Change Your Image
vincem41
Reviews
God Is My Co-Pilot (1945)
Good film of it's type, but some reviewers need to learn their history
Here is an absolutely incorrect statement - "WWII war movie about the fabled "Flying Tigers" who battled the Japanese over the skies of China as early as 1937, four years before the attack on Pearl Harbor, and amassed a record of air-to-air combat kills against the Japanese air force of something like 40 to 1."
The foregoing is NOT true - the Flying Tigers flew their FIRST combat mission on 20 December 1941 MORE THAN TWO WEEKS AFTER PEARL HARBOR!!! They were disbanded on 4 July 1942 - they were only in combat for about six months. During that time they did establish an astonishing air-to-air kill ratio of somewhere between 29 to 40 to 1 (it is still in dispute). Gen. Chennault had been in China since 1937 working for the Nationalist government as an adviser and trying to develop a Chinese air force, with limited, if any success. Someone made a comment that the original AVG pilots refused to fly the 4 July 1942 mission- I'm sure they did, the unit had been disbanded by that time and most of the pilots had been treated like dirt by the Air Corps general, Bissell by name, who was tasked with trying to get them to stay on in the American army air forces. Read about that debacle sometime. By the way, Scott never flew with the Flying Tigers, he was brought in as the unit commander after it was integrated into the Army Air Forces, a few, but by no means all, of the original Tigers transferred over and continued to fight in China. Quite a few others went back to the States and re-joined their former services. Boyington went back to the Marine Corps, quite a few others into the Air Corps and served in Europe.
The movie takes quite a few, in fact it takes a whole lot of,liberties with Scott's book, but the general idea is there as is the wonderful lack of "political correctness". This country knew how to fight a war back then and how to let it's military people "close with, engage and destroy" our enemies and they were allowed to refer to them as they saw fit. Krauts, Japs. Wops whatever, they were the bad guys. Let me assure you when someone is actively engaged in trying to kill you, you really don't care about hurting their feelings. For me VC & NVA will always be "gooks" and if that offends someone - well all I can say is "Tough! deal with it"! God help the Soldier or Marine today who calls an Islamic terrorist a "raghead" in front of some prissy journalist. These days - the poor S.O.B. would be court martialed and in the brig before he knew what hit him. Ah, for the good old days. This movie will take you back to them and remind you of a time when this country actually stood for something and had pride in itself.
Jewel Robbery (1932)
An absolute gem of a movie - on a par with "Trouble in Paradise"
First comes the disclaimer – I admit to being a big time Kay Francis fan. I particularly love her in movies like this – light romantic comedies. She simply shines – she is sophisticated, enchanting, elegant, seductive and absolutely inimitable; while at the same time projecting an impish charm and sense of humor that simply captivates - hell, I admit to even adoring her slight lisp – it's the minor "imperfection" that enhances the whole! This movie was released a good ten years before I was born, but I finally got to see it last week and it was worth waiting for. Other reviewers have outlined the plot, so I will only add that this movie is Kay Francis at her best, as good as, or better than her role in "Trouble in Paradise". She and William Powell play beautifully off each other, and the supporting cast – each and every one of them – is nothing short of terrific. This movie is really a gem and a wonderful example of what Hollywood could do (and did) in the early days of "talkies" before the Hayes Office Code made a travesty of film-making. They could not have made this film in 1935, just three years later. The sexual innuendos and situations would have been verboten – yet everything was merely insinuated, not blatantly exploited. This small three or four year "window" in the history of movies was able to be sophisticated, witty, erudite and adult without the necessity of crudity, gratuitous sexuality or the use of language and violence simply for it's shock value rather than for what it adds to the story or plot. Yes, yes, I know – I'm old and need to move with the times. However, this movie shows just how entertaining, funny and charming and sexy good writing, good acting and good direction can be. If you haven't seen it – do so – you won't be disappointed.
Trouble in Paradise (1932)
A Masterpiece
Finally had a chance to view this movie and I can only agree with the majority of previous reviewers. This is a witty, sophisticated, charming gem of a film. The casting is perfect, the direction is perfect, the pacing is perfect, the whole thing is perfect. I can't see how anyone can call it dated – the only thing lacking is the lack of ability in modern audiences to appreciate wit and sophistication which is unaccompanied by car-chases, gratuitous violence and blatant, rather than implied sexual activity. I contend that Miriam Hopkins and Kay Francis in this film are sexier and more alluring than any of the "hotties" on the screen today. Today's "hotties" are great, but belong in the soft-porn category – they have to show a lot more skin to achieve half the effect that a Hopkins or a Francis or a Bergman could achieve with a well placed, subtle smile or glance.
Kay Francis steals this film, and that's hard to do when competing with Miriam Hopkins. She is exquisite, enchanting and absolutely charming. Miriam Hopkins gets the better comedic lines and the guy. Herbert Marshall shows an unexpected (to me) flair for light comedy, while Charlie Ruggles and the ubiquitous Edward Everett Horton provide their usual first class supporting roles. A true Lubitsch masterpiece.
Tender Comrade (1943)
Good at showing the daily problems to overcome on the home front
I found it an interesting movie because I was just old enough to be aware of what was what during the war years. Rationing, shortages, worrying about husbands, fathers, brothers, uncles, etc. who were overseas fighting. It may seem "hokey" or outdated to those under thirty or forty, but it's fairly representative of what life was like. I agree with a previous commentator - Dalton Trumbo is/was a vastly over-rated writer, in fact if it hadn't been for the fact that he was "black-listed" I doubt if he would be remembered, let alone lionized as he is today. A classic case of creating a martyr. He's heavy handed and lacks subtlety. His mediocre writing is usually compensated for by the talent of the players or directors. View it with a mindset that allows for the ethos of the period and I think you will find it entertaining. Ginger Rogers is almost always terrific, and this movie is no exception.
Air Force (1943)
Watch a film in the context of it's time, or don't bother
To those people who are so caught up in political correctness that they can not for the life of them watch a period film without smugly pointing out all of "incorrect" and "offensive" parts, thus enhancing their own "moral superiority" and "self-esteem" – I say please stop watching movies made before your twenty-first birthday. That way you will not be offended and will not have to deal with reality. Look kiddies – it was 1943, the Japanese had just attacked Pearl Harbor, they had perpetrated the Bataan Death March and the Rape of Nanking. They were on nobody's short list of nice guys. The were in fact "F***ing Japs", "Slopeheads" and a whole lot of other non-printable epithets, By the way, at the same time the Germans were "Krauts", "Squareheads" and "F***ing Nazis" – Italians were universally referred to a "Wops", "Dagos" & "Greaseballs"- by the way all of my uncles who fought in the ETO were Italian-American - and they used the "nicknames" for Italians. They were the enemy. Get over it!!! Speaking from experience, when someone is actively engaged in trying to kill you, and you him, you could care less about political correctness or the ENEMY'S feelings. They are the enemy – thus for me, they will ALWAYS be "Gooks" and "Gomers" and if that hurts their feelings – oh well!! By the way, despite the best efforts of the government and the political correctness mafia – today's combat troops refer to the bad guys as "Rag Heads" and "Muji's". Again, deal with it.
Also – 1943 – we barely had enough planes to fight the war, (thanks to the pre-war peace lobby) let alone make movies with them. The fact that the P-39 was somewhat less than a stellar performer just might be the reason that it was available to make this movie, among other "inconsistencies. The fictional battles and actions were a result of the fact that when this film was made there were very few Air Force victories to brag about in the Pacific – yes it was "propaganda" – so what? Finally, many of you use the word "propaganda" like it's a bad thing. Perhaps you feel that we shouldn't be all "Rah, Rah" for our side?? Whose side should we be "Rah, Rah" for? Or do you think in a war you should remain "neutral", not caring which side wins, just so long as "your" nominal side retains the moral high ground. Well hell, Belgium had the moral high ground in two world wars – ask them how they enjoyed it.