This movie has an excellent cast who all put in strong efforts, but I just couldn't find anything to care about in this movie. There's a good message near the end about the importance of quality and serving the consumers over a financial bottom line, but it's a bit didactic and doesn't have a strong drama to back it up. The only tension is who of the executives is going to take over the company. They jockey for influence, plot, confide to their spouses, and that's basically it. Barbara Stanwyck is barely in this at all. I was hoping she would inherit the company at the beginning, as the plot premise indicated, and that we would get an interesting story of her making big changes at a company and dealing with the company consequences. No such luck, although she does get some pathos near the end. Instead it's a bunch of men who only care about a company or power engaging in a very slow and boring struggle for the presidency of the company. We know almost nothing about the what the company does or what it means, or what anyone wants to do with it, or why we should care. I tried to care but wasn't able to. The whole story seems like a missed opportunity. Too bad, such a good cast of actors without a story to tell.
Reviews
15 Reviews
Nancy Drew is more mature than this
21 August 2019
Some of this show is laughably bad, but mostly it's just bad. For example, the first two clues the ladies find are 1) *gasp* footprints! In MUD! They seem to think themselves clever for finding them. 2) A torn piece of cloth caught on a sharp object nearby in clear view. They seem shocked by this. "What if she was...running *away* from someone?" one of our protagonists asks, as though nobody but her would have made such a connection. And then the rest of the episode spends as much or more time on makeup and giggling over fashionable clothes than it does pondering about the actual mystery. This might be bearable if the characters had any depth or reality to them, or any wit to their dialogue, or anything worthwhile in their mystery. Sadly they do not.
I like plenty of cheesy shows. But Nancy Drew herself would find the women in this show too immature for her, and Miss Marple would find them dull-minded. I'm glad we have other female detectives who can give us better stories and characters!
I like plenty of cheesy shows. But Nancy Drew herself would find the women in this show too immature for her, and Miss Marple would find them dull-minded. I'm glad we have other female detectives who can give us better stories and characters!
Simple and ok, but lacks a real ending
13 July 2019
Warning: Spoilers
A simple episode fairly well-executed. It ends up being pretty cut-and-dried: the person who seems to be a flawless good guy turns out to be a racist bad guy, and the accused bad guys turn out to be innocent victims. It's all predictable but well-acted enough to stay moderately interesting. The end is rather abrupt and arbitrary, though, as if they suddenly ran out of time before the climax but didn't have enough
material for a full Part 2. It's an unsatisfying way to end it. One wishes the writers had done another draft that made room for an actual ending.
The White Buffalo
(1977)
Dark and moody, like a heavy dream, but satisfying
10 September 2012
Warning: Spoilers
--My review doesn't spoil any of the plot development, twists, or ending, but I've added a spoiler warning because I do discuss the characters' motivations, which might be spoilery to some viewers.--
This is a surprisingly effective and unique film; ostensibly a Western, but proving to have more parts supernatural thriller and mythical quest. The premise seems so ridiculous that it'd have to be either a comedy or an over-the-top action flick: Wild Bill Hickock and Crazy Horse team up to hunt a evil white buffalo. Instead, this film takes itself completely seriously and, amazingly, succeeds. I'm not going to call this one of the greatest Westerns or any of that stuff, but it's uncommonly absorbing and not quite like anything else I've seen.
The Western elements are thus: the setting, the tension between whites and Native Americans, the gunslinger of little words who is frequently attacked by snarling baddies wherever he goes but guns them down with hardly a blink (usually the Clint Eastwood role). Yet the main plot is part quest, part supernatural thriller: Hickock (Charles Bronson) is plagued by nightmares of the White Buffalo attacking him, and must confront the beast in order to keep from being driven insane; likewise, the Oglala chief Crazy Horse -- who was stripped of his rank and name after weeping like a woman at the death of his infant child when the White Buffalo attacked his village -- must kill the beast "in the old way" to regain his honor and provide peace for his child in the afterlife.
The White Buffalo itself appears nearly demonic -- in addition to invading Hickock's dreams even while he was living hundreds of miles away in the East, it stalks them from the shadows of snowy mountains, plays psychological games by making noises at night, kills their horses to deprive them of easy transport, and causes avalanches to intimidate them and cause mayhem. It reminded me of equal parts Moby Dick and the Red Bull from "The Last Unicorn".
The movie is directed in a slow, slightly surreal, not completely steady manner. In the first ten minutes of the movie, I wasn't sure if it was well made or not. The outside nighttime settings look limited, as if filmed on dark stages perhaps, the lighting was low and natural (often obscuring landscape or facial details due to darker-than-normal-for-movies shadows). The acting for the Native American characters is stiff and stereotypical of old Western portrayals -- flat voices, no emotion, somber faces. And the White Buffalo itself is filmed mostly in lightning quick, almost shaky-cam shots, up close, so you can't quite get a good look at it. Since it's likely a big puppet they had, this kind of choppy shooting was probably to disguise the artificiality. And it works. Sure, we're used to big CGI shots of creatures, and a bigger budgeted movie in 1977 could probably have done more, but this limited approach WORKS for this movie. It makes the White Buffalo more surreal, more monstrous, and more threatening. It's not a real buffalo -- it's practically a demon! I think that's the point, and it really helps build the suspense and eerie atmosphere for this movie. And this goes for the whole movie -- as it progresses, the directing feels more assured and the narrative finds its focus.
Bronson is one of the iciest action heroes of his time, all the moreso because of his leathered face and deep-set, stern eyes. He doesn't emote much, but he doesn't have to. His character is hard and driven, knows he's done bad in the past and doesn't apologize for it, but also seems to be looking for a way to atone for it. I think he ends up finding a way towards something resembling peace, by the end, although it's not much, and you can decide for yourself.
The supporting cast are all pretty excellent, though may not notice until the end. Jack Warden starts as an entertaining cliché, but by the end becomes a more complex, and, in a moral view, tragic figure. Will Sampson plays Crazy Horse with solemn dignity; somewhat of a living caricature of the noble, steel-eyed savage, but with such presence as to match the ominous White Buffalo's and lift this story further into the realm of legend. The character of dark-hearted Whistling Jack Kileen I swore was played by Gregory Peck, but in fact is played by towering, deep-voiced Clint Walker. A deadly, fearsome opponent even for the likes of Charles Bronson.
There's very little humor in "The White Buffalo," but it never gets as depressing as it threatens. I enjoyed it -- it's cool, if grim, and has a sense of honor about it. And it's fascinating for how it mixes the genres of the Western, the personal quest, and the supernatural beastly thriller.
This is a surprisingly effective and unique film; ostensibly a Western, but proving to have more parts supernatural thriller and mythical quest. The premise seems so ridiculous that it'd have to be either a comedy or an over-the-top action flick: Wild Bill Hickock and Crazy Horse team up to hunt a evil white buffalo. Instead, this film takes itself completely seriously and, amazingly, succeeds. I'm not going to call this one of the greatest Westerns or any of that stuff, but it's uncommonly absorbing and not quite like anything else I've seen.
The Western elements are thus: the setting, the tension between whites and Native Americans, the gunslinger of little words who is frequently attacked by snarling baddies wherever he goes but guns them down with hardly a blink (usually the Clint Eastwood role). Yet the main plot is part quest, part supernatural thriller: Hickock (Charles Bronson) is plagued by nightmares of the White Buffalo attacking him, and must confront the beast in order to keep from being driven insane; likewise, the Oglala chief Crazy Horse -- who was stripped of his rank and name after weeping like a woman at the death of his infant child when the White Buffalo attacked his village -- must kill the beast "in the old way" to regain his honor and provide peace for his child in the afterlife.
The White Buffalo itself appears nearly demonic -- in addition to invading Hickock's dreams even while he was living hundreds of miles away in the East, it stalks them from the shadows of snowy mountains, plays psychological games by making noises at night, kills their horses to deprive them of easy transport, and causes avalanches to intimidate them and cause mayhem. It reminded me of equal parts Moby Dick and the Red Bull from "The Last Unicorn".
The movie is directed in a slow, slightly surreal, not completely steady manner. In the first ten minutes of the movie, I wasn't sure if it was well made or not. The outside nighttime settings look limited, as if filmed on dark stages perhaps, the lighting was low and natural (often obscuring landscape or facial details due to darker-than-normal-for-movies shadows). The acting for the Native American characters is stiff and stereotypical of old Western portrayals -- flat voices, no emotion, somber faces. And the White Buffalo itself is filmed mostly in lightning quick, almost shaky-cam shots, up close, so you can't quite get a good look at it. Since it's likely a big puppet they had, this kind of choppy shooting was probably to disguise the artificiality. And it works. Sure, we're used to big CGI shots of creatures, and a bigger budgeted movie in 1977 could probably have done more, but this limited approach WORKS for this movie. It makes the White Buffalo more surreal, more monstrous, and more threatening. It's not a real buffalo -- it's practically a demon! I think that's the point, and it really helps build the suspense and eerie atmosphere for this movie. And this goes for the whole movie -- as it progresses, the directing feels more assured and the narrative finds its focus.
Bronson is one of the iciest action heroes of his time, all the moreso because of his leathered face and deep-set, stern eyes. He doesn't emote much, but he doesn't have to. His character is hard and driven, knows he's done bad in the past and doesn't apologize for it, but also seems to be looking for a way to atone for it. I think he ends up finding a way towards something resembling peace, by the end, although it's not much, and you can decide for yourself.
The supporting cast are all pretty excellent, though may not notice until the end. Jack Warden starts as an entertaining cliché, but by the end becomes a more complex, and, in a moral view, tragic figure. Will Sampson plays Crazy Horse with solemn dignity; somewhat of a living caricature of the noble, steel-eyed savage, but with such presence as to match the ominous White Buffalo's and lift this story further into the realm of legend. The character of dark-hearted Whistling Jack Kileen I swore was played by Gregory Peck, but in fact is played by towering, deep-voiced Clint Walker. A deadly, fearsome opponent even for the likes of Charles Bronson.
There's very little humor in "The White Buffalo," but it never gets as depressing as it threatens. I enjoyed it -- it's cool, if grim, and has a sense of honor about it. And it's fascinating for how it mixes the genres of the Western, the personal quest, and the supernatural beastly thriller.
Fun in the greenwood; more or less what I signed up for
29 July 2011
Warning: Spoilers
As previously, the story is fast-paced and entertaining, if not always brilliant, and I'm pleased that Robin's defining character traits are his dual senses of honor and justice, and his unwillingness to sacrifice either. The show likes to throw tough moral decisions his way, which is as it should be, and while they don't elicit quite the gravitas that a show like Doctor Who, or even Highlander, does, they still help to give the proceedings a bit of depth and redeeming value. The action remains just this side of cartoony, and is a good deal of fun.
Also, I note with interest the presence of a black British character in a high-ranking position, whose anachronistic presence (like the anachronistic clothing, weapons, and just about everything else) goes uncommented on. This should be a clear indication of the kind of show Robin Hood is.
Also noteworthy: while this is a family show, moreso even than Doctor Who is, by my reckoning, it's not afraid to kill off side characters. This episode in particular involves a number of innocent people getting shot with arrows, and Robin himself blamed for their deaths. Nothing is bloody or dwelt on, but some parents might consider it too intense for their children.
Marian is still the show's most annoying element. She uses hypocritical jabs to unfairly disrespect Robin at every turn. Perhaps the writers intend her to be a kind of moral leash for Robin, to keep him from letting his fame get to his head? If so, they're doing a poor job of that. Her arguments are always failures of logic, and she has the gall to accuse Robin of "acting as if he can't be touched" when not only does he clearly express his anguish and anger over the peoples' suffering, but she is the one guilty of not emoting! This version of Marian serves only to get in the way of a fun story, and provides nothing valuable in return.
Also, I note with interest the presence of a black British character in a high-ranking position, whose anachronistic presence (like the anachronistic clothing, weapons, and just about everything else) goes uncommented on. This should be a clear indication of the kind of show Robin Hood is.
Also noteworthy: while this is a family show, moreso even than Doctor Who is, by my reckoning, it's not afraid to kill off side characters. This episode in particular involves a number of innocent people getting shot with arrows, and Robin himself blamed for their deaths. Nothing is bloody or dwelt on, but some parents might consider it too intense for their children.
Marian is still the show's most annoying element. She uses hypocritical jabs to unfairly disrespect Robin at every turn. Perhaps the writers intend her to be a kind of moral leash for Robin, to keep him from letting his fame get to his head? If so, they're doing a poor job of that. Her arguments are always failures of logic, and she has the gall to accuse Robin of "acting as if he can't be touched" when not only does he clearly express his anguish and anger over the peoples' suffering, but she is the one guilty of not emoting! This version of Marian serves only to get in the way of a fun story, and provides nothing valuable in return.
Pure camp, a little better than Ep. 1, and reasonably fun
29 July 2011
Warning: Spoilers
(For a full review of this and more episodes, movies, and books, visit my regularly-updated blog at http://twilightswarden.wordpress.com/) There's more fun swashbuckling in this episode, and I quite enjoyed it. You can't take it seriously, of course – it's pure camp, winking at the audience the whole way and just generally trying to have a good time. That's why I'm finding it easy to accept the offenses against history, logic, and physics, etc.
But it's also why I'm getting increasingly annoyed by the character of Marian. Other characters seem half aware that they are in a swashbuckling comedy (Robin more than half), but Marian takes herself far too seriously. Consider this: near the climax of this episode, Robin has turned himself in to the sheriff in order to save the peasants of Locksley from the Sheriff's violence. Robin is sentenced to hang the following morning, but naturally Marian visits him in prison with the intention of helping him escape. Before she does this, however, she tries to chew Robin out for being a selfish "fool." Her reasoning is this: Robin gave himself in, which means he'll die, which means he won't be around to protect the people of Locksley, which means he did the wrong thing. Robin laughs at this nonsense, but likes her too much to point out just how illogical she is. Because, following her reasoning, Robin should be protecting his people by doing something which leads directly to their gruesome mutilation. She won't even admit to his honor and integrity in doing this. Now, to be fair, much of her frustration with Robin comes from her own hurt feelings regarding him leaving for the Crusades while they were still engaged—but then who is being selfish? At any rate, Marian is the only character who is a complete bore when on screen. She doesn't seem to realize that in a Robin Hood show, you're supposed to have fun! Fortunately, the other actors get this very well. Special mentions here go to Keith Allen as the entertainingly despicable Sheriff and Gordon Kennedy as Little John. The former is quite a cunning fellow, as he quickly deduces that Robin values the lives and freedom of others far above his own life, and will not kill unless it is the last resort to save lives. And the latter gives this episode its emotional weight, as we learn he has a son in Locksley that he's never seen, on account of his being an outlaw for so long. Kennedy is older and appears far more mature than the other young men on screen, and that works greatly in his favor. This isn't a buffoonish Little John, or a simple one—he may express himself forthrightly, but there's lots of thought behind his eyes. I like this portrayal—he's easily my favorite of the band so far.
It's nice to see Robin effectively at the head of the outlaws by the end of this episode. Every Robin Hood movie or show wants to start with an origin story, so it takes an episode or two for him to make friends with the outlaws and become their leader. It makes sense to do this, but the part I really came for is all the robbing from the rich, giving to the poor. Hopefully, that may now commence with gusto!
But it's also why I'm getting increasingly annoyed by the character of Marian. Other characters seem half aware that they are in a swashbuckling comedy (Robin more than half), but Marian takes herself far too seriously. Consider this: near the climax of this episode, Robin has turned himself in to the sheriff in order to save the peasants of Locksley from the Sheriff's violence. Robin is sentenced to hang the following morning, but naturally Marian visits him in prison with the intention of helping him escape. Before she does this, however, she tries to chew Robin out for being a selfish "fool." Her reasoning is this: Robin gave himself in, which means he'll die, which means he won't be around to protect the people of Locksley, which means he did the wrong thing. Robin laughs at this nonsense, but likes her too much to point out just how illogical she is. Because, following her reasoning, Robin should be protecting his people by doing something which leads directly to their gruesome mutilation. She won't even admit to his honor and integrity in doing this. Now, to be fair, much of her frustration with Robin comes from her own hurt feelings regarding him leaving for the Crusades while they were still engaged—but then who is being selfish? At any rate, Marian is the only character who is a complete bore when on screen. She doesn't seem to realize that in a Robin Hood show, you're supposed to have fun! Fortunately, the other actors get this very well. Special mentions here go to Keith Allen as the entertainingly despicable Sheriff and Gordon Kennedy as Little John. The former is quite a cunning fellow, as he quickly deduces that Robin values the lives and freedom of others far above his own life, and will not kill unless it is the last resort to save lives. And the latter gives this episode its emotional weight, as we learn he has a son in Locksley that he's never seen, on account of his being an outlaw for so long. Kennedy is older and appears far more mature than the other young men on screen, and that works greatly in his favor. This isn't a buffoonish Little John, or a simple one—he may express himself forthrightly, but there's lots of thought behind his eyes. I like this portrayal—he's easily my favorite of the band so far.
It's nice to see Robin effectively at the head of the outlaws by the end of this episode. Every Robin Hood movie or show wants to start with an origin story, so it takes an episode or two for him to make friends with the outlaws and become their leader. It makes sense to do this, but the part I really came for is all the robbing from the rich, giving to the poor. Hopefully, that may now commence with gusto!
So flagrantly illogical that it's kind of fun
29 July 2011
Warning: Spoilers
(See my full review here: http://twilightswarden.wordpress.com/review-list/)
When the title zoomed on screen to the exaggerated sound of arrows hitting a target, I realized just how proudly the BBC's Robin Hood wears its camp on its Lincoln-green sleeves. This realization prepared me so I could laugh when, in later instances, Robin shows off his "Saracen" recurved bow (actually a modernized version of a Hun bow, but nevermind), fires two arrows at once to split some hangman's ropes (a modest homage to Carey Elwes, perhaps?), and gets saved by a pointy hairpin thrown with deadly precision at a range of many yards by Marian. Historical accuracy and realistic physics are thus ignored, and I have no great hopes for the legend being strictly adhered to either.
The actors all seem capable and possessing of comedic talent, although I notice that not only are all the male heroes young (which makes sense for Robin and his outlaws), but they all seem to have the same lean, rather short body build. This, combined with their acting styles, makes them all seem like rowdy college boys rather than young men who are trying to find their place in the world.
Robin himself is good enough. He's a bit more serious than his mates, but not without a roguish side or a touch of emotional depth. Much (in other versions called "the Miller") is the comic relief, filling, at this point at least, the role of Robin's best friend and former manservant during the Crusades. Allan A Dale looks like he'll be a fun rogue when he joins the group proper, and Will Scarlet, while young and idolizing Robin, has a chance of developing a measure of maturity, if the writers so decide.
At this stage, I'm not too thrilled about Marian. She's cold and haughty towards Robin, despite apparently being his childhood crush, and despite him clearly being a pretty cool and morally upright person who doesn't think twice about standing up to corrupt and powerful officials for the good of his own people. She does save Robin's life with the above-mentioned hairpin-dart, but otherwise is an annoyance for her self-perceived and nonexistent superiority.
On the villain's side, we have a typical, but not unwelcome, beard-stroking, evil-chuckling Sheriff of Nottingham, but the real standout is Guy of Gisborne. While unquestionably sinister, Gisborne seems reluctant to flagrantly break laws purely to get what he wants. Whether this comes from respect for the law or from cowardice, I do not yet know, but I am intrigued at the possibility that a shadow of integrity lies within Gisborne's grim, brutal façade.
What little I had heard about this series had not enticed me to give it a chance, but now that I've seen Episode 1 I think I can have some fun with it, at least for awhile.
When the title zoomed on screen to the exaggerated sound of arrows hitting a target, I realized just how proudly the BBC's Robin Hood wears its camp on its Lincoln-green sleeves. This realization prepared me so I could laugh when, in later instances, Robin shows off his "Saracen" recurved bow (actually a modernized version of a Hun bow, but nevermind), fires two arrows at once to split some hangman's ropes (a modest homage to Carey Elwes, perhaps?), and gets saved by a pointy hairpin thrown with deadly precision at a range of many yards by Marian. Historical accuracy and realistic physics are thus ignored, and I have no great hopes for the legend being strictly adhered to either.
The actors all seem capable and possessing of comedic talent, although I notice that not only are all the male heroes young (which makes sense for Robin and his outlaws), but they all seem to have the same lean, rather short body build. This, combined with their acting styles, makes them all seem like rowdy college boys rather than young men who are trying to find their place in the world.
Robin himself is good enough. He's a bit more serious than his mates, but not without a roguish side or a touch of emotional depth. Much (in other versions called "the Miller") is the comic relief, filling, at this point at least, the role of Robin's best friend and former manservant during the Crusades. Allan A Dale looks like he'll be a fun rogue when he joins the group proper, and Will Scarlet, while young and idolizing Robin, has a chance of developing a measure of maturity, if the writers so decide.
At this stage, I'm not too thrilled about Marian. She's cold and haughty towards Robin, despite apparently being his childhood crush, and despite him clearly being a pretty cool and morally upright person who doesn't think twice about standing up to corrupt and powerful officials for the good of his own people. She does save Robin's life with the above-mentioned hairpin-dart, but otherwise is an annoyance for her self-perceived and nonexistent superiority.
On the villain's side, we have a typical, but not unwelcome, beard-stroking, evil-chuckling Sheriff of Nottingham, but the real standout is Guy of Gisborne. While unquestionably sinister, Gisborne seems reluctant to flagrantly break laws purely to get what he wants. Whether this comes from respect for the law or from cowardice, I do not yet know, but I am intrigued at the possibility that a shadow of integrity lies within Gisborne's grim, brutal façade.
What little I had heard about this series had not enticed me to give it a chance, but now that I've seen Episode 1 I think I can have some fun with it, at least for awhile.
Interesting but clumsy start
8 December 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I must say, the idea of a kids' TV show based on the further adventures of Peter Pan and the Lost Boys is just plain brilliant. There's a ready and widely-known-and-loved back story available, plus endless room to invent and innovate. The story is already ripe with symbolism and meaning, and the engaging characters ready to be further developed. Too bad it didn't last very long. I'd love to see the concept revived and done well.
So far I've only viewed this pilot, and not the rest of the series yet. If it were an episode in the middle of the series, it would be just fine, but it's rather weaker as an introductory piece. For one thing, it does no introducing. It starts in media res, as it were, with Peter, the Lost Boys, Wendy, John, and Michael all living together comfortably under the tree house in Neverland. The adventure begins almost immediately with no buildup, involving a villain invented completely for the show: The Ice-King, a mostly solitary warlock who seems to control all that is cold and wintry on the island. Additionally, Captain Hook and his pirates of the title barely appear at all, and have nothing to do with this episode's plot.
Usually the first episode of a series is supposed to offer viewers an idea of what is "normal" for the show, what to expect in tone and character. There's often some kind of summing up of "the story so far." Not so here. Now granted, that's not a huge deal, since the story of Peter Pan is such a part of popular culture here in the West. It's not hard to figure out what's going on. It's just that if you weren't told this was the pilot episode, you'd never guess.
It keeps me interested in the series, though. I was initially worried, because the animation style is very much early 1990s saccharine Don-Bluth-at-his-sugariest, which I don't mean as a complement. The voices at first seemed a little too exaggerated also. Magic seem to be treated as a deus-ex-machina. And Tink talks. I'm of the opinion that Tinkerbell is best as originally portrayed in the play -- silent, but with expressive tinkling noises, like in Disney's cartoon and the 2003 live action film.
However, none of these potential negative elements ended up bothering me as much as I thought they would. The cutesiness doesn't go overboard, and mostly works the desired effect. And some of the animation is really pretty good. There's a joy and innocence in it, and in the story as well, that lifts you up and carries you along. It's just plain fun to see Peter flying around again with the same ease and confidence the Disney version has -- and this time, to know that he's got a good two seasons to spread his adventures over, rather than just a single well-known story lasting 1.5 - 2 hours.
The story ended up yielding some neat effects as well, such as when Neverland is briefly covered in a thick layer of magical ice. There are hints of darkness and maturity below the colourful surface that intrigue me.
In fact, this first episode deals squarely with Peter's most fundamental character flaw: his enormous ego. It causes him to disregard the warnings and safety of others, and puts all his friends in great danger. In the climax, Peter is forced to fight an evil version of himself, and finds just how bad his hubris really is. Whether he'll take the lesson to heart in the rest of the show is left to be seen. But it was interesting to see the morality tale play out. Peter seems to act consistently in the show. He's young and petulant, but clearly cares for his friends. The balance and conflict in his character that has made it so enduring and intriguing throughout all adaptations is present here. I look forward to the rest of the series.
So far I've only viewed this pilot, and not the rest of the series yet. If it were an episode in the middle of the series, it would be just fine, but it's rather weaker as an introductory piece. For one thing, it does no introducing. It starts in media res, as it were, with Peter, the Lost Boys, Wendy, John, and Michael all living together comfortably under the tree house in Neverland. The adventure begins almost immediately with no buildup, involving a villain invented completely for the show: The Ice-King, a mostly solitary warlock who seems to control all that is cold and wintry on the island. Additionally, Captain Hook and his pirates of the title barely appear at all, and have nothing to do with this episode's plot.
Usually the first episode of a series is supposed to offer viewers an idea of what is "normal" for the show, what to expect in tone and character. There's often some kind of summing up of "the story so far." Not so here. Now granted, that's not a huge deal, since the story of Peter Pan is such a part of popular culture here in the West. It's not hard to figure out what's going on. It's just that if you weren't told this was the pilot episode, you'd never guess.
It keeps me interested in the series, though. I was initially worried, because the animation style is very much early 1990s saccharine Don-Bluth-at-his-sugariest, which I don't mean as a complement. The voices at first seemed a little too exaggerated also. Magic seem to be treated as a deus-ex-machina. And Tink talks. I'm of the opinion that Tinkerbell is best as originally portrayed in the play -- silent, but with expressive tinkling noises, like in Disney's cartoon and the 2003 live action film.
However, none of these potential negative elements ended up bothering me as much as I thought they would. The cutesiness doesn't go overboard, and mostly works the desired effect. And some of the animation is really pretty good. There's a joy and innocence in it, and in the story as well, that lifts you up and carries you along. It's just plain fun to see Peter flying around again with the same ease and confidence the Disney version has -- and this time, to know that he's got a good two seasons to spread his adventures over, rather than just a single well-known story lasting 1.5 - 2 hours.
The story ended up yielding some neat effects as well, such as when Neverland is briefly covered in a thick layer of magical ice. There are hints of darkness and maturity below the colourful surface that intrigue me.
In fact, this first episode deals squarely with Peter's most fundamental character flaw: his enormous ego. It causes him to disregard the warnings and safety of others, and puts all his friends in great danger. In the climax, Peter is forced to fight an evil version of himself, and finds just how bad his hubris really is. Whether he'll take the lesson to heart in the rest of the show is left to be seen. But it was interesting to see the morality tale play out. Peter seems to act consistently in the show. He's young and petulant, but clearly cares for his friends. The balance and conflict in his character that has made it so enduring and intriguing throughout all adaptations is present here. I look forward to the rest of the series.
The 300 Spartans
(1962)
The truly excellent exists alongside clumsy flaws
22 April 2010
FIRST: I gotta say that, for its flaws, "The 300 Spartans" is a shining beacon of film-making in comparison to that awful, offensive "300" (2006) that decided to replace warriors with posers in underwear. ANYway...moving on.
This is a fun movie, and one that has a few areas of really great excellence. The cinematography, firstly, is easily on the level of the masterpiece epics like Ben-Hur and Spartacus -- truly lush and beautiful, intelligently constructed to the service of the story's drama. Costumes, props, sets, all are fantastic and create the right kind of ancient, and mostly historically accurate, atmosphere. The lines of scarlet-cloaked high-plumed Spartans marching through Grecian scrub-land to battle can be quite impressive to behold. A "visual feast" someone might say, and while the phrase is a bit overused and pretentious, it has some validity here. It's a good-looking film.
Much of the acting is also strong. Richard Egan had a background in the US military as a veteran and hand-to-hand combat trainer, and he carries well the brusque nobility of the Spartan general Leonidas. Also, John Crawford is intriguing and intense as Leonidas' right-hand man Agathon. Of all the actors, he seems to most completely embody his character, despite having a fairly limited secondary role. On the other side, David Farrar is a good Xerxes. He hams it up a little bit, but makes it work by suggesting that Xerxes himself was a bit of a ham. After all, Xerxes was emperor of most of the known world, including proud Egypt, and came from a long line of famous kings. Watching Farrar, we think that Xerxes is the over-actor, which means Farrar has embodied the character.
BUT there are some inescapable flaws that prevent "The 300 Spartans" from being a truly great epic. Firstly, the script is serviceable at best, and cheesy (in the bad sense) at worst. Xerxes in particular gets some bad lines, and it is a testament to Farrar's charisma that he sells them to the audience at the moment they are said (if not in retrospect).
Next, the two female characters (Ellas and Artemisia). The sad fact is that they function solely to give a romantic aspect to this otherwise testosterone-fuelled war film. Their scenes (with Phylon and Xerxes, respectively) tend to have little to do with the main plot (Ellas' especially) and distract terribly from the matter at hand. Their characters are both one-note, with little thought having gone into their creation. They are also poorly cast, and likely poorly directed as well. No one really seems to know what purpose they serve, beyond "Hey, audiences like romances with pretty people, so hopefully this will make us more money; plot coherence be hanged!" Now, they aren't TOO achingly horrendous. Diane Baker as Ellas is pretty and somewhat charming -- she just doesn't fit into the story, or the ancient world. And Ann Wakefield as Artemisia could maybe have had some fun with her slinky, Cleopatra-esquire role had it been better written and directed -- but as it is, she just pouts and glowers and tries only half-heartedly to romance Xerxes.
Thirdly, probably the weakest link of all is the character of Phylon, who functions as the romantic lead (to Ellas) and something of the movie's hero. The movie clearly wants him to be the "human element" in the story, but he fails pretty badly. Known mostly for commercials in the '50s and '60s, Barry Coe is so badly miscast that it really grates every time he opens his mouth. You'd think he just wandered off a Brooklyn street and had a cloak and shield thrown at him. The ancient-style dialogue dives off his tongue and crashes in his flat, nasally American accent, and while physically fit he does not carry the presence of a Spartan warrior. Seems more suited to a jazz dance studio or a beach-party movie than the epic battle of Thermopylae!
So there you have it. Three key performances are totally miscast and poorly thought out, with weak and unfocused direction to boot. The script ranges from okay to losing its way in a morass of obligatory romantic goop. But most of the other performances are quite strong indeed, enough to make up for weak dialogue, and the production values are quite outstanding. Even the music can be quite good and interesting. For the charismatic performances I mentioned above, and the great cinematography, I recommend this film.
This is a fun movie, and one that has a few areas of really great excellence. The cinematography, firstly, is easily on the level of the masterpiece epics like Ben-Hur and Spartacus -- truly lush and beautiful, intelligently constructed to the service of the story's drama. Costumes, props, sets, all are fantastic and create the right kind of ancient, and mostly historically accurate, atmosphere. The lines of scarlet-cloaked high-plumed Spartans marching through Grecian scrub-land to battle can be quite impressive to behold. A "visual feast" someone might say, and while the phrase is a bit overused and pretentious, it has some validity here. It's a good-looking film.
Much of the acting is also strong. Richard Egan had a background in the US military as a veteran and hand-to-hand combat trainer, and he carries well the brusque nobility of the Spartan general Leonidas. Also, John Crawford is intriguing and intense as Leonidas' right-hand man Agathon. Of all the actors, he seems to most completely embody his character, despite having a fairly limited secondary role. On the other side, David Farrar is a good Xerxes. He hams it up a little bit, but makes it work by suggesting that Xerxes himself was a bit of a ham. After all, Xerxes was emperor of most of the known world, including proud Egypt, and came from a long line of famous kings. Watching Farrar, we think that Xerxes is the over-actor, which means Farrar has embodied the character.
BUT there are some inescapable flaws that prevent "The 300 Spartans" from being a truly great epic. Firstly, the script is serviceable at best, and cheesy (in the bad sense) at worst. Xerxes in particular gets some bad lines, and it is a testament to Farrar's charisma that he sells them to the audience at the moment they are said (if not in retrospect).
Next, the two female characters (Ellas and Artemisia). The sad fact is that they function solely to give a romantic aspect to this otherwise testosterone-fuelled war film. Their scenes (with Phylon and Xerxes, respectively) tend to have little to do with the main plot (Ellas' especially) and distract terribly from the matter at hand. Their characters are both one-note, with little thought having gone into their creation. They are also poorly cast, and likely poorly directed as well. No one really seems to know what purpose they serve, beyond "Hey, audiences like romances with pretty people, so hopefully this will make us more money; plot coherence be hanged!" Now, they aren't TOO achingly horrendous. Diane Baker as Ellas is pretty and somewhat charming -- she just doesn't fit into the story, or the ancient world. And Ann Wakefield as Artemisia could maybe have had some fun with her slinky, Cleopatra-esquire role had it been better written and directed -- but as it is, she just pouts and glowers and tries only half-heartedly to romance Xerxes.
Thirdly, probably the weakest link of all is the character of Phylon, who functions as the romantic lead (to Ellas) and something of the movie's hero. The movie clearly wants him to be the "human element" in the story, but he fails pretty badly. Known mostly for commercials in the '50s and '60s, Barry Coe is so badly miscast that it really grates every time he opens his mouth. You'd think he just wandered off a Brooklyn street and had a cloak and shield thrown at him. The ancient-style dialogue dives off his tongue and crashes in his flat, nasally American accent, and while physically fit he does not carry the presence of a Spartan warrior. Seems more suited to a jazz dance studio or a beach-party movie than the epic battle of Thermopylae!
So there you have it. Three key performances are totally miscast and poorly thought out, with weak and unfocused direction to boot. The script ranges from okay to losing its way in a morass of obligatory romantic goop. But most of the other performances are quite strong indeed, enough to make up for weak dialogue, and the production values are quite outstanding. Even the music can be quite good and interesting. For the charismatic performances I mentioned above, and the great cinematography, I recommend this film.
Fairly well-made, but why must we inflict horror on children to be entertained?
14 March 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I believe - and I am not alone in this - that the quality of any storytelling art, including film of course, has both an aesthetic and a moral element. A film like Casablanca, for instance, is fantastic noir, and it also shows us characters who are devoted to good causes larger than themselves.
SPOILER IN NEXT PARAGRAPH
Part of the reason I didn't like this film is undoubtedly because I'm just not a big fan of horror in general, so take that into account. But it matters how horror is used; for instance, "Pan's Labyrinth" is pretty horrific, but I also found it pretty amazing. Likewise, it is one thing to tell a short scary story at night, around a campfire with others, for the giddy fun of it, and let imaginations run wild; or even to read such a short tale. The story of "The Faeries of Blackheath Woods" would work well as that kind of thing. But to depict it, with a real live girl, is crossing a line. It is suggesting that we take some pleasure, some entertainment, from watching a real, live little girl get torn apart by malevolent little creatures. Granted the film doesn't actually show the horrific act, but implication is not much better. What purpose does this serve? It's not a cautionary tale, for the suggestion that the girl is a spoiled brat who doesn't listen to her parents doesn't really amount to much. It's just too arbitrary and feels mean-spirited - I don't see any redeeming value. Especially with a child as the victim -- that's something which really isn't defensible, with them being so dependent and vulnerable. It runs the risk of desensitising us towards horrors that exist in the real world.
That said, the technical aspects are very good. I like the design and handling of the faeries, their horrific purpose aside. A low budget was no obstacle to high production values, it seems. I'd be interested in other work the filmmakers do, providing it isn't so horrible in subject-matter.
SPOILER IN NEXT PARAGRAPH
Part of the reason I didn't like this film is undoubtedly because I'm just not a big fan of horror in general, so take that into account. But it matters how horror is used; for instance, "Pan's Labyrinth" is pretty horrific, but I also found it pretty amazing. Likewise, it is one thing to tell a short scary story at night, around a campfire with others, for the giddy fun of it, and let imaginations run wild; or even to read such a short tale. The story of "The Faeries of Blackheath Woods" would work well as that kind of thing. But to depict it, with a real live girl, is crossing a line. It is suggesting that we take some pleasure, some entertainment, from watching a real, live little girl get torn apart by malevolent little creatures. Granted the film doesn't actually show the horrific act, but implication is not much better. What purpose does this serve? It's not a cautionary tale, for the suggestion that the girl is a spoiled brat who doesn't listen to her parents doesn't really amount to much. It's just too arbitrary and feels mean-spirited - I don't see any redeeming value. Especially with a child as the victim -- that's something which really isn't defensible, with them being so dependent and vulnerable. It runs the risk of desensitising us towards horrors that exist in the real world.
That said, the technical aspects are very good. I like the design and handling of the faeries, their horrific purpose aside. A low budget was no obstacle to high production values, it seems. I'd be interested in other work the filmmakers do, providing it isn't so horrible in subject-matter.
Dick Tracy
(1990)
Fantastic entertainment
1 November 2009
The low rating here really astounds me -- 5.9/10, really, people? It is a well-paced, well-acted film with a fantastic visual sense, epically recreating the kind of comic-book noir metropolis that has simmered and fermented for so long in American mythology, from the old Dashiell Hammett/Raymond Chandler classics of "The Maltese Falcon" and "The Big Sleep" (not to mention the Dick Tracy comics themselves) to modern sci-fi and neo-noirs like "Blade Runner" and "The Dark Knight." Here it comes to a full-flowering in all its pulpy glory -- like Roger Ebert said, "It's the distillation of the idea of City - of the vast, brooding, mysterious metropolis spreading in all directions forever, concealing millions of lives and secrets." It doesn't look "real"...it looks magnificent.
There has always been a close connection between the private eyes of hard-boiled detective fiction and the classic superheroes. The settings -- squalid, over-packed and decaying metropolises in need of redemption, the lone hero trying to do right in a corrupt world (often fighting himself), the twisted and often ideological evil of the criminals. And so much more. "Dick Tracy" gets that connection, making its villains so bizarre and vitriolic that they give the Joker a run for his money, and so resolutely squaring Tracy's own jaw that he could pose quite favourably beside Superman and Batman.
For the most part, the casting and acting is on the money. Beatty cuts a perfect detective profile, and may be one of few men who can pull off a bright yellow trench coat. Pacino's overacting is virtually mandated by the extremity of this comic genre, and while his makeup is grotesque, it does fit the standards of the movie and his character. This story is a parable, a bit of American mythology in which those representing Good must be boldly and attractively so, and those that represent Evil must be decidedly ugly. There is nothing wrong with this -- shades of moral gray would be inappropriate for this tale. It is about archetypes, the importance of high moral ideals (or if philosophers prefer to distinguish, ethical ideals), and that it is a good thing to remind ourselves and be inspired to continue to fight for what is Good in spite of how hard it is.
The one element that did not mesh well for me was the character of Breathless Mahoney, played by Madonna. She was trying too hard to evoke Marilyn Monroe and apparently forgot to create a character of her own. Her lines, both the actual dialogue and her delivery, are painfully forced, trying to twist every comment into dirty innuendo, and it simply doesn't work. Jessica Rabbit from "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" would've worked better in this role, and she's a cartoon!
Nonetheless, this is great entertainment. Perhaps not too deep, but not without a message in the solidity of its traditional archetypes -- a Good versus Evil story of the old type which is actually rather lacking nowadays. Where the Good Guys are actually really good, and not swearing/promiscuous/brutal "anti-heroes," and the Bad Guys have actually chosen evil ways and are not just poor "misunderstood" boys who need a big hug. We are meant to strive for being actually, truly Good, and are meant to look inward, monitoring our own thoughts and actions to keep us from the ugliness so transparent in the movie's personifications of Vice.
There has always been a close connection between the private eyes of hard-boiled detective fiction and the classic superheroes. The settings -- squalid, over-packed and decaying metropolises in need of redemption, the lone hero trying to do right in a corrupt world (often fighting himself), the twisted and often ideological evil of the criminals. And so much more. "Dick Tracy" gets that connection, making its villains so bizarre and vitriolic that they give the Joker a run for his money, and so resolutely squaring Tracy's own jaw that he could pose quite favourably beside Superman and Batman.
For the most part, the casting and acting is on the money. Beatty cuts a perfect detective profile, and may be one of few men who can pull off a bright yellow trench coat. Pacino's overacting is virtually mandated by the extremity of this comic genre, and while his makeup is grotesque, it does fit the standards of the movie and his character. This story is a parable, a bit of American mythology in which those representing Good must be boldly and attractively so, and those that represent Evil must be decidedly ugly. There is nothing wrong with this -- shades of moral gray would be inappropriate for this tale. It is about archetypes, the importance of high moral ideals (or if philosophers prefer to distinguish, ethical ideals), and that it is a good thing to remind ourselves and be inspired to continue to fight for what is Good in spite of how hard it is.
The one element that did not mesh well for me was the character of Breathless Mahoney, played by Madonna. She was trying too hard to evoke Marilyn Monroe and apparently forgot to create a character of her own. Her lines, both the actual dialogue and her delivery, are painfully forced, trying to twist every comment into dirty innuendo, and it simply doesn't work. Jessica Rabbit from "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" would've worked better in this role, and she's a cartoon!
Nonetheless, this is great entertainment. Perhaps not too deep, but not without a message in the solidity of its traditional archetypes -- a Good versus Evil story of the old type which is actually rather lacking nowadays. Where the Good Guys are actually really good, and not swearing/promiscuous/brutal "anti-heroes," and the Bad Guys have actually chosen evil ways and are not just poor "misunderstood" boys who need a big hug. We are meant to strive for being actually, truly Good, and are meant to look inward, monitoring our own thoughts and actions to keep us from the ugliness so transparent in the movie's personifications of Vice.
Battle of the Warriors
(2006)
Interesting, with a solid main character
20 October 2009
Having just seen this film, it may be awhile before I can complete my opinion of it. I do not know if it was the poor translations in the subtitles, some confusing storytelling with the subplots, or a combination of both that made many of the finer points difficult to understand. I suspect the third option. As another reviewer said, this movie does have a message, and a potentially very interesting one, but I found that many of the events in the film meant to illustrate it were not well defined enough to be completely comprehensible. It is easy to confuse side characters whose names are not made clear and who look very similar in their armor. Other details, like why certain people are now outside a besieged city when they were in it earlier, also seem confusing -- I expect it all does make sense, but the movie could have done a better job of explaining the finer points of what was happening, what with the many double-crossings and irrational violence that happens. And some other things, like a romantic subplot, weren't fleshed out enough for me to buy -- it seemed a little too Hollywood-ish in setup.
Nonetheless, it is a very interesting movie, visually and story-wise. The main character Ge Li is intriguing and charismatic, well-played by Andy Lau. He is an idealist with great integrity, and he often is alone in his beliefs, but still he uses his great tactical ingenuity to try to defend the city of Liang. This is the film's setup. How it plays out is also quite interesting, though as I said above I found many of the points confusing which otherwise might have added the extra meaning to gain this movie a higher score.
Visually it is very good. Lots of money was spent well, and it has the feel of a real, legitimate battle, with much of the brutality though thankfully not the gore. It doesn't glamorize war, but regards fighting for the defence of one's nation or innocents as often necessary. Yet while it is a bit more contemplative and intelligent than your average medieval epic, it still does work as entertainment. There are some scenes that are just neatly push the film over from pure serious historical war drama into fun action flick. They stick out a little bit, but not enough to ruin anything.
In short: it is an interesting, fun, and sometimes clever film, a bit confusing at times with its subplots and side characters, but grounded by an interesting and admirable protagonist. Not a necessary film or a great one, but a pretty good one all the same.
Nonetheless, it is a very interesting movie, visually and story-wise. The main character Ge Li is intriguing and charismatic, well-played by Andy Lau. He is an idealist with great integrity, and he often is alone in his beliefs, but still he uses his great tactical ingenuity to try to defend the city of Liang. This is the film's setup. How it plays out is also quite interesting, though as I said above I found many of the points confusing which otherwise might have added the extra meaning to gain this movie a higher score.
Visually it is very good. Lots of money was spent well, and it has the feel of a real, legitimate battle, with much of the brutality though thankfully not the gore. It doesn't glamorize war, but regards fighting for the defence of one's nation or innocents as often necessary. Yet while it is a bit more contemplative and intelligent than your average medieval epic, it still does work as entertainment. There are some scenes that are just neatly push the film over from pure serious historical war drama into fun action flick. They stick out a little bit, but not enough to ruin anything.
In short: it is an interesting, fun, and sometimes clever film, a bit confusing at times with its subplots and side characters, but grounded by an interesting and admirable protagonist. Not a necessary film or a great one, but a pretty good one all the same.
The Maltese Falcon
(1931)
Not Bogart, but still fun
29 August 2009
It's somewhat surprising how different two versions of the same story can be. While the later version starring Humphrey Bogart had moments so clever and stylish that you find yourself laughing at the greatness of the writing and the actors' delivery, it is this version which really takes a lighter, more humorous approach.
Not that it's a comedy -- that would be "Satan Met a Lady" -- but it wisecracks it's way through the labyrinthine plot with a wry smirk the whole way. That's how Cortez plays Sam Spade; more flagrantly immoral, and more satisfied about it, than Bogart, and always with a kind of toothy grin plastered across his face. The character of Spade is always putting on an act, and sometimes he may even fool himself. It's not as great a performance as Bogart's, but it escapes comparison by being such a different take on the character.
The story, as I remember, is not as clear here as it is in the later version, nor is it as stylish, or the supporting cast quite as memorable. Still, it's a competent, very entertaining noir. Plus, being made in 1931, it still has the aesthetic of the Roaring Twenties and art nouveau, which again sets it apart with the 1941 version. The dames here have bobbed hair and flapper styles.
Not that it's a comedy -- that would be "Satan Met a Lady" -- but it wisecracks it's way through the labyrinthine plot with a wry smirk the whole way. That's how Cortez plays Sam Spade; more flagrantly immoral, and more satisfied about it, than Bogart, and always with a kind of toothy grin plastered across his face. The character of Spade is always putting on an act, and sometimes he may even fool himself. It's not as great a performance as Bogart's, but it escapes comparison by being such a different take on the character.
The story, as I remember, is not as clear here as it is in the later version, nor is it as stylish, or the supporting cast quite as memorable. Still, it's a competent, very entertaining noir. Plus, being made in 1931, it still has the aesthetic of the Roaring Twenties and art nouveau, which again sets it apart with the 1941 version. The dames here have bobbed hair and flapper styles.
Hook
(1991)
Not perfect, but it made me want to be a Lost Boy, and that is a glorious feeling
5 August 2009
As an adaptation of a very English fairy tale, it is perhaps rather poor.
As a children's fantasy film taking inspiration from one of the finest fairy tales of the 20th century, it is somewhat gloriously goofy fun.
I admit that Robin Williams is nowhere near the picture of Peter Pan I would've ever had, or would've ever liked to have. But as Peter Banning, the way the character is written for this film, he's just likable and naturally funny enough to make the best of a mediocre script.
Julia Roberts...well, yes, she was terribly miscast, bless her soul.
But Dustin Hoffman....yes it is over-the-top, yes it is hammy, and oh boy, is it fun to watch him. He embodied Captain Hook so fully that neither I nor my parents recognised it was him for the first time we saw it. Deliciously evil, his menace feels real while never becoming horrifying. And his scenes with Bob Hoskins as Smee feature some truly clever (and funny) dialogue.
The music by John Williams is simple and repetitive, but very catchy and thrilling. It does the job quite well, and is used wisely such that I never got tired of it.
I am grateful that this is not the only film made about Peter Pan. For the direction Spielberg chose to take this, he did it well enough that I have a grand time at every viewing. There is a certain magic about it that makes one smile and want to be a Lost Boy.....it is only in small part the magic of Peter Pan (which is generally much diminished due to all the Hollywood-Americanized touches), but mostly due to Spielberg's magic. It may not be the best magic for a Peter Pan story, but it is a considerable one all the same.
As a children's fantasy film taking inspiration from one of the finest fairy tales of the 20th century, it is somewhat gloriously goofy fun.
I admit that Robin Williams is nowhere near the picture of Peter Pan I would've ever had, or would've ever liked to have. But as Peter Banning, the way the character is written for this film, he's just likable and naturally funny enough to make the best of a mediocre script.
Julia Roberts...well, yes, she was terribly miscast, bless her soul.
But Dustin Hoffman....yes it is over-the-top, yes it is hammy, and oh boy, is it fun to watch him. He embodied Captain Hook so fully that neither I nor my parents recognised it was him for the first time we saw it. Deliciously evil, his menace feels real while never becoming horrifying. And his scenes with Bob Hoskins as Smee feature some truly clever (and funny) dialogue.
The music by John Williams is simple and repetitive, but very catchy and thrilling. It does the job quite well, and is used wisely such that I never got tired of it.
I am grateful that this is not the only film made about Peter Pan. For the direction Spielberg chose to take this, he did it well enough that I have a grand time at every viewing. There is a certain magic about it that makes one smile and want to be a Lost Boy.....it is only in small part the magic of Peter Pan (which is generally much diminished due to all the Hollywood-Americanized touches), but mostly due to Spielberg's magic. It may not be the best magic for a Peter Pan story, but it is a considerable one all the same.
Action in the North Atlantic
(1943)
Solid film and a nice change of pace for Bogart
5 August 2009
My grandfather fought in the U.S. Merchant Marine and lost half a finger while at it, so I perked up when I saw that this film focused on these oft-forgot veterans of WWII. There sure aren't many films about them. In fact, they weren't even given the right to be buried as war veterans until 1988, when President Reagan signed the bill.
And happily, it's a solid, interesting film. It doesn't shy away from showing how vulnerable these ships were, how many casualties they could take. Real attention is paid to individual members of the crew. Each one comes from a different walk of life, and they have their own views on the war and whether or not they want to be here. Raymond Massey does a fine job as the experienced, honourable captain, and Bogart takes a break from his dark, cynical characters to play the friendly and wise first-mate. He's still Bogart, of course -- a number of his lines have some of the trademark eloquent wit that he was given in his previous movies (such as Casablanca and The Maltese Falcon). He's worldly-wise, but not grim or disillusioned. He's a bit of a womaniser, but perhaps is not as loose as he pretends to be. He's firm and doesn't believe in nonsense, but has none of the hard cruelty or anger that comes out in his noir or "insane" role (i.e. Treasure of the Sierra Madre). He's as likable and dependable as ever. The other performances range from blandly adequate to quite good, with Alan Hale being as wonderfully likable and friendly as ever as the curmudgeonly comic relief. (love a good alliteration there, heh) The film is quite long, surprisingly. It takes its time to do scenes right, and give things weight. Only one element of the story was rushed, that being Bogart's romance. It doesn't last long, and is rather superfluous anyway. But the film never dragged too much. It could have been trimmed in some areas, but does not suffer badly for it.
The special effects are quite impressive, actually. They must have used models for the ship and submarine battles, but darn if they don't look good. There is one shot in particular, near the end: a boat is ramming a surfaced submarine, and the impact is filmed from underwater. It is absolutely convincing, and very dramatic.
And yes, it is a patriotic film, though not a fake or overbearing one. These men knew what they were fighting for, and in the movie they talk about it quite a bit. At one point, Bogart expresses the main reason why the experienced merchant mariners keep voluntarily returning to their ships instead of taking constant leave to be with their families. The essence of it is this: "We've spent a lot of time around Nazi ports, and we've seen what they're doing." Keep in mind, this movie was made in 1943, before the full horrors of the Holocaust were known. The Allies didn't know all that was happening yet, but they knew enough to be sure that it had to be stopped.
This is not an extraordinary classic, but it is a very fine film, and a good one.
And happily, it's a solid, interesting film. It doesn't shy away from showing how vulnerable these ships were, how many casualties they could take. Real attention is paid to individual members of the crew. Each one comes from a different walk of life, and they have their own views on the war and whether or not they want to be here. Raymond Massey does a fine job as the experienced, honourable captain, and Bogart takes a break from his dark, cynical characters to play the friendly and wise first-mate. He's still Bogart, of course -- a number of his lines have some of the trademark eloquent wit that he was given in his previous movies (such as Casablanca and The Maltese Falcon). He's worldly-wise, but not grim or disillusioned. He's a bit of a womaniser, but perhaps is not as loose as he pretends to be. He's firm and doesn't believe in nonsense, but has none of the hard cruelty or anger that comes out in his noir or "insane" role (i.e. Treasure of the Sierra Madre). He's as likable and dependable as ever. The other performances range from blandly adequate to quite good, with Alan Hale being as wonderfully likable and friendly as ever as the curmudgeonly comic relief. (love a good alliteration there, heh) The film is quite long, surprisingly. It takes its time to do scenes right, and give things weight. Only one element of the story was rushed, that being Bogart's romance. It doesn't last long, and is rather superfluous anyway. But the film never dragged too much. It could have been trimmed in some areas, but does not suffer badly for it.
The special effects are quite impressive, actually. They must have used models for the ship and submarine battles, but darn if they don't look good. There is one shot in particular, near the end: a boat is ramming a surfaced submarine, and the impact is filmed from underwater. It is absolutely convincing, and very dramatic.
And yes, it is a patriotic film, though not a fake or overbearing one. These men knew what they were fighting for, and in the movie they talk about it quite a bit. At one point, Bogart expresses the main reason why the experienced merchant mariners keep voluntarily returning to their ships instead of taking constant leave to be with their families. The essence of it is this: "We've spent a lot of time around Nazi ports, and we've seen what they're doing." Keep in mind, this movie was made in 1943, before the full horrors of the Holocaust were known. The Allies didn't know all that was happening yet, but they knew enough to be sure that it had to be stopped.
This is not an extraordinary classic, but it is a very fine film, and a good one.
Tell Your Friends