review: The Uninvited (1944)

I was just flipping through the channels before starting a movie I was decidedly not all that interested in viewing when I stumbled accross TCM and something about this movie description caught my attention. So, I figured, why not? and settled in for a Black & White classic. Always a good choice. It was nominated for an Oscar for B&W Cineamatography - so if nothing else, it would be a gorgeous film. On top of that, it was a B&W classic scary movie. Can't go wrong with that. And I didn't. This movie did not disappoint at all. Let me tell you: this is how good horror movies are to be made. Not blood and gore, just good old fashioned freaky! The story centers around a brother (Ray Milland) and sister (Ruth Hussey) who stumble accross an old abandoned home on vacation. They fall in love with it, and decide to buy it. After some initial thwarting from the owner's granddaughter (Gail Russell), they indeed become the new owners. Little did they know that they got more house than they bargained for. Something is not right about the house - and after the obligatory refusal of belief, they discover the secrets of the past and the reason why the animals won't go upstairs. First let's say this: it is a gorgeous film. Beautiful shots, and some pretty cool special effects for the time. The design of the entire film is wonderful. What impressed me most was the ability of the set and costume/make-up designers to tell you something with their work. When you watch the movie, pay close attention to the studio the first time you see it. There indeed is something chilling about the room. It's just an empty room, but there is something about it. You know there is something about it without knowing why. THAT is amazing design. As far as costuming/make-up goes, they did a fantastic job with the Mrs. Holloway character. As soon as you see her, you know there is something about her. Something not quite ... well, you'll understand. Despite a little corniness in the very beginning, you quickly get into the story and enjoy the subtle comedy as much as the thrills and romance of this film. There are only two not so great things about this film: #1 - the Broadway Musicalesque type ending where everyone is paired off. Now, don't get me wrong, I love Broadway Musicals - oh boy, do I ever. But in a movie like this, throwing a couple together at the end of the movie for happiness sake is just ... odd. Said couple is only shown alone together once before, and while they do hint at a possible romance, the sudden pronounced marriage is a little ... odd. It doesn't REALLY bother me, but it just doesn't fit quite right with the tone of the film. #2 - the not so flattering hints at homosexuality. Let's just say that one of the characters is not so pointedly lesbian. And also kinda crazy. They make her look psychotic in her affection for her friend. Maybe I was just reading too much into it. All in all, this was a WONDERFUL film. I would definately add it to my permaneant collection. 4 and 1/2 out of 5 stars

The Oscars, a Pasta dish review, and How much I love him

Well, the weekend didn't start well. I could feel myself coming down with something. I used to be able to simply will my way out of being sick, but I was not so lucky. By Saturday's workshift, I was in the throes of a cold/flue bug. As much as I needed to suffer through, I just had to call in sick to work on Sunday.
Ahren and I had plans to get together after I was done with work for the Oscars. He, hearing of my illness, decided to come early, so we could spend the day together and he could take care of me. Isn't he sweet?

My man - looking all nice for our Dinner and Movies night.

Well, the Oscars were fun. As always, I had a bet going with Ashley (for those who don't know her, she was my roommate during most of college). She has carried the Oscars Winners bragging rights for the last couple of years - I don't know how she does it. I was sure this year I would finally break her record. So, Ahren and I settled in to watch, and we had our own little bragging rights bet between the two of us. Well - I didn't do as well as I would have liked - Ashely won with 10 accurate predictions. I had 7 - but I did beat Ahren, who had 5. There were a lot of upsets though, where none of us were right.

I must say, I really am looking forward to being able to see some of the movies featured this year ... maybe one year I will be able to see most of them BEFORE the Oscars, but I doubt it. Besides half the fun is pure luck of your complete guesses being right.

About the pasta dish - Ahren took charge of dinner and brought a recipe from his mom, simply called Pasta Cheese Dish. It was kinda like Pasta bake, only with a cheese gravy. Sorry, no picture available, we ate it too quickly :D

Pasta of your choice (bowtie is recommended - we had spirals) - cook, drain, & set aside.

3/8 cup butter,

1/2 cup flour,

1 and 3/4 cup milk,

1/2 tsp salt,

1 tsp dry mustard (opt),

1/2 tsp black pepper,

1 and 1/2 cup (8oz) Jack cheese; shredded
Melt butter. Stir in flour. Gradually stir in milk & spices. Cook on med/low heat, stirring constantly until sauce thickens. Remove from heat, add half of cheese, and stir. Pour over pasta and toss/stir until pasta is coated. Pur mixture into a greased 13x9 dish. Top w/ remaining cheese, then Bake @ 350 degrees for 20 minutes.

What comes out is the most amazing, cheesy thing EVERY! We added a lot of extra cheese, so I was pretty happy. Although, since we didn't have the dry mustard, I think the taste might have been a tad on the bland side, but it was still delish! Highly reccomended!!

I was feeling pretty good for a bit there, and then, sometime during the night, I got hit with the full force of the bug, and come Monday morning, I could barely make the call in to work. I still feel bad about taking the time off, but man, everything was so fuzzy, and my stomache was messing with me, and the congestion was raking my lungs. UG!! But, Ahren had the day off of work, so we again spent the day together. A lot of it was resting for me. It was kinda nice to just be together. He was the greatest caretaker ever! He really made me smile with his antics. See below:

Have no Fear, Ahren is here to care for you! My hero ;)

But he also took care of me. Again, during the day I recovered, but by the evening, I was feeling fuzzy again, and on top of everything else, I started getting a sore throat. We sat and watched a movie together and some tv, but I was mostly drifting in and out of conciousness. He put a pillow down and let my lie with my head in his lap, and he just sat there, stroking my hair - he even massaged my temples for a little while. Even though I was sick and I felt terrible, I was in Bliss. It was so nice to be taken care of like that.

He went to work the next day and came back afterwards. I had my room lit with candles and had some soft music playing when he came back. It was one of the best evenings ever. We sat and just talked for a couple hours together - listened to some music, swapped stories. It was all just so natural. I got a picture of him while he was looking something up on the computer. I just love this shot:

Doesn't he just look so cool?!

This really made me think: about how much I really do love this boy. It's only been a little less than 2 months, and I am head over heels in love with him. I am normally the practical person who would say "There's no way you could possibly love someone you've only been with for a month!" But I'm eating my words on that. Ahren and I have connected completely in such a short time. I know him so well, and vice versa. We've even already moved almost completely out of the "Utterly Twitterpaited" stage, and into a less crazy level of comfort. Oh, I still break into smiles whenever I see him, but as one of my friends puts it "you two are so natural together, you would think you've been together at least 6 months" Ahren attributes that with how much time we just spend talking. We can't afford to go out a lot, so when we're together we just make dinner, watch a movie and talk.

The last couple of days has served as a reminder of how much I do love him. At first, I held back from saying that to him. I let the practical side do the talking, but the more time we spent together, the louder my heart shouted at me :"YOU LOVE HIM!" He's so good; so kind; so sweet. He's so fun to be around, but he has a serious/practical side that does me a lot of good. I want to be a better person because of him, and I begin to see all the better aspects of myself shining when he is around, and all the less than good aspects start to work toward something better.

Yes, we've talked about the future a lot. It doesn't scare either of us at all. We're very comfortable admitting that we're both in this relationship for the long haul and even our talk of the future has become very casual. There is no question that we're going to be together for (at least) a long time. We've started making plans together. I've already got a fund started up for a road trip for the two of us to take together to see him family in Indiana via Illinois to see my family.

Here's the other thing: we've talked about life ideas. We both know where the other stands on things like life dreams, careers, sex, marriage, kids, religion, etc. We fit into each other's plans nicely, if not perfectly. While we're not giving up any of our own dreams, we've grown fond of the idea of helping the other find their dreams, and compromises don't seem like an inconvienience. We're far from action, but theoretically, we fit together well.

I never thought I would be here, writing or thinking these things - but I've come to realize that anything is possible - and it's all because of him :D

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: Sunrise

I will say this: it is a gorgeous film. Gorgeous in its simplicity and in the beautiful sweetness of the story. That being said - this film would never be able to be made in this day and age.
This 1927 Silent film is a little gem. It is one of the movies listed on AFI's Top 100 list, as well as winning Oscars at the very first Academy Awards ceremony ever presented, and is on the National Film Registry and adopted into the Library of Congress collection. The only sad part is that the true original film is lost to us. The original was destroyed in a nitrate fire in 1937 - so what is presented today is only a piecing together of something close to the original. It works still, but you have to wonder what the differences are.
The story revolves around a man and his wife. The man is cheating on his wife with this vixen from the city, who proposes that he drown his wife - and of course, men being the way they are - he sets the plan in motion. However, at the critical moment, he can not do it. The wife runs away, and catches a trian to the city. He follows her. They make amends, spend a glorious day in the city, rekindling their old, fun-loving romance, and head back. I stop here, so as not to ruin the movie completely for you.
Like I said, the story just would not work. A man tries to kill you, and then an hour later, you're getting your portraits taken together? Wouldn't work in this day and age. But somehow, it just does in the movie. The poor wife is the sweetest thing, and of course, she looks like an angel - so why he is unhappy at home never really gets explained. The vixen is obvious enough - a typical 1920s vamp flapper with dark bob and eyeliner to match.
The music, the design, and the lighting work together so well. The director was a German and very much influenced by German Expressionism. And you can see that - without being beaten over the head with it. The only room that looks a little misconfigured in the beginning is the bedroom. Other design aspects are in place, but you don't really notice them unless you are looking for it. Look for the forced perspective in the city scenes. Almost flawlessly done. It's just gorgeous, reaally. It really does seem like a visual song of the life of these two humans. It's sweet. Might be too sweet for some, but it is definately worth a watch - if for nothing else than to think back to a different time.
4 out of 5 stars

Review: Pulp Fiction

I'm not even going to go into the all the accomplishments or the significance of this film, because, let's be honest - if you don't know at least a little something about this film, then you have been living under a rock. The movie was such a phenomenon when it reached the screens. That's putting it lightly.
I've been very hesitant to watch this because it is not my usual cup of tea. Mostly it was the drugs and the violence. But its on the top 100 - and you have to respect something that can make it onto such a culturally significant list.
What did I think? Well, apprently, I am a traitor to my generation. I get it, and I really don't. There were a lot of aspects of the film that I enjoyed. Some of the humor was pretty good. Dark, but good. Dialouge structure and content was phenomenal. Storytelling techinique was quite unusual for a film, at least in its day. Good acting. Realistic.
I understand the significance. I see the brilliance and some of the morals. I am fascinated by what the hell was in the briefcase.
But I just didn't care for it.
You can't look at this film and expect to see a complete story. Because there really isn't one ... well, actually, I can't say that. Maybe there is. I just didn't see it. It was three inter-related stories that connect, and yet, have nothing to do with one another. (I know that doesn't really make sense, but that is what I am left with after the end of the film)
I know this is incredibly harsh, and you would think that I would be more open-minded, considering that I do work in theatre, in the arts, in the entertainment industry - but at the end of it, I didn't know why I watched it in the first place. What did I get out of watching this? A couple hours of something to do, yes; I wouldn't go so far as to say "entertainment" because it took me about 3 tries to get through the movie.
Like I said, I think, in the last bit, there was a bit of a moral, there was a sense of a story, the start of a conclusion that wasn't really there. But that wasn't enough for me.
Someone has to explain this movie to me. It's not that I don't get it. It's just that I don't get anything from it.
Actually, no, that is not true. I did learn a couple things: Royale with Cheese and don't do drugs.
I feel like I should apologize for not liking this film. I respect it, but I just don't like it. The only reason I would ever recommend this to someone is because it is a classic, it was a milestone, it was innovative and provoking. I will be the first to admit my ignorance on this movie. Like I said, I do respect it despite everything.
But respect is not enough to make me like this film.
2 out of 5 stars

review: Easy Rider

I did not expect to like this movie. All I had ever about it was the drug use.
Here is what I think now: I think the making of it was all about the drugs and I think that the drugs is only a part of the story.
What is the story? Two drug dealers with amazing bikes make a journey from LA to Mardi Gras. Along the way, things happen to them, they do things, and see places. That is it in a nutshell - without giving away too much.
Aside from the bit at the commune, and the insane bit at Mardi Gras, I rather liked it. And I didn't like those parts because I didn't get them. This is why I need to watch it with someone smarter than I am.
Overall, this movie is really interesting. I am niave, I will admit that. And I am niave because I can not imagine the people are like that (the "rednecks" in the film). I just can't wrap my head around that. Thank goodness there is the scene with the man with his huge family. Otherwise, you would think all country people are that biggoted and bloodthirsty.
The acting is pretty good. I was shocked by Jack Nicholson. Amazed - considering the body of his work that I am familiar with. This character is so different. You really came to love this character. Hopper and Fonda are strange companions, but it makes a better picture of who they are; keeping in mind that we know nothing about them.
Art direction is amazing. Except for that bit in New Orleans, which looks incredibly different from everything else. Some of the most beautiful shots of America - and then you contrast that with how most of these townspeople who think themselves as the heart of america, treat these men. That is what gets me the most. The beauty of the country and the happiness and the freedom against the drugs, the bigotry, and the hate. In this way, I think the film is genius.
Also the music is amazing.
This movie was nomiated for only 2 Oscars, but it is the social significance that makes this movie a classic. It is included in the National Film Registry and is on 3 AFI lists.
Watch it with someone, but I don't think this is one of those films that you should watch while under the influence of anything stronger than liquor. It just wouldn't work.
4 out of 5 stars

review: I Remember Mama

This has to be one of the most touching family stories I have ever seen.
It is so sweet. This is definatley a case of a shining story. It outshines everything. This was not about a star performer or a lavish production. It is about a story - about family,
No kidding, I cried a little.
As wonderful as this is, I would much rather see it on stage. But one of the benefits of the movie is the wonderful nostalgic design of it.
* It was nominated for 4 Oscars that year.
Like I said - a family film through and through with some laughs, some tears, a lot of joy and a couple life lessons to be shared.
4 out of 5 stars

review: On the Waterfront

I had seen this movie before - when I was in high school - and I did not appreciate it then. I didn't understand its brilliance at the time.
I watched it tonight - and I understood.
There is a reason why this movie is a classic. There is a reason that the "contender" scene has become ingrained in our culture. I guess it has become rather flip now - but watching this scene; its so powerful.. It is the best moment of that story. Two brothers in a secluded taxi cab arguing with life and death, pride and honor at stake. It is beautiful.
Everything in this movie is superb. It is so realistic - so gritty, so hard. The actors are so phenomenal, they just amplify the story and spark the screen. Karl Maden is the toughest priest I have ever seen, and that moment where he is asked if he was willing to go all the way is so powerful. And Lee J Cobb just explodes.
This movie is incredibly respected. It is in the National Film Registry, the Vatican included this on their list of greatest movies of all time. It was nominated for 12 Oscars, winning 8 of them - and is on 6 AFI lists.
But one of the unsung heroes in this film is the screenwriter. Yes it is beautiful acted, beautifully shot, beautifully directed, but the story came first - and Budd Schulberg gave them a wonderful story to tell. He gave them a world in which to work in, names, backgrounds, lives. Sometimes people really forget that what they see on screen is a story someone is making for them.
The political underside to this movie is interesting too. True or not, this movie does give the impression of being a parallel to Kazan's naming names in the Communist hearings. It seems like this is his attempt to explain why and how it felt for him. Not knowing the circumstances, I can't really comment on his actions. But I do think it is also interesting to note that Arthur Miller, who did not give names at these hearings, is also said to have put his views in several of his plays - one being the famous The Crucible and another being his own longshoreman story, A View From the Bridge. I can't help but think that people benefit when there are battles with art.
That aside, all I can say is this movie is one that you just have to see!
5 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: Mr. Deeds goes to Town

Oh Frank Capra - how I adore the work you do! Capra is a director for the "real man" - most of his work is about real people in extraordinary circumstances. This is no exception.
The basic plot is that a small town man inherits $20mil from a distant relative. Suddenly everyone has heard of this local yokel and everyone wants a piece of him. Enter a cynical newspaperwoman who goes undercover to write sensational articles about the man. As par, she falls in love with him. Then things take a turn for the worse and ... well you'll see.

The thing about Capra's films is that they are not considered artistically beautiful. More like, simplisticly beautiful - in every aspect. No outshining stars, no overtly complicated anything - but simple, honesty with a small touch of realistic fantastic.

There is not much to this movie. It's just fun - and you find yourself rooting on the little man. Which is the genius of Capra's work. Especially in the 1930s when it was so important for the common man to feel a little good about who they are and what they do. During the Depression, movies like these brought people hope. It took them out of their troubles, gave them some good times and much needed laughter, gave them someone to identify with, to cheer for. - gave that someone onstacles, and showed them triumphing. It was inspiring.
Sorry, I realize that was a little dramatic, but I have a soft spot for Depression era culture and the effect it had on people.
It was reviewed reasonably by critics and box office, won 2 of the 5 Oscars it was nominated for. It is also honored on 2 AFI lists.
Good watch; real cheer value!
3 and 1/2 out of 5 stars

review: The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex

For just a second, I want to lean away from the film itself and focus on one of the extras on the DVD I am watching. It is a cartoon from that time called "Old Glory" and yes, you got it, it is about American History. It starts with Porgy having trouble with the Pledge of Allegiance. He say he doesn't understand why he has to learn it, and then falls alseep to dream of Uncle Sam telling him our nation's history. He then wakes up and proudly salutes the flag and says the Pledge. It is a wonderful cartoon and it is something that makes you very proud to be American. Something a lot of people needed to see in those time - something I think we all need to see and hear today more often.

But the other point: Keep in mind, this was in 1939 - and so, the pledge Porky says is missing that phrase that so many people make a fuss over: "under God" This is a whole side matter, but I do think it is important to mention that this phrase was put into use in the 1950s during the Red Scare and the Communist witch hunts of the time. That is why I don't like the phrase - or rather, it is not that I don't like the phrase, but rather I don't like the intent of which it is used. And I don't like people thinking it is unpatriotic to not say the phrase now. Its not unpatriotic, its just not religious.

That aside - back to the film:
You just gotta love the early Technicolor films. There is something so spactacular about the color that even today's films can't match. The color is just so rich - even the browns and so forth. One of the films 5 Oscar Nominations was for Color Photography
I like this movie, and I don't. I like it because it has a lot of stars and is beautiful with its color, but I also think this is a little overacted. But not in a way I like. I don't mind a little bit of dramatics, but there is something about this movie that rubs me the wrong way.
I think Bette Davis is a genius - she is so transformative - but she's a little too bombastic for me in this. Maybe that is how she is supposed to be. I've never seen a calm portrayal of Elizabeth, but this borders on a little psychotic at times. This makes her a bit of a scene stealer - and I guess maybe she should be considering her real life counterpart - but that doesn't make for a very good film. Flynn is Flynn - I have only seen him in one type of movie as the charming swashbuckler - which he does well - but again, sometimes it can be a little much. One thing (and I feel bad about saying this), I don't believe they are in love at all. There are moments when I see them portraying love and acting so wonderfully, but you are aware it is acting. It does not seem real. Not to me, anyways. I will say that their sparring is quite believable though. This might be because Flynn and Davis did not like each other much. They were two very different people, so that naturally led to conflicts. And then apparently, the director, Michael Curtiz was rather hard to work with. So yeah, the tension scenes were quite good because I image there was a lot of tension on the set.
I guess the biggest thing I have against this movie is the politics. That is really all it is: politics. Trying to tell a love story about two people who aren't really in love because of politics is just a bad combination. What I mean by that is that this is not a love that just couldn't be - but a love that is not willing to be. Elizabeth and Essex say they love each other deeply, but neither one is willing to put aside their ambition, to give it all up to be with one another. It is a failed romance - and that is just hard to watch. And then there is Lady Penelope - I just can't understand why Essex would not fall in love with someone who so utterly loves him. It just doesn't makes sense. I guess what I mean by that is that they don't seem to have a past, a history, together, so there is no reason why we should believe that they love each other.
The supporting cast is amazing. Think of it: Alan Hale, Donald Crisp, Olivia deHavilland, Vincent Price, and a brand new Nanette Fabray (Fabres).
I don't know, but somehow this movie just did not click with me.
2 and 1/2 out of 5 stars

The Talk of the Town

Considering it was nominated for 7 Oscars and was incredibly popular in its day, I was rather surprised to I had never heard about it or read about it.

Its a comedy - but you wouldn't have been able to tell that by the beginning montage of the movie. I thought it was going to be a rather serious courtroom kind of drama.

But, once you get into it, you can see that this is an interesting comedy mixed with a nice hint of a drama.

But I can see why I haven't heard of it: its not incredibly memorable. Not compared to the classics. However it is a pretty good movie. A nice lesson on law mixed with a little romance.

I don't quite know why I don't like this more. I love Cary Grant and I like Jean Arthur, but this movie is just ... forgettable. I just watched it the other night and already I am lukewarm about it.

3 and 1/2 out of 5 stars

Stagecoach 1939

If the previous film (the Shootist - see review) is John Wayne's entire career in one film, than this movie is the entire genre is one film.
It is excellent!
John Ford. John Wayne. Claire Trevor. Thomas Mitchell. Andy Devine. Donald Meek. Etc. This movie is jam packed with talent. John Ford put his iconic stamp on it. All you have to do is watch it, and you know it is his work. Especially his use of photographing the landscape. That is what makes this a western epic. Something I love about westerns is that it is a truly American genre. Its all ours.
Also keep in mind this year: 1939. The golden year of Hollywood. More epic, landmark films came out of the time than most other years. If nothing else, there is a grandeur about that year.
Something else you should know: this is the first time that Monumental Valley was featured in a picture. This piece of land is now known for its grandeur through classic western movie - and it is interesting to see the first time if was used - and to such wonderful effect. How yeah, and the stunts are freakin' amazing! Mostly done by one man. The other thing is some of the camera shots. First of all, the famous first entrance of Wayne in the film. You have to see it. It's brilliant. Ford did an amazing job on getting Wayne to be the center of the film. He was always cutting to Wayne to get his reaction - so you are incredibly in tune to what he thinks and how he feels - it's just brilliant. And then there is the run over the camera shot with the horses. I have a hard time thinking about how they got that shot without breaking the camera a couple times. Really, the work done on this film artistically is amazing.
This movie was a unique story for a western. It was much more fully developed than most of the B westerns made of the time. This is what was called the "psychological western" or "adult western" This movie takes a look at some social issues as well as the general good vs evil. But there is a twist there. You come to learn that no one is pure good or pure evil, which was really landmark for the time. Again, this is one of those put a mix of people in a small space kind of movie. Except the brilliant aspect is it isn't a small space, it is the wild west. Yes, in a stagecoach for most of it. But all of these people are bound together whether they want to be or not, on a journey.
Basically, you have the driver, the lawman (riding gun for the coach), a young army wife determined to join her husband, a dunken doctor and a scarlet woman who has been run out of town, a meek whiskey drummer, a banker with a secret, a young rebel, and a mysterious stranger whose reputation taints honorable intentions. A wonderful array of characters and actors to play them. The really interesting the similarities and differences between the ways each of the characters views honor and respect. The stranger's respect for the army wife is apparent, and he does all her can to make her comfortable from a southern sense of duty a gentleman owes a great lady. Which is wonderful, no doubt. But then you have people like Ringo and the doctor, who don't account for whether a woman is considered a lady or not, but treat them as such because they are women. Social prejudice plays are large role in this film - and that, above even the Apaches is the great obstacle these people face. Not the landscape, not the "savages" (yes, this movie is a bit prejudice in that way), but each other.
This story was so successful that it was remade several times. This version was nomiated for 7 Oscars, winning 2 of them. It is in the National Film Registry and on AFI's 10 Top 10 Genre list. How it is not honored beyond that floors me. However, it has gained its reputation of immense proportions over the years. Between the acting, the direction, and the wonderful camera work, it's a beautiful film.
It's a favorite of mine and if I could put more than 5 stars on, I would, but since we have limits:
5 out of 5 stars

The Maltese Falcon

My actor crush on Bogart continues to grow. I've seen this movie before, but it seems like a perfect night to rewatch a classic with one of my all-time favorite leading men.
This is considered by many to be the gem of all film noirs. I can't say for sure if it is the best, but it is certainly a jewel in the crowning glory of the genre. It certainly was acclaimed in its own time, being nominated for 3 Academy Awards. It has registered its long time fame also, being included in the National Film Registry as well as 5 AFI lists.
You just can't get much better in anything. Acting, design, cinematography, etc, etc. Some of the shots in this movie are utterly amazing. Bogart being as amazing as he is, Lorre - I can't say enough about how much I love him as an actor. Sydney Greenstreet in a role that just epitomizes the type of character that he is remembered for. Astor does very well at being a tricky actress. You can hardly ever tell when she is lying and when she is not - until she really puts on an act. That isn't easy to do, and she does it pretty well.
But the star of this movie is the story: so many twists, and the best part is, you'll be shocked at the ending - it just blew my mind the first time.
Not much else I can say except that the movie speaks for itself.
4 out of 5 stars

12 Angry Men (1957)

I love this movie! I love the play. I love the type of story - put a bunch of strangers in a space together and something is bound to happen. The specifics of why they are there always differ, but I have hardly ever been disappointed by this type of story.
This movie is a gem. I don't know what exactly it is; I don't think it is one element, but all of them. The acting is wonderful - All of the amazing character actors and Henry Fonda at his best. It is incredibly important that all of these personalities be as varied as they are. And because that have to be that different, each actor has to make them as real as they can be - especially in a movie where belief and indecision are so vital.
I have a cinematic weakness for this story.
The stage version vs filmed versions is a bit of a topic. On one hand, the stage version is better because of the live intensity. You can't match that in film. Also, if staged right, the enclosure of the space and the intimacy can give a real sense of the atmosphere. On the other hand, staging can also be very awkward in the wrong space. Presenting this in proscenium in a big problem. in film, you have the elegance of camera angles and film edits. This is part of the reason why I love this film. In a movie where space is everything, the use of close-ups, medium and long shots become art. Being able to zoom in on a person's eyes while realization creeps over them. That is gold to a movie like this.
So yeah, I kinda like the movie. And a lot of people agree with me. It is honored by inclusion in the National Film Registry. It also has a place on 5 AFI lists, as well as Fonda being on one of their 100 Stars list. It was nominated for three Oscars, but lost to 'Bridge on the River Kwai' (see review) for all three, which also is a classic, so it was in very good company.
A BRILLIANT film
5 out of 5 stars

Transformers & Transformers 2

These are my guilty pleasures. I gotta say it: I love these movies. I'm pretty sure that a lot of it has to do with my first experience of seeing both of these films. But nonetheless, I have watched them a couple times on my own and I still like it.
Which leads me to a confession:
I refused to see this movie at first. I was wrong. I admit it.
What is it that I like about these movies? I really don't know for sure. It taps into a certain part of me that loves action movies. They're thrilling. Also: Shia LaBeouf. I hated him in what little I saw of 'Even Stevens' but then I saw him in a Disney movie and I was impressed. And when I say him in these movies, I was surprised at how he grew up. I could take or leave Megan Fox - but the surprise of the film was John Turturro. I love him as an actor. He doesn't always take great roles, but he does great in them.
There are a lot of downsides to this movie. Some of the characterizations are a little too stereotypical. Kinda pathetic. Which makes some of the language a little corny, but overall, not too distracting. But, in defence, it also has some very awesome moments of dialouge too. But the overall star of these movies is the sound. Holy cow, the sound designers/editors/mixers are fricken geniuses! Sadly, it was only ever nominated for Oscars - how they didn't win for visual/sound effects is beyond me.
Despite some of its failings - I really do like them - they're my sci-fi, action-adventure geek out movies.
3 and 1/2 out of 5 stars

Pygmallion

Wow.

Okay, I love 'My Fair Lady' so I love this movie. Because, aside from the music, it is almost word for word, exactly the same.

At first I was hesitant, because the only character I had ever seen Leslie Howard play was the quiet, easy-going, daydreaming intellectual. Didn't know if he could do Higgens any credit. Well he did, and he is delightful! Still playing the intellectual, he is loud, boisterous, and a bit of a bastard - all of which we love him for. Everyone else does an okay job, but Leslie Howard is why you watch the movie. Wendy Hiller is okay, but she just can not compare to the elegance and charm of her musical counterpart (on stage or screen).

It was nomiated for 4 Academy Awards, winning for Best Writing (Adapted Screenplay).

It's quite charming, so

4 out of 5 stars

Fantasia

Can I really say enough about this masterpiece? Nope!
I love this movie! When I was little I just sort of liked it, but now that I am older I can more fully appreciate its beauty and genius. This was a standard in Elem School, watching sections 3 or 4 times a year in Music Class. We also watched the dinosaur portion when we were studying the prehistoric age in science. So, yeah, I know it well.
It wasn't until I watched the featurette on the making of it that I realized the social significance of the piece during its time. I won't go into all of it, but Disney at the top of his game teamed up with Leopold Stowkowski (who was a rock star of the classical world at the time) and music critic Deems Taylor, who was the music parrallel to the best sports commentators of today.
You would think this would be instant magic. And it was, but it was a limited popular success. Still, it became a classic later down the line with its subsequent releases (thank goodness for that!) What fascinates me is that all of this began as just another Silly Symphony. But after a little while it became clear that the cost would be too much for a short, so they decided to make it a feature concert.
It won 2 Special Academy Awards (one for Disney and one for Stowkowski) It was selected for preservation by the National Film Registry and AFI honored it on its original Top 100 list as well as naming it #5 of the Top 10 Animated films.
The music selections are brilliant, the art is beautiful, and most of it is just fun! I take exception to the dinosaur part and Night on Bald Mountain - which, even after years, I still don't like - it freaked me out as a kid, and I guess that sticks with me. Although, I will admit that I can at least appreciate it now - and I do.
My personal favorite will always be the Nutcracker Suite. They are all so brilliant and beautiful. And who doesn't like the pastoral selection with the baby pegasus' and a fat, drunken God on a donkey? And the whole, meet the soundtrack is utterly brilliant! But the most beautiful is the ending with the Ave Maria. I'm 23 years old and it still brings me to tears.
Really, with this movie you can not go wrong. And this is something EVERYONE should see at least once. Sometimes when I hear a good piece of music or listen to a beautiful concert, I think: maybe if people had exposure to things like this, there would be more love of beauty, and therefore, more peace. Has that ever happened to you? Just sitting back and listening to something so beautiful that you can't imagine such things as war, pain, hunger, want, fear, and things like that. It's the best feeling in the world to be overtaken with beauty in art, and Fantasia is the best example of that.
5 out of 5 stars

review: Sweet Bird of Youth

Whew. Tennesse Williams does it again.
This is not 'Cat on a Hot Tin Roof,' but it certainly has something. I haven't read the play, but reading the synopsis, there are some very big changes - as all Williams movies do. Because of censorship, two very big plot points are missing - and that changes this dramatically. Now, my favorite 'Cat' is also very different between book and play, but I think they did a better job adapting that script than this. The super-imposed "happy ending" in Sweet Bird is just a little too unbelievable. Whereas, in Cat, it is certainly possible with an immediate "happy" that actually only solves a single problem for the moment and it is rather grave future outlook if you think about it.
Enough comparison between the two.
Sweet Bird is about a young hopeful (Newman) trying to make it in Hollywood. He has failed at this, and so, in a last attempt, he begins a bit of an unlikely affair with an aging starlet (Page). With hope on the rise, he goes back to his hometown to get the girl he left behind (Knight). The problem is her father (Begley) who is as corrupt a politician as they come, spouting about purity and holding up his daughter as a sort of virginal goddess. It's really a sickening story. But it is intriguing too.
Newman is, as always, wonderful. He is sex appeal. But he is also more than that. He is funny, manipulative, calculating, hurting, and understanding. Page is also pretty good (She was nominated for an Oscar for her role as well as Knight - although the only winner was Ed Begley), she plays the rollar-coaster aging starlet very well. Knight is as pure a character as an adaption of a Williams character can be. Those who know William's work know what I mean. Actually, no, the most sincerely pure is Laura from Menagerie, but even she is jaded in a way - but what I really mean, I guess is that Knight was cheated by the censorship, the rewriting, and the conventions she had to comply to. I would love to have seen a more jaded performance, but - that's Hollywood for you.
As much as I love Newman and Williams, the best I can give the film is
3 out of 5 stars