Chuck-185

Not as bad as its reputation, this film is nonetheless an overlong and unconvincing stab at French History. Common girl Desiree (a whining Jean Simmons in her most forgettable performance) is an early lover of Napoleon (Brando in cruise-control) and is soon dumped for the richer and more politically influencing Josephine (a very attractive and sympathetic Merle Oberon). According to real history, Desiree then married Marshal Bernadotte, eventually became Queen of Sweden and that was about it. Not in this film. She's the center of nearly every crisis in early 19th Century European history and ends up with Napoleon's sword after Waterloo. Bernadotte, played awkwardly by Michael Rennie, is also given far more than his historical due. There's no mention of any of Napoleon's real enemies (e.g. Nelson, Wellington, Blucher etc.) and Brando plays the emperor as merely indifferent and bored to tears by all around him. The sexual tension between Desiree and Napoleon never really materializes in this film, leaving it flat and overblown. There was plenty of passion and action in the days of Napoleon and his empire. Unfortunately, viewers won't see any of those qualities in this film. "Desiree" is a film with a worthy subject matter that could probably stand a decent remake. In fact, forget Desiree herself. A good film about Napoleon is always welcome.

The reviewer from Cleveland, Ohio, (Harry) was obviously hoping for a nice and tidy Politically Correct account of Napoleon. Unfortunately, Napoleon's appetite for conquest turned him off a bit. For the rest of us, this film is one of the great masterpieces of the Silent Era (and the restored version is the one to see). For history buffs, the early years of Napoleon, including the violent French Revolution, is all here in its magnificent and tragic moments. The film doesn't follow through to the inevitable defeats of Napoleon, however. For anyone who's unfamiliar with 19th Century European history, the final impression that all ended well with the Emperor might mislead viewers as the film ends. Gance never filmed the defeats, but his direction of Napoleon's victories is still one of the great achievements of film. You doesn't have to be an admirer of Napoleon to enjoy this movie. Whatever one's opinion of the emperor, this film will remain forever the standard by which all epics and historical dramas should be judged. If one is interested in the final years of Napoleon and his eventual demise, the 1970 Dino De Laurentis production "Waterloo" is the place to start. With Rod Steiger as Napoleon and Christopher Plummer as Wellington, one couldn't ask for a better cast.

"The Lady and the Duke" is based on a true story and taken directly from the memoirs of Grace Elliott, a well-to-do Scottish woman who lived in France during the French Revolution. The film concentrates on her months in Paris during the later years of the revolution (1793-1794), better known as the Reign of Terror. Director Eric Rohmer took the unusual and odd step of filming his actors superimposed over 18th Century scenic paintings. Perhaps it was his intention to contrast these inanimate objects with the real-life pain and utter misery of his subjects' existence. Lucy Russell is elegant and believable as Grace Elliott, a woman torn between loyalties to an old lover and her former aristocratic way of life. As the Revolution becomes more horrific, she sees all her friends who haven't been wise enough to leave France annihilated, and begins to wish she had left the country herself. Jean-Claude Dreyfus is also excellent as the Duke of Orleans, Grace's former lover who still remains a close friend. Although a royal himself, he makes the ruinous decision to vote for the King's death which has disastrous results for both himself and his country. Grace and the Duke's relationship are the centerpiece of the movie juxtaposed against the changing times and the coming doom and radical phase of the Terror. Director Rohmer's movie is both exquisitely mounted and historically knowledgeable. He has taken one of history's more volatile times and brought the audience into all the suffering and injustices of that period. Although one might need to know a bit of history regarding the French Revolution beforehand, this movie can still be viewed by anyone who has sympathy for the human condition. Man's inhumanity to Man is well on display in "The Lady and the Duke".

For viewers who have seen this movie and think it's a straightforward gangster movie, you might want to see this one again. The movie is anything but that. This is a skillful and very tongue-in-cheek parody of gangster films of the 1930's and 1940's and has about as much to do with reality as a Busby Berkeley musical. Gabriel Byrne, Albert Finney, Marcia Gay Harden and the rest of the cast all keep a straight face during the proceedings and the outcome is highly entertaining. The Coen brothers style here is very similar to their later hit movie "Fargo" and it's artistically miles past "Blood Simple" or any of their previous films.

As far as diverging from reality, in one scene Albert Finney fires his machine gun for five minutes without reloading (that's about 10,000 rounds, folks). Gabriel Byrne gets violently beat up every five minutes (this includes kicks to the face, being thrown down multiple flights of stairs etc.) and never shows anything more than a minor fat lip on his never-changing expression. The gangsters are all "dressed to kill" and their dialogue is straight from "Farewell, My Lovely". When one gangster asks another if he's going to have a rival killed, he answers "Yeah. For starters." The movie has more intentional funny one-liners and equally hilarious scenes than the average comedy. Of special note are the exchanges between Gabriel Byrne's character and the crooked Police Chief. If the movie "Johnny Dangerously" had dialogue like this, it would have been a box office sensation. Most of the people who saw this movie when it came out in 1990 couldn't figure out exactly what they had just seen. The Coens deliberately interspaced scenes of deadly earnestness between the put-ons and many viewers left theatres shaking their heads. Now that most folks are more familiar with the Coens and their unique blend of macabre humor and real life tragedy, this film will make perfect sense on second viewing. This is certainly one-of-a-kind film making at its best.

"Picnic at Hanging Rock" has all the trappings of a supernatural tale concerning the mysterious vanishing of four students in the Australian Outback---but it is so much more. The movie has many underlying themes, one being the contrast between the sexually repressive Victorian society and nature's erotic surroundings. In itself, the plot is relatively simple. A group of young girls from a strict all-girls boarding school in 1900 Australia, go on an outing (picnic) to a mysterious and somewhat dangerous landmark called "Hanging Rock". The girls are told not to wander off and to stay together during the outing, but four of them drift away on their own anyway. At first it seems that the young ladies are on simply a mission of discovery, but soon they disappear and are never seen again. What could have been an ordinary movie about some missing students turns into an enigmatic journey into the meaning of time and existence itself. The performers are all very good, especially the late Rachel Roberts as the alcoholic head mistress of the school. She's the epitome of all that the missing girls want to leave behind and the very nature of a controlled and repressive society. This cult classic is definitely one for the ages and also the directorial beginning of the fine career of Peter Weir.

"Once Upon a Time in the West" is an epic Western and probably the best film Sergio Leone ever directed. Whereas "The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly" and several others of the "Spaghetti Western" genre were mainly played for laughs, this film is deadly earnest in its intent and execution. The casting of Henry Fonda as the villian (Frank) is a brilliant stroke and the rest of the actors, including Charles Bronson and Claudia Cardinale, are also excellent in their roles. The plot centers on the coming of the Railroad and the beginning of the end of the West as many knew it. This transformation effects all the characters but especially Bronson and Fonda, who are deadly enemies for reasons unknown until the end of the movie. The fact that Fonda's character has no idea why he is being hunted by Bronson is central to the story and keeps the viewer on edge throughout. The supporting cast is also excellent, headed by Jason Robards playing a good-natured gunman, and Gabriel Ferzetti as a Railroad Magnate and chief architect of the New Age of Progress. The haunting and brilliant musical score by Ennio Morricone only heightens the suspense and action. This movie is a must-see for all Western buffs and anyone interested in one-of-a-kind film making. "Once Upon a Time in the West" is a classic film in the truest sense.

"Ruggles of Red Gap" is the kind of comedy film that is rarely made by Hollywood anymore: a film with the emphasis on characterization without the cheap and obvious jokes of today's films. The plot is a good one. The services of a third-generation English Butler (Charles Laughton) are won in a poker game to an American couple (a very funny Charlie Ruggles and Mary Boland) who reside in Red Gap, Washington. Ruggles' former employer, Lord Burnstead (a fine Roland Young) reluctantly gives him up to the couple but assures him that he will come back for him as soon as possible. Once in America, however, Ruggles gets a newfound sense of freedom and after being inadvertantly fired by the uncouth American couple, decides to open up his own restaurant with the help of a widow (Zasu Pitts) who he has much affection for. The movie was nominated for Best Picture and the performances are outstanding, particularly Charles Laughton as the butler/servant who sees freedoms and opportunities in America that he never would have had if he remained in England. The standout scene in the movie is when Laughton is in a local Red Gap bar and someone mentions Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. When no one in the bar can seem to remember what Lincoln said, Laughton (the Englishman)recites the speech in its entirety with enough emotion and dramatic flair to bring tears to one's eyes. The underlying theme of the movie is basically about Anglo American relations and the common ground and friendship between both nations. This is a "must see" for anyone still interested in how great Hollywood was in its heyday, and particularly how wonderful and original the comedies were in that early and Golden Age of film-making.

Eisenstein's "Alexander Nevsky" was made mostly for propaganda purposes in 1938. It was a reminder to all Russians of their dastardly neighbors (the Nazis) to their west. The film plays on this comparison and several others to a lesser degree. The evil Germanic Teutonic Knights just happen to be of the Christian faith and their religious leaders make for very effective villians. Although Nikolai Cherkasov as Nevsky and Nikolai Okhlopkov as his right-hand man, Vasili, are commanding in their roles, this movie is mainly noted for the final climactic battle between good (the Russians) and pure evil (the Germans). Eisenstein purposely covers the Germans with over-sized helmets so that they're totally devoid of any human facial expressions. On the contrary, the Russian peasants who comprise most of Nevsky's army are portrayed with a variety of emotions and their humanity is not only recognizable but refreshing and appealing to the viewer. When the Teutonic Knights make their charge on the Russian position, the action is fast and furious and it would be difficult to find any other film which stages its action scenes as well as Eisenstein does here. Although a bit dated in the print that I saw (the sound was certainly a bit off) this movie is a must-see for anyone interested in foreign films and especially the Russian cinema during the days of Stalin. The Germans might have thought twice about attacking Russia in 1941 if they had seen this film beforehand. The message was clear back then. In the words of Alexander Nevsky himself: "Do not enter Russia with a sword in your hand." Well, you can't say they weren't warned.

Director Don Siegel's "The Killers" is very loosely based on the Hemingway short story with few similarities. Two killers (Lee Marvin and Clu Gulager)complete an easy hit-for-hire but wonder why their victim, although warned in advance, didn't run away from them. After piecing together some information, they realize that the $25,000 they got for the hit is a drop in the bucket compared to a missing million dollar stash of stolen loot. After questioning a few "witnesses" they discover that the man they killed had been double-crossed and had lost his will to live. Throw in Angie Dickinson as a two-timing temptress and Ronald Reagan (of all people) as a nasty double-dealing henchman and you've got one violent movie without any good guys in sight. Marvin and Gulager are excellent as the hit men and John Cassavettes is also great as their hapless and resigned victim. Reagan, who supposedly regretted his turn here as a villian, is surprising effective. It was the only time in his career he played a "bad guy". Angie Dickinson, of course, is no mere window-dressing. She gives everyone a run for their money as the best-looking devious dame on the planet. "The Killers", which was originally made for TV, but released in theatres instead due to its violent subject matter, is a one-of-a-kind early 60's film noir. It may have little to do with Hemingway's story, but I'm sure "Papa" would have enjoyed it anyway.

This movie is quite dated now but it is still an excellent example of early British cinema and George Arliss, as usual, is very good as Wellington. The only problem is that the near 70 year old Arliss is supposed to be playing the Iron Duke when he was in his forties. As good an actor as Arliss was, even he can't pull that off. He actually plays the Duke as he probably was in his later years; prone to cackle a lot, friendly with the young ladies, and a bit of an eccentric. The rest of the cast is just okay, with Gladys Cooper a bit ahead of the rest as Madame, King Louis VIII's vengeful niece. The Waterloo battle scenes are stilted and poorly staged but the interiors are fine, most notably the scenes of the Duchess of Richmond's ball. For a better view historically of Wellington during his fighting days, see Christopher Plummer's characterization in the 1970 Dino De Laurentis production "Waterloo".

The plot of "Yellow Sky" may not be the most original but the performances more than make up for it. A gang of bank robbers cross a dangerous desert only to find themselves in a ghost town. But there are two inhabitants in the ruins; a young woman and her prospecting grandfather. The gang members immediately suspect that the two are hiding gold in their dilapidated mine and set out to rob them. The leader of the gang, however, (a young Gregory Peck) falls in love with the young woman (Anne Baxter) and a showdown is inevitable with the rest of the outlaws. Richard Widmark, in fine form as "Dude" a gambler/murderer with his trademark smirk intact, is Peck's main rival in the gang. The Black and White photography is excellent and the exteriors, filmed in Death Valley, give the movie a much-needed sense of realism. Director William Wellman received outstanding performances from this cast and the movie is considered a minor classic by most film historians. They don't make 'em like this anymore---but they should.

Excellent screen adaption of Conrad's "The Duel". French officers played by Keith Carradine and Harvey Keitel start a long-running feud with each other over the principle of "honor". The duels are fought with extreme intensity over the course of fifteen years culminating in the final dramatic scene. This is director Ridley Scott's first feature film and it is certainly one of his best. Keitel's supremely arrogant character playing against the magnanimous Carradine gives the movie just the right edge of conflict. The elaborate early 19th Century sets make it a feast for the eyes and the fine international supporting cast gives the movie great depth and realism. This is probably the best "First Film" from a major director in quite some time.

The last desperate days of Danton and the so-called Moderate faction of the French Revolution is given an excellent treatment by Polish director Andrzej Wajda. Wojciech Pszoniak is truly outstanding as the icily determined Robespierre and Gerard Depardieu brings the full-bodied Danton to life. The last scene in the film, when a child reads the "Rights of Man" proclamation to Robespierre, is an eerie omen for what will come next. For students of the Reign of Terror and anyone else interested in this volatile time in history, this movie is a must.

They don't make movies like this anymore, literally and figuratively. With a cast of many thousands and an all-star international lineup of movie stars, any attempt to duplicate a film of this type today would be next to impossible. The action scenes of the battle are some of the greatest ever filmed, particularly the cavalry charges. Both Christopher Plummer and Rod Steiger give excellent performances as Wellington and Napoleon respectively. Orson Welles' role is somewhat limited due to lack of screen time and probably some severe editing. Historically, the film tries to remain as close to the truth as possible. Most of the dialogue is taken from real quotes from the participants of the actual battle. Plummer's Wellington comes across as aloof and indignant, but with a biting sense of humor. Steiger's Napoleon shows a side of his humanity that is often lacking in most films about the Emperor. Overall, this film is a fine example of epic moviemaking that is now a thing of the past.

Although a bit historically inaccurate, the film does conjure up the feeling of dread that hung over the last days of the Reign of Terror. Robert Cummings and Arlene Dahl, two people you would never suspect to appear in a movie like this, are quite effective as the leads. Richard Basehart and Arnold Moss offer good support as Robespierre and Fouche. Not on the grand epic scale of director Mann's later works, but a worthy effort nonetheless.

This poorly made inexcusable film tries to be too sympathetic to Napoleon and is loaded with innumerable historical inaccuracies. Talleyrand doing the narration is absurd to begin with since he continually back stabbed Napoleon at every turn. Whether one loves the Emperor or loathes him, this movie will only bore you to tears. The acting is wooden and monotonous with the characters all indistinguishable from each other. The famous Battle of Waterloo is given all of one minute without even mentioning Napoleon's opposition and the retreat from Moscow isn't even shown at all. Anything worthwhile that Napoleon did in his lifetime is also completely left out. Lastly, Orson Welles as Sir Hudson Lowe (Napoleon's jailer on St. Helena) is the most incredible case of miscasting I've ever seen in any movie. It just shows how far Welles' stock had fallen in Hollywood to be involved in this farce just for a paycheck. Abel Gance's "Napoleon" from 1927 is still the film to see if one is interested in the life of the Emporer. Napoleon was at least an entertaining and animated conqueror/dictator. In this 1955 version starring Daniel Gelin, he is merely a glaring monosyllabic moron.