dmh7-1 Reviews

Love on the Run (1936)

Another "Comedy" Pulls a Muscle Trying Too Hard...

[4/10 · 13 May 2013]

Clark Gable is fine as usual, but this film is so obviously struggling to amuse the audience that it becomes painful, then dull, to watch. The reliance on repeated shtick and what is often a wasted talent (Donald Meek's take as the mentally unbalanced caretaker is depressing, as he is usually a reliable character actor, here asked to broaden his approach to paint a personality of bizarre - but not amusing - proportions). I really wanted to enjoy this, but the speed at which it became obvious this was a leap at an "It Happened One Night" clone only made it suffer by comparison. Every frame screamed "love me!"

Others speak of the chemistry between Gable and Crawford, but I do not see how it translates to the screen; I never once thought they were meant for one another, and was not entertained by the time it took to get there. The entire film - although spotted with good dialogue - failed to convince me that there was a guiding intelligence behind the tale, that the creators were convinced of its vitality as a comedy, or that it was meant as anything other than a desire to cash in on Gable's award-winning role in a better film. The slapstick is painful, the male rivalry unconvincing, and Tone particularly grievous, as he mugs and screams his way through this "comedy."

People Will Talk (1951)

Oddly Disconnected And Disaffected Film...

[5/10 · 2 August 2010]

This film has all the elements to have made it utterly superior: a great cast of major and secondary performers, a sophisticated director/writer, and a storyline that appears to be charmingly eccentric and replete with the possibility of urbane dialogue.

And yet it is very strangely cool, the characters' talk seemingly hanging in the air, emotional outbursts muted instantly by ambiguous explanations, and a alienated and robotic air which smothers the comedy and the drama beneath a blanket of distance. The material strikes me as the basis for a good screwball comedy (the collegiate setting, the secret past, the childish banter and behavior between old friends) and yet there is no manic energy or feeling of fun, and it seems we are to take seriously what is impossible to absorb.

The film simply never "gels" as a cinematic experience, and it is no wonder that it is not more widely known. A near-numbing ride...

Alice in Wonderland (I) (2010)

A Botched Combo of Oz and Lord of the Rings...

[6/10 · 29 March 2010]

This is a visually seductive movie which seems to be on the verge of becoming intriguing up until the terrible moment it devolves into a fantasy action film, at which point its connection to the whimsy and strangeness of the novel severs entirely. The second portion of the film is difficult to enjoy for anyone who appreciates the linguistic torsions of the novel, and that book's celebration of a level-headed child resisting the madness of adult social rules and vile tempers. The film's ending, in which Alice "grows up" and embarks upon a business career (in an imperialistic trading company of all things!) is even more profoundly errant. I don't know – maybe the tale is inherently difficult to capture well in film, or perhaps its age has passed, and become crushed by capital into just another venture. Yet, the "flashback" scene (where we see Burton's take on the original Mad Tea Party episode) seems to me to have been a shadow of a missed opportunity. Burton's usual oddity and comic/Gothic sensibility appears to have deserted him precisely at the moment it was most called upon. And the reduction of that supreme insane, the Mad Hatter, into as sort of stand-in for Baum's scarecrow is particularly sad. No amount of 3-D technology can salvage a story so horribly mangled. And - regretfully - at points there are sets and visuals very redolent of the Disney cartoon, which (as this is a Disney film) suggests an undue interference by the "product's" owners. Worth viewing, for its many visual surprises, and for the odd performance here and there (Helen Bonham Carter strikes me as especially fun in her raging role). But not a great success of mood or sensibility.

Too Tough to Die: A Tribute to Johnny Ramone (2006)

A Punk Film With MOR Ideas

[5/10 · 25 November 2009]

The performances were good, and (in Eddie Vedder's offerings) even splendid, making something poignant and powerful as well as rambunctious and ground-breaking out of the Ramones' songs. The visual production is no-frills, which is appropriate to its subjects, and most of the guest stars and inserted commentators are both passionate and of relevance to the Ramones' legend, although - in this regard - I do wonder how Lisa Marie Presley managed to squeeze her way into the proceedings, since she is not punk, scarcely a modern musical presence at all, and of no particular interest in her comments here. Still, the importance of the Ramones to many of the people in the film is both well expressed and (at times) moving. I have no essential problem with those two aspects of the movie: the musical homages, and the oral essays. My concerns start at the point where they were edited together, and this is where one of the most common errors of these "tributes" emerges in full force - the performances are constantly interrupted by talking heads, very few acts find their tributes in full array. I don't need to be told (in the middle of a song) how important the Ramones were to this or that personality. The adulation can wait until song's end, because the music is what it is ALL about. A disappointing and very Middle of the Road format.

As an aside, Johnny Ramone was in the process of dying and though eager to be there that night, was finally too ill to attend. So they held up a cellphone so he could hear? Why couldn't some type of audio-visual remote have been set up so (at least) Johnny could have experienced the concert, if not also so he might himself be seen? This struck me as odd, considering the level of money and talent that attended.

Worth viewing, for the few full songs, the passion displayed in some acts, and the occasional stills and video of the Ramones themselves. But not an exemplary production.

Five Easy Pieces (1970)

An Iconic 60s Film: (I Know I Know - It's 1970!)

[10/10 · 4 August 2009]

For someone who lived (really lived!) through the madness of the 1960s, this film (without any overt reference to hippies/counterculture) seems to embody a general feeling of rootlessness, and loss of an "easy" cultural identity. Jack's character bridges both high and low culture, Northern "intelligentsia" and rural Southern "hillbilly" without finding a steady anchor in either extreme. Many of the counterculture were - if pressed - "looking for themselves" in a mad rush for experience / sensation, and - for many - it was a futile quest for something that was really "at hand" - identity, and family. Here, Jack's character has - for the most part - surrendered to a loss of self, turned entirely cynical about any solution or connection. He personifies much of what I (and others) hoped to avoid while setting ourselves to achieve: a separation from all the "worst" in society, while also exiling oneself from any possibility of finding "satisfaction" or contentment, as we strove to avoid mere sentimentality, and to be "elsewhere" (Alaska perhaps?). Jack has given up of course, he is a jerk, but one you come to feel great pity for, although he would only disdain you for the effort. The one time he comes close to "revealing" his self (as he understands it) is when he speaks to his mute father, obviously finding safety in the other's inability to have any feeling about him, thus entrapping him in expectations and love and concern. It is a perfectly wrought narrative about an existential crisis that has no fix. Funny at times (though always dark and apt to spill into hopelessness), the film leaves a viewer feeling depleted, yearning for escape, but realizing that - eventually - no exit exists.

Little Nellie Kelly (1940)

Grandpa's Just A Jerk...

[3/10 · 14 June 2008]

As others have commented, the film does (on its face) have things to (potentially) enjoy: Judy's singing, Arthur Freed's handiwork, Cohan's songs, and a possible musical and comic look at Irish immigrants in New York. But in almost every way the film stiffs. Judy climbs from the wreckage (as usual) unscathed: her freshness and energy nearly making the film and songs rise to the level of entertainment. But George Murphy is the complacent stiff, the songs are mostly mediocre at best (except for a jazzy "Singin' In The Rain' by Judy), and worst of all "Grandpa" is a character who - although meant to be curmudgeonly and adorable in his irascibility - comes off as almost criminally abusive, ruining his daughter's one leap at married bliss, and doing a good number on his grand-daughter's as well. The actor in that role (the usually reliable Charles Winninger) gives an unlikeable and near one-note performance which constantly grates, until the viewer wants to strangle him. This may or may not have been purposeful, but - in terms of making the film (a light musical affair) bearable to watch - it is a disaster. You feel both aggravated by Grandpa's insistent hostility towards the happiness of others, and put off by the passivity of others toward his ugly and pointless behavior over the course of years. I don't think this is the stuff of light entertainment, but of a psychological essay. Grandpa's just a jerk...

It is true that every now and then you will find an unheralded film to be undeserving of its anonymity. This is not one of those cases: the film drags along, forgettable song after forgettable song, stiff actor after stiff actor, sentimental stereotype after sentimental stereotype, and all made worse by that horrible Irish stew pot of a Grandpa. This one can be skipped without feeling cheated.

Kill the Umpire (1950)

Strike! Strike!

[2/10 · 8 June 2008]

This film is mainly a missed opportunity. It might have been a minor but pleasurable evocation of a certain (supposedly more innocent)era, and of the "baseball life" as seen through the eyes of an umpire. Still funny and light, but less "Three Stooge-ish" in its antics.

As it is, I think a good performer (William Bendix) is wasted in scenes of over-broad physical comedy (which is NOT Bendix' forte, and is NOT particularly well-handled at any rate). Among the baseball films of the time I can immediately recall (e.g. "It Happens Every Spring"), this ranks easily at the bottom. Such scenes as the one involving the car chase, and the vapid shtick at the umpire school are sub-par and badly filmed, and actually made me miss the presence of the Howard boys...And that's some feat! So - in sum - I think the human angles (the relations between family members, the "love of the game," and "lessons to be learned") might have been emphasized just a bit. That - with a general toning down of the mediocre physical comedy - might have made this more bearable. As is, it is less than adequate.

Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer (2007)

Blandtastic Bore: The Ruse of the Silver Screen

[2/10 · 19 April 2008]

I am a comic book reader of longstanding, and have enjoyed several of the screen adaptations of comic books, but both Fantastic Four films have been textbook examples of how NOT to translate a comic book to the screen. Seriously, I thought they couldn't make a worse film that the original Fantastic Four, but I have been proved wrong.

From the gratuitous attempts at showing Alba as naked as possible, to the less-than-convincing physical presence of the Thing, to the miscasting of Alba and whoever plays Reed, to the pointless changes in the story, to a bland visual style (performed upon one of the most visually dynamic creations in comic book history) to the endless scenes of dull dialogue. Nothing goes right, here as in the first film. Galactus is a hungry cloud with no actual personality at all, and the obnoxious military man seems totally unaware of who and what the Fantastic Four are. Plot holes, flat acting, uninvolving action scenes. The movie acts as a sort of fraud pulled on comic fandom.

The Next Voice You Hear... (1950)

They Don't Make Films Like This Anymore...Luckily...

[1/10 · 15 April 2007]

I recently saw this "film" on TCM - mildly intrigued by its central premise - and thought it might be - at the very least - an amusing bit of 1950s culture, with stereotypical (yet charming) characters from a mythically "simpler" time, such as one sees in the entertaining fluff of the "andy Hardy" series. But - no...

This film plays as if it were produced by a small-town (and vastly untalented and humorless) church group who had accidentally come across some film equipment. The cinematography is dull, and the time crawls by like sludge through a small tube, as we are constantly barraged with limp and cliché bits of supposed divine wisdom which appear to come down to such gems as "take it easy" and "don't rock the boat". One wonders why sedatives weren't simply poured into the water supply to achieve such conservative ends, until you consider the acting of James Whitmore and the equally flat Nancy Davis, whose role here explains why she got out of the business. There is a lot of moping, an aggravating child actor, a seemingly insane aunt, and - to my eyes - some of the worst "acting as a drunk" bits I have ever seen.

The utter "preachiness" of this film, combined with its dull look, its duller acting, and a humorlessness that borders on criminal combine to make it an excruciating viewing for anyone who thinks the "old time virtue" was mainly a matter of skewed nostalgia.

When they say such films as "Plan 9 from Outer Space" are the worst films of all time, they must exclude from consideration such draggy fare as this film.

Horrid...

The Whole Town's Talking (1935)

One Striking Robinson Moment of Real Anguish In A Comedy

[8/10 · 5 January 2007]

This movie is (correctly enough) billed as a "crime comedy" but that tone is not entirely maintained throughout the film, and to good effect. For one thing, Robinson (as "Jonesy") emanates a very palpable feeling of repression and yearning for a more romantic existence throughout the film, and this is underscored by his poetic ambitions, and the fact he named his cat "Abelard" for just two examples.

But the most powerfully emotional scene in the film - and the one which most breaks the comedy constriction - is when Mannion is finally gunned down by his own men, entirely at "Jonesy's" direction. It is not a moment which is let off with comedic ease, and this is marvelously portrayed in a fleeting closeup of Robinson (as "Jonesy") as the gangs carts Mannion off to another room - the camera cuts away to a shot of "Jonesy's" face, and what one sees there (underscored by an anguished bark) is a true second of real anguish and guilt over what he has just be responsible for. Although Mannion was a murderer (and this "crime" of "Jonesy's" is partly in response to his discovering Mannion was trying to gt him killed), the murder is not tossed off without emotional undertones of true anxiety. It is a great sequence, possibly entirely a matter of Robinson's skill and feel for the character.

The comedic moments go down easy, Jean Arthur is at her tough girl best, and the film abounds with the "usual suspects" of Hollywood character actors. It is well worth viewing as a light farce. But - for this viewer - that one quick brush with actual internal pain somehow puts the rest of the film in a briefly glimpsed and different universe of real human morality. If for no other reason, (and there are many) that one tiny moment makes this film highly recommendable.

Mr. Toad's Wild Ride (1996)

A Disappointing Lack of English Coziness, But...

[4/10 · 30 December 2006]

I saw this film directly after reading it to my wife. I loved the book, and - really - I was more than happy to see the film, which has many good points, and some very nice performances. But...

Although I am aware that it is not necessarily a useful process to compare a book and its film adaptation, I did feel somewhat let down by the rather frenetic pacing of the film, with its emphasis on "gadabout" and a degree of mugging. I expected plot variations from the book, but I think several were egregious (the dog food factory was - I feel - a bad addition), and I most regretted the loss of the intimate coziness one finds so often in British children's books, the lingering over a home's warmth, and fireside chats, and a delight in tea and food. Much the same loss is felt in the "Lord of the Rings" adaptation, which my wife and I enjoyed immensely, but - again - whose largest letdown was the loss of the many simply sit down talks that abound in the book. Now, I am aware that film cannot take its good old time on such things; they are called "movies" for a good reason; but there are ways to capture this atmosphere of lazy friendship which informs every page of the book, and creates a pleasing nostalgia for time and culture vanished. The film was far too rambunctious, as if Mr. Toad himself had directed it...which 9in effect) he did! So although I appreciated the attempt, the film lacked a certain "heart" for this viewer, and far too much frantic movement. I was disappointed, but still recommend a look see...

Great Balls of Fire! (1989)

Quaid Plays a Monkey with a Nervous Disorder as Film Dies

[1/10 · 25 August 2005]

I haven't seen this film in years, but the awful "taste" of Quaid's performance still lingers on my tongue. Some have commented on how Quaid has Jerry Lee Lewis "to a tee" but the fact is he only appears to have the most extreme stage Jerry in mind. Nobody acts that way all the time, and the performance comes off as hopelessly clownish, reducing Lewis to a buffoonish caricature. The nuances of a man's life are lost in the rubble of sheer over-acting.

The author of the book this is based on (Nick Tosches) is a good writer, who has written several fine musical bios (I particularly liked "Dino" on Dean Martin); in the books Tosches gives us a full human being, both separate from and involved in the "biz." Quaid's acting seems to imply that Jerry never acted like a human being. If people were like this, no one would bother to hang around them. As cartoons go, it is mildly amusing, but otherwise it is one of the most egregious, film-destroying performances I have had the "honor" of viewing. Terrible...

Blonde Ice (1948)

Does It's Job Briskly...

[7/10 · 2 August 2005]

"Blonde Ice" (which I just viewed in a nice DVD version with the restorer's commentary, and some nifty extras) is not a classic, nor even a particularly good movie by most standards: it is strictly poverty row rather than Scarlet Street, BUT... I found it easy to watch, and (at times) quite good. The male lead (although obviously a dashing actor on his way down the ladder) brings off his part with some real style, especially in a scene in which he eschews the usual macho man poise expected and almost breaks down in bewilderment over the Woman's actions and seeming imperturbability. And there are a few satisfying (if never quite resplendent) turns by a handful of character actors well-versed in what is expected of them. Although - as commented upon already - there is not quite enough "shadow and darkness" to make it a solid noir presentation, there are - in fact - some rather well-drawn night scenes, and the requisite "venetian blind shadows aslant" scattered here and there. And there is a (limp) stab at analysis of Claire's "problem" by a weakly-sketched German shrink, who also concocts a rather vapid (and seemingly pointless) plan to upend her schemes. The ending is perhaps a bit perfunctory, although the very last line is snappy.

The main positives however are the terribly efficient story-telling (often a lost art in B-movies: hell, in ALL movies!) and some truly terrific compositions. These two elements make it worth at least a single viewing, especially if you can see it on the DVD with the commentary, which also delves into the important work of the film restorer. Seen in such a fashion, the movie is rewarding enough, considering its brevity and quick pace.

Confidential Agent (1945)

Boyer Isn't Spanish and Bacall Isn't British, Yet...

[8/10 · 2 August 2005]

I watch a lot of films, good, bad and indifferent; there is usually something of interest to fixate upon, even if it is only set design, or the reliable labor of a good character actor, or the fortuitous laughter that emerges from watching ineptitude captured forever.

However, I was quite pleasantly surprised by this film, one I had never seen before. Graham Greene has been translated into film many times of course, in such masterpieces as "Thin Man" and in lesser vehicles. "Confidential Agent" is one of those lesser vehicles, yet it manages to get me somewhere anyway, despite lackluster direction, the incongruity of Bacall and Boyer's depictions as (respectively) British and Spanish, and the almost complete non-existence of any chemistry between the two leads. In some ways, this last "problem" actually begins to work in the film's favor, for how can love really blossom in the killing atmosphere of fascism and capitalism meeting about one person's tragedy? The most compelling aspect of the film arises directly from Greene's complex and guilt-ridden psychology, which pervades the film. I know some see the deliberate pacing here as dull, and I can understand that. Yet I found that plodding accentuated rather than detracted from what is a claustrophobic world. I was compelled to watch, not by any great acting (although Boyer is marvelous as usual, managing to convey a rich mixture of world-weariness, tragedy, hope, and fervor with his magnificent voice and yearning eyes), but by the down-spiraling rush of one man's slim hopes against a world of oppression and money. What is a thief? What good is love in the face of death? Where does mere profit-taking end and exploitation begin? The film does not rise to the level of art, and thus cannot hope to answer such questions, but it is much more than mere entertainment, and its murders and guilts are very grimly drawn. The lack of glitz, of "bubble," of narrative "bounce" help to make this movie very worthwhile.

And there is no happy ending, for history wrote the ending.

Communion (1989)

If You Like Walken - Yes. If You Don't - No...

[5/10 · 12 April 2005]

This is one of those films (like "Missouri Breaks" with Brando, and "Vampire Kiss" with Nicholas Cage) where a bravura performance is the entire experience. Walken truly gives it his all here, in service to a less-than-stellar narrative in a less-than-stellar films from an almost worthless book.

The actual joy of watching this film (and I've viewed it several times now) is that it seems Walken's character is forever commenting on the film itself, with such lines as "I've got to get out of here" and some ironic looks from Christopher. I assume he knew that he was in a dud, and decided to take the paid ride as far as it would take him.

Certainly worth a viewing (or several) for admirers of Walken at his most engaged and energetic. Otherwise...no.

Napoleon Dynamite (2004)

Shabby Napoleon

[14 March 2005]

Comedy can certainly arise from cynicism, from disgust and revulsion. But even then, it is important to maintain at least one "point of reference" which acts as the viewer's surrogate. John Waters' early films for instance are certainly based in a revulsion at American values and cultural debris, but there is always at least one character (and usually more) who maintains their integrity and rises above the debasement. In Napoleon Dynamite they're are none. It makes the film almost unbearable to watch. Its post-modern dismissal of humanity is disturbing.

There are boring and seemingly pointless human lives in this world, and who could doubt it? But this film (bereft of humanity) actually exploits rather than critically satirizes the essence of such lives. It tells us that there is either no escape from this "hell of retardation" or that such things are happening to others whom we never have to meet. Such a relentless put-down of every character is the opposite of comedy's revolutionary process. Comedy (even black comedy) serves the disenfranchised by both attacking power and providing release of anger and fear. But this film basically says that the people get what they deserve, because they are stupid and selfish and obnoxious. Such bleakness is not an appropriate vessel for humor, which is not supposed to leave the viewer feeling that any effort is wasted effort.

The film "Dumb and Dumber" is an example of how little a shift in cinematic approach might have been necessary to create - if not a good film - a decently viewable one. I personally can't stand the "Dumb and Dumber" films but - at the very least - the central characters, while wretchedly stupid, are given a modicum of integrity and are revealed to have genuine affection for one another and others. They are the heroes of the film. This is as to say "even the stupidest among us have value." Thus a certain point of reference is provided us.

Some say (some always say) that this is "just a comedy" but comedy has never been immune from a critique based on its social and cultural "value." In fact, because comedy is the most revolutionary in its engagement with power and alienation and values, we can actually expect more from it than other genres. So we see the great comedies of Buster Keaton, Charlie Chaplin, Stan and Ollie, and what we see are disenfranchised men forging a system of values amongst oppression from capitalism, the police, the vain and the worthlessly wealthy. That constitutes a social critique.

Napoleon Dynamite's killing flatness, its relentless pursuit of degradation lacking any light of ethical position, or escape is inimical to the very spirit of humor.

A shoddy and mean-spirited product.

Collateral (2004)

Another Decent Movie Ruined By Tom Cruise

[2 March 2005]

I rather liked this film, and found Jamie Fox engaging - as he also was in "Ray." Like all Mann films the plot (what there is of it) moves quickly and the editing is superb. The premise is tight, and the way it is played out are (for the most part) adequate. One can't expect too much from these "machine" films.

But Tom Cruise continues to be a bland actor, always opting for the obvious performance, the expected reaction, the common gestures. There was almost no sense of either violence or (later) the slightest "frisson" of self-awareness. There were several scenes in which I could imagine a better actor really digging something out of this conflicted/repressed villain, making him a fully-rounded personality we could feel for if not admire. But Tom misses every opportunity to be anything more than the "gray wolf" hair job and the nice suit he is wearing (or is it wearing him?).

Yet he goes on - film after film, year after year - surpassing my expectations for such a pointless performer. i've seen him in several good films ("Jerry McQuire" comes to mind) in which he is close to embarrassing in key scenes which demand more than a ready smile and nice hair. He never transcends the material, rarely comes up to it.

Still, I think the film - as these sorts of films go - is worth watching, if only to see Jamie Fox giving his all. Michael Mann has shown what a good actor can do with one of his slick productions, when he cast James Caan in "Thief." There James drags all he can out of himself to give us a vulnerable but capable man. The contrast between the two actors says all that needs to be said about Cruise's "talents."

Pleasantville (1998)

A Missed Opportunity In A Nice-Looking Film

[2 March 2005]

One is always in danger of asking too much from a "mere" comedy, but this film does set itself as a sociological commentary and so invites the criticism on that score.

As such, the film is a big disappointment. There is no doubt it looks great and the actors do a fine job, but there is a missed opportunity here. Somewhere else a person has commented that this is the usual Hollywod left-wing drivel, and while I certainly do not agree with the sentiment, there is the beginning of a pertinent point in that: the film fails to be a two-way street vis a vis its critique of the respective eras that it pictures. While portraying the fifties as shallow and repressive and sexless it fails to address how changing that is necessarily an improvement, given the times we are living through, and the concerns we are living with. There could have been both a pleasant comedy, and a nice dialectical argument in which neither side "wins" but both benefit from the investigation. Instead, it is a rather flat-footed film, happy to settle for an easy answer. In truth there ARE very real advantages to the fifties lifestyle, as there are problems. And the same with the more modern era. A comedy works best when it is closest to some sort of valid truth, and this one seems very shallow indeed.