Change Your Image
DangerAwesome
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againMovies I have seen not on this list: Fast & Furious 6, The Hangover Part III, 2 Guns, Warm Bodies, 42, Gangster Squad, Ain't Them Bodies Saints, The Lone Ranger, The Internship, Oz the Great and Powerful, G.I. Joe: Retaliation, Superman: Unbound, World War Z, The Wolverine, and Dead Man Down.
Movies I plan on seeing: Frances Ha, The Counselor, The Wind Rises, 47 Ronin, The Spectacular Now, Don Jon, The Wolf of Wall Street, 12 Years a Slave, and The Secret Life of Walter Mitty.
As I watch those movies they will be added to this list.
Reviews
Behold My Wife! (1934)
Bad, but in a very watchable way
Entertaining and yet kind of lousy, 'Behold My Wife' attempts to be a great many things and only slightly succeeds at them all. At different moments it's a comedic farce, a drama, and a romance. It violently switches between the 3 in a way that never fully works.
It begins as a drama, where Michael, a rich society type, is about to be married to an average girl with a boring job. His disapproving snooty family convinces her that Michael has left her, and she proceeds to kill herself. The family is both distraught and half relieved that they've stopped the marriage. Ann Sheridan as the fiancé was very convincing. Even if she was only in the movie for about 5 minutes, she was one of the highlights. When Michael finds out, he vows revenge.
The movie then attempts to be a comedic farce. Michael goes on a drunken bender that ends with him in a bar in New Mexico, deep in Apache country. He offers whiskey to a Native American who somehow manages to get drunk in under 30 seconds. So drunk that he begins shooting up the bar, and then Michael. The daughter of the chief removes his bullet and nurses him back to health.
Sylvia Sidney as the chief's daughter doesn't make any sense. She doesn't even seem to attempt an accent, and doesn't look Native American at all. But this is in a day in Hollywood where Native Americans weren't even allowed to play Native Americans. I've seen Sydney play a Chinese woman (Blood on the Sun), Princess of a fictional European country (Thirty Day Princess), and now a Native American as well. That element aside, Sidney did a fine job.
Michael's attempt to get revenge on his family is to marry the Native American girl. Apparently never explaining his plan to the girl, who thinks he loves her. He sends his family a telegram, to come meet his new wife from "one of the oldest families in the country". This is still in the comedy portion of the movie. She comes East and makes a fool out of herself and his comedically snooty family, much to Michael's enjoyment.
Then the movie takes a violent shift into romance. After Syndey realizes he doesn't love her, she attempts revenge on Michael by pleading guilty to a murder she didn't commit. Michael, now realizing he does love the girl, tries to save her.
'Behold My Wife' is a tight 79 minutes which fly by. Never boring, but it's hard to really point to any part of it that was very good.
Jingle All the Way (1996)
Terrible, but in a good way
"Jingle All the Way" is one of my favorite Christmas movies and it's also one of my favorite 'bad movies.' It manages to be either intentionally funny or unintentionally funny at almost every moment. Often both at the same time. Do you want to watch Arnold Schwarzenegger beat up a mail man? Do you want to watch him punch a reindeer (literally)? Yes? Then Jingle All the Way is for you!
It has Sinbad, who has at least a few good moments. One of which has Sinbad committing an act of terrorism with a mail bomb. It has Schwarzenegger fighting a room full of Santas. Including a ninja Santa with candy cane nunchucks (and a nice cameo by WWE/WWF wrestler Big Show as a Santa). Really it's a bunch of good campy over the top fun. The massive overacting by Arnold only adds to the comedic effect.
If you enjoy movies in the 'stupid but good' category, this is a can't miss classic. Even the times it tries to be funny and fails it's still funny in just how badly it fails. The laughs never stop. It alternates between intentional funny and unintentional funny.
The Last Unicorn (1982)
Good visuals, mediocre story
"The Last Unicorn" is an animated film with great drawings, decent animation, a mediocre plot, and horrible pacing. The pacing is dictated by the music. The music is both a strength and a weakness.
The plot could easily have been condensed into way less than that of a feature film. Frequent breaks for musical numbers is the only reason it reaches 90 minutes. And even then, the non-music parts of it are rather slow. I'm not saying the music in the movie is a bad thing, but it both lives and dies by it. On one hand the music isn't that great by itself, but on the other hand the movie seems designed to fit itself around the tone of the music. And in that way it fits very well.
The one thing I loved about this movie was the drawings. Especially when they showed the darker and evil characters. The drawings for the red bull and harpy Celaeno were amazing. The contrast to the unicorn and her overly contoured childlike drawing helped set them apart and make them amazing as they were.
The movie is full of holes if you are thinking about it too hard. It's too slow, the music isn't that good, Molly Grue cries out "Schmendrick!" at least 10,000 times. It's one of those movies with a good concept and good morals, but if you try to dissect it you will succeed. I'd bet young girls will love it. To an adult it's not as unbearable as the title may suggest, but it's nothing spectacular.
Superman: The Animated Series (1996)
A toned down Superman for the 90's
This is a good but not great incarnation of Superman. The biggest issue with it being that Superman has been taken down many, many, pegs, so that he is much less 'super' than we have come to know him. Everyone seems to challenge him physically. On the other hand, the handful of episodes where Superman has no physical challenge are some of the best and most faithful adaptations you will find in animation or film.
Too many of the villains challenge Superman physically. It seems like every member of Intergang has a laser that can hurt him, every villain, even at one point a wind up boxing kangaroo (Toyman) can challenge Superman physically. It's way too much. Of the 54 episodes in this series, I'd say a good 40+ of them involve Superman going toe for toe with the villain. It's redundant.
One of the ways this series succeeds is Lois Lane. This is the strongest, best female role model, and most interesting version of the character I can name. She seems like someone that anyone would be attracted to. She's a version that seems like a good reporter and not someone who Superman is attracted to for no reason.
Watching this series I would rank the top villains as Lex Luthor, Darkseid, Metallo, Mxyzptlk, and Bizarro as the top 5, in that order. The rest being fairly boring because they are somewhat redundant. They have different powers for sure but most of them overlap in that they are a physical challenge for Superman and that is something the show does over and over again.
On that note, this incarnation of Brainiac was disappointing. He's depicted as a robot from Krypton who seeks to know and then destroy the universe. He seems to have an unexplained grudge against Superman, because in this show they are both from Krypton. He's too much of a brute and less of a brain in this show. This is a show that has too many brutes and not enough brains. Brainiac should have been one of the most intelligent, but he isn't shown as one.
Top episodes are: - Mxyzpixilated (S2E08) - Bizarro's World (S2E20) - The Late Mr. Kent (S2E22) - Apokolips... Now! (S2E25-26) - Knight Time (S3E02) - Little Big Head Man (S3E05)
All the Batman crossover episodes are good highlights as well.
Batman & Robin (1997)
I hope you enjoy train wrecks
"Batman & Robin" is the answer to the question, "what would happen if the worst script in the history of Hollywood TV had every character miscast and then was executed with a medium to low level of competency?" I genuinely got the feeling that the movie was written by a 5 year old playing with action figures and Joel Schumacher decided to make the same thing but with real people.
There isn't one good acting performance in the whole thing. You can simply distinguish the awful to the miscast to the not awful but mediocre. In the awful there is Alicia Silverstone, in miscast there is George Clooney and Uma Thurman. Arnold Schwarzenegger manages to be both miscast and awful, though his dialogue is mostly to blame. Then Chris O'Donnell, Robin, is the only one who you could argue didn't suck. And his performance is undermined by bat nipples that make you laugh at nearly everything he does.
The dialogue attempts to be witty but it's simply cheesy. Everything Mr. Freeze says in the entire movie is a bad pun. Then there are literally dozens of puns littered elsewhere throughout the movie. Robin: "So this is where you've been hanging out." As he and Siverstone hang off a bridge. Mr. Freeze: "You're not sending me to the cooler." Mr. Freeze: "What killed the dinosaurs? The Ice Age." He says as he freezes the museum dinosaur Batman surfed down the neck of. Mr. Freeze: "Cool party." Mr. Freeze: "Allow me to break the ice." Mr. Freeze "The Ice Man cometh!" Batman: "Hey, Freeze. The heat is on."
The only plus for this movie is it contains one of the worst lines in cinema history, which is hilarious. Robin: "I hate to disappoint you but my rubber lips are immune to your charms." *tears fake lips off* I could watch that clip on a loop for a day straight.
Avoid this movie at all costs unless you want to dissect everything wrong with it. It has little other value.
Batman Forever (1995)
Jim Carrey shines in an otherwise very poor Batman outing
The series received an overhaul before Batman Forever. Director Tim Burton was replaced by a significant downgrade in Joel Schumacher, a man best known as the guy who ruined the 90's Batman series. This, however, is not the low point of the series. It is clunky and contains some huge gaffs but ultimately isn't too disappointing.
Val Kilmer replaced Michael Keaton as Batman. His Batman is tougher and with less personality. His Bruce Wayne is the same. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but I'd have been much happier not recasting or changing the title character between movies.
The clunkiness of this movie is what is going to turn off most people. The problems with it are massive. From Batman cracking a safe with a hearing aid in a bank vault filling with acid (why acid?), to a nonsensical Batman diving across a courtroom in a brief TV flashback, to bat nipples, to a random shot of Batman's butt, the movie's problems are often laughable.
It is Jim Carrey's Riddler that keeps it watchable. His over the top comedic acting fits the role perfectly. In fact I can't quite be sure if Carrey was perfect for the role or if Carrey made the role perfect for him. Either way he was highly enjoyable, and one of the few things I think this previous series has over the newer Batman series. They never would have been able to pull off such a silly villain the way that Batman Forever does.
If you want to laugh at Jim Carrey, and to laugh at a dozen other huge problems with the movie, go see Batman Forever. Though you might consider fast forwarding through the stuff with Dr. Meridian.
Gravity (2013)
A+ for effort, execution, and enjoyability
"Gravity" does things with the sound and cinematography that other movies only dream of doing. Frequently filming from the first person, the film attempts to put you in the place of an astronaut adrift in space. It succeeds in a big way. Be prepared to be on the edge of your seat for 90 minutes.
The cinematography of this film is visionary. There is never an 'up' or 'down' to limit the camera. A common camera trick is to show the camera at a crooked angle to show uneasiness. Every shot in Gravity is at a crooked angle because there's never a clear up or down. That use of cinematography is brilliant in depicting the overall uneasiness of the entire movie.
The use of sound is nothing short of masterful. The silence makes you lean in close, then the occasional noise makes you lean back. Watching a space station be torn to shreds without sound makes you appreciate with your eyes. Then spending so much time listening to breathing makes you focus on your own breathing. It evokes a sense in yourself that few movies ever reach.
My only complaint about the movie, and I will say this is a fairly minor complaint, is that Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) basically has a 90 minute panic attack. She never calms down. I know that we are supposed to feel what she feels, and for the most part we do, but personally I doubt that adrenaline would last so long in myself.
There's not much to say in words about this movie. It's visual. It's noise. It's the lack of noise. It's brilliant. Go watch it.
Captain Phillips (2013)
Everything I hoped for
"Captain Phillips" is an exciting story of piracy. Its highlights include great acting by both principal actors (Hanks and Abdi), an incredibly intense showdown between two boats, and a strong ending.
The scene depicted in the trailers, with the skiff boarding the freighter, is one of the best individual scenes of 2013. It ratchets the intensity to such a high degree that it is somewhat disappointing that that scene is so early in the movie. Because everything after it seems slow paced by comparison.
Great exchanges between the two main actors. Tom Hanks was his typical greatness, even though this role was probably not juicy enough for an Oscar. Barkhad Abdi, despite never acting before, was also stellar. He looked and sounded the part perfectly.
The film lags a bit after the pirates take the captain hostage. That section of the film could probably be trimmed by 5 or 10 minutes without losing much. When watching it I became afraid that the one great scene from before would be the only highlight. I was proved wrong by the strong ending. I don't want to give away too much, but the last 10 minutes or so are the other highlight.
Pacing issues in the middle of the movie (the hostage part) is the only issue I have with Captain Phillips. It was an intense story of piracy. Every movie has a few parts that it needs to get right in order to be a good movie, and Captain Phillps gets a 10/10 for those parts. Its only issues are in the other, less significant, parts. I strongly recommend this film.
Prisoners (2013)
Good, but somewhat disappointing
"Prisoners" is essentially a remake of Mystic River (2003). It's a good mystery that uses great imagery. And despite the massive runtime, it doesn't lag too badly.
I wanted to love Hugh Jackman's performance as the father, but he basically has 2 emotions in the entire film. Angry, sad, then angry again. Not that he doesn't do those two emotions well, but it's not enough. Gyllenhaal is fine as the detective, and I was pleasantly surprised by Terrence Howard as Franklin. For a movie that seemed ideal for great acting roles, the portrayals are only decent to good.
The best part of the movie are the twists and turns of the mystery and how it is revealed and comes together. The imagery of the maze is an interesting motif and is used very well. I am honestly a little upset with the movie for how neatly it is all explained by the end. There is no room for ambiguity. The movie does a good job keeping us in the dark and guessing for at least 2 hours of its 2 hour 30 minute runtime. I wish it had ended with at least a little of the mystery that made it worth watching.
Had I never seen Mystic River (2003) I probably would have liked Prisoners a little more. It's a good mystery, but I was a little let down by the acting and a little let down by the ending. Good movie, I'd recommend it, but I'd actually recommend Mystic River more.
Rush (2013)
Respect
"Rush" is a formulaic piece that excels in almost every way other than its predictability. It's well acted, well filmed, and has great music to boot. If it wins an Oscar for something I'd expect it for the music first, then perhaps an acting nomination to Daniel Brühl (Niki Lauda) second.
You do not need to be a formula 1 racing fan to enjoy this movie. I have never watched an F1 race in my life, nor even seen an F1 movie before this one. What makes the movie interesting is not the sport, but the main characters and their relationship with each other.
It's a brilliantly acted rivalry between Niki Lauda (Brühl) and James Hunt (Hemsworth). Both turn in A+ performances. By far the best performance I've yet seen from Hemsworth. He proved to me, with this movie, that he's more than just an action star. However he is outshone by Brühl. The film succeeds in showing both the tough exterior and the still tough but different inside personality of Lauda. That's a major accomplishment for both the director and the actor.
What makes Rush worth watching isn't the suspense of what is going to happen next. It's perhaps one of the most formulaic sports movies I've ever seen. It succeeds in spite of that. It's the depiction of the main characters, their rude exchanges, and their underlying respect for each other, that makes it worth the 2 hours.
La migliore offerta (2013)
Hidden gem of 2013
"The Best Offer" is one of the best films I have seen this year. It has an intriguing premise, great acting, and is full of beautiful paintings and beautiful buildings.
The common criticism of this movie is people who say they saw the twist coming. That they've 'outsmarted' the movie and that made it less enjoyable. I don't agree with that assessment in the slightest. You were supposed to notice the hints. They were deliberately left out for you. Directors don't give you a dozen clues to the ending and then expect you to be thrown.
If you then go on assuming that the director wanted you to have doubts, what you are left with is a very interesting concept. When did you make the jump from believing the relationship was real to believing it was fake? How many clues did you ignore? I can honestly say for myself that it was several. Just before the twist it's downright obvious what is going to happen. Somewhere along the line you went from believing the forgery was real to calling it fake. Did you abandon at the first false brush stroke? Or did you wait until you noticed a "V" in the eyeball of the painting?
What people are upset about is that they wanted it to be real. They'd have rather lived a fantasy romance than a statement on how we believe lies we want to believe.
If not for the pacing issues towards the end I might have given this movie a perfect score.
G.I. Joe: Retaliation (2013)
Contains a few glimpses of a better movie
"G.I. Joe: Retaliation" contains just as many action sequences as you'd expect it to, though many of them were disappointing. For a movie with no selling points other than the action, that is a huge problem.
The movie contains disappointingly little of two of the characters on the movie poster: Bruce Willis and Channing Tatum. Bruce Willis gets about 5 minutes of screen time and about one full minute of an action scene. That's disappointing because the part he's in is one of the best parts of the movie in terms of action. Channing Tatum was one of the more interesting characters early on, but dies 20 minutes into the movie. You can only feel that the movie would be significantly better if Flint (Cotrona) had died instead.
The biggest failing of the movie is the clunkiness of many of the action scenes. The problem is that they rarely contain a long shot to let the audience know where people are in relationship to other people. It's close up, then extreme close up, then close up again. It's hard to enjoy the action when you can't tell where things are.
The one scene that isn't guilty of that problem is the best action scene in the entire movie. The zip-line fight on the Himalayas. It contains plenty of long shots and is much easier to follow and to enjoy. That scene is definitely the highlight of the movie.
The film is decidedly mediocre. It contains a few glimpses of what might have been a good action flick, but as a whole it isn't very strong. If you want a good wall to wall action movie, I'd suggest the recent Star Trek series, Batman trilogy, or Traitor (2008).
Safe in Hell (1931)
The most risqué film of is time
"Safe in Hell" is by far the darkest, most risqué film of its time period that I have yet seen. Even by today's standards it is far from tame. The atmosphere of sexual predators is overwhelming.
There is a great ensemble performance in this film. Gilda (Mackaill), the hotel manager (McKinney), and the general (Varconi), are all highlights. The best performance though is Morgan Wallace as Mr. Bruno. A good case could be made that he is one of the most evil villains in the history of cinema. The movie is worth watching if only for him.
The overall story and drama is the only part of the movie I would call less than spectacular. The main plot point is how in love Gilda (Mackaill) and Carl (Cook) are, and how far she is willing to go to stay with him. Yet we never see them together for more than a few minutes. Had the romance angle been a little better it would have made the drama part of the picture much stronger.
The best reason to watch this movie is the atmosphere. One beautiful white girl on an island of criminals. One by one trying their moves on her, while the others sit in a row of wicker chairs watching to see how the other one does. The thin shred of civilization being the only thing stopping pure lust from taking over.
This is a movie that simply wouldn't exist if it hadn't been pre-code. If that's something that intrigues you, then Safe in Hell is exactly what you are looking for.
Guess Who's Coming to Dinner (1967)
A subject that is yet to be revisited - now 50 years later
"Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" is a wonderfully acted period piece that probably had more impact 50 years ago than it does today. Upon watching it, it was no surprise to learn that it was nominated for all 4 acting categories at the Oscars.
My favorite part of the movie was easily in the beginning. Watching the young couple, John and Joey, spring the major news on her parents. Their initial reactions were downright hilarious. Then again watching them spring the news on his parents. Then again springing the news that the two families will be having dinner together that night. I doubt I was supposed to find it as funny as I did, but I couldn't help but laugh out loud a good 5 or 6 times during those exchanges. Katherine Hepburn's blank stare and Spencer Tracy's double take were great. Some of the best moments I've seen in cinema in a long while.
As for the discussion on racism, some of it is as relevant now as it was at the time. Interracial couples still get looked at strangely. If that couple were real and did get married in 1967, they'd be very old now and would have been dealing with that type of racism their entire time together. In that way many of Spencer Tracy's character's worries were totally correct.
There's a bit of a lack of suspense to the drama part of the movie though. It seemed obvious that the characters were too smart for their initial doubts to also be their final decisions. And given enough time that they would all come around to, at the very least, tolerance.
If you enjoy fine acting, or need a bit of a history lesson on social norms of the time period, then Guess Who's Coming to Dinner is probably the best movie you can watch. It may not be action packed, but I enjoy anything with Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn acting as well as they did in this film.
Oz the Great and Powerful (2013)
Two hours waiting for the ending
"Oz the Great and Powerful" attempts to overcome a wide array of problems, and succeeds only a fraction of the time. Horrible dialogue, mediocre casting, and little to no character development plague this poor effort of a film.
Though for its poor effort, it does succeed in its reimagination of the land of Oz. The setting is the only area of this production I would call strong, and I think the case might easily be made that the setting is the most important part of the movie.
The special effects are at times overused. Much of it using its 3D effects for no purpose other than to have a 3D effect. For example, in one scene the witch sees the China Girl with Glenda's wand out of the corner of her eye. The girl quickly hinds behind a tree, and the witch goes to inspect. She hovers there for a couple seconds, leans in (to give us the 3D effect), doesn't find the girl, and flies away. End scene. There was no purpose at all to those 10 seconds. It was a complete waste of time. Many of the other special effects play like a roller coaster ride at Disneyland. We watch Oz in his air balloon cruise down a raging river and fall off a waterfall. All the while Oz screaming. Again, no real purpose to that scene at all.
The dialogue leaves much to be desired. The concept of 'something better left unsaid' doesn't exist in this movie. They frequently have a character say the exact thing we were already thinking. They don't give the audience enough credit. It felt like I was being talked down to.
I can forgive all of those issues though. They are certainly not unique to this movie. The biggest problem of all is that you can see the ending coming before watching the movie. If you've ever watched the 1939 classic, or even watched the first 5 minutes of this movie, then you know that Oz will trick the witches into running away using no magic. Basically leaving the audience to sit for 2 hours waiting to see the ending.
Perhaps the issue isn't so much that you can see it coming, it's that the rest of the movie isn't worth it. There are no twists, no turns, no character development. Once the fun of the setting wears off, it's just sitting there waiting to see Oz trick the witches. Nothing more.
The Way Way Back (2013)
You owe it to your 14 year old self to see "The Way Way Back"
"The Way Way Back" is a simple story with good acting and characters with realistic depth. Steve Carrell breaks his typical mold and plays a jerk, and does a great job with it. Sam Rockwell was also amazing.
Duncan (James) is your standard 14 year old who seems to have nothing going for him. His family and their friends range from annoying to jerks. The adults think that he and the other boy Peter should be friends and play together, despite the fact that Duncan is 14 and Peter's 10. The adults not seeming to realize the huge age gap. The same thing used to happen to me at every family function. I think many of us remember being the oldest kid at the "kids table". It's that kind of stuff that makes the movie so relatable.
The film does a nice job of seeming like it could be set in any beach town, in almost any time in the last 40 years. One reason for that being that it contains almost no pop culture or modern music references. It's that type of thing that is going to make this film age well. However it's also why this movie speaks not only to 14 year olds of this day, but to anyone and their memory of what being 14 was like.
I'd recommend The Way Way Back to anyone who struggled at that age. Anyone who wasn't super popular. Or anyone who had a place like working at a water park that they liked being at more than at home.
Monsters University (2013)
Surprisingly solid comedy
"Monsters University" has a thin plot that lends itself perfectly for comedy. It's basically "Rudy" but with becoming a professional scarer instead of being a Notre Dame football player. Except unlike Rudy, we know from the very beginning that he's going to fail. The good news is that this is a comedy, not an inspiring feel good story of how if you work hard enough you can achieve your dream. And as a comedy Monsters University delivers consistent laughs.
Most of the jokes are visual so it's tough to rehash them in a written review. "I found a nickle! Sure wish I had pockets..." What keeps this movie going isn't witty dialogue as much as it is lots of little visual extras in the background of different shots. It's the detail that makes it good.
If you don't like visual humor then Monsters University is probably not for you. It offers little else. It's not much in the way of a plot. If you think about the moral of the story, it's that no matter how hard you work you may never achieve your goals. Perhaps it teaches kids a good lesson on mediocrity and being okay with not being the best. Somehow it sounds less inspiring than the movie makes it out to be.
If you enjoy other Pixar movies or enjoyed Monsters Inc. then Monsters University is definitely worth a watch. It won't go down as a classic, but it's still a very solid comedy.
City Streets (1931)
No hard feelings
"City Streets" contains a much darker tone than most films of its era. I might even characterize it as the earliest film noir I have yet seen (Fritz Lang's M came out the same year). The expert direction by Rouben Mamoulian is responsible. Often focusing on objects in the room, or in one early scene on Syliva Sidney with one eye closed. It's this type of creative camera work that makes City Streets a highlight of the early 1930's.
This is one of Slyvia Sidney's earliest roles, and it's also the only role I've seen of hers where she could be described as standoffish. While she is in love with The Kid (Cooper), her attitude to everyone else is far colder than I have come to know her in her other films. Sidney shows incredible acting promise for someone so young. It's sad that she became somewhat typecast, then left Hollywood for a number of years. When she came back she never returned to her former glory.
Gary Cooper is perhaps too much of a nice guy for this particular picture. He does a great job early as the naive kid. But upon becoming a big shot gangster his character seems over his head. Perhaps this was an intentional move by the director, because as the protagonist they wanted him to seem like a good guy. However this good guy seems out of place in the gangster world.
City Streets is more than worth the watch. It's worth a recommendation. The unconventional camera work and overall dark tone to this pre-code Hollywood crime film is what sets it apart.
Elmer Gantry (1960)
Where is the line?
Elmer Gantry (Lancaster) is two different people. There's the person he is when it comes to religion and then he is a completely different, very flawed, human being when it comes to everything else. You name it and he's done it. To quote the film, "and how do I know there's a merciful God? Because I've seen the devil plenty of times!" (The close up on that shot is amazing)
There's a reason Burt Lancaster won an Oscar for his performance as Gantry. It's one of the finest I've ever seen by any actor ever. He convincingly switches between passionate preacher and sinner. There's never any doubt that he believes what he preaches, though his preaching itself is sometimes a total lie.
Is he duping the people when he does that? Yes. But is he causing any harm? His faith is not in question, he gives other people faith, is any of that a bad thing? Is it bad simply because he, at times, is a bad person? Is duping them necessarily a bad thing? It's a triumph of the film the way that it portrays a character with such seemingly conflicting morals, and portray him in a way that seems very realistic.
What is the message of the movie? His and Sharon Falconer's revivalism starts out as simply giving people morals to abide by and faith in love and God. "A bountiful God, a generous God." That is certainly never a bad thing. However it takes a turn towards vigilante when Gantry leads a religious mob to raid liquor stores and brothels. It takes an even further, perhaps harmless, turn at the end with faith healing. Harmless until Falconer attempts to convince her churchgoers to not flee the burning church, because God will save them.
Is the message of the film that religion is good until taken too far? Did God burn the church down because he disapproved of faith healing? Where is the line between religion being helpful and religion actually causing harm? It is the sign of a great movie when at the end I find myself asking questions like that. It is a rare quality.
Blood on the Sun (1945)
A poor effort salvaged by a good action sequence at the end
Blood on the Sun intrigued me for a couple reasons. It was made in Hollywood about Japan, and it was released in 1945, and it marks a return to film after a 4 year hiatus for Sylvia Sidney.
I would open by calling this movie moderately racist. I think anyone who has seen the film should find that agreeable. There's quite a lot of stereotypes as well as American actors dressing up as Japanese. That being said, I went in expecting that based on the time period when it was made.
The movie contains one of the best action sequences of its time period, as well as one of the worst. The bad one comes near the beginning. In that scene Cagney takes on several Japanese military soldiers by himself but is ultimately knocked out cold by a very fake looking karate chop to the back of his neck. The good action sequence however comes at the very end of the movie. Cagney does his own stunts for this entire movie, so I give him a lot of credit for the strength of that scene. It uses long takes rather than short cuts, making it look more like real life and less like a movie.
The big issue with the movie is that in the entire 98 minutes there was only one good scene. The beginning is slow until the early fight scene I already described. The extreme weakness of that scene leaves the movie looking cheap and campy. I mentally checked out of the movie at that point. By the time Sylvia Sidney arrived there wasn't a movie left to save.
Merrily We Go to Hell (1932)
Highly underrated drama
This is a movie that has a lot to say about 'modern' relationships, drinking, and feminism of the time. And for the most part the execution is very good.
Merrily We Go to Hell is an extremely well acted film, but that to me is not the highlight of the movie. It's the writing with realistic characters and funny moments that are the best part of it. It is one of the better performances I've seen from Sylvia Sidney, which is a little odd as its one of her earliest.
Fredric March stars as a man who doesn't deserve the love of a rich girl that has fallen for him. He's frequently drunk (the title of the film is his favorite drinking toast) and disappoints her at nearly every turn. It's hard to understand exactly what Joan (Sidney) likes about him so much. But that's the way love is sometimes. Joan takes the good with the bad and always seems to forgive the bad, no matter how appalling. Jerry (March) is still getting over his last relationship, attempting to drink it off.
One moment in that part of the story was a highlight for me, where Jerry mentions his previous girlfriend. Joan asks if he has a picture of her, and he responds by saying he has one hidden away somewhere that he looks at once in a blue moon when he's feeling lonely. The movie immediately cuts to him arriving home and the picture of the girl he was mentioning is framed on the wall, with a personal note written to him on it. A clear omen for things to come.
Merrily We Go to Hell does a fabulous job showing the dark side of drinking, something movies of the time rarely did. As the overall weakness of Jerry and Joan's relationship becomes unraveled, it takes Joan just a little longer than it seems like it should to finally get the courage to leave him. This is very much a sign of the times Depression-era picture. Showing the underlying unhappiness in the lives of socialites.
If you are are a Carey Grant fan, he is essentially a pawn in the relationship game. As Jerry seems to be falling for his ex, the star of his new play, Joan attempts to give him a taste of his own medicine by going out with the other star of his play (Grant). Grant has maybe 4 or 5 lines.
My only major criticism of the movie is the ending. I know it was a written rule in Hollywood at the time for movies to have a happy ending, but I don't consider the two of them getting back together a happy ending. Joan was right to leave him and she never should have taken him back. She was better off without him. Ending on the scene where she leaves would have been a better ending climatically, as well as been a happier ending. But in the time period that ending would not have been possible.
The Internship (2013)
Fast pacing and occasional laughs, never lags too badly
With neither Vince Vaughn or Owen Wilson turning out a good comedy in the recent past, I went in with pretty low expectations. Those low expectations helped me enjoy the movie more.
The movie is not laugh out loud hilarious, but it does have occasional laughs. My favorite moment being in the short scene with Will Ferrell explaining his neck tattoo. The Internship does a more than competent job distracting you from the lack of laughs. The speedy pacing keeps you interested in the story, and it doesn't dwell on its own jokes too much. There's nothing worse than a bad comedy that pauses for laughs. That's one place where this movie succeeds.
While I would call The Internship a very middling effort in terms of comedy, it doesn't commit any major offenses. Where it is a mediocrity as a comedy it distracts with a pretty solid feel good story. I think anyone watching it will come away at least somewhat happy with it, though few will come away calling it hilarious.
5/10. I'm not upset that I watched it.