tmpj

Though mostly all of the Warner's animators have made cartoons that I like, Bob Clampett, for me, still stands head and shoulders above them all. His cartoons have probably been remade more than any of the others. Take "Porky In Wackyland" for example. It was remade by Clampett to fit a Fats Waller type character in "Tin Pan Alley Cats"...but the actual remake of "Porky In Wackyland" was done in the 1950s, long after Clampett's departure from "Termite Terrace"...it was done by either Chuck Jones or Friz Freleng, both of whom remained with Warner's until the animation unit was shut down. Some historians heap praise upon Tex Avery as the "hail fellow, well met" of Warner animation...and while I must admit his cartoons are uproariously hilarious, Tex appealed to basic instincts of humor. What distinguished Clampett was his overall panache, and his humor made you laugh...but it also made you think, and often what you would think would be funnier than what was going on in the cartoon. His surrealism was Dali based, and some of his cartoons, such as "Porky's Hero Agency" capture the strangeness of dreams and of times gone by in an unforgettable way. Though I should probably castigate Clampett in today's climate of 'political correctness' for his portrayals of Indians in "Injun Trouble" and "Wagon Heels", I have chosen to try to go the high road and look at them as products of their times. It is difficult to do at times, because the racism was so overtly manifest and 'in your face', but these cartoons, like other films, serve as reminders of how far we have come, where we are now, and where it is that we have to go to achieve fairness and balance. With that in mind, I can begin my comparison of "Injun Trouble (1938)" and "Wagon Heels" ,1945. First, "Injun Trouble" was made in glorious black and white, as were all Looney Tunes offerings until 1944. "Wagon Heels" was released in Technicolor. The voices in "Injun Trouble" were Mel Blanc and deep voiced "Billy Bletcher", who was a veteran of cartoon voices long before Blanc...at least as far back as Disney's "Three Little Pigs" ( which also featured Pinto Colvig, another famous but now nearly forgotten voice over artist). The design for Injun Joe was simpler...he is clearly native and musclebound, but more in tune with a Robin Hood type model. Injun Joe in "Wagon Heels" is a no holds barred model, whose very looks are intimidating to the point where his very appearance suggests he is on the war-path...or soon will be. In both instances, he does not walk around trees, but walks through them. The gags with the trap and the bear work OK in "Injun Trouble", but in "Wagon Heels", the humor is lacking by simply having the bear reduced to infancy and claiming he is "only 3 and a half years old". The trap gag in 'Wagon Heels' works better because Mel Blanc used the voice of the injured dog bitten by Injun Joe. The voices in the remake are supplied only by Blanc who, by this time, had been put under contract by Warner's. Billy Bletcher would appear again, but not very often...and was out of the picture before 1950. The gag of Injun Joe jumping off the cliff to detour and ravage the wagon train does not work as well in the first cartoon, because he parachutes safely to the ground. In the remake his presence is made more forceful by landing upright and shaking up the entire terrain...not to mention cutting off "Sloppy Moe" from a branch, declaring him "...a screwball". In the remake, the potential scalping of the wagon master works better dramatically than in the original, though I wish Clampett had kept in the buzz-saw carvings of the Statue of Liberty and the city-scape in the remake. The cornering of Porky on the cliff by Injun Joe does not vary much...but the interaction of Injun Joe and Sloppy Moe is markedly different...the voice of Billy Bletcher was effective in the original and I missed it in the remake. But when Moe reveals the secret at last, he tickles Joe with his hands and his beard in the first cartoon...Joe goes over the cliff and get trapped in a tree trunk with Moe still tickling away...as Moe and Porky shake hands and the picture begins to iris out, Injun Joe stops the action and literally begs for more tickling, which makes him completely hysterical. In the remake, Joe, tickled only by hand, goes over the cliff, and the impact from his dramatic, forceful fall drags the map over and changes the cartography from "Injun Joe's territory" to the "United States of America". Joe disappears into the deep sinkhole his fall has created and is not seen again...the story ends with Porky and Sloppy Moe in a patriotic salute, with Sloppy Moe's beard tickling Porky under the chin...as the picture fades and Looney Tunes credits and the theme take over. Though there is much I like about "Injun Trouble" and am sorry Clampett left some things out, I have to conclude the remake is better...better animators and techniques, Technicolor, and there is considerably more hilarity overall in "Wagon Heels" than in "Injun Trouble". R.I.P., Bob Clampett, and thank you for the gifts of laughter your cartoons have given to us all.

This is a good film...not a great one. Pacino always delivers, but he does not out-do what he gave us in "Godfather II" or "Dog Day Afternoon", or even "Carlito's Way". The violence is graphic, the language unbearable, but the characters are predictable. There are a few terrific performances aside from Pacino...a 'pre-Amadeus' F. Murray Abraham delivers well as the ill-fated Omar Suarez, Miriam Colon steals the scene from Pacino as the Mama filled with pride, and angry as she sees her son's descent into the nether-world of drugs and crime. It's what I wish Beryl Mercer would have said and done with Cagney in The "Public Enemy". This film is a difficult watch because it travels forth in almost real-time, and if you miss a little...you miss a lot. It is not for kids. Also, while the film was dedicated to Hawks and Hecht, I don't think the contribution of Seton I. Miller to the original screen-play should be overlooked. Miller had more screen plays to his credit that showcased hard boiled prison criminals than did Hecht, and no doubt Miller made the 1932 film sizzle as it did.

If not for Ann Margret, this would be a negligible entry in the Presley filmography. Presely's real film acting career ended when he entered the army in 1958. What followed after his discharge was all for the purpose of box-office and making money. No real artistry, none of the pathos of a "King Creole" or "Jail House Rock". "Viva La Vegas" is nothing more than cheesecake...in fact, it's not really about Vegas, but about car racing. Boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy and girl find each other again...happily ever after...etc. Nothing new here. In fact, some of the songs are so hokey and the plots so predictable, it's a wonder he was able to get away with a schlocky flick such as this one. He probably made another decent flick or two before ending his film career...but this, to me, is NOT one of them.

Don't get me wrong...this is not a movie that goes on my must see list, nor is it one that I want to sit through again. I dig Jackie Chan, but he is no Cantinflas, who handles the Chan role in the 1958 film...and Coogan is not David Niven, whose portrayal of Fogg was one of his most reserved performances in the original, though exaggerated here. No Victor Young score, and almost all of the Hollywood folks who did cameos in the original are retired or dead. With Todd-AO and 70mm film being the latest rages when the film was made, we were decades away from CGI and other sophisticated special effects. The 1958 version would be the only film Mike Todd would direct during his lifetime, he being a denizen of the theatre. For Robert Newton Victor Young and a few others, this would be their last film...and the winds of Hollywood were changing as the studio system died an obviously painful death. My initial pre-viewing impression of this film is that is was probably a boat-load of commercialized junk, over-wrought with special effects, and a lot of other objectionable production values that would completely disrespect not only the 1958 version, but which would also give short shrift to the intentions of Jules Verne's visionary 19th century novel. It came close to it...I was appalled at some of the portrayals...there was not a lot of personality to the film of an endearing sort...but, then again, actors of this generation are of a different sort. The objective is more on entertainment or action skills than on acting that presses buttons or strikes emotional chords. However, I was pleasantly surprised to discover that the film was somewhat more engaging and entertaining than I initially expected. It was a foray into a sort of modernity that at least merited a viewing. I would describe it as "Jules Verne meets Bruce Lee"... for lack of a better phrase. The oriental deviation of the story lent itself to a fairly decent sub-plot, justifying Chan's presence there to a marked degree. It's all a bit incredulous, but then again, most people in the 19th century saw Jules Verne as incredulous, though most of his scientific visions became realities in the 20th century..and a couple, such as submarines, materialized in crude forms during the late 19th century. Once again, definitely not a great film, nor am I going to call it a very good film...but at least there's no language issue worth mentioning and the sex angle is not played up beyond what kids and families can handle without major issues. It is entertaining, it is a family film, and I can give it a recommendation for viewing.

This is a story where, when you stand up for yourself, everything seems to go wrong. Thelma and Louise are two ordinary types...one a housebound wife, the other a worldy-wise restaurant waitress. They decide to make a get-away for the week-end. Thelma, the more timid of the two, does not ask her husband, knowing he has a short fuse. But they head out just the same. At a road stop, Thelma is almost raped in the parking lot by some guy from inside the bar. Louise steps in, with the pistol neither has used..but which they brought along for protection...and stops the rapist. They try to go on their way, but the rapist mouths off with profanities and insults galore. Louise gets ticked, and shoots and kills the would-be rapist...and they make their escape. The rest of the film deals with how they handle themselves in the face of adversity. Their belief is that they can't get any fair treatment or justice, and they were probably right to some extent. But, afterall, the guy would have raped Thelma if Louise had not intervened. But now, Thelma and Louise are wanted criminals on the run, and the action escalates to the point where they no longer resemble the simple people they were at the beginning of this story. In a way, the story takes on an anti-male tone but, to their credit, their actions are taken mostly against those guys who have exhibited some real "cave-man" type of behavior. Soon, Thelma and Louise are committing crimes as a matter of survival...and not just simple solicitation, either. It was an interesting watch, because of the sympathetic portrayal of two ordinary people who just got in over their heads. And after they had passed a certain point, it was simply too late to turn back...to their way of thinking. This is a surprisingly good film, and how Sarandon and Davis both lost out on the Academy Awards to--of all people--Jodie Foster ,is a mystery that stupify Sherlock Holmes. One more thing, Harvey Keitel is woefully miscast as a southern police detective. He cannot shed his Brooklyn accent or New York attitude, and he just does not come off as believable in this vehicle. This may be the worst performance--or the worst casting--for Keitel that I have seen. He is otherwise very good in the roles that he plays. Other than that, this is an OK film and it merits a watch.

I had heard about this movie, but had never seen it until just a few days ago when I found it in a thrift store. I wish now I had left it where I had found it.

This is a film that might have come off better if it had been filmed in Black and White. It is very suggestive of the "noir" genre atmospherically. Dunaway, who usually renders bravado performances, appears very vulnerable in this vehicle, and it does not come off well or as very convincing. There is no build up to her "psychic" vision, if that's what we can call it, where she is able to see the victims of murder as it happens, but cannot see the perpetrator of these crimes. As a photographer of some very violent scenes and a totally different animal altogether in that world, she has come under the gun from numerous angles, and some of the shots, unbeknownst to her, are exact matches to crime scene shots in the NYPD crime book. She comes under suspicion early, but is somewhat sheltered from the raw reality of it all by her effete agent, in the person of Rene Auberjunois, and a very young looking Tommy Lee Jones. This is 1978...I never knew T.L.J. was ever that young ! More killings ensue, and they are very close to home...her models, her associates. Raul Julia appears as part of the sub-plot to this gore fest as the ex-husband/failed writer, who winds up on the list of suspects in the killings...but who winds up being killed himself. Bad turns to worse as the sordid actions lead up to the trail of the REAL murderer. It's supposed to be a "surprise ending" or an "ending with a twist", and while it may raise some eyebrows, the shock of it seems to have been dulled with the passage of some years, and where this might have been a shocker in its day of sailing relatively ( then) uncharted psychological waters, it comes off as pretty milque-toast today. I read that Barbra Streisand was originally cast for the role...but turned it down. Good judgment on her part. She did sing the theme song to the film, but does not appear. Far from being a classic, this film is little more than a "pot-boiler" and has not stood well the test of time. No doubt it did wonders for the careers of Jones and Auberjunois, but Dunaway didn't need the credits on her resume ( she had just won an Academy Award) and neither did Streisand. But, we would hear more from John Carpenter after this, as this was his initial salvo into the realm of cinema. I did not like the film, would not care to watch it again, and I cannot recommend it because so much could have been better, and so much could have been done differently. It was a very dis-appointing watch from a number of aspects. Close Laura Mars' eyelids.

I won't bother to review the film...it's got legs enough of its own to reach clear into immortality. It is one of my favorites, and I really think that no one but Flynn ( like Connery in 007) can actually bring Robin Hood to mind by mere mention of his name. It is a grand swashbuckler, and I looked high-and-low before I found it...but I found it. Just a few trivial nuggets--as opposed to a review--since the film has been reviewed from virtually every angle. Nearly all of the principals in the film are foreigners or foreign born, either of British or Irish ancestry ( Flynn, Raines, Rathbone, De Havilland, etc.). One of the screenwriters, Seton I. Miller, had made his Hollywood rep writing some of the most intense gangster flix of that period, notably "Scarface" and "The Last Mile". Maybe Robin Hood was really a gangster and we just did not know it. The final duel between Flynn and Rathbone is--and has always been--my favorite and most gratifying sword fight on the screen. Korngold's score is, alone, worth the price of admission. It really sets the mood, as well as setting the standard for a lot of film scores yet to come. There are, I am sure, many other things that some others may be able to point out far better than can I, but I will end this little ditty by observing that the only thing I have encountered that comes close to the quality of this performance of Robin Hood is the series of three twelve inch 78 rpm discs made by Basil Rathbone a year or so later, which featured Rathbone in the title role of Robin Hood. He does a splendid job on these recordings, and the screen role could well have gone to him with a measure of believability. Rathbone did a series of spoken word recordings for Columbia Records in the 30s and 40s, and they are all very good, but his version of Robin Hood with himself in the title role is exceptional. He is accompanied by a retinue of radio regulars of the period, including the late, great Marvin Miller. These have become available once again in recent times. The film is worth a watch, and Rathbone's recordings are definitely worth a listen. Arise Lord Baron of Loxley !!

Even though Brando had to turn side-ways to get through the door, it was good to see him paired up with Bob De Niro in this, his final film. De Niro, a jewel thief and jazz club owner in Montreal, has just busted his rear end pulling a heist, only to be informed by 'fence' Brando that the connection fell through...dead and buried. To try to make up the loss, he gets a reluctant De Niro to finally agree to one last caper...one that would have a significant yield and put both of them on easy street. De Niro is tired of the game, and just wants to settle down, but he becomes convinced by the take that maybe he should go ahead and do this last job before he marries girlfriend Angela Bassett and settles in. He does not know about Ed Norton, who plays like a guy with Down's Syndrome as a ruse. De Niro sees through the game and gives Brando hell...even sends a hit man after Norton, who turns the game around during the supposed hit. Norton is flashy and undisciplined, De Niro is systematic and meticulous, and the clash begins. They overcome numerous obstacles in the planning and execution...but on the night of the heist, there is a double-cross. This is not, as I have heard some people report, cliché ridden or even predictable, and the ending has a very nice touch to it. I would suggest you give the movie a whirl, even if only to see De Niro and Brando together in Brando's "swan-song" to the silver screen. It is entertaining, and has some very thrilling moments, enough to keep you engaged, especially during the heist. Also there is some nice jazz on the tracks and in the club. I won't mention the cats who got credit on the screen, but I will mention the ones who didn't. Backing the vocalist in her first screen number are well known New York City musicians Lewis Nash on drums, and Lonnie Plaxico on bass. I make it a point to give them mention because in the credits they named everyone...even the guys who swept the movie set...but not these two very fine musicians. I feel it is an injustice, and Hollywood should take better care not to neglect the musicians, especially the seasoned players.

Of the countless films depicting Antony and Cleopatra, this one ( and the 1934 version with Claudette Colbert) is the one worth seeing. The acting is splendid, the casting is good, the scenics and atmospheres are terrific. That's not to say the film does not have its flaws...indeed it does. But these are overcome by the intensity and passion of the performers as well as the subject matter. Due to its length and its budget, it broke the bank at 20th Century Fox in its day. It also was not a critical success at that time...but the resurgence of the film in this era of re-visitation finds this film to be head and shoulders above nearly any other attempt. Burton had many fine performances, both before and after this, but kudos to Liz Taylor in perhaps her most significant screen role...as well as to Roddy McDowell who, surprisingly, turns in one of his best performances as Octavius. The film should have made stars of Martin Landau and Carroll O'Conner, but fame was still somewhat down the road for them in the medium of television. Hume Cronyn is always a reliable presence...and Rex Harrison...what more needs to be said ? It is a long film, but it is both entertaining and engaging. See the movie.

This Hallmark TV version of the Cleopatra tragedy has all of the trappings of Egypt, and the technology to boot. But it falls short in its delivery, and it's just simply not convincing. It is tough to get actors to play "sword and sandal" flicks with credibility. "Gladiator" probably stands out as the best of the fairly recent vintage. Comparing this film to Liz Taylor and Dick Burton is not fair...there simply is NO comparison, and it does not approach the level of the 1963 movie. However, the sets and the cinematography are absolutely fantastic. If you can sit through a dreadful portrayal of Cleopatra, you may become engaged- if not completely entertained. I do not recommend that you watch this film...unless, of course, you are inclined to do so. It would be best to have the 1963 version on hand, so you can make comparisons.

John Wayne's break-out film, The Big Trail, has a few good moments. It is not an accurate predictor of stardom for Wayne, and indeed he would not become a "star" until some years later, after cow-punching and roping off the bad guys in countless poverty row "oaters", and giving new meaning to the phrase "horse opera" ( along with Ritter, Maynard, Scott, Mix, Gibson, and a whole host of others). But he did eventually rise to the top of his game, and when you see this film, there are indications as to how it came about. The "John Wayne" character is here, not fully developed and not entirely believable because of his youth, but we can look down the road and see things to come. This film has all of the technical shortcomings of most films of that period, but since most of the shots are exteriors, it does not come off too badly. It never hurts to have Arthur Edeson in charge of cinematography. He was already something of a legend in Hollywood by mere virtue of having been chosen by D W Griffith personally to replace yet another cinematographic legend, Billy Bitzer...and some of his best work was yet to come, with films that we all have come to regard as classics. This flick is kind of a "Grand Hotel of the Prairie", with pioneers crossing the Oregon Trail and facing odds that seem impossible at times. It is also interspersed with personal stories, and scores to settle. Wayne, who plays a scout, has one to settle with two saddle-tramps who murdered his partner. When first offered the scouting job, he scoffs at it. But the trail of evidence leads him to believe the bad guys he is after might be in or near this wagon caravan, so he signs on. The adventures, hardships, loss of life, and extreme measures that must be resorted to at times, all come together to make this something of an entertaining watch. Also, not a bad music score. Scores were rare in these early vehicles unless the film was a musical or one of the silents, which were still being made in 1930, but which were becoming extremely rare. The scoring here is a nice touch, even for the 1930s, when sound tracks were still relatively new, and studios and theaters alike had to revert to sound...or perish. Not too bad an outing for Duke, though we know there were better things to come.

As a "baby-boomer" I recall having been shocked by this film back in the '60s when it was shown on TV...even then with a cautionary advisory for younger viewers. It was in Chicago where I saw it...at that time Amanda Randolph was starring on "Make Room For Daddy" with Danny Thomas, and her famous sister, Lillian Randolph--famous for the roles she did in the "Tom and Jerry" cartoons, and the many film and radio roles she did--such as on "The Great Gildersleeve ( Birdie)" and her unforgettable presence in "It's a Wonderful Life"--had retired from show-biz and had settled in Chicago. "No Way Out" is a film that scrapes raw nerve endings. It gets right to the point, and is shocking because of the level of honesty it brings to the screen on the matter of race relations in America, circa 1950. The film definitely broke new ground, and was a break-out movie for Sidney Poitier, as well as Ossie Davis and Ruby Dee and others in the cast. Poitier is Dr Luther Brooks, trailblazing doctor put in control over a hospital ward who gets no respect and is constantly under the gun. When a patient in his care dies under what appear to be questionable circumstances, the groundwork is laid for for racist feelings to come to the fore. And, as word gets in the breeze, it comes to the point where a race riot could possibly ensue. Turns out that Brooks made the right diagnosis and took the right actions...but will word get around in time enough to quell the racial tensions that have heightened to nearly a fever pitch? This film is very intense, and can stand alongside of any of the films of today...it is honest, well scripted, well acted, and frightening in its delivery. It will have you on the edge of your seat. I recall back in the 80s and 90s when the Gen-X-ers were first seeing it in AMC and other cable outlets. Most did not know that things were as they were in that period of "pre-civil rights movement" America, and they were shocked to discover that such a film had been made. This is a film that not only changed cinema, but which also helped change America...and on that basis alone it is worth a watch...and I am sure you may want to watch it more than once.

This action flick, a serious one by Chan ( and some of his earlier vehicles were also quite serious in their subject matter) overcomes some obstacles, and winds up...despite its numerous shortcomings..to be somewhat exciting and entertaining. The acting is stiff, the script is rather hokey, and the over-dubbing borders on atrocious, but the film manages to rise above these things by way of really spectacular stunts and special effects. I may watch it again just to study the effects, and I know some of the stunt-persons had to get some real pain making falls from heights onto what seems to be concrete floors. It was pretty impressive. Chan is a bit restrained in his martial arts presentation, preferring to give us just the amount of action required to see him through his tribulations, and that measured response adds to the reality of the film. Not a great film, but it can hold its own with some of the flicks produced here in the states in terms of production values. A worthwhile watch. Not highly recommended, but an entertaining watch for those who would be interested.

The crimes of Dahmer were sensational, and being from the mid-west, this writer knows that they were front-page news, and they hit home hard. This film does little to help understand Dahmer the killer or Dahmer the man. In fact, it is a huge disappointment because it does not cover the ultimate apprehending of Dahmer by an all too indifferent Milwaukee PoliceDepartment. To some degree, they bear responsibility for the protracted crime wave that ensued because of their inability to recognize what was happening. Dahmer, as did the cops, suffered from the blinding racism that was...and to some extent still is...pervasive in the society, and which may have been an influence on how he chose his victims. These attributes are all down-played in this film. Not much gore, and not much of a shocker. It fails to get across the elements of sheer evil and terror that were associated with these acts. Because of the lackluster way in which the film moves, and because it did not move me to shock but to anger...and because the script, acting, and chronology were disappointing...if not non-existent...I cannot recommend this film as being an authoritative source for familiarizing one's self with Dahmer. This is a film that literally demands the kind of blood and guts and cannibalism that we witness in action packed adventure films because it truly happened. Yet we get little of it. The film leans a bit too much toward being sympathetic to Dahmer, and that is dangerous. While Dahmer's case merits understanding to be sure, he does not merit sympathy in any wise. Maybe down the road, some intrepid soul will produce the definitive film on Dahmer. Unfortunately, for us, this film is not it.

This poor excuse for a movie really ought to be ashamed of itself. The two comedians in the principal roles are about as funny as a ruptured spleen, and Atwill and Lugosi probably scared each other more than they scared the intrepid audiences who dared sit through this film. RKO sets a new low for itself. It's released some pretty shabby B-flix during its time, but this one stands out because it brings all of the trappings of a cheap, hastily done celluloid nightmare that you might expect from one of the poverty row studios...PRC, Tiffany, Mascot...you name it. "The Cobra" has struck again, leaving its murderous imprint upon the already burdened psyche of the city. The two "radio detectives" have a show that re-constructs what they call 'the crime of the week'. But the ne'er do well heroes along with Anne Jeffreys do so well that they step on the toes of the villains and they do not like it. It then becomes a matter of having to get rid of them because they feel it is only a matter of time before their villainy will be discovered along with their true identities. It was a ridiculous, tired plot...even then in the 40s. It may have been a good vehicle for better actors...but that is not the case here. It is so bad..nothing can save it. If...as I have read...this is remake of a Jack Oakie vehicle from the 30s, this is one time when RKO should have just let sleeping dogs lie...and this film is really a DOG ! I cannot and do not recommend it. Even though I love old flix, this one is a time waster.

The "Sin Ship" is crippled by production values and by technology of the period, as well as what audiences would accept or reject during that time. But the idea is a good one, kind of like "Taming of the Shrew" in reverse. A sea captain of the "rough-n-tumble" vintage, falls for a fair haired cutie based on sight alone. He comes to regret having judged this book by its cover in more ways than one. First...she is another guy's girl...and that guy happens to be a preacher. The old sea salt tries to go "cave-man" on the damsel, and gets the most sanctimonious dressing down he has ever received. It actually changes his perspective, and brings him down a notch or two. We begin to see that this hard-boiled-egg has a conscience, and enough self-respect to be ashamed of himself for having acted in such an abominable manner. He finds he has a case of love on his hands...maybe for the first time in his life...and he decides to shape up. But...little does he know that the Preacher is NO preacher...and the Lady is NO lady. The dumb cluck finds out the hard way, and beats up on himself for being such a sap...being preached to by a female who possesses even fewer morals than does he...and she's the woman of a wanted and hunted criminal. But, as we all know, love does strange things to the brain. Despite all this, the jerk realizes he is truly in love, despite all of the other BS that has started to become pervasive. He even starts to lose the respect of his crew, whose respect he has commanded by being a tough, no non-sense old buzzard. When the Buffalo chips finally hit the fan, there is a bit of a surprise ending which is played off well...and the survivors walk off into the sunset to live--we hope--happily ever after. It's entertaining, but it would be a hard watch for today's audiences. But it would have had some potential if it had been a little better acted and/or written. Not a new story by any imaginative stretch, and since it is a "pre-code" flick, they could have taken it a little further...but they did not. For Mary Astor, who plays the blond siren, it is practice for her later triumph in "The Maltese Falcon". Unfortunately for Louis Wolheim, this would be his "last hurrah"...such as it was. He would be dead by the time the film was released in 1931. It was a great cinematic loss...few character actors have been able to handle tough guy roles the way Wolheim did...knowing when to get tough and when to lay off. Plus...to look at him, you would never guess that he was something of a scholar in real life. He was fluent in at least five languages, had been well educated in Ivy League fashion and, prior to his acting career, had been a professor of mathematics and engineering at Cornell U. That's pretty amazing. ( A counterpart to Wolheim was Nat Pendleton, who played tough, dumb guys, but who had been educated at Columbia U, who spoke seven or eight languages fluently, and who won Silver at the Olympics in the 1920s for wrestling.) I have probably over-rated this film by giving it a seven...but I am looking past the old, noisy celluloid and thinking of the unrealized potential. Anyway, if you can stand it, it is slightly entertaining and engaging and worth at least one viewing.

This film is interesting because it serves as the prototype for the film, "The Producers". Though the story lines differ slightly, the plot is the same. Get the most horrible play you can find, produce it and ruin careers and reputations. The same sort of reckless abandon of "The Producrs" does not exist in this film. The producers want to get revenge on their star who is jumping ship to go to another producer at the end of her contract. They present her with a piece of garbage written by an aspiring young female playwright. They expect her to hate it...instead, she loves it. Making life uncomfortable for the star with script changes, and watching a naive young girl become wise to the ways of Broadway comprises the better part of the film. It's worth a watch because of the cast. Alan Mowbray manages to pull it off in believable fashion, with help from Don McBride, Frank Faylen, and other notable stalwarts of the period. If it comes on, give it a whirl.

Actually, not a bad film for an old antique. Bennett and Kelton are two prosties with no shame in their game. The films open with the girls having served their time---either for soliciting or theft--and getting booted out of the clink. Bennett rolls a drunk for his bankroll aboard a barge headed down the river. She gets busted by an adamant Matt McHugh, and jumps overboard rather than face the music and go back and do more time. She is fished out of the river by Joel Macrae, who skippers a cotton barge. Despite his kindness to her, she rolls him too--for the whole payroll...and skips. But this time, her conscience gets to her...and she discovers love. She pays him back...instead of blowing a fuse, he proposes to her. But she is busy milking another sucker, a sugar daddy she meets by way of deceit. He falls for her, and takes her in, giving her some stability. But...love will out...she's ready and willing to throw it all away because she loves the cotton barge skipper. But , she has a past that needs to be reconciled, and sugar daddy beats her over the head with it. So, with love in her heart, but with low self esteem and fear of rejection by the lover she has at long last found, she dis-appears, even gets a job ! Remarkable. Macrae finally finds her, and what happens is the stuff fairy tales are made of. The film is a worthwhile watch, though I am certain that audiences of the early '30s did not look upon it the same way they would some half a century later with the likes of Julia Roberts and Richard Gere. Pert Kelton gets special mention...she steals her share of scenes and was quite a siren of the screen during that period...she had sex-appeal that oozed and dripped from the screen. Maybe it did her more harm than good, but she is one of the sexiest women on the screen during this period. One line she utters that I really like is "...I'll take vanilla", one of the strident wisecracks of the screen during this time. Also, Mildred Washington appears, playing a maid. Mildred did not shuffle, and was a star in her own right on the Black circuit. Her unfortunate early death robbed us of a presence on film that was both intelligent and vivacious. See this film...despite its age, it deals with the subject matter realistically, for the most part, is well made, and very entertaining.

One of the last of the "noir" genre, this film is an interesting study of celluloid. Director Kubrick puts into use many of the devices that would turn up later in the films of Quentin Tarantino, especially "Reservior Dogs", which is also similar in plot. Rewinding the scenes and going at them again from different angles and perspectives probably was not completely new in Kubrick's day...just that it had never been fully exploited then, and was not exploited again until the 1990s. This film tells the tale of Sterling Hayden as a loser, who just got through doing a stretch in the pen, trying to pull a race-track heist in conjunction with a number of other underworld slugs who come out of the woodwork and lend their talents for just such an occasion. $2 million bucks is just short of peanuts in today's world, but it was one heck of a lot of dough in 1956, and a lot of guys, even a crooked cop, were willing to cast their lots in with each other just to get a share. If you have not seen this film...and I think everyone should...I won't jump the gun and give away many vitals. The performances are good, very credible, and the cast is outstanding. Jay C Flippen, Elisha Cook, Marie Windsor, James Edwards all give outstanding support to Sterling Hayden. In the race track robbery scene, I think I spotted an aged Robert Emmett O'Connor (of "Sunset Blvd" and "Public Enemy" fame), but I cannot be sure. Also, the uncredited narration of the film sounds, to my ear, like the voice of Art Gilmore, who also narrated the TV series "Highway Patrol", and was a staple on radio and TV in the 50s and 60s. One point where I differ...though Marie Windsor's character pumps info from her weak kneed husband, Elisha Cook, it has no real bearing on the robbery...but it has quite a bearing on the aftermath. A pre-"Ben Casey" Vince Edwards tends to that, in a somewhat grisly fashion. But Hayden's ultimate undoing were circumstance and faulty planning. He sees the handwriting on the wall, and knows that running would be to no avail. This caper ends his criminal career for once and for all. I had never seen the film before. It is an incredible watch, more than a watch, actually, but an accurate study in human nature. I recommend it very highly. It is also very entertaining.

Some might dismiss this film as typical Hollywood propaganda...and they may be right, to a certain extent. But I dig old movies because they do not often cloud the issues, and the good guys and bad guys are not hard to pinpoint, unless you are watching a real mystery of some sort. There is some mystery here, though not the type Ellery Queen would flaunt. Nazis came through to the American continent during WWII in numbers that would make us all more uncomfortable than we would admit. Canada had its share, for sure, and the RCMP had its work cut out for it. People often forget that prior to the hostilities of that war, there existed something called the "German/American" Bund, and that the majority of immigrants to this nation are of Germanic descent. To the Germans, this made the pickings good if they could get a smooth talking German to make the point and gain converts. That is the premise here, with Flynn and his Mountie buddy making a bust of these interlopers. But Flynn blows it, does not make an arrest, and things start to look as if he is a traitor to the Crown. Turns out, it is an orchestration to merely find out what these Nazi chumps are up to...but the price is an horrific one. Lives are lost along the way, some needlessly and even a few Nazis are thrown to the wolves by their own kith and kin. Flynn's WWII efforts are particularly appealing because of his suavete, his accent, and his general bearing. These may seem un-American to some, but he was, actually, quite Patriotic for the times. WWII movies are very entertaining because WWII can be viewed as more if a "just war", if anything can be imagined...and a lot of heart and passion went into many of the films, which were manned by the best directors and crews, and populated by some of the greatest of actors. This one does not approach the thresh-hold of 'great' by any means, but it is very entertaining. A worthy watch if you care to view it.

American citizens traveling overseas to certain destinations can be assured of hardships and hassles...this was true even prior to the hi-jacking days. Those who were dealing in drugs and contraband were really living dangerously. In some countries it is a death sentence merely to be caught with such contraband. The facts about Hayes are not fully explained as to his motives...we can assume that it was financial motivation. That, coupled with his inexperience and his up-bringing in what was still sheltered middle or upper middle class America at that point in time, kicked in to make his downfall all the more difficult. He is busted with hash at the airport as he leaves Istanbul. His girlfriend travels on to her destination, and spreads the bad news to the family at home. This film was, at the time, one of the first of the realistic prison shockers, knocking down the old images of Cagney and Bogart, and replacing them with as near to the real world as would be permitted by the censors in the late 1970s. Prison life is no game in America...and in Istanbul it appears to be almost completely Darwinian. A four year sentence gets overturned, and is replace by a 30 year sentence. By then, Hayes and his cohorts feel they have nothing to lose by trying to escape, and they almost succeed...until they are turned in by one of the snitches. Hopes are consistently raised, and dashed, and raised again, and dashed again. Finally Hayes manages an escape...one that I will not spoil in case there are late arrivals to this film, like myself. It is a bit hard to follow, and you must pay close attention. They speak in what appears to be Turkish dialect in many of the scenes and not all scenes or sentences are well translated, so you must use your powers of deduction to realize what is happening at certain points. But it is power packed, and is a film well worth seeing, though if you let your kids watch it, be there to help them along...or maybe in today's world, some parents may need to have the kids watching with them so that the kids can make an accurate social assessment. Either way, see the film. It is more of worthwhile watch than I first imagined.

I understand the basic motive of the producers of this thing-a-ma-bob, based on the work of Shakespeare, who based his upon other works of the period. It was a grand effort, but it fails miserably. To update this classic story to modern, hip-hop times and still keep the Elizabethan English in the script is a sort of a death warrant in and of itself. It is clumsy, corny, and a bit superfluous. It stumbles over its own two left feet. I suffered through one viewing of it, praying that it would soon be over. After what felt like an eternity, it finally was over. I would never want to sit through this movie again. It lacked character, substance, and credibility. Plus, there is a great deal of otherwise terrific talent wasted along the way. Brian Dennehy and Paul Sorvino would be worth the price of admission alone, were it another, more credible vehicle. But they come off looking like fools in this play in search of an identity for itself. Leonardo does the best he can to make this thing work, but...terrific actor that he is...he simply does not have the depth to pull this one off. The direction was fast paced and intense, and that was one of the problems with it. The actors had no real opportunity to let the characters come to life and to allow the script to breathe. The result...it moves at too quick a pace, it never quite settles in, and the actors sound as if they are reciting their lines, as opposed to allowing the lines to be delivered at a credible, believable pace. The modernization of the story is also a sore point. To bring this story into the age of greed and moral degradation tends to over shadow the point...that this is a story of love and of just plain rivalry between two families that do not see eye to eye. Romeo and Juliet pay the price for the foolish attitudes of their families, a situation that rings as clear to-day as it did way back in the days of old. The producers wanted to take the story a step beyond "West Side Story", which was also a variation on the Romeo/Juliet tragedy...but it failed in this modern day translation. "Plan 9 from Outer Space" was badly done because it had virtually no budget, and dealt with the death of a principal cast member during filming. This one had the budget, but it was still badly done, badly written, and badly executed. Maybe another production company will undertake the mantle and do a more respectable job.

Fredric March is one of my very favorite actors, and almost all of his movies are quality merchandise. I've not seen them all, but of all that I have seen, they all rate high in my book. This version of "A Star Is Born" is very special...it was made just a decade after pictures converted to sound. If we put the action 'right in the moment', one wonders how Norman Maine could have been washed up in less than a decade...especially if he passed all the rigorous criteria to make it into the talkie era. But we must suspend common sense for a time, in order to get into the movie. His star is fading even as we are introduced to him. Wine, women, song, and the theatre of the bombastic have all taken their toll on Norman. Everybody is back-biting him as being washed up in the business...and all seem to know it ...except Norman, that is. Meeting aspiring starlet from the Midwest, Esther Blodgett, is a bit of serendipity for both of them...though with different outcomes. He arranges a screen test, even twists the producer's arm to star her in a vehicle, which is a success. As her star rises, his continues to fade and fade until he is practically dead in the business. If he had problems when he was still a star, you can imagine what horrors he must have endured as his career is eclipsed by that of his wife, now known as Vicki Lester, who has begun to appear in her own highly acclaimed movies...even winning a coveted Academy Award (which Gaynor did in fact win some years earlier...the first actress to be awarded in her category). Humiliation is piled upon humiliation for Norman. Vicki loves him so much that she decides to put the brakes on her own career to take care of him. Norman now sees that he has lost all that he had, but cannot endure this selfless sacrifice his wife is making. If you have not already seen the movie ( are there aliens living amongst us?) or one of its several derivatives, I will stop there, and let you see the movie for yourself. The performances are sensitive, and this was probably one of Hollywood's first efforts to look at itself with some measure of honesty. The viewer connects with Esther Blodgett and her aspirations, and they want her to win. Fredric March draws out the true tragedian that Norman Maine represents, and his performance shows how pitiful one can become when one's life is shattered and dreams and ambitions disappear like snowdrifts in the springtime. Kudos go to Adolphe Menjou as producer Oliver Niles, Lionel Stander as the no-nonsense PR man ( what a contradiction in terms), who has no sympathy for Norman and contributes to Maine's ultimate decline...and to May Robson. May we all have a Granny like her to come to the rescue in our darkest hour. This version of a "Star Is Born" is best because it is the most dramatic and most honest of the numerous versions. It is raw and gritty, yet it never loses its focus or sensitivity. See the other versions of the movie if you feel you must, but do make an effort to see this one first.

I cannot understand how such films can spawn sequels. Highlander is a film that goes over the top...its plot is complex, difficult to follow, and not believable. It is good to see Sean Connery, which is what made the film watchable and tolerable for me to what extent it could be. Queen's score is good, though not first rate. The rest of it is what they call "fantasy". It is not a very engaging film, and I understand why it did not do so well at the box office in the U.S. I would imagine that a film such as this would have its audience, those die-hards who are fans of blades and steel and blood and guts of an ancient bent just to see such things on screen. But...it did not do much for me. I found it to be a very difficult watch, and did not watch it all in one sitting. I watched part of it one day...and came back to the other half a couple of days later. I was happy to see the end credits...because I thought it was a nightmare that would never end. If gratuitous blood and guts and clanging of steel blades is your bag, you will go in for this one. But if you have some measure of sensitivity, you will clamor for film of a different sort, that makes more sense, and will not be so hard to watch or to follow.

Disney's animation projects appeared to be running out of steam in this warmed over, under the radar imitation of "Snow White". The animation world had changed dramatically in the 22 years since Disney first delved into features. This one, while charming and darkly scary to some, was a bit of a bore for me. I could never really get "Snow White" out of my head. The similarities in the stories should have been enough to tell Walt to let it go...and let someone else do this one. Snow White had a Prince who kissed her and broke the spell...so does Sleeping Beauty. Wicked Witches? Both stories have one. But the first time was the best time, and in this film Disney had no real message. As for Fairy Godmothers...Cinderella had one...and he cast some of the same people over and over again to add to the monotony. Verna Felton comes to mind. She was a familiar figure on TV by now, as well as having been a familiar and identifiable voice on radio in the 40s with Judy Canova as well as Eve Arden...amongst others. Snow White and Sleeping Beauty both survived murder plots against them. Both were of royal blood...the similarities are striking. As I watched the making of this feature in the short film afterwards, I wondered how Walt could look into the camera with a straight face and claim anything new or strikingly original about this film. The technology had advanced, of course...but none of it was his...or very little of it. It was shot on 70mm film because the film world was being choked to death by TV, and processes such as Cinemascope were coming into play in a vain effort to recapture the once captive theater audience that would never again be captive. The film was successful and Walt made his money...but that was largely marketing...he had something now that he did not have when Snow White was in theatrical release...and that was the millions of baby-boomers who were not yet born when Snow White was made. But a lot of them would see Snow White, and would voice the same similarities at one point or another that are being voiced here. Not to take anything away from Disney...his encounters early on in his career had sharpened his business sense. But, for me, Sleeping Beauty is more an entertainment vehicle and a money maker, and not one of the truly innovative Disney films. In fact, as animation became more and more condensed as the 60s came around, Disney, as well as his animation counterparts in other arenas, would come to rely more upon development of characters as real animation was thrown to the four winds. This feature was made just prior to the animation low point in which Disney films would languish until the late 1980s or early 90s, when interest in animation would be revitalized. I can say no more about Sleeping Beauty other than some may find entertainment value in it. But I prefer Snow White over Sleeping Beauty any day of the week.