'! Additionally, little detail was given to the little things...such as a chimp (an African animal) and other non-Asian animals. Overall, a film that seems to have a very naive view of Burma, an okay script and very good acting.
Hour of the Gun (1967)
If you have to watch one story about the OK Corral, this one is better than most.
The infamous gunfight in Arizona involving Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday is a hugely popular topic in films...with movies like "My Darling Clementine" and "Gunfight at the OK Corral". "Hour of the Gun" is yet another film about this minor and relatively unimportant event in US history.
There have been MANY versions of this story in film and television...even including an episode of the original "Star Trek"! Most play very fast and loose with the facts and are much more fiction than history. While "Hour of the Gun" takes several liberties, it actually sticks close to the facts compared to the bigger budgeted and more famous "My Darling Clementine", "Gunfight at the OK Corral" and "Tombstone". This means, if you want to see the story, this is as good a version as you'll find. Additionally, James Garner and Jason Robards (Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday respectively) do a very nice job in the film...with Garner giving an characteristically laconic but impressive performance. Worth seeing...but a story, like the others, that exaggerates the importance of the events in the story. It mostly became famous because Wyatt Earp lived a long time after these events and he was VERY quick to promote the story and his heroics.
McBain (1991)
Christopher Walken taking on a role which you'd expect Stallone or Norris to have taken instead.
According to IMDB, Christopher Walken is an actor who would never turn down any role. While normally you couldn't tell this from the movies he's made, here with "McBain" you can see that he certainly wasn't choosy! Plus, the story is VERY much unlike his other work.
The film beings on the day the war in Vietnam ended. Despite this, some evil North Vietnamese are taking delight murdering American prisoners...and McBain is among them. Soon a helicopter filled with angry American soldiers arrive adn destroy the camp...rescuing the prisoners in the process. This is VERY reminiscent of films such as Chuck Norris' "Missing in Action" and Sylvester Stallone's "Rambo: First Blood". However, this is only a small portion of the film...to show you how McBain met up with a group of soldiers who would later join up with him on a new assignment...one done without any government sanction.
Many years later, one of the men who rescued McBain is on TV. Apparently he was behind an attempt to topple the dictator of Colombia...a dictator who is rich from drugs and evil. Now this attempt is the lamest imaginable and how it all ended prematurely is amazingly poorly written. Suffice to say, the revolutionary is killed...and McBain decide to help his cause by attacking Colombia. So, something like a half dozen guys take on the Colombian miliatary....it sure sounds like a fair fight!!
What follows is what you'd expect from a ridiculous and low-budgeted action film. In other words, mostly indestructable heroes, novices who can EASILY beat a professional military and a lot fo macho histrionics from men who, mostly, look like accountants and insurance salesmen! What I enjoyed was watching all the 'Colombians' in the movie...which were, in fact, Filipinos and looked like Filipinos! Overall, a pretty limp movie. In fact, while I don't like "Rambo: First Blood" or the "Missing in Action" films, they are better and more enjoyable...and about equally mindless.
Wrath of Man (2021)
Why did H really take that job in the first place??
Guy Ritchie films are certainly NOT for everyone. His crime films are incredibly violent with tons of blood and gore. At the same time, they are also amazingly well made, clever and well worth seeing....if you can handle the gore. In other words, think twice before you decide to see "Wrath of Man", as it's typically intense and NOT a film to show kids, your mother or Father O'Malley if he drops by for a visit.
Jason Statham plays a man known as 'H' and he goes to work for a security company that runs armored trucks throughout Los Angeles. Soon after he begins his job, his armored car is attacked and instead of staying in the truck or surrendering, he goes into Rambo mode...killing all six of the assailants! Clearly he is one bad man! What makes this all the more incredible is that when he took a balistics test, his results on the firing range barely qualified him for the job...obviously he was pretending to be something other than he really is. So why would a killing machine like him look for a job with this security firm? And, what does it have to do with the opening scene where you see another armored car attacked and multiple people were murdered?
The story is told in a very non-linear fashion...sometimes you see things that have just happened, other times you see things that happened in the past. This isn't necessarily bad...but it is confusing if you don't pay attention.
So is this as good as many of Ritchie's other crime films such as "Snatch", "The Gentlemen" or "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels"? No...but it is still very good and well worth seeing. Well made and never dull.