Reviews

The Hunt for Red October is a full time thriller and part-time action movie, submarine movie, diplomatic, military and spy movie. Whatever the genre, it is one of the best of its kind. The big cast is outstanding, and not just Connery and Baldwin, although both were at the top of their games. It has a very intricate plot, but just clear enough so that we follow perfectly and find ourselves deep into each new twist and turn. The film is refreshingly free of stereotypes and has lots of intelligent dialogue. We are rooting for Baldwin's Jack Ryan and rooting for Sean Connery's Remius, and wiahing that such events were real.

This is a sweet romantic comedy with not a hint of cynicism or winkimg at the camera. As such it is a refreshing film to watch, a relaxing voyage to the 1960s with two marvellous tour guides, a coy Audrey Hepburn and a suave, under-playing Peter O'Toole. They are delightful together, and the plot provides enough suspense to keep us interested in the story even if we are really only interested in their relationship. I think it would be impossible to make a bad movie when you combine William Wyler, Harry Kunitz, John Williams, Audrey Hepburn, Peter O'Toole, Eli Wallach, Hugh Griffith, Charles Boyer, Jacques Marin, Moustache, Givenchy, fabulous art and ... Paris.

I saw the Director's Cut, and did not see the theatrical release, so I can't compare them. Based on what I've read, there are many differences between the two. Anyway, there is a lot to like about the film, but in the end I think it is too sadistic, too much a fantasy and seemingly only with wanton violence as the point. Gibson is chewing up the screen, surrounded by and playing off of great character actors. Chicago is both gritty and glamorous and is a great backdrop. The pace is great, the action riveting even when unbelievable, and the story is complex and creative. The taxi ambush scene is particularly unbelievable. The writer and director didn't get Lucy Liu's character right; is she meant to be funny ?

The premise and story are interesting and worthwhile, the cast is excellent, Kirk Douglas is at the height of his craft, and the atmospherics of 1962 New Mexico really seep in. Lonely are the Brave tells the story of a cowboy loner who does not have a place in the West anymore. It should be seen as the second of a twin bill with The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, made the same year and an even better film. That one tells the story of how the West matured and evolved, with the John Wayne rancher-cowboy character, representing everything that is good and great about the settlers, inevitably making way for the new breed of citizens exemplified by Jimmy Stewart. This film fast forwards by 50 years and shows that this cowboy "type" is now truly extinct, without any place, physically or socially, in the modern world.

There are many Bond films that are, in the end, forgettable and even not that enjoyable for a first watching. These fall mostly into the exaggerated and cartoonish category. Of the ones that rise to the top of the list, each have their own strengths and weaknesses, even if the best Bond film is merely a good film in the cinematic panorama. All that said, I think that OHMSS might be my favorite. George Lazenby is a very good, convincing Bond. Diana Rigg is THE best Bond girl ever, in a part that has lots of interesting aspects compared with most other Bond girls, at least the non-villains. And Telly Savalas, Ilse Steppat and Gabriele Ferzetti are fine actors. It's got great location shots, a fine story, and a very human Bond, surprisingly, in a genuine love story. And finally, I liked the pace. It wasn't until after I watched it again and read reviews that I became aware of the frequent criticisms of its pace. I liked it a lot. And, I almost forgot - great music, too.

Somehow this film eluded me for a lifetime, but I am very pleased by the surprise discovery. It's both a melodrama and a thriller with excellent performances by Ingrid Thulin, Maximilian Schell and Samantha Eggar. She plays a pouty, annoying young woman in a smaller but crucial role, and her combination of sensuality and dis-likeability was important for the plot. Speaking of that, the film has an intricate story that is well worth following closely, as we are drawn in to their exaggerated lives (the melodrama part), sometimes straining credulity but never going over the top, towards deceit and malevolence (the thriller part). The viewer does need to completely forget that this is supposed to be set in the immediate post-war period, because EVERYTHING about the film - music, costumes, hairdos, decor - reeks of the mid-69s when ut was made.

I have seen Foreign Correspondent many times, but I never grow tired of it; the film feels fresh each time. It has the perfect blend: a great story, an outstanding cast, witty dialogue, and the genius of Hitchcock's pacing and cinematography. Regarding the cast, Joel McCrea is a great Hitchcockian hero, George Sanders equally good, and the ensemble of supporting and character actors as good as it gets. I notice lots of criticism for Laraine Day as being bland. That may be true of her other films, but I think she was cast perfectly here. She is playing someone of her own age -19 when they filmed - and it would not have been appropriate or believable to have her act like an older woman, or a typical witty Hitchcockian lead actress, and even less so as a femme fatale. The film ends on a raucous note of patriotic emotion, which is completely believable and justifiable for the time. It would not surprise me that this film helped rally citizens to the Allied cause.

Robert Wise and his writers packed a tremendous amount into 96 minutes. They drew complex and detailed characterizations of all three protagonists through extensive scenes and backstories. In the guise of a tense crime thriller, they told these three life stories and presented a morality play with racism as one character's tragic flaw. The movie is as bleak and gritty as its two backdrops, filmed in black & white in a wintry New York City and a small industrial city upstate on the Hudson. It has that Naked City / Asphalt Jungle vibe that was common in the 50s and 60s, and the edgy musical score reinforced the bleakness of the city and of the protagonists' lives. Belafonte. Ryan and Begley were great, and Shelley Winters and Gloria Grahame were also very effective in smaller roles. I'm sorry to see Robert Ryan cast again as a violent, troubled racist, but he plays that role so well that I'm sure he was always the first actor to be called when they needed that type. Wise and Belafonte - his company produced the film - made sure to show many scenes with images of Black Americans living positive and normal lives, and the nightclub scenes were among the best in the film. That said, the racial politics of the movie are predictable, although these aspects were probably ground-breaking in the late 50s when there weren't many films that showed the integrated lives so common in the big cities.

The Killer is Loose is worth seeing for a great Wendell Corey performance. He is both interesting and truly frightening as a mild-mannered criminal, convict and war veteran turned revenge seeker. But every time he is off screen the movie flags badly. It has several other good points, namely a very solid supporting cast, a nice 50s LA vibe, and a very short running time. They packed a lot of action into 73 minutes, and I wish contemporary directors could learn that skill !

But the weaknesses here really hurt the final product. The plot had all the makings of a fine film, but at key turning points, especially in the second half, some of the story line got unbelievable, especially around Rhonda Fleming's character and Jospeh Cotten's. Fleming was clearly chosen for her beauty and physique, but her acting here was truly terrible. And I was perplexed and disappointed by the normally great Joseph Cotten's performance. Was he ill when he made this film ? He over-acted in most scenes, and didn't seem comfortable or confident.

Arthur Ripley's The Chse is a strange and enjoyable film. The first thing of note is that, like many films of its time, it is economical; it takes us on a great ride in only 86 minutes ! Next is the cast. Robert Cummings, so great in Hitchcock's Saboteur and Dial M for Murder, is also great here. Michèle Morgon is excellent playing a very beautiful woman who is a prisoner in her own home; she radiates fear and vulnerability without a word. And real kudos go to Steve Cochran. He is outstanding as a gangster who transmits danger and menace every time he's on screen. Peter Lorre rounds out the cast and provides great color, as usual. Finally, the story - it is part melodrama and part thriller, and moves fast. I enjoyed it a lot, including the dream sequence, which is controversial among film buffs. Just remember - it's 1946 and lots of veterans have PTSD.

There were many anti-Nazi films made in the late 30s and early 40s, and they varied greatly from rah rah propaganda pieces to more subtle "message films" and even to some comedies, or more precisely satiric mockeries of Hitler and his followers. In the latter category, Lubitsch's To Be or Not to Be and Chaplin's The Great Dictator stand out. The Lubitsch film goes to great lengths to develop multiple characters and plot lines, so that we feel we re watching their stories, and they just so happen to be occurring in the backdrop of the German invasion of Poland. As the movie progresses, the anti-Nazi focus increases, but the film never abandons its characters and their stories for political purposes. Jack Benny is great as the protagonist, but it is Carole Lombard whose sweet, impish guile elevates the proceedings to a higher level. The ensemble cast is GREAT.

Bruce Bereford's Double Jeopardy is an enjoyable and engrossing film mostly because Ashley Judd and Tommy Lee Jones make their characters so compelling and interesting that we don't have time to think much about the big plot contrivances that propel the movie forward. And Bruce Greenwood's oily, sleazy villain is also very well done. Beresford's direction and the editing keep it fast paced, and the stunning locations are a mini-travelogue.

One more note: I was very annoyed with the trailer for this film, which revealed every aspect of the story. It says something - About me ? About the trailer ? - that I decided to watch it anyway, but it does seem very heavy-handed of the studio that their trailer bludgeons rather than entices us.

A silk purse from a sow's ear, indeed.

Danny Boyle's 1997 A Life Less Ordinary has a great romantic comedy premise, a great cast, and a sweet, whimsical, humane tone throughout. Too bad that the film is really hurt by its contorted and clumsy story, and by an unsure approach to the plot details that careen manically from romantic comedy to slapstick to fantasy. There are also plot complications that dull the proceedings and put us through some tedious moments. Boyle should have trusted his audience a bit more.

Cameron Diaz was made for this part, Ewan MacGregor is superb, and the supporting cast sublime. It is objectively not a great film, but its gentle, sweet nature made me glad that I watched it.

I wanted very much to like Blithe Spirit, because of Noel Coward, David Lean and Rex Harrison. But the film has not aged well, in my view, and if you expect either outright comedy or a romantic comedy, you will be disappointed and probably should not bother watching. On the other hand, if you think of it as a story which uses the unlikely combination of marriage, death and a psychic medium to bring a bit of frivolity and whimsy to the world, then this might work for you. In that sense it is a two hour fantasy. The dialogue is mostly clever and sharp, befitting Coward (but not at his best) and most of the scenes are understandably theatrical set pieces.

There are three main things to know about 1964's Woman of Straw. First, it's worth watching at the very least to see three fine performances from Gina Lollobrigida, Sean Connery and Ralph Richardson. Second, the film's first half is slow, a bit of an obvious melodrama, but it gets much better. And third, the on-location shooting and sumptuous set decor make it a pleasing film to watch. It's an implausible but fascinating story, and quite edgy for 1964. So, it's a good film, worth seeing, but there are a few things that keep it from greatness, notably, as mentioned, that the first half is slightly tedious and that Richardson's character is drawn too harshly, too much an extreme caricature.

Henri-Georges Clouzot's Manon deserves a 10+ for its breathtaking ambition, and only a slightly lower rating for the film overall. Clouzot had made the magnificent Quai des Orfevres as his first post-war movie, right after his release from a multi-year ban from filmmaking due to accusations of Nazi collaboration. Clouzot chose to base his second film on the 1731 novel Manon Lescaut, one of France's most well-known, important, and enduring literary works, never out of print, and the subject of several previous films and many operas, the most famous being by Puccini. It's an epic melodrama, the story of a young nobleman, Robert, who loses everything, several times over, for his passionate love of Manon, a young woman with a taste for the high life and an ability to manipulate nearly every man she meets. While the original story took place in France and Louisiana, Clouzot transposes it to the very rough world of contemporary postwar France and Palestine, making the story immediately relevant to everyone when shown in theaters.

In addition to giving Manon all the attributes from the original novel - beauty, guile, passion, a lust for wealth and security, and an intense sexuality - he also has her accused of collaboration with the Germans, as he himself had been. And when Robert rescues Manon from the rough "justice" meted out by locals to collaborators, they have no choice but to run away. At first, they struggle on the fringes of the Paris underworld, but when the temptations of prostitution win over Manon, Robert rebels. Manon ultimately does as well, choosing her love for Robert over an easy life, and this leads them eventually to become stowaways with Holocaust survivors, Jews being taken clandestinely to Palestine and their new home in Israel.

Clouzot chose two debutants as his stars, and they delivered great performances. Michel Auclair is Robert, strong and determined, but completely overcome by his passion for Manon. Cecile Aubry is Manon, a wisp of a very young woman, and she is equally believable as a vixen and as a doomed lover. Serge Reggiani is outstanding in a smaller role, as her brother. He acts as the film's moral compass in reverse. The film's dialogue and scenes are bold, provocative, unsettling for the time.

The cinematography is excellent and there are many moving, evocative shots throughout the film, both interiors and exteriors. And the final, audacious, melodramatic scene reproduces one of France's most famous paintings to be inspired by the novel.

Throughout the film Clouzot seems to be telling us that the world is a dirty, rough, unforgiving place, where good and evil do not exist in black and white, where compromise can keep you alive but tragedy looms for those who love too intensely.

I wasn't surprised that a David Mamet film would have clever wordplay, funny scenes and well-defined characters, but I was pleasantly surprised that State and Main provided such a sweet portrait of its characters. This was as true for the Hollywood crew as for the rural Vermonters. The film's low-key, sweet romance just reinforced this feeling of an expansive, kind and gentle David Mamet. The entire cast was great. Philip Seymour Hoffman was exceptional as a sensitive, bumbling writer, Rebecca Pidgeon was great as his kind, observant and energetic love interest and eventual muse; William H. Macy was outstanding as the movie director and navigator through the chaos, and Julia Stiles was completely convincing as an under-age vixen who is more than a match for Alec Baldwin's Lothario. Sarah Jessica Parker also convinces as a hysterical, vulnerable diva, as does Clark Gregg as a zealous local attorney.

1961's Cash on Demand is a joy. The story is very clever, in the great tradition of British crime novels and short stories. The setting is perfect for the story, it's the interior of a drab bank on a high street in a rural English town. At first this set reinforces the ordinariness of the situation, but over the course of the film this theatre-like set helps to sustain the tension, it has a claustrophobic quality that is the physical manifestation of the dire straits in which Peter Cushing's character finds himself. And finally we come to the most important ingredient of all, the acting. Peter Cushing is wonderful and André Morrell outstanding as the key players.

How much do I love thee ? Let me count the ways. There is famous chemistry and repartee - verbal and physical - between Clark Gable and Claudette Colbert in It Happened One Night, and that's the most important thing to know about the film. There is also a MacGuffin (Colbert herself), a voyage with lots of real-world complications, recurrent social commentary, excellent cinematography, playful erotic moments, and an audience that is rooting for the two protagonists from the opening credits. We are enjoying the comedy and the slapstick, but we also feel the tension of their trip and the tension between them. It's a gem.

The Odessa file is a fine and worthwhile thriller, and a great way to learn about a disturbing post-WW2 reality, the survival and activities of former Nazis. Even if it is embellished by the novelist Frederick Forsyth, it's very thought provoking. Jon Voigt is excellent, as is Maximillian Schell in a much smaller role. The outdoor location shots give a great feel for that era. The weaknesses here are straightforward: we are supposed to believe that Voigt can impersonate a man 20 or more years his senior and infiltrate an underground network, and then also defeat a professional killer in hand to hand combat. If you accept these two things, it's well worth watching.

Umberto Eco and Jean-Jacques Anaud have brought us a magnificent film about the European Middle Ages, although the "Dark Ages" may be more a appropriate moniker. This was a time when religious monasteries were the guardians of the world's knowledge, before the first universities, and also a time of religious repression and the Inquisition. This tension between openness and repression, beween a hunger for knowledge and a fear of it, between monks who rescue works of science and culture and priests who try to repress them, is the context in which a complex detective story, with religious overtones, plays out. The sets are fabulous, completely evocative of that difficult and primitive time. The acting is likewise, and I think that this is Sean Connery's finest film. The film demands our complete attention, including to the dialogue, so "active watching" is the key to understanding and enjoying this movie.

Conspiracy is almost like a filmed stage play, and I say that in the most positive way possible. The film aspects are great at setting the place, a place of natural and architectural beauty with servants and fine food in abundance in the middle of a terrible war, and the4 contrast with the subjects to be discussed could not be more clear. But the rest of the film is like a close-up, with great sound, of a top theater piece. It's all about the language, the facial expressions, the nuance and the staging. It reminds me of the original 12 Angry Men in its power and the focus on the debate and discussion. It rings completely true in its portrayal of the prejudice and cold blooded approach of the Nazi murderers, and the bullying nature of their leaders. Fine, fine acting all around.

1983's Never Say Never Again is, famously, the unofficial remake of Thunderball and Sean Connery's return to Bond. I remember seeing the film in theatres and liking, but not loving, it at the time. I was happy to have Connery back, and I liked the playful aspects of the script. Seeing it again was a disappointment, as the film's weaknesses overcome its strengths. Sean Connery does well, he's likeable and convincing. The playfulness still works, in the sexual innuendos, the gentle mocking of M, and through Barbara Carrera's flamboyant, larger-than-life villain. Klaus Maria Brandauer portrays the evil genius with flair and style, but not as a cartoon, and he is outstanding. Carrera's character is a cartoon, but we know it and she really pulls it off. The location shots are great, as we expect from a Bond film, too. The film's first half is good and promising, but it really deflates after that, losing tension, getting workmanlike and campy. The preposterous dance scene really changes the tone of the film, and it never recovers. Kim Basinger is weak. Michel Legrand's music is very nice, and Lani Hall's version of his song Never Say Never Again is the best lasting memory of this film alongside Brandauer and Carrera.

William Wyler and Greg Tolland made an outstanding film with Lillian Hellman's outstanding story. I had never seen this film before, nor the play The Children's Hour, nor the film remake in the 1960s. So I was shocked and saddened by the events depicted. But after seeing the movie I remembered real-life events similar to what is portrayed here, so I know that even though this is fiction such tragic things do occur in real life, and this could easily have been inspired by real events. The entire cast is great. Special recognition justifiably goes to Bonita Granville for a powerful performance. Merle Oberon was particularly good in the first half of the film, and Miriam Hopkins especially good in the second half.

Bille August's sumptuous production of Karen Blixen's novel is a joy for the eyes. It has fabulous on-location sets, beautiful countryside, CGI-enhanced mountain backdrops, and great costumes. It is filled with sweet, gentle, wry humor. It's a period-piece romantc comedy that Jane Austen lovers will also like very much. The cast did a fine job, with the three leads delivering convincing and (mostly) subtle performances that fit the tomne and mood of the story. All that said, it was a also a bit flat at times, and a bit overplayed, so a touch disappointing as well. Will there be a sequel ? It would be fun to see one !