hagan_family Reviews

Invasion: Home Invasion (2021) Season 1, Episode 6

Darkness Descends

[4/10 · 8 August 2023]

As mentioned by another reviewer, the darkness of the broadcast picture made it nearly impossible to see much detail of the action. It was less threatening than it was frustrating and irritating. I kept fast-forwarding hoping to get to a spot with more illumination in the picture.

Additionally, the direction did nothing to add suspense (though I believe it was intended to). There were long periods of draggy action without advancing the plot in any discernible way.

My impression of Trev's character (in previous episodes, sorry) is out of synch with my experience with military NCOs (as I was a 38 yr veteran). He was portrayed as unnecessarily crude and crass, especially with those who didn't speak English in his environs. Perhaps that'll change in future episodes.

Cats (2019)

Far better than its reviews

[8/10 · 22 January 2023]

As a vocal performer and as someone who's seen every version of this musical, I found this version to have brung magic to the screen, cleverly blurring the line between reality and CGI. This blurring facilitated willing suspension of disbelief coupled with fascination at the magic.

The eclectic and hyper-talented cast bring their unique individual talents and artistry, blending them into an ensemble cast of individual cat personalities, creating a more coherent story than the stage or previous screen versions did.

Cinema purists likely dismiss it as "much ado about nothing." But I believe those of us who have performed on stage recognize the skill it requires of the performer to do their turn on the stage in such a way as to invite the audience on stage with them and engage in a joint experience.

Finally, I have a hunch that T. S. Eliot would have viewed this linking together of his Practical Cat poems into a single story line with favor, his characters brought to life and to sound w/Webber's phenomenal musical skills.

The cast members were matched together with their characters extremely well and their vocals were eye- and ear-popping -- both of Jennifer Hudson heart-tearing renditions of "Memories" will stick with me because of the power and emotion of her performances.

Ian McKellen's Gus was totally believable (and I don't know how he did it); Idris Elba's Macavity was appropriately sinister, though lacked more definitive exposure ... too bad for us; Judi Dench totally embodied "Old Deuteronomy" with immense dignity and depth; for fellow performers, I'd recommend watching them for those tiny, nuanced additions that fully fill out their respective characterizations and performances. Of the group, I believe McKellen's is the fullest despite being one of the briefest -- a master of his craft.

Choreo was imaginative, athletic and extraordinarily well executed. Sight gags were fun and not overdone.

On a slightly downside, Swift's personalized added-song did not display her talent very well (an emotional song, true, but not all that and a dish of cream); though her acting wasn't as free-flowing as the other characters, she brought to hers a bit of innocence and guilelessness.

One element I did miss but that was only referenced was the story of Growltiger, the Terror of the Thames. While I understand its disinclusion due to time constraints, I did miss it ... the references to it in the story let "familiars" like me know it wasn't ignored, just not included in full.

If I were a first-time viewer I suspect I'd have a bit of a challenge following the flow of the stories-within-the-story. However, "Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats" was not written as a coherent story, but a collection of poems.

In conclusion, I would whole-heartedly recommend this version who was familiar with the previous versions and with Eliot's poems -- but I'd want to do some pre-viewing prep of friends without that familiarity so they'd be ready to appreciate the story and allow them to focus in on the characters and their performances without being distracted by trying to follow plot devices.

Krull (1983)

DANGER DANGER, Will Robinson!!!

[19 April 2022]

At nearly 70 yrs of age, I managed to live without having seen "Krull" ... until tonight. I can see now that my life was not complete without this latest disappointment. On the other hand, the two hours I spent watching this creation seemed like a week, and at my age, finding an extra week of life is never bad.

The bright spots in this film were few and far between, and unlike many previous reviewers, I have to give credit for the original, fanciful and exciting music. It was often delightful -- though not always well matched to the action.

The direction was uneven at best, even though director Yates was well regarded for his other films, such as "Bullitt" -- in "Krull," the acting was wooden and the pace dragged between brief moments of poorly choreographed action. The continuity ... wasn't. The overly-long, generally uninteresting traipse through the swamp on foot was neither suspenseful nor dramatic ... and suddenly, everybody was out of the swamp and riding horses ... where did the horses come from????

I'm a great lover of cheesy movies featured on such programs as MST3K; but I have to confess, I don't believe "Krull" would reach the minimum level of quality for MST3K -- it takes itself too seriously, moves too slowly and leaves far too many gaps in continuity to be taken EITHER seriously OR lightly.

Ah well ... at the end of the day, it's always nice to gain an extra week in life for a 2-hr investment.

Steel (1997)

It's Not So Think As You Bad It Is ...

[7/10 · 14 June 2021]

The premise is silly; the writing is juvenile; the acting is basic; the casting is actually fun and the direction is surprisingly consistent (given the subject matter, script and lack of pretension all around). So fundamentally, it's a movie about a SASH ... (Silly-Ass Super Hero). There is nothing super-serious in this film at all ... except some of the references to a few the realities of life in the 'hood (even though it's a pretty heavily sanitized reality).

This is one of those films that so clearly illustrates the difference between technical cinematic quality and entertainment for entertainment's sake. The qualities of a cinematic masterpiece may or may not be entertaining, and the acme of cinematic art is the effective balance and integration of those two components. "Steel" isn't one of those ...

From my perspective, this film and its producers appeared to focus purely on popular entertainment and were not at all worried about competing seriously for critical praise of any type.

The actors looked like they had a lot of fun making the films and they neither took themselves nor the film too seriously at all. I particularly enjoyed watching a very young Shaq, still playing roundball at the championship level, having fun parlaying his popularity and his appealing personality into something that people other than film critics would appreciate (especially NOT film critics).

This is a family-fun-film with crystal-clear good guys, bad guys and clearly drawn right and wrong. There is so much "deus-ex-machina" in this film that you just gotta laugh at the absurdity. You see, it's the absurdity of it all that makes it fun.

Ultimately, the qualities of this movie demanded that this be the only one ... no more "Steel" and no franchise. It's like cooking fresh fish ... it's only good once, and besides, there's not enough leftover to make an actual second meal.

The Devil's Brigade (1968)

Not In Competition with "The Dirty Dozen"

[8/10 · 30 May 2021]

Many reviewers have claimed this movie was merely a bad imitation of "The Dirty Dozen." I disagree -- in my mind there's no comparison between the two.

First, "The Devil's Brigade" ("TDB") is a story based on an actual unit and actual events. While there's ample (and quite amazing) fact underpinning the story, the Hollywood treatment takes quite a bit of poetic license at times. I understand and make allowances for that when viewing it.

Next, "The Dirty Dozen" ("TDD") on the other hand, is fiction, based on a totally unbelievable premise and a word-of-mouth rumor. It was created solely for its entertainment value and not for any historical value whatsoever. And, OBTW, it portrayed US GIs committing war atrocities and being represented as no better than the Nazis. It's hard to get past that with clever movie-making and story telling.

Finally, had these movies been released in reverse order to what they were, with "TDB" first and "TDD" afterwards, "Dirty Dozen" would have been trashed as a cheap imitation of "TDB."

36 Hours (1964)

Rod Serling Would Have Loved This!

[8/10 · 30 May 2021]

For well over the first half of the film "36 Hours," the viewer is treated to a feature-length episode of the "Twilight Zone" ... B&W filming, well-structured script and fairly tight direction along with a preset time constraint helping create and build suspense throughout.

Just after the halfway point, the game is up and the main character, Maj Pike (James Garner), figured out the deception that he was being subjected to and why. It's at this point the film converts from an episode of "Twilight Zone" to a black-and-white version of "The Great Escape."

I couldn't give a higher rating to the film because of the way they handled the transition after all the discoveries were realized. The Nazis interrogated Anna and Pike using sleep deprivation, but afterwards, when both they and the Nazi spies were repeating the same invasion destination was Pas de Calais instead of Normandy (just as the two also were), they were brought back and placed together in the same apartment as if nothing had happened. If my studies of the Nazis' behavior -- especially that of the SS and the Gestapo is any guide it would seem the two of them would have been at least imprisoned, but more likely killed.

My gripe attached to this observation is that it was quite disruptive of my suspension of disbelief, essential for being drawn into the story as if it were reality.

The "Easter egg" toward the end of the film is the appearance of John Banner (Sgt Schultz from "Hogan's Heroes") as "Ernst," a German home guard soldier who had no love for the regime in his nation and who was making a little money assisting escapees over the border into Switzerland. He played a charming-yet-roguish character with great skill, a far cry in some ways from his turn as Schultz in the y ears that followed.

I definitely recommend this movie for folks wanting a rainy Saturday afternoon's entertainment and who have at least a nodding acquaintance with WWII history around the time of the Allied invasion of Normandy in June of 1944.

Till the End of Time (1946)

What A Lucky Discovery!

[9/10 · 29 May 2021]

As a retired military officer (after 38 yrs), I confess to an addition to war movies and post-war movies, as well. That said, one of my top favorites of all time is "Best Years of Our Lives." That phenomenal film filled my consciousness as the ultimate post-WWII film dealing with what we now describe PTSD and the associated conditions that impact so many returning from war. I did not have any idea of the existence of this film, "Til The End of Time," until today (many years later). I didn't know it existed, but even more surprising to me was that it was released the very same year. It was totally overshadowed by "BYOOL" and its exceptionally brilliant cast, direction and writing.

That said, I began watching "TTEOT" with the mindset that it couldn't be anywhere near as good as its rival. BOY, was I wrong!

When I compare the two movies, I found that "TTEOT" is grittier, tougher and shows more realistically the harsh reality men returning from war faced, and at the same time some of the anguish experienced by those left at home. These include the parents of those who are hurting as they fumble around, trying to adjust to the changed men who are so different from those who left them years before.

"TTEOT" doesn't pull punches and doesn't soften difficult realities with sentimental romance or humorous sophistication. I admire this approach, especially since the viewer is left in exactly the same suspense as the characters are as they painfully grope their way through their troubles. By the end of the movie, their troubles aren't magically fixed, but there's a fuller understanding of what's happening inside each of them.

From a casting perspective (and this is purely personal preference), I've always found Dorothy McGuire an actor with whom I could never get in synch. I never found her warm, appealing or sympathetic in any of her roles -- including this one. Yet, she seems the perfect cast for the role of the war widow attempting to deal with her grief the best way she can while tolerating the weird ups and downs of the character Cliff. Her typical on-screen "distance" works well in this role, illustrating (along w/Cliff's emotional volatility) how humans attempt to guard their vulnerabilities from harm by others.

TCM showed "TTEOT" followed by "TBYOOL" which is precisely the order of showing I'd recommend. If you haven't seen both films, I'd view them in that same sequence. My guess is that the viewer will get the harsh reality director Dmytryk wanted to portray in his realistic, telegraphic way and then they'll see "TBYOOL" and enjoy the wonderful example of the top tier of storytelling that director Wyler created -- both telling similar stories that illustrated the struggles of returning war veterans but in different ways.

This discovery was a rich one for me. I hope it's equally rich for others in the way it was for me.

Wonder Woman 1984 (2020)

"Mourning Becomes Electra Redux"

[2/10 · 23 May 2021]

I cannot now find the specific reference for proper attribution, but watching this film puts me in mind of the shortest and most apropros review ever for a performance: "WW1984 started at 8 pm. Three hours later I looked at my watch and it was 8:15."

There were moments (no more than a very few moments) of enjoyment in context, concept or in retrospect. But overall, it was remarkably underwhelming, unimpressive, and strikingly mediocre despite dramatic, no-expense-spared special effects and big name stars (Kristin Wiig, Gal Gadot, Chris Pine, etc.).

My utmost wish while watching was "I wish this movie would reach its climax, denouement and epilogue before I pass out from pure terminal ennui.

The most believable scene in the entire film was the brief interlude where the two lovers awake in bed together. It was brief, convincing and over way too soon.

Oy gevalt ...

Two Seconds (1932)

Holy Cow -- What a Performance!

[9/10 · 8 December 2020]

Edward G. Robinson ... I've been a fan for decades and, I confess to having "pigeon-holed" him in the narrow confines of the rough, gangster-like persona and acting range that stretched to include being a G-man, as well.

So, when I stumbled across this Warner gem that I'd never seen, I was absolutely blown away by the stunning range of Eddie's acting abilities.

I'm not going to reiterate the plot here, but if you are familiar with the short story "An Occurrence At Owl Creek Bridge" it would give you a sense of this story and the framework within which it is set.

While the structure of the film is somewhat fixed and somewhat predictable, Eddie Robinson's acting is anything but ... he ranges from meek and milquetoast to determined to convincingly and drunkenly passionate to angry to depressed to mad (as in insane) to delusional. The transitions between them are invisible, they're logical and they're absolutely believable. It was stunning to experience.

Additionally, the supporting cast made the entire event memorable. Vivienne Osborne, who played Shirley was exceptional as Eddie's love/lust interest and his betrayer. Preston Foster, who played Eddie's roommate Bud, seemed take things a bit over the top, but overall was excellent in the role. Guy Kibbee was the brght spot in the supporting cast as the bookie who very cheerfully paid off his bets both large and small and was always engaging his clients in the joys of winning their bets.

Overall, I'd enthusiastically recommend this terrific film to anyone who like's Eddie Robinson but like me, who only saw his limited range and had typecast him the way I did. I'd also recommend this film to those who enjoy 1930s-era suspense films and to those who are partial to film noir (event though it doesn't technically qualify as actual noir).

One last group I'd recommend this film to is one i belong to -- those who view early films and see them as windows onto the time in which they were made. 1932 was the height of the Great Depression and the dismal life of ordinary people was on full display here. Women who trolled for dates, hoping to be able to pry a meal out of the guy or else go hungry. Dime-a-dance girls desperate for any work they could find and their bosses who looked like nothing more than pimps. Doctors who worked for whatever their patients could pay. Landladies who allowed broke individuals to stay in their rooms despite owing weeks of rent, but who became hard and embittered by the constant stress. The high-rise steel workers who made quite good salaries for very dangerous work but who had no life insurance and CERTAINLY no medical or dental benefits.

I thought this a brilliant performance in a mostly excellent vehicle. I'd recommend this to any film buff who enjoys films from the early years of American films. It's really a gem.

Space Force (2020–2022)

To Boldly Go ...

[8/10 · 9 September 2020]

As another reviewer mentioned, this series isn't going to be for everyone. Yet, as a 38-yr veteran of military service, the latter years as a senior officer, I found so many tiny details were so perfectly on the mark that I was transfixed from the very first moment.

Steve Correll absolutely NAILS the character of Gen Mark Nairn. He brings so many accurate qualities to the role that I've seen in many generals in my career -- passionate, obsessive to a degree, sometimes going way overboard on trivial issues, and yet powerfully committed to both mission and their people. Steve's characterization is so excellent that when a rare line misses, it comes across to me as a shock.

The brilliant counterpoint-partner to Gen Naird is Dr Adrian Mallory, the Chief Scientist for Space Force. John Malkovich's character perfectly captures his role that I can easily see people I've known, and almost can't unsee them. Malkovich's role performance is so exceptional ... blending snarky academic, mature scientist, condescending elitist and yet, he's the grounded figure in the series. The relationship between Naird and Mallory is the axle around which the whole space station revolves.

The cast is well selected, and represents the various personalities present in any military organization. I especially enjoyed the portrayals of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the SECDEF. Sometimes the characterizations hit so close to home that they're not funny ... which makes the FUNNY!

The multi-level story lines keep attention moving, with bizarre relationships and some scary-accurate family dynamics. The humor merely reinforces the serious nature underlying some of those dynamics.

I can recommend this whole-heartedly to former military persons with an equally hearty invitation to science and space geeks out there. There are sly innuendos, sight gags, commentaries and satires about our national political figures.

See it and enjoy every single moment --

Crisis (1950)

Shockingly Fresh

[8/10 · 18 August 2020]

This Cary Grant vehicle was completely unknown to me until today. After reading the plot summary, I tuned in with low expectations, having seen all of Grant's big-ticket productions.

In this vehicle, Grant's character is a prominent US neurosurgeon vacationing with his wife in a Latin American country under martial law. As they prepare to depart, the military abducts the couple and takes them to a town where the president (Jose Ferrer) and his wife are living. The president is dying from an ever-enlarging brain tumor and the Grant character is pressured to operate to save his life. Simultaneously, the political opposition pressures him to allow the president (a tyrant along the lines of Juan Peron) to die.

To my surprise, the story engrossed me as it evolved from its somewhat pedestrian beginning through ever-more detailed, ever-more suspenseful twists and turns -- the pressures brought to bear on the doctor from several sides -- threats, promises, intimidation -- while the doctor attempts to impartially and impersonally fulfill his role as a surgeon.

Part of my surprise has to do with how timely the subject continues to be, even today, long past the time of Peron. The behavior of the dictator and his opposition are clearly evident in different parts of the world even as I write.

In short, this is a film very much worth the hour and three quarters it takes to watch it. .

Dick Winters: Hang Tough (2012)

Honoring an Honorable Man

[10/10 · 2 August 2020]

A note of full disclosure here: I am not and have always been a fan and student of WWII history. My grandfather served as an Army "mustang," moving from an enlisted Soldier through OCS to a young 2d Lieutenant. I idolized him and I'm sure it colored my view of history and kept me focused on learning all I could. Because of my love for the period and the heroes who fought in it, I was enthralled by the opportunity to experience the 50th Anniversary of the D-Day landings in Normandy with a tour headed by Stephen Ambrose, author of "June 6th 1944" and later, "Band of Brothers." I was up close and personal with actual heroes -- men who were ordinary to being with and who rose to hero status, knowing their way home went through Berlin. Their heroism was quiet, confident and consisted of a shared conviction of inevitable victory.

Later, when Ambrose's "Band of Brothers" was released, I absorbed every nuance, utterance and fact and I watched every episode religiously. Damien Lewis, who portrayed Maj Dick Winters, became Maj Winters in every possible way. I was hooked.

So, today, scrolling through Amazon Prime, I saw this video about "The Biggest Brother," Dick Winters: Hang Tough. Watching it, I saw an hommage to Maj Winters and the creation of a leadership monument to him in northern France, near Utah Beach in Normandy.

I remained glued to the program, seeing film clips and photographs I'd never seen as well as interviews with surviving 506th PIR men and Maj WInters. Local officials, and especially, the family who owned Brecourt Manor, the location of Winters' first combat test. He was friends with this family and remained so for the rest of his life.

Dick Winters exemplified leadership in all its qualities. He personified inspiring leadership and personally insisted such a memorial must include (and represent) all leaders, not just him. He succeeded, and the sculptor captured him as the stereotype of the great combat leader, as he surely was.

This documentary is an hour very well spent, particularly for those who, like me, are students of WWII and for whom Dick WInters is a real-life personal hero. Watch it -- you will not be wasting your time.

The Rack (1956)

A Must-Watch For Many Reasons

[8/10 · 14 July 2020]

This film has many wonderful layers of focus and interest built into it for the viewer to reflect on both during, and more importantly, after viewing it.

1. The era: Released in 1954, after the end of the Korean War, the focus of the story was on the war, prisoners held by the N. Koreans and Chinese, and the issue of brainwashing, of which Americans and others were beginning to learn. 2. The characters: The lead character, Capt Ed Hall, Jr., a decorated infantryman, has just returned after being released by the N. Koreans. His father is a senior Army Col (played by Walter Pidgeon), a cold and distant figure; his brother was an Army officer killed in Korea; the brother's widow (played by Angie Dickenson) still lives in the house with Ed's father; his mother had died when he was 12. 3. The situation: Ed was identified as an alleged collaborator with the N. Koreans/Chinese during his captivity, and the Army takes steps to prosecute him for aiding and abetting the enemy in time of war. The plot revolves around the court martial. 4. The trial: Ed's father engages a "friendly" military lawyer to represent his son, presumably to keep things from reflecting badly on him and the family. A skeptic at first, his lawyer gains more and more empathy for Ed and his experiences and represents him masterfully. During the trial, the prosecuting attorney appears to hold Ed in contempt and makes snide and caustic remarks. 5. The witnesses: A SSGT who testifies that he witnessed Ed slapping a sick soldier-prisoner when he wouldn't go along with his efforts at getting the men to stand up and back the jailers; a fellow captain (played by Lee Marvin) who attempted an escape and because of papers Ed had signed, was foiled, captured and tortured. 6. Ed himself: Ed admitted to his attorney that he had, in fact, collaborated with the enemy jailers for a dirty blanket, some bad soup and a dry place to sleep. His comment was that it seemed like a very good exchange at the time. However, it was not until Ed himself took the stand to testify as to what happened to him that the clearer picture emerged. 7. Family relationships: It was revealed over the course of testimony how estranged Ed and his father were after his mother had passed away. He felt no empathy, comfort or caring from his father -- just the stern reality of a military officer whose devotion was to the Army rather than his family. The trial was the venue where Ed's father first came to understand how his behavior had impacted his son and his son's decision while in the pit of despair. 8. The military's slow recognition of the impact of prisoner treatment by nations that do not ascribe to western notions of rules of combat or treatment of prisoners. This lack of realization of those realities made for immense suffering of our American POWs at the hands of others like them and the testing of all human endurance. It was not until after our Vietnam POWs' experiences that the US military began to accept the idea that each person has a breaking point and that it can be reached. Eventually, the Code of Conduct added language that took those facts into consideration. This film illustrates the fact that a person can be "broken" without ever having had any physical abuse, and to some degree, spotlights the Army (of the early 1950s) of their unwillingness to accept that reality we now take for granted.

This film threads these various components together in ways that no one single aspect supersedes any of the others, and all contribute to the whole. It leaves the viewer to decide whether there are actually "bad guys" in the play and if so, who they really are. Further, the film acknowledges that there are forms of treatment that men can subject one another to which do not include physical torture. It also shows that the breaking point of a human being differs between each human. And finally, there's a glimpse of redemption for those individuals going through the ordeal.

One final thought -- many have commented about the acting (all excellent portrayals), the intensity (both in the courtroom and in the car), the screenplay (by Rod Serling) and above all, the "ambiguous" ending. In that ending, the verdict is rendered by the court president, guilty on all charges but one. Ed takes the stand and articulates the denouement -- and then the film ends without us knowing what the sentence will be. Many other reviewers expressed frustration and annoyance at that ending, but I don't feel that at all -- instead, it was clear what the verdict had to be, because of the skilled examination by the prosecutor, Ed confessed that he believes he could have held out longer and not committed the betrayal. It was a confession that clinched the case. While it's a difficult and complex feat to create sympathy for someone who has betrayed his country while in captivity, Ed's character (and Paul Newman as the actor) succeeds beyond all expectation. Rendering a sentence at the end would have cheapened all the elegant acting, messaging and direction -- and frankly, it wasn't needed at all.

The Prisoner of Zenda (1952)

Do Yourself A Favor and Watch BOTH Versions!

[8/10 · 5 July 2020]

This wonderful adventure-romance story has been adapted to the screen multiple times, and arguably, the two best versions are this one (1952) and its predecessor (1937). If you have watched only one version (which I confess is pretty unlikely in this day and age), do yourself a favor and watch the other. It's VERY rare to have this kind of opportunity to compare versions of a single story that are so similar to one another.

In my comparison, I find them as similar to one another as they can be and still be considered separate films of the same story. In my belief, the differences lie far more nuanced than simply one is filmed in B&W and the other in color. Varying differences are observed by each individual as each views through the lenses of their own film experiences.

Conservatively, I'd say I've seen each version 10-15 times, and to put my bottom line up front, I prefer the 1937 version slightly more than the 1952 version. Here are my observations:

1. Casting.

The 1937 cast was delightful -- Ronald Colman's performance was reserved, aristocratic and a tiny bit wistful, and the relationship between the characters of "Rudolph" and "Rassendyll" differentiated the two aptly but not abruptly. The wistful romance w/his cousin Flavia was tender and caring and far from overwhelming.

C. Aubrey Smith's performance as Col Zapt leveraged Smith's long-developed gravitas into an amazing inevitability in his role. Louis Calhern's (1952) Zapt was very well played and very nearly matched Smith's. David Niven's role as Fritz von Tarlenheim was the perfect young military aide while Robert Coote's (1952) was more of a buffoonish-looking character than an earnest young captain.

Douglas Fairbanks, Jr's 1937 Hentzau combined the entitled, arrogant and energetic insouciance of a totally convincing scoundrel with humor that plays as much to the audience as it does to the other actors. James Mason (1952), one of my all-time favorite actors, is as dark and sinister as the role calls for, but without the underlying humor and condescending air and without the robust youth that Fairbanks exhibited so effortlessly in the earlier version.

There's a level of malevolence that Raymond Massey brought to Prince Michael (1937) that was pretty much on par with that of Robert Douglas (1952), but Massey was far better known for that than Douglas was, which added to the chemistry of the earlier version. Further, Massey had far more screen presence (and possibly minutes) than Douglas had. If the minutes were actually the same, the presence wasn't.

Madeline Carroll's Flavia (1937) was portrayed with a definite fragility throughout the first 80% of the film, and only as the end approached did we see the steel backbone which she possessed. Deborah Kerr's (1952) Flavia was smoother and more romantically sophisticated in her portrayal and absolutely enchanting. In some ways, it Kerr's performance seemed more entrancing and romantic but somehow, displaying less chemistry with her male lead than Carroll's was with hers.

Where is found a "draw" is in the respective portrayals of Antoinette de Mauban by Mary Astor (1937) and Jane Greer (1952), respectively. Both actors were gorgeous and played their tragic parts exquisitely. If I were forced to choose between them, I'd say that Astor's Antoinette was played with a tiny bit more convincing sense of impending loss.

Finally, the overall impressions I experienced from the 1937 version were of more adventure, interlinked with romance and believable heartbreak and inspirational honor at the end. The overall experience I had (color film stock notwithstanding) in the 1952 version was that it took itself a tad more seriously than the 1937 version. The chemistry of the cast did not seem as tight as that of the earlier version, and, while the technological advances and the all-star casting was exceptional, there was not an equivalent level of cast chemistry as seemed present in the 1937 film.

In short, there is a great deal to recommend for both versions, and having them both to view, side-by-side, as it were, is the best of both worlds. So, do yourself a favor and watch them both, take notes and decide which edges out the other in your personal rating -- and in short -- have fun!!

The Man Who Understood Women (1959)

Better Than You Think

[18 June 2020]

When this film began, it looked like one of those films the stars and directors made simply to fulfill their contractual obligations.

However, despite Henry Fonda's occasional forays into sleepwalking his role (especially in his romantic scenes), the overall film was amusing, funny in places and occasionally clever.

It's light entertainment and clearly NEVER intended to rise above that threshold. The warm flame that illumined the production was Leslie Caron. This was a better performance in some ways (IMO) than "American In Paris." It was far more "real" and emotionally intimate than other ones she's done, and without it, this picture would have been a genuine yawner.

Cornered (1945)

Taking "Hard Bitten" to a new level

[7/10 · 24 May 2020]

I've watched "Cornered" several times, having seen Dick Powell in most of his pre-noir performances as an upscale Kenny Baker. My admiration for the creativity, intrigue, mystery, acting, direction, and dialog is marred only by the unnecessarily over-the-top impatient, remorselessly humorless, vengeful and unnaturally adolescent portrayal of LT Gerard. It's SO over the top that it distracts from the plot and character to the detriment of a very well-structured storyline, direction and other actors' portrayals. I very much "get" fatally-disillusioned dark characters in noir ... but IMO this performance 'detracts' rather than 'intrigues.' This distraction is what makes me drop a 9-10 rating to a 7 overall. Even the brief PTSD-like exchange on the subway platform with the "Mme Jarnac" character doesn't fully

Clearly, the acting "star" of the piece is Walter Slezak (Incza) ... a sleazy, double-dealing weasel in a badly tailored suit who knows a little too much while claiming to know too little. His character is the glue that keeps the plot on track, even as it spirals up into increasing complexity.

From the female characters, I was impressed most by the slinky Sra Camargo (Nina Vale) who slithered in and out of each scene with a poise and self-assurance of one who knows her effect on men. She has a little of Gale Sondergaard's exotic, amoral seductiveness and she exploits those qualities to the max.

Overall, the film is VERY watchable, very noir and nearly unpredictable to the very end. Overall, I highly recommend this to any viewer who loves noir and who loves Dick Powell's reincarnation into the hard-boiled character which he excelled at portraying.

Altered Carbon: Shadow of a Doubt (2020) Season 2, Episode 4

An Inferior Sleeve In A Corrupted Stack

[5/10 · 15 May 2020]

Bottom Line Up Front: This 2d season is a disappointment for so many reasons.

I binge-watched the first season while occasionally cringing, often levitating out of my seat from suspense and frequently laughing at unpredictably-timed wicked wisecracks. I couldn't see where the twists and turns were headed because of the characters and their intense and cleverly-constructed development, both internally and with respect to one another. The plot development zig-zagged ruthlessly, forcing me to keep attention focused or else risk losing the thread of the very different and massively complex universe). I loved being kept hanging in suspense (while I hated it at the same time). The Kovacs character was unpredictable, lethal, occasionally (and unpredictably) vulnerable at times. At the end of Season 1 I felt semi-satisfied with the ending, a number of strange loose-ends were tied up, but enough enduring mystery remaining to have me anticipate Season 2.

And then, the exciting, rip-snorting, action-packed unpredictability morphed into something significantly less so and far, far more pedestrian. Further, I was delighted to see who Kovacs' new sleeve being Anthony Mackie -- someone I've followed within the MCU. That is, until I began watching through the first 4 episodes. That is where the stark differences began to show up:

1. Kovacs ... the original Ryker "sleeve" ... popped out combat-ready and already taking charge. The Season 2 Kovacs "sleeve," as much as I like the actor, was groggy, inept and easily dominated by others. It took him 2-3 episodes to stop consistently losing hand-to-hand contests. It was quite disillusioning.

I found his characterization of Kovacs's conflicts reduced from fully 3-dimensional to barely 2-dimensional. Mackie's character is unconvincing of deep conflicts -- he doesn't convince me there's a gritty "bottom" to his character, and instead, I find him much more of a nice guy who's generally angry, and episodically (and unconvincingly) obsessed by the memory of Quell (her amnesia and uncontrolled actions also unconvincingly portrayed).

2. Poe ... his incessant internal "debate" over whether to "Fully reboot" or not became tedious and added very little to plot development or to quality of suspense. I found that I really stopped caring whether the AI rebooted or not. Further, the addition of "Miss Dig" suggests the series "jumped the shark" pretty quickly.

3. Plot-line development became far too predictable (by contrast w/Season 1), and its main characters far too superficially rendered. In fact, the level of insipidity only grew, the longer I watched.

So, as a series, the quality precipitously dropped off across the board between Seasons 1 and 2. It's like the producers planted a corrupted stack into an inferior sleeve and foisted it off for sale to the public as a fully-formed new human. I really am disappointed that the only remaining believable character is the original Takeshi Kovacs. He's very good (acting-wise) portraying his initial character, which further contrasts and diminishes the 2d Season from it's promising potential to a fairly bargain-basement achievement.

The Purple Plain (1954)

A Rough-Cut Gem

[8/10 · 4 May 2020]

As an avid WWII history buff and rabid consumer of movies of the era (whether produced then or since), I have never come across this film before this weekend. I wish I had.

Additionally, having had contact w/quite a few people with PTSD in my career as a therapist, I'm keenly aware of the variants the condition can impose on the psyches of its victims. Peck does a phenomenal job of portraying such a victim. To the untutored eye, his portrayal may seem somewhat over the top. Let me assure you, his performance may even be, by today's standards, somewhat understated.

Other raters have commented far more eloquently than I can about the remarkable acting, the subtle pacing, the emotion, the spare dialogue and the treatment by both Eric Ambler (of suspense and crime novel fame) and tight direction by Robert Parrish. Suffice it to say, all those facets have come into play to make this a remarkable film in many ways, even if not a top pick for action film devotees.

My only complaints about the film rest on some of the lesser production values present in some of the more active scenes. The crowd panic, for example seemed kludged together and not all together convincing. Other scenes in the jungle were similarly of lesser quality (IMO) and these various moments tended to take away from rather than add to the quality of the film overall.

The aircraft actions and scenes were terrific and with some small exceptions, very authentic looking. The poor FX representing the tracer fire in the first aerial scene wasn't believable, and toward the end, actors were in a stopped aircraft but were still being jiggled around inside as though it were still moving. All that said, I just LOVED the sound of those mosquito engines and the sight of them flying, landing and taking off. Those were the real deal and one of the finest aircraft produced during the war.

In conclusion, I liked the film very much. My criticisms only reflected the areas where I found myself being distracted by items that could have been better produced which in turn, distracted me from the fullest enjoyment of "The Purple Plain." OBTW ... where in the heck did that title come from?

Around the World Under the Sea (I) (1966)

Eminently Miss-able

[2/10 · 20 April 2020]

Many years ago a critic wrote the following in reference to the play "Mourning Becomes Electra. I believe it applies to this film: "The play began at 8:00. Three hours later I looked at my watch, and it was 8:15."

Grand Prix (1966)

F1 Racing Romanticized

[9/10 · 15 April 2020]

I saw this film in theaters when it came out, in 1966. It was a special and highly-anticipated release for me and my family, because my dad raced cars (though not F1). That said, I knew the drivers, the teams and their helmet colors.

This film represented the first (although romanticized) look with any substance at the sport in those days. It was thrilling, and gripping at the same time. I've been to some of those tracks (and even driven on one) in my time. The scenes at speed were quite authentic.

Many of the sports stars were seen as extras in the film (Phil Hill, Graham Hill (no relation), Richie Ginther, Jim Clark, Jochen Rindt, and Jack Brabham -- the top-tier of drivers in the day.

Filmed racing scenes were intercut w/actual GP racing films. The movie helmet designs replicated actual drivers' helmets of the day so both films could be intercut.

The acting in some cases was a bit overdone, and in some places the plot was somewhat thin, but overall, there was a decent depiction of the various issues that play out in the racing universe even today. The politics, the relationships, the team manager behavior, the addiction to speed and competition and the lionization of the winners.

Frankenheimer's direction (IMO) was excellent, creating as authentic a picture as could be made of the sport in those days.

While the cars are dated, many of the tracks no longer used and the drivers younger and ever younger, this is a film that is entertaining, at times suspenseful and illustrative of many of the characteristics of the top tier drivers in a deadly sport. It's still one of my favorites to this day.

Seven Samurai (1954)

Lessons For The 21st-Century World

[10/10 · 2 April 2020]

In this day of coronavirus fears and reactions, SEVEN SAMURAI holds some telling lessons:

1. COVID-19 is like the bandits who come to raid the everyday people -- terrifying in their inevitability and their deadliness. 2. Competent, confident and credible leadership is key 3. There is no substitute for expertise (the samurai were trained warriors) 4. Teamwork is essential in defeating powerful adversaries.

The samurai leader's (Kambei's) words ring true both in feudal Japan and in the 21st-century world: "This is the nature of war. By protecting others, you save yourself. If you think only of yourself, you'll only destroy yourself."

One Way Passage (1932)

Stands the test of time ...

[10/10 · 30 March 2020]

The suave convicted felon being returned from Hong Kong to face a death sentence at San Quentin meets and falls in love with the young, beautiful heiress whose life has been shortened by terminal disease. It's a match made in heaven ...

It would be oh so easy to allow this scenario to descend into mere maudlin melodrama, but THANK GOODNESS the director, Tay Garnett, created a believable, engrossing and entertaining love story that keeps the viewer riveted, ever-hopeful for the lovers' dreams to come true.

Kay Francis' and William Powell's characters' love chemistry came right through the screen in ways seldom seen in even today's big-budget productions. Their characters were supported exquisitely by Frank McHugh, Aline MacMahon and Warren Hymer -- all of whom are familiar to classic film fans. Their respective characters meshed quite perfectly with the story and with the principals'.

Finally, this ending was exquisitely done -- simple, elegant and magical -- one of my favorite endings in all cinema.

This film has stood the test of time, and as a romance, is timeless. I'm a pretty tough, stoic guy in my everyday life, but I find this film chokes me up each and every time I see it.

Uncertain Glory (1944)

What a pleasurable surprise!

[8/10 · 13 September 2019]

As an amateur with a lifelong interest in WWII and a classic film enthusiast, I confess I had not come across this classic WWII film before today. I saw the TCM rating (3 stars out of 5), so I had middling expectations of what I was going to see. The beginning of the film seemed to confirm my expectations, but as I kept watching, I became more and more drawn into the story and enchanted by the characters as they developed.

While the breadth of acting I observed in Paul Lukas was its outstanding norm, I became very beguiled by Flynn's character -- different by far than his swashbuckling image in films that established him as a star in Hollywood. I watched carefully as his character remained intentionally vague, so that the viewer was never sure which way he would jump ... all the way to nearly the very last minute. Flynn created his character and had him delicately step back and forth on the line between nobility and crass self-interest in such a way that the viewer can never be certain what Picard/DuPont will ultimately decide. I'm sure it's no accident that DuPont became his character's name ;-)

I loved the suspense, the heart, the desperation, the character contrasts that when taken together, describe any group of people dealing with death and with tyranny, even today. This is a wonderful film discovery (for me, I mean) and one I'll view again and again. The interpersonal relationships remind me of those in "Best Years of Our Lives." This latter is one of my top "go back and view again" WWII films.

I highly recommend this film for anyone who has a serious interest in realistic WWII stories which is not littered with American "heroes," but instead, is populated with real people who struggle to deal with harsh reality in ways that end up revealing their innermost selves.

Urban Myths: Cary Grant and Timothy Leary (2017) Season 1, Episode 4

A Little Sunday Morning Whimsy

[5/10 · 19 May 2019]

Discovered this little item while sipping my Sunday morning coffee. There was no synopsis on the onscreen television guide, and I've been a Cary Grant fan for many years, so I tuned in (especially since it was only 30 minutes long). Although labeled a "documentary," there was much "mockumentary" infused in its making.

A little truth in advertising here: the actor playing Grant (Ben Chaplin) bore so little resemblance to him that it was hard to conncect -- but when I saw the actor playing Dr Leary was Aidan Gillen (Littlefinger in GoT) I hung in long enough to get hooked, and I'm glad I did ... after all, it was not like I was investing 2 hours or anything ;-)

As a previous review mentioned, there was a dearth of the 1950s zeitgeist in the production, but in my opinion, it would have added little to the narrative flow. Having grown up during that era, there was much that was familiar to me ... the tv, the car, the film references, the humor, even. However, Ben Chaplin's Grant was so distracting, it kept me from enjoying the presentation as much as I'd have liked (hence only 5 stars).

I did enjoy the way the direction moved back and forth between the hallucinations and the reality, 4th-wall transitions and tangential suggestions becoming "reality" to the trippers, the humorous dialog both between the principals and between them and their hallucinations. There was a great deal of inference, innuendo, rumor (about both principals) packed into this brief film that reflected both their pasts and their futures. Again, these were deftly illustrated by the rapid transitions between tangential flights of their respective and collective attention.

All in all, I'd recommend this for anyone who's up for a 30-minute vacation from reality and who's got more than a passing acquaintance with these characters, Grant's movie background, the rumors about each of them and the time frame this kind-of takes place in (bad grammar aside). The viewer should just let go and enjoy the ride and not read anything of importance or try to find any redemptive message embedded in it.

The Working Man (1933)

What a delightful film!

[8/10 · 28 March 2019]

I'd never seen this film before today, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Parenthetically, I never saw either of its predecessors, either, which may be why I was surprised at this delightful film. George Arliss and Bette Davis absolutely charm here. The "farce" approach of this picture adds a tingle of excitement with every near-discovery of the real identities of the characters and their relationships to one another. While many TCM patrons and film enthusiasts will enjoy this for the pleasurable experience that classic films bring, I'd suggest that it be shared with folks who are relatively new to this area as an introduction to how wonderful classic films can be. The only gripe I have w/the construction of the film is the way the ending is so quickly and neatly tied up. There was an abrupt resolution without a gradual denouement to allow the audience to enjoy the conclusion longer. Other than that detail, I enjoyed everything else immensely. I recommend this wholeheartedly to both old viewers and new ones.