Reviews

An engaging movie with a story that's been addressed before but rarely with the believable performances as this one. I fell in love with the main characters, and even the minor ones, as the story is revealed of the beauty of farm life with it's many hardships. This is your life, everyone. This is a four star picture with a blurry fourth star because of a rush to the finish. I have to guess who is in the casket, which bothers me, but having to guess how the life of the girl and the old man will go on doesn't. The film may be criticized for its realistic portrayal of slaughter of animals, but I say, "get over it," and appreciate the great performances of the main characters.

A worthy watch for me mainly because of the attractive lead players. A confused screenplay mostly likely added to the suspense. The lead actor as Vincent is just more vicious than Seagal in the action scenes and for better to look at. I had seen the female lead before, and she is not only a pleasure to look at but a competent actor. I thought about the last scene in which a woman comes in to wrap her arms around Vincent. It convinced me that everything that happened to him before, essentially the movie itself was a fantasy.

I don't know how anyone cannot like 'What a Woman.' I thought it was a very funny, delightfully insane romp, made possible by the wonderful Roz Russell playing the role of a powerful comedic woman, a role that she plays better than anyone else, and that included Mss. Shearer, Harlow, and Stanwyck. The rest of the cast had a hard time keeping up with her, but mostly did. I had to suspend belief over the rush to the wedding near the end of the flic, and I needed a few more hints as to why Mr. Ahearn was falling in love with her. There were enough good lines for all concerned to make me give a hoot about the writing of a genre film hat had not quite become a genre.

A very watchable movie with so many beautiful faces from so many good pictures. And it all seemed calculated to win an award but not make a great film. Every bit of suspense possible in a routine story was squeezed out by Director Fred Z, and the romping about of two pretty girls had a charm all its own, and amounted to more that what it was worth to the story. It was my first viewing on TCM last night, and I see no reason to return to it. Mr. Robards and Ms. Redgrave are outstanding actors, but their work in this picture was pedestrian and not worthy of Oscars. I looked for Meryl Streep's touted debut performance, but it sneaked by me. From what I've read, it was a tall story told by Ms Hellman, and perhaps too tall to fit between an opening and final scene.

The picture appropriately opens with the lead character, an 18 year old girl, foraging food in a dumpster to feed her charges. We're expected to believe that a pretty girl her age can't do better than baby sit for the disinterested parents of the kids. She is then attracted by a clownish guy who convinces her to join a group of like-aged wilders touring as book sellers door to door, a pastime really hard to believe even for the most mis-guided of young people. On the Odd-ysy, we are given a tour of middle America that might have been written by Donald Trump as he describes this country in his road to the election. No, we are not shown America as a land of Honey. The tour through hell relies on the viewer being blasted with a lot of rock songs that apparently are meant to tell the story, (what story?) instead of dialogue. We are introduced to a truck driver willing to give the girl hero $500 for a hand job, and a group of old boys in cowboy hats who feed her booze, promise to buy her books, and don't set the cops on her and her goofy boyfriend who steal their convertible. This is a picture that is hard for me to like in any way.

It's no surprise that some highly regarded critics are afraid to like anything about this movie. Showing admiration for any religious themed picture other than the usual pap that's been presented to big box office epics over the years would be a sign of religious sympathy, something critic want to avoid. Aside from some juggling of the sequence of events from the New Testament, the addition of a miracle which didn't fit, and shifting the weight of the decision to crucify to the Romans with Jewish priests having a minor role, the movie plays well, is acted well, and the photography and direction are solid. The acting is also solid, and characters like the disciples are presented as the scruffs they likely were. The characterization of Mary of Magda as a street girl is dated and erroneous, but it was refreshing to see Yeshua as he might have looked and not with the face of a Hollywood matinée idol.

Maybe if I'd seen this picture fifty years ago, I would have been impressed. Watching it for the first time last night on TCM is another story. I found it to be seriously dated and hardly representative of the work of director Elia Kazan and writer William Inge. It effectively recreated the time of the late 1920s, but the characterizations of the people are over wrought. More a way of looking at them with 1960 eyes. And today I find them even more unbelievable. I can't fault the performances of the actors, especially Natalie Wood and Pat Hingle, for a reading of what they'd been given. Therein lies the chief problem with the movie. The dialogue is clichéd and uninspiring and the emotions called for are off the wall. And the direction demonstrated no good effort to save the material. It did show a grown up Miss Wood with some acting chops and a promising new actor, Mr. Beaty. I'm glad I got to see it, but sorry about the disappointment.

After watching this excellent picture I couldn't help but think of the great movie, Last Tango in Paris. Is it coincidental that Michael Fassbender's character is name Brandon, so close to the role played my Marlon Brando in "Tango." Both characters were living their lives below the waist, and weren't they miserable lives. Shame portrays an attractive man who could be described as a sex addict but that we are given hints about a past that drives him to seek the false pleasure of the orgasm, which has been called 'the little death.' In a marvelous job of acting, Mr. Fassbender displays the emotions and sometimes lack of them that are pitiful to behold. When coming upon a connection with a young woman that could have meaning, he is unable to perform sexually, only able to achieve orgasm when there is no human connection. When his younger sister enters his life after living in LA, he rejects her need for help. She is a train wreck and will be in the way of his need to die with each orgasm. She represents the shame of his past, and Carey Mulligan gives an excellent performance to match Mr. Fassbender's. A thought provoking morality play which is a work of art.

Wonderful performances all around. Charles Laughton and Marlene Dietrich at their best. Elsa Lancaster's comic brilliance. Tyrone Power showing his acting pedigree. The film is one of many examples of movies, novels, and plays where murder is presented not as it is, but as a mechanism for a narrative and plot. Be that as it may, I never read Ms. Christie's story or play, but I understand that the movie included her final ending. Therein, I think lies the fault. The final scene is there to establish justice, murderers must pay say the censorial public and codists. How much better would the film be if the killer walks, and his devoted wife loses him to the younger woman. End of story.

Rififi holds up extremely well for over 50 years. I just need to get something off my chest. If Jules Dassin didn't acknowledge the influence of John Huston's Asphalt Jungle, shame on him. Many film viewers consider Rififi the mother of the heist film, but that's giving Mr. Dassin more credit than he deserves. He does of course deserve credit for a wonderfully made movie, and especially for detailing the plan and action of the caper, using about 30 minutes of film time. Hollywood film makers might not have allowed that, but as a French film audiences are more patient. See the wonderful films of Robert Bresson. I do think, however, that the Dassin picture is a landmark in humanizing the criminal enterprise. Whether that's good or bad is arguable. It certainly reached out to influence the broad tolerance that we have for projects like The Sopranos. It was also a powerful enough film to change public attitude about the unfair treatment given Mr. Dassin and others black listed by the Hollywood establishment.

The young director had a hit with his first picture, and now he wants to follow with another film to shake up the critics and the movie goers that he's for real as force in film to be reckoned with. He'll put together a shocker that will have the smackings of a horror picture, a psychological drama, and above all a nail chewer. It will be the story of a young and beautiful girl who goes mad in the movies. First off, the girl must be a raving beauty, the kind that guys fall over. There will be scenes where she imagines just that: guys crawling all over her. It will take place in an apartment, not a haunted house, but in the girl's mind, it's haunted alright. She'll be dressed throughout in flimsy night gown, just see-through enough to feed the imagination. There'll be blood and gore, most of it the result of her breakdown, clearly a fear of men, of sex, and of intimacy. He won't get into any kind of Freudian cause of her insanity. Leave it up to the viewers, they like analyze. He has no concern about making a picture without redeeming social value. It really won't have a screenplay. It will be enough to see a young beauty come apart at the seams.

The Immigrant is a beautiful movie, marked by great photography and direction, and powerful acting, all told in a play that to my mind is a morality tale for modern times. Marion Cotillard's performance is especially powerful and was deserving of an Oscar. Mr. Phoenix continues to create a body of work that will rank him among our best actors. It is the tale of a virginal young woman escaping with her sister from the horrors of war in a country where both her parents were killed. Ewa the young woman is separated from her sister, sick with lung disease, at the port of entry in 1921 New York. She is determined to get her sister back and to survive she allows herself to be helped by Bruno, the Phoenix character, a man of questionable morals who leads her into prostitution. He becomes charmed by her innocence and dedication in spite of the life he has led her into, and continues to help her hoping that her response will lead to a love for him. The interplay between the two main characters is great cinema. When Ewa gets her sister back i could feel her well earned joy, and feel sorrow for Bruno, left to be punished but finally finding salvation by helping the young woman he came to love.