Change Your Image
mcmason-72160
Reviews
Your Cheatin' Heart (1964)
George Hamilton as Hank Williams? Not a Chance.
This movie is a joke. It is an early 1960's very sanitized version of a great American song writer and singer. Hanks deserves much better than this. George Williams is simply not convincing as the singer. Only in Hollywood would anyone think pretty boy Hamilton could play the role of a rough and tumble street wise singer like Williams.
Pitfall (1948)
Decent Noir But Marred by Elizabeth Scott's Bad Performance
This is a moderately successful noir film that has some snappy dialog and good performances by Dick Powel, Raymond Burr and Jane Wyatt. But Elizabeth Scott is atrocious. She is given one of the most meaty roles of her career and she gives one of the most wooden and passionless performances I have ever seen by a female actor. There were so many female actors of the time who could have been selected for this role and given much better performances. The standout in the film is Raymond Burr. He is brilliant and manages to act rings around Scott when they are in any scenes together. IT is a well made film and well directed. But Scott is not up to the job. It would be nice if it was remade with a better actor in the starring role.
The In-Laws (1979)
Dull, Predictable Comedy
I saw this movie when it came out in 1979. I went to see it because I loved Peter Falk and Alan Arkin and Arthur Penn. But I found that the movie tried way too hard to get laughs and the script was seriously lacking. At best, it is amusing but not really funny.
Two Seconds (1932)
Robinson is impressive against type despite the whiff of misogyny in the script
I agree with most of the other reviewers that Edward G. Robinson gives a good performance as a young working stiff who is bamboozled by a woman out for money. Although Robinson's acting is very naturalistic and believable throughout most of the movie, he becomes very melodramatic and somewhat overwrought at the end. Still, it shows that Robinson had a much larger range of acting than he was ever allowed in later years when he was forced mostly to play gangsters. The problem with the movie is in its attitudes about women. On the one hand, it is very realistic in presenting the demeaning life that women experienced during the beginning of the Great Depression in trying to make a living. The dance hall scene is a sociological treasure trove of what it was like to be a single woman in Depression era America. But eventually it turns into a screed against women as gold diggers that have been a misogynist staple for Hollywood since the beginning. Having said that, it is still a fascinating drama from pre-code Hollywood. This was a time when movies were allowed to take on serious social topics and represent sexual relationships between men and women in a realistic light. When you see movies like this you realize how damaging the code was to artistic expression in American movies. If only it had been allowed to evolve on its own without censorship, who knows where is could produced.
Naked Alibi (1954)
Suspenseful Film Noir
This is an underrated film noir that hasn't gotten much exposure within the genre. Sterling Hayden and Gloria Graham were well known performers in the genre at the time and they both do an excellent job in this film. But the big surprise to me was Gene Barry as the duplicitous criminal and supposed religious family man. When I was growing up in the 1960's, Gene Barry was a very familiar face on TV. He starred in numerous TV dramas such as Burke's Law, The Adventurer, and The Name of the Game. These were very predictable TV dramas where Barry often played virtuous characters fighting criminals. He was the epitome of the bland corporate TV actor. But in Naked Alibi, Barry portrays a much more conflicted character and he rises to the occasion. It does an excellent job in his role. What has often amazed me is how actors that were so good in low budget film noir movies in the 1950's eventually became stuck in vacuous and uninspiring roles on TV in the 60's. It is probably the greatest shame of American TV and movie culture that talented actors were forced into unimaginative and simplistic roles just so they could survive. Gene Barry is a perfect example of someone who could have had a great acting career if he hadn't been destroyed by Hollywood.
Farewell, My Lovely (1975)
Bad Nostalgic-Noir
The other night I watched the 1975 adaptation of Raymond Chandler's 1941 novel, Farewell, My Lovely. I found it to be very disappointing and was surprised at how poorly acted and directed it was. Admittedly, Chandler's novels are difficult to adapt to the screen. Their plots are often extremely complicated and too often there are too many loose ends left hanging at the end of the novel. But this 1975 adaptation is hampered by bad acting, poor casting, questionable story line changes, and a cliché-ridden, made for TV- movie soundtrack. In truth, the film is not really "neo-noir" but a Hollywood manufactured "nostalgic-noir" that occasionally turns out to be a campy version of the original and too often seems like a parody of the noir genre. First of all, with the exception of Mitchum, the acting is somewhat predictable and wooden. Mitchum is one of the greatest noir actors of all time and to hear his narration throughout the film is a real treat. His voice was made to bring to life Chandler's words on the page. But it is painful to see that Mitchum is clearly too old for the part of Phillip Marlow. It is one thing for Marlowe to look world weary but to look almost haggard and flabby with age is too depressing. It is obvious that Mitchum's appearance in the role is simply meant to be a nostalgia trip for all his fans who remember better days. Jack O'Halloran as Moose Malloy is one of the most wooden actors you will ever see on the screen. He is never able to bring about the sense of tension between danger and humor that inhabits his character. As a result, it is hard to understand why Marlow feels sympathetic towards him. Just because O'Halloran was a heavyweight prizefighter at one time and has the correct physical characteristics doesn't necessarily make him convincing in the role. These are the kind of characters that the former football player, Alex Karris, used to get during this same time period when ever any studio needed a big dumb guy. The result is the same here, bad acting. O'Halloran's acting ability is so limited that he often comes across as an imitation of Lurch in the 1960's sitcom, The Adams Family. Sylvia Miles as Jessie Florian is a very good actress but unfortunately she is miscast as the aging and spent alcoholic. In the mid-1970's when this film was made she seems too young for the part and doesn't really have the wasted and desperate look that is so convincingly described in the book. The character of Detective McNulty is totally transformed in the movie. In the book, he is a minor character who is portrayed as cowardly and ineffectual. But the movie combined his character with another police detective, Randall, who in the book is smart, cynical, and an even match for Marlowe's wit and imagination. It turns out the movie cannot seem to decide if the McNulty character is ineffectual or shrewd since he seems to oscillate back and forth between the two. I suspect the main reason this movie was made was an effort by Hollywood to try and exploit the success that Chinatown made when it appeared 2 years earlier. Whereas Chinatown was brilliantly directed, well written and acted, and cynically dark like the noir films of old, this version of Farewell, My Lovely seems exploitive, slick, and hopelessly phony. Nothing beats Nicolson's portrayal of world weariness at the end of Chinatown. Unfortunately, Mitchum who was such a master at playing bitter, weary protagonists early in his career, can't seem to pull it off convincingly later in his career. Perhaps he was too weary with acting by this time and didn't really have it in him anymore to make the effort. My advice is to skip this movie and, if you haven't already, go read the novel. You will get much more satisfaction out of the beauty of Chandler's language than anything you can get out of this seriously flawed film.
Caught (1949)
Very Interesting Perspective on Women and Work in the 1940's
This film includes some very good acting by Barbara Bel Geddes, James Mason, and Robert Ryan. Ryan in particular is superb as the rich abusive husband. Supposedly his character was based on Howard Hughes but he could be any rich and greedy asshole, including Donald Trump. What I found most interesting about this film is how it handles the concerns of working women in the late 1940's. In fact, this movie is a great time capsule on the fears and anxieties of women of the period. How do be financially independent. How do get ahead in the world. How to deal with the unreasonable demands of men and maintain one's dignity and independence. This movie contains many of the themes that would dominate movies 2 decades later. But unfortunately, in the end, all the female characters submit to male dominated viewpoints and never really escape their plights. But there is one issue that comes through that is most curious. The main female character, played by Bel Geddes, becomes pregnant by the evil rich Ryan character. She has mixed feelings about the pregnancy since she is no longer in love with her husband (Robert Ryan) but is in love with her new employer (James Mason). It turns out she has a miscarriage right after her abusive husband has a massive heart attack which clears the way for her to marry Mason. Strangely enough, everybody seems so happy by the death of this "baby" that it almost seems like an abortion has occurred. In fact, I would argue that this movie advocates abortion even though it is never mentioned throughout the movie. It is clear that removing an unwanted pregnancy that stands in the way of happiness is acceptable. I think it shows that for much of the movie going public in the late 1940's abortion was accepted even though it could not be discussed in public. I don't think this movie could be made today.