movie review: Julie and Julia

It seemed appropraite to watch a movie about cooking as I was writing down recipies. And let me tell you, now all I want to do is cook. Woe is me that I don't have the money to do it, or the people to do it for, or the talent for cooking that these women have. Still, now I want to cook. I made my grocery list after watching this movie, does that count?

Wonderful idea. A duel story between the lives of two women: Julia Childs on her road to success as a goddess of a cook, and Julie Powell on her road to control in her life. That is an utterly simplified version of this movie. It's a great movie. Everything about it is good. The tying together of these two life stories, the design, the direction, the acting; it's all good.

And the food. Need I really mention the food? I think the only thing I really didn't like about this movie is the fact that I couldn't smell or taste the food. But that is the beef I have with any food related show.

Meryl Streep is amazing. The woman is a chameleon! Is there anything she can not do? Amy Adams is one of those emerging actresses. Well, I guess by now she isn't emerging, really. She is to me, I guess. I'd like to see more of her work. Really, I have only seen her in Doubt (which I adored! - and again, her paired with Meryl Streep and Phillip S Hoffman made that an EXCELLENT movie) and Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day which was great, but I don't think it did justice to her possible talents. Still, it was a great movie, and she was good in it. The rest of the cast was wonderful, and I must say, it was nice to see Jane Lynch as something other than a snarky cheerleading coach.

Solid 4 and 1/2 out of 5 stars!

Movie Review: Dead End (1937)

Once again, WOW. I love this movie. Not a complete 5 out of 5, but a very respectable 4 1/2 stars.

Based on the stage play of the same name, this film is about life down by the docks of the East River in NY. It is an interesting time, because very recently, the fashionable and rich moved into the area in big apartment buildings that overlooked the river and its "picturesque" views. With the fashionable front street closed for repairs, the rich must mingle with the poor on the back street.

A hot scorcher day in the slums. Its starts out like everyday with everyone getting up and starting the day. You meet the groups that define the area. The "Dead End Kids" who are pretty much hoodlums. They talk tough, act tough, and try hard to be tougher than the slums they grew up in. They're not a good bunch of kids. They've got it in for the rich kid who lives in the apartment looking over their turf. The leader of the Dead End Kids is Tommy Gordon. He lives with his sister, Drina(Sylvia Sidney), who has always slaved away in the slums to try and get a better life for herself and her brother. She is on strike from her work, trying to get a raise which will allow her to send Tommy someplace better. You meet Dave (Joel McRea), who grew up in the area, managed to escape to college and became an architecht. But, as one character says, jobs "don't grow on trees" and Dave is back in the tenants, doing odd jobs to pay his way. Dave has met and fallen for a girl named Kay, who is the fiance of one of the fashionable rich. Kay loves him too, but not where he comes from, or what he has. On this particular day we also meet "Baby Face" Martin (Humphrey Bogart), an infamous murderer who grew up in the area. Now a big-time gangster, he managed to get some face work done so that few can really recognize him. He has returned to see his mother (Marjorie Main) and his best girl Francey (Claire Trevor).
It's a great story with a lot of social problems seen and discussed. I imagine the play would be better at the moral part, but the film does okay. The set is fantastic and gritty. I loved so many of the shots used in this film. There is a fantastic lack of space, throughout the entire thing except at the docks, the "dead end." Beyond that is just the river. A lot of the settings have that wonderful sense of being very enclosed. When Kay goes into the tenants to meet Dave, her horror is perfectly justified in the way these people lived. But there is also a sense of doing the best with what you have. You always see people cleaning, painting, trying to improve their enviroment and their lives as much as possible. It says something about the people there, and the time it was made.

As far as acting goes, Sylvia Sidney is a little melodramatic, but appropriately so - her character has a beautiful moment of confessing her dream to Dave, and in that moment, you truly see the beauty in her; Joel McRea is fantastic - he is kind of the moral beacon of the piece, but you can see his struggles between what he wants and what he should do; Bogart is as amazing as always - he is constantly the gangster, but he's never the same one twice, and in this film you really see the man behind the story. But the two best performances for me came from Marjorie Main and Claire Trevor. They did not get much screen time, but they were fantastic. First of all, Main is usually a very specific character actress, and when I first saw her, I couldn't recognize her at all. She was so gripping! You could hear the various levels of disgust in her voice as well as the weariness and pain. Her scream near the end of the movie is shattering! And Claire Trevor was amazing as well. In her brief appearance she captured that character. You could see who she was, what she became, how it hurt her, and how she hated it. In her voice and eyes, you could see her anger and pain. I was fascinated. The movie doesn't say this, but in the script she has syphilis. She does say in the movie that she is "sick" What I love about this character is that she is truthful about it. Knowing that he has come back to take her with him, and to build a life with her, she shoves him away and tells him that she isn't good for him. After he truly looks at her, all she can manage to say is "What did you expect?" And that says it all. It's amazing.

I highly, HIGHLY reccommend this movie!
4 and 1/2 out of 5 stars!!

review: Capote

If ever there was a movie whose reputation definately proceeded it - this is one. For me at least. At least, I remember this movie being such a big deal.
I was not disappointed.
It's good. Really good. My only regret is that I didn't read the book 'In Cold Blood' first. You don't have to read it to get the story or anything like that, but I imagine it would help with the epicness of the tale. So much is made of the book - how important, how gorundbreaking, how consuming it is to Capote - and not having read it, I think, put me at a disadvantage.
Still and all, it was a great movie. Phillip Seymour Hoffman, I bow to you. Well done sir. I know everyone makes such a big hype over him, and you know what? They should. Have you seen his roles before he was famous? Still pretty amazing - and he doesn't play a type. He is incredibly talented.
I did get mad at the movie, but it had to do with the story. Which is a good thing. I just wanted to slap Capote a couple of times. He's all: woe is me - and you have to stop and think: you got yourself into this! And then you come as a beacon of hope to one of these guys and suddenly, in preparation for their hour of need, you withdrew your support. And he lied to them. Oh! I got so mad about that. So, it was good.
While part of me wanted to sympathize with the criminals, I just couldn't because no matter how you feel about it, these men killed 4 people. IN THE FACE! I couldn't feel too sorry for the men. Although, I do think this movie helped me be less of a fan of the death penalty. The interesting thing is: I wanted these men to get punished terribly, and I think the death penalty was appropriate for their crimes - but I still didn't like it. Conflicted, yes - makes for a good movie experience. I wish they would have shown the darker side of Perry Smith though. Granted, that must not have been something that Capote ever really saw, but it would have helped support his sister's statement about him being a fake sympathetic.
Wonderful movie.
4 and 1/2 stars

review: In the Heat of the Night

Wow! Good film! Won a slew of Academy Awards, is on 4 AFI list (one of course for the famous "They call me Mister Tibbs!" line), and even without those things, this film is amazing. I don't need an organization to tell it to me.
Its about a Philedelphia Homicide Detective who gets caught up in a small town murder in the south. The racist south. It's not a happy story - it's dark, its complex, its disturbing. The people are ... less than good.
What really gets to me is the incredible racism in this film - all the different kinds, I mean. There is the subtle "we're just not used to blacks" uncomfortable kind of racism, and then there is the plain, outright, almost KKK kind of racism - and every kind inbetween. Which makes for some wonderful acting ... the range, I mean, not the racism. And Poitier is brilliant. Strangely enough, the only time I did not like him is in that classic line. Maybe it was just that I have seen it out of context so many times that it just seems like a strange shift in context. But still, he's a powerful actor in the moment with a powerful voice making a powerful statement. So I don't mind if the delivery seems a little over the top.
I'm not going to say too much more on this subject.
Great acting, great directing, wonderful story. See it!
4 and 1/2 out of 5 stars!

review: Notorious

This is one of the hottest romances. Grant and Bergman are electric. This is the romantic in me talking, but I swear their first kiss takes my breath away. I don't really know if there is a single person better at making love to a woman on screen better than Cary Grant. I think very highly of the Bogart/Bergman romance in Casablanca, but even that pales in comparison to this. I would love to trade places with Bergman and nustle into his shoulder. I swear, everytime he kisses her - my heart skips a little. Grant is an amazing actor in that sense. When he kisses on screen you can see right into his character. Because a kiss is not just a kiss, there is always something behind it, and Grant shows us what is behing the kiss.
The story is really good - an international spy thriller kind of thing. Not Hitchcock's most powerful story, but darn good one.
Acting is phenomenal. I like Bergman in these slightly stronger roles. Not that I don't like her in Casablanca, but she's a lot less weak in this movie. As I said, Grant is amazing. It is interesting to see him in this kind of film - especially after watching so many of his comedies. There is next to nothing to laugh at here and he still commands the screen. You don't notice as much in some of his other movies, but Grant is also a very simple actor - a very readable one; you can tell every inflection he has - but you think you are the only one seeing it. That scene where he coaches her out of bed is so amazing to watch him in. Rains, of course, is wonderful - he is an amazing actor. The perfect non-villian, villian. You can see him being tortured by his mistakes and by what he has to do to her. The supporting cast is also quite wonderful and Leopoldine Konstantin - who plays Rains' mother is so damn creepy. She is the evil one, no doubt.
As par with international spy thrillers, the designs are usually, rightfully always very rich. In movies like these you are almost always sure to have elaborate and very beautiful sets, costumes, etc.
As far as how honored this movie is: it is part of the Criterion collection, in the National Film Registry, and nominated for 2 Oscars.
I personally think it deserves more.
4 and 1/2 out of 5 stars

review: State of the Union

This is my kind of political drama. I actually understand most of it! I would love to read this play.
The story is kind of similar to Mr. Smith goes to Washington, but not. Which makes sense because this is a Capra film. I love and admire Frank Capra's work. I don't think there has been a single film of his that I did not enjoy thoroughly. This one was no exception. It focuses on the beginning of a man's champaign for the White House. A flashy newspaper syndicate owner, Miss Thorndyke (Angela Lansbury) and a political correspondent (Adolphe Menjou) team together with another newspaperman, turned Champaign Manager (Van Johnson), to turn Grant Matthews (Spencer Tracy), a prominent businessman, into the Republican candidate for the Presidency. Although incredibly against the idea at first Matthews soon gives in, and by doing so, drags his estranged wife (Katherine Hepburn) into the champaign. Things start off well, as all of these things do, with the candidate speaking his own mind and scaring the hell out of the politicians, but making amends with his wife and fighting the good fight. Then he loses his way, and things start to go adrift.
Everyone is utterly marvelous in this movie. Hepburn is utterly delightful, and hysterically funny. Tracy is a wonderful blend of sense and fun - then compromise. Lansbury seems like pure evil - which is interesting to watch. She's smart, determined, ciniving, but incredibly determined and driven. A wonderful character composite! And I love Van Johnson in this movie!
A great political film!
4 and 1/2 out of 5 stars

review: Angels & Demons

Wow.
Wow!
My hat is off to Dan Brown, Ron Howard, the scriptwriters, researchers, and the businessmen.
Also to the incredible crew of this film. As well as the task masters, and the workers.
And lest we forget: Ewan McGregor, Tom Hanks, and all of the actors.
That was a wonderful movie experience.
I like these kinds of stories: a little bit of fiction with a lot of historical facts, with mystery and adventure. It's like a modern-day Sherlock Holmes - except this guy (Robert Langdon) is more of an intellectual. Think about it, the man is a symbologist. A professor. But, when you are dealing with people who are extremely intelligent, who work in symbols, and have a place in history - who else do you call?
Back to the movie:
I think the only thing I didn't like about it was a plot twist, that just had to be. I hated it because I loved the character. It's always a problem when you find out your favorite is not who you thought. It just took my by surprise. I can't discuss it without giving away something, but wow. Jeez. I'm still in shock!
I like the intelligence of this movie. It's a history lesson, an art lesson, a religious lesson, and a science lesson wrapped in an action movie. I wish I had someone like Langdon in my life. Someone to just tell me everything - the history, the culture. I'm not kidding when I say that I think that would be so much fun. I can imagine how amazing it would be to get into a place like the Vatican archives. I love reading, and I love learning. I'm just not good at it. So a movie or a book like this is incredibly useful. It's a crash course in a bunch of different subjects, or trivia.
Design gets an A+. Effects gets an A. Directing A. Acting ... between A and A-.
All in all, a wonderful movie. See it.
4 and 1/2 out of 5 stars

review: Shall We Dance?

Just when you think it can't get any better, they throw in the Gershwins.
I can't pick a favorite of these movies to save my life, but I know this has some of my very favorite songs. Also some ingenius dances. Again, featuring a great supporting cast and reuniting them with Eric Blore and Edward Everett Horton.
This story is a little different. Astaire portrays Petrov, a famous ballet dancer - who really is an American called Peter A Peters. Rogers is Linda Keene (aka: Linda Thompson), a popular dancer. They meet in Paris, and, of couse, get started off on the wrong foot. But Petrov is determined to win Linda, and he books passage on the same boat as her, headed for America. While on the boat, they become friends and a wild rumor begins that they are married.
This movie is a delight for a couple reasons. It is not as funny as some of the previous movies, but the music more than makes up for it. Also, the design. An art deco engine room. Brilliant.
Music like "Slap That Bass" "Let's Call the Whole Thing Off" and my personal favorite from this movie: "They Can't Take That Away From Me" - which won an Academy Award for Best Song in 1937.
This is the best moment without dancing that Fred Astaire has given us on film - well, this is my over-enthusiastic viewpoint as of now. Astaire is not a wonderful singer, but he was widely loved for his simple, meaningful expression of the songs he sang. "They Can't Take That Away from Me" is one of the most beautiful songs ever, with a hint of sadness. The characters are there, standing on a ferry together on a foggy night and Astaire sings. And of course, Rogers does what she does best: react. It's such a beautiful moment.
4 and 1/2 out of 5 stars

review: Top Hat

I do so love Astaire and Rogers. And Irving Berlin. With Edward Everett Horton, Eric Blore, and Helen Broderick. You can not go wrong with a combination like this.
The story is simple enough: the Astaire/Rogers couple meet and after a little hesitation, fall in love. Through a problem of mistaken-identity, everything gets all mixed up. Of course, it will turn out okay in the end. With songs by Irving Berlin.
This is probably one of the best mistaken identities comedies I have ever seen. It's just wonderfully delightful. The comedy is so wonderful - and almost constant. And with the plot twists there are so many oppurtunities for delightful, poking fun. And dancing. The music isn't exactly plot-integrated, but it's delightful anyways. Plus, one of my favorite songs of all times is in this movie, "Cheek to Cheek" and of course, the best "get ready" song "Top Hat, White Tie, and Tails"
Again, the design on this movie is wonderful. Espcially as an escapist vehichle for audiences of the Depression. No one is worrying about money, it takes place in elegant, European locations with lots of glitx and glamor. Although, one thing I wish they would have changes is Roger's dress in the "Cheek to Cheek" number. Apparently it was a bit of a pain to dance with, especially the top half. All those feathers really make her look like a dainty wholly mammoth. Love Ginger as much as I do - she is not a designer of dresses in dance. The bottom half is perfect, and it moved beautifully - despite the feathers flying every which way. Look it up, there is a very cute story that goes along with that dress.
Again, a perfect example of the glamour of Hollywood and musicals.
4 and 1/2 out of 5 stars

review: Sophie's Choice

Oh my. I can't even begin to tell you how powerful this movie is. But the funny thing is, all I ever hear about is "the choice" moment.
Let me tell you, there was so much more to this movie than "the choice" I don't think the rest of the movie gets enough credit. Don't get me wrong, that moment is powerful - terribly so.
Meryl Streep deserves all the praise she gets from this movie. The range of the character in this piece is so impressive. I don't really know how I feel about it because you are watching something that you know is great, you are concious of it being great, but there are also moments when you lose yourself in the moment, then look back and know it is great. I guess it is a matter of choice which you like better. Either way, she's great. I don't think Kevin Kline gets nearly enough credit for his performance. That character really drew me. He's so magnetic in the portrayal of this character, and that is the way it should be. He's perfumed in charm and spirit, but its those cracks in the character's mind that really present a challange (at least, I would think so) and he is fantastic. He is frightening - and you not only feel for the people he is hurting, but once you understand, you feel for him as well. But honestly, the bad parts aside, this man is a knight in shining armor for Sophie - and it is so easy to see why they need each other. Peter MacNicol is a wonderful experiencer, which is really what he is - especially to the audience. Again, a wonderful middle-man. He's also a wonderful southerner - obvious, but not too cliche, which makes Kline's impressions of him work in the context that he is giving them. I mean, in the first one you see this low, cheap mocking, but then when he does it again it is jovial and friendly. You couldn't make that work if the person was at all off in their characterization of a southerner. Also, the character has this real warmth about him - a gallant chivalry mixed with the innocence of a young man, that is so endearing.
I love the flashbacks during the war - not the content, but the style in which they are presented. Everything is flushed out and there is no color and the world is so cold. It just sets the right tone for what you are seeing.
Something I like in this movie, which I rarely like in most films is the sex of it. I'm not talking the romance, but the sex. And I think the reason why it works here is that #1: there is some romance in the sex - and #2: it says something about the people. It expresses are need that has to be filled. It is a motivation, an escape, and a reason. Most films that have these scenes don't take this into consideration, and sex becomes a cheap tool for box office draw. Sophie's Choice is different. I think it is also because the narrator explains all of this in a most touching way.
I highly suggest watching the documentary after seeing the film. It helps explain some things and really opens your eyes to some depths.
As far as recognition goes, the film was nomiated for several Oscars. Streep won for her performance (well deserved). It is on AFI's more recent Top 100 list and was hailed by critcs everywhere.
4 and 1/2 out of 5 stars

Review: Public Enemies

For the most part, I love this movie! Holy Cow, do I!
Story: basically a somewhat fictionalized view of the final days of John Dillinger - a famous Bank Robber during the Depression and "Public Enemy No. 1" Since he is a historical figure, I don't think I will be giving too much away by saying that.
Dillinger is played by Johnny Depp - and I can't tell you how amazing he is. I love Johnny Depp because he is a bit of a chameleon. He is known for these wierd Tim Burton roles, but if you look over his entire span of work, he has a wide variety of experiences under his belt. He's just brilliant, that's all.
Melvin Purvis is played by Christian Bale, and it was nice to see him outside of the Batman movies. I haven't seen much of his work outside of those, but he seems to be also very good. Very meticulous about portraying a character, down to the mannerisms and habits. He's the "bad" guy, but he's not, and you can see the lines that he doesn't want to cross as he crosses them.
Cinematography in this movie is AMAZING. There are some really beautiful shots and quite interesting ones too. The artistic team did an amazing job recreating both the high class and the low desperation of the 1930s. I'll say it again: we need to bring back those fashions (and many other things), at least them men's fashions. There is something about it that is so suave. I will say that the modern love of violence, bullets, and action is quite present. I can't really complain, because this is a more realistic way of portraying these stories, and this is probably what it was really like, but for me anyways, I just get riddled from the constant noise and the fast action of those longer shootout sequences. That was really my only real complaint. Also didn't need the sex scene in there. But that is a whole other thing, which will be this whole other paragraph.
Okay, so I don't want to slam on the recent generations fascinations with sex scenes, but most of the time, I find them unnecessary. Don't get me wrong, I like romance, and I understand that sex is a natural part of the human existence as well as an expression of romance (sometimes), but (sometimes) its more ugly than it is beautiful, and again, most of the time, a waste of screen time. I'm old fashioned, but I like the old hints into the fade out into the morning after. You don't have to show it, we know what goes on in between. And we used to be satisfied with that too. Plus so many movies now use it as a cheap device. I just think it is an easy way out now. Back in the day, directors/writers/actors could make the audience feel the "sex" (as a feeling, not the action) without having to show it. Have we deteriorated so much that this is not possible anymore?
Back to the movie: It was great!
4 and 1/2 out of 5 stars

Review: The Blue Bird 1918

This was such a beautiful movie! I had seen the Shirley Temple version when I was young, and I had also read the play it was based on, so I picked this one up to give it a whirl. I am so glad I did!
It was made in 1918, and was apparently found in the George Eastman collection suffering badly from negative damage. They were able to save it somewhat. I mean that there are still problems with the negative, but overall, the film was saved.
And thank goodness it was. This is a little gem of a film. You can tell that it was either influenced by, or a precursor of the Expressionist movement in films. The special effects, the lighting, the direction of it and the design are all just beautiful.
Basic Plot: a brother and sister (who are not very nice children) are visited one night by a fairy who tells them that they must find the Bluebird (legendary for being the essence of happiness). "Things" are brought to life to aid them on their journey. The go into the Palace of Night, into the Past, the Palace of Joys, and even the future to try and find the Bluebird. Again, I will stop there because you HAVE to see this film for yourself. I can't do it justice. The Shirley Temple version is pretty good too, and apparently there is another version with Elizabeth Taylor in it as well.
4 and 1/2 out of 5 stars!

Review: White Heat, The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit, The Asphalt Jungle, and the Posieden Adventures

The Poseiden Adventure: Wow. That's mostly what I got: wow! Basic Plot: A boat in the middle of the ocean gets hit by a huge tidal wave, which appropriately tips it over. This is the story of the survivors. A stellar cast with so many names in it that I can't really begin. Everyone - the names, the no-names are all wonderful! I can't even begin to imagine how this was shot - and my appreciation goes to every single person in this cast and crew.
Strangely enough, I love disaster films. They all follow a basic plot line (unless based on true events) and most of the time, everything comes out in the end. You've got the mix of people, the tension of disaster, the fight for survival, and of course, danger, adventure, and above all, hope. One thing this film has taught me is that if you are going to survive a disaster film, you have to have sporatic to no use. Think about it as you watch it. Once a person has served their purpose, they are more than likely going to die. It is inevitable. And I don't say that to be mean, it is just how it is. I cried, no I bawled at a couple of the death scenes. It's not so much the actual death as it is the effect the death has on those left behind - now THERE is where most of the drama lies. My only problem with this film is that it ends so abruptly. They're out, the end. Wait! I want to know what happens to them - are they going to be all right? What will come of this event? How (other than the obvious) has it changed their lives?
Stellar movie - 4 and 1/2 out of 5 stars!
The Asphalt Jungle: A pretty good heist film - except that nobody gets away with anything, and I'm pretty sure that is the message it wanted to send. Kind of like if Ocean's Eleven were to happen in real life. It's a pretty gritty world - trust no one and keep your nose clean or you'll regret it. This is a pretty typical look at 1950s crime films. It's entertaining enough. Doesn't blow you away, but it keeps you interested. Acting is pretty fair - including a role for a young Marilyn Monroe playing the girl toy of a "rich" lawyer. Sad, that she usually never leaves that persona. Even typical is the speech at the end - you know, the hard city filled with crime bit by the commissioner - pretty sure this is the epitome of that. Interesting enough, you don't really care for the commissioner or the coppers - you're routing for the criminals - except for those who double cross the team. They don't want to kill anyone, so they're completely sympathetic. One man just wants to support the family, one dreams of returning home, one is an old man looking for funds to "retire" in Mexico, and one is a crooked back man who owns a diner and is always there for his friends. A very likeable lot. It makes you wonder why people make films like this. Why do we like to like criminals??
An average 3 out of 5 stars.

The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit: I should have liked this film. I love Gregory Peck, I love when things work out in the ending, and I love good stories, but I did not like this film. I don't exactly know why. Acting was not brilliant, but it was good. Peck as the father figure (which is what almost all of his roles are - whether he is playing a father or not.) Jones (as his wife) did a good job - and even the children (who were little snots) played their roles well. I will say that the set decorator did a marvelous job on the first house. It was so plain - it perfectly fit a family like theirs, so Cudos!

What I think really drove me away from this picture is the overall depressing feeling it gives. Like I said, it is a story that ends happily, but from the get-go there is a feeling of let-down, of trouble, of inability and marred circumstances. And it pervades the whole picture. You're sympathetic to almost everyone in the picture, but its too much. You never get over feeling sorry for this man. It's a terrible view of the post-war, corporate world. Working business man oppression. Having to watch everything you do so the Big Boss will approve. And materialism. The kids drove me crazy - it wasn't that they were bad so to speak, but they ignored their father. They shut almost everything out - and no one but that darn nanny would disapline them for it. And most everything got worse and worse as the film went on. By the time things were straightened out (somewhat) you were too exhausted with the weariness of it all that you didn't care if it turned out okay.

I'm sorry, but 2 out of 5 stars.

White Heat: "Made it Ma! Top of the World!" James Cagney at his very best. I don't know why this movie isn't more acclaimed than it is - and it is somewhat acclaimed within its own genre.

Basic Plot: Somewhat psychotic gangster (Cagney) who has a mother fascination admits himself into the Illinois State Pen. for a false crime to get away with a bigger crime. While inside the shit hits the fan so to speak, and Cagney goes crazy. To tell you more would be to ruin it, so I will stop.
Cagney is BRILLIANT. He plays his character so well. He really seems insane. The moment he gets some bad news in the prison, he goes crazy. And it's terrible to watch, but its so pawerful! You feel for him, even though he is a cold-blooded character. Not to long after you see him shoot up a guy in the trunk of a car and laugh about it. His performance is so strong, so intense. You know, I take it back, he is not completely cold-blooded because you can see it when he finds out he has been tricked by a guy he trusted. He laughs, but you can hear the disbelief in his voice as well as maybe a tear or two.

Cagney kind of outshines everyone else in the picture, but if nothing else, they hold their own. Mayo as his wife is so perfect - and Hutchinson (as the mother) is pretty great. The man playing Hank is also very well ept to his role (both of them!)

It's a great film noir/gangster picture with an ending that will blow you away!

4 and 1/2 out of 5 stars!

"The Petrified Forest"

, Be It's a little melodramatic and very dated, but I LOVE this movie! I adore the fact that it was a play before it was made into the movie. I like the setting, the way it was shot, and pretty much everything. I don't think it is lessened by its melodramatic elements.
Leslie Howard plays a wandering intellectual who finds himself in the middle of nowhere, Arizona. Bette Davis plays a girl longing to get out of the desert. Humphrey Bogart plays the gangster who takes everyone hostage. Yes, it is one of those pictures: a group of ransom people forced to be together in a small space. Like Lifeboat except in the desert with gangsters. Again, sounds corny, I guess, but it is amazing - I guess I am a sucker for this kind of story. Bogart is amazing in this movie. He is so studied in his character - he has a distinctinve walk, talk, look. He is so morose in this movie that you can't hate him. You're scared of him, but you're drawn to him. Howard is a little grand, but the character fits into that acting style so well. Bette Davis gravitates between appropriate and a little melodramatic. There is one scene where she practically yells her line, and I have to think that she forgot that she was not onstage. But in a way, her character is full of that drive, so it seems to be half-intentional.
I really want to get ahold of this script. Desperately.
Four and a half out of five stars.

Review: Pick-up on South Street

This film took me completely by surprise. I expected your typical film noir. And it is, but it isn't. The elements are still mostly the same, but there is a little twist.

Starring Richard Widmark, Jean Peters, and Thelma Ritter. Basically, you start out with a pickpocket (Widmark) who picked a little more than he wanted. Of all the luck, he picks from a girl (Peters) who is carrying something bigger than she thinks. She is working one last carry job for her no-good ex-boyfriend. Who, as we find out, has less than desirable political standing. It turns out that the girl was being followed by the FBI. Now, everyone is looking for the film. Again, I will leave it there so as not to blow too much.

But, this film is amazing. Widmark is pretty amazing. Peters (although in a less than desirable role) is perfectly adequate, but the person who steals this movie is Thelma Ritter. I won't get into how she is mixed into the plot, but she is a hard-working woman who does just about anything she can to make enough money so she can be buried in a nice plot of land when she dies. Again, she is not a desirable party, but she's good as you can be in a scrappy world. I can't tell you how amazing she is in this movie because in order to do that, I would give a lot of it away. Suffice it to say that she is amazing. So touching. I wish I could tell you more, but you have to take my word for it.

SEE THIS MOVIE!! 4 and 1/2 out of 5 stars