Change Your Image
rsgre
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Chinatown (1974)
Distasteful polished period drama
Saw this again tonight, still the distasteful polished period piece I remember. Being one of the earliest new films portraying that era. it seems a bit stagy today. Same depressing downbeat story similar to "Farewell My Lovely" of the ultra decadent white upper class for which we are all invited to show our disdain for. Not sure if that is the right message, but the filmmakers love it. I am not that impressed by it. By killing off the heroin they blew any chances of making a good sequel.
The Graduate (1967)
Not that big a deal 50= years later
What seemed as a strong anti-establishment film 50+ years ago, seems like a gentle poke at working class values today, with the silly "true love will solve all problems" message at the end.. Interesting period piece.... the famous twp,shots of Dustin Hoffman going the wrong way on the Bay Bridge to Berkeley....(the upper deck goes west to San Francisco, the east lower deck is hidden visually)
South Pacific (1958)
Looks good 60+ years later
Just saw this tonight on our ;local PBS station after many years, looked very good surprisingly. Despite the silly start with those sailors & marines singing
(I was in the Navy once ) and those goofy colored filter effects, the score is outstanding and the cast and direction is perfect. Another nice tribute to our WWII veterans who are fading, fading away......
Jane Eyre (1943)
Love at first fright !
I saw this for the first time in years on TV a few days ago. It is as good as ever, if the impact is somewhat less than it was in my youth. Marvelous B &W images and good cast does a great job, along with a fine music score
On Dangerous Ground (1951)
Overscored...Underdeveloped....
I watched this last night on cable TV for the first time in years, and had the same reaction as before: too much happens in such a short period of time, not enough for proper development. Part intense city cop drama,, part travel log, part instant chase scene, part very quick character relationships...all too fast. The music score seems to exceed the material it is written for. Compared to something like "High Sierra" the film is a distant second.
The Wrong Man (1956)
Brilliant...a masterpiece...!
This film has been lurking in my mind since I saw it on TV in the early 1970's. I remember it was a deep emotional experience the first time I saw it. I remember watching it again with my aunt and uncle, who I was staying with in San Francisco, and we enjoyed it immensely. They gave it a few nights ago on cable TV and watched it again. It brought back a lot of memories and a new appraisal;
In short, it is brilliant, a masterpiece. such a finely cast and crafted film that is incredible to behold. Hitchcock and his cast and crew make it look so easy, but everyone in it is marvelous. What a wonderful time capsule as well to an era now long gone. Might have more later;;;
To top it off, I bought the DVD at Walmart a long time ago for $5 and had totally forgotten about it until now...
Topaz (1969)
Looks very good - 48 years later
I took another look at the full length, uncut DVD version of "Topaz" and found it surprisingly good, in fact very good indeed. A handsome, well crafted, well written, excellently cast, and fully developed film. Unfortunately it was all for naught, because the 1969 audience did not "buy it" and was simply not interested. The studio panicked and the re- cutting only made things worse and the story thin and unconvincing. It's a shame that this one Hitchcock film based in real facts bombed, while his fictional films full of serial killers, mamma's boys, closet gays, killer ship yard owners, insecure straights were successful. I think he tried to redeem himself in this film and succeeded, but only in retrospect. (He died in 1980). Bravo Hitch, well done !
Lucky that the original cut survived for us to see today. Orson Welles was not so lucky with "The Magnificent Ambersons", which suffered a similar fate. No original print exists today,
The problem with "Topaz" is that it was a long winded "talkie" with just a few action scenes. Kind of boring to watch in a theater, but great at home at your own pace. I prefer the "suicide ending" to the two others, it seems to work best, but Universal chose the "airport ending" on the DVD release. The "duel ending" seemed unrealistic. You can decide for yourself !
Victory at Sea (1952)
Interesting to see 50+ years later
I just found the entire 3 DVD set at Wal-Mart in the bargain bin for $5.50, so I thought I would take another look. Total of 13 hours to watch it all (26 episodes). I was born in 1948 and saw most of them on TV in the sixties. Many independent stations repeated them for many years.
Better than I expected actually, time has been kind to the obvious sincerity of it's creators, and to the obvious gratitude and respect they give to all the Allied fighting men and women. More abstract and arty than a straight forward documentary, but very truthful in it's depiction of the causes and final results of WWII. That war was greatly dependent on sea transportation, and the final victory was dependent on who achieved the final mastery of the world's oceans. The Allies were the ones who were able to do it.
Interesting too, to see how they try to strike a balance between big events, and the individual soldiers and sailors that made them happen. The score is impressive, if a bit too much by today's standards. I read somewhere that Robert Russell Bennett contributed just as much as Richard Rodgers to final score. I imagine that Rodgers provided all the major themes, and it was up to Bennett to fit them to the images. Great job!
Should be seen by every ruler, or potential ruler. A warning to tyrants that wars are eventually won by ideals, determination, and the supplies to back them up. Logistics: their quality and delivery will determine the eventual victors. The Allies outproduced and surpassed the material quality of the Axis, attacked their very source in the process, and insured their eventual defeat.
Sorry to see that the producer, Henry Salomon, lived a very short life. IMDb's facts were rather skimpy, I have to find out more about him. He did a few more outstanding documentaries before his early death. Might have more to say at a later time
Trivia: I had all 3 LP records made of the background music, pretty good overall. Unfortunately, the producers decided to add sound effects to the last one, relegating immediately to just novelty status, rather than for serious music listening. Too bad too, because it contained some interesting but more minor themes in the series. Silly stuff like 16 inch guns firing, torpedoes being fired, bulldozers, planes...just for kids mainly.
RSGRE
Oklahoma! (1955)
A Good Stage Production is much better
The best production of Oklahoma I ever saw was a small traveling stage company that came to Monterey, California in the late 1960's. It was beautifully done and I felt very fortunate to see it. Interestingly enough, I had seen the movie before that, but I felt it was missing something. What it was missing was the intimacy, honesty, and integrity of the play (they skipped two songs).
The movie works up to the Kansas City number, and then starts to sink quickly when you realize how thin the plot is, and how overblown the "Any New Day" & Dream sequence numbers are. We are supposed to be on the prairie...?? Looks like a fancy house interior on the former, and a New York stage with all the trimmings on the latter! The dream sequence, in particular, is so "over the top" it's ridiculous (and confusing with the substitution of dancers for actors.)
They missed a great chance for some laughs by dropping the "It's a scandal, it's an outrage" number, and could have skipped "Poor Jud is Dead" (or shortened it since it's kind of silly, even in the play), and included "Lonely Room" because it's a solo, and would have worked alright in the film.
The film is better than nothing, but a long ways from a good stage production. Typical of Hollywood to "miss the boat"...
Update: Sept. 2009...Took another look, much better this time around. Maybe an aging process for both the film and myself...looked just fine now. See my comments under message board: "Looks great...40+ years later...!"
Regards,
Steve
Carousel (1956)
Dead on Arrival...
Whatever merits the musical play may have on the stage die quickly in this ridiculously over-blown film. By half-time (when Billy falls on his knife and dies) the story has died with him. All the audience can do at this point, is to try to endure it to the end. A good example of a play that was difficult to film at best, and terrible if you try to expand or modify it.
Among the mysteries: 1)Why did they feel they had to go all the way to Maine for exteriors, when half the movie is obviously filmed on a sound stage anyway? 2) Why start with that silly prequel in Heaven? It wasn't in the play at all...
Performances are wooden and obvious. Many songs from the play were cut, Cameron Mitchell is the only "real character", and even he is wasted.(One the best songs, with him in the lead, was cut altogether).
I think Frank Sinatra got out just in time, when he realized this was going to be a bomb (and it was)! Might have more to say at a later date...
Regards,
Steve
Dial M for Murder (1954)
Still brilliant after all these years!
I just watched the DVD version of "Dial M for Murder" again last night. It looked as good as ever, maybe even better than ever! Grace Kelly was so young and so beautiful, and gave Hitch a very inspired performance. She was a great actress and they obviously worked well together! All the other major actors give the performance of their careers as well. Brilliantly done and very satisfying entertainment. Interesting that it appears to be the last major film for both Robert Cummings & Ray Milland, who went on to many TV shows, occasional B movies, and guest appearances. Even Dimitri Tiomkin delivered a very inspired score. While he was great at major themes and grand action music, he seems to ramble pointlessly in minor action scenes ("The High & the Mighty" is a case in point. Some of the background music for the cabin action scenes seems pointless and unnecessary.) But...not in this case! He delivers a very inspired score that fits the film perfectly! (His last score for Hitch, by the way). Watch it again, you won't be disappointed (I guarantee...)!!
Regards,
Steve
Garden of Evil (1954)
Symphony to Horse Dung...
I finally got to see this movie when the AMC channel showed it several times, and I taped it. I had read that it was one of two westerns that Bernard Herrmann had written the music for (The Kentuckian was the other one). I have two different CD's with the complete score.
I was disappointed when I finally did see it. A pedestrian story used as an excuse for a full blown CinemaScope travelogue. A lot of interesting rural Mexican scenery, with the horse riders clip-clopping along, but the plot was was minimal. I know that they were delayed by bad weather and cost overruns, and it shows. Incredibly, Rita Moreno is wasted in a bit part...why didn't they take her along too? (The whole plot is already a bit of a stretch anyway!)
Surprisingly (or maybe not), Hathaway's later "True Grit" has a lot of resemblance to this film. Good score and good photography, but "cliche city" and "cardboard characters" dominate this story. Even the Indians look like college students, moonlighting for some extra money! It definitely needed a better script..!
Regards,
RSGRE
Islands in the Stream (1977)
Good...could have been better...
Hi everyone,
I always found the movie mildly interesting, but the ending seemed rather odd. I finally read the novel and now I understand why. Hemingway's ending had him dying while chasing down a German U-Boat crew. The movie decides to make a sympathetic German Jew refugee statement, at the cost of audience credibility. So instead of dying heroic, Thomas Hudson dies "dumb", and the audience just doesn't "buy it".
A real shame because the film comes very, very close to capturing the spirit of the novel; something that is very difficult to do with Hemingway.
I do enjoy the narrative, the depiction of the difficulty of family life among talented people, the price to be paid for war, and the reconciliation with death that we must all face at the end. Good cast...well done by all. If only the script had been better...!
Update 1-8-06. Another mistake that struck me (but forgot to mention earlier), was the abrupt "cut" right after Hudson & his ex-wife re-conciliate, when he suddenly realizes that she has come to give him the bad news about his son's death. By not lingering for just another minute or two longer, a great chance for some final tender moments were missed, and some real pathos. Too bad...it leaves a real empty emotional feeling for the audience, and nothing for them to "grab onto" later either.
This, plus the altered ending is what disappoints the audience, and is why the film was never popular. The ending is "dumb", with Eddy recklessly firing on the authorities without good reason, and Hudson dying foolishly later as well.
That's "show biz" I guess...(maybe I should gone into the movie business myself. Oh well...too late now!)
Regards,
Steve
Touch of Evil (1958)
One of Orson Welles's worst films
What a major disappointment! I taped this film off the AMC channel a long time ago (maybe 10 years ago), and only watched parts of it quickly later, with casual interest. (It was the restored version according to the announcer). Over the weekend I watched it again, hoping that my faith in Orson Wells's talent would be renewed, and instead I was shocked to see how bad it really looked today. Totally overdone, over-stylized, over-dramatized, over-acted with a convoluted plot that was unconvincing. In addition, the casting of Charlton Heston as a Mexican was totally ludicrous (and almost at the level of slapstick). It was just bad all the way...unbelievably bad! Even Orson Welles's performance was excessive, cynical, downbeat, and unreal. I had to struggle to watch the entire two hours, as painful as it was.
I went back to the book I have "The Films of Orson Wells" by James Howard, and renewed my knowledge of the production. The studio considered the final cut "unmarketable and fragmented", and took it out of Orson Welles's hands completely. Even though Orson offered to re-shoot certain scenes to their specifications, he was barred permanently from the lot.("Shades" of the final results of "The Magnificent Ambersons" at the RKO studios!).
A new director, Harry Keller, was brought in to re-shoot some of the scenes, and some cuts were made as well. Most people have probably only seen this version, rather than Welles's original version. (Which may explain why it has a better reputation than it deserves.)
A lot of us sentimental fans of "Citizen Kane" keep hoping (against hope apparently), that age will redeem some of Orson Wells's other films, so that he will not be forever considered as having had "beginner's luck" with his first film (with an assist from a very good screenplay writer, Herman J. Mankiewicz -brilliant!, and interesting subject matters concerning William Randolph Hearst). Alas...it doesn't appear to ever be possible. I'll take a second look at some of his other films, but "Touch of Evil" looks just terrible today...terrible! What a shock!
Best regards,
Steve
The Magnificent Ambersons (2002)
Interesting originally, if slightly disappointing...but getting much better with time (updated 8-3-08)
I had to watch this twice before I could finally settle down and enjoy it calmly. The first time I was so disappointed because it didn't begin the same lovely way that the novel & Wells's film did: with that wonderful sentimental prologue of the fashions and the times gone by. (And I would like to know...why didn't it? Is it a tribute to Wells that they didn't feel talented or inspired enough to "pull it off"?)
The second time around I "got over that", and managed to keep an open mind. Overall, it was alright, but somewhat stiff and cold. Did they ever consider using at least some of Bernard Herrmann's inspired score? Because the music used was definitely not memorable.
Maybe in the end, this makes a better novel than a film; and maybe it was a mistake for Orson Wells to attempt to film it in the first place. As a free TV movie I give it a 7+.
It was interesting to see the scenes that were cut in the Wells's film, and the original ending that Tarkington wrote. Much more coherent overall. They made Aunt Fanny more intense than the Wells's version. Apparently, the 1942 preview audience laughed at her hysterics, so some of her scenes had to be re-shot. The farewell walk between George & Lucy was especially well done, and actually better than the Wells's version. Suffers from the apparent overseas location (Ireland). We are obviously not in the Midwest!
(Update 8-3-08) Took another look today, much better this time around (a 9). Part of the problem is that us old timers still want to hold on to the myth that Orson Welles's version was a masterpiece...which in reality it wasn't. One thing you do notice is what a dry, quaint tale it really is. More of a "little old lady story" of wayward youth and ultimate redemption, mixed with the changing times of 100 years ago. Very good this time around...enjoyed it a lot...good production values and acting. How could I have been so blind the first times around? Surpasses Welles's version by a mile...!
(Update 10-7-17) It occurred to me after all these years that where this production got into problems was by claiming "it was based on a screenplay by Orson Welles". By saying that a lot of Welles fans expected a verbatim reproduction including the third person narrator and the prelude. Instead they skipped that altogether much to a lot of people's initial disappointment. Once you get over that, like I did the second time around, I enjoyed it very much and came to like it a lot.
The Magnificent Ambersons (1942)
The Masterpiece that might have been....
Well...what a difference a website and a few pictures can make! The original title for my review was going to be: "Much Ado about Nothing", but coming to this site and reading Austendw's response and going to the Ambersons.com, that he mentioned, has changed my mind. Go to "Lost Images from Ambersons" and you will see for the first time, some powerful stills from the lost segments.
Based on this, plus Richard Carringer's book "The Magnificent Ambersons-a Reconstruction", and what survives of the film, I think that maybe, just maybe, this could have been one of the greatest films of all time!
But so many "ifs" persist, however:
1. If only the Japanese hadn't attacked Pearl Harbor. 2. If only Wells had stayed to successfully complete the picture. 3. If only the studio had waited, instead of panicking and chopping it to pieces (what they did amounts to a "bucket brigade on a sinking ship"). 4. If only Wells and the studio hadn't severed relations and he been able to come back later.
And then there are other questions that linger as well:
1. Was this story really the best choice immediately after Citizen Kane? 2. Was Tim Holt the best choice as George, or should Wells have played the part? 3. Was Well's interpretation too dark, Gothic, gloomy, and heavy handed? 4. Was Well's camera technique unnecessarily expensive, cumbersome, and overdone? (Many, many shots are "from low to high" necessitating an elaborate ceiling for every single interior set. In fact, Wells seemed to prefer this angle almost exclusively for some reason. A silly one was Wilber Minafer's funeral, where the camera appears to be in the coffin, and moving!) 5. Did this just happen to be the wrong fare for the new wartime audiences?
We will probably never know the true answers to all those questions. What we have now is the remaining pieces to a mystery that will remain unsolved forever...RIP Orson...
Update (10-14-05): After carefully reviewing all the facts, I have come to the conclusion that this film suffered from "artistic overkill"; but it was a group effort, not just Well's fault. The entire Mercury cast & crew simply went "overboard" in the telling of this quaint and simple Victorian story, and instead treated like it was the grandest tragedy of all time. Blame it on their inexperience with the medium. They had been lucky with their first film "Citizen Kane". That film had plenty of artistic excesses, but the subject matter was more compelling, and held the audience interest throughout; this time they were not so lucky. Apparently, what seemed to them so wonderfully dramatic in front of the camera, simply did not translate to the viewer on the screen; again, because it is a different medium from that of stage or radio productions.
I know that there are lot of fans of Wells & this film, and it's hard for them to admit fault. It's easier to blame RKO, the audience, or other circumstances; but the truth is that Orson, cast, & crew simply got "carried away". There is plenty of evidence for this, mainly from Richard Carringer's book: "The Magnificent Amberson - a Reconstruction". The previews were terrible, the management staff at RKO agreed that the film was too downbeat & somber (they can't all be wrong, that's their business), and even Bernard Herrmann's score (wonderfully recreated by Preamble Records in 1990, I have a copy), reveals a different Herrmann: dark, downbeat, excessively dramatic, & "too somber" (the exact words RKO general manager George Schafer used to describe it). Also, the thing that strikes me the most is the odd ending that Wells "tacked on". The simple ending that Tarkington gave us was perfect; why "mess with it"? It confirms my impression that Wells interpretation was a darker, somber view (and too much so, perhaps). He simply didn't believe in happy endings, and the audience "paid the price"!
Now whether the original version would hold up today, I guess we will never know. One only has to move ahead to 1944 and "Jane Eyre" to see the difference (with some of the same participants: Orson, Agnes Moorehead, & Bernard Herrmann), when a director (Robert Stevenson) & crew (20th Century-Fox) knew how to strike a balance between art & entertainment.
Want further evidence...? Move ahead to Well's later efforts "The Stranger" (1946), "The Lady from Shanghai"(1948), and especially "Touch of Evil" (1958) All were gimmicky, arty, dark and overly melodramatic (and commercial failures!). That was Well's style, he couldn't change. He admitted in his later years, that it was a mistake for him to go into movie-making, he should have remained with stage productions (and maybe TV, by implication). RIP Mr.Wells...!
Best regards,
Steve
Around the World in Eighty Days (1956)
Still interesting, but very dated now...
I saw this film in a theater when it first came out, and enjoyed it immensely, but then I was only 8 years old at the time. I saw it in a theater just ten years later, and was surprised to see how dated it already looked. First of all, it has to be seen in it's entirety to be fully appreciated, and all later releases eliminated the silent movie prequel, and most of the butler's exciting bike ride through London. Not until the VHS version, and now DVD can we fully appreciate the film again.
Basically an excuse to make a widescreen epic, with the new gimmick of major star cameos, the plot is totally "tongue in cheek" with clichés throughout. Cantinflas is totally, politically incorrect today, but exactly what the audiences expected during the racial stereotyping of that era.
A curious blend of location footage, and studio sets, with occasional strange visual shorthand, the movie still looks good today although the plot and casting reeks of standard (cliche) Hollywood formula.
One of the lasting highlights is Victor Young's fine music score which made a great LP record, and sounds even better on a CD. The widescreen process, Michael Todd's own TODD-AO, exhibits it's early weaknesses until it was perfected later (lots of distortion in places); and some shots show a rather poor light distribution (the opening shot of the British band marching across the screen, and many of the bullfight scenes).
An interesting "nostalgia trip down memory lane"...thanks Michael Todd and rest in peace... (His last film, he died in a plane crash 2 years after it's release).
Update: October 2010. After purchasing and reviewing the 2004 2 disc set, I have developed a more forgiving attitude. First, seeing the entire film as originally released and in wide screen makes it much more appealing than all the cut versions through the years. And the passage of time has made the original conception much more apparent and admirable. Good job Mike Todd...RIP.
Shadow of a Doubt (1943)
Interesting Slice of (sinister) Americana
"Shadow of a Doubt" is one of my favorite Hitchcock films, but it wasn't always so. The first time I saw it I was very surprised by the number of "leaps in narrative": 1. We are never shown Charles Oakley strangling his victims. 2. The initial connection between the Niece & the Uncle is not made all that clear, or why he is coming to Santa Rosa. (By the way, her formal name is apparently Charlotte, although this is never mentioned in the film; I read it somewhere else). 3. It's never explained how the Uncle managed to accumulate such a vast amount of money so easily.(That was a lot of money in the 1940's!) 4. It seems silly for the Uncle to give his Niece a stolen ring from one of his victims. 5. The two detectives posing as reporters, and just inviting themselves in without being asked for any credentials, seemed a "bit of a stretch". 6. The too convenient plot involving two suspects, so that the Uncle could have an alibi. 7. We don't see the Uncle make his famous speech, so we aren't shown that supposed side of his personality. 8. And finally...how in the world would the Niece explain the Uncle's death in a satisfactory manner, without admitting the truth? And even if she could, wouldn't the news kill her mother anyway...?
In any case...after multiple viewings you forget all that, and just concentrate on the interesting historical view of small town America of the 1940's, and the sharply etched characters. The whole cast is excellent and a wonder to watch. Intended to be a subtle reminder to the public that evil exists in the world, and has to be confronted and dealt with. Exactly the message that was needed in the middle of WWII!
Trivia: Only the (Newton) house on McDonald Avenue, the railroad station, and the clock tower seen in downtown views still exist. Santa Rosa has changed completely in 60+ years...!
Oh...one more thing: it could have used a better music score. Dimitri Tiomkin would later do a lot of good scores for Hitchcock, but unfortunately this was not one of them. Overly dramatic and somewhat tedious in places. Apparently, Hitchcock was actually trying to get Bernard Herrmann, but just could not for some reason. Now that would have been very, very interesting...!
I Confess (1953)
Mildly interesting, but strange...
I didn't see "I confess" until much later in life than I saw Hitchcock's other films, so I don't know what my earlier impressions would have been. (I think it would have been very confusing as a child). As it is, I was very surprised to see them go all the way to Quebec, for a lot of location footage, only to have a rather thin, strange tale based on certain Roman Catholic rituals & beliefs.
There is very little suspense, since we are shown right at the start, who the real killer is. The confession ends abruptly, so we don't know if he received absolution or not. The implication seems to be that he received absolution for his sin, but that would not have been proper without him having to turn himself into the police.
As the story unfolds Father Logan seems to be a rather strange man who choose the priesthood, for some unknown reason. (I could speculate on why, but I'll be kind and refrain from any comments on that matter. Let's just say that there was a lot more similarity between the real life Montgomery Cliff, and the fictional Father Michael Logan than anybody realized at the time!)
This film reminds me of the later "Vertigo". A thin, contrived story was drawn up, as an excuse to go on location; but in the end, all you are left with is some nice scenery & music, and a few good performances. Hitchcock refuses to give little, if any, instant gratification, and the ending especially is too subtle, especially for non-Catholics. The audience simply "doesn't get it".
The Kentuckian (1955)
Interesting slice of Americana
The most interesting thing about this movie is it's depiction of the frontier life of the 1820's, which is virtually unknown to most people today. Alternating between leisurely pace, and exciting action, it's an interesting look at a part of the U.S. history that is seldom explored in film. I enjoyed it very much, including Bernard Herrmann's score, which fits perfectly into the action. What would have seemed as an unusual choice for composer, turned out to be exactly right in this case.
Only the ending was a little disappointing to me, it was much too abrupt. Just five minutes more of showing them all heading off to Texas (on the steamboat, or in a wagon train perhaps?) would have been much more satisfying...
The Sand Pebbles (1966)
Excellent Historical War Drama
I had just about totally forgotten about this film until recently, when two things happened. One: I ran into a copy at Wal-Mart and purchased it for $7.50 (but I just put it away for later); and two: the History Channel was showing it one morning and I just caught the beginning. That was the stimulus to pull it out of the drawer and finally watch it. What a pleasant surprise it was, like welcoming back an old friend! You see...I saw this in a theater when it first came out, and later aboard my ship, during my 4 year enlistment in the Navy.
It is, in one word: excellent. Cast, crew, photography, music, all tops. The story carries even more significance today as China has emerged from it's feudal state into a world class power. We realize very quickly what we are about to watch: the last gasps of the old world powers to try to control China, but to no avail.
Intertwined with these great events are the touching personal stories of the little people caught up in the turmoil: Jake, Frenchy, Shirley, Maily, and the captain & crew of the U.S.S. San Pablo. It brought back a lot of memories of my navy days, and I found the portrayals of the crew to be very genuine & authentic.
Steve McQueen delivers the performance of his career, in a part that seems to be "made for him". The rest of the cast is excellent as well (and to think that Richard Attenborough went on to direct!). I will probably have more to add...just wanted to post this quickly.
A great "man's movie" if there ever was one...!!
My one complaint is that there aren't any scenes taking place inside the living spaces of the China mission. I read the novel, and the author devotes some time to describing the inner workings of the missionaries, and their hopes of turning their gifted, intelligent student Cho-Jen, into one of China's future leaders. That's why it's so ironic that he dies later, at the hands of Jake Holman. Two good men, with a lot of potential, caught in the wrong place at the wrong time, by natural events.
Steve
The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes (1970)
Interesting, but flawed....
Billy Wilder's take on the Sherlock Holmes legend seems to be more for his fans, rather than Holmes's fans. Right away, it becomes apparent that the private joke in this movie is going to be that Holmes was gay. Robert Stephens portrays the effeminate fop to perfection (and increasing annoyance). The ballet sequence in particular, carries this implication to embarrassing and unnecessary extremes.
Still...once "the game is afoot" the film does become mildly interesting, if a bit silly at times. Nice scenery and music, and good performances throughout. The last scenes redeem the rest of the film in their haunting quality, and leave the audience with just the right bittersweet feelings of nostalgia for the past, and the knowledge of the violence to come in the next century.
The DVD version shows that the final cut was about right. The extra scenes seemed mostly silly and unnecessary. ""Much ado about nothing" as it were...
I forgot to mention earlier: I purchased an Angel brand record some years ago: Rosza conducts Rozsa. It included a suite of his score for this film. The extensive notes included with the record claimed that Billy Wilder's inspiration for this film all came from hearing Miklos Rozsa's violin concerto, and wanting to build a scenario around it! (Sort of a "chicken before the egg" kind of thing!)
August 2007. Another look at this film, is more forgiving this time. The eccentricities of Sherlock Homes, as portrayed by Robert Stephens, seem less extreme now. Maybe it's a film made by older people, for older people, that's why it has always had limited appeal. Ending is still very touching, and Genevieve Page is beautiful in her part.
August 2017, Update. Viewing it again 10 years later reveals a well crafted, well acted film that simply goes over the head of younger audiences. It works for older audiences only which is why it bombed.Not what movie going audiences wanted in 1970. Too sophisticated, subtle, and nuanced for the inexperienced. Takes time and age to appreciate it. How they ever thought it could be a 3 hour epic is beyond me. Lovely film, doomed from the start, but excellent in retrospect. Similar to what happened to Hitchcock's "Topaz" a year earlier. Well crafted film that went nowhere at the box office either. The "old guard directors" were trying hard but failing and slowly fading away. They left some nice work behind for us to see and appreciate today ! Thanks Guys !
Marnie (1964)
Interesting movie-better than Vertigo, but...
I have always liked "Marnie" and consider it one of my favorite Hitchcock films, but I have also always had certain reservations about it as well. It is especially interesting to compare it to Vertigo. I personally like Marnie much better. Unlike Vertigo, the Marnie plot is pretty much straight-forward without the non-credibility factors that undermine Vertigo. Particularly satisfying is that fact that Mark Rutland's obsession is for a normal sexual life, unlike Scotty Ferguson who's obsession is asexual, fantasy driven, and possibly insane! (Make that definitely insane!).
But...as in Vertigo, Hitchcock's artistic excesses barely allow the film to rise above the level of an "art film". The obvious studio sets and somewhat mechanical narrative style detract from some of the power of the story, and it's really too bad. It had all the makings of a real classic, but once again, Hitchcock let it "slip through his grasp". Hitchcock alternates between realistic and phony stage prop backgrounds, which distract you from the story. The ship dock scene, the beginning of the nightmare scene, and the flashback at the end seem very crude and disjointed. It works better after repeated viewings, but the first time you see them-Crudity Inc.! (Very similar to the crude style in the dream sequence of Vertigo=throw some things into a kaleidescope and start turning! Communication...not!!) The subtle but satisfactory ending is much better than a lot of his films (especially Vertigo), and at least allows the viewer to feel good about Marnie's fate. If nothing else, Hitchcock's artistic excesses in this film confirm the fact that all of the artistic excesses in Vertigo were deliberate, not accidental, confirming the fact that my review at that site may have some real validity. Overall I give it an 8.5. The "swan song" for his technicians Robert Burk, Bernard Herrmann & Robert Tomasini who are obviously trying very hard, but losing their sharpness, and their powers of persuasion. RIP guys...
Vertigo (1958)
This movie just doesn't work for me anymore
Sorry to intrude on this "love fest", if it is one, but...(I don't know if it is just the passing years or what), but this film just doesn't work for me anymore. Hitchcock is at his most extreme: stilted and improbable story line, red herrings, unresolved scene endings, deliberately severed suspense, demeaning and downbeat character portrayals, and a totally cynical and uncompromising ending. Hitchcock of the "least Hollywood kind", as one critic put it.
Being from California, I do enjoy the wonderful "time capsule" quality of the film; a lot has changed since 1957. The story is beautifully photographed (by Robert Burks) and wonderfully scored (by Bernard Herrmann, possibly his best), but the story is downright unbelievable, and deliberately so, I think, by a cynical artist who demonstrated (in an era of epics) that he could make a total incomprehensible film, and get away with it. The plot makes little sense and Hitchcock even "pushes the envelope further" by making the plot so unbelievable, that only a child would accept it.
In 1983, the critics Seiskel & Ebert described "The Trouble with Harry" as ..."Hitchcock's private joke...unfortunately, it's a little too private...", and I think the same can be said about "Vertigo": an uncompromising film that refuses to give little, if any instant gratification and insults our intelligence as well.
I sometimes wonder if the whole movie is some huge practical joke on Hitchcock's part. In an era of epics, he decided to make the anti-epic. A personal private movie to prove that he had the "wealth and the power", as an artist, to do anything he wanted to. A movie in which he would show total disdain for credibility or audience expectations, and sit back and watch (and laugh!) as all these pseudo-intellectuals, want-to-be movie critics, and various film buffs (maybe like us) tried to find "meaning". (Surprise!... There isn't any!)
Hitchcock liked to portray men as weak, ineffectual, mother and/or wife dominated, or just plain thieves and killers. He outdid himself on this one with the two male leads:
1. John "Scotty" Ferguson-a dumb, inept, unmotivated, asexual, self-retired, middle-aged ex-detective. 2. Gavin Elster-A slimy, sleazy, smooth talking opportunist(and murderer as well!), masquerading as an industrialist.
And then for a the women:
1. He has Marjorie "Wood" (how appropriate): a "clueless" nerdy, geeky, tomboy of a girl! (Hitchcock's cynicism is showing here...!) 2. Judy Bartlett (alias Madeleine Elster), a "dumb blonde" if there ever was one. A docile, stupid robot with one man, and a "silly little girl" with the other one....totally unbelievable!!
Anyway...that's the way I see it at age 56, so maybe my cynicism is showing as well (and it's about the same age that Hitchcock was when he made this film). Must be nice to have the "wealth & power" to make a deliberate "bomb", and still get paid for it! Artists are strange people, and Hitchcock sure was one of them!
Steve G.
Sept. 6, 2005 Update: Alright, alright, maybe I was a little rough on Hitch; after all, it's only a movie! I am beginning to think that Hitch was living his fantasy while making this film. He was Scotty, and that's why the film is like a dream, with a lot of unexplained events. I'll settle for the nice scenery and music, but the plot...(well, let's just say: it could have been better!).
July 17, 2006 Update (posted in the message board as well)
Hi Everybody, well...after all these years I finally saw the alternate (foreign censorship) ending, on the collector's edition DVD. A little hard to find: you have to go to Bonus Materials, then "Obsessed with Vertigo", then chapter list and scroll to chapter 14, and there it is! It only lasts a minute and 20 seconds, oh but what a difference it makes! Finally...some closure!! Takes place in Midge's apartment at night, and starts with a closeup of Midge to the left and a radio to the right. We hear the announcer saying that Gavin Elster was living in Switzerland but is now thought to be in France, and that Captain Hansen anticipates no trouble in having him extradited soon. Closeup of Midge as she hears footsteps and her front door opening. Scotty enters wearing a suit, but no hat, looks at Midge and then walks to the center of the room, and toward the window. Midge stands, and we now see she is only wearing a robe, and pours a drink for herself and Scotty. She walks over to him and hands him the drink then makes a half circle to her drawing desk, sits down, they both look at each other...fadeout! What happens after this is up to the viewer's imagination, but it was a great relief to me! I always thought that the original ending was kind of a cruel joke on the audience. Hitch was a weird guy! The foreign censors were correct in insisting on it (like spanking a naughty boy!). Where were our own censors, I'd like to know? How come the rest of the world got the complete story and the US didn't? Did Hitch forget we saved Britain from a German invasion? Weird guy...but thank God for closure!!! By the way, my new viewing does reveal a very well acted and very well crafted film, but still a rather prissy, childish, and silly story. That's my "take" anyway...! Regards,
RSGRE
The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit (1956)
Good film, one of Gregory Peck's best!
A fairly literal translation & adaptation of the novel (although I had to read it first, to be able to say that). Pretty much follows the original intentions of the author. Interesting period piece capturing the flavor of the middle 1950's with the new accent on growth, consumerism, "upward mobility", but the then still conformity of the middle class. The movie actually goes the novel one better, by mentioning television and the new attraction it was becoming in the home (it isn't mentioned at all in the novel). Frederick March is particularly good in the role of Ralph Hopkins (amazing transformation!). Gregory Peck & Jennifer Jones work well together if perhaps seeming a little bit too elegant for the leading roles of Mr. & Mrs. Ex-GI Joe, but still very good overall.
Seems to be deliberately underplayed and subtle in it's message, a mood accented by Bernard Herrmann's music, which is never excessively thematic, but just a quiet influence on the necessary scenes. Overall, I would give it an 8.5 out of 10 (or maybe even a 9!). Both the movie & the novel had the courage to say that money can't buy happiness, honesty is the best policy, and that sometimes the best things in life are free! (A somewhat courageous statement in the 1950's, when most Americans thought that we were the best in the world and things were only going to get better & better, and materialism was the order of the day).
Also, a quiet but elegant statement & tribute to traditional manhood. Particularly jarring is the contrast between the scene where Tom Rath is insulted and demeaned by his wife (in the kitchen of their home), and the two horrible battle scenes he had to endure. Talk about being able to "bridge the gap", amazing the different situations that us men are capable of enduring (and never really given proper credit for doing so)!
It still holds up fairly well for me today. Unfortunately it's only available in VHS so we can't tell if the wide screen version would add any great value to the overall visual effect.
Update: Now available in DVD and it looks and sounds great!! See my comments in the comments area!
Steve G.