Change Your Image
theoctobercountry
Reviews
My Christmas Guide (2023)
Excellent
I haven't been too impressed with the Hallmark holiday slate this season; not too many of the films really "grabbed" me. While some were pleasing time-passers, there weren't many that I'd be willing to watch again. However, for this film---yep, I'm impressed. I'm going to rate this as one of the five best Hallmark Christmas films for the 2023 season. Good plot, excellent casting, with a really appealing lead in Ben Mehl, who I hadn't seen before. I hope Hallmark uses him again. And another plus---authentic winter location shooting: none of that sad-fake-snow-shot-in-the-middle-of-summer this time around. Recommended.
Christmas at Castle Hart (2021)
Disappointing
In the past Lacey Chabert has starred in a number of excellent Christmas films which I've enjoyed very much, so I had high hopes for this year's offering. But I'm sorry to say that "Christmas at Castle Hart," wasn't one of her best.
So why the lukewarm reaction? Well, where to start...
1. The two lead actresses simply do NOT look like sisters in the least. They could have easily played best-friends-since-childhood, but sisters? Nope, don't believe it for a minute---they're just too physically dissimilar.
2. The film was shot during the summer, and it shows. Ireland in winter does NOT look like this---there are no leaves on the trees in Ireland in the winter! And this was a real problem, because there were a LOT of landscape shots. A computer-graphic white haze was added to the landscapes, so as to suggest snow or frost on the leaves, I guess? And poorly-rendered holiday lights and decorations were also superimposed on the castle itself. But this didn't work; completely unconvincing and distracting.
3. No real romantic chemistry between Lacey and her leading man.
4. The plot itself was ridiculous---the deception would never have held up under scrutiny in the real world. A two-minute google search would instantly have revealed that they were charlatans.
So, yeah, this was disappointing because Lacey has starred in some first-rate Christmas films in the past, and I had higher expectations. But hey, maybe her next Christmas film will be better, eh? At least this one was still better than her worst Christmas film---"The Tree That Saved Christmas." Holy cow, that one was a dud. Ha!
The Belle of New York (1952)
Not a gem but the dancing is great
As I've noted previously, I'm a tremendous old-movie buff. Unfortunately, not all the A-list films from Hollywood's golden age are in fact all that golden...
Case in point: "The Belle of New York" (1952). This is widely considered to be one of Fred Astaire's worst films, and I'm afraid I have to agree. Difficult to see how things went so wrong, when all the right ingredients were in place. In this instance, the typical MGM magic missed the mark.
The film is just so, well, uninspired from beginning to end. There's only the faintest whisper of a plot, with none of the characters seeming the least bit grounded in the admittedly loose reality of the world of musicals---none of the emotions portrayed seem real or carry any weight. Plus, there's a definite problem with the music---the songs are pleasant enough but instantly and utterly forgettable. I couldn't remember any of these tunes mere moments after they had ended.
The thing is, the film contains many elements that should have made it so much better; in theory, there's a lot to like about this picture. While the songs aren't so great, the dancing is splendid. Here you have Vera-Ellen and Fred Astaire partnered---they were two of the very best dancers of Hollywood's golden age, and it's a pleasure to watch them work their magic. The supporting cast is amusing---Marjorie Maine is always a force to be reckoned with. And Alice Pearce just cracks me up- --I have a great fondness for this actress (twelve years after this film she would play Gladys Kravitz in the television series "Bewitched"). And of course visually the film is a treat, with lovely costumes and vivid Technicolor. But overall---the whole thing still remains rather tiresome and a disappointment in many respects. For old film buffs only.
I've noted that Vera-Ellen was a great dancer, but that doesn't begin to cover it---she was an astoundingly good dancer; one of the best that ever worked at the studio. And on top of that she was quite attractive; she looks absolutely lovely in this film. But somehow stardom eluded her... I think she lacked that indefinable spark, that special charisma, that the great stars had. While she performs well enough in this picture, the viewer is never really drawn to the character; there's something missing in her acting, in the way her personality comes across, it seems to me.... While best remembered for her role in 1954's "White Christmas," Vera-Ellen continued to work in films until 1957, when she gave it all up. She had made fourteen films over the course of twelve years, but after that she never returned to the screen.
Female on the Beach (1955)
Chock full of campy goodness
Joan was still going strong and giving her career her all in the 1950s, at a time when most of her contemporaries had faded from the scene. (You have to remember that she started out in silent pictures; very few other stars from that era were still working by 1955.) And she's so much fun to watch in this film! Very arch and sarcastic, she tosses off a number of cutting one liners to great effect. Ah yes, and of course she gets a couple of good slaps in too (as she said herself, "I do that in all my pictures!").
Man, I do enjoy this film; it's one of my favourites out of the thirteen theatrical features Crawford filmed during the fifties. Now, it's rather seedy and trashy to be sure. After all, just look at the set-up; you have a mature couple "sponsoring" a younger "stud- muffin" (for lack of a better term--ha!) whose sole purpose in life is to serve as an escort (in and out of the bedroom) for older rich women, in order to fleece them out of a bit of money. A slightly daring thing to put on film, but by the mid-fifties the screenwriters could get away with a lot more than they could even a few years earlier; even then the production code was starting to crumble.
Beefy Jeff Chandler, as the gigolo in question, is ridiculously attractive and readily puts his assets on display throughout the film. I wonder---was it a bit unusual to so unabashedly and overtly portray a man as an obvious sex object at that time? Not that the audience is complaining! (Some would say it's a pity that he was forced to shave and wax for the role (which he complained about)--- heck, even back in the fifties fellows were manscaping and getting rid of the furry chests.)
The plot and dialog have little to do with reality---one reviewer said "Make no mistake: Female on the Beach is a strange movie about strange characters doing strange things on the beach." But as I noted above---it's so much fun. Campy to be sure, but it's also a decent domestic thriller and an enjoyable fifties soap; yep, it's full of soapy goodness.
Technical note: oddly enough, my DVD is presented at the standard Academy aspect ratio of 1.37:1, even though it was intended to be projected at a ratio of 2:1. (2:1 is a widescreen ratio that was used for a few films in the mid-fifties, but which never caught on as one of the standards for widescreen pictures---1.85:1 and 2.39:1 became the norm instead.) So, what this means is that we see a lot of extra picture at the top and bottom of the frame on this DVD; there's a heck of a lot of extra headroom--- a larger portion of the great mid- century modern interiors are on display than was originally intended by the cinematographer. As a result, I found that using the zoom feature on your widescreen television to fill the frame (televisions have a aspect ration of 1.78:1) actually improves the look of the film; the compositions look very good when zoomed in.
Frozen (2013)
Good, but I still liked Tangled better
Well, the new animated fantasy film "Frozen" has gotten some great reviews and been doing excellent box-office, so I decided to check it out for myself---always have been a push-over for Disney animated films.
First off, it's best if you put any comparisons between this film and the old fairy story "The Snow Queen" right out of your head immediately, because while the film is supposedly based on the fairy tale, there's pretty much nothing left of the original story. So, just go into the cinema thinking of this as something entirely new, and it will play better.
Overall, I most definitely did enjoy the film and am glad I went. It's gorgeous to look at, and has some great vocal performances. Okay, it's true enough that off-hand I can't recall a single one of the songs (and I've just seen the film a few hours ago), but that's due more to my (typical) extreme forgetfulness than to a lack of memorability on the part of the score. At least a few of the tunes were quite strong, and I'm sure if I listened to the soundtrack a few times I'd get a better feel for the music, and decide which tunes were my favourites. (Yes, Broadway veteran Idina Menzel does in fact get her own show-stopping number, and it's quite impressive both visually and vocally.)
Comic relief was thankfully kept within acceptable bounds---I LOVED the goofy reindeer, and while I wasn't particularly enamoured of Olaf the talking snowman, he wasn't nearly as annoying as I thought he'd be. (The early adverts featured the snowman to an excessive degree, but in fact the character had a much smaller part in the film than the adverts indicated.)
However.... While I liked the film, perhaps I'm not feeling quite as enthusiastic about it as I thought I would. The plot in general seemed a bit weak, and the big climactic scene fell very flat indeed for me. I suppose I didn't find the heroine Anna to be particularly interesting--- the film is told from her perspective. But her sister Elsa, along with the male lead Kristoff, were the characters I wanted to see more of.
This is one of those films that I'll have to see a few times before I come to a definite conclusion as to precisely how much I like it. Oh, I enjoyed it well enough that I'm likely to pick up the Blu-ray when it becomes available, so ask me again in a year or so what I thought and I'll have a much more detailed and well thought out review
In the end, I believe I still prefer the production team's earlier animated film "Tangled" over this one; it seemed like a stronger picture. But---I've seen "Tangled" innumerable times by now, and am quite familiar with the material. A similar familiarity with "Frozen" may raise my opinion on this new film quite a bit---and remember, I'm not exactly complaining about it in the first place. I do recommend it-- -and it's a great way to help get in the mood for the upcoming holiday/winter season.
Oz the Great and Powerful (2013)
Not great, but not bad overall
This afternoon I went to see "Oz the Great and Powerful." Hey---a new theatrical interpretation of Oz, how could I possibly resist?
I've noted previously that the 1939 Oz film had a tremendous impact on me as a child, and influenced me throughout my life. (For instance---I daresay the influence of the film is one of the reasons I've always been partial to the poppy flower. And in fact at this very moment I'm working on a stained glass lampshade featuring a poppy design---over four decades after I first saw this film.)
How does this new trip through Oz compare? Well, it doesn't---but I hardly expected it to be in the same league as the iconic 74-year-old film. However, while flawed I thought in the end it proves to be an entertaining entry on the list of Oz adaptations---not as good as some of the others, but far better than many of the lesser offerings.
I am not well acquainted with James Franco's body of work, so I had no expectations going in on how he would play the role. I'm afraid my primary impression of this actor was a negative one, based almost entirely on his bizarre and disastrous turn in hosting the Oscars a couple of years ago. (If he wasn't drunk or high on that job---then what on earth was he thinking?) But---I think he does a decent job here with the character. Oh, perhaps he could have used a bit more bluster and bravado---a dash of Robert Preston's Professor Hill from "The Music Man." But overall, his interpretation worked for me.
Unfortunately, one of the other primary casting choices was disastrous. Mila Kunis didn't work AT ALL for me as the Wicked Witch of the West; I just didn't buy it. Her transformation to this evil creature was underdeveloped, though this was primarily due to problems with the script, which shortchanged both the set-up and payoff. But I didn't find her voice, or physical appearance, or general demeanor convincing in the least. And this is such an iconic character, that the weak link is problematic for the film overall.
The script was okay but rather by-the-numbers; I thought the story dragged a bit in the central portion (the film clocks in at around 130 minutes), though things livened up considerably during the final half- hour as the battles between the witches got underway. I think the main problem with the film is that it's lovely to look at, and fairly imaginative, but it has no genuine heart or soul. The audience isn't really given any character to root for, to identify with, and as a result our emotional involvement and attachment to what is happening on- screen is muted at best.
I'm sorry to say that I didn't find the scoring to be particularly memorable, which is a shame because first-rate orchestrations could have greatly enhanced the viewing experience. And it was a real shame that no elements directly related to the 1939 film were included in this production. (Due to copyright restrictions, only Baum's original book series---now in public domain---were used for inspiration.) For instance, the presence of the ruby slippers could have provided some key plot points---I've already thought of interesting ways they could have been incorporated into the story. And frankly, I just don't see why the producers of this film didn't secure the rights to use some of the elements from the classic film, because such a thing has been done before in previous Oz adaptations. It makes no sense whatsoever to me.
All that said, I did enjoy the film---don't regret going to see it---and found it a pleasant diversion overall. It very well may be one I'll buy when the blu-ray becomes available. I don't think it will leave any lasting or particularly memorable impression in today's pop culture, but it's a respectable enough entry to the world of Oz. I'm hoping that this film performs well, because if it does turn a profit it will make the possibility of further Oz projects that much more likely. (Though it does have a job cut out for it---it will probably have to make over 400 million (USD) world-wide before it breaks even. I'm going to follow the box office most carefully and see how it does.)
Oh, an addendum---for those who are curious, I would say this film is moderately family-friendly. Now, I wouldn't take toddlers to see it or anything---too scary for the very young---but it was much less intense than I had been anticipating. I suppose I had been thinking that it would have a bit more "mature" content. In fact, this film is fairly light in comparison to 1985's "Return to Oz," which has a much darker, more adult tone. Now, while that film was a failure at the box office, it is one of which I am very fond, and which does have a cult following to this day. If "Oz the Great and Powerful" puts you in an Ozian sort of mood, by all means don't forget to check out "Return to Oz" in turn!
Ghost Story: Touch of Madness (1972)
Flawed but fun
Ah, now here's a great ghost story; I love these tales where you can't quite figure out what's going on, where the tale will lead. Geraldine Page and Rip Torn (who were married in real life) were great as the seemingly befuddled (but sharper than they looked) caretakers of the haunted house. Though---seeing the state it was in, I guess they weren't too good at their job!
Because yes, this is a sure-enough ghost-filled house; you might even say that the house is haunted by its own past self. And since it was possessed by its own vision of its former splendour, I suppose it's no wonder that the elderly siblings ignored their housekeeping; if they could always see it through the lens of the past, in pristine condition, why bother to do any upkeep? Now, this isn't a perfect episode---not everything made sense; the script perhaps was a little sloppy. For instance.... if the pair meant to keep the murders a complete secret, why on earth would they put up fake tombstones in the back yard? Anyone who saw them would wonder about the deceased; if it weren't for the stones, I daresay the two murder victims would have been completely forgotten... Also, why was the cement-block wall in the cellar half-way broken down? You'd think the siblings would have made absolutely sure that the tomb was sealed up with the wall appearing as inconspicuous as possible.
And yes, I'm afraid I have to say it---those two blazingly-white skeletons looked as fake as could be. You could even see the seam in the one skull, where the top was fastened on. But wasn't it creepy when that boney hand started moving? Despite a few nitpicks, I really did enjoy this one; it's in the best classic ghost story mold, and I thought it was very effective. (Heh, I got a kick out of Janet holding that rat while thinking it was a cat.) And Geraldine Page did her usual excellent work here; it was a pleasure watching her.
(Oh, that song Page sings was quite lovely, called "Golden Memories" by Ian Jack. Does anyone know if it was written specifically for this episode?)
Ghost Story: House of Evil (1972)
Excellent!
Ah, now this episode of "Ghost Story/Circle of Fear" showed just how very good this series could be; this is one of the best episodes in my opinion. It's a classic entry involving ESP and voodoo---along with an evil grandfather who takes advantage of his innocent granddaughter by having her (inadvertently) cause harm to her family through the use of creepy cookie dolls. This is probably one of the best-remembered episodes of the series, for those who first viewed the show when they were little kids.
Excellent casting throughout, featuring actors running the range from classic Hollywood stars (Melvyn Douglas) to up-and-coming new talent (Jodie Foster). Other roles were filled by those featured on one television programme or another throughout the years; lots of familiar faces here.
I got such a kick out of seeing the "Bewitched" house featured in this episode. It was used both for the interiors (with some modifications---the stairway has been altered, for example), and for the exteriors (which were shot on the Columbia Ranch). Heck, we even get to see a "Bewitched" doll-house---which of course goes up in flames most spectacularly for the finale.
Ghost Story: The Phantom of Herald Square (1973)
decent finale
This episode provides a decent enough finale for "Ghost Story/Circle of Fear"---though it's a pity the series didn't last longer! We start out with a mystery this time around---who is that old man in the park? And what's the deal with the creepy executive in the office? But very soon the viewer will get a feel for what's going on and where the plot is headed.
I confess I wasn't spot-on in guessing what was going to happen, however. I was thinking that this might be a story about a sort of psychic vampire, feeding off the life-force of the victims (though I couldn't figure how the executive fit into that scenario). But late in the episode it turns out that nope, the fellow in the office is in fact the devil (or perhaps a lesser demon) who grants youth in return for a souls. And once that was revealed, the episode fell flat---it's a tired old chestnut, a clichéd plot device that's been used far too often before. (I prefer the psychic youth-sucking vampire idea---and even that plot is none too fresh.) Oh well... Still, not a terrible episode by any means.
Fun to see several long-time character actors in this one; those viewers of a certain age will most likely recognise many of the players here.
I did like the very pretty guitar-and-vocal arrangement used for the background score in this episode; it gave me a sense of the time and place of this episode (college life in the early 70's). That is---I liked it for the first few times I heard it, but after it was played about ten times throughout the episode it got a bit tiresome!
Ghost Story: Doorway to Death (1973)
Great episode
This episode is very well remembered by fans of the show, and is an example of the series at its best. It's a great, classic ghost story with spooky atmosphere (complete with an empty apartment at the top of the stairs from which mysterious sound emanate, containing a doorway to another world). And those of a certain age will enjoy seeing several well-known actors of the period.
Hmmm, the park featured in this tale looks very familiar---I'm wondering if this was shot on the same back lot as the "Bewitched" series?
Note to kids everywhere---if a mysterious man with a creepy pornstache and an ax beckons you to come on over----DON'T DO IT!
Ghost Story: Graveyard Shift (1973)
Middling
Not the best the series had to offer, but not the worst either. It's a fun concept---the idea that classic film horror characters have come to life and haunt their old studio. Actually, I felt a bit sympathetic toward them! It's always enjoyable to see Patty Duke and John Astin (who were married in real life at this time), though the script doesn't really give them a whole lot to do. And I got a kick out of seeing series creator William Castle make a brief cameo as the head of the studio.
I remember finding this very scary indeed when I watched it as a eight-year-old, but re-watching as an adult I'm afraid the five film monsters just aren't all that frightening---they're more silly than scary, in fact. Overall, I'll give this an "eh..." sort of rating; it isn't terrible, but its primary charm is the result of nostalgia, rather than from being a solid, creepy story.
Ghost Story: Earth, Air, Fire and Water (1973)
Not a series high point
This episode had a great premise, but the execution was indifferent, I'm afraid. Oh, I got a kick out of seeing a very young Tyne Daly, but overall the pacing was slow and lacked suspense.
In the end, I just had too many unanswered questions about this one---NOTHING was made clear at the end. I don't expect every little plot element to be tied up in a neat bow, but there's a difference between spelling everything out for the audience and not giving them any answers whatsoever. Like---what (who) precisely was in the jars to begin with? How did they get in the trunk---who put them there, and why? What was the purpose of these beings in possessing the artists? It didn't appear that the entities were able to escape once they sucked the artists' souls into the jars.
So, in the end I found the story to be rather pointless. On the plus side, well.... that metallic hands sculpture was very creepy!