Rate The Last Movie You Saw

[Groggy]

Lives of a Bengal Lancer - 7/10 - Gary Cooper, Franchot Tone and Richard Cromwell battle Muslim fanatics on the Northwest Frontier and learn something about duty and patriotism. Among the first of the big imperial adventures, it's a Western in colonial garb even more obviously than its successors (the trio of American stars helps this interpretation). Heavy on the brothers-in-arms theme common to this genre, but much more stentorian and serious than later examples. The best scene is Tone's snakecharming duel with a cobra. The leads are fine but C. Aubrey Smith and Guy Standing's senior officers are more interesting characters.

[Groggy]

Play Dirty - 8/10 - Straightlaced Michael Caine and piratical Nigel Davenport lead a Brit commando team on a mission to destroy German fuel depots in North Africa. This is an exceedingly cynical war movie with no likeable characters and plenty of grim desert atmosphere, treachery, backstabbing and sadistic violence. Thanks to the lack of anti-war posturing it's plenty entertaining with an excellent finale. Caine is fine but Davenport steals the show as a particularly nasty opportunist. Lots of Almerian locations including the Agua Caliente set from FAFDM.

[drinkanddestroy]

Smart Money (1931) 8/10


Enjoyable early Warner Bros. gangster film, featuring Edward G. Robinson and James Cagney.

Robinson plays a Greek barber in a small town who is a small-time gambler. Because of his luck, his friends stake him to some dough to go take to the big city and try to hit the big-time.

If you are interested in movie history of history of this time period, I highly recommend that you watch this film commentary. (I forget the name of the two commentators, but) I watched a small part of the commentary; it is very interesting and informative. The commentators have a lot of great discussion RE: topics like the transition from and comparison of the silent era to the early sound era; the difference in filming techniques between the two eras; discussion of the pre-Production-code enforcement days (ie. the Code was there, but wasn't enforced, till 1934), etc.

Some interesting little history:


Little Caesar ("LC") had been released in January of the same year, and been a huge hit. But The Public Enemy ("TPE")  wouldn't be filmed and released till later that year, (In fact, Smart Money ("SM") had the same writers as TPE; they were working on the script of TPE on the set of SM, according to the commentary on the SM dvd). So by the time SM was being filmed, Robinson was already a big star, but Cagney wasn't Cagney yet. So in SM, Robinson is the lead, and Cagney has a supporting role.
Though SM was shot before TPE, TPE was released in April, while SM wasn't released until July. Therefore, while LC and TPE are often referred to as the first two big gangster films, SM was actually shot between those two films.

Truth is, SM is not really a "gangster film" in the same sense that LC and TPE are. Sure, Warner Bros. trying to cash in on the success of LC and cast Robinson here, but he actually plays a gambler -- a small-town gambler who goes to the big city and becomes a big-time gambler, eventually opening his own gambling joints -- but otherwise is not really a criminal. There isn't much of the violence and typical stuff you expect in true gangster films. This movie also has more of a light feel to it. But (considering the actors, time period, and the studio) I guess you can call it a gangster movie, or a crime movie.

This movie was made prior to the enforcement of the Production Code; there's some stuff there that would never fly once the Code began being enforced in 1934. Therefore, this movie couldn't be shown on television and kind of languished on the shelves of Warner Bros. during all the years of censorship. There's a particularly hilarious scene involving a Cagney pantomine   (The commentators read a lot of homoerotic shit into this movie. I can't really say I disagree with that...)

In one of the opening scenes, there is a brief, uncredited appearance by Boris Karloff as a shady character, probably a pimp.

[rrpower]

Orlando (1992)
can not say one good thing about this garbage. Not one. a dull, boring, uninteresting mess of a movie. Absolute shit.

21 Jump Street (2012)
There's usually only one good comedy each year, and this is it for 2012.

[Groggy]

Will probably be seeing The Avengers next weekend so...

Thor - 8/10 - Kenneth Branagh doing a superhero film equals a lot of angst and faux-Shakesperean scheming. Not suitable for all comic book movies to be sure, but well-done here. The Asgard scenes work best, with a very good villain turn by Tom Hiddleston (channeling Peter O'Toole apparently), while the Earth scenes are occasionally silly. Chris Hemsworth handles Thor's Henry V arc well, though Anthony Hopkins is super-hammy and the human characters are lame. Kat Dennings is cute and Idris Elba is a bonus badass. Could have used more action but I won't complain; this easily outdoes the Nolan flicks for character-driven superheroics.

[cigar joe]

Thor - 8/10 - Kenneth Branagh doing a superhero film equals a lot of angst and faux-Shakesperean scheming. Not suitable for all comic book movies to be sure, but well-done here. The Asgard scenes work best, with a very good villain turn by Tom Hiddleston (channeling Peter O'Toole apparently), while the Earth scenes are occasionally silly. Chris Hemsworth handles Thor's Henry V arc well, though Anthony Hopkins is super-hammy and the human characters are lame. Kat Dennings is cute and Idris Elba is a bonus badass. Could have used more action but I won't complain; this easily outdoes the Nolan flicks for character-driven superheroics.

This whole "genre" can't die quick enough for me, regardless, 

[Groggy]

Personally it would be no skin off my nose if they never made another superhero flick. But since there's little chance of that, might as well watch the good ones.

[Groggy]

The Incredible Hulk - 4/10 - This movie's clearly designed as a rebuke to Ang Lee's Hulk, an admittedly subpar film. Too much time spent on character development in that one? Okay, here's a team of ciphers. Not enough action? Okay, try lots of interchangable mindless fights and shootouts. Excessive back story? How about no back story? Movie going nowhere? Throw in an evil Hulk! For good measure, they chuck out the few good elements of Lee's film, namely the cast (Jennifer Connelly=Liv Tyler?) and Lee's directoral style. This is a dull, empty film existing solely to keep the Hulk in the Avengers line-up. Gets a sympathy point each for a not-bad end fight and Robert Downey cameo.

[Groggy]

Iron Man - 8/10 - 2nd viewing. Still had the same problems as my first viewing, but definitely liked it more on a rewatch.

[Groggy]

Grizzly - 4/10 - 2nd viewing. A shot-for-shot ripoff of Jaws, only with a bear. And stupid. Worth watching for the finale where Christopher George incinerates the titular bruin with a bazooka. You don't see that every day.

[drinkanddestroy]

Ransom! (1956) 8.5/10

TCM has been showing a whole bunch of Glenn Ford movies over the weekend, and I just saw this beauty, starring Ford, Donna Reed and, Leslie Nielsen http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0049656/

---------------------

PLOT SUMMARY: Dave and Edith Stannard (Ford and Reed) are a wealthy suburban couple whose son is kidnapped and held for $500,000 ransom.  They prepare to pay the ransom; but when Dave -- who is a pillar of strength while his wife crumbles under the stress  -- realizes that paying won't guarantee his son's safe return, he decides to turn the tables on the kidnappers.

Dave goes on live television with the cash on the table in front of him, and announces to the kidnappers, "You will get no closer to this money than you are right now": if they immediately return his son safely then they'll be fine; but if they hurt or kill his son, then Stannard will offer the money as a bounty on their heads.

-------


The acting is absolutely wonderful  

This movie was re-made in 1996, directed by Ron Howard and starring Mel Gibson in the lead role (that movie has the same title, minus the exclamation point). I saw that version about ten years ago, but this is the first time I have seen the original. As far as I can recall, pretty much the only part that is similar between the two movies is the main plot point, of Dave's turning the tables on the kidnappers on TV.

The 1956 movie is not available on Region 1 dvd (I read one critic who guessed that it is "perhaps due to lingering rights issues from Ron Howard's 1956 remake http://www.kqek.com/dvd_reviews/p2r/3541_Ransom1956.htm ).
So if you can catch it next time it plays on TCM, take a look  


--------------------------------------------------

SPOILER ALERT

RE: the ending, I will quote the same critic, whom I agree with here:

"Perhaps the story’s only lingering flaw is the happy ending, which feels like a tacked on relief for TV and film audiences; they may have been furious at being left with seeing a broken family, and never knowing whether the child was ever returned alive. Dramatically, though, the script progresses towards stripping a family to its bones, and the most sensible ending would’ve been an inconclusive finale."

Having seen the 1996 version, I knew there would be the happy ending, so it didn't bother me all that much; I am unsure how I would have felt about it had I not known that it would happen.

[Groggy]

The Avengers - 9/10 - This is the most fun I've had in theaters in ages. No ponderous bore like Nolan's Batman flicks, it's nonstop, unpretentious fun from beginning to end. This movie could have gone wrong in so many ways but Joss Whedon manages to get everything right. The heroes are balanced perfectly (even with tertiary characters like Black Widow and Nick Fury crammed in), the action scenes excellent, a lot of welcome humor too. The whole cast is good; Mark Ruffalo's arguably the standout, since his Bruce Banner is infinitely better than his predecessors. Harry Dean Stanton has a hilarious cameo. The rating may be hyperbolic but what the hell.

[drinkanddestroy]

The Angels Wash Their Faces (1939) 3/10

So what do you do if you are Warner Brothers, and have made a huge hit with the great Angels With Dirty Faces? Why of course -- you make an awful movie the following year using some of the same actors, give it a title that'll make audiences believe they are getting a sequel, and voila  -- you cash in twice! Well, I guess the joke is on me, cuz I fell for it  

TAWTF has Ann Sheridan and The Dead End Kids, but no Cagney, Bogie, or Pat O'Brien. The first half is enjoyable and you're thinking, hey, this seems like a pretty good film; but the second half is one of the most excruciating cinematic experiences I've endured in a loooong time. From the moment that the leader of the gang wins the "election," this movie becomes unbearable, to be kind.

Ronald Reagan is decent, the Dead End Kids are alright, and Ann Sheridan is as lovely as lovely can be (though she inexplicably disappears for a huge chunk of time, starting with that "election" victory). But the material is awful.

[Groggy]

Scorpio - 4/10 - Burt Lancaster is a CIA Agent whom the Company wants dead for some reason; buddy Alain Delon gets shanghaied into killing him. Pedestrian Cold War thriller has lots of twists but never makes much sense, nor inspires interest thanks to Michael Winner's turgid direction. Lancaster and Delon play boring ciphers with no discernable motivation. Paul Scofield periodically enlivens things as a cultured Russkie.

[drinkanddestroy]

PAGE 700, HERE WE COME....

--------------------------------------------------

The Prisoner of Shark Island (1936)



This movie is supposedly about setting the record straight and clearing the name of Dr. Samuel Mudd, who was convicted of conspiring with John Wilkes Boothe to kill President Lincoln. But the movie is so historically inaccurate, I shut it off after about half an hour.

(To be sure, I generally do not concern myself with historical accuracy (in fact, I just made a post in the thread of The Great Northfield Minnesota Raid about how I just enjoyed the movie for its own sake and I could care less about historical accuracy, cuz I just assume every Westerns is historically bullshit). But in the case of The Prisoner of Shark Island,in which the stated point of the movie is to supposedly set the record straight, historical accuracy is vital).

After shooting Lincoln in the presidential box of the Ford Theater and jumping down onto the stage, Boothe  -- an actor who performed in that theater -- broke his leg; he escaped into Maryland and went to the home of Dr. Samuel Mudd, who treated him. Boothe was ultimately killed 12 days later in a shootout with soldiers, and many people were eventually arrested for conspiring with Boothe. In what was likely a shameful, hysterical response to the tragic assassination of Lincoln, 8 civilians who had at one point or another had contact with Boothe were ultimately tried and convicted by a military commission: four were executed, Mudd and two others were given life imprisonment, and one was given 6 years imprisonment. Of the 4 who were imprisoned, one died 2 years later of yellow fever,  and Mudd and the other two were pardoned by President Andrew Johnson after 4 years in prison.

Now, I am no historian and have no idea whether or not Mudd was guilty, but I know that the movie was bullshit. It changes so many important facts about the story (eg. Mudd and Boothe had actually met on several prior occasions; but in the movie, Mudd didn't know who Boothe was, he had merely seem him perform on stage a few times, and did not recognize him when he came to his home to be treated). There are so many basic facts that this movie blatantly misrepresents (I won't get into all of 'em cuz then this post will be even longer than it already is), but the movie is simply not worth watching, and I shut this piece of shit off very quickly.

Again, I have no idea whether or not Mudd had anything to do with the assassination of Lincoln, or whether he had tried to cover up for Boothe, or whether he was indeed completely innocent as this movie believes. I will make no attempt to settle an issue that historians have debated for generations. But there are so many undisputed facts that the movie gets wrong, and in a movie whose stated purpose is to tell the truth about an episode in history to clear an innocent man's name, there is nothing more important than historical accuracy, which we get none of here.

------------------------

p.s. I watched a few minutes of the dvd commentary. It is really bad, by a Brit whose name I (happily) forget, and I only saw a few minutes of it. But this piece of shit tries to talk about how there are parallels with the current day, comparing the treatment and trials of the terror-suspect detainees at Guanrtanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib with that of Dr. Mudd and his co-defendants! Without getting into any legal shit here, or any opinion on the absolute treatment of detainees today, the fact is that there is ZERO legitimate comparison, legal and/or moral, between the appropriateness of their treatment and the appropriateness of those military commissions in 1865. Such comparison is nothing short of comical. Not that this commentator is interesting otherwise; I shut him off pretty damn quickly too. But hey, it's only appropriate to have a shitty commentator for a shitty movie