RKO-Komyathy

40 years of marriage is called the Ruby anniversary.

For such herein an Irish husband buys his wife a cemetery plot near where they first met. She doesn't take this gift well and for the first 7-8 minutes of this 17 minute short they argue. In the first half of this the acting and/or dialogue (depending how you fault it) is rather poor. Then they make up and then we as viewers are 'treated' to almost 3 minutes of end credits as if this was a feature film.

Summary: 19 minute short - 8 minutes of a poor first half + 3 minutes of credits leaves about 8 minutes (for a funeral and a walk on the beach).

The accolades for this short (see poster), in short, are beyond me.

The first aerial footage of Everest shown herein (taken from an unpressurized single-engined biplane flown "over the top of the world" in 1933) is fascinating.

Were this trip recreated today one could pretty much count on the plane performing flawlessly and even if there was a technical failure the pilots would have some chance of parachuting out and also of being rescued within a reasonable amount of hours (or have life-saving supplies to protect them dropped until such a rescue could be effected).

This documentary's inherent value is that it shows the risk involved that was ever present in the not so distant past, with regard to travel and exploration. To criticize and dismiss this documentary, as some others have herein, as dated or dull or this that or the other thing (based on attitudes current by some in the 2020s) is unfortunate; for the central point of this documentary is rich, the aspect of risk presented as this exploration of Everest actually happened. And just for that (with no ifs, ands, or buts) it is worthy of watching.

This is a Soviet adaptation of a French mystery play. It is overlong (almost two and a half hours) and has a number of slow moments. It does grow on one, a bit, over time, however. I had little interest in it until maybe 45 minutes into it. If you are familiar with any of the stars that will be a positive.

It is all about an office happening and there's a dead body eventually. The Police inspector (Leonid Kuravlyov) isn't convincing to me as an inspector so that detracted from my engagement in this, but those who know this actor might enjoy his performance.

PS: If this movie is a 10 then The Irony of Fate (Ironiya sud'by, ili S lyogkim parom!) is a 12 and Murder on the Orient Express (1974) is a seventeen (to just make 2 comparisons off the top of my head).

Performers who put themselves on stage before others are, I think, a unique bunch. Some might be inclined to argue that such people are attention seekers, but many of those on stage in some way or another often admit to being nervous when performing. The show topping song in this musical tries to explain the emotions of a performer. And yes, this performer herein wears a mask even while 'explaining' themself in a way.

There's also a love angle, triangle, herein (but one edge of the triangle is lifeless). The other side is interesting for the fact that the woman seems more in love with the masked singer who she only met once than the man she dines with for 20 something nights --- despite these men sharing something in common. It illustrates the power of mystery and how one's imagination can be stronger perhaps than one's feelings.

I enjoyed this Russian musical and I think it is the sort that is re-watchable --- which, I think, is the mark of an interesting movie or film.

It's rather amazing that this movie ascribes to Russian Civil War 'White partisans' actions that the movie declares herein to be inhumane... despite the fact that the Communist Party of the Soviet Union engaged in the exact behavior just a decade later than the time this movie portrays.

How could you get away with such? Easy: Soviet inhabitants were never told of the extent of Stalin's mass confiscation of the grain and livestock of Soviet peasant farmers during the 1930s.

Former Soviet operative Viktor Kravchencko, after defecting, detailed this in his memoir "I Chose Freedom," but his memoirs were dismissed by the Soviets and many in the West who wanted to believe that the words of Stalin's Constitution had any meaning. Those in the Soviet Union had to wait until Yeltsin opened Soviet archives for the truth (but Putin has closed these again as he seeks to semi-rehabilitate Stalin).

As a movie this has semi-entertaining antics at times, hence my rating but it is far more of an advertisement for Lenin, Trotsky and even Stalin --- and this was made in 1967! AFTER some of Stalin's colossal crimes had been exposed by Nikita Khrushchev and others).

Delightful Italian film that was shot 5x better than I expected.

Yes, this is a simple movie in many ways ---- showing working class Italians getting away from Rome (by train) for a day's leisure, but real life is simple too. Yet the talent shown by the makers of this film highlight this very effectively, but at the same time convey how interesting simple everyday life can be, too.

One song (repeated twice herein) includes these words (in translation): "Such merry confusion in the wagons of a working class train." "It's a holiday and we are ready for fun."

Words are less important herein than peoples interactions, however, which are conveyed very well visually --- the film isn't dialogue heavy. I think one could almost watch this not knowing Italian even without the subtitles that I read for this. Most of the emotion and verve of this is shown visually and very effectively so. There's a scene where one person throws some punches at another and any dialogue is effectively drowned out by a orchestral band band's music down the street; which, seemingly, is perfectly in rhythm with the scuffle being shown down the street. It is a wonderfully comic scene. Another scene, on a lake, is shot differently too; this one in a dreamlike manner.

I didn't expect a simple film almost about nothing but the simplicities of life to be this well done and be as captivating as it was. And everything that needed to be convey was conveyed in about an hour. What a treat it was to find this, and almost by chance, too.

The main performers portrayed their individual characters well. Maybe you know some of them: Marcello Spada, Lina Gennari, Carlo Petrangeli as Giovanni, Cesare Zoppetti, Maria Denis.

I don't give star ratings to documentary-style productions as they are not comparable to films.

The story behind this is great. The first half or so of this documentary, however, will bore most people and lead some to not even watch the best part of this --- the last 30 or so minutes. So, if you choose to watch this, stick with it!

I read online that this was shot over 5 years, but you can't see much time progression in this documentary. And, oddly, it starts out with the brother of the subject of this production; confusing rather than clarifying what this production is about.

Films need to set a plot and who is who in the first 10-12 minutes or so, but this production meanders all over for 45 minutes and we really learn nothing of anything about these 80+ year-old brothers BEFORE THEY WERE 80+! All we are told is that one brother 'has always wanted to fly." That is not telling a story; that is almost dereliction of documentary duty, I'd say.

Commissioned by Joe Stalin, this is a short about the evils of one-man rule (I don't give star ratings to shorts).

This is called a "satire" of Tsarist Russia (portraying the Tsar as only interested in taxes), but the irony here is that when this very over-the-top satire was being made Stalin was ordering his "organs" to confiscate as much grain from farmers in the Soviet Union as his thugs could get their hands on and if the farmers resisted they were shot in the head.

Regarding just the animation for this short, for 1933, this is a rather well-made animated short.

What is most interesting about it, however, is why Stalin thought his own newly-established "serfs" needed a reminder of the Russian Tsar's heavy-handedness 15 years after Lenin & Stalin had the Russian Tsar machine-gunned to death with his wife and children while they were in Soviet secret police captivity.

Gloria Swanson tries to be amusing in this: she gets her bag emptied in the subway, loses her petticoat at a party, falls down multiple times, etc.

Swanon fans call this film great and her performance winning. There are no real happenings in this film, however. And the plot begs credulity: Frank Morgan's rich character, when he sees Swanson in a fancy dress "performing" at a party asks her if they have met before, maybe "in Petrograd?" Later he hires her to impersonate a Russian countess to serve rich lady customers tea at his exclusive dress salon. Soon thereafter a customer speaks to Swanson's character in Russian, which Swanson's character doesn't speak. Morgan's character then tells the customers not to bring up Russia to Swanson as it traumatizes her (this film was made not long after Lenin's Bolsheviks took over Russia, had the Russian Tsar machine gunned to death and then destroyed all other opponents in the Russian Civil War).

Why this film has Russian angle at all, however, befuddles me. Something more creative could have been used as a plot scenario to give Swanson's character a job. Besides, Morgan's character is shown to be an ace businessman so it is nonsensical that he would have hired a non-Russian speaker to impersonate a Russian.

Tom Moore is the male lead in this (and if you count how many films he made and how many his brothers Owen, Matt, and Joe, made it would be about 700 films!)

What happens to Moore's character or Swanson's in this, though, is never made intriguing; so that the viewer (unless a die-hard Swanson fan) is never made to care about these characters.

David Starkey starts this 59 minute documentary near Runnymede (just outside of London on the Thames), where the "Great Charter" was first agreed in 1215. Near the latter part of this engaging documentary Starkey walks through the Pennsylvania State House in Philadelphia ("America's Runnymede," in Starkey's characterization), where America's Constitution was written.

In between he addresses King John, the English Civil War, the execution of Charles I outside the Banqueting House in Whitehall... as Starkey stands across the street from such looking at the window through which Charles walked onto the platform raised above the street level with the window through which Charles had come.

Starkey also walks along the beach in Virginia where English colonists arrived from English, through the US Capitol, to the outside door of America's Supreme Court building (on which a panel depicting King John is displayed). All the while Starkey highlights the points of Magna Carta and the notion that power corrupts and that people's liberties are continually at risk, especially when people get lazy about holding their governments to account.

A look 500 years back at the Reformation started by Martin Luther as interpreted by a titan of British history documentaries, David Starkey.

As both the writer and presenter, David Starkey (a Phd. In history who doesn't use the title Dr.) visits Rome, Wittenberg, Worms and several locations in the UK. At each location he relates what happened there during the early 1500s and how the printing press enabled all to occur.

What makes this documentary especially interesting is the detail given. There's almost no filler in this. Starkey packs as much as he can into his 59 minutes and there's also about 4-5 expert guests to discuss manuscripts (including a 1525 actual Tyndale Bible) and such. Also relevant, but not "visible" until one thinks about it is how historian Starkey (an avowed non-believer) does not belittle believers (though he does have critical words for assorted church practices) thus presenting historical developments not from a holier than thou view, but as a historian attempting to make some sense out of what he is discussing.

Starkey has done over 40 hours of documentary coverage of British historical people, ideas and events over his career and thus far I have seen about one-third and all of those have been (like this entry) thought provoking and interesting to watch.

"Take It Big" is a complete flop. This almost even isn't a movie. It is just a scenario wherein Jack Haley inherits a dude ranch out West, but then arrives at a different ranch and mistakenly thinks he owns it. And that's it! They just 'milk' that for lame jokes and then throw in a few songs.

The highlight song, however, is a 5 minute rendition of Figaro by Frank Forest. Why is it in a movie about dude ranches? I could also ask why the character played by Mary Beth Hughes is even in this, too. The character played by Hughes is only nice to Jack Haley when some unknown other guy is in view....trying to make that guy jealous. We never learn, however, who this other guy is. At the same time, Haley has a gal (played by Harriet Hilliard) who actually likes him (and we know this because Hilliard tied Haley's bow tie a few times!), but she is generally ignored throughout the movie's 75 minutes. Hilliard, apparently, is only in this to sing a song.

Add a lifeless Ozzie Nelson playing himself and you have got almost nothing good (save for the operatic aria mentioned above and one OK song by Haley).

The first ever sound film utilizing spoken Irish. It is eleven minutes are well worth watching. It carries the spirit of days long past when there wasn't much entertainment in dark evenings other than sitting next to a fire and telling stories. The story told herein by Seáinín Tom Ó Dioráin is about fishermen and, as the film caption relates, "is a story that was already old a thousand years ago."

The story teller and the 3 listeners were all cast members in the 1934 Irish fictional documentary 'Man of Aran,' also directed, like this film, by Robert J. Flaherty.

This rather well-acted and respectable Irish movie opens with a gravely ill father of 3 sons resting in bed. We see some snippets of home movies in the head of the oldest son (of about 17) recalling his father (played by a bearded Don Wycherley) having fun at the seaside. This son, after something material is broken, decides to try to replace it for his dad despite previously not being close to his dad.

My favorite part of the film comes next. This oldest of 3 sons goes out on his mission, but (out of necessity) asks his teenage brother to help him. As they sneak out of their home they run into the youngest brother who has inadvertently heard something of their plans and wants to go, too. Then we have this scene:

Oldest brother: "There's no way in hell you're coming. Youngest brother: "I'll tell." The camera then lingers on the oldest brother's face... before the brother turns the corner from the walk to the street. The youngest tags behind in triumph.When the youngest catches up to the oldest the oldest, walking a bicycle, then turns to the youngest and announces: "This I'll tell business won't last forever. Da-ya-know that?"

Such lines are not new, but the difference here is that the director knew what he was doing and conveyed the relationships of the 3 boys just in the pauses and the silent looks shared amongst them during this scene.

And that's what this Irish film is all about: how 3 brothers who previously lived in their own separate worlds of their own imaginations come to feel like they actually are brothers.

Interesting 28min short film (I don't give # or star ratings to shorts)

Ballykissangel fan? If you are interested in Irish films or were a fan of the Irish soap opera series 'Ballykissangel' then you will probably enjoy this short.

Mind you, 95% of the short is in Gaelic and the Gaelic is awkwardly delivered, but that is part of the plot. 2 Irish guys who speak English decide to speak only Gaelic to practice so as to get ready to fool some Irish gangsters into believing that they are real locals. But before that happens....

The title means "What goes around...." as in what goes around comes around (or in this short's terms, 'Treachery rebounds on the Treacherous'). Don Wycherley (Father Aiden from BallyK) wrote and stars in this short (along with Cillian Murphy). Frankie McCafferty (Donal from BallyK) directed this and makes a small, but effective, cameo appearance and a more featured role is played very effectively by Áine Ní Mhuirí (Kathleen from BallyK).

PS: Next time you watch 'Waking Ned Devine' watch this short before or after it (as they share something in common).

Best song: 'Frag' nicht Warum' (Don't ask me why) Performer: Marcel Wittrisch

This German language movie was remade in 1933 with Bebe Daniels in the lead versus Liane Haid in this production. It is impossible not to compare them as 90% of these movies are not just similar but almost the same (many scenes are short the exact same way with almost the same dialogue and both films use the exact same Marionette show footage).

You may be saying, consequently, that the British remake just copied this film. Well, yes and no. The issue with this German production is that the plot centers around a rich woman attracted to a relatively poor man but the actor (Willi Forst) playing this role comes across as a young John Mills (capable, smart, handsome and one who can sing), whereas in the 1933 version this role was played by Hungarian Victor Varconi. Varconi comes across as an old Europe sophisticated gentleman, albeit poor and he does a great job balancing his desires and lack of expectations.

In short, it almost is not believable that the very sophisticated Liane Haid could fall for the poor character portrayed ably by Willi Forst. Bebe Daniels plays her role with a bit less sophistication and Hungarian Victor Varconi (who made about 75 silent pictures in Europe) comes across as sophisticated to possible bridge this gap between the two leads.

If such is your inclination watch both and the fact that the endings of these two movies differs would allow you to do that quite easily.

The novel on which this film is based has a scene set at Hampton Court Palace's hedge maze 12 miles (19.3 kilometres) from London on the River Thames. In two previous dramatizations of this novel (British productions in 1956 and 1975) the hedge maze is really a challenge. In this Russian production, however, the hedge maze isn't a hedge maze at all, but is a rock walled maze and a rock-walled maze of only about chest height. So it isn't really challenging, at all.....as you can see the shoulders and heads of the characters as they get lost in this maze, but one can easily see where the dead ends are.

That's representative of the differences that this Russian film has with British productions; i.e., more of a make-believe and very light-hearted tone to the film. This Russian film's opening is also akin to a bedtime story introduction of sorts. The first 19 minutes of this film has the lead star (Andrei Mironov) in his apartment living room talking to his cook and thinking aloud about his 2 fellow friends and how exercise is good for health. He also speaks directly to the camera during this introduction and occasionally during the later parts of this musical film, too. Yes, it is a musical of sorts, too, with 6 or 8 songs weaved into the 2 hours and 8 minutes of this comedy.

The ratings of this film rank it higher than the 1956 British production and that's why I watched this film, but I must say that the 1956 British film was far more enjoyable even though both of these films are not wonderful films. The 1956 film has its silly side like this Russian version, but the 1956 film's characters do develop a bit over the course of that film and if I was going to re-watch one again it would certainly be the 1956 version.

In North by Northwest Cary Grant thinks he knows what's up and down, but we, the viewers, don't as Grant's character rushes across states to clear his name.

In Spellbound, however, Alfred Hitchcock drags us through states of mind and we, the viewers, likewise are not sure what is up and what is down.

The beginning of Spellbound takes place in a psychiatric institution as a Dr. Murchison (captivatingly played by Leo G. Carroll) yields control of the place to new blood. Thence a patient named Mr. Garmes (played by Norman Lloyd,better known a half century later as Dr. Auschlander in the TV drama St Elsewhere) confesses to the new director of the institution: "You see, I'm convinced I'm not suffering from any hallucination, but that my guilt is very real. I know, Dr. Edwardes, that I killed my father."

Dr. Constance Petersen (played by Ingrid Bergman)in the presenceof Garmes contradicts himspeaking to Dr. Edwardes (Gregory Peck): "Mr. Garmes fits perfectly into your chapters on the guilt complex".

Garmes: "I have no guilt complex. I know what I know. I killed my father and I..."

Dr. Peterson: "No, you didn't kill your father. That's a misconception that has taken hold of you." "People often feel guilty over something they never did."

Later, Dr. Peterson's former professor warns her that these people are dangerous."We are speaking of a schizophrenic and not a Valentine. "We are speaking of a man," she responds, speaking this time of Dr. Edwardes. How Dr. Edwardes has become the patient herein is pure Hitchcock and makes Spellbound an adventure to watch, akin to North by Northwest, but this time through states of mind.

Who's right?

Watch Spellbound and relish the journey to find out