westerfield

I'm disturbed that so many reviewers gave this film bad marks because it is not politically correct by today's standards. They should be rating the film on its effectiveness as a story. I found it compelling and believable. All of the principle actors gave one of their best performances. Certainly Stanley Fields and George Stone were never better. Irene Dunne carried off a range of impressions seldom matched on the screen. And Richard Dix did the opposite in just as admirable a way: maintaining character through numerous situations.

But what is most important is that the film was not politically correct for its time - in a brave way. It showed the intolerance for blacks as something shameful and that color didn't matter when it came to courage. Showing the black teenager as a hero was almost unprecedented for the period.

At a time when native Americans were portrayed in film merely as evil hoards, this film showed both their shameful treatment and nobility. And dared to show that marrying for love knows no racial barriers.

And finally, far from being anti-feminist, it showed that any woman raised to be prejudiced and subservient could become a fair-minded, independent leader.

The film did all of these things within the confines of the story without being preachy. That alone is a triumph of its time. Add to that the sweep of the film that didn't lose the personal stories and you get an Oscar worthy film.

As a fan of Rand but not an Objectivist I attended opening day of Part 1. I was pleased to see the theater was packed for an afternoon showing. When I watch any film I try to stay uninvolved, just going along for the ride. My verdict for Part 1 was 7 stars. I thought the acting competent, the story interesting and the selection of scenes slightly disappointing but acceptable, given the constraints of editing down the book. I purchased the Blu-ray; it didn't change my opinion. My wife, who thinks libertarians are crazy gave the film better marks than I. It was a good but not great film.

However, from the beginning of Part 2 I was completely emotionally involved. I pumped my fist. I clapped. I yelled (as softly as I could). The film was just so RIGHT! The actors playing Rearden and Francisco were definite upgrades. The sets were much better, as was the CGI. The story moved with an urgency that left me breathless, even though I knew what was coming. That means the directing, editing and music are all complementary. And it was wonderful to see all the cameos that in no way subtracted from the experience. I knew Teller was a fan but none of the others. I have the Blu-ray on pre-order. There are some films I can watch over and over and still get the same experience - in some cases get more. I expect that to be the case with Atlas Shrugged Part 2.

I've always been a Ricardo Cortez fan. He rarely gets a chance to stretch his acting wings but he does so here. Cortez is exceptional in playing older men. In Torrent (1926) you'd swear he actually aged. In Hat, Coat and Glove he plays age, hopelessness and loneliness quite well. It is unfortunate that the effect is damaged by shoddy makeup. His graying hair varies between scenes and virtually disappears in some. Dorothy Burgess was never better. The wife and her lover are somewhat weak. Frankly, I didn't see what the husband or lover saw in her. But it didn't matter; this is Cortez's film. The twists and turns of the plot are anything but conventional. For all it's absurdities this is a quality programmer that will hold your interest.

My wife and I saw Dr. Rhythm when we were first married about 40 years ago. We loved it and never forgot the main song, nor Beatricy Lillie driving Franklin Pangborn crazy over the danner nipkins. For the last 20 years or so we've tried unsuccessfully to get a copy. Turner doesn't even list it. Other posters here also remember it fondly, hoping to see it again. Good news! As of January 2013 the entire film is posted on YouTube. We just watched it and it was as good as we remembered. The songs are pleasant, the actors are old favorites, including Andy Devine and Sterling Holloway. The action is unexpected and well paced. The comedy is unforced and genuine. Bea Lillie steals the show whenever she appears. Indeed, she should have received equal billing with Crosby. Why not? Only a gypsy knows!

Far from boring, the opening minutes of the film take the time to introduce us to the lives of Virginians in 1777. It helps establish how folks lived in an established colony. A base line. The film then covers the trials leading to a new country. This contrast is extreme. The climb of the mountain is one of the great sequences in film history. The idyll on the other side is rewarding but still packed with danger from both the Native Americans and the weather. I don't believe any other film quite captures how tenuous life was back then.

The dialog is a bit ripe but the actors deliver it with such conviction that I accepted it as the way folks talked in the 1700s. I became invested in them, particularly Gavin Gordon and Elenor Boardman. John Mack Brown simply plays himself. The Great Meadow deserves to be much better known. Turner Classic Movies should show this in the 8 PM spot with commentary by Robert Osborn.

I've watched the 1926, 1930 and 1930 wide screen versions many times over the years. However, the other day I finally watched the widescreen on my 5x6 foot screen which I usually save for 3D and football. The details really jumped out. There are so many wonderful camera tricks, many of which I cannot explain. As a professional modeler I can say that the miniatures were far ahead of their time, as was the skill in photographing them. They probably were only exceeded beginning with the Star Wars attack on the death star.

The fluidity of the camera was amazing for its time. The old lady and the maid walk down a long corridor, talking all the time as the camera moves ahead of them. They walk into a room and sit at a table which was right in the path of the camera. Later in the film a character vaults over a 3 foot wall and runs down a path with the camera following him, apparently right through the wall. The shadows of the Bat as he hulks on the floor are inhuman. On several startling occasions the characters jump right into the camera. These and more have been mastered for years but this film discovered them. If you are familiar with the climax of The Alibi, you remember the special effect that seemed almost real, not surpassed until CGI. The Bat Whispers is filled with such effects.

Yes, the film is static, despite all the goings on. And the acting, although unacceptable by 1932 standards was about average for 1930. However, I would gladly have strangled Maude Eburn who ruined every scene she was in. The Bat Whispers is really a guilty pleasure for modelers, cinematographers and horror fans.

I never was a fan of Loy's later films. Frankly, I never found her good looking enough to attract her co-stars. But as a bad girl she excels. See her in Thirteen Women! The dialog direction in The Squall is beyond terrible. On the basis of this example I would never have predicted that Loretta Young would ever become a great actress. The whole film sounded like a bad junior high production. Except for Loy. She is natural, transcending her sometimes awful lines. She is believable among a bunch of seeming amateurs. And sexy. There are few more torrid performances ever put on the screen. Watch The Squall for her performance alone.

Look up lists of best murder mysteries and only three pre-1940 films appear: Murders in the Rue Morgue, The Hound of the Baskervilles and The Thin Man. Both Morgue and Thin Man really stretch the point. There's no mystery in the former and the latter is really a comedy. It's not surprising that early films fail to make the list; they are infrequently seen. And when they are, modern sensibilities make them seem too old fashioned to rate high marks.

Fog Over Frisco is a forgotten gem that deserves to be high on anyone's list. It takes over from the early Philo Vance films in complexity and adds original twists, tension and action. The Warner Brothers stock company players are uniformly good but Bette Davis is amazing. The film doesn't follow a standard mystery format and avoids most of the clichés found in such films. It is fresh, exiting and original. Fog Over Frisco is far and away the best of its kind made up to its time (1934) and perhaps through the entire 1930s.

I looked forward to this film for years due to the Jeanne Eagles mythology. Frankly, I was disappointed. The Letter was dull, below average for a 1929 Paramount product - think The Coconuts. Eagles performance was underwhelming. I could see that her acting would have been effective on the stage but here her instant changes of expression lacked subtlety. Her final scenes, while effective, just didn't square with the rest of her performance. In a similar situation Mary Pickford's Coquette was more effective, although the films' total quality is about equal. There was no real tension as compared to the Bette Davis version. A great deal of this failure was due to the choice of the Chinese woman who couldn't pull off the Gale Sondergaard type of mystique and evil. And who stuck in that totally irrelevant mongoose/cobra fight? I liked Herbert Marshall's performance as the cad. O.P. Hegge is a personal favorite but here he merely recites lines. He's much better as Nayland Smith in another 1929 Paramount chasing Dr. Fu Manchu.

There is only one reason to watch this really bad film: hunchbacked dwarf John George. George worked in films from the late 'teens to the early 1960s. He had some nice roles in silents but his heavy accent limited him in sound. He usually played news vendors and the like. As such he appeared in many big films: Picture of Dorian Gray, Bride of Frankenstein, The Killing, A Streetcar Named Desire, Around the World in Eighty Days and Ocean's Eleven. In each of these his appearance can be measured in seconds. It's a treat then to see him in Mesa of Lost Women where he gets a number of glowering close-ups. Once you've noticed him you'll see him everywhere: Mark of the Vampire, The Black Room, Tower of London, The Black Cat, Man of a Thousand Faces and so on. Keep looking for him but look fast!

As a fight fan I cringe when I see films like Rocky, Kid Gallahad or Golden Boy. They might as well be from Republic serials. Every punch a hay maker. Every punch connecting. But this film shows what two top professionals can do. Sure, the action is unrealistically non-stop but the punches are thrown properly and the connection rate (until the final rounds) realistic. This is enough to make Prizefighter and the Lady the best fight film ever.

I was terrifically impressed by Max Baer. He held his own with consummate professionals. Was he awkward in some scenes? Yes. But isn't this how you would expect a guy that he was playing to react? And his turn at show business, while of no value to the film, was the kind of thing famous people routinely did in that age.

The rest of the cast was uniformly good. Willy the gangster was a difficult assignment pulled off with originality and rare perception. The basic story may be well-used but done with complete believability and with interesting twists. Fight fans, see this film.

This isn't the best film ever made - my vote goes to All About Eve - but it by far my favorite. The combination of favorite actors, wonderful music, excellent sets, good cinematography and excellent direction make it the best horror film ever made. Other reviewers are right: it doesn't make a lot of sense. I liken it to having a strange dream that is completely compelling at the time but upon awakening, seems unbelievable.

Many reviewers have described the plot so I'm not going to repeat it here. I want to take on some the interesting aspects that you may not have noticed. Much of the music is arranged for full orchestra that was originally for smaller pieces, piano quintets, concertos, etc. Heinz Reimheld is to be commended for seeing the possibilities in these thinner pieces. I've done my best to acquire original versions of all the works used. I find the chosen music and timing among the best in any film. Think of Karloff grabbing the statue during Shubert's Unfinished. In the recent restoration of The Magacian (1926)for Turner, the orchestration leaned heavily on The Black Cat music.

The coven is full of interesting actors besides John Carridine. Michael Mark (little Maria's father in Frankenstein) helps tie up the heroine. King Baggott was in films since about 1912 and did horror roles in early silents. And then there's John George, the hunchback dwarf who added interest to so many films: Prisoner of Zenda, The Bells, Don Juan, The Unknown, Mark of the Vampire, Bride of Frankenstein, Tower of London and Picture of Dorian Gray among many. You won't remember him because he's usually part of the scenery. But if you look for him he pops up in films like A Streetcar Named Desire, The Killing and Ocean's Eleven.

Some reviewers comment that the set is cheap. Nothing could be further from the truth. In "the phone is dead" scene you can see a fully furnished dining room in the background that went unused in the film. Details like these make the set completely believable.

Some of the scenes were re-shot after Uncle Carl saw the finished product and had a fit. You can read the details in Gregory William Mank's: Karloff and Lugosi, A Haunted Collaboration. I have the 1990 edition. Mank expanded the work in a 2009 edition. I don't know if he added more to what is known of The Black Cat. Used 1990 editions may be had for about $17.00 at Amazon. During the re-shoot a costuming error is obvious. David Manners' jacket shoulder is ripped in some scenes but not in others.

Now for some personal remarks. Early in our marriage my wife and I adopted a puppy. We named him Koolgar so that when people asked about the name I could quote Bela: "Have you ever heard of Koolgar? It is a prison below Amsk....' We live in a modern house with an intercom system. When my wife calls me to dinner she says over the intercom, "Docter Vertigast has arrived." And finally, I've toured the so-called "Black Cat House" in the Hollywood hills. It is the Frank Lloyd Wright designed Ennis-Brown House. It has been used in many other horror and adventure films besides House on Haunted Hill. In Buffy the Vampire Slayer the exterior was used for Angel's hideout. The interiors were used in Rocketeer. Last I heard tours are held one Saturday a month by reservation only.

Now, I'm not a nut case over this film. I've visited many obscure movie sites. And I've tried to identify music used in other films. It's that this film is just so right; a pleasure to watch over and over.

I just watched this excruciatingly bad film, hoping it would end or at least make some sense. I have to say this is one of the worst I've ever seen, and I've seen Plan 9. To say I was amazed at many of the reviews here would be an understatement. How could such a marvelous cast play so badly, even given the rotten script. I didn't like any of them, much less have sympathy. At least some of them had the good grace to die off. And Bartlemess who couldn't use his hands to lift a drink later can light a cigarette and fire a rifle. Unbelievable! The cast drinks continuously and never sleeps without ill effect. They stay at the best hotels, dine and drink at the best establishments and dress in the best clothes without any apparent source of income. If this were a fantasy I could suspend my disbelief but the film is supposed to portray the result of war on ordinary men.

Once in a great while a science fiction film will make you think. Bladerunner wasone. But they spent millions making it. Speed of Thought does it on asmall budget. There's little action but lots of talking. Many reviewers down grade it for that. However, I rate it along side another great all-talk film, Creation of the Humanoids. It gets the same poor reviews by some but many rate it 8-10 stars. Forget running gun battles. Listen to the philosophy. Examine the wonderful plot. Think of the implications. Think.

The leads are adequate but veterans Blair Brown and Wallace Shawn ground the film in reality. The way the telepathy is imagined on film is the best concept I've seen. This is how you make a good film on a small budget.

This film has wonderful production values and excellent acting. However, it is totally derivative and predictable. I expected much more from Abrams and Spielberg. I can only guess that all of the reviews giving this 9s and 10s were written by 14-year-olds. There is absolutely no suspense. Rather the film goes for shocks - often. Val Lewton first discovered this technique in Cat People and it has been known ever after as a "bus". To be effective a bus has to be completely unexpected. Super 8's buses can be seen coming down the street for several blocks. The plot is completely unbelievable. The monster digs a pit and miles of tunnels in one day. I believed this could be done by a flying saucer when Invaders from Mars scared the wits out of me in 1953. But a single monster? And one that could attract tons of metal and magically turn it into a space ship? (Did anyone notice that while the kid's locket was being attracted to the water tower a background character had a necklace that wasn't?) Yet the monster couldn't escape from a box car? And don't get me started on the train wreck. Exciting - sure. But totally breaking the laws of physics. It is impossible for a truck to derail a locomotive on a straightaway. The truck would simply be pushed down the track for however long it took for the engineer to stop the train. And even if the loco derailed the rest of the train wouldn't act like a speeding bullet. Let's just sum it up by saying the great films are able to make you suspend your disbelief even over the most incredible events. Super 8 fails, making it only a so-so film.

I admit it. I'm a hopeless romantic. I proposed to my wife within a month of meeting her and we were married within 4 months. After 42 years of marriage we still hold hands over the dinner table, say "I love you" dozens of times a day and still weep tears of joy when we look into each others eyes. If you do the same, this film is for you.

I Hate Valentine's Day is formulaic, predictable and lacks truly original characters. But what it lacks in these areas it makes up for in schmaltz. If you weep at silly love stories you'll weep for this one. If you smile when true love blossoms you'll smile here. On the other hand if you sneer at Capracorn like the second male lead, you'll sneer here. Personally, I wouldn't care to know the reviewers who give this film 1 or 2 stars.

Every once in awhile I discover an actor that is a revelation. I've seen him or her in other roles but wasn't impressed enough to notice. Watching Ross Alexander I saw a likable, energetic, impressive singer. He puts Dick Powell to shame. After reading his bio I see why he never became a star. What a pity. When he and Edward Everett Horton do their patter songs it's impossible not to smile, stop the DVD and replay them. It was also nice to see Sazu Pitts in a glamor role. At 41 she could play frumps and spinsters 'til the cows come home. This one let her look her best. (If you've never seen her in a Von Stroheim film you don't know how good she could look when properly photographed.) The story is nothing. But the interaction of the characters is extremely well done. If you love 1930s character actors as I do, be sure to catch this film the next time it's on TCM.

I have a movie that invariably tells me if the person is one I will enjoy associating with: Titanic. If he loves it, no way. When I saw TCM was showing Reds I read the IMDb reviews and was surprised to see that most either thought it was the best film ever made or the worst. Now, I've liked Beatty ever since his Dobie Gillis days but had never seen Reds. So I marked it as a must.

It isn't that the film is bad, it's not just very good. The characters were unappealing little people who spent their little lives in fruitless attempts for meaningfulness. And they did it sooooo boringly. The acting was not up to par for the major players. The cinematography is ho-hum. I did like the interviews very much except for the film-school formula of always having the person in one third of the screen. Frankly, I would have enjoyed a film of just the interviews with some archival footage of events thrown in. Now I can't speak for the whole film because, frankly, after 90 minutes I was so bored I turned it off but there seemed to be no drama or excitement to it.

It seems to me that the "best film ever" folks were influenced by the politics rather than the film itself. And the "worst" folks also. It's sort of like claiming The Fountainhead was the best film ever if you're a libertarian. But what the film meant to me is that I wouldn't care to associate with those who thought the relationships portrayed were in any way appealing or worthwhile.

As a transit fan and former New Yorker living on the Pelham Line I looked forward to this remake. The original was voted the best film giving the real flavor of New York City. This one could just as well been done completely in Hollywood. One reviewer stated that this should be a treat for transit fans - not for a moment. The early scenes of trains were jump cut and speed fuzzed. No stations were shown in detail. Even walking down the tracks failed to show the tunnels. There were so many detail errors it was dismaying (but that's to be expected). For example, we know the mayor is riding the 6 train because a one-half second shot of the bridges at Whitlock Avenue appears. He calms the passengers by saying they will make all the stops. But the trains are all backed up on the line from 59th Street!

In any event, the film itself was not much better. There was no character development other than Washington and Travolta. The other hijackers are barely there. Washington is excellent as the everyman until he turns supercop at the finale. Travolta is way over the top. I'm no prude but his mfing every other word was an embaresment. Most of the film is just the two of them talking on the radio. When there is some action it's much bloodier than it needs to be. To say I was bitterly disappointed would be an understatement.

Most of the comments about this film take Tom Keene to task as being alternately wooden and over the top. My belief is that Vidor was well satisfied with his performance. After all, this is not a great leader or a living saint. He is everyman. He doesn't really know how to be a leader of men. He probably married is wife out of high school with no experience with a woman of the world. Sure he's petulant; he's not a tower of strength. Without Louie the project was doomed from the start. I found his performance just right.

And watching it again after some years I must agree that the ending is one of the finest, if not the finest, ever put on film. The lack of music while digging (showing just how grueling the work is)and then the wonderful score as the water starts flowing, perfectly complements the action.

I've been wanting burn a DVD of this film since I saw it about a year ago on TCM. Finally had the chance today. It's another Boleslavski film where every frame is art - see Fugitive Lovers. No one - not even Von Sternberg photographing Dietrich - took more care is setting the scene. Lighting, foreground, background, focus, all show a master's touch. Even the quick cuts of a second or less show the love affair of a man with his art. And just about every supporting villain in Hollywood is in it: C. Henry Gordon, Lucien Prival, Mischa Auer, Akim Tamiroff, Leonid Kinskey and Charles Halton (almost all uncredited). And not even mentioned in IMDb: J. Carroll Naish as an assassin. The rousing coach ride finale is a precursor to The Body Snatcher's and almost as good. Overall a schmaltzy Kay Francis vehicle made palatable by a great director. The film shows Boleslavski's versatility: here an epic versus Fugitive Lovers where almost everything happens on a bus. Too bad he died so early.

My wife and I saw this film 35 years ago at a retrospective house - a single showing with a packed house. We witnessed something we'd never seen before or since. When Diane finally finds the courage to stand up to her sister - taking the whip away and whipping her sister out of the apartment - the entire audience stood up and cheered. The film affected us so much that we named our daughter Diane. We didn't see the film again until it was released on VHS several years ago. If anything, having experienced more of life, it affected us even more strongly. We each went through multiple tissues crying tears of joy. Now we often say, "Al - Patricia - heaven!" Borzage has never failed to get at least a small weep from me but Seventh Heaven is his best.

This film is a perfect example of how to turn a pot-boiler into an art form. Each shot is expertly staged, lit and photographed - a stunning example of what a major studio can do with behind-the-scenes-talent in all fields with a minor script. The director is not well known but some of his films, notably Les Miserables, are well loved. The kind of quality he brought to such major films is here just as clearly in a minor one. Each person photographed on the bus could well be a Steichen portrait. The snow scenes have a beauty seldom captured, particularly on a studio set. I recommend everyone record this film on DVD the next time it's on TCM. After seeing it you'll want to go back and study individual frames.

This film takes on all religions and skewers them neatly while being fall-down funny. Lots of unknowns who made a splash later, despite this black mark on their records. Dabney Coleman as a really sleazy business man. Roger E. Mosley as a shouting preacher. The songs will leave you humming a sacrilegious tune - "I love my God, he is the best around....if I get run down by a truck, it's not His fault it's just my own bad luck". The film is really a series of funny sketches tied together by the problems of the station's finances. So forget the story and enjoy the incredibly absurd takeoffs that only a really disturbed person could devise. Only problem is the ending which tries to redeem the story with "just love everybody".