samhill5215

In this, my second viewing, I couldn't help wondering at the motivations of the characters, who they were meant to represent. I'll agree Richard Gere gave a fine performance and his character's actions were understandable if psychopathic until the final scene, perhaps the most absurd of the entire film. I won't reveal it but it left me asking why he behaved like that? The evidence against him was at best weak if any so the only way it worked was for its effect, as a way to put a bow on the whole thing.

And then the Andy Garcia character: he behaved in one of two ways. He either stared with no expression on his face or exploded in uncontrollable rage. That last part would have certainly been used against him in a disciplinary hearing against Gere's character. How someone with so little control of his emotions could ever become an IA cop is beyond me. Or was he supposed to be the stereotype of the Mexican whose passions get the best of him?

Now the women. This has to be one of the most misogynistic films I have ever watched. Think about it: there were three primary female roles, Travis', Grant's and. Metcalf's and they all behaved as satellites of whatever man was around. Keep in mind they were all successful professionals but were reduced to mindless blobs in the presence of a man. Here's a small example: when the Garcia character is introduced to his partner, Laurie Metcalf's character, her first words were to ask him if he wanted coffee. Really? Why was she even in the film anyway? To make his wife (played by Nancy Travis) jealous? Because otherwise her contribution to the investigation was marginal.

The misogyny was at its worst when it came to the Travis character. She, like the other female leads was successful and powerful in her own world, one where she mingled with a range of people, some of whom would naturally flirt with her or worse. Yet despite the fact she chose to be with him he was so insecure he suspected her every action to the point he behaved in an unforgivable manner toward her, in public In my mind it was bad enough to kick him out and never look back. And her reaction? To forgive him and have passionate sex with him. His reaction? To keep asking her why she lied (she didn't) and then have passionate sex. No contrition on his part, no attempt to excuse himself, no, it was natural, understandable and expected. Remember, he was a passionate Mexican after all. Macho men don't say they're sorry.

Grant's character was the most misused. It seemed to be there as filler, with no real purpose other then to expose Gere's character as the worst manipulator. Like Travis she was obviously successful and powerful, at least judging by her car, and yet she became, like the other female leads, mindless and subservient around men. This was not a reflection of the world of the 90s. Women had careers in the 90s, they functioned independently, they didn't need men.

So if you watch this film get ready for the stereotypes because it's filled with them. And leave any expectation of realism at the door. You won't find any. That's not to say the film had nothing to recommend it because technically it was well done and put together. Unfortunately the script and hence the characters dealt with nothing but stereotypes of the worst in us.

I recently caught this little gem and despite the many implied holes I gave it my score entirely for Jean Peters' performance and the production values. Otherwise the rest of the cast was sub-standard and predictable. They all seemed to be either sleepwalking or as was the case with Joseph Cotten, telegraphing the conclusion with his self-importance and moralistic attitude. In the long run I guess he had no choice. That was his part and he did the best with it.

And now for the spoilers. The conclusion was of course that Lynn Cameron poisoned her step-daughter for her inheritance. Strangely enough however her brother-in-law, Cam (Cotten), was never suspected even though he had the same motive. We know about it because it was mentioned in passing but never discussed or explored. His friends, Fred and Maggie Sargent, never even spoke of it. We learned it from a prosecutor who didn't bother to explore it. Lynn's guilt was foregone with absolutely no proof whatsoever. To the very end I thought that Cam would prove to be the culprit. That would have been a much better ending.

Then Cam gives Lynn one of the suspected poison tablets out of desperation to prove they were in fact strychnine tablets. Now think about it: why would Lynn leave them in her aspirin bottle? What would she gain by it? How does it make any sense for her to not have gotten rid of them? And where is the proof that they came from her bottle other than Cam's word? He could just as easily be accused of planting them given his motive and attempted murder for giving one to Lynn. A good lawyer would have made mincemeat out of Cam on the stand. The fact Lynn was treated for poisoning only proves Cam gave her the poison, nothing more, thereby strengthening the case against him. In fact every one of his actions from the moment he and his two friends cooked up their theory about Lynn's guilt could be evidence against him. Watch the movie with that in mind and see if I'm not correct.

I could go on but suffice it to say I was disappointed by the script's lack of originality. The movie's only redeeming factor was Peters' performance, definitely one of her best. The conclusion would have been so much better had Cam proven to be the culprit or had Lynn done the dastardly deed but gotten away with it. Even better, had Cam been questioned on the stand by Lynn's lawyer who flipped it so that Cam became the suspect, Lynn was set free and Cam went to jail for his attempted murder of Lynn, or even his niece's murder.

I'm induced to write this review as a way to counteract the overall low score of this film, one it surely doesn't merit.

I'll start by declaring I've always enjoyed the performances of Katherine Heigl. They are always believable and genuine regardless of the genre and in "Jenny's Wedding" she doesn't disappoint. Her co-stars are also very good, notable among them Linda Emond as her mother Rose and Grace Gummer as her sister Anne.

Several reviewers complained the part of her partner Kitty, played by Alexis Bledel, wasn't well developed and although correct I felt the movie was more about the dynamics of a somewhat conservative albeit loving family under stress by the impending wedding of their daughter and sister. This is where the film shines with excellent performances and witty dialog to examine the growth of its members as they come to terms with this event.

The bottom line is that the low score must be due to reviewers who don't like Heigl for some reason, an impression bolstered by comments of that sort. It's completely undeserved.

Despite it's designation as a children's film it's anything but and should be avoided at all costs. The story begins well enough but careens into utter heartlessness once the professor dies and the dog is left to fend for itself, dependent on the charity of strangers. There's nothing to celebrate here. Yes, Hachi was a loyal companion who faithfully waited for his master to return. But once he died why didn't his widow or daughter adopt him? How could they have been so insensitive? I repeat, there's nothing to celebrate here. The story does nothing but testify to his family's insensitivity. At the very least they could have provided for him with a doghouse, regular care and food instead of letting him sleep in a train yard, exposed year round to the elements for ten years. TEN YEARS! And then the widow runs into him after all those years and all she could do was hug him as if that makes up for her disgraceful behavior. How anyone could find this story inspiring is beyond me. Be forewarned! Like me you might end up crying but not out of admiration for Hachi's perseverance. Instead it might be because you can't believe people can be so cruel. Don't be fooled by the high scores or the uplifting score, or the brilliant cinematography, or the performances. Whether you share your life with animals and perhaps especially if you do you'll come to rue your investment in this story.

After sleeping on it I have come to question several assertions of the story. I don't know the original Japanese version hence my comments address this, the American version and some bear on the behavior of the local authorities. Without a doubt Hachi would have been considered abandoned within days of his vigil at the station. Let's just consider the station master, or the vendor or the shopkeeper. They were all aware of the professor's death, Hachi's adoption by his daughter, the sale of his house and the relocation of his wife. It's inconceivable that in the US they would have shown no more concern than what is depicted in the film. And if not them then what of the commuters? We are even shown some greeting and caressing Hachi. He was clearly not an aggressive or defensive dog as Akitas are reputed to be. Any one of these individuals could have adopted Hachi or at the very least alerted the authorities of his condition. We know of a local animal control officer. We meet him early in the film. Once alerted, he would have been duty bound to capture Hachi and proceed with the dictates of local ordinances regarding stray animals.

Now let's consider the professor's family. Their behavior is likewise inconceivable. Did they all somehow stop loving Hachi? We're supposed to believe that the daughter's response to a grieving dog, one she is responsible for and is charged with its care, is to open the gate and essentially abandon it? Really? Doesn't that strike anyone as ludicrous? Even if they thought Hachi was lost or dead were they not alerted by any of the aforementioned individuals or the authorities that he was at the station? We are expected to believe that Hachi, contrary to all evidence, couldn't or wouldn't transfer his loyalty to another human. Dogs and in fact all pets can and do just that. As such the family's portrayal is unbelievable, even slanderous.

In the final analysis this film strikes too many false notes to merit its stellar score. I actually feel cheated. I was elevated by the love between a human and a dog only to be angered and disgusted by the events in the film's resolution. Crises do occur, some lead to unforeseen disaster and tragedy. None of that was present here. There wasn't even a point. I'm actually surprised, even disappointed, that actors of the stature of Joan Allen and Richard Gere were involved in this project. It was beneath them.

To be fair, had I scored the film on its technical merits and performances I would have given it a higher score. It's the story that destroys it, plain and simple. If you look at some of my other reviews I love duds, turkeys, just plain bad movies. "Hachi" is not that. It's a fraud, a deception. It's pretentious. It masquerades as a story of loyalty when it's really about cruelty and desertion under a veneer of devotion, honor and fidelity.

I won't go over the ending here. Most have bemoaned it, several have figured it out. But it's called a mystery for a reason and unless you're blind the clues are sprinkled throughout. You just need to look for them.

Work back from the point where Kate opens the envelope from her mother. In the scene where Kate is packing she picks up a stack of papers topped by an envelope suspiciously like the one she opens later. Why is her friend, Rose, asking her if she's taking them? Why is she worried about her even though Kate is going from a classroom of children to only one? Every time Kate calls her the first words out of Rose's mouth are "Are you OK?". The signs are already there. It's a mystery remember?

Then she visits her mother who is concerned about the responsibility Kate is taking on. Darla gives her a portrait, a colorful painting of her daughter quite unlike the featureless, black sheets in the envelope Kate opens at the estate and which send her into a tailspin. Isn't this the same envelope Kate packs? Listen to the song playing in Kate's headphones as she's walking through the asylum. It's called "I Don't Know". Its chorus is "Is it all in my head, Is it all in your mind, I don't know".

Enough said. There's more clues sprinkled throughout, too many to list but if you watch it again the ending becomes obvious. I think most people concentrated on the "horror" part and ignored the "mystery" part. I think the emphasis is on the latter and that's where this film is brilliant.

Stylistically this movie is fine. Great acting, good character development, technically well done. In fact I found myself becoming truly invested in the plot to the point I was shouting at the screen when the characters did something dumb. That's the problem here, the premise is, well, dumb. It's the twenty-first century, no one buys immaculate conception and when postmortem sperm collection is eliminated the only thing left is obvious. I won't reveal the father but when he first appeared in the movie I remember suggesting him as the candidate to my wife. That and Melissa's unexplained blackouts.

So, after I watched the film and thought about it dispassionately I was left with the following questions:

1. Why didn't she see a doctor about her blackouts? 2. When she became pregnant why did she go to a spiritualist instead? 3. I know Ronnie had been her only lover but come on! How could she possibly think him the father? 4. Why didn't anyone think to perform a paternity test through amniocenteses? Ronnie's father was a doctor. Instead of suggesting it he instead paid for her rent and expenses.

So there you have it. I liked the film and would have watched it knowing these faults but would have been much more dispassionate. I don't know if that's a good thing. You judge.

Given the diametric reviews of this title I decided to write my own as a way of perhaps rehabilitating it somewhat. The ending is hard to understand but only if we fail to follow the film's theme to its logical conclusion. I for one would have strengthened the best section of the house to make it habitable for the long run. There was plenty of good materials after all but I'm looking at it with the eye of a carpenter who's surrounded by the trappings of civilization.

The sisters were more than capable of undertaking repairs. They had what appeared to be books on the subject judging from the other dilemmas they solved, food for one. They had become largely dependent on the forest for nutrition, including the curing and preservation of its feral inhabitants. They were handy with an axe and split firewood with expertise, something that only the inexperienced would presume simplistic. It's not hard to believe they would have been able to tackle this problem with the same ingenuity they had shown so far.

I believe their decision to burn down the house was symbolic. It was an act of definitive disengagement from society and civilization. This was the theme of the film, the ending made that clear. The house's rapid decline is a bit of a problem but the timeline is immaterial. The film is about the decline of civilization, the final separation from its trappings. The symbolism behind their disappearance into the darkness of the forest is hard to mistake. I can only imagine what I would find if I met them in the distant future or what would become of their descendants.

Once I got over the shock of their final action, once I understood their act of defiance and rebellion it all made sense. The sisters were abandoning a society they had been struggling to maintain, one with her ceaseless preparation for exams, the other with endless dance rehearsals. The brutality of the rape was the initial justification followed by the house's gradual collapse, the decision to carry the pregnancy to term and give birth under the protection of the forest in the follow of the tree that would become their home.

This was a movie about women, entirely. The men existed to provide color and interest but only insofar as they revolved around the women. The foremost women were of course the Owens ladies but even the other women on the island dominated over the men. In fact most of the men had no part to play at all. The only men to have any part in advancing the plot were the four men connected in various degrees to the Owens women. In a sense the film celebrates the magic women exert on men only here it's real magic. As for the technical aspects lighting, direction, dialog, everything was very well done. The only negative was mumbling elsewhere mentioned. The leads were all a joy to watch and I particularly enjoyed seeing the progression of the two emerging talents, Camilla Belle and Evan Rachel Wood, to the seasoned actors of today.

Yes, this was a difficult film to watch. I found myself yelling at the screen, asking my wife repeatedly if people behaved this way, wondering why they felt no restraints. All the characters, and I mean all, behaved as if they existed in their own bubble with no responsibility for their behavior, as if their connections to those around them were insignificant and easy to toss away with barely a moment's thought. Each existed on their own individual stage acting out their own individual script. I think perhaps this was best exemplified by Hedvig's behavior in the classroom toward the movie's conclusion, one that was also difficult to absorb. But in the end a measure of a movie for me is how deeply it engages me and this one definitely does. Going in I thought how can I go wrong with headliners such as Geoffrey Rush, Sam Neill and Miranda Otto. Anna Torv's part was regrettably shorter than I would have liked. I have enjoyed every one of her performances and look out for her new releases. Paul Schneider seems to play pivotal characters that are easy to thoroughly dislike. He doesn't disappoint. His arrival rips open the scab of a barely healed wound throwing a community into a turmoil the likes of which are difficult to comprehend. So be forewarned. I can't imagine watching the film without being deeply stirred, without becoming intimately involved in the actions of the characters. Afterwards, after I had calmed down, I understood I was reacting to outstanding performances and direction. I know it would be a difficult thing to do but I would definitely watch it again.

This film is worth seeing not only for its plot and technical aspects but also for the entire cast, made up almost entirely of Irish actors. At first it appears strangely incoherent, yet it pulled me in because of its flawless cinematography, outstanding, moody, ominous lighting and a fantastic protagonist, young Missy Keating who at the time of the release was 12 years old. It unfolds slowly, eerily revealing the dark underbelly of seemingly loving and caring parents who abuse their children when no one is looking. Missy reacts in a wholly satisfying way. At first she is afraid of the strange power she has discovered in herself but by the end of the film she has become its master and uses it for the cataclysmic end. If you like your horror more nuanced, less obvious, if you judge a film by the amount of discussion it generates afterward you'll like this one.

I thought I'd add my two cents here just because I think I have a unique take on the ethics displayed in the film. Yes, it was exciting! It had me all the way through! First off these had to be crocodiles, they were too large for alligators, and that added to the suspense. Imagine having to fight off these monsters. And they were definitely realistic. Kaya Scodelario was perfect for this role, she has that lean, long look of a swimmer, so good casting. Barry Pepper was also good in the standard supporting parent role. Morfydd Clark was the responsible sister in a bit role and that's too bad. She is such a good actor I really hate to see her talents wasted on this fluff. Ok, so what's my unique take? Well, here we have two people fighting the elements and managing to survive despite the odds. But had they followed the experts' advice and evacuated at least two people and possibly three more wouldn't have died. Definitely the two policemen. Had they stayed in their boat they would still be alive. As for the looters, well it could be argued they had it coming. But had they not been distracted who knows? So, listen to the advice of the authorities. All you John Wayne types who think you know better get in your trucks and skidaddle. You might just save lives.

And it's not for the plot, special effects, terror, surprises and most of the actors. The father was just plain bad and his kid even worse. Another reviewer wrote he wished the kid was behind it all and I confess I wish that were so. He was so annoying he spoiled what would have been a passable film. So why bother? The headliner, Katharine Isabelle. I suspect the producers and director had her in mind when they decided to waste funds on this little yarn that's been done so many times before you pretty much know what's coming next. She is becoming my favorite modern scream queen. If not for her talent I frankly wouldn't have bothered but with her in it I might just give it another try and skip the scenes with the father and his kid. And to top it all off she kicks ass. A survivor through and through. Anyway you've been warned.

TCM just aired this and like all the other Hammer films I enjoyed it a great deal. They're not cinematic achievements but they are fun and that's one of film's aspects I really appreciate. I also tend to look at technical aspects and the first thing that struck me is how fake the moustaches looked. The beards looked better but now I wonder. The second, I'm embarrassed to write, was Marjie Lawrence's cleavage which may not be how she would like to be remembered given her extensive body of work. Did they really dress like that in Victorian England? I'd also never seen Angharad Rees before nor had I even heard of her but then I found out this was her first co-starring and second film role and I was intrigued. And, incidentally, that's another thing I like about Hammer: they find and highlight young talent. Anyway lots of good talent here, a lot from TV, presumably because they come cheaper. Some goofs like when Rees begins to sit while her host invites her to do so. But I'm getting technical again. Eric Porter is great. He manages to save the day even skewered by a cavalry sabre. Which brings up another goof: the thing must be five feet long but you can't see the other end sticking out of Porter's body. Good final scene, good score, worth a viewing.

I agree it's very corny and exudes sentimentality but it's worth watching if only for Gloria Dickson doing the fox trot. At least it looks like her and they don't show her full length but it's a good number anyway. Marie Wilson is definitely dancing and she's charming as always. Ward Bond is also great as the bad, deeply troubled and insecure guy. The movie's fast so you can't get bored but oh, is it corny. The added attraction of Sheila Bromley rounds this out. She fakes the cops so well! It's Gloria Dickson's eighth film and she's the headliner. This is an actor you love to watch. She's relentless in her pursuit to keep Dennis Morgan out of trouble. He's such a dope but she makes it so believable. This was his first starring role and he puts in a very good effort but he doesn't sing and that's too bad. There's also a car chase that's quite fake but still fun, especially the real parts. It turns out as you might expect and keep that in mind if you watch it and enjoy the performances.

Everything about this movie cries foul. Every western stereotype is thrown in along with the kitchen sink and just about every western outlaw. There is not much that is original, from the love interests, to the protagonists rivalry, to the unfortunate comic relief provided by Gaby Hayes' facial contortions. On the other hand once you get past that and accept the fact that this is not cinematic history it's actually kind of fun. Randolph Scott is magnificent in his perfection of the righteous western hero. Robert Ryan is at his most extreme surliness - he is evil incarnate, an inveterate liar all too ready and willing to jump at any chance to advance his lot at the expense of friend and foe alike. Anne Jeffreys and Jacqueline White are at their most gorgeous. The scenes where they let their hair down and look to make themselves even more beautiful (as if that was possible) are worth the price of admission. And lets not forget such veterans as Robert Armstrong and Jason Robards Sr. Its always good to see them in their later careers. I guess anyone who has read some of my other reviews will know I'm a sucker for bad movies.

I just sat through the better part of a day watching Cleo Moore movies and by far this one is my favorite. She was pretty good in "One Girl's Confession", she was OK in "Women's Prison" (she just didn't have enough to do) but here she really stretches her legs. She carries the whole thing all by herself and she does it with aplomb, like the veteran she was (this was her 23rd out of 25 movies). She plays a career woman driven by her shady past to rise to the top of her profession, photography. The only fly in the ointment was Richard Crenna whose character behaved like a spoiled child, his fragile male ego threatened by her success. The end was disappointing but right along the standards of the day. Still, this one's a keeper, even with Crenna in it.

I must admit to being a Tarzan junkie so keep that in mind while reading my comments. There's not a whole lot to the plots, in fact they tend to be fairly similar. Some injustice takes place, usually perpetrated by evil white men, and Tarzan sets things right. That's about it and if you expect complicated character interactions and plot twists you'll surely be disappointed. One of the best things about these movies is the physiques, happily and gloriously shown with as little clothing as possible. Jane is always an eyeful so I sat down to watch this one (the second color Tarzan) because I had never seen Eve Brent, the twelfth Jane. Although not the prettiest she was perhaps the sweetest and her scenes with Gordon Scott were rather passionate. Their kisses would make the heart of any romantic flutter. Still, as good as that was, my favorite part was James Edwards' characterization of Futa, the evil witch doctor. He made 'Fight for Life' an over the top camp fest. Yes, Gordon Scott was a hunk, Eve Brent was eye candy, there was Cheeta (although the chip can be irritating), there's lots of jungle and dangerous animal shots, but Edwards elevated this one above its routine plot and production values.

I don't know why this one has such a low score. For starters you have a horse kick its legs to jazz rhythms. And Pat Boone is actually pretty good. He has a sort of presence, he's attractive, he looks like he's having fun. They all look like they're having fun. The film is kind of campy in its own way. With this cast it can't be helped. There's lots of sex, implied of course. Neither Mai Zetterling nor Nancy Kwan are shy about pouring it on and it's fun to watch. Especially Mai although Nancy Kwan can be sensuous as well. It's hard to imagine Pat Boone as a hard-nosed vagabond but he gets a lot of help from his costars and eventually we accept it. Both he and Nancy Kwan are athletic. It looks like it's really him some of the time on the trapeze. It's obvious that's her somersaulting and jumping on and off the horse, not a double. And there's real chemistry between them. It's too bad Yvonne Mitchell doesn't have much more to do but what she does have she does well. She's the icing on the cake. Kieron Moore is very good as her husband. This is an actor who can be really passionate and his character has real pathos. Granted, the story is not the greatest but it's good enough, there's plenty of good lines and enough action to move it along and keep us entertained. So, overall, it's much better than its score would have you believe. In fact I'd say it's good enough for a second or third look. It's just plain fun.

This is a weird one. It's an older man/very young woman kind of story but it's not played that way until the very end. When they finally get around to it it's handled well but only too briefly. During the whole film you can't but notice the really obvious age difference. Dick Powell was 50 and Debbie Reynolds 22. He was old enough to be her father. He was old enough to be Anne Francis' father who was 26 at the time. The story is actually pretty good. The downside is that it's really just a comedy but occasionally it takes itself too seriously.

The cast was excellent. It was great to see Glenda Farrell in a more mature part. I love her brassy style. Dick Powell was pretty good too in, as someone else noted, his last film. Red Skelton was a surprise. He pops up for the blink of an eye and then disappears. Anne Francis was a knockout, as always. She dominated every scene and some of her lines had real zing. Thanks to TCM for running her out of circulation movies. The difference with Debbie Reynolds couldn't be more pronounced at all levels but I guess that was the point.

Then there's the dream sequence, one of the coolest fantasy segments I've seen in a long time. Francis appears as a spider woman, spinning her web around Powell while the child-woman, Reynolds, attempts to keep that from happening. Again, the difference between them couldn't be more pronounced. The tall, curvaceous Francis was like a cool drink on a hot summer day. Reynolds was no match. She couldn't hope to compete but gave it a good try anyway. Too spunky for my taste.

Bottom line, it's worth watching for the actors more than anything else. You shouldn't take the story too seriously and the lines sometimes get in the way when they're just plain silly. But hey, Anne Francis is in it, that alone is worth a look.

There's few reasons to sit through this unfortunate example of Hollywood film-making. The first - and the only reason I began to watch it - was the uncredited debut of Jane Greer, one of my favorite actors of all time. She appears about 5 minutes into the film as Eve Arden's secretary, doesn't say much, swings her leg over the arm of a chair, is scolded by Eve Arden, finally speaks her insignificant lines in her unmistakable voice and departs never to be seen again. More the pity. Normally that would have been enough for me but for some reason I soldiered on, curious about the long list of Hispanic performers. Some were pretty good although the acts tended to be repetitious. After some research I found that this film launched the career of two others: Lita Baron (Lupita) would make 24 more, the last in 1979, and Alma Beltran, who appears briefly as Miss Guatemala. Her career spanned 87 films, the last in 2002. So there you have it. If one looks hard enough one can always find a reason to watch a lousy film. In retrospect I have to wonder why Hollywood would make this turkey. Released shortly after the allied victory over Germany it's difficult to imagine what possible propaganda value it could possibly have. Was it supposed to show some kind of solidarity with our neighbors to our south? I have no clue. In any case don't bother with this one other than as a somewhat ludicrous curiosity.

There's quite a lot to recommend this one, the John Ford touches mainly. The way the scenes are arranged, the attention to detail are his trademarks. His direction is tight, focused, the actors deliver their lines in a believable, realistic manner. Nothing stagy about this. As for the actors they performed pretty much as expected. Will Rogers was his usual self, not the greatest of thespians but entertaining nonetheless. Anita Louise was simply delicious. I don't think I've ever seen her in better form and I credit Ford for extracting that performance as well as Tom Brown's who managed to keep his earnestness and wide-eyed innocence under check. Even stone-faced David Landau and bombastic Berton Churchill managed to give their stereotypical parts some originality.

My ambivalence is about the overt racism here, even granting the film's time frame and the period in our history it depicts. The least of it is that two of the central characters, Hattie McDaniel and Stepin Fetchit, are listed last in the credits, after Juror No. 12, whose only contribution was hitting the spittoon during the court scenes. Frankly it was difficult to watch despite some genuine tender scenes between the Rogers character and his servants. The one that stands out has him and McDaniel singing an impromptu spiritual and that one alone is worth the price of admission. The judge's relationship with the Fetchit character is much more problematic, even granting the "Coon" persona that Fetchit employed so successfully in his career he became a millionaire. There were just too many instances of the judge ordering him about just for the sake of it. It's painful to consider how humiliating it must have been for these two talented professionals to adopt their screen personae in order to earn a living.

I know I'm judging this film by 21st century standards, seventy-seven years after its release and if nothing else one might say that it exposed our country's shameful past, let the sunlight in on our deep, dark, secret. And in all fairness this is a film about southerners right after they had lost the Civil War. One can't really expect them to feel and express any remorse. People don't work that way. So from that angle I have no qualms. If anything I suspect the presentation of that society was probably mostly accurate. But I wonder at the motivations of the society that felt the need to make a film such as this, about a society that existed seventy years prior. And given Ford's sympathetic, realistic, treatment of American Indians in his later Westerns I wonder if he wasn't making just that point.

If this film has a weak spot it's the story's details. Without giving anything away the whole idea of Vance's (Calhern) Svengali-like hypnotic effect on his wife (Astor) is a bit far-fetched, even for 1934. And quite frankly Robinson's disguise left a lot to be desired. And let's not forget the clue that clinched the policeman's case. I can't imagine building a case of such flimsy evidence. There's other areas of concern but I digress. Now for the good part: where the film shines is in the performances. This bevy of fine actors does a most excellent job at presenting complex characters driven by events not of their own choosing. It's a pretty talky film but I didn't mind in the least. The dialog is spirited, lively, expressive. And the performers tended to make me forget the plot's weak points. They were captivating, all of them, Robinson, Astor, Calhern, Cortez (in a rare good guy part), and last but not least, Mae Clarke, in my opinion a most underrated actor.

I can't begin to describe how many things are wrong with this film. The acting is stilted, stagy. The camera is still for the most part. In a gun fight scenes from another oater were edited in. Action is advanced by dialog not, well, action. The actors announce their intentions with the certainty they will come true. All scenes appear to be first takes. I guess they had no budget for retakes. This appears to take place in late 19th century West yet Julie Haydon who plays Doris, the ex-floozy, smokes a cigarette. That fact is never alluded to again although Doris becomes increasingly less provocative, more virginal, as if time were cleansing her of her past sins. Haydon is actually the one bright spot in this disaster and that's saying much because no actor could handle this material with a straight face. Her film career didn't amount to much although she was more successful on stage. Tom Keene, the male lead, was just plain awful but a good horseman. He could take a run at a horse, jump to a stirrup and straddle the horse in one smooth sequence. And I could go on. Yet this film is oddly captivating. I guess it's my attraction to bad movies. They're sort of like train wrecks; you can't take your eyes off them.

A measure of this film's quality is that days after screening it I'm still thinking about it. It's a great multifaceted story with many and varied parallel plots and the performances will stay with you for a long time. Several scenes have become permanently engraved in my mind, too many to enumerate. Others have commented on Charles Coburn's performance and yes, it is outstanding, but not the only notable one. Hume Cronyn's miserly Papa Leckie is exasperating and even oddly sympathetic. Norman Lloyd who plays Papa's son is truly a chip off the old block if with more joviality. Gladys Cooper and Selena Royale are both excellent as always and Dean Stockwell gives a very nuanced performance, more so than in any other film I've seen him in. I should also mention Beverly Tyler whom I have never seen before if only for her singing voice which is truly angelic. And let's not forget another outstanding performance by Jessica Tandy in a complete role reversal from her previous outing in "The Valley of Decision". She is by far my favorite here even though she is not a headliner, with Coburn and Hume close seconds. If I have a gripe it's about the chronology. The story takes place in 19th century Scotland, a notoriously unhealthy place, yet it covers four generations. Coburn's grandpa is already an old man when Bobby comes to live with the Leckies yet he lives long enough to see Bobby to young adulthood a decade later. To top it all off he's an overweight alcoholic and his lifestyle is anything but healthy. That alone stretches all credulity although it is possible, if barely so. I think I'll have to read Cronin's novel on which the film is based to discover how the author handled this detail. Put that aside though and enjoy a great find.

This one is a sleeper. It catches you by surprise. You think they're going one way but then they switch course and by the time you think you've figured it out they've switched again. Everything about is is first rate. The acting, dialog, scenery, direction, I mean everything. What's more surprising is that it takes place during Victorian England yet deals with subjects the gentle folk of that age preferred to keep under wraps. Despite the period costumes and scenery there's something very modern about the story. The two standouts here are both headliners, especially Ray Milland. His character starts out much like the one he played in "Dial M for Murder" but here he is more multi-dimensional, perhaps more human, not so narcissistic. And you can't help but like him, despite his shortcomings and machinations. Ann Todd too was very sympathetic despite her weakness for the charming Milland character. She exhibited an endearing vulnerability coupled with dogged determination. In the end I guess it had to end the way it did. But I fervently hoped for some other conclusion, one where the lovers pursued their dreams without wrecking the lives of others. That's how close I felt to them.