MaxKorngold Reviews

Illegal (1955)

Fast-moving crime drama with silly script and terrific cast

[6/10 · 1 January 2023]

The basic story here is a good one -- a man at the top of his profession loses faith in himself, hits rock bottom, and . . . Things develop from there. The way the script works this out is very silly at times. The courtroom antics of the main character are beyond unbelievable. Fortunately, however, things move quickly enough to keep you entertained despite the nonsense.

The excellent cast really makes the movie. Edward G. Robinson is wonderful as a win-at-all-costs trial lawyer. Nina Foch plays off him perfectly as his protege, the daughter of a deceased friend and mentor. Hugh Marlowe is always a welcome presence, even when he's phoning it in. Other familiar faces add to the fun: DeForest Kelley (Star Trek TOS) has a small role early in the film; Edward Platt (Get Smart) is Robinson's successor as DA; Albert Dekker (Kiss Me Deadly) is the crime boss; Jayne Mansfield (The Burglar) does a nice job with a key role; Ellen Corby (The Waltons) is Robinson's loyal but critical secretary. And many others whom fans of '60s-'70s television will recognize.

Max Steiner is given credit for the score, although I must admit I had trouble detecting any Steiner-ian touches.

The Crossing (2000 TV Movie)

Well Made but Less Than Accurate

[7/10 · 18 December 2022]

When I first saw The Crossing, over 20 years ago, I loved it -- but at that time, I did not know much about the details of the battle. Since then, I've read all the major books on the battle, and now the many inaccuracies in The Crossing jump out.

The trouble starts right at the beginning of the film. The opening scenes have Washington on the bank of the Delaware River, demanding that Colonel Glover hurry up and find him some boats to carry the army to the other side. It's as if Washington didn't even realize until that moment that he was marching toward a river he would have to cross. In reality, Washington was not that stupid or careless. No later than December 1, when his army was passing through New Brunswick, did Washington order his men to collect all the boats on the upper Delaware so that the Americans would be able to cross when they got there and then keep the British from following. Likewise, contrary to what the movie shows, the British did not chase the Americans right up to the river bank and shoot them as they scrambled into boats. The British actually pursued Washington's army across New Jersey at a somewhat leisurely pace.

Another major error is that the movie perpetuates the myth that Washington caught the Hessians completely off guard. In fact, the Hessians had regular patrols of the perimeter and pickets that formed the initial resistance to the attacking Americans. The pickets engaged in a shooting retreat toward Trenton itself, giving the garrison a little advance notice (thus performing as intended).

Another problem is that the film has the crossing, the march to Trenton, and the attack taking place in clear, dry weather. (In some shots, the setting looks more like October than December.) The situation was really much more challenging -- a fierce storm of rain and sleet started in the middle of the crossing and continued through the attack. These conditions slowed Washington's approach and harmed his men more than anything the Hessians did.

I realize that recreating the weather was probably beyond the filmmakers' budget. The same is true for another aspect that bothers me -- the forces depicted are simply too small. Washington attacked with over 2,000 men, while the Hessian force numbered about 1,500. But the film makes the battle seem like a skirmish between a hundred or two on each side. Similarly, the film's action really focuses on bayoneting and clubbing, whereas the Americans mainly won this time through shooting.

These aren't the only mistakes. As others have pointed out, while Alexander Hamilton was indeed present at the battle, he did not become Washington's aide until much later. Also, despite the dialogue, Washington had been in Trenton before, just a few weeks earlier, in fact. And it bothers me that the film has Nathanael Greene saying that the Americans were just fighting to avoid paying taxes. It's clear from contemporary writings that the leaders of the Revolution were fighting for self-government -- to control their own destiny without oversight from London.

Notwithstanding all my gripes, The Crossing is a well-made film. The score is moving, the production values are quite good considering the budget, and the acting is great. Jeff Daniels is physically very convincing as Washington. And while the depiction of the battle itself was disappointing, there are still some excellent scenes in the film. My favorite is the dinner at Friend Barclay's home, where Washington and his officers are hosted by a local Whig. The scene is beautifully done, even though it boils down into a face-to-face shouting match a rivalry that came to a head only in the future and was always conducted through proxies.

As movies about the Revolution go, The Crossing is a good bit better than average, but still not nearly as good as it could have been.

Young Man with Ideas (1952)

Eight stars for lawyers. Probably five for everyone else.

[8/10 · 19 October 2022]

If you've ever had to take a state bar exam, you'll get a kick out of Young Man with Ideas. It depicts the trials and tribulations of young lawyer Max Webster (Glenn Ford), who moves with his wife Ruth Roman) and kids from Montana to California--the big time!--and now needs to pass the California bar exam. Certain people--you know who you are--will find this very relatable. The poor sap is taking bar-review courses during the day, studying at night, and working part time as a debt collector, all while trying to keep his family safe from some thugs (led by Sheldon Leonard) who think he's a bookie and to keep his wife from going nuts. Oh, and he also is fighting off his man-hungry classmate (the great Nina Foch) who wants to do more than just study with Max. And he's helping out a nightclub singer who's down on her luck (Denise Darcel, the Anna Nicole Smith of her day).

If that sounds awfully sitcom-y, you're right. In a lot of ways, it feels like a supersized episode of I Love Lucy. But the cast is excellent, and the craftsmanship is good. It's a fun 84 minutes if the subject matter interests you.

Bunny Lake Is Missing (1965)

A Huge Let-Down

[4/10 · 8 May 2022]

This is a very tepid suspenser with one--ONE--big twist and then a silly denouemont that goes on for far too long. Perhaps in 1965 the pop psychology that underpins the resolution was fresh and edgy, but now it just feels lazy. All the red herrings that take up most of the running time lack interest even before you know the solution to the mystery. After you know the solution, the whole thing seems like a complete waste of time, as if the script writers thought their job was simply to delay the ending.

Don't be fooled by all the big names and talent involved here. The parts don't add up to anything great.

The Silver Chalice (1954)

Must-see biblical phantasmagoria

[6/10 · 20 April 2022]

The Silver Chalice is a difficult film to rate. On one hand, it's too long and too talky, with a jarring mismatch of old and new acting styles. On the other hand, its production design is just bizarre. It's as if the studio said, "We can't afford any elaborate sets for this, so just hire some graphic artists to whip up some matte paintings inspired by ... Giorgio di Chirico!"

Honestly, this has to be seen to be believed. At times, the cast seem to be stuck in a cartoon world, like Julie Andrews and Dick van Dyke in Mary Poppins. Except for the actual sand dunes that provide the setting for one outdoor episode, none of the sets are realistic. Instead, they all look like things designed for the big ballet in an Astaire or Kelly MGM musical.

In other respects, the film alternates between boring and campy. Jack Palance seems to be enjoying himself as a flamboyantly evil magician. Virginia Mayo is saddled with over-the-top mantrap eye makeup. Alexander Scourby finds his niche as Mr. Bible. Paul Newman struggles to make his sincere portrayal register amid all the craziness.

It's unique.

The Day Mars Invaded Earth (1962)

Does quite a bit with next to nothing

[6/10 · 18 April 2022]

The Day Mars Invaded Earth is a sci-fi film with almost no special effects, mostly location filming, and (except for Marie Windsor) a no-name cast. Yet it's surprisingly effective.

Most of the movie was filmed at Greystone Mansion in Beverly Hills (now a city park). That setting adds a good bit of visual interest. Marie Windsor was her usual talented self as the main character's wife. Kent Taylor, as her husband, had some mannerisms that I found annoying at first, but they worked as the story moved along. The script was gappy in places but did the job.

Well worth a watch.

Justified (2010–2015)

Decent start but quickly goes downhill

[5/10 · 15 April 2022]

I stuck with Justified for three seasons before throwing in the towel. It started out as an implausible but entertaining cop show with some interesting characters and relationships. But the second season devolved into a dumber plot, with shallower characters and an increasing number of backwoods stereotypes. The third season seemed at first to be a bit better, with an intriguing supervillain, but it went in circles and ended with a whimper.

The series is slick, violent, raunchy, and "gritty" in a very cartoonish way. As it became less and less realistic, I lost any interest in the characters and whether they succeeded or failed.

While the City Sleeps (1956)

What the Heck Did I Just Watch?

[4/10 · 4 April 2022]

This movie barely holds together. The set-up is implausible (a media empire all encompassed in a single suite of offices smaller than the average cubicle farm?), and the plot is silly (the hero knows the killings are connected because they're all different? And everyone believes that a single news commentary will reach the killer and make him act just so?). The sets are cheap (not necessarily a deal-breaker). And a lot of the scenes seem to be off a beat or two, as if people were having trouble remembering their lines.

Still, there are things to like here. Id Lupino does a terrific job as a woman columnist who's learned to beat the men at their own games (while having some fun at the same time). Vincent Price is good as a spoiled rich kid; Rhonda Fleming does fine as a cheating wife. Thomas Mitchell is Thomas Mitchell, which works well here. George Sanders seems tired. Dana Andrews seems undecided about who his character is. Sally Forrest (whom I was not previously familiar with) added a lot of value through her sincere, believable performance as a key character.

Worth a watch for Lupino and Price.

The Amazing Mr. X (1948)

Creepy fun with some '40s regulars

[7/10 · 19 March 2022]

The Amazing Mr. X is an entertaining 80 minutes with some creeps, some thrills, and some surprises. Richard Carlson (King Solomon's Mines; Creature from the Black Lagoon) is today probably the best-known member of the cast, but it also features Cathy O'Donnell (The Best Years of Our Lives), Turhan Bey (Night in Paradise), and Donald Curtis (Earth vs. The Flying Saucers). Fans of classic stage magic might also appreciate an appearance by Harry Mendoza (The Great Mendoza) as a private eye.

The story is along the lines of something that might later have found a home on Rod Serling's Night Gallery or Hammer House of Horror, but the telling is efficient and stylish. The audience is allowed to connect the dots without dreary exposition. The things we know are going to happen are dealt with quickly, so that we can get to the surprises. There's also plenty on screen to divert the viewer--the spiritualist's den is especially well handled, with great use of lighting. And who can resist a trained crow?

This would be a great choice for an atmospheric, gore-free Hollywood fright-fest.

Guy's Chance of a Lifetime: Show Me the Money at the Chicken Guy! Pop-Up (2022) Season 1, Episode 4

What's the deal here?

[2/10 · 24 January 2022]

Each episode seems to be worse than the last. The editing is incoherent, with no through-line. And the drama seems to be even more scripted than I assumed it would be.

In this episode, the contestants are divided into teams of two (Chelsea and Cayton, Eboni and Philip, and Kevin and Chase) and tasked with running a pop-up Chicken Guy restaurant in Branson MO for a few hours. This week, we got to see only Eboni-Philip and Chelsea-Cayton. Kevin-Chase were saved for next week.

To staff the pop-up restaurant, the contestants worked with the regular cooks of Guy's existing Branson tourist trap and its kitchen. Eboni-Philip did pretty well, but Chelsea-Cayton crashed and burned. Guy gave their team a rating of 2 (bad), and Cayton then had a very real meltdown and walked off the set.

Here's the thing: We're supposed to believe that Guy's regular kitchen staff effed up the spices on the chicken tenders for Chelsea-Cayton so badly that they were basically inedible. That's the main reason given for why Guy spanked them so hard. Well, I'm not buying it. The "mistake" was made by Guy's people, working in Guy's kitchen. And then Cayton and Chelsea got their butts kicked for drama.

As another reviewer put it, What is the point of this show?

Guy's Chance of a Lifetime (2022– )

Episode 1 -- pretty much as expected

[6/10 · 3 January 2022]

I expected this to be The Apprentice with Guy Fieri as Donald Trump, and that's pretty much what I got. Basically, Guy is looking for someone who will be a franchisee of one of his Chicken Guy (exclamation point!) joints. Apparently, getting a Chicken Guy franchise is a big deal. (They didn't say whether the winner will have to put up the same amount of cash as a normal franchisee. The "prize" could turn out to be about as desirable as a job working for Trump.)

Like The Apprentice, this show has a group of go-getters vying for the boss's approval. The "judges" are Guy, various business associates and chefs, and (for some reason that escapes me) his son Hunter, who seems like a decent kid just humoring a dad with an outsized personality. Guy subjects the contestants to challenges designed to find out whether they have what it takes and to make them feel inadequate. The only difference from The Apprentice, as far as I can see so far, is that someone doesn't get "fired" at the end of each episode. I guess they all stick around to the end. But they do get paid varying "salaries" each week based on how well or poorly they "performed."

The first episode introduced the kinds of characters we've become used to in "reality" game shows -- the ex-military iron man, the brown-noser, the screw-up, the jerk, etc. And most of that, I assume, is the creation of the editors, with no connection to who these people really are.

So I got what I expected, and I was entertained. I expect I'll watch the whole series. Unlike many people, I find Guy amusing. It looks like the challenges will result in some moments of relatively natural drama. And if the show makes good use of the "judges," their comments should be interesting.