Reviews

"Monkey Business" is my favorite Marx Brothers movie. Not only is it one of their best, it's their most distinctive.

It's their first movie with an original screenplay ("The Cocoanuts" and "Animal Crackers" were adaptations of their Broadway shows). It's the first of their films to be made in Hollywood. And it's the only film in which the brothers essentially play themselves.

And all four of them have plenty to do, even Zeppo. In fact, this is his best film. He plays both straight and funny; he's the romantic lead for the first time; he's the one who steals Maurice Chevalier's passport to set up the classic disembarkation scene, and he's even the hero at the end.

"Monkey Business" may not be regarded quite as highly as "Duck Soup" or "A Night at the Opera," but along with "Animal Crackers" and "Horsefeathers," it's still a classic.

Robert Benchley not only was a great humorist (in my opinion, the funniest writer who ever lived), he also was a talented film comedian and a good actor as well. He was naturally funny, both in person and in whatever medium (print, film, stage, radio, public speaking) he worked. By all accounts, he also was a warm and wonderful human being.

"The Sex Life of the Polyp," made in 1928, was only the second all-talking commercial motion picture, following "The Treasurer's Report," also a 1928 Benchley short subject. Unlike "The Treasurer's Report," which is amusing and invaluable historically but not a classic, "The Sex Life of the Polyp" still holds up as a genuinely funny film. This is Benchley at his best; in fact, he is just as good here as he was in "How to Sleep," a short subject that won him an Academy Award in 1935.

The other thing that is notable about "Sex" is the special effects (or what passed for them in 1928). Whereas "The Treasurer's Report" is simply a filmed speech, "Sex" employs more complicated techniques. It's still pretty basic, but it works better than its predecessor. This is not a knock on "The Treasurer's Report," which Benchley first delivered as a stage monologue in 1922 and became a staple of his career; it's just that "The Sex Life of the Polyp" is a better piece of film-making. And it's still hilarious, all these years later.

Of the films in what I like to call the Great Ape Trilogy ("King Kong," "The Son of Kong" and "Mighty Joe Young"), this is my pet favorite. I loved "The Son of Kong" as a kid but hadn't seen it in years until I rented it recently from my local public library. Was it as good as I remembered? No -- it was even better!

This movie generally gets a bad rap, and I admit that some of the criticisms are valid: It was rushed, it can't compete with "King Kong" in terms of spectacle or horror, it's a light dessert after a steak dinner. Because it's a sequel, it is fair to compare it to the original, and in some respects the comparisons are unfavorable. It's not exactly "Bride of Frankenstein" or "The Godfather Part II." But it's a wonderful film in its own right.

The best thing about "The Son of Kong" is that it makes perfect sense. Carl Denham (played, as in the original, by Robert Armstrong) is being sued by practically everyone in New York for the death and destruction caused by King Kong. That's exactly what would happen, not just in 1933, but especially today, which gives this old movie an unexpected freshness. Also, because of severe budgetary and time restrictions, the filmmakers knew they couldn't make another spectacle, so they wisely went in the other direction. The result is a smaller and far more lighthearted film whose titular character is a charming innocent who acts exactly the way a young ape would act. He's curious, he's playful and he's friendly, but he's also suitably ferocious when attacked or when protecting his human friends, as a watchdog pup would be.

There's also a sweetness and compassion about this film, not only in the kindly attitude toward animals, Little Kong in particular, but in the relationship between the remorseful Denham and the lonely Hilda, touchingly played by Helen Mack, a beautiful and underrated actress who gives what I think is the best performance in the picture.

"The Son of Kong" is wonderfully atmospheric, mainly in the scenes on Skull Island but also in those in Dakang and aboard the Venture. Considering they were so rushed to finish the film, the animators and technicians did a superb job, especially the great Willis O'Brien, who reportedly didn't like the final product. That's too bad, because he did some of his best work on this movie, as evidenced by Little Kong's alternately thrilling and amusing fight with a giant cave bear, by the cataclysmic storm and earthquake that rock the island, and by some of the small touches that set O'Brien apart from everyone else in his field. Kudos also go to Max Steiner, whose musical score is almost as good as it was in "King Kong."

Then there's the humor, which is delightful, contrasting nicely with the darker and sadder aspects of the film. It's provided primarily by Mickey the process server (played impishly by Lee Kohlmar) and, of course, by Little Kong himself. Yes, it's slightly overdone a couple of times, as when Little Kong scratches his head and anthropomorphically shrugs in a display of confusion, but overall it's a welcome and essential element.

In addition to Robert Armstrong and Helen Mack, the actors play their parts well. Frank Reicher (returning as Capt. Englehorn), Victor Wong (back in an expanded role as Charlie the cook, whom he plays with dignity and a certain twinkle), John Marston (marvelously slimy as the villainous Helstrom) and Ed Brady (as a surly mutineer) round out a good cast.

Ruth Rose's script is witty, gritty and realistic. It has been criticized for borrowing, clichés and all, from plenty of timeworn tales, but I don't care. For me, it works. And the finale can mist the eyes of even the strongest man.

All in all, "The Son of Kong" is a terrific, if brief (only an hour and 10 minutes), adventure. It's also a love story, as well as a tale of heroic sacrifice and ultimate redemption. I'm happy to say that one of my favorite childhood movies is now one of my favorite adulthood films, too. Here's looking at you, kid.

Now that "The Passion of the Christ" is out on DVD, it is time to reexamine this brilliant but flawed film.

As a Catholic, I thank Mel Gibson, not only for his courage, but for putting his money where his mouth is. He has positively affected and even strengthened the lives of millions with a movie that is beautifully shot and powerfully delivered, one that reaffirms faith, both in God and, as a result of Jesus' ultimate expression of love, in mankind.

"The Passion" is purported to be the most realistic portrayal of Jesus' final hours ever put to film. Unfortunately, this is where the movie fails, for it is riddled with inaccuracies. The main ones are:

1. Jesus did not carry the entire cross. He carried the crossbeam, which later was attached to the stipe, a vertical shaft that was fixed permanently in the ground at the site of the crucifixion. Because the cross weighed more than 300 pounds, it could not be dragged by even the healthiest man for several hundred yards over rough terrain, much less a man who had been scourged and beaten almost to death. Contrary to what is depicted in "The Passion," and in many works of art, the Romans made their victims carry only the beam.

2. Jesus and other victims of Roman crucifixion were nailed through the wrists, not the palms. Nails driven through the wrists could support the weight of the body; those driven through the palms could not. There is plenty of archaeological evidence of this.

3. The feet of Jesus and other victims of Roman crucifixion were nailed directly to the stipe, most likely through the ankles. There is no evidence that the feet were nailed to a small ledge on the shaft, as depicted in "The Passion."

4. Jesus would not have worn a loincloth but would have been naked at the crucifixion, in keeping with the Roman custom of ensuring maximum humiliation.

5. The two thieves who were crucified with Christ (and curiously were shown carrying crossbeams, as Jesus would have done) also would have been scourged. In the film, they were not. Scourging was a common preliminary to crucifixion and was not a punishment inflicted only on Jesus.

It is almost inconceivable that Mel Gibson went to so much trouble to film "The Passion" in Aramaic, which is one of the languages (with Greek and Latin) spoken by people in that part of the world at the time, and took so much care to ensure authenticity in so many other aspects of the movie, and still managed to get the most basic stuff wrong. He did the same thing a few years ago with another labor of love, "The Three Stooges," his biographical TV drama about the great comedy team, which also was riddled with inaccuracies.

That said, I will say this: With "The Passion of the Christ," Mel Gibson has made a brave and deeply moving film that shows the enormity of the sacrifice that Jesus made for mankind.

If you are reading this, Mr. Gibson, please take these criticisms as constructive and heartfelt, and please know that I have the utmost respect for you, and that I admire you for your own passion in making this film. I think you deserve all the praise that has been given to you. And all the money you have earned. For your next project, however, here's a small piece of advice: Do your homework, Mel.