planktonrules Reviews

Mio in the Land of Faraway (1987)

Supposedly inspired by a sad looking boy sitting on a bench.

[7/10 · 26 April 2024]

"Mio in the Land of Faraway" is a book from Astrid Lindgren, the same writer of the Pippi Longstockings books. She was inspired to write the story after reportedly seeing a lonely and sad looking boy sitting alone on a bench. The story is her imagining adventures for the sad boy as well as a happy ending.

The film itself is unusual in that it's a Norwegian/Soviet/Swedish co-production. What makes it even stranger is that many of the leads are either British or American! And, the movie was filmed mostly in the Ukraine but also in Scotland and Sweden.

The story of Nicholas is indeed sad. He's an orphan who is adopted by a cold, uncaring woman. Why she adopted him in the first place is confusing...especially since she spends much of her time telling the boy how worthless he is. However, the boy has adventures ahead of him...and a huge floating head comes for him on that bench and takes him to a faraway land. There, the boy meets the King...who turns out to be his real father and tells Nicholas that his real name is Mio.

A short time later, Mio and his friend Jum-Jum (Christian Bale) leave the comfort of the King and his castle in search of adventure...along with the beautiful horse his father gave him. This takes him to a land where the evil Kato (Christopher Lee) rules and keeps children in cages. Along the way, he meets others who help him in his adventure. Can the boy manage to beat Kato or will he, too, end up in a cage along with Jum-Jum?

How much you enjoy this film is doubtlessly related to your age. It's designed for kids...and I do think most older kids (7-12) would enjoy it quite a bit. Younger ones won't so much be upset to watch it (though it can be a bit scary and I would not have young kids watch it alone) but I cannot imagine their attention spans holding up for such a film. As far as adults who watch it with their kids go, it's not terrible and they should be able to enjoy the story...just not as much as their kids!

Overall, the film has very good production values, very good special effects for 1987 (don't expect perfection here...as computer generated effects just didn't exist much at that time). The story is decent and the acting pretty good. I did not love this story...but I'm also a guy in my 50s and think you should consider this. But I didn't dislike it and the story was engaging, if a bit dark.

Night Train to Lisbon (2013)

One of the most unusual and thought-provoking films I have seen in recent years.

[8/10 · 25 April 2024]

"Night Train to Lisbon" is a very slow movie...particularly the first half hour or so. I am telling you this not so you'll skip the film but in the hope that you'll cut it some slack and understand what you're in for when you see it.

The story begins in Switzerland. Professor Gregorius (Jeremy Irons) is walking to class when he sees a young woman about to jump off a bridge to her death. He saves her and brings her with him to class...but she soon runs away and the professor chases after her to no avail...all during which his students are sitting at their desks waiting. But instead of returning, the professor reads a bit in a book left behind by the woman...and he instead heads to Lisbon!!

At this point, viewers will no doubt be very confused...I sure know I was. After all, without telling anyone anything he just hops on a train...leaving his old life behind. Eventually you realize that even though he cannot find the young woman, the book so impacted on him that he felt an overwhelming compulsion to go to Lisbon to look up the man who wrote the book.

Once there, you realize that the writer of the book is dead...despite his sister telling the professor he is alive! The rest of the story consists of the man searching for folks around Lisbon who knew the author and his radical book for its time. It seems that Portugal went through a dictatorship similar to Spain's under Franco...and the film pieces together the resistance movement...small as it is. Some of these ex-radicals were happy to talk about the dead author and how they knew him...some were very reticent to have the past dug up once again.

The film is very slow. The pacing is slow, the evocative music slow and the acting generally quite somber. But I kept watching because slow as it is, it also piqued my interest and MIGHT do the same for you. I think that older viewers might enjoy it a bit more because there are some existential elements...the sorts of things you think about more as you age. I also appreciate how the film talks about a time and place you almost never hear about here in America, as the Spanish civil war is widely known but few know about the government in Portugal and its repression. Regardless, I cannot recall another film like it.

Kraft Theatre: The Singin' Idol (1957) Season 10, Episode 20

Really good...but the full-length movie version is even better.

[7/10 · 25 April 2024]

"The Singin' Idol" is a very good installment of "Kraft Television Theatre". And, like so many of the best live teleplays from this era, Hollywood soon came calling and made a full-length movie out of it. In some cases, such as "Requiem for a Heavyweight", the TV version is better. But in others, the movie version is better...such as with "Marty", "12 Angry Men" and this story, which was remade as "Sing Boy Sing".

Nearly the entire cast of this "Kraft Television Theatre" would not appear in the movie version, though Tommy Sands starred in both and this made him, somewhat briefly, a big star. In the case of Sands, he was perfect for the role...so why bother recasting?!

The two films are very similar and are a morality tale about a rock 'n roll star who is at the top of the game...but also struggles with reconciling this with his gospel roots. However, the movie is different because it really makes the singer's agent (sort of a Colonel Parker type) to be a real sleazy jerk. He's jerky in the TV version...he's practically Satan in the movie. For me, this is the reason I prefer the movie. Both are very good but the part of the manager really set the two productions apart.

My advice is this: watch BOTH films. As both are on YouTube, this is pretty easy to do.

Sing Boy Sing (1958)

This film makes Colonel Parker look like Satan's meaner big brother!!

[9/10 · 25 April 2024]

In 1957, Tommy Sands had his breakout role playing a character with LOTS of similarities to his own singing career. Surprisingly, one of the songs from this live TV show soon hit the top 10...and suddenly the previously unknown Sands was in big demand. It also wasn't at all surprising that Hollywood would want to remake this TV show into a feature length film, "Sing Boy Sing".

What I find most interesting as I watch the movie is how similar Sands' character, Virgil Walker, is to Elvis. This isn't coincidental, as Sands himself used to have Colonel Tom Parker as his manager...the same guy who took Elvis to mega-stardom. And, it seems that Sands' view of Parker is NOT the same Elvis'...at least not in 1958. This film makes the Parker wannabe, 'Joe Sharkey' (Edmond O'Brien), seem pretty much like Satan's meaner big brother! Yes, Sharkey is a master manipulator and liar...and a man who is easy to detest! To wring the most out of his protege, Sharkey tries to isolate young Virgil...isolating him from family, friends and from real life. He is 100% rotten and you can tell that Sands was really disaffected with the man. Of course, to avoid lawsuits, everyone connected with the film and TV version claimed it's all fiction. Yeah, sure! So exactly what does Sharkey do and how does all this end? See the film.

Seeing Tommy Sands in the lead is perfect...just perfect. His style is very reminiscent of Elvis....complete with the swinging of the hips, his style singing and his voice. I've seen Sands in several other films, but this one seems to be the best vehicle for him. Apart from Sands, O'Brien is great...nasty and awful, but great at playing the role.

The story itself is also exceptional, as so much of what you see in it turned out to be the same way the Colonel managed and micro-managed Elvis. The big deal about this is that it took decades until tell all movies about Elvis came out...and this one came out way earlier.

Overall, a really interesting and well made film with a mesmerizing performance by Sands. I've seen all but one of his films and clearly of those I've seen, it's the best chance to see his singing and acting talents.

Redhead (1941)

The basic story isn't bad....but thanks to the Monogram touch, it's at best a time-passer.

[4/10 · 25 April 2024]

Ted is a horrible human being. His family has money and when his mother died, she left him a trust fund. But Ted behaves as if the money is now his AND it's unlimited! He also behaves horribly...getting himself on newspaper headlines because of his antics. Finally, his father has had enough and cuts off Ted....something that should have happened much sooner.

Ted comes up with an idea. No, it does NOT involve getting a job and staying away from booze. No, his 'solution' for being cut off is that try to make his dad even angrier. So, he marries Dale...a woman he just met...in the hope that Dad will pay her off to leave Ted..and then Ted will split this money with her. Instread, however, Dad wishes them well and privately makes an agreement with Dale...if she can reform him, he'll give her a nice payout.

While Dale tries hard to find them a place to live and work, Ted is just a man-child and quits his job after a few days. And, after going off on a bender, Dale has had enough and leaves him. Somehow, despite all this, there is a really fake happy ending...something that comes too fast and simply didn't make any sense.

The basic idea of this story is very good. But the acting is only fair and the writing even a bit worse. Very watchable but the magical happily ever after ending simply seems out of place.

Jaguar Lives! (1979)

An amazing supporting cast...but not much else.

[4/10 · 24 April 2024]

"Jaguar Lives!" is the first of 12 movies made by Joe Lewis, a guy who was one of the top martial artists during his day. And, as I watched this film, I was impressed by his skills...they were far better than most martial arts films of the era. In other words, he's NOT faking it...the guy is tough and his kicks and punches are pretty scary! Yet, despite this, Lewis' career never really took off and he was not the next Chuck Norris or Jackie Chan.

Whoever made "Jaguar Lives!" managed to get quite a few famous actors for the movie...something unusual for a movie starring an unknown. I saw the film simply because Christopher Lee was in the film, though he is only one of many famous folks in the movie.

Jaguar is a codename for Jonathan Cross (Lewis), an agent working for G6...some top secret American governmental organization. He's out to travel the world tracking down various elements of an international drug cartel. Again and again, after meeting with these evil characters, they set their goons on Jaguar and repeatedly he beats the snot out of them. Can he manage to destroy this international organization of evil?

I've already mentioned the positive things about the movie. On the negative side, the editing is lousy and it makes the transition from one country to another very abrupt and cheap looking. Also, Lewis' acting skills are only fair. And, finally, the script itself manages to be rather boring. But the worst was at the end with the big confrontation scene. It clearly was DARK...nighttime.

Yet, moments later it looks as if the story is taking place around noon!! Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy. Despite this it's not a terrible film but one that could have been better.

The Riddle of the Sands (1979)

Surprisingly good.

[9/10 · 24 April 2024]

"The Riddle of the Sands" is a terrific spy and adventure film set in the North Sea in 1901. It's based on the novel by Erskine Childers and apparently his family was in no hurry to get the film made. After repeated attempts to negotiate a contract failed, filmmakers just waited until the copyright expired on his novel and made this film. Surprisingly, the film was released in the UK in 1979 but five years later in the USA. I say surprisingly because the movie is terrific.

Davies (Simon MacCorkindale) is on a strange sort of vacation. He's sailed his small yacht to the North Sea (roughly the area between the Danish and Dutch coast...in Germany). For fun, perhaps, he's charting the waters, as the ever-changing tides have rendered maps out of date. However, over time, he starts to see things which make him wonder if perhaps the German Navy is up to something in these waters...so he contacts his friend Carruthers (Michael York) and has him join him. Together they learn so much more than they expected...and that Germany MIGHT be planning an invasion of Britain more than a dozen years before WWI.

This story is exciting, very well acted (apart from one actor who occasionally forgot their German accent) and well worth seeing. If you love history, you really should see this movie...it's simply terrific.

Funny Man (1994)

Not particularly funny or memorable.

[2/10 · 24 April 2024]

If you like seeing people brutally murdered, then this film is for you. Otherwise...avoid it.

The story begins with a high stakes poker game. Callum seems so certain he'll win a hand that he offers his British mansion. His bid is accepted...and Callum soon loses. Considering he only had a pair of 7s, it sure seems as if he was trying to lose...and through the course of the movie, this appears to be the case.

Soon all sorts of jerks show up at this mansion and one by one, they are murdered brutally by a guy who looks like a live joker from a deck of cards. Some of it is mildly amusing...but considering you are supposed to laugh at people being mutilated, after a while I felt dirty watching it and just turned it off. Life is too short to watch violent AND horribly made films.

About the only positives I can say about the film is the joker costume and makeup are very good for a super low budgeted movie. Otherwise, it's artless and cruel.

By the way, although he received second billing, Christopher Lee apparently did all his filming in one day. Perhaps this is why he agreed to be in this sort of production.

Love in a Goldfish Bowl (1961)

A film about a three-some....minus the sex.

[5/10 · 23 April 2024]

"Love in a Goldfish Bowl" was a sex comedy which is meant to appeal to young people of 1961. However, it came at a time when mores were changing...though the film manages to be very hip and sexy...as well as chaste and sexless...at the same time!

Gordon (Tommy Sands) is a college student who drives the director of the school batty. However, his rule breaking and schemes all seem incredibly dull...even when they COULD be very sexy. His latest scheme is to sneak off during Spring Break with his girlfriend, Blythe (Toby Michaels). He has told his mother in Honolulu that he's staying on campus during the break and he has Blythe tell her father she's staying on campus to get tutored in order to bring up her Geometry grade. But both instead head to the beach in California, as Gordon's mother owns a beachfront house...and the pair can be there without a chaperone and get into all sorts of nonsense. Weirdly, however, they get into absolutely NONE...with them both sleeping in separate rooms and behaving more like friends than lovers.

This very dull arrangement is thrown for a loop when the pair are sailing and their boat capsizes. The Coast Guard save them...and one of the sailors (Fabian) is smitten with Blythe and begins spending a lot of time with her at the beachhouse. And, the more time he spends there, the more prudish and fatherly Gordon behaves towards Blythe. At the same time, Gordon's plan is unraveling. The dean has discovered the ruse and both of the co-eds' parents are going in search of their errant children.

The early 1960s was an odd time in Hollywood. Since the 50s, films began to be marketed more and more to young adults and teens. But by the 60s, the sexual revolution began sneaking into movies...but in very small increments compared to the late 60s, when all bets were off! This film shows this strange time where sexual topics weren't exactly taboo but were very tastefully and chastely done! It might come off as a bit naive when you see this today.

Overall, this is a mildly amusing time-passer. It definitely starts off well enough but loses steam as the film progressed. You wonder how much different the film might have been had it been made just 5-6 years later!

By the way, you might be surprised to see Sands in this film as he's a blond. Perhaps the filmmakers thought he and Fabian looked too similar to each other. Either way, it was jarring to see Sands' hair!

An Ideal Husband (1947)

A lot of people like this one, though I found it incredibly talky and dull.

[3/10 · 23 April 2024]

"An Ideal Husband" is a film based on a story by Oscar Wilde and it is surprisingly beautiful considering that WWII and all sorts of shortages were not that long ago. It's set during Britain's gilded age...in the late Victorian era when Britain was, perhaps, the most powerful nation on Earth.

Laura Cheveley (Paulette Goddard) is a woman of great wealth and connections. However, it soon becomes obvious that much of her success is because she is incredibly amoral and quite the schemer. One of her latest schemes is about to be exposed by a well respected politician, though she's not afraid of him, as she knows his deepest and darkest secret and promises to expose him unless he comes out publicly in favor of the financial scheme. He reluctantly agrees...though his VERY prim and proper wife simply cannot believe that her husband would ever do anything wrong.

If you like films where people wear very nice clothes, say occasionally witty and droll things AND pretty much talk non-stop, then this is a movie you'll love. I found it just too talky and although the basic story idea is good, I can see why audiences stayed away from this movie in droves when it debuted.

By they way, if you quickly glance at the trivia for this film, you may get the impression that Goddard was an incredible diva during the making of this film. Perhaps, though I certainly can understand her refusing to wear a gown they made for her for the film. The movie was filmed during the heat of summer--and the dress was wool. Imagine wearing wool with all those petticoats in summer!

Time of Indifference (1964)

Some character studies that are so devoid of energy that the average viewer will likely struggle to maintain their interest

[3/10 · 23 April 2024]

"GIl indifferenti" ("Time of Indifference") is an Italian film with a cast mostly made up of American actors. Tomas Milian is an unknown Cuban-American actor, but the studio must have shelled out some money to secure the talents of Oscar-winner Shelley Winters, soon to be Oscar-winner Rod Steiger, and Paulette Goddard. The only non-American is the lovely Claudia Cardinale.

This film is NOT for everyone. In fact, I think MOST viewers would end up turning off the movie after a while since it is so very stark and slow. Additionally, the story just isn't pleasant in any way.

When the story begins, court officials arrive to catalog the furniture in the Contessa's mansion. But the Contessa (Paulette Goddard) claims to have no idea why they are there and she tries to throw them out. However, she's broke and soon she'll lose everything unless something miraculous occurs. The closest thing to this 'miracle' is Leo (Steiger), a rich but evil man. He claims to be in love with the Contessa, though on the side he is having a sexual relationship with her daughter, Carla. You assume he only pretends to be in love with the Contessa because he likes the notion of marrying a woman with a title. The son, Michele (Milian), he realizes what is happening and vacillates between anger and ambivalence. Lisa (Winters) is a family friend who just seems to be there. All of them, in various ways, are living in a voluntary hell and the question is, by the end of the movie will they have left or resigned themselves to their fates?

This movie is the epitome of the notion of a slow, artsy film. While it is well made, it's so slow and unpleasant I really wonder why they made it in the first place...as I really cannot imagine anyone really enjoying this character study. Well acted...and unpleasant.

Mardi Gras (1958)

A decent time-passer with a few tunes too many.

[5/10 · 22 April 2024]

The story begins at Virginia Military Academy, where the students are apparently chosen based on singing ability, as Pat Boone, Tommy Sands and Gary Crosby are all singing friends. Their other friend is Dick Sargent...and his singing appears to be someone else actually doing the singing. I wasn't surprised by Boone or Sands...they are famous for their singing. But Gary Crosby is quite good and sounds a LOT like his famous father.

As for the plot, the VMI marching band has been invited to a Mardi Gras parade and Barry, Tony and Dick (Crosby, Sands and Sargent) come up with a money-making scheme...to arrange for a date with a famous French actress, Michelle Marton (Christine Carère) with whoever wins the raffle...which is Paul (Boone). And, would you believe it, Michelle and Paul eventually fall in love and the studio want to play this up for publicity purposes.

The songs are all very pleasant and peppy. However, none are all that memorable. This is made worse by having a few too many songs as well. Trimming a few and perhaps getting one or two blockbuster tunes might have made the musical aspect of the movie work. Overall, I think the bests things going for the movie is the location shoot in New Orleans as well as Boone, who comes off pretty well in the story. Nothing especially life-changing or amazing, but a pretty decent time-passer.

A Bill of Divorcement (1940)

Unnecessary...plus a terrible ending.

[3/10 · 22 April 2024]

"A Bill of Divorcement" is a remake of the 1932 film of the same title. The original is better and after watching the 1940 version, I can't think of a good reason to have made it in the first place.

The basic story is confusing and about as probable as Elvis returning to Earth aboard a UFO! Shortly after marrying, a man loses his mind and spends the next 2+ decades locked in a sanitarium. During this time, we are expected to believe that his loving family just never found the time to visit him. And, after more than 20 years, he escapes and shows up at his home just a few days before his wife, I mean 'ex-wife', is about to get married again. He had no idea his wife was going to remarry or that she'd divorced him. In addition to this awkward situation, he finds his daughter all grown up (Mauren O'Hara) and anticipating getting married herself rather soon.

As you can see, the set-up for this film is VERY difficult to believe and what follows isn't any better. To make it worse, the ending...wow is it a mess and apparently what had happened to the father is a guarantee the same will happen with his daughter one day! Now HOW did they come up with this?!

The bottom line is that so much of this story just doesn't make any sense. The actors try their best...but sometimes that just isn't enough. Overall, a ridiculous story that also seems a bit disgusting as no one seems to really care about the mentally ill father.

Jocks (1986)

The audience is asked to care about a thoroughly obnoxious tennis player...and that's asking WAY too much.

[1/10 · 22 April 2024]

Christopher Lee plays the president of some fictional college and when the story begins, he demands the Athletic Director reinstate an obnoxious tennis player on the school's team. Why? Well, that's NOT clear. After all, the President wants success and a strong athletics department...but why concentrate on tennis instead of the school's other sports?

As for the obnoxious tennis player, he drinks too much, puts almost zero effort in improving his tennis and is about as likable as herpes. Making him flawed might have worked...making him easy to hate, well, that's a strange decision! What also is strange how despite being completely unlikable, he has a friend who is by his side all the time...which is really tough to believe. Can this thoroughly awful person manage to actually try or care? And, more importantly, can the audience care? The answer clearly is NO.

Despite having a few decent actors in it (Christopher Lee, Richard Roundtree and Mariska Hargitay), the writing is so bad that the film cannot possibly succeed...and, incidentally, it doesn't. Horrible writing make this one a chore to see or finish.

Hercules in the Haunted World (1961)

One of the prettier and better Hercules films I've seen.

[7/10 · 22 April 2024]

The 1950s and 60s saw the Italian film industry crawl out of the literal ashes of what it had become due to WWII. The first movies to get noticed abroad were the Neo-Realist films of directors like De Sica and Rosellini. And soon after, the films of Fellini. All these films were a bit on the artsy side and critics generally adored them...but they weren't exactly designed for the average viewer.

The next waves of Italian films which made a fortune abroad were NOT exactly arsty...in fact, they were the farthest you could get from these art films!! I am talking about the muscle-bound hero films. Some starred a hero named Maciste, some Hercules, and some others named him Samson...though they were really all the same sort of film despite the hero's name. In each, a super-muscley guy runs about the ancient world kicking baddies' butts and the plots aren't exactly deep or life-changing. No, they were strong, mean and were there to dispense justice! Interestingly, many of these heroes were not even Italians...with the likes of body builders Mickey Hargitay, Peter Lupus and Steve Reeves playing the leads.

I mention all this because "Ercole al centro della Terra" ("Hercules in the Haunted World") is one of these movies...with Hercules fighting to help his lady love to regain her senses, as evil has put a sort of spell upon her. It stars Reg Park, a Brit who came in second to Steve Reeves in the Mr. Universe competition. So, if you cannot get Reeves, get the next best thing! And, while I wouldn't consider Park to be a great actor, he was perfect in the role as he is gorgeous and looked the part in this movie.

Through much of the story, no one has any idea who the evil guy is who is responsible for the woman's insanity. Audiences today will know instantly, because King Lico is played by Christopher Lee*...a guy well known for playing monsters and villainous sorts. But can Hercules realize this in time...or will it be too late?!

Unlike many of the earlier Machiste/Hercules/Samson films, this one is shot in beautiful full color and looks really nice. Having the experienced and top director, Mario Bava, in the helm no doubt helped to make the film look great. As for the story, it's not exactly great (one of the monsters is pretty funny when seen today) but it is better and more enjoyable than most Sword and Sandal flicks I've seen. So, if you haven't seen one, this is a good place to start.

*In most of these Italian films, they needed to do a lot of dubbing. The leads often were non-Italians and the assumption in the 1960s was that non-Italians would not watch a subtitled movie. So this meant that a large dubbing industry needed to be created. The problem is that in some cases, they didn't even bother having the non-Italians do their own voices for the films to be marketed in their own countries. In this case, Christopher Lee is dubbed by some unknown guy, which must have been done to save money, as Lee was a polyglot and could have done a nice job doing both the Italian and English language versions. In fact, he did French and German language films in which he spoke in their native tongue on the original print and dubbed himself into English as well.

Glorious 39 (2009)

Very good but the pacing could be better and the plot a bit less confusing.

[8/10 · 22 April 2024]

"Glorious 39" is a film which has mostly mediocre scores and reviews. I can understand why, as the story has an interesting and novel idea...but it also manages to bore many viewers because of its pacing and because you really have to know and understand this period of time well in order to get the most from the plot...otherwise it's just confusing.

The story is set in England during the summer of 1939. At first, things seems carefree for the rich swells in the story, but with a possible war looming with the Germans, the fun and games are apparently over. And, the story begins to focus on Anne, the oldest and adopted daughter of some rich jerks...though she doesn't know this yet that her family is so god-awful.

Here is the part of the story that the film COULD have done better. In 1939, many Brits were in favor of war with Germany, many more were in favor of avoiding war at all costs...and a tiny minority actually thought the Nazis were pretty cool and wanted to forge a CLOSER alliance with them or were willing to give the enemy ANYTHING to avoid war. The worst of these was King Edward VIII*...who was forced to abdicate not just because of the Wallace Simpson affair but because he was Adolf's BFF. And, one of the characters in this story, Anne, has slowly come to the realization that some of her upper class family might just be in the third group...and are willing to do almost anything to keep their pro-Nazi sympathies hidden now that public opinion is sliding towards war. And, I do mean ANYTHING!

Unfortunately, to get to this point...that the family is pro-Nazi, took forever and really did get there in a very slow and meandering manner. I also think it might have helped had the film made clearer about the divisions within Britain...something most people would like to forget. The same can be said of France and the United States...both of which had large homegrown Fascist movements.

By the way, one aspect of the film made very little sense. Having Anne being adopted as a baby was fine...but later you find she was biologically a Romani (Romani and Roma are the more PC and acceptable ways of referring to Gypsies these days). But if the family WAS pro-Nazi, this makes little sense as they would have been infected with the same 'master race' ideology...and the Romani were considered among the lowest and during the war and thousands were executed by the Germans. Additionally, the family was upper class...and I cannot imagine the class-conscious Brits like this in 1939 ever adopting a Romani child...whatever their political bent.

I recommend this film only for folks was adore history and understand the forces at work in 1939. Otherwise, it's just a confusing mess. As for me, I taught world history and am very familiar with the time period, so I really appreciated it...even with some mistakes.

*Traditionally, the story of Edward's abdication was told in a very romantic way...as if he quit being king solely because he fell for an American divorcee and refused to dump her. In recent years, a few well documented documentaries have shown evidence about Eddie's treasonous love of the Nazis. It even made it to the Netflix series, "The Crown"...as more and more are accepting this new interpretation of the king's removal (or abdication) from office.

The Under-Pup (1939)

A decent debut film for Gloria Jean.

[5/10 · 22 April 2024]

A prestigious girls camp is offering a scholarship to their camp for some underprivileged kid. Pip (Gloria Jean) wins this essay contest but almost as soon as she arrives, she is having second thoughts about this 'prize' as most of these girls are spoiled monsters. They force her to dress differently from everyone else (who sport nice uniforms) and constantly remind her that they are better than Pip. And, you really, really want to see these spoiled rich girls get their comeuppance. But again and again, the camp's director (Beulah Bondi) seems to take the rich kids' side. What is Pip to do...other than perhaps run away or go Rambo on their other kids'?! Additionally, the one kid who IS nice to Pip (Virginia Weidler) is going through trouble, as her hateful parents are divorcing.

While the basic story makes for a nice family sort of film, Universal Studios insisted on having a Deanna Durbin-like actress who could also sing operatic-style songs. Folks in the late 30s and into the 40s LOVED this sort of stuff, though today it comes off as pretty weird...with such a strong and adult-like voice coming out of little Gloria Jean. It certainly didn't age well. This and the general schmatziness do detract from the film, though it's still pleasant and undemanding entertainment.

The Disputation (1986 TV Movie)

Based on real 13th century events.

[8/10 · 21 April 2024]

This film is based on real life events during the reign of King James I of Aragon. Unlike in other parts of Spain which were either controlled by the Muslim Moors or other Christian kinds, James seemed to want to have an open discussion and debate between an esteemed Jewish rabbi and a Christian convert...and as such, he promised no retributions against the Jews no matter the outcome. This is important because many prior Disputations resulted in increased persecution of the Jews. So, on July 20-24, 1263, a series of debates or 'disputations' occurred...and both sides claimed victory.

This film is a dramatization of the events and comes off more like a play than a movie. This is not a complaint...just a description of the style. The best thing about this movie aren't sets anyway...but the fine acting. This is particularly true in a most unusual performance by Christopher Lee....and because of this, it's well worth seeing...to see excellent acting with a minimum of accoutrements other than costumes.

The Life of Riley (1949)

far better than I expected!

[8/10 · 21 April 2024]

"The Life of Riley" was originally a radio show starring William Bendix in the title role. It was so successful that Universal Studios decided to make a big-screen film once again starring Bendix as Chester Riley. But the Dumont Network ALSO wanted to make a weekly TV series...and because Bendix was already starring in the movie, they re-cast the role and now Jackie Gleason was Chester Riley! If this isn't confusing enough, the TV series wasn't originally well received...and eventually it was rebooted with Bendix once again in the lead!

In many ways, Chester Riley from this film reminded me of Ralph Kramden (played by Jackie Gleason on "The Honeymooners" and "The Jackie Gleason Show"). In fact, one of the plots to "The Honeymooners" is very similar to the one in this film. A guy the Riley's knew back when they used to live in Brooklyn contacts them. Chester hates the guy BUT he still invites him over for dinner--hoping to show this guy that Chester is living a better life. Of course, Monahan is rich and very successful and Riley spends much of their evening trying to look like a big man. And, after the evening concludes, Chester swears to his wife that he, too, will be a success and give her everything she wants. Just HOW is he going to do this? And, how is the boss' rotten son going to be part of this?

This is a thoroughly enjoyable film...and makes me want to see the TV series. Well written, well acted...and, most importantly, fun.

The Happening (1967)

Funny...but not in the way filmmakers intended.

[2/10 · 21 April 2024]

In the late 1960s, a lot of previously respected classic actors apparently felt left out due to the rise of the hippies and so they tried desperately to fit in with this new culture. The results of these films are uniformly awful...and embarrassing. Lana Turner embarrassed herself in "The Big Cube" (all about LSD), Jennifer Jones did the same in "Angel, Angel Down We Go" (all about the evils of rock 'n roll and cults) and MANY actors and actresses embarrassed themselves in "Skidoo" (all about free love and the sexual revolution)...just to name a few. And, in "The Happening", Anthony Quinn hangs out with the hippiest and most annoying kidnappers in the history of Hollywood!

"The Happening" is not a wholly original film. Some story elements were in the previous movie, "Too Many Crooks" and some were reused in the 1980s film "Ruthless People". But there was one difference...these two other films are hilarious and well worth seeing.

The story begins in the woods where a bunch of hippies are sleeping as well as trying to sleep off the effects of various drugs. Suddenly, evil cops arrive and drive them all off. Three of these hippies soon meet up with another and they all go joyriding in a yacht. Soon, they quartet stop to play army soldier with some kids (why???) and in the process, the kids' father thinks they are kidnappers coming to get him. In fact, they had no such intentions...until he planted the idea in their minds...and soon they take the guy away and plan on charging a ransom for his return. In so many ways, the film IS "Ruthless People" in this regard...but with the most annoying committing the crime. So, instead of being funny, it is thoroughly annoying...to the point where I could imagine most viewers just turning it off and watching something, ANYTHING, else.

The bottom line is that much of the story is pretty good. But with hellishly annoying hippie-types trying to be funny...well, it's just trying! And, while SOME back in 1967 must have liked it, you'd be very hard pressed to find ANYONE who likes it and would recommend it today.

Only Yesterday (1933)

Just a year later, they wouldn't have been able to release this one.

[7/10 · 21 April 2024]

"Only Yesterday" is a film that never could have played in theaters just a year later in the USA. This is because the tough new production code would come into effect in mid-1934 and many plot elements from movies would disappear or only be alluded to...vaguely. In this case, the story is about a one night stand and a child that resulted from that...and even with substantial edits, I cannot imagine it playing for some time!

Shortly after the story begins, Mary (Margaret Sullavan) learns that she is pregnant. While being single and pregnant in 1917 is tough, at least she has a man who loves her and wants to marry her. But he's called off the war before Mary can tell Jim (John Boles). And, when he returns you realize that Mary is a bit delusional. He doesn't remember her at all and she was apparently a one-night stand...and so she continues raising the child herself. Later, Mary meets Jim at a party....and it seems he's just a creep who wants to score...and still has no notion that they've ever met. So, more time passes. But now, Mary is deathly ill...so what's going to happen next?

The basic premise of the film is flawed. I think having Mary create this dream in her head that Jim will return from the war and they will get married makes Mary seem a bit loopy. I think instead, if they'd gone out a few times and he had given her reason to believe he'd be there...then the story would have made much more sense. Fortunately, the final portion helps make the story better. It makes more sense and is quite powerful. Well worth seeing but also flawed.

The Unholy Four (1954)

Not to be confused with the Lon Chaney films...it's an all new story.

[3/10 · 20 April 2024]

The version of "The Stranger Came Home" which I saw was renamed "The Unholy Four"...which is unfortunate, as I THOUGHT it was a remake of the old Lon Chaney films (a silent and a sound remake) of the same title. But the story is completely different...and much duller.

Four years ago, Philip Vickers was on a trip to Portugal with four friends when he was apparently tossed overboard by one of them and left for dead. The resulting trauma brought on amnesia, so the events leading to his attack are unclear in his mind and he's back to solve the crime. And, to get maximum effect, he shows up unannounced! Well, pretty soon one suspect is murdered...presumably because they knew too much! Will Philip be the next? Or, perhaps one of the remaining three?

Even though the story is set in the UK, Paulette Goddard is cast as Angie...Philip's wife. I assume they cast her to give the film a bit more international appeal but Goddard's career was on the rocks and her participation in the picture must have been relatively cheap. Now, I am NOT attacking Goddard...just pointing out that by 1954, her career was almost completely over...even though she was in her mid-40s.

So is this movie any good? Well, it certainly is contrived and how much you buy the plot will depend on if you like the film. To me, the plot seems like a one in a billion type situation and films based on the notion of amnesia like this are difficult to love. Yes, amnesia is possible but like the way it happened in this story...not likely. Normally, amnesia is very short-term unless there is serious brain damage...and Philip came back looking fine and apparently with no after-effects from the attack.

Otherwise, I wasn't thrilled by the overall tempo of the film or the various cliches which really made the film seem LESS real than the Easter Bunny. It also really lacked energy and perhaps SHOWING the attack in some way would have given the movie energy or, perhaps, have some violent murders after Philip's return...but they are done in the most disconnected manner...off-screen.

The bottom line is that this is not a terrible film but the basic plot really left a lot to be desired. Watchable...but it really should have been better.

Charge of the Lancers (1954)

Like so many of Goddard's later films...it looks nice but is pretty boring.

[3/10 · 20 April 2024]

Apart from the lovely color cinematography, "Charge of the Lancers" is a pretty dull film. That didn't surprise me much, as it was made late in Paulette Goddard's film career...and many of these latter films had one thing in common...dull scripts. Now you'd THINK a film set during the Crimean War would have lots of action and excitement...but no...it's hard to care about the story or the characters.

The plot is pretty slim. The combined British, French and Ottoman forces are at a stalemate with the Russians who are well dug in and control the port of Sevastapol. But a new breech loading cannot will apparently turn the tide...if the folks who know the secret can manage to get out from behind enemy lines. To help them is a Gypsy lady (Goddard).

Dull but colorful. Not much more to say about this, but there MUST be other films about the Crimean War that are more interesting than this!

I Love a Soldier (1944)

Burning the candle at both ends in order to do her part for the war effort.

[8/10 · 20 April 2024]

This film was set during WWII. Eve (Paulette Goddard) works hard at a defense plant during the day and as often as she can, she goes out all night dancing and hanging out with sailors and soldiers. She likes the life but she does NOT want any romantic entanglements. After all, if she falls for a guy, he might just get killed and she'd be left to grieve for him.

In light of this, it's very surprising when two soldiers arrive to talk to her about their dead buddy, Richie. It seems he told his soldier buddies and family a completely fictional depiction of his love life...and based it all on one single date and a photo of him with Eve. At first, they think she's awful because she cannot recall the guy...until she explains her story to one of them, Dan (Sonny Tufts). So how does this mix-up result in something she desperately has avoided...a romantic entanglement?!

This is a nice, sentimental war film...one that doesn't focus on the enemy but the sacrifices men and women in the States went through to win the war. And, for the infamous Sonny Tufts, it's probably his best film, which isn't really saying all that much. But it is a pleasant film and is well made in most every way.

Sins of Jezebel (1953)

This one surprised me.

[7/10 · 19 April 2024]

One of the surest money-makers Hollywood put out in the 1950s were religious epics. Some of them are amazingly good....most just seem silly and often have little to do with the Bible verses that they are supposedly based upon. I assumed "Sins of Jezebel" would fall in this latter category...especially since it sports such a salacious title. However, surprisingly, the film is quite well made and actually is a good representation of the life of Jezebel and King Ahab in the book of Kings. Now I am not saying it's perfect...but it's far less silly and is a decent movie that probably won't offend Christians or Jews.

The story is about Jezebel, a non-Jew who came to Judea...and leaving a long trail of seduced men in her wake. She sets her sights very high and soon is one of King Ahab's favorites. And, as she's able to twist men around her wicked fingers, he soon agrees to break the Law and construct temples for foreign gods in his country. But while she's worshipping Baal, the prophet Elijah points out how ineffectual and wrong these people are. Ultimately, it ends up with a contest between these priest of Baal and Elijah...though even this doesn't change the evil hearts of Jezebel and Ahab.

There were two things I wasn't thrilled with in this movie. Paulette Goddard, though a nice looking woman, is well past her peak and it's unintentionally funny whenever men go all googly-eyed at her. The other is the inclusion of silly and 100% non-sexy 'sexy dance' scenes. It obviously is a time-filler and just seems way out of place.

Otherwise, the story worked reasonably well and I actually was more interested in it than I'd imagined. Not life-changing but good.