Frem Here To Awesome Festival
Advertisement

joem18b Blog

  • The Adventures of Robin Hood

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Full disclosure: I haven't read "My Wicked Wicked Ways," so I take Errol Flynn at face value in this movie. What he did behind those fake castle walls I don't know and I don't want to know.

    I faced certain hurdles in reviewing the movie:

    1. Erroll Flynn looks like my shrink in his younger days.

    2. Sir Guy of Gisbourne is played by Sherlock Holmes (Basil Rathbone). You can tell all through the movie that he knows stuff he isn't saying; I mean, he's Holmes, thinking, thinking... Any minute he's going to take Robin aside and give him a good talking to.

    3. The movie is Ivanhoe with no Ivanhoe. What does this mean? No jousting!! (Actually, the movie was to start with a jousting scene, but it got dropped for budget reasons.)

    Nonetheless, I am prepared to describe and discuss the film. First thing: it has held up over the years. Made in the first decade of talkies, it's still fresh (it was the top grosser in 1938). The new Technicolor process is more than fine (Dr. Natalie Calmus was onset to handle all color issues). We should see color like this today. Second thing: that's Claude Rains under the bright red wig and blond beard. A corrupt senator in Washington, yes; a police chief in Casablanca or a Nazi, sure; but this? Third thing: Rains is eating a pomegranate in England in the 1100s; but that's ok; pomegranates are mentioned in the Song of Solomon - I've heard that Prester John himself brought them to Great Brittan. I didn't notice what else was in that fruit bowl - bananas?

    The movie begins when an old poacher skewers a big buck. The nobles are about to stretch the poacher's neck when Robin rides up and saves him. With the nobles gone, Robin, up on his horse, tells the old guy, "Fetch the deer." 200-pound buck. The old guy would have to drag it by one hoof. Presumably it's dressed out when Robin carries it in later and dumps it on Prince John's table. (The exterior shots are done in the California hills near Chico. The forest doesn't remind me of England, but it does have big oaks in it and it's dressed up enough not to seem irredeemably Californian.)

    Cut to the banquet hall. The first thing to notice is how clean everybody and everything is. Reminded me of Samuel Goldwyn, who insisted that his sets be clean. When Dead End was being made, and the single set was meant to reflect slum conditions, he kept patrolling it, picking up litter, to the discomfiture of the set dressers. Goldwyn would have loved this movie. Immaculate. But who wears chainmail on their head during dinner?

    During the banquet, when Robin would speak, Prince John says, "Let him Spout for a moment."

    During his escape, after he finishes spouting, Robin the dead shot unaccountably puts two in the door frame when he could easily have skewered Basil Rathbone. And this paragraph is my nod to Patric Knowles, who plays Will Scarlett in his red getup. No fighting for him. He carries his lute and he and Robin laugh and jest. Ok, maybe there is a little tension when Robin and Little John get it on with the longstaves and knock each other about and end up fast friends, but then Robin and Will are back walking side by side again, big grins on their faces. If only Maid Marion hadn't shown up.

    Maid Marion gets the Casablanca line about how England is bigger than just Saxons and Normans. As someone points out, the Saxons were happy (and grimy), living with their pigs, before the Normans showed up. Or am I thinking of Monty Python and the Holy Grail? And by the way, no language problems between the two groups in this one.

    Forget Korngold's musical score, especially Robin Hoods' March. Recycled by Korngold from 1919. But when the trumpets are lifted in a line, with banners hanging from them, and the trumpeters give a blast, do we ever hear the real thing, or is it always the trumpets in the studio orchestra?

    [Spoiler] Robin wins the archery tournement. Did they really have those big, multicolored bulls-eye targets back in the 12th century?

    Robin and Maid Marian kissing: After all you hear about the Hayes Code, it seems like you'd be lucky to see anybody kiss anybody in the late 30s, but Robin and Marion smootch it up more than once. I like it onscreen with the mouths closed but you could see, when they pulled back from each other dry-lipped, that they were both wondering, Is the audience going to settle for this?

    One of Hollywood's Top 5 swordfights ensues. But Rathbone will be back, with his deerstalker on his head!

    Did this movie make me want to go out and nock up an arrow? No. But next time I'm in Chico, I'm going to stop and remember Merrie Olde Englande.

  • Paths of Glory

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Paths of Glory  (1957)

    This Stanley Kubrick film (1957) is listed in AFI's top 200 movies of all time. Paths of Glory tells the story of a company of World War I French soldiers accused of cowardice after the men refuse to advance during an attack on the German lines. Three soldiers chosen at random from the ranks are court  martialed, tried, and shot, to provide a warning and example to the rest of the men.

    In WWI, following an initial burst of enthusiasm and optimism on both sides, a static front of trenches  developed, stretching unbroken from the Atlantic to Switzerland. Soldiers from Germany, France, and  England populated these trenches from 1914 to 1918. Periodically, one side or the other would send forth  a wave of men to be slaughtered while attempting a breakthrough. Casualty numbers ran higher, far higher,  than had ever been seen before in human history (although the patterns of battle and loss reflected  those of the US Civil War, with respect to death vs the development of new weaponry). The lines hardly  moved over the entire course of the war.

    The action in Paths of Glory occurs halfway through the war. It could have been set anywhere on the  line, on either side of the line. Kubrick lays out the basics with a nighttime reconnaissance sequence,  scenes of the general officers planning the next attack, a fruitless assault, the trial of the three men  for cowardice, the executions.

    I watched this movie again several weeks ago and asked myself, does it deserve its stellar reputation as  an effective antiwar movie?

    The question occurred to me because I was in a contrarian mode, having just written a review (q.v.) of  2001, explaining why I thought the movie was not as good as advertised. If Kubrick could win accolades  with 2001, could it be that Paths of Glory was similarly defective? The generals behave badly. Death is  a statistic. The war, it is clear, is symmetrical, meaning that right and wrong do not apply when  weighing the reasons to fight. Some die and the rest move on. Meaningless. In "All Quiet on the Western  Front," the protagonist returns home from the lines for a visit and finds the old men in the tavern  arguing over the war as if it were a soccer match. In Paths of Glory, we are not even provided the  neocons' cold-blooded, realpolitick, simple-minded explanations of the benefits of political change by  force.

    The moral, ethical, non-cynical man's view is provided in the film by Kirk Douglas, who might as well be  living on another planet for all the good he does here. Idealism can only be used as contrast by Kubrick  here, can only be grand and shining but febrile in effect, if war is to remain absurd, mechanical,  final.

    A soldier is killed because of an officer's criminal malfeasance; ironically, the officer is spared  retribution by having a witness to the killing executed. A soldier is near death from a head injury  incurred in a fight; ironically, he is saved so that he can be shot. A young German woman sings to the  French troops and ironically brings them to tears. Kirk gives up at the end, with that Kirk look on his  face, and ironically, I find myself grinning.

  • 2001

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    I notice that 2001 is #22 on the AFI list. Various Spout posters have it on their top-five sci fi lists. Just a quick post here to ask why.

    Disclaimer: I write here only of my subjective reactions to the movie. No absolutes. No measure of Kubrick as visionary or master filmmaker. If 2001 is your favorite sci fi flick, I'm down with that. I don't expect everybody to respect my favorite movie as the #1 of all time, not if they aren't into horses and the young girls who ride and feed and groom them like I am. Because one day that girl grows a little older and loses interest and then you're stuck with half a ton of knickering, piebald... but I digress.

    I haven't watched 2001 in several years, but I've seen it more than once and I do have my lasting impressions. Perhaps, given the adulation enjoyed by the film, I'm forgetting something important. I saw the film in Boston in 1968 when it came out. Played at the Cinerama. Might have been the first movie shown there. Prices jacked up, I remember that. We sat in the balcony. Course, we didn't know that we would be watching THE #22 MOVIE OF ALL TIME when we went. There was more interest in the whole Cinerama thing, which as I recall turned out to be no big deal.

    Anyway, the movie... Did I use the word "visionary"? I'm just remembering here that it's 2007, as I write. In 2001 I was still driving my '67 VW with the sunroof. But the trip to Jupiter required that we find the black thingee on the moon and, well, we didn't go back to the moon. In fact, x percent of Americans don't think we ever went to the moon in the first place; twas all a hoax. So instead of the Jupiter trip and HAL, we get Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bush, Clinton, and Bush ("Let's go to Mars, right after we finish with Iraq."). And a head of NASA who thinks that it's presumptuous of us to consider our current climate as the best of all possible climates. But whoa. I'm going to pretend that the movie's title is 2101, just to give myself a little room here. And 2010 can be 2110, for those who dug the sequel.

    Anyway, I settle back in my seat and we get the cavemen and the black thingee, and then the bone tossed in the air and it turns into a spaceship, and right there I'm annoyed. I wanted more ape. This is it? A little ape and black thingee and we're done? And btw, what happened to that black thingee? It's buried out there somewhere? What would that thing bring on Ebay? Did I mention that I read Arthur Clarke in paperback (Ballantine Books) back in the 50s? He was ok, more than ok, but a little staid. Childhood's End, as I recall, had a great cover. The covers were almost as important as the books, back in the day (my fave companies: Bantam, Ace, and Ballantine). Anyway, we don't just leave the apes, we get the Strauss waltz music and flight attendents (in 60s stewardess mode). The reality: 2007, Southwest Airlines, a tiny bag of greaseless peanuts.

    Then another black thingee but nothing really happens. The Cinerama has worn off. Did I mention we were up in the balcony? My girlfriend at the time... jeez, by now she's a grandmother. I don't think she cared that much for the movie either, but who knows? I was too self-centered to care what she was thinking about it anyway.

    Ok. HAL. Finally. A gay voice like that was totally unusual in the 60s. A breakthough of sorts, except that his breakup with Keir was a little heavy. Holy Cow! Keir played a senator in The Good Shepherd. Still working. But anyway, lbgt was all code back then. Pulling those circuits out, one by one. Homophobia at its worst.

    Don't get me started on that light-show thing. Went on forever. Checking my watch. Those colors wouldn't have passed muster in The Wizard of Oz.

    And then the ending, which Clarke hated, and still hates. Wow, he's still working too. So we are connected to the 60s by threads other than just 2001.

  • Music and Lyrics

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Music and Lyrics  (2007)

    Age is adding a touch of gravitas to Hugh Grant. His good looks, which have limited him throughout his career, are fraying in the same good way that Pacino's did when his bloom wore off. Grant is no Pacino, but looking at him now I can understand how he got caught in a car with a hooker in L.A. That understated, self-deprecating yet subtly superior British style is aided immeasurably in his case by the signs of wear on his puss.

    Here, he carries on the Cary Grant/Eva Marie Saint tradition of older guy (Grant is 47) scoring with the beautiful and nubile young woman (Drew, 32).

    Grant plays an aging, ex-rock star reduced to singing at state fairs. (Refer to Bill Nighy in Love Actually for more on the subject.) By a remarkable stroke of luck, he is given the chance of a comeback. However, to succeed, he must write a great song "by Friday"  that is, by soon enough to introduce tension in the film but by far enough for him to meet a girl, work through a few plot points,  and win her heart before the deadline. With the date set, a meet-cute immediately follows: the has-been's plant sitter is on vacation and Drew Barrymore, ditzy but still lovable in spite of her age - although the clock is ticking on this - shows up to fill in ith the watering chores. May Drew only grow up sooner than Diane Keaton did (if she has). Hugh writes the music; Drew is a lyric poet savant. The next Roger and Hammerstein is born, though hopefully R and H didn't wake up in the sack together after a night of collaboration.

    For those on product-placement watch, Baldwin and Yamaha are given equal, lingering time for their grand pianos.

    Extra credit to Grant for performing not only on film, but also onstage in front of a full auditorium of children, teens, and their parents. He also does a love duet on stage; I've had a soft spot for these ever since Willie Nelson and Amy Irving did theirs in Honeysuckle Rose and then Dyan Cannon came onstage to announce her divorce.

    This movie also produces a credible hit song that helps keep the romantic vibe afloat. No oscar-winner about the hard life of a pimp, but hummable.

    Somebody should do (or has already done) a study of couple chemistry onscreen. Hugh and Drew have it here like Clooney, Brad, and Matt have it in Oceans 11, 12, and 13. It has nothing to do with the characters and everything to do with the stars. You'll need to want that in order to absorb all the Hollywood vitamins that this flick provides.

    The film steps up to PG-13 when Hugh and Drew wake up in bed togeher the morning after. This, we know, in a movie paced as energetically as this one, means that the subsequent breakup is only minutes away. (Note to self: watch A Touch of Class again sometime soon.) Other than the moment in bed, the film is squeaky clean. The stars let it loose in the out-takes but even there they are relentlessly beeped out.

    If you require an edge to your romantic comedy, you won't find it here. The movie is smooth, all edges and corners rounded. The conflict is painless. Boy meets girl, loses girl, gets her back again for the finale before you've reached the bottom of the popcorn bag. This is not a bad thing if you want to sit back and watch Hugh and Drew do that thing that they do, this time with and at and on each other, while your brow remains unfurrowed. Then tear up for a second at the melodic, heartfelt climax. Nothing wrong with that at one in the morning on the couch in the family room.




  • Warriors of Terra

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Warriors of Terra is the name of a group of young eco-activists who have invaded, and freed the caged critters from,  the research facilities of twelve of those large, evil companies that mistreat animals in the service of developing drugs that will make the stockholders (and the immoral CEOs, always beautifully decked out in navy blue suits in these movies) richer than we can hope to imagine. The film is several cuts above average for a low-budget effort. It should satisfy undemanding horror geeks and some of the rest of us who were misled by the title into watching it.

    Edward Furlong gets top billing. After Pecker, American History X, and Animal Factory, I thought Furlong was a star, but perhaps not. If the list of films he's done in the past few years represents quality work, then I'm out of touch, since I haven't heard of any of them. He doesn't look good; the sweet bird of youth has flown.

    [Mild spoilers]

    Think Alien and then replace the female bug with a female human with ebola DNA patched into her cells. Result? She's faster than the eye can follow. The more she is injured, the more she needs to eat and like Ebola, she likes to eat flesh - the flesh of B-movie actors. Replace the crew in Alien with the Warriors of Terra stuck in the basement of a big building, and then sit back and try to guess who makes it out alive. One of the warriors, Andrea Liu, we'll be looking for in future films. In this one, being of Asian extraction, she is named "Jade," in case we hadn't noticed.

    The movie uses sound well. Quiet, understated techno backgound. Rather than graphic killing and feeding, we get a blackout and sound of crunching as each victim meets his/her fate.

    The film is unrated, but sadly, only for language and a little gore. Since some of the gore moved, something I don't remember seeing before, I suppose it's CGI.

    No commentary, which you've really got to have to get through some of these things.


 

Like what you're reading?

Subscribe
Search
  Go

Browse previous
<June 2007>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
272829303112
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
1234567


Categories
 


Advertisement