classic | celluloid

Strangers on a Train (1951)

2008-07-08T12:12:00.000-07:00

It begins with the shriek of a train and ends with shrieking excitement!

Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock
Written by: Patricia Highsmith (novel), Whitfield Cook (adaptation), Czenzi Ormonde, Raymond Chandler (screenplay)
Starring: Robert Walker as Bruno Anthony, Farley Granger as Guy Haines, Ruth Roman as Anne Morton, Patricia Hitchcock as Barbara Morton, Kasey Rogers as Miriam Haines, Robert Gist as Hennessey, and Leo G. Carroll as Senator Morton

I've heard many things about this film - that it was a hack, that it was Hitchcock's best film, that it was/wasn't worth my time. But I figure anything Hitchcock did is worth two hours at least if I'm going to watch a film.

Right off the get go, I was impressed with the cinematography...as usual. Hitchcock always does a great job using shots of seemingly innocuous things to add depth to both his characters and his storyline. You see that really, Guy and Bruno are similar - although one is a psychopath. Bruno initially appears to be just a bit annoying, eccentric or an odd fan. It isn't until we see him home with his family that realize there's more than just the usual wrong with the man.

The one thing I particularly enjoyed about this film is the way Hitchcock doesn't allow Miriam to be as much as a victim as many other movies do. She is disgusting in nearly every way - an unfaithful wife, a blackmailer, a vicious woman - and I don't claim this merits being killed but it makes it a bit easier when she dies. Barbara ends up playing the victim half of Miriam's character, another part of Hitchcock's genius. Every character has their perfect little niche in the story, even if they aren't involved in blackmail or murder.

I cannot praise enough the slow build of suspense that flows in this movie. There are several minor climaxes up until the end of the movie which explodes. Bruno is exceptionally creepy and Guy is wonderfully paranoid - with Barbara and Anne flitting around on the sidelines adding a sense of urgency to the story. They're in danger, therefore must be protected. Hitchcock uses music and silence, light and dark, spectacular shots with the camera, and strange plot twists to run this movie exactly as a train. It starts out shudderingly, novel, and full of promises. It speeds up until it reaches its destination, where it (unlike a train, hopefully) ends with a cataclysmic showdown between good and evil. How about five pairs of glasses out of five (5/5)?

The Pajama Game (1957)

2008-06-03T15:17:00.000-07:00

Based on the hit Broadway musical, featuring the choreography of Bob Fosse.

Directed by: George Abbot, Stanley Donen
Written by: George Abbot, Richard Bissell
Starring: Doris Day as Babe Williams, John Raitt as Sid Sorokin, Carol Haney as Gladys Hotchkiss, Eddie Foy Jr. as Hinesie, and Reta Shaw as Mabel

I stuck this film on my Netflix list because it was performed by my high school during my senior year. That year I had done full time Running Start (college courses for both high school and college credit) and many of my friends were cast in the play but I had no time to go and see it. My mother did, however, and said she was disgusted with the entire thing.

I wasn't too worried, considering the film starred Doris Day - whom I love as an actress and singer. When I read the premise of the plot on the Netflix envelope, I got a little apprehensive, and by the time the first few songs had played through, I was disgusted as well. I never thought I'd ever see Doris Day singing and wish she would just be quiet. Seriously. Not that she wasn't talented enough for the role, but the entire plot was so patched together I wasn't exactly sure what was the point of the movie until it congealed into something slightly recognizable as linear halfway through the movie.

The songs were a little odd in movie format, I definitely recognized them as being originally intended for the stage. And while Ms. Day is certainly talented, her voice lacked the shine it usually takes on - she seemed nearly to be forcing the music out. The man who played opposite her was wooden on the screen and when showing emotion, came across as either the complete tough guy or the moonswooning teen.

The one brilliant spot in this film was the character of Gladys. She was the center of the comedy, her songs were the high point and she should have gotten billed as the top actress instead of Doris Day since she kept the movie from being a complete humiliation of what I'm assuming was a great play. I'll give it two pairs of pajamas out of a possible five (2/5).

Speed Racer (2008)

2008-05-24T20:46:00.000-07:00

“Go Speed go!”

Directed by: Andy and Larry Wachowski
Written by: Andy and Larry Wachowski
Produced by: Joel Silver, Grant Hill, Andy Wachowski, Larry Wachowski
Cinematography by: David Tattersall
Starring: Emile Hirsch, John Goodman, Christina Ricci, Susan Sarandon, Matthew Fox
Music by: Michael Giacchino

So. Speed Racer. Hated by critics, dismissed at the box office. It's easy to understand why - this is a film that's like nothing that's ever come before it. It's a family film, a ground breaking special effects extravaganza, and a treatise on self purpose, strength of character, the value of family, and the importance of doing what you're "meant" to do.

If it sounds confusing, you're not far off - but I have a theory about this, and the theory is this: this, my friends, is the next wave of film. Look at all other forms of art - they have different periods, different styles throughout the years. Different techniques are adapted, new styles used to bring about new messages and ideas, and bold new changes that tell you this is new. This is different. And, interestingly enough, the first thing that often welcomes a brand new style is dismissal and outright disgust from the critics.

Speed Racer plays with color, sounds, movement, philosophy, and story structure in such unheard of ways that it's entirely too easy to dismiss it - this is a far cry from the intricately structured and subtext laden Matrix trilogy. In fact, here the Wachowski brothers have gone the exact opposite route - instead of wanting you to examine every last minutia of the film, they want you to accept everything at surface value. By cutting across time lines and tying together thematically - and tonally - disparate storylines they're able to create moods and ideas that startingly come to life when you're not even looking for them. Confused?

Think of the paint on (or in) a house - one color brings about it's own feelings and moods. Pair it with another color - which also has it's own feeling and mood - and the two create an entirely new experience.

This is what the Wachowskis are doing with Speed Racer. They're taking radically different elements and blending them together for an altogether new experience. It's visually, aurally, and intellectually stimulating - and awesome. This isn't the first film to do this - The Fountain did it (marvelously) a year and a half ago , and it, too, was dismissed by many. And, like The Fountain, Speed Racer's ending involves an impressive crescendo that draws upon every moment in the film up till then, and culminates in a moment where the film very nearly transcends the medium. I kid you not.

Of course, Speed Racer is also just a fun family movie. As technically impressive and emotionally uplifting it is, it won't change your life. And yes, I could be full of crap - after all, I'm no "true" critic, I'm just a guy that writes stuff.

But I'm convinced that I'm right. This truly is the next "wave" of film, and it's absolutely thrilling to be able to see it happen.

And yes, Speed Racer isn't prefect. It has it's faults. (It's a bit too long, for one thing.) But it's oh-so worth it. It takes a while to get used to it, but when you do, prepare yourself - Speed Racer is an utter and complete blast.

"Go Speed go!" indeed.

The Fountain (2006)

2007-06-26T11:13:00.000-07:00

“What if you could live forever?”

Directed by: Darren Aronofsky
Written by: Darren Aronofsky
Produced by: Arnon Milchan, Iain Smith, Eric Watson, and Nick Wechsler
Cinematography by: Matthew Libatique
Starring: Hugh Jackman as Tomas / Tommy / Dr. Tom Creo, Rachel Weisz as Queen Isabel / Izzi Creo, and Ellen Burstyn as Dr. Lillian Guzetti
Music by: Clint Mansell

“All right, I trust you. Take me. Show me.“

Both beloved and reviled by critics, “The Fountain” was on my “must see” list of films for 2006. It was in-and-out of theaters so quickly, I had to wait for DVD. A few weeks ago, I was able to watch it. And then I waited, just to be sure I could say what needed to be said about it without being utterly overwhelmed by what I had just seen.

It’s a few weeks later, now, and I can say this with full confidence – “The Fountain” is one of the most beautiful films I have ever seen. That sounds like I’m reaching for a compliment, here, but I truly mean it – the film is visually, thematically, and artistically gorgeous. Darren Aranofsky, Rachel Weisz, and Hugh Jackman should all be commended, along with the cinematographer and art designers.

The plot, as it were, is rather difficult to explain, but I’ll give it a shot. In the year 2005, Dr Tom Creo is working frantically to find a way to save his wife, who’s dying of brain cancer. There’s a promising new sample, taken from a mysterious tree in South America that just might be the answer that he needs. (It is, but not in the way he expects.)

His wife is finishing a novel that she’s been working on for quite some time. She has one chapter left. It’s about a conquistador that is sent by the Queen of Spain to find the tree of life – which is, incidentally, the second story. The third story is most likely the story of Tom in the far future, traveling with the afore-mentioned tree in a biosphere heading towards a mysterious constellation.

Three stories – the text (the historical Spain story), the literal (the 2005 story), and the symbolic. Past, present, and future. Birth, life, death.

The promotional tagline for this film was “What if you could live forever?”, which you would think would be a good thing. Living forever, that is. However, that tagline is nothing more than a misdirect of astonishing proportions, because this film? Is all about death. Running from it, fighting it, accepting it, and …loving it? In fact, the best description of this film that I’ve heard is that it’s a “love letter to death.” And it’s true. Thematically, it’s not all that far away from one of my *other* favorite films from 2006, “A Prairie Home Companion,” and while both come to a similar conclusion (namely, that death really isn’t all that bad – it’s both beautiful and necessary), “The Fountain” approaches it with imagery, symbolism, and thematic synergy firmly in hand, while “A Prairie Home Companion” relies almost solely on lyricism. This is, of course, a result of each film’s respective creative team – of course Aronofsky (Pi, Requiem for a Dream) is going to utilize an astonishingly beautiful palate of visuals, performance, and score – that’s one of his calling cards that establish him as one of the finest directors in the US.

The film has been criticized for its lack of “answers” – it never exactly or literally ties the three storylines together, but that doesn’t really matter. Each story is the exact same story, told in a slightly different way. Symbolism – in the text (dialogue), in the visuals, and in the art design (look for the shape themes sprinkled throughout the film – triangles for the Spain storyline, rectangles for the current day storyline, and spheres and circles for the “future” storyline). By doing this, by telling the same story in three different periods (and in three different ways) Aronofsky is saying, “Look – this isn’t just something I believe, it’s something I discovered, and now I’m showing you, too.” Death has been the same for thousands of years, and it isn’t going to change. By seeking to live forever, we’re simply prolonging the inevitable – we are going to die. And that’s a beautiful thing, especially for those that are Christians.

Oh yeah. The spiritual side of this thing. “The Fountain” is packed to the brim with religious imagery, beliefs, and symbolism. Aronofsky draws mainly from three – Mayan beliefs, Buddhism, and Christianity – but he never makes a single one “the point” of his film. Rather, he draws common truths from all of them. This isn’t as bad as it sounds – after all, much of Proverbs was taken from ancient Egyptian writings and other ancient mysticisms. And the idea of death as a final gateway that is to be approached with joy is certainly an idea that Christians should be familiar with. (How many times does Paul exhort Christian’s to “run the race with endurance?” And how does a runner approach the finish line? With an all-out sprint.)

I’m digging way too deep for a simple review. I’ll wrap it up. Kudos have to be given to Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz – Hugh Jackman shows a range that you’d never expect from him, and Weisz is the foundation that this film rests on. (Also – Aronofsky is a brave man, casting his then-pregnant fiancee as a dying cancer patient in a film about the beauty of death.)

Yeah, I’m gushing. I loved this film, and the only reason I’m not deconstructing each little piece of it for you here is that I don’t want to risk taking away any of the beauty of the film for those that have yet to see it.

“Death is the road to awe” indeed. Five Trees of Life out of five. (5/5)

The Ladykillers (1955)

2007-06-14T21:42:00.000-07:00

Meet the "Unholy Five"...The Most Befuddled Set of Assorted Thugs That Ever Fouled Up a Million Dollar Bank Robbery!

Directed by: Alexander MacKendrick
Written by: William Rose
Produced by: Seth Holt, Michael Balcon
Starring: Alec Guinness as Professor Marcus, Katie Johnson as Mrs. Wilberforce/Lopside, Cecil Parker as Major Courtney/Claude, Herbert Lom as Mr. Harvey/Louis, Peter Sellers as Mr. Robinson/Harry, and Danny Green as Mr. Lawson/One-Round
Music by: Tristram Cary

This is another Guinness film which fits in the realm of "darkly comedic and slightly disturbing." Guinness once again plays a criminal, however this time a bit more psychotic than in "Lavender Hill." Professor Marcus is a startlingly odd looking man who has a knack for well-planned robberies. This one requires him to lodge with an old, rather befuddled, woman named Mrs. Wilberforce. When his cronies show up, they tell Mrs. Wilberforce (whom they call Lopside behind her back) they are musicians who need somewhere quiet to practice. Everything goes along smoothly until old Lopside figures out what the men are really up to and threatens to go to the police. The men scramble to find one of them willing to kill her and dispose of the body in the convenient cargo trains that pass behind her house every few minutes. With Lopside having no idea what's going on, but struggling with her own fears of being considered a criminal and her attempts to guard the stolen "jolly."

This movie will have you laughing and silently wondering if you SHOULD be laughing. There is a lot of violence done in a humorous manner, although true to Brit form, none of the deaths occur onscreen. Professor Marcus' minions got the most laughs out of me with their distinct methods of screwing things up in one way or another. I appreciate that the film makers let us see the entirety of the Professor's plan before they were snagged by Lopside and things began to go awry. There wasn't just one type of comedy - there were puns, physical comedy, sound effects added to bring laughs, one-liners, you name it.

The two characters I did not like were Professor Marcus and Mrs. Wilberforce - which was kind of frustrating considering they were the two main characters. Mrs. Wilberforce was frustratingly stereotypical but not because she wasn't creatively written. Instead, her character swung back and forth between the easily cowed and confused elderly woman and the brusque no-nonsense old biddy. And usually there was no distinction as to what made her act the way she did. And Guinness as Marcus just creeped me the heck out. No more no less. Creepy man.

I enjoyed some of the other dark comedies in this series much more, especially considering the twist at the end of this one (all the ones in this series have a twist) was enormously frustrating. This original version of the Ladykillers gets three passing coal trains out of a possible five (3/5).

Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House (1948)

2007-06-07T22:01:00.000-07:00

Directed by: H.C. Potter
Written by: Eric Hodgins (novel), Melvin Frank (screenplay), Norman Panama (screenplay)
Produced by: Melvin Frank and Norman Panama
Starring: Cary Grant as Jim Blandings, Myrna Loy as Muriel Blandings, Melvyn Douglas as Bill Cole, and Reginald Denny as Mr. Simms
Music by: Leigh Harline

This is a film based on a 40's pop hit novel - kind of like all of our "Nanny Diaries" and "Bridget Jones" today. It's been remade three times under different names - first in 1986 starring Tom Hanks in "The Money Pit," in 1993 as "The Dream House," and most recently (and most dismally) as "Are We Done Yet?" in 2007 starring Ice Cube.

It's a story most of us are familiar with. The typical American family decides they need a bigger, more prestigious house and the blundering father gets in way over his head as the expenses pile up. Nothing seems to go right and the husband regrets ever wanting to move - until the house is actually finished and miraculously paid for and then everything is lovely again. This film was a hit back in '48 when it was released and it has all the makings of a great movie. The cast is superb and the story is humorous. But for some reason, it just irked me. I tend not to care for movies in which fate seems to go completely against the protagonist no matter how much they do the right thing. One reason I can't stand "Meet the Parents." This movie wasn't quite as bad as all that, considering Blandings does make some rather stupid decisions from the get-go. He fails to consult his best friend lawyer (who seems to be his financial counsel as well) out of gusto and then jealousy - he believes his wife to be involved in an affair with the man. Which is never really confirmed or denied.

I think part of my disappointment stems from the disjointed storyline. It sails along beautifully at first, then stumbles and takes us into another crisis with the necessity of Blandings writing a jingle for WHAM ham. Then - when things begin to go wrong with the house, the jingle falls out of the picture again until the very end when it's brought up as the major problem of the movie. And then the entire thing suddenly resolves and the movie ends within a minute. With a breaking of the fourth wall which seemed so cliche and cheap that I wasn't surprised to see that the movie studio had promoted the movie by building houses just like the Blandings' all over America and either selling them or raffling them off.

Personally, I think the movie doesn't stand up as a great classic comedy as much as many of Grant and Loy's other films. The story fails to stand the test of time and is only buoyed by good acting and physical comedy. I give this film two WHAM hams out of a possible five (2/5).

All About Eve (1950)

2007-05-04T16:06:00.000-07:00

It's all about women - and their men!

Directed by: Joseph L. Mankiewicz
Written by: Joseph L. Mankiewicz, Erich Kastner (German version), Mary Orr (novel)
Produced by: Darryl F. Zanuck
Starring: Bette Davis as Margo Channing, Anne Baxter as Eve Harrington, George Sanders as Addison DeWitt, Celeste Holm as Karen Richards, Gary Merrill as Bill Sampson, Hugh Marlowe as Lloyd Richards, Gregory Ratoff as Max Fabian, Marilyn Monroe as Miss Caswell, and Thelma Ritter as Birdie Coonan
Music by: Alfred Newman

If ever there were an overlooked classic by today's generation, this is it. "All About Eve" has everything - great casting, great acting, great story, great ending. Bette Davis plays the renown but aging actress Margo Channing and Celeste Holm is her best friend, Karen. When Karen introduces the young Eve Harrington to Margo as a fan, Eve gains their trust and pity when she tells them of her hard life. She manages to weasel her way into Margo's life, eventually making a play for her career and her boyfriend. And she doesn't stop there. Armed with the biting columns of the acidic critic Addison DeWitt, Eve won't let anything or anyone get in her way as she shoots for the top.

With Bette Davis and Anne Baxter in this film's cast, you know the acting has to be superb. Davis is stunning as the elder actress trying to hold on to her career when she doesn't even know if she still wants it. And Baxter acting as an duplicitous innocent with motives upon motives is outstanding. Even though I knew from the get go what this film was about, Baxter's acting ability still caused me to have doubts as to whether or not Eve was really all that bad. In fact, all three of the leading ladies in this film were stellar. Davis as the firecracker, Baxter as the aspiring underminer, and Holm as the loyal and well-meaning friend. The male actors didn't play as large a role, with the exception of Sanders as the critic DeWitt. He also did well, and his character arc was one of the most enjoyable of the whole story.

When it comes to plot, the layers in this film are extraordinary. This isn't just the story of a mean-spirited aspiring actress. Nor is it the story of a fading star. There are themes of friendship and loyalty, love and commitment, blackmail, intrigue, suspense and suspicion. Throughout the entire film, I just kept getting more and more angry at Eve and everyone she sucked down with her - but the ending is wonderfully fitting.

And on top of all this - I can give you what the rest of the world has said about this film. It was nominated for 14 Oscars and won six - including Best Picture for 1950. The film won a Golden Globe for the screenplay, best picture at the NYFCC, and Best Film from Any Source at the BAFTAs. It has been preserved in the National Film Registry and is a part of AFI's 100 Best American Films of the 20th Century at number 16. And on Rotten Tomatoes . com, it has a 100% approval rating - something almost unheard of.

This film gets the highest recommendation. Five standing ovations out of a possible five (5/5).

The Odd Couple (1968)

2007-05-03T13:56:00.000-07:00

Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau are the Odd Couple...say no more.

Directed by: Gene Saks
Written by: Neil Simon
Produced by: Howard W. Koch
Starring: Jack Lemmon as Felix Ungar, Walter Matthau as Oscar Madison
Music by: Neal Hefti

When the neat freak Felix Ungar finds out his wife wants a divorce, he has nowhere to go. His friend, Oscar Madison, invites him to move into Oscar's 8 bedroom apartment. This seems like a great idea at first, until Oscar the slob gets fed up with Felix's cleaning obsession.

This is another example of a movie that is great, but probably not quite as great as the play it's based on. Lemmon and Matthau are one of the all-time wonderful comedy pairings, and this film shows them at their best. They work together brilliantly to bring the most humor into the situation - whether it's a poker game or a double date gone horribly awry. And the couple bring it together at the end to show us that we can learn things from someone who is our complete opposite.

Another star on this movie's lapel is the supporting cast. The Pidgeon sisters are classically adorable and annoying simultaneously. And the Poker crew were made up of the play's original cast and so obviously were fantastic - the typical guys' night bumblers.

The plot of the story moves a little slowly for my tastes. Or possibly there just wasn't quite enough movement at all. It seemed that as well as the end was brought together, it just kind of happened. But I did enjoy all the throwing of food, breaking of plates, and physical comedy.

The Odd Couple gets four burned mealoafs out of a possible five (4/5).

The Thin Man (1934)

2007-04-25T14:34:00.000-07:00

A laugh tops every thrilling moment!

Directed by: W.S. Van Dyke
Written by: Dashiell Hammett (novel), Albert Hackett (screenplay), Frances Goodrich (screenplay)
Produced by: Hunt Stromberg
Starring: William Powell as Nick Charles, Myrna Loy as Nora Charles, Maureen O'Sullivan as Dorothy Wynant, Natalie Moorehead as Julia Wolf, Edward Ellis as Wynant/The Thin Man, Porter Hall as Herbert MacCaulay, Harold Huber as Arthur Nunheim, Nat Pendleton as Lieutenant Guild, and Minna Gombell as Mimi Jorgenson
Music by: Dr. William Axt

Movies such as this just aren't made anymore. I don't care how many funny cop couplings or romantic mix ups you throw at me - you'll never match the Charles' team. Retired detective Nick Charles and his wife Nora are on vacation and trying to avoid anything more exciting than walking their dog, Asta, or the next great dry martini. But when one of Nick's old friends goes missing and people who were close to him start dying - Nora convinces Nick to jump on the case.

I know I use the word "chemistry" a lot - and for that reason I won't use it to describe what happens between Powell and Loy. Besides, it's more like electricity. The two fit together like a trenchcoat and gumshoe and the banter between them will keep you falling off your seat - while the mystery will keep you attempting to cling to the edge. I love the fact that neither of the Charles' could be considered the typical bumbling detective - no matter what you've heard. Both involve themselves in questionable capers as well as find trouble when they aren't looking for it. But it's done with such smooth and good-natured responses that it always seems like they might have planned it.

This movie (from a book) spawned an entire series of films starring Powell and Loy, and all were enormous hits. Ironically, the Thin Man mentioned in the title is the missing person in the first movie and doesn't appear in any of the following ones. But so many fans thought the Thin Man referred to Nick - that the studio kept the moniker.

I strongly encourage that you watch, if not the entire six film series, then at least this first one. There's comedy, action, alcohol, crooks, murders, the latest in 1930's forensic technology, and not to mention one of the greatest detectives of the last century. Nick and Nora get five dry martinis out of a possible five (5/5).

Ushpizin (The Guests) (2004)

2007-04-24T15:57:00.000-07:00

When you really need a miracle...

Directed by: Gidi Dar
Written by: Shuli Rand
Produced by: Gidi Dar and Rafi Bukai
Starring: Shuli Rand as Moshe, Michal Batsheva Rand as Malli, Shaul Mizrahi as Eliyahu Scorpio, and Ilan Ganani as Yossef
Music by: Adi Ran

This foreign film was nominated for three Israeli Film Academy Awards - their version of the Oscars - including Best Picture. The film is Israeli in origin, and the actors are all Jewish. The story follows Moshe and Malli Bellanga during the week of Sukkoth - a holiday where Jews construct a house made of wood and palms to live in and they pray while offering the four species: a date palm branch, a willow branch, a myrtle bough, and a citron (lemon). Moshe and Malli are broke when Moshe is denied a stipend they were depending on. They have no money to buy the things required to celebrate Sukkoth, much less survive. They both begin to pray for a miracle, including for a son. And when God begins to bless them, He also sends two visitors from Moshe's shady past which will come to seem more like trials than blessings.

I added this film to my netflix list on a whim after watching the preview. I somewhat expected a comedy - but this film is more a drama than anything else. This is not to say there aren't some very funny parts. The story itself flows evenly from despairing to joyous, painfully embarrassing to triumphant. The plot is even, and while sometimes I didn't know what was going on since I am not Jewish nor do I speak Hebrew, that didn't keep me from being encouraged by this tale of blessing and trial, faith and reward.

The acting is incredible - Shuli Rand and his real life wife Michal bring a spark to the screen together as a leading couple to be reckoned with. Moshe's friend Ben Baruch contributes a lightheartedness and the rebbe brings wisdom. There isn't just one lesson here to be learned from these characters, there are many.

Another stellar part of this film is the soundtrack. Hasidic musical artist Adi Ran's music is integrated to perfection in times of praise and trial. They bring another aspect of Hasidic life into focus for us outside of the Yeshiva. "Ushpizin" brings a wonderful chance to see a couple's prayers answered in ways only God could contrive of and the opportunity to observe an entirely different culture from the one we have here in the U.S. I highly recommend this film and award it a five diamond citrons out of a possible five (5/5).

Bye Bye Birdie (1963)

2007-04-24T09:49:00.000-07:00

Directed by: George Sidney
Written by: Michael Stewart (play), Irving Brecher (screenplay)
Starring: Dick Van Dyke as Albert F. Peterson, Janet Leigh as Rosie DeLeon, Ann-Margaret as Kim McAfee, Maureen Stapleton as Mamma Mae Peterson, Bobby Rydell as Hugo Peabody, Jesse Pearson as Conrad Birdie, and Paul Lynde as Harry McAfee
Music by: Lee Adams (Lyrics) and Charles Strouse (music)

This film is an adaptation of the Tony Award winning musical of the same name. There are significant changes from the play to the film, although Dick Van Dyke and Paul Lynde both were a part of the original stage cast.

The premise is as follows: down and out songwriter Albert F Peterson is in a tough spot. His star singer, Conrad Birdie, has just been drafted into the military, his mother runs his life, and he's too afraid of Mamma to tell her about his fiancee - Rose. In an attempt to save Albert, Rosie sets up a deal for Birdie to give out a kiss on the Ed Sullivan show to one lucky member of the Conrad Birdie Fan Club. The kiss will represent a last symbolic kiss to all his fans. Then, he can sing Albert's new song "One Last Kiss." The song will become an instant smash and Albert will be financially secure enough to break off from his mother. A name is drawn and the group sets off for Sweet Apple, Ohio to meet up with the winner - Kim McAfee. Kim, obviously, is overjoyed, but things get out of hand when rock star meets small town. Kim's boyfriend is disastrously jealous, her father is obsessed with appearing on the Ed Sullivan show alongside her, and Albert's mother shows up to break up Albert and Rosie.

One thing I can say about this movie is the majority of the musical numbers are wonderful. They're creative and humorous - my favorite is "Put On a Happy Face" - which is the only thing I had ever heard from the musical or movie before watching it. Van Dyke and Leigh have wonderful chemistry, but Van Dyke can capture that with almost anyone. Yet, I do think the filmmakers could have utilized dance choreography more than just camera tricks for a few of the songs. They did such a great job in "Happy Face" and "Honestly Sincere" but kind of fell apart in "The Telephone Hour."

Maureen Stapleton does a superb job as Mrs. Peterson - she's excellently nosy and overdramatic, overbearing and ridiculous. Janet Leigh does a wonderful job opposite Van Dyke, and although she seems to overact a little at times - she more than makes up for it with her screen presence. Paul Lynde is simply hilarious as Harry McAfee, even painfully hilarious - so awkward and well-meaning but at the same time self-serving and confused.

However, I did not enjoy Ann-Margaret in the role of Kim. She grated on me. I disliked her singing voice, speaking voice, and her acting abilities. It's beyond me to see how this role propelled her into stardom (if that's what you call acting with Elvis Presley). I also didn't particularly like Birdie or Pearson's portrayal of him. He was hardly developed at all and I think the screenwriters could have utilized his character a lot more. Granted - I don't think you were supposed to enjoy Birdie...

Overall, I didn't enjoy watching this movie; too many of the actors or characters were annoying. I think if I saw the stage production which inspired this film, I probably would have loved it. But the film was too kitschy, too campy, too...teeny bopper for me to really enjoy it. I'd give it two speedy turtles out of a possible five (2/5).

The Apartment (1960)

2007-04-12T14:33:00.000-07:00

Movie-wise, there has never been anything like "The Apartment" - love-wise, laugh-wise, or otherwise-wise!

Directed by: Billy Wilder
Written by: Billy Wilder and I.A.L Diamond
Starring: Jack Lemmon as C.C. Baxter, Shirley MacLaine as Fran Kubelik, Fred MacMurray as Jeff Sheldrake, Jack Kruschen as Dr. Dreyfuss, Ray Walston as Joe Dobisch, and Edie Adams as Miss Olsen

I could have enjoyed this movie a lot more had I not been told it was a comedy. I was stunned at the basis for the plot (esp for 1960) - C.C. Baxter - a man who lets his bosses use his apartments for their romantic trysts (despite them all being married) in exchange for putting in a good word for him at work. He finds himself more and more taken advantage of as his superiors put more pressure on him to make room for them in his schedule. And when Baxer finally gets promoted, the head man of the company realizes what's been going on and puts himself on the schedule. And to make matters worse, Supervisor Sheldrake's paramour is the woman Baxter himself is trying to pursue.

I can understand how this might be portrayed as a dramedy in today's world. But to promote it as a comedy forty years ago is just ridiculous. I suppose the situation could be construed as humorous...yet..the movie is more sad than funny in most ways. The morality is horrendous, and things continually spiral out of control, finally ending with an attempted suicide and a divorce. From a Christian standpoint, there isn't really any good part to this film other than everyone getting what's coming to them.

Yet if I had started this movie knowing it wasn't supposed to be funny, I probably would have enjoyed it tremendously. Jack Lemmon is a wonderful actor as usual, and this side of Shirley MacLaine isn't one I see very often. She usually plays vivacious comedic women as opposed to introspective and withdrawn ones. And it was a real jolt for me to see Fred MacMurray, Disney's wholesome dad, as the antagonist in a movie. He was just downright creepy and slimy and...well, let's just say if the role were cast today, Patrick Swayze would probably fit the bill. Or David Hasselhoff. You get the picture.

So despite this not being a comedy as it's advertised and with some of the tough issues it deals with, looking back, I enjoyed it and can see why it was nominated for a ton of Oscars and won best picture. I'd give this movie a four creepy office managers out of a possible five (4/5).

Mr. and Mrs. Smith (1941)

2007-04-11T20:54:00.000-07:00

It's Daring! It's Delightful - And as Spicy as It's Speedy!

Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock
Written by: Norman Krasna
Starring: Carole Lombard as Ann Krausheimer Smith, Robert Montgomery as David Smith, and Gene Raymond as Jefferson Custer

I had no idea what to expect from this film - a horror director dabbling in a romantic comedy? And unfortunately - he should have just left well enough alone. David Smith is mostly happily married to his wife Ann - except for all the rules she likes to make and follow. After a morning including a spat, David finds out that - through a fluke of small town policy - he and Ann's marriage is not valid. Ann finds out soon afterwards and when David fails to tell her right away, she decides she's no longer married to him and begins to pursue an independent single woman's lifestyle. David is kicked out of the house and scorned by all his former household employees. Things get even worse as the two compete to be the most "happy" as a single person and culminate when David's business partner and childhood friend, Jefferson Custer, tries to woo Ann for himself.

This film is just so...awkward. Lombard's character is incredibly annoying and Montgomery makes David Smith out to be a bumbling idiot with an ego problem - something that doesn't really work. There are a few random scenes (such as the scene with the screwy pipes) which I believe are supposed to be funny but leave you going "what was the point of that?" Half the time you wonder why these two should even be trying to get back together. Overall, the acting is overdone, the comedic timing is off, and the plot just wanders until it suddenly decides to conclude abruptly for no apparent reason.

The one good point in this film is the music. I can't find any reference to who composed/arranged it but I thought it was one of the only entertaining faces of the film. It's quirky and the melody is employed in so many different ways it's surprising. Unfortunately, I can't really think of anything else to praise. The only way I would recommend this movie is if you have a goal to watch every single one of Alfred Hitchcock's films. "Smith" gets one bloody nose out of a possible five (1/5).

The Five Pennies (1959)

2007-04-07T22:26:00.000-07:00

Written by: Robert Smith, Jack Rose, Melville Shavelson
Produced by: Jack Rose
Starring: Danny Kaye as Red Nichols, Barbara Bel Geddes as Bobbie Meredith, Harry Guardino as Tony Valani, Bob Crosby as Wil Paradise, Susan Gordon and Tuesday Weld as Dorothy, and Louis Armstrong as himself
Music by: Sylvia Fine

This is the biography of one of the greatest cornet players in American history - Red Nichols. Nichols worked his way up from small time to leading one of the greatest Dixieland bands in history until his daughter contracted polio and Nichols dropped his dreams of music and found a nine-to-five job so his family would have stability.

"The Five Pennies" is one of my all time favorite classic films. I love it because I love Danny Kaye's acting. I love it because it is both funny and moving. And I love it for the outstanding musical score. We get to hear Louis Armstrong on several occasions and Kaye singing as well. Be sure to watch for the darling duet sung between Nichols and his daughter, Dorothy. Danny Kaye's real life wife, Sylvia Fine, wrote many of the songs - and whenever you see Red Nichols the character playing, you can bet the real Red Nichols recorded it. But you wouldn't know it to watch Kaye as he maneuvers a cornet.

That being said, if you watch any amount of good classic movies, you'll know what an incredible actor Kaye is. This film not only includes the incomparable humor Kaye can produce, but shows us he can be a darker actor as well. He captures the depression of a father who feel guilty for his daughter's suffering and who has had his dreams stomped on by serious reality. Barbara Bel Geddes is the perfect companion for Kaye in "Pennies," her talents including singing beautifully, playing the witty towngirl, the caring mother, the smart business partner, and an overall understanding female for Kaye's emotional turmoil.

The only flaw in this film is the vague definition of how time passes. This may be intentional, but personally I don't think it works if it was intentional. Dorothy grows from baby to child and child to teen in one scene each. Not to mention the end of the film makes you believe that the concert is Nichols' first in his return instead of the last ditch effort. But despite this, and as you probably expected, I give this film five pennies out of a possible five (5/5).

Rebecca (1940)

2007-04-03T15:14:00.000-07:00

The shadow of this woman darkened their love.

Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock
Written by: Daphne du Maurier (novel), Philip MacDonald (adaptation), Michael Hogan (adaptation), Robert E. Sherwood (screenplay), Joan Harrison (screenplay)
Produced by: David O. Selznick
Starring: Laurence Olivier as Maxim de Winter, Joan Fontaine as Edith de Winter, Judith Anderson as Mrs. Danvers, George Sanders as Favell, and Leonard Carey as Ben
Music by: the incomparable Franz Waxman

Now before you begin reading the opinionated part of my review, you have to know that I've read the book this movie is based on and it's one of my favorite novels of all time. In fact, only HP Lovecraft gave du Maurier a run for her money in creepy factor. So if I was judging this movie all by itself just as a movie, I would probably rate it higher. But since I've read the book, I can't really get away without comparing the two.

This is the first of Alfred Hitchcock's American films. In it, Edith, a paid companion of a nosy old rich woman, falls in love with a widower while both are in Monte Carlo. Maxim de Winter, who seems haunted by his past, marries Edith and whisks her off to his lavish estate of Manderley. At the instant of her arrival, Edith feels threatened and unwanted - mostly due to the lingering and seemingly malicious presence of Maxim's first wife - the incomparable Rebecca. This problem is exacerbated by Mrs. Danvers, the head housekeeper of Manderley. Mrs. Danvers was completely devoted to Rebecca and even now after her death keeps her bedroom as a shrine. Edith is constantly reminded by Danvers just how short she falls when compared to the beautiful and poised Rebecca de Winter. It also doesn't help that there seems to be some mystery concerning Rebecca's death and that Maxim refuses to talk to her about it, instead flying into rages when the topic of Rebecca is brought up.

This movie was intentionally made in black and white so it would be creepier - however, I think they could have done much more with colors, especially since Manderley was such a vibrant place up to the end. I felt like something was lacking. And although the actors and actresses did a stellar job in their respective roles - I just couldn't find Mrs. Danvers all that disturbing. Maybe it's because in the novel you always wonder if Danvers is waiting, wraithlike, in the shadows of whatever room the plot is taking place in. In the movie, visually, you can often see that she's not. The book provides more of a horror suspense aspect, while the movie provides more a psychological suspense story. I just kept feeling more and more sorry for Edith as opposed to more and more afraid of Danvers. There was also a distinct lack of character development for Ben - he plays a much larger role in the book than he does in the film.

My biggest complaint with this movie is the changing of the ending.

*spoilers*
Maxim becomes infinitely more accessible when you find out he hasn't killed his wife - and without that aspect you have no reason for his ensuing insanity after the discovery of Rebecca's body and the burning of Manderley.
*end spoilers*

However, other than the end and the different tone of the movie from the book, everything else is exactly as du Maurier wrote it. I just felt that a vital aspect of the true novel was missing from this movie. I can't figure out what it is, whether it's in the acting, the plotline, or even the music. I'd give this a 3 creepy housekeepers out of a possible five (3/5).

Keeping Mum (2005)

2007-04-01T17:20:00.000-07:00

*updated*

Some family secrets are best kept...buried.
alt: They took her in. Now she's taking them out.

Directed by: Niall Johnson
Written by: Richard Russo and Niall Johnson
Starring: Rowan Atkinson as Reverend Walter Goodfellow, Kristin Scott Thomas as Gloria Goodfellow, Maggie Smith as Rosie/Grace Hawkins, Patrick Swayze as Lance, and Tamsin Egerton as Holly Goodfellow
Music by: Dickon Hinchliffe

Rogue...

We decided to list this movie on our classics site mainly because it's a wonderful Brit film which was a smash over the pond but hasn't seen much publicity here in the States. This dark comedy focuses on the Goodfellow family - a rector, his wife, and their two children - and how their lives are altered when the new housekeeper shows up and turns out to be a serial killer. Maggie Smith does an absolutely stellar job as Grace Hawkins - who kills anyone who gets in her way. It's a role you don't expect to see her pull off - yet she does it with such humor and natural expression, you wonder why you haven't seen her in a role like this before.

The other characters are also superbly developed. The rector is oblivious to everything going on in his family - his daughter's promiscuous lifestyle, his son's problem with bullies, and his wife's impending affair with her golf instructor, Lance. Rowan Atkinson is funny in a way completely opposite his usual style with Mr. Bean. He manages to mock the clergy without insulting them, and even my husband (who is a pastor's son) could relate to some of the issues Rev. Goodfellow had to deal with. Gloria was sufficiently neurotic and Holly was the perfect rebellious daughter. I have a question though - when did Patrick Swayze start fitting the typecast for the pervy older man?

Another aspect of this movie I absolutely must praise is the soundtrack. It's quirky and heartfelt all in the same notes, and brings every scene in the movie together flawlessly. I'm tempted to buy it - but I am pretty sure I'd have to import it. I also want to congratulate the directors of this movie for keeping every death scene off screen. We are there at the moment of death, but we never have to see someone's head getting bashed in or a body dismembered.

However, that being said, there are some fairly graphic scenes in this movie. It is rated R. The daughter goes topless several times throughout the film, and there is a large amount of swearing. Plus, you have to see Patrick Swayze in a thong - which just about scarred me for life. The Brits are a little more lax with nudity and language than we are here in America. Just as we are a bit more lenient when it comes to violence than they are (which, I suspect, is why the death scenes are off camera).

Hopefully, my husband will be posting his thoughts later, so you may want to check back. But as for me, I give this movie a five corpses out of a possible five (5/5).

thatoneguy...

Rogue covered most of the info you need in order to make a viewing decision, here - "Keeping Mum" is a charming, darkly funny family tale that's filled with some really fun performances. There's depth here, too, even if it does seem a little heavy handed on the surface. A family falling apart, until "Grace" comes into their lives and changes them all for the better. In most cases, this would be horrifically cheesy. However, when the "Grace" in question is a charming old lady (played to perfection by Maggie Smith) who has absolutely no qualms about killing people who are inconvenient? Well, that helps make things a little less saccharine. In fact, it's the performances that sell this movie. (Rowan Atkinson, in particular, turns in a performance that shows that he has a range far greater than any of his Mr Bean roles.) True, Patrick Swayze goes way over the top, but the rest of the performances provide a surprising and welcome amount of levity and depth to this quaint, dark comedy.

As Rogue said, there's no violence here - everything happens off camera. The language and the nudity may be a dealbreaker for most, but rest assured - this isn't a Tarentino film. It's also not the sort of "cool language" that you find in most American films - I can personally vouch that this is exactly the way people in Britain talk. (I'll never forget the time I heard a Pastor's wife drop the f-bomb during a casual lunch-and-tea meal. Funny, funny stuff.)

"Keeping Mum" isn't a film that will change your life, and it's not a film that will leave you speechless. However. You will laugh, and smile, and when the film finishes you'll most likely feel happier than you did when you started it. No "guilty pleasure" here - this is a wonderfully solid film. Highly recommended - a 4 shovel-wielding-Maggie Smiths out of 5. (4/5)

The Lavender Hill Mob (1951)

2007-03-29T14:00:00.000-07:00

He stole $3,000,000 in gold and that's a lot of BULLion!
alt: The men who BROKE the bank - and LOST the cargo.

Directed by: Charles Crichton
Written by: T.E.B. Clarke
Starring: Alec Guinness as Henry "Dutch" Holland, Stanley Holloway as Alfred Pendlebury, Sid James as Lackery, and Alfie Bass as Shortie Fisher
Music by: Georges Auric

This is just another example of the comedic largesse of Alec Guinness. He plays Henry Holland, a mild and meek bank clerk who supervises the transportation of gold buillion and dreams of stealing it and running off to live the life of adventure. His only problem is how to get it out of the country - easily solved when Holland meets the owner of a foundry, Alfred Pendlebury. They whip up a plan in less than a week when Holland finds out he is about to be transferred. Together, they con two seasoned crooks into helping them steal the contents of the truck - although immediately things begin to go wrong. And things go even more haywire when some of the gold (now in the shape of Eiffel Tower paperweights) is lost and falls into the hands of the British police.

There were several points in this film where I thought, "this is absolutely ridiculous!" The men find themselves in and out of trouble so many times it's amazing they got as far as they did. And all of their capers are not through any mistake of theirs! Holloway plays the perfect foil to Guinness - one being meek and exacting, the other bumbling and loudmouthed but well-meaning. It was very reminiscent of a Laurel and Hardy comedy (but with a more developed plotline). And Audrey Hepburn makes an appearance early in the film as Chiquita - this was her first film to be distributed in the US. She was one of Guinness's favorite actresses.

Overall, I would highly recommend this comedy, as it highlights the wonderful talents of both Holland and Guinness in the roles of well-meaning thieves. And watch for my favorite scene - with the bobby officer singing "Old MacDonald Had a Farm" at the top of his lungs (complete with animal sounds!) I give this one four golden eiffel tower paperweights out of a possible five. (4/5)

Kind Hearts and Coronets (1949)

2007-03-28T21:04:00.000-07:00

A hilarious study in the gentle art of murder.

Directed by: Robert Hamer
Written by: Roy Horniman (novel), John Dighton, Robert Hamer
Starring: Dennis Price as Louis Mazzini, Valerie Hobson as Edith D'Ascoyne, Joan Greenwood as Sibella, and Alec Guinness as The Duke, The Banker, The Parson, The General, The Admiral, young Ascoyne D'Ascoyne, young Henry D'Ascoyne, Lady Agatha D'Ascoyne
Music by: a variety of Classical composers

If you've never seen Alec Guinness as anything but Obi Wan Kenobi, I strongly suggest you start looking at his earlier works. Nowadays, it seems a shame that most know him as the enigmatic proverb-spewing, force wielding Jedi knight, when in actuality, he's a former king of comedy. While he doesn't play the main character in this film, he might as well - considering he plays eight other characters all belonging to the same family and all killed by the main character in hilarious ways.

The premise of this film is very gruesome - a young man with a far reaching claim to a dukedom feels spurned by the noble family he descends from, especially after his mother dies and is refused internment in the family vault. He decides to get revenge and claim the title of the Duke of Chalfont. Eight of his relatives stand in his way, as well as the problem of juggling relationships with two women who want to marry him.

His attitude towards the deaths of his family members is detached and non-chalant - the perfect portrait of a serial killer psychopath. And Price plays Louis perfectly, casually discussing the particulars of poisoning, drowning, shooting, and otherwise knocking off the people in his way. He also manages to fit every role he attempts - whether it's a clergyman or a clerk. And as much as you're disgusted by Louis, you're rooting for him by the end. He's taken advantage of just as much as he takes advantage of others.

The comedy in this movie is undeniable. Louis's attitude provides plenty of humor, as does Sibella's sickeningly sweet antics towards him. And needless to say, Guinness is incredible in his eight different roles, ranging from snobs to rectors to suffragette women. There always seems to be an aura of overdramatic acting pervading the script - but never irritatingly so. The sheer number of one-liners is impressive, and every few minutes Jason and I found ourselves laughing at the antics of either Guinness or Price or Greenwood.

This movie is a selection on both the Time Magazine and the BFI's Top 100 British Films. It has also been ranked as the 25th Greatest Comedy of All Time and the 7th Greatest British Film of all time by the readers of "Total Film" magazine. I highly recommend this early Guinness film and award it four dead relatives out of a possible five (4/5).

Kinky Boots (2005)

2007-03-16T15:12:00.000-07:00

How Far Would You Go to Save the Family Business?

Directed by: Julian Jarrold
Written by: Geoff Deane and Tim Firth
Starring: Joel Edgerton as Charlie Price, Chiwetal Ejiofor as Lola, Sarah Jane Potts as Lauren, and Jemima Rooper as Nicola
Music by: Mainly consists of songs from the film sung by Ejiofor, but also includes music from David Bowie, Nina Simone, James Brown, The Dub Pistols, Jemima Rooper, Lyn Collins, Louis Jarrold, The Visitors, Diefenbach, and Kirsty MacColl

First of all, this movie shines because it's based on a true story. There really is a shoe factory in a small town in England which changed its line from men's shoes to men's shoes for transvestites. And granted this subject alone may be enough to keep the squeamish from watching this film. The movie makes a point of not condemning this lifestyle but prods you to accept people for who they really are - using both Lola and Charlie as examples, along with several smaller characters along the way. For the majority of the film, Ejiofor appears in drag, and if not in full drag, at least some makeup. And there is a large focus on sex appeal through the shoes.

Yet, for all the content issues some people may have with this film, it is amazingly clean. There are absolutely no sex scenes - not even implied. Charlie and his fiancee do not even live together. There is little swearing and practically no violence either. Simply men dancing in suggestive female costumes (which doesn't bother me because they're men). The storyline isn't typical and the end - while being slightly predictable - doesn't fall back on the usual excuses for it's predictability. The plot itself is tightly woven and very strong, and the characters are very well expressed.

My absolute favorite part of this movie is Chiwetal Ejiofor. His role in "Kinky Boots" has solidly placed him in my list of favorite actors. He was nominated for a Golden Globe for this part (and lost to Sasha Baren Cohen, which...don't even get me started on how stupid that is). He plays the part of Lola perfectly - as a man who isn't gay but loves dressing up in women's clothing, and a man who likes to challenge common social norms and doesn't enjoy doing what people expect. He sings all his own songs, which in itself could have gotten my respect, but he actually pulls off wearing women's outfits just fine. In fact, the first time you see him out of drag, you almost don't recognize him; which forces you to recognize just how much of him is wrapped up in his identity as Lola.

If you are very uncomfortable with the idea of cross dressing, you probably won't enjoy this movie. However, I do recommend it as a clean film with a good general moral lesson to teach in a fun and entertaining way with superb acting. I'd give this film five pairs of kinky boots out of a possible five (5/5).

With Six You Get Eggroll (1968)

2007-02-28T18:17:00.000-08:00

"Keeping this family together isn't child's play!"

Directed by: Howard Morris
Written by: R.S. Allen, Gwen Bagni, Harvey Bullock, and Paul Dubov
Starring: Doris Day as Abby McClure, Brian Keith as Jake Iverson, Pat Carroll as Maxine Scott, Barbara Hershey as Stacy Iverson, Alice Ghostley as Molly the Maid, and George Carlin as Herbie Fleck.
Music by: Robert Mersey

At first glance, this might seem like a less comedic version of "Yours, Mine, and Ours" or even "The Brady Bunch." Each of the adults has less than four kids and so much of the hilarity gained with gobs of children isn't present.

Granted, the two romantic leads find plenty of humorous situations to get themselves into without their offspring's help. Their bending over backwards to try to keep their children happy forces them into compromising positions where their own needs come last. This doesn't seem funny after the third time they sneak off to the drive through for coffee and give each other a knowing look. And the story does seem to drag a little without small persons spiking drinks or getting hit in the face with a football, therefore damaging their social lives. The two youngest McClure kids provide most of the child comedy, but only in a rather loudmouth annoying way - *gasp* a realistic way.

And that's where this movie picks up where the aforementioned films leave off. While the movies this is often compared to focus on the comedic aspect of adjusting to the merging of families, their humor could just as easily happen within a family that isn't blended - such as with "Cheaper by the Dozen." With Eggroll, we focus more on the awkwardness of dating again when you've already got a family, the pressure when a new spouse enters the scene, and the rough waters you have to navigate when it comes to your children adjusting. Day and Keith are just realistic enough to make this movie shine, but not realistic enough to be shocking to viewers in the late 60's.

Once again, the ending of this film is a little of a let down. It felt as if the movie makers saw their movie wasn't hitting enough funny bones and took a mixed up situation and blew it up into something ridiculous. Thus the entrance of the chicken truck, the hippies, and the too small Good Humor Costume.

This movie gets a three eggrolls out of a possible five eggrolls (3/5).

Oceans 11 (1960)

2007-02-27T14:07:00.000-08:00

"That Big One!"

Directed by: Lewis Milestone
Written by: George Clayton Johnson, Jack Golden Russell, Harry Brown, Charles Lederer, and Billy Wilder
Starring: Frank Sinatra as Danny Ocean, Dean Martin as Sam Harmon, Sammy Davis Jr. as Josh Howard, Peter Lawford as Jimmy Foster, Richard Conte as Tony Bergdorf, and Cesar Romero as Duke Santos
Music by: Nelson Riddle

This movie was recently remade by Steven Soderbergh and the newer version has now become a hit spawning two sequels, Oceans 12 and Oceans 13 (due out this year). All I can say is this: Thank God for remakes.

The original version begins with a similar premise as the remake (this is kind of odd using the remake as the standard, but you'll understand why) - a group of old friends decide to get together and rob some casinos. The ringleader, Danny Ocean, is trying to win his wife back in the process, and one of the team's members has just been released from jail. However, this is where the similarities end.

Danny is just a layabout playboy who loves the thrill of breaking the law, and he and his friends from the 82nd Airborne in WWII meet up again 15 years later. Danny has been given plans to rob not one casino, but five - on New Year's. The plan is flawless and all of the 11 men are eager to take their cut. Unfortunately, things don't go as planned. One of the team members dies during the heist, and another member's new stepfather - who happens to be a mob boss - finds out who stole the money and tries to blackmail them. This forces the 10 to scramble and find another way to get the money out of Las Vegas and into their own pockets.

All of this might have made for a spectacular movie - except the end just falls flat on its face. The plot builds and builds and then suddenly ends without resolution. Which always makes me upset.

One thing I did enjoy about this movie was the music and visual editing. Of course, with the Rat Pack starring in it, there's bound to be some great music; and several of them find a way to showcase their pipes. The scenes with repetitive actions, such as the tagging of the security or breaker boxes, and the countdowns till midnight, or the heist itself, are done very creatively. And the cameos by Shirley MacLaine and Red Skelton are very funny.

Overall - I'd give this movie one robbed casino out of five possible robbed casinos (1/5)- because it just was a sorry excuse for the Rat Pack to get some more screen time.

King Kong (1933)

2005-12-21T01:18:00.000-08:00

It is hard to imagine a film industry without "King Kong." It's influence and impact is incalcuable; it's mark on society larger than the title character itself. It's left a legacy that continues to this day, over seventy years later. Ask any child (or adult) who King Kong is, and they're nearly sure to know, even if they haven't seen the film. "King Kong" is unique in the fact that it's popularity is matched by both critical acclaim and artistic integrity. It has firmly cemented itself as a cinematic masterpiece. But how does it hold up, all these years later?

King Kong (1933)
Directed by: Merian C. Cooper and Ernest B. Schoedsack
Written by: Merian C. Cooper, Edgar Wallace, James Ashmore Creelman, and Ruth Rose
Starring: Fay Wray as Ann Darrow, Robert Armstrong as Carl Denham, and Bruce Cabot as John 'Jack' Driscoll
Music Composed by: Max Steiner

The film opens in New York, in the midst of the depression. Carl Denhem, a film director, is desperate to find a leading lady for his new motion picture. However, no sensible actress dares to sign up: Denham is a known mavrick filmmaker, and his current film is to be shot after a long boat voyage to a destination unkown. Denhem is a strong, insistent man. He knows what he wants, and he's not willing to comprimise. When his casting agent informs him that there's simply no one willing to take the job, he simply goes to the streets to find his next star.

And, as everyone knows, he finds Ann Darrow. It isn't too difficult to convince to her to sign on - after all, she has nothing to lose. As soon as she's assured that this is entirely legit, she becomes enamored with (and at the same time, a little shy at) the prospect of being a star. They set sail the very next morning, aboard the freighter "Venture."

It is very quickly made known that the all male crew of the "Venture" are not exactly comfortable with a woman being on board. First mate Jack Driscoll complains that Ann is constantly getting in the way - a statement that isn't exactly true. There's even more discomfort at their destination - namely, the lack of one. Denhem finally admits their destination - an island that isn't on any known map. In fact, the only map that it can be found on is a map drawn by a native inhabitant that was swept out to sea. Denhem, to the growing unease of those with him, asks the Captain and Driscoll "Have you ever heard of... Kong?", describing it as a monstrous creature, one who's legend is clouded in fear and mystery.

However, their voyage continues. As does Jack Driscoll's continual insistence that women have no place onboard a ship. Of course, Jack becomes more and more attracted to Ann. Carl Denham takes note, and warns Jack that he has no room for any sort of love affair on his set - Jack quickly replies "Love affair! You think I'm gonn fall for any dame?" and goes on and on to assure Denham that he's a "tough guy." Denham replies (with clear foreshadowing), "...you're a pretty tough guy, but if Beauty gets you... It's the idea of my picture. The Beast was a tough guy too. He could lick the world. But when he saw Beauty, she got him. He went soft. He forgot his wisdom and the little fellas licked him. Think it over, Jack."

Soon enough, they're at Kong's island. They hear drums, and see a village perched upon a peninsula - and beyond the village, an enourmous wall that

The Screening Room

2005-03-28T21:31:00.000-08:00

A
All About Eve (1950)
The Apartment (1960)

B
Bye, Bye Birdie (1963)

F
The Five Pennies (1959)
The Fountain (2006)

H
Hellboy (2004)

K
Keeping Mum (2005)
King Kong (1933)
Kinky Boots (2005)
Kind Hearts and Coronets (1949)

L
The Ladykillers (1955)
The Lavender Hill Mob (1951)
Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (2003)
Love, Actually (2003)

M
Mr. and Mrs. Smith (1941)
Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House (1948)

O
Ocean's 11 (1960)
The Odd Couple (1968)

R
Rebecca (1940)

S
Speed Racer (2008)
Strangers on a Train (1951)

T
The Thin Man (1934)

U
Ushpizin (The Guests) (2004)

W
With Six You Get Eggroll (1968)

Hellboy (2004)

2004-04-04T22:24:00.000-07:00

Give Evil Hell alt: From the Dark Side to Our Side Here to Protect

Directed by: Guillermo del Toro
Written by: Mike Mignolo (comic), Guillermo del Toro, Peter Briggs
Starring: Ron Perlman as Hellboy, Rupert Evans as John Myers, Selma Blair as Liz Sherman, Doug Jones as Abe Sapien, David Hyde Pierce as Abe Sapien (voice), and Karel Rodin as Rasputin
Music by: Marco Beltrami

Hellboy = fun fun times.

Dang, I sure liked this movie. It has it's problems, to be sure, but as a whole it just flat out rocks.

For the un-educated, "Hellboy" is an adaptation of the splendid comic book series by the incredibly gifted Mike Mignola. Hellboy himself (Or "Red," "Big Red," or "HB" as he's called by his friends in the film) is a fireproof 7 foot tall red guy with a right hand made of rock, two horns (filed down so he looks more "human"), a tail, a big honkin' gun called "The Samaritan," and a crush on pyrokinetic Liz Sherman. (When her emotions get out of control she bursts into flame, torching everything around her.) Along with Liz, Hellboy is joined by Abe Sapien (A telepathic merman), Professor Broom (His father figure who "raised" him, and also head of the Department of Paranormal Research and Defense), and special agent John Meyers - newly appointed to be Hellboy's "caretaker." All of these characters reside in the Department of Paranormal Research and Defense. When explaining what exactly this department does Prof Broom simply replies, "There are things that go 'bump' in the night agent Myers. We are the things that bump back."

And bump back indeed. Hellboy is a stinkin' fine film. The characters are vivid, the sets are breathtaking, the color palette strikingly artistic, and the direction spot on. It's a good film, one that is well worth catching at least once. Hellboy himself is probably the most fun action hero we've seen since Wolverine - his reservedly flippant demeanor while disposing of said things that go "bump" is repeatedly punctuated by understatements such as "ah, crap." He's fun, hilarious, dangerous, lovable, and sweet. The rest of the characters are just as solid, in particular the characters of Prof Broom, Liz Sherman, and the surprisingly disturbing and deadly Kroenen.

And yet, there's a great deal keeping it from pure greatness. While it has a nice solid run time of 132 minutes, the plot feels severely rushed - a biproduct of focusing so much on the characters. While it's nice (and I think a better choice) to have so much emphasis placed on the characters, the end result is that the plot gets pushed in around them, making the film feel crowded and "convenient" at times. A better choice may have been to scale back the plot a bit and take the "X-men" approach, focusing more on the characters in the first film and then have a huge scale plot in the second. Of course, they probably weren't sure if there'd even BE a second one, so it's hard to fault them for trying to fit everything in. It just seems that a significant amount of the film had been cut out, like we're missing some key points. While it's true that the plot is just as good (or bad) as 80% of the films released in a year, the incredible amount of quality and care shown in the rest of the film exposes the sketchiness of it's plot.

Likewise, the films bad guys - aside from Kroenen, who kicks inredibly large amounts of butt - were largely "blah" and could have been amped up a bit. Sammeal, the hydra-esque resurrecting hellhound, was also a bit overused. Though, to be fair, the film's small budget probably couldn't afford the CGI creation of multiple forms of baddies. Perhaps it's better that they just focused on this one, and made it look so darn good. (It's often near impossible to tell whether you're seeing CGI or practical costumes and effects.)

And again, the only reason these faults stand out so much is because everything else is spot on perfect. This film is gorgeous, and easily balances both insane amounts of fun and moments of true emotion and feeling. And it's good. Darn good. Don't let it's minor flaws dissuade you, this is a freakin' good film, and very much worth going to see. (5/5)

Oh, and the title music flat out rocks.

p.s. - for those concerned about going to see a movie with the word "hell" in the title... Don't worry about it. It's neither evil nor occultic, despite what you may automatically assume. If you're still not convinced, just take a look at Focus on the Family's review of the film right here.

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)

2003-12-18T22:34:00.000-08:00

This Christmas the journey ends.
Directed by: Peter Jackson
Written by: J.R.R. Tolkien, Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Peter Jackson
Starring: Elijah Wood as Frodo Baggins, Sean Astin as Samwise Gamgee, Viggo Mortenson as Aragorn, Ian McKellen as Gandalf the White, Dominic Monaghan as Merry, Billy Boyd as Pippin, Orlando Bloom as Legolas, John Rhys-Davies as Gimli, Andy Serkis as Gollum, Miranda Otto as Eowyn, Liv Tyler as Arwen, and David Wenham as Faramir
Music by: Howard Shore

Heck. Yeah.

Quite simply, one of the best movies ever. As in, of all freakin' time. In fact, I consider it to be the best film ever - again, as in of all freakin' time.

Seriously. This film took my jaded little heart and nice neat little "best films of all time list" and left it looking like Hiroshima after it had the nuke dropped on it - complete with little people searching through the rubble afterwards.

I have spent EVERY waking moment comparing it with every great movie I've ever seen, trying to find an area where it falls short, and I can't do it. I can't think of a single film that has a single moment better than this one. You will be blown away. People say that all the time about movies, but I mean you will be blown away. You will see things that you have never before seen on a film screen, and will most likely never see again. It is so good that you will be literally gasping for breath. I thought I had a fair idea of what Minas Tirith looked like. I thought I had a pretty good handle of how to picture The Battle for Pellanor Fields.

I had no freakin' idea.

I found myself at a loss for words, and so did everyone else who saw it. Yeah, you can throw around words like "phenomenal" and "perfect," but they just seem so hollow. You end up speaking in some kind of code, where you'll say,

"Oh man... that one part?"

"Oh yeah. Just wow, man. But that OTHER part?"

"Oh HECK YEAH. But oh man, that ONE part..."

- and of course this continues for forever, because you basically just keep going through every scene in the movie over and over and over again.

It's all here, guys. Yes, they did cut out the scene between Eowyn and Faramir in the house of healing, but you know what? I didn't miss it. And that's my favorite scene in the whole book. I was so looking forward to it, but when the time for it came... I didn't notice it missing, because everything else was just so perfect that I had totally forgotten about it. And it'll be on the extended edition, I'm sure, so I'm not really crying.

Oh yeah, speaking of Eowyn. My favorite scene of the movie belongs to her. She has one of the most iconic scenes of all time in this film, and when she says her famous line... I wanted to jump up in my seat and scream "oh HECK YEAH! YOU SHOW HIM!"

Those that have read the books know the part I'm talking about. And don't worry, it's done perfect - just like the rest of the film.

The Battle for Pellanor Fields = Perfect
Denethor = Perfect
Shelob = Perfect - TOO perfect *shudder*
Paths of the Dead = Perfect
Every Single Moment = Perfect

And in the end, that's what this film is. Perfect. All other films just kinda... die. Like, I couldn't care about them. This film has everything, and it does everything perfect. It's so good that writing this review is proving to be impossible, because I keep struggling with trying to explain to you guys just how good this film is. I can't do it. Words fail me. I had incredibly high expectations, impossibly high expectations and they were shattered. This film was beyond anything I'd ever even dreamed of. With both "Fellowship" and "Two Towers" I found things to quibble about. I loved the movies, but they weren't perfect. This film is perfect.

I've never seen a film like this. Ever. (5/5)

Love, Actually (2003)

2003-11-09T22:04:00.000-08:00

The Ultimate Romantic Comedy
alt. All You Need is Love...Actually

Directed by: Richard Curtis
Written by: Richard Curtis
Starring: Bill Nighy as Billy Mack, Gregor Fisher as Joe, Colin Firth as Jamie Bennett, Lucia Moniz as Aurelia, Kiera Knightley as Juliet, Chiwetal Ejiofor as Peter, Andrew Lincoln as Mark, Alan Rickman as Harry, Heike Makatsch as Mia, Rowan Atkinson as Rufus, Emma Thompson as Karen, Hugh Grant as Prime Minister David, Liam Neeson as Daniel, Martine MacCutcheon as Natalie, Thomas Sangster as Sam, Laura Linney as Sarah, Rodrigo Santoro as Karl, Kris Marshall as Colin Frissell, Abdul Salis as Tony, Martin Freeman as Jack, and Joanna Page as Judy
Original Music by: Craig Armstrong

I'm rather notorious for my views on chick flicks. I usually do not like them. (Those of you who dragged me to watch "Sweet Home Alabama" probably remember well my views of the genre.) 90% of the time they are trite, disgustingly pale imitations of love, and have little or no redeeming qualities to them.

Of course, there are exceptions.

I first heard about "Love Actually" about a half year ago. I heard that the writer of "Four Weddings and a Funeral," "Notting Hill," and "Bridget Jone's Diary" was writing and directing a new British romantic comedy. I was mildly interested - I'd liked both "Notting Hill" and "Bridget Jone's Diary", and had heard that "Four Weddings and a Funeral" was good too. Plus, it was British. Being made in Britain goes a LONG way towards me having a positive anticipation for a film. Then, I heard the cast that was in it, and my jaw dropped. A film with Bill Nighy, Colin Firth, Liam Neeson, Emma Thompson, Keira Knightley, Hugh Grant, Laura Linney, Alan Rickman, Billy Bob Thornton, and Rowan Atkinson is a film that I have to see.

It's tagline of "The Ultimate Romantic Comedy" was both daring me to hate and enticing me to see just what kind of movie would have the audacity to claim that title. I was cautiously optimistic - and ended up loving the film.

Truth be told, it's probably one of the best films I've seen all year. For those that haven't heard, it mixes about nine different stories about love into one movie. Yes, they're all connected, but it's never a forced connection. Rather, it enforces the idea that love actually is all around us. It shows us all sides of love too - not just the romantic happy ones. Sometimes love hurts, sometimes love doesn't work out, sometimes love isn't returned, sometimes love is misunderstood - it's all portrayed here. If there was to be a message of the movie, it'd be that love is THERE - and it comes in all shapes and sizes. Some of the stories are sweet and endearing, some are romantic, and some will tear your heart out. A few of them seem to be going in a totally predictable direction, only to shift to become a story that suddenly has suddenly has resounding significance. Some of the stories ARE typical romantic comedy type - but they're wonderful all the same. When you have a cast and director/writer that are this good, wonderful things are sure to happen.

Everyone does a great job in the film, but if there were to be rewards handed out they'd probably go to Hugh Grant (in a really fun role as the Prime Minister of Britain - watch for his little "dance" scene), Laura Linney (who probably shows the most accurate portrayel of love in the whole film, and who's final scene will break your heart), Keira Knightley (for the scene where she watches her wedding video), and Liam Neeson (his scenes with his son are dead perfect). Of course, Colin Firth, Alan Rickman, and all the others are perfect in their roles as well.

When you take that many stories, and blend them into one movie, you're running a huge risk. But rather than seeming bloated or choppy, "Love Actually" succeeds perfectly. It's great to see a "romantic comedy" that doesn't just fill itself with saccarine sweet fluff, and actually handles some of the hard stuff. That's not to say that it isn't a happy movie - because it is. It just doesn't always take the easy way out.

The problem is, a good 90% of you will not want to see this movie, because of it's rating. "Love Actually" is rated R - for nudity, sexual content, and language. It's like the mark of the beast for Christians. The nudity comes from one of the stories - two young people that are starring in a film of the "adult" variety. It's a great story, and a great message (they both fully differentiate between sex, and actual love), but the way which it's told will turn many Christians away. (Personally, I found that it works just fine if you close your eyes during this part - you can still hear them talk, and when the voices change you know it's the next story and you can open your eyes again.)

The fact that I'm admitting that I enjoyed a film that calls itself "the ultimate romantic comedy" should clue you in to just how good it is. We don't get many films that show "true" love. This one does. Go check it out. (4.5/5)

And just in case you wondered, my wife gives it a five little love stories out of five (5/5).