"Glory" (1989) -- 9/10
By Martin Zabell
(Wrote March 9, 2008)
"Glory" is a great movie with strong, multifaceted characters who have numerous intriguing conflicts. More importantly, "Glory" is a very important movie.
I'm a History aficionado, but I knew nothing about the story of the first all-African American regiment of Civil War soldiers – a 600-person regiment led by a handful of white officers. More movies like this should be made because they can, frankly, help make the American people smarter about history and spur them to learn more.
It's true that the individual African-American soldiers in "Glory" are fictional people in the middle of the portrayal of actual events, but the 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Regiment was real. If I find out that the writers had in-depth information on actual soldiers, I'll be disappointed. In the meantime, I'll praise the history lessons imparted by the movie.
"Glory" does an excellent job portraying the different kinds of whites and blacks who lived in the Civil War era – abolitionists, anti-black Union soldiers, corrupt Union officers, educated free blacks, uneducated blacks, and blacks who were understandably angry and rebellious after years of slavery and other moral outrages.
Although the individuals portrayed are fictional, their character types can be used in a classroom to teach Civil War history. "Glory" is not exactly "JFK" – an abomination that has dishonestly taught ignorant young Americans lies about history.
"Glory," though, would be a great movie even if it wasn't a valuable history lesson. The movie is a storytelling masterpiece. It does a splendid job of introducing the main characters and focuses on just the right amount of people – four black soldiers and three white officers. All these characters are strongly developed, and the writing lures viewers into following their progress.
The strong characters set up a long list of interesting character conflicts that dominate the movie and kept me riveted. My list includes the regiment's white abolitionist commander vs. his deputy/lifelong friend, the commander vs. a white officer who harshly disciplines blacks, the commander vs. an educated black man he knew in Boston, an angry black man vs. the educated black man, and the angry black vs. the leader of the blacks portrayed by Morgan Freeman.
Each of these conflicts is bolstered by well-written dialogue that often includes dramatic and intriguing confrontations.
There are also at least three supporting characters in the Union Army that the lead character, Col. Robert Gould Shaw (played by Matthew Broderick), has conflicts with as he fights for the rights of his African-American troops to have adequate equipment and fight the Confederates.
In addition, there are group conflicts that fit seamlessly into the plot – white officers trying to train black soldiers, blacks fighting to be treated as equals, white bigots vs. white non-bigots, Union soldiers and officers persevering despite Confederate threats to execute them for race mixing, and the North vs. the South.
Actual letters written by the real Shaw are used as voice-overs. They give an insight into a man who is empathetic to blacks, has hopes and fears about the Civil War and his regiment, and makes observations about his soldiers' off-the-field culture and camaraderie. His letters make his behavior even more interesting as he evolves into a commander who is often tough toward his trainees.
Although Col. Shaw becomes strong and principled, the evolution of the educated (Thomas) and angry black (played by Denzel Washington) men are even more interesting. Thomas evolves from a privileged man who is a terrible soldier into a profile in courage who overcomes gun wounds to save the life of his personal enemy, Washington, and becomes an outstanding warrior.
Washington is in one great scene after another as he evolves from a selfish, angry man who initiates fights into a war hero who learns how to channel his excessive energy. I generally don't comment on acting, but Washington is spectacular. He earned his Best Supporting Actor award!! I felt like I was watching his character, not him, particularly as he maintained his composure while staring at Col. Shaw as he gets whipped in one of the five best movie scenes I've ever seen.
Washington's intensity in the whipping scene and others (fighting for equal pay, challenging racist white soldiers, lecturing Thomas) leaps off the screen. Sean Penn is a very good actor, but I'm consciously aware it's him when I watch him, and I get the impression he's calibrating how intense he can be without losing his credibility.
"Glory" was even better when I watched it for a second time. I was tempted to give it a 10, but there were a few inexplicable alterations to actual history (Shaw's death was more dramatic in real life), there were minor pacing problems, and I was disappointed that there is not a scene at the end that showed which of the main characters survived. Did they all die? I give "Glory" a 9.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
I WAS FLABBERGASTED BY THIS SOAP OPERA
"The Postman Always Rings Twice" (1946) -- 3/10
By Martin Zabell
(Wrote Feb. 23, 2008)
As a child in the 1970s, I cringed whenever I viewed a television soap opera that my mother insisted on watching. Every soap opera I ever, involuntarily, watched was shockingly bad.
"The Postman Always Rings Twice" is like a forerunner for those horrible soap operas. The innumerable plot turns are often unbelievably absurd, the dialogue is very shallow, the characters are stupid, and everything is melodramatic. The fact that the Lana Turner character is one of the hottest movie characters I've ever seen can't save "Postman."
The first half of this 1946 movie deserves a 5 or a 6. I often love movies that focus on a few characters, but I just wasn't interested in this film's three main characters. Turner's marriage to an unattractive small-time restaurant owner old enough to be her Dad is not credible. It certainly wasn't Cecil Kellaway's brains that appealed to her because he is oblivious to an affair that occurs right under his nose. Turner and John Garfield's behavior around Kellaway is abnormal.
More importantly, the affair between Garfield and Turner – which begins when he attacks her – is uninteresting. They say nothing to each other about their hopes and dreams, nothing in depth about their love for each other, nothing intelligent, and nothing that reveals who they are. I know virtually nothing about their backgrounds and there is little character development.
Despite the flaws, the plot is interesting enough that I can understand why people like the first half of "Postman." The second half of "Postman," however, just flabbergasted me. The stupid plot turns include:
* The district attorney who prosecuted Turner for killing Kellaway was the closest thing to a WITNESS to the murder because he was the FIRST one who saw the crashed car.
* After witnessing and prosecuting the murder, the D.A. decides to let Turner off on a prison-free manslaughter charge after a 30-second conversation with the defense attorney.
* Several minutes earlier, the defense attorney ignored Turner's objections and entered guilty pleas for murdering Kellaway and trying to murder Garfield.
* Shortly before the two guilty pleas, the D.A. and defense attorney bet on whether Turner will be found guilty of murder – in front of the other suspect.
* After the guilty pleas, Turner and Garfield are placed in the same room in a courthouse and are allowed to move freely although she has just plead guilty to trying to kill him and he has signed a complaint saying he witnessed her murdering Kellaway.
* In the room, Turner implicates Garfield in the Kellaway murder in a confession that is made right in front of him – and typed by someone impersonating an officer of the court.
* After trying to put each other in jail for life, Garfield and Turner decided to live with each other.
* The community is so unbothered that a convicted killer is serving no jail time that it flocks to her restaurant to solicit her autograph, but it is outraged that two unmarried people live together. Thus, Garfield and Turner marry.
* The impersonator tries to extort Garfield and Turner for the paper with the confession he typed although they certainly knew he could have made copies of the paper.
* The police suspected Garfield and Turner of an earlier attempt on Kellaway's life, but they stopped probing because he recovered. Essentially, they negligently allowed Kellaway to be murdered.
There are other plot twists. They occur approximately every 30 seconds. I kept getting the impression that the writers were aware a plot twist was illogical so they wrote another one to try to explain the previous one. With each plot twist, they dug themselves into a deeper hole.
This movie is so stupid that I'm probably being generous in giving it a 3.
By Martin Zabell
(Wrote Feb. 23, 2008)
As a child in the 1970s, I cringed whenever I viewed a television soap opera that my mother insisted on watching. Every soap opera I ever, involuntarily, watched was shockingly bad.
"The Postman Always Rings Twice" is like a forerunner for those horrible soap operas. The innumerable plot turns are often unbelievably absurd, the dialogue is very shallow, the characters are stupid, and everything is melodramatic. The fact that the Lana Turner character is one of the hottest movie characters I've ever seen can't save "Postman."
The first half of this 1946 movie deserves a 5 or a 6. I often love movies that focus on a few characters, but I just wasn't interested in this film's three main characters. Turner's marriage to an unattractive small-time restaurant owner old enough to be her Dad is not credible. It certainly wasn't Cecil Kellaway's brains that appealed to her because he is oblivious to an affair that occurs right under his nose. Turner and John Garfield's behavior around Kellaway is abnormal.
More importantly, the affair between Garfield and Turner – which begins when he attacks her – is uninteresting. They say nothing to each other about their hopes and dreams, nothing in depth about their love for each other, nothing intelligent, and nothing that reveals who they are. I know virtually nothing about their backgrounds and there is little character development.
Despite the flaws, the plot is interesting enough that I can understand why people like the first half of "Postman." The second half of "Postman," however, just flabbergasted me. The stupid plot turns include:
* The district attorney who prosecuted Turner for killing Kellaway was the closest thing to a WITNESS to the murder because he was the FIRST one who saw the crashed car.
* After witnessing and prosecuting the murder, the D.A. decides to let Turner off on a prison-free manslaughter charge after a 30-second conversation with the defense attorney.
* Several minutes earlier, the defense attorney ignored Turner's objections and entered guilty pleas for murdering Kellaway and trying to murder Garfield.
* Shortly before the two guilty pleas, the D.A. and defense attorney bet on whether Turner will be found guilty of murder – in front of the other suspect.
* After the guilty pleas, Turner and Garfield are placed in the same room in a courthouse and are allowed to move freely although she has just plead guilty to trying to kill him and he has signed a complaint saying he witnessed her murdering Kellaway.
* In the room, Turner implicates Garfield in the Kellaway murder in a confession that is made right in front of him – and typed by someone impersonating an officer of the court.
* After trying to put each other in jail for life, Garfield and Turner decided to live with each other.
* The community is so unbothered that a convicted killer is serving no jail time that it flocks to her restaurant to solicit her autograph, but it is outraged that two unmarried people live together. Thus, Garfield and Turner marry.
* The impersonator tries to extort Garfield and Turner for the paper with the confession he typed although they certainly knew he could have made copies of the paper.
* The police suspected Garfield and Turner of an earlier attempt on Kellaway's life, but they stopped probing because he recovered. Essentially, they negligently allowed Kellaway to be murdered.
There are other plot twists. They occur approximately every 30 seconds. I kept getting the impression that the writers were aware a plot twist was illogical so they wrote another one to try to explain the previous one. With each plot twist, they dug themselves into a deeper hole.
This movie is so stupid that I'm probably being generous in giving it a 3.
DYING STAR'S STORY FAR MORE INTERESTING
"A Star Is Born" (1937) -- 6/10
By Martin Zabell
(Wrote Feb. 18, 2008)
If this movie's title was "A Star Slowly Dies," I would have probably given the film a better rating because the parts about Norman Maine were far better than the parts about Esther Blodgett.
The central problem with the movie is that there is NO evidence that Blodgett became a star because of her talent. In the 1954 movie, James Mason's Maine is blown away by the singing ability of Judy Garland's Blodgett. In this version, Fredric March's Maine makes Janet Gaynor's Blodgett a star because he wants to get her into the sack. I'm not making this up.
The start of "Star" sets us up for an Horatio Alger story – an ordinary woman who takes a huge gamble to become an actress despite most of her family's wishes. I waited for a scintilla of evidence that Blodgett had any acting ability or experience. Did she act in a community theatre? Why did she think she could be an actress? These questions, and others, are never answered.
Blodgett's story is supposed to be inspirational. Instead, it is depressing. After moving to Hollywood, she gets a job as a waitress at a gathering of entertainers. There, Maine, a huge star, meets her and finds her really hot. Subsequently, he dates her and then gets her a screen test and a co-starring role in his next movie although he's never seen her perform.
This narrative is depressing because she became a star as a result of Maine objectifying her, and a plain-looking woman with talent would have failed.
In a good story, the writers would have shown us that Blodgett was a great actress. Instead, we're just told that she is. We're shown approximately 10 seconds of her first movie, and she spends most of that time kissing Maine. But, we do hear critics lavishly praise her. By contrast, the 1954 version SHOWS us that Blodgett/Garland is a terrific singer.
As I watched the first half of the movie, I was tempted to label it a failure. However, it gets much stronger in the second half as it focuses less on Blodgett and more on Maine. Once a star, he declines as she rises. His alcohol-fueled psychological breakdown riveted me.
In short, Maine's breakdown was portrayed far better than Blodgett's rise. The movie also has an interesting, sardonic take on the phoniness of the movie industry and how it treats even its stars with a total lack of respect.
Interestingly, one of the problems with the 1937 version of "Star" is that it is too short while the 1954 one is far too long. This is partly because the 1954 movie is a musical while this one is not. This version should have spent more time developing its characters.
I gave "Star Is Born" a 6, balancing the 4 that I gave Blodgett's story with the 8 that I gave Maine's story.
By Martin Zabell
(Wrote Feb. 18, 2008)
If this movie's title was "A Star Slowly Dies," I would have probably given the film a better rating because the parts about Norman Maine were far better than the parts about Esther Blodgett.
The central problem with the movie is that there is NO evidence that Blodgett became a star because of her talent. In the 1954 movie, James Mason's Maine is blown away by the singing ability of Judy Garland's Blodgett. In this version, Fredric March's Maine makes Janet Gaynor's Blodgett a star because he wants to get her into the sack. I'm not making this up.
The start of "Star" sets us up for an Horatio Alger story – an ordinary woman who takes a huge gamble to become an actress despite most of her family's wishes. I waited for a scintilla of evidence that Blodgett had any acting ability or experience. Did she act in a community theatre? Why did she think she could be an actress? These questions, and others, are never answered.
Blodgett's story is supposed to be inspirational. Instead, it is depressing. After moving to Hollywood, she gets a job as a waitress at a gathering of entertainers. There, Maine, a huge star, meets her and finds her really hot. Subsequently, he dates her and then gets her a screen test and a co-starring role in his next movie although he's never seen her perform.
This narrative is depressing because she became a star as a result of Maine objectifying her, and a plain-looking woman with talent would have failed.
In a good story, the writers would have shown us that Blodgett was a great actress. Instead, we're just told that she is. We're shown approximately 10 seconds of her first movie, and she spends most of that time kissing Maine. But, we do hear critics lavishly praise her. By contrast, the 1954 version SHOWS us that Blodgett/Garland is a terrific singer.
As I watched the first half of the movie, I was tempted to label it a failure. However, it gets much stronger in the second half as it focuses less on Blodgett and more on Maine. Once a star, he declines as she rises. His alcohol-fueled psychological breakdown riveted me.
In short, Maine's breakdown was portrayed far better than Blodgett's rise. The movie also has an interesting, sardonic take on the phoniness of the movie industry and how it treats even its stars with a total lack of respect.
Interestingly, one of the problems with the 1937 version of "Star" is that it is too short while the 1954 one is far too long. This is partly because the 1954 movie is a musical while this one is not. This version should have spent more time developing its characters.
I gave "Star Is Born" a 6, balancing the 4 that I gave Blodgett's story with the 8 that I gave Maine's story.
"CHARIOTS" SHOULD HAVE BEEN LESS BORING
"Chariots of Fire" (1981) -- 5/10
By Martin Zabell
(Wrote Jan. 2, 2008)
The debate about "Chariots of Fire" has always been whether it is boring. As a young man, I thought it was very boring. As a middle-aged man, I found it far less boring this week.
Let me suggest, though, that the debate should be far more substantive – whether the writers did a good job of portraying the two main characters and the rivalry between them. If the answer was yes, "Chariots" would have been much less boring.
The movie has three problems:
1. ERIC LIDDELL'S PORTRAYAL: This man was fascinating. He sacrificed his life while in his 40s because he was a Christian missionary in China. Yet, he is NOT portrayed as fascinating.
We're told he wants to be a missionary, but we should have been SHOWN this. This could have been done via flashbacks to his childhood when his parents were missionaries or via his missionary work if there was any. Speeches to Scottish lads just don't convey his zeal. Instead, we see a relatively cardboard-cutout portrayal of a very religious person.
2. HAROLD ABRAHAMS' PORTRAYAL: I'm Jewish. There has been virtually no discrimination against me, but my father and others of his generation have told me stories that were far more interesting than anything Abrahams went through in this movie.
The stories I've heard were about discrimination in 1950s New York City. It is not credible that Abrahams didn't suffer far more bias in 1920s England. Snide remarks by snotty old men and Abrahams' plaintive wail that was mocked by his girlfriend just aren't interesting. The writers should have found out about the anti-Semitic incidents that undoubtedly occurred.
3. THE LIDDELL ABRAHAMS RIVALRY: Liddell won one race and Abrahams was upset about it. They barely talked to each other!! It's hard to believe their rivalry couldn't have been more vividly portrayed. Did they like each other? What did they say to each other and about each other? There was relatively little tension between them.
Confrontations make plots less boring. Two of the best scenes in "Chariots" are Abrahams telling officials that he won't fire his coach and Liddell telling them he will not run on the Sabbath. The movie would have been much better if Abrahams and Liddell had confrontations regarding their religion with others and personal tiffs with each other.
I had one other problem with "Chariots." After watching it, I researched whether Abrahams and Liddell won medals in races not portrayed on screen. They did. In the course of this research, I noticed that NO hurdler named Andrew Lindsay medaled in the 1924 Olympics. Upon further research, I learned Lindsay does NOT exist.
I understand that writers often take creative license with the truth. I read "Schindler's List." In the movie, there were at least a few incidents where the Itzhak Stern character did things that in real life were actually done by others. This was understandable because too many characters can confuse viewers and introducing them can waste lots of time.
However, Stern was real, he was portrayed accurately, and the incidents involving him were close to accurate. Other incidents like Schindler rescuing an employee from a train heading toward a concentration camp did occur although it was not Stern who was rescued.
What the writers of "Chariots" did in fabricating a person when they had several British runners, some of them medalists, to base a composite character around was UNFORGIVABLE.
After watching "Chariots of Fire," I gave it a 6. But, I penalized it one point afterward for making up Lindsay. My rating is 5.
By Martin Zabell
(Wrote Jan. 2, 2008)
The debate about "Chariots of Fire" has always been whether it is boring. As a young man, I thought it was very boring. As a middle-aged man, I found it far less boring this week.
Let me suggest, though, that the debate should be far more substantive – whether the writers did a good job of portraying the two main characters and the rivalry between them. If the answer was yes, "Chariots" would have been much less boring.
The movie has three problems:
1. ERIC LIDDELL'S PORTRAYAL: This man was fascinating. He sacrificed his life while in his 40s because he was a Christian missionary in China. Yet, he is NOT portrayed as fascinating.
We're told he wants to be a missionary, but we should have been SHOWN this. This could have been done via flashbacks to his childhood when his parents were missionaries or via his missionary work if there was any. Speeches to Scottish lads just don't convey his zeal. Instead, we see a relatively cardboard-cutout portrayal of a very religious person.
2. HAROLD ABRAHAMS' PORTRAYAL: I'm Jewish. There has been virtually no discrimination against me, but my father and others of his generation have told me stories that were far more interesting than anything Abrahams went through in this movie.
The stories I've heard were about discrimination in 1950s New York City. It is not credible that Abrahams didn't suffer far more bias in 1920s England. Snide remarks by snotty old men and Abrahams' plaintive wail that was mocked by his girlfriend just aren't interesting. The writers should have found out about the anti-Semitic incidents that undoubtedly occurred.
3. THE LIDDELL ABRAHAMS RIVALRY: Liddell won one race and Abrahams was upset about it. They barely talked to each other!! It's hard to believe their rivalry couldn't have been more vividly portrayed. Did they like each other? What did they say to each other and about each other? There was relatively little tension between them.
Confrontations make plots less boring. Two of the best scenes in "Chariots" are Abrahams telling officials that he won't fire his coach and Liddell telling them he will not run on the Sabbath. The movie would have been much better if Abrahams and Liddell had confrontations regarding their religion with others and personal tiffs with each other.
I had one other problem with "Chariots." After watching it, I researched whether Abrahams and Liddell won medals in races not portrayed on screen. They did. In the course of this research, I noticed that NO hurdler named Andrew Lindsay medaled in the 1924 Olympics. Upon further research, I learned Lindsay does NOT exist.
I understand that writers often take creative license with the truth. I read "Schindler's List." In the movie, there were at least a few incidents where the Itzhak Stern character did things that in real life were actually done by others. This was understandable because too many characters can confuse viewers and introducing them can waste lots of time.
However, Stern was real, he was portrayed accurately, and the incidents involving him were close to accurate. Other incidents like Schindler rescuing an employee from a train heading toward a concentration camp did occur although it was not Stern who was rescued.
What the writers of "Chariots" did in fabricating a person when they had several British runners, some of them medalists, to base a composite character around was UNFORGIVABLE.
After watching "Chariots of Fire," I gave it a 6. But, I penalized it one point afterward for making up Lindsay. My rating is 5.
Friday, July 10, 2009
ABSURD MISTAKEN IDENTITY CAN'T RUIN 1933 GEM
"Queen Christina" (1933) -- 8/10
By Martin Zabell
(Wrote on Dec. 27, 2007)
I spent 100 minutes trying to decide how much to penalize "Queen Christina" because a key part of the plot was ludicrous. That's how long it took me to watch this movie again.
Thanks to the mistaken identity scenes, I considered giving "Christina" a thumbs-down, but ultimately rated it highly because it is a cinematic masterpiece aside from the aforementioned problem.
Frankly, I was astounded that a movie this mature was produced in 1933. The dialogue is at a very high intellectual level with the characters debating topics like war and culture and challenging the conventional mores of 17th century Sweden.
The dialogue fits seamlessly into the plot. In contrast, the writers of "Hamlet" and "The Lion In Winter" seem to be consciously creating memorable lines that often don't match the characters. The direction is also well thought-out. There are scenes where not one word is uttered, but Greta Garbo conveys the importance of something that just occurred via her expressions and actions.
And "Christina" deserves enormous credit for boldly including topics that I thought were not permitted on the screen in the early 1930s. There is blatant lesbianism, a half-dressed hooker, talk about a queen being a slut, sex between virtual strangers, and a shot at religion.
More importantly, I was very interested in the movie's primary character from start to finish. Christina was strong as a 6-year-old and as a woman with a powerful will who wanted to live her own life and was willing and able to confront people who disagreed with her.
Given the movie's intelligence, how can so many people be so stupid that they believe Christina is a man just because she is wearing pants? I knew nothing about this movie before I watched it so I thought at first that the Spanish envoy believed she was a man because he first saw her from a distance and the innkeeper reflexively addressed authority-like figures as men.
Then, Garbo took off her hat. She talked like a woman, looked like a woman, and made NO attempt to disguise herself. I didn't buy Dustin Hoffman and Jack Lemmon as women, but at least they wore disguises in "Tootsie" and "Some Like It Hot." And their dressing as women was explained!!
This movie needed a scene where Christina says something before going horseback riding about wanting to experience life as a commoner and at least implying that this meant pretending to be a man. And she needed a disguise so the fact that EVERY stranger thinks she is a man is plausible.
I was so upset by the mistaken-identity stupidity that I thought about "Christina" giving a 5. Then, I watched it again. This reinforced my appreciation for the rest of the movie.
I gave "The Graduate" a 9 although Mrs. Robinson's daughter falling for Dustin after he treated her like dirt on a date and stalked her was implausible. I reasoned that a short scene with the daughter telling her Dad that she admired Dustin during their school years would have made her accepting two of his bad behaviors (but not his sleeping with her Mom) more plausible.
Using similar reasoning, I gave "Christina" an 8. The absence of one 30-second scene just can't erase the fact that this movie is otherwise very smart and cinematically advanced.
By Martin Zabell
(Wrote on Dec. 27, 2007)
I spent 100 minutes trying to decide how much to penalize "Queen Christina" because a key part of the plot was ludicrous. That's how long it took me to watch this movie again.
Thanks to the mistaken identity scenes, I considered giving "Christina" a thumbs-down, but ultimately rated it highly because it is a cinematic masterpiece aside from the aforementioned problem.
Frankly, I was astounded that a movie this mature was produced in 1933. The dialogue is at a very high intellectual level with the characters debating topics like war and culture and challenging the conventional mores of 17th century Sweden.
The dialogue fits seamlessly into the plot. In contrast, the writers of "Hamlet" and "The Lion In Winter" seem to be consciously creating memorable lines that often don't match the characters. The direction is also well thought-out. There are scenes where not one word is uttered, but Greta Garbo conveys the importance of something that just occurred via her expressions and actions.
And "Christina" deserves enormous credit for boldly including topics that I thought were not permitted on the screen in the early 1930s. There is blatant lesbianism, a half-dressed hooker, talk about a queen being a slut, sex between virtual strangers, and a shot at religion.
More importantly, I was very interested in the movie's primary character from start to finish. Christina was strong as a 6-year-old and as a woman with a powerful will who wanted to live her own life and was willing and able to confront people who disagreed with her.
Given the movie's intelligence, how can so many people be so stupid that they believe Christina is a man just because she is wearing pants? I knew nothing about this movie before I watched it so I thought at first that the Spanish envoy believed she was a man because he first saw her from a distance and the innkeeper reflexively addressed authority-like figures as men.
Then, Garbo took off her hat. She talked like a woman, looked like a woman, and made NO attempt to disguise herself. I didn't buy Dustin Hoffman and Jack Lemmon as women, but at least they wore disguises in "Tootsie" and "Some Like It Hot." And their dressing as women was explained!!
This movie needed a scene where Christina says something before going horseback riding about wanting to experience life as a commoner and at least implying that this meant pretending to be a man. And she needed a disguise so the fact that EVERY stranger thinks she is a man is plausible.
I was so upset by the mistaken-identity stupidity that I thought about "Christina" giving a 5. Then, I watched it again. This reinforced my appreciation for the rest of the movie.
I gave "The Graduate" a 9 although Mrs. Robinson's daughter falling for Dustin after he treated her like dirt on a date and stalked her was implausible. I reasoned that a short scene with the daughter telling her Dad that she admired Dustin during their school years would have made her accepting two of his bad behaviors (but not his sleeping with her Mom) more plausible.
Using similar reasoning, I gave "Christina" an 8. The absence of one 30-second scene just can't erase the fact that this movie is otherwise very smart and cinematically advanced.
GREAT CHARACTER STUDY; UNSATISFYING ENDING
"Serpico" (1973) -- 7/10
By Martin Zabell
(Wrote Dec. 6, 2007)
Excellent movies have to leave me feeling fully satisfied at the conclusion. "Serpico" did not do this although it was an excellent character study.
I rooted for New York City police officer Frank Serpico throughout this non-fiction movie. Courageous and honest, he battled corruption endemic among colleagues and supervisors for many years. Al Pacino was outstanding portraying someone whose personality became unbearable to friends and allies as his efforts to report illegal activities were constantly stymied.
Toward the end of the movie, Serpico finally achieved some success when New York City's mayor appointed a commission to investigate police corruption and he testified about what was essentially organized crime. This victory came at great cost to his well-being and romantic life.
Unfortunately, the movie's end is unclear about whether justice prevailed. The epilogue says nothing about what happened to the movie's characters other than its namesake. I had numerous questions. Were supervisors like the commissioner involved in the payoff system or were they merely intentionally ignoring it? Were any police brass indicted or convicted? Which of the characters that I came to hate during the movie were made to pay for their crimes?
Answers to these and other questions would have induced me to give "Serpico" a higher rating. I wanted to give it a 9 because I was riveted enough to watch several scenes three or more times.
But, basic facts are important. Even if I conceded that the movie could have been made before there was a resolution to the corruption investigation, I still would penalize "Serpico" for not at least informing us viewers about the probe's progress, who Serpico implicated in his testimony and in his interviews with The New York Times and others, and which characters were at risk of prison.
Before writing my conclusion, I want to say something about what I consider numerous ridiculous posts on the IMDb message board. Several people said, in essence, that Serpico lacked character because of the way he treated people. The posters are looking at the trees, not the forest.
In fact, Serpico demonstrated great character because he was courageous in fighting a corrupt system although going along would have been personally beneficial. The movie is a great character portrayal because it shows how this battle turned an offbeat, but relatively sedate person into someone who was often temperamental, obstinate, arrogant, and nasty.
Serpico had many flaws, but his fortitude and ethics are far more important. At minimum, I would assess him as of having far superior character to any of his colleagues who participated in the corruption or knew about it and did nothing even if they were pristine outside of the office.
Some of the comments I read remind me of the debate about Oskar Schindler of "Schindler's List." He had numerous flaws too, but the importance of what he did meant he had great character.
Back to the review. As a character portrayal, "Serpico" deserves a 9. It also deserves a 9 for its portrayal of Serpico's conflicts with his colleagues and its ability to keep viewers interested in his struggles.
As a movie, though, "Serpico" deserves a lower score because it is a bit too long, some scenes about his personal life could be edited better, the timeline and length of Serpico's police service are unclear, some of the supplementary characters are indistinguishable at times, and, most importantly, I was left unsatisfied at the end because I didn't know what happened to the bad guys.
I gave "Serpico" a 7.
By Martin Zabell
(Wrote Dec. 6, 2007)
Excellent movies have to leave me feeling fully satisfied at the conclusion. "Serpico" did not do this although it was an excellent character study.
I rooted for New York City police officer Frank Serpico throughout this non-fiction movie. Courageous and honest, he battled corruption endemic among colleagues and supervisors for many years. Al Pacino was outstanding portraying someone whose personality became unbearable to friends and allies as his efforts to report illegal activities were constantly stymied.
Toward the end of the movie, Serpico finally achieved some success when New York City's mayor appointed a commission to investigate police corruption and he testified about what was essentially organized crime. This victory came at great cost to his well-being and romantic life.
Unfortunately, the movie's end is unclear about whether justice prevailed. The epilogue says nothing about what happened to the movie's characters other than its namesake. I had numerous questions. Were supervisors like the commissioner involved in the payoff system or were they merely intentionally ignoring it? Were any police brass indicted or convicted? Which of the characters that I came to hate during the movie were made to pay for their crimes?
Answers to these and other questions would have induced me to give "Serpico" a higher rating. I wanted to give it a 9 because I was riveted enough to watch several scenes three or more times.
But, basic facts are important. Even if I conceded that the movie could have been made before there was a resolution to the corruption investigation, I still would penalize "Serpico" for not at least informing us viewers about the probe's progress, who Serpico implicated in his testimony and in his interviews with The New York Times and others, and which characters were at risk of prison.
Before writing my conclusion, I want to say something about what I consider numerous ridiculous posts on the IMDb message board. Several people said, in essence, that Serpico lacked character because of the way he treated people. The posters are looking at the trees, not the forest.
In fact, Serpico demonstrated great character because he was courageous in fighting a corrupt system although going along would have been personally beneficial. The movie is a great character portrayal because it shows how this battle turned an offbeat, but relatively sedate person into someone who was often temperamental, obstinate, arrogant, and nasty.
Serpico had many flaws, but his fortitude and ethics are far more important. At minimum, I would assess him as of having far superior character to any of his colleagues who participated in the corruption or knew about it and did nothing even if they were pristine outside of the office.
Some of the comments I read remind me of the debate about Oskar Schindler of "Schindler's List." He had numerous flaws too, but the importance of what he did meant he had great character.
Back to the review. As a character portrayal, "Serpico" deserves a 9. It also deserves a 9 for its portrayal of Serpico's conflicts with his colleagues and its ability to keep viewers interested in his struggles.
As a movie, though, "Serpico" deserves a lower score because it is a bit too long, some scenes about his personal life could be edited better, the timeline and length of Serpico's police service are unclear, some of the supplementary characters are indistinguishable at times, and, most importantly, I was left unsatisfied at the end because I didn't know what happened to the bad guys.
I gave "Serpico" a 7.
MONSTER'S DEVELOPMENT MAKES SEQUEL BETTER
"Bride of Frankenstein" (1935) -- 8/10
If you want to see perhaps the best movie scene of all time, you should watch "Bride of Frankenstein."
The scene I am referring to is a demonstration of why "Bride of Frankenstein" is a better movie than "Frankenstein." In the scene, The Monster walks into the tiny home of a blind, lonely and elderly man. Unaware of The Monster's looks, the old man reaches out to make the stranger his friend. As the friendship grows, the old man teaches his new friend how to talk.
The 7- to 8-minute scene is simple and sentimental yet profound and instructive. It also shows what could have been achieved in the second half of "Frankenstein" if the plot hadn't inexplicably pivoted from a great science fiction movie centered on the development of The Monster into a weak horror story centered on the town's outrage.
Boris Karloff reportedly objected to The Monster speaking in "Bride." He was wrong. The Monster's character development makes the sequel the superior movie. I found it enjoyable that The Monster learned, developed emotional feelings, yearned for friends and women, and enjoyed life. Grunting doesn't make a monster scarier. Intellectual growth does.
But there are true horror scenes in this movie – at least intellectually. The scene with the little people created from seeds by Dr. Pretorius is humorous and scary to think about. "Bride" also benefits from the addition of a truly evil character although Dr. Pretorius is sometimes cartoonishly evil and the significantly less time that was spent on Dr. Frankenstein's boring love life.
The creation scene in "Frankenstein" was one of that movie's highlights, but the creation scene of the bride in this movie is actually better. Less innovative perhaps, but more complex and interesting.
Unfortunately, the ending of the movie was just plain awful. I wanted to see the character of the "bride" develop or at least begin to develop the way The Monster developed. I'm not sure whether I wanted to see a relationship between Dr. Frankenstein's two creations, but I certainly did not want to see the movie end minutes after they met.
The movie should have been significantly longer. The ending was too rushed, too absurd, too contrived, and too preachy as suddenly The Monster became a moral arbiter of who is good and who is bad.
The ending was so bad that I was tempted to cut my rating from 9 or 10 to 7, but I gave "Frankenstein" a 7 and "Bride" was definitely better. I gave it an 8.
If you want to see perhaps the best movie scene of all time, you should watch "Bride of Frankenstein."
The scene I am referring to is a demonstration of why "Bride of Frankenstein" is a better movie than "Frankenstein." In the scene, The Monster walks into the tiny home of a blind, lonely and elderly man. Unaware of The Monster's looks, the old man reaches out to make the stranger his friend. As the friendship grows, the old man teaches his new friend how to talk.
The 7- to 8-minute scene is simple and sentimental yet profound and instructive. It also shows what could have been achieved in the second half of "Frankenstein" if the plot hadn't inexplicably pivoted from a great science fiction movie centered on the development of The Monster into a weak horror story centered on the town's outrage.
Boris Karloff reportedly objected to The Monster speaking in "Bride." He was wrong. The Monster's character development makes the sequel the superior movie. I found it enjoyable that The Monster learned, developed emotional feelings, yearned for friends and women, and enjoyed life. Grunting doesn't make a monster scarier. Intellectual growth does.
But there are true horror scenes in this movie – at least intellectually. The scene with the little people created from seeds by Dr. Pretorius is humorous and scary to think about. "Bride" also benefits from the addition of a truly evil character although Dr. Pretorius is sometimes cartoonishly evil and the significantly less time that was spent on Dr. Frankenstein's boring love life.
The creation scene in "Frankenstein" was one of that movie's highlights, but the creation scene of the bride in this movie is actually better. Less innovative perhaps, but more complex and interesting.
Unfortunately, the ending of the movie was just plain awful. I wanted to see the character of the "bride" develop or at least begin to develop the way The Monster developed. I'm not sure whether I wanted to see a relationship between Dr. Frankenstein's two creations, but I certainly did not want to see the movie end minutes after they met.
The movie should have been significantly longer. The ending was too rushed, too absurd, too contrived, and too preachy as suddenly The Monster became a moral arbiter of who is good and who is bad.
The ending was so bad that I was tempted to cut my rating from 9 or 10 to 7, but I gave "Frankenstein" a 7 and "Bride" was definitely better. I gave it an 8.
MUCH BETTER AS SCIENCE FICTION THAN HORROR
"Frankenstein" (1931) -- 7/10
By Martin Zabell
(Wrote on Nov. 21, 2007)
Let me get this out of the way. The most enjoyable part of "Frankenstein" was when The Monster killed Edward Van Sloan's character. In all his movies ("Dracula," "The Mummy"), he plays a smug, all-knowing, plot-killer. "Frankenstein" would have been better without him. There, I said it.
In all seriousness, I found the first half of the movie inventive, intriguing, mysterious, foreboding, suspenseful, and provocative. It worked as a science fiction movie. As a citizen, I would never approve of a Dr. Frankenstein conducting bizarre experiments on humans. As a movie viewer, I was gung-ho in support of the Colin Clive character being an anti-establishment renegade.
In addition, watching The Monster adjust to life as a newborn was very interesting. He was very gentle, obeying his creator's commands like a puppy while walking harmlessly around the laboratory. Later, he fearfully reacts to his first sight of light while Dr. F. seeks to comfort him.
I looked forward to 40 more minutes of watching the world from The Monster's perspective. (OK, I knew what was going to happen, but I try to block my knowledge so my review is fairer.) Unfortunately, the Van Sloan character, Dr. Waldman, stepped in and stuck a dagger into the story.
The turning point of the movie was when Frankenstein's assistant scared The Monster by holding a torch a few feet from his head. Of course, he reacted negatively and throws a temper tantrum. Dr. Waldman urges Dr. F to "shoot it" and the creator makes the boneheaded decision of tying up The Monster and giving up on his experiment after one negative experience.
This turnaround ruined the movie – and makes no sense. Instantaneously, Frankenstein changes from a bold, imaginative rulebreaker into his mentor's sycophant and a conformist. His goal changes from creating life to getting married. This plot turn can't be more unoriginal. Boooring!!!!
A large part of the second half of the movie is set in a castle where Dr. F's father has six, count them six, servants. I couldn't be less interested in Dr. F's private life. And somehow villagers who are determined to rid the world of The Monster become worshipers of the very scientist who created that Monster and anoint him as the leader of the anti-Monster group. Stuuupid!!!
The story would have been far more interesting if Frankenstein told Waldman to shove it and the movie becomes a confrontation between Frankenstein and The Monster on the one side and the staid establishment on the other. The audience should have been rooting for Dr. F and The Monster.
Given the story's turn, The Monster should have been much scarier. He kills two people who were trying to harm him and innocently and accidentally kills a little girl. In other words, the movie doesn't work as a horror story after having succeeded splendidly as science fiction until the plot turn.
The plot turn also directs attention away from The Monster and toward the now boring doctor. This is devastating because the best post-turn scenes focus on The Monster trying to learn about life.
Halfway through the movie, I was considering making it my first 10. Unfortunately, the transition from science fiction to predictable romance/weak horror compels me to award it a 7.
By Martin Zabell
(Wrote on Nov. 21, 2007)
Let me get this out of the way. The most enjoyable part of "Frankenstein" was when The Monster killed Edward Van Sloan's character. In all his movies ("Dracula," "The Mummy"), he plays a smug, all-knowing, plot-killer. "Frankenstein" would have been better without him. There, I said it.
In all seriousness, I found the first half of the movie inventive, intriguing, mysterious, foreboding, suspenseful, and provocative. It worked as a science fiction movie. As a citizen, I would never approve of a Dr. Frankenstein conducting bizarre experiments on humans. As a movie viewer, I was gung-ho in support of the Colin Clive character being an anti-establishment renegade.
In addition, watching The Monster adjust to life as a newborn was very interesting. He was very gentle, obeying his creator's commands like a puppy while walking harmlessly around the laboratory. Later, he fearfully reacts to his first sight of light while Dr. F. seeks to comfort him.
I looked forward to 40 more minutes of watching the world from The Monster's perspective. (OK, I knew what was going to happen, but I try to block my knowledge so my review is fairer.) Unfortunately, the Van Sloan character, Dr. Waldman, stepped in and stuck a dagger into the story.
The turning point of the movie was when Frankenstein's assistant scared The Monster by holding a torch a few feet from his head. Of course, he reacted negatively and throws a temper tantrum. Dr. Waldman urges Dr. F to "shoot it" and the creator makes the boneheaded decision of tying up The Monster and giving up on his experiment after one negative experience.
This turnaround ruined the movie – and makes no sense. Instantaneously, Frankenstein changes from a bold, imaginative rulebreaker into his mentor's sycophant and a conformist. His goal changes from creating life to getting married. This plot turn can't be more unoriginal. Boooring!!!!
A large part of the second half of the movie is set in a castle where Dr. F's father has six, count them six, servants. I couldn't be less interested in Dr. F's private life. And somehow villagers who are determined to rid the world of The Monster become worshipers of the very scientist who created that Monster and anoint him as the leader of the anti-Monster group. Stuuupid!!!
The story would have been far more interesting if Frankenstein told Waldman to shove it and the movie becomes a confrontation between Frankenstein and The Monster on the one side and the staid establishment on the other. The audience should have been rooting for Dr. F and The Monster.
Given the story's turn, The Monster should have been much scarier. He kills two people who were trying to harm him and innocently and accidentally kills a little girl. In other words, the movie doesn't work as a horror story after having succeeded splendidly as science fiction until the plot turn.
The plot turn also directs attention away from The Monster and toward the now boring doctor. This is devastating because the best post-turn scenes focus on The Monster trying to learn about life.
Halfway through the movie, I was considering making it my first 10. Unfortunately, the transition from science fiction to predictable romance/weak horror compels me to award it a 7.
CHILDHOOD FAVORITE HOLDS UP
"Rocky" (1976) -- 9/10
By Martin Zabell
(Wrote Nov. 7, 2007)
As a teen, "Rocky" was my favorite movie. It was, in fact, the first movie I saw without my parents. In college, I ran up the Philadelphia Museum of Art's stairs a la Rocky.
The David vs. Goliath theme is so appealing to a student that I thought over the years that I probably overrated the movie and ignored many of its flaws. That judgment was reinforced by my knowing that endless sequels had made Rocky a caricature and Sylvester Stallone did not become a quality actor. In retrospect, I thought the characters were too broad and stereotypical.
A few days ago, I analyzed the movie for the first time. I was stunned. I completely forgot how good the beginning of the movie was!! Director John Avildsen did a superb job of conveying the grittiness of Rocky's Philadelphia neighborhood and the sadness and despair of his life. I was interested in the character from the start as he fights for a $50 prize, roams the neighborhood alone, and is thrown out of his locker because he failed to fulfill his potential.
Stallone is outstanding portraying Rocky as tough and dumb, but likable. He refuses to break the thumbs of a man who could not pay his loan shark boss and tries to help a man lying in the street and a troubled girl. Frankly, I did not recall the depth of Rocky's kind-hearted tough guy character.
I didn't forget the excellent conflicts and dialogues between the major characters – Rocky, girlfriend Adrian, her brother, manager Mickey, and boxing champ Apollo Creed. However, the scenes depicting Rocky and Adrian's first date were even better than I recalled because Talia Shire is very convincing portraying a woman afraid to be with a man and Stallone's pangs of loneliness on Thanksgiving and awkwardness around women are very endearing.
I must admit, though, that I recalled Rocky's rejection of Mickey's offer to manage him as a dialogue. In fact, it was two monologues – and the movie's best scene. Each monologue brilliantly captured the talker's frustration that no one had ever helped him achieve his goals. Mickey spoke first, begging Rocky for a chance at age 76. Rocky responded by essentially kicking him out of his apartment and venting at a door. The scene meant more to me in middle age than it did as a teen.
But, "Rocky" is definitely flawed. I found Adrian's post-first date transformation from a near mute afraid to enjoy life to a vibrant, articulate woman now that she no longer wears glasses as absurd as I did in 1976. And how did her vision improve? Contact lenses were costly then.
There are two boxing-related flaws that I didn't notice in 1976. One is that I've always thought the match was on July 4 and Rocky trained like a maniac for seven months. Since the match was on Jan. 1, his transformation into a freakishly-conditioned Superman is less plausible.
I've also always thought that Creed won easily because the announcers were astonished that Rocky stayed on his feet. I never noticed that the result was actually a 2-1 decision. The focus at the end of the movie was rightly Rocky lasting 15 rounds and then looking for Adrian rather than listening to the result. The fact that the match was actually close detracts from the excellent ending.
"Rocky II" was pointless. "Rocky III" was better than "II," but essentially about a celebrity that I didn't care much about. I never watched the others, but it's refreshing to know that the first "Rocky" was as good as I remembered it. I gave it a 9.
By Martin Zabell
(Wrote Nov. 7, 2007)
As a teen, "Rocky" was my favorite movie. It was, in fact, the first movie I saw without my parents. In college, I ran up the Philadelphia Museum of Art's stairs a la Rocky.
The David vs. Goliath theme is so appealing to a student that I thought over the years that I probably overrated the movie and ignored many of its flaws. That judgment was reinforced by my knowing that endless sequels had made Rocky a caricature and Sylvester Stallone did not become a quality actor. In retrospect, I thought the characters were too broad and stereotypical.
A few days ago, I analyzed the movie for the first time. I was stunned. I completely forgot how good the beginning of the movie was!! Director John Avildsen did a superb job of conveying the grittiness of Rocky's Philadelphia neighborhood and the sadness and despair of his life. I was interested in the character from the start as he fights for a $50 prize, roams the neighborhood alone, and is thrown out of his locker because he failed to fulfill his potential.
Stallone is outstanding portraying Rocky as tough and dumb, but likable. He refuses to break the thumbs of a man who could not pay his loan shark boss and tries to help a man lying in the street and a troubled girl. Frankly, I did not recall the depth of Rocky's kind-hearted tough guy character.
I didn't forget the excellent conflicts and dialogues between the major characters – Rocky, girlfriend Adrian, her brother, manager Mickey, and boxing champ Apollo Creed. However, the scenes depicting Rocky and Adrian's first date were even better than I recalled because Talia Shire is very convincing portraying a woman afraid to be with a man and Stallone's pangs of loneliness on Thanksgiving and awkwardness around women are very endearing.
I must admit, though, that I recalled Rocky's rejection of Mickey's offer to manage him as a dialogue. In fact, it was two monologues – and the movie's best scene. Each monologue brilliantly captured the talker's frustration that no one had ever helped him achieve his goals. Mickey spoke first, begging Rocky for a chance at age 76. Rocky responded by essentially kicking him out of his apartment and venting at a door. The scene meant more to me in middle age than it did as a teen.
But, "Rocky" is definitely flawed. I found Adrian's post-first date transformation from a near mute afraid to enjoy life to a vibrant, articulate woman now that she no longer wears glasses as absurd as I did in 1976. And how did her vision improve? Contact lenses were costly then.
There are two boxing-related flaws that I didn't notice in 1976. One is that I've always thought the match was on July 4 and Rocky trained like a maniac for seven months. Since the match was on Jan. 1, his transformation into a freakishly-conditioned Superman is less plausible.
I've also always thought that Creed won easily because the announcers were astonished that Rocky stayed on his feet. I never noticed that the result was actually a 2-1 decision. The focus at the end of the movie was rightly Rocky lasting 15 rounds and then looking for Adrian rather than listening to the result. The fact that the match was actually close detracts from the excellent ending.
"Rocky II" was pointless. "Rocky III" was better than "II," but essentially about a celebrity that I didn't care much about. I never watched the others, but it's refreshing to know that the first "Rocky" was as good as I remembered it. I gave it a 9.
FLAWED MOVIE, BUT SOME VERY GRIPPING SCENES
"The Caine Mutiny" (1954) -- 7/10
By Martin Zabell
(Wrote Sept. 17, 2007)
Humphrey Bogart's performance in "The Caine Mutiny" was the second-best of his career. Only his performance in "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre," one of Hollywood's best-ever, was better. And, yes, I did watch "Casablanca."
Bogart's outstanding acting makes the movie's gripping scenes even more compelling. The best scene is his falling apart on the witness stand – a sort of subdued version of Jack Nicholson's memorable breakdown in "A Few Good Men." The other great scenes were when Van Johnson takes over command of the ship as Bogart vacillates during a typhoon and the hunt for the missing strawberries.
Throughout "Caine," the writers do a good job of showing how Bogart's Captain Queeg is an incompetent officer and one of those petty jerks everybody hates – a compulsive authoritarian who tries to make up for his lack of substance by focusing on rules so he is always right and everyone else is wrong.
The confrontation between Bogart and his subordinates, the disputes between the officers about what to do about Queeg, the transformation of the Van Johnson character, and the canniness and cowardice of the Fred MacMurray character are also positive elements in the movie.
All this makes the ending absolutely infuriating. Jose Ferrer's speech is beyond ludicrous. It's based on two premises – MacMurray was the brains behind the mutiny and the mutiny was unjustified. Half the movie is about MacMurray laying the groundwork for the mutiny so Ferrer's conclusion is news only to himself.
The second premise is just dumb. Bogart had acted incompetently and cowardly at sea twice before the typhoon – and blamed others for his mistakes. Ferrer's declaration that Johnson would not have had to act against Bogie during the typhoon if officers had months earlier accepted their captain's plea for help – and Johnson agreeing with Ferrer – makes no sense. Lives were in danger during the typhoon. Period.
The conclusion has the stench of U.S. Navy censorship.
I noticed that many IMDb posters rip the romance between the young officer and his girlfriend. This is interesting since there are countless 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s movies with unconvincing romances that appear to be patronizing attempts to win over female viewers, and many of those romances are barely criticized.
The romance in this movie is less distracting and time-consuming than many others. At least I can see what the writers were trying to do – make us interested in the young officer so we viewers care about what happens to him later on. This works up to a point. It ultimately does NOT work -- not because the romance is uninteresting, but because the officer's character is NOT developed. He is an uninteresting observer for most of "Caine," and he is a milquetoast when he takes stands on principle later in the film.
Robert Francis' lack of development in "Caine" compares unfavorably to the transformations of Jack Lemmon and Charlie Sheen in "Mister Roberts" and "Platoon." It doesn't help that Francis is not a good actor.
The writers should have spent more time developing Francis' character instead of using 35 minutes before Bogart enters the movie or they should have downplayed Francis and focused on Van Johnson instead.
I gave "Caine" a 7.
P.S. -- By the way, nominating the actor who played Queeg's predecessor instead of MacMurray for a Best Supporting Oscar is preposterous.
By Martin Zabell
(Wrote Sept. 17, 2007)
Humphrey Bogart's performance in "The Caine Mutiny" was the second-best of his career. Only his performance in "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre," one of Hollywood's best-ever, was better. And, yes, I did watch "Casablanca."
Bogart's outstanding acting makes the movie's gripping scenes even more compelling. The best scene is his falling apart on the witness stand – a sort of subdued version of Jack Nicholson's memorable breakdown in "A Few Good Men." The other great scenes were when Van Johnson takes over command of the ship as Bogart vacillates during a typhoon and the hunt for the missing strawberries.
Throughout "Caine," the writers do a good job of showing how Bogart's Captain Queeg is an incompetent officer and one of those petty jerks everybody hates – a compulsive authoritarian who tries to make up for his lack of substance by focusing on rules so he is always right and everyone else is wrong.
The confrontation between Bogart and his subordinates, the disputes between the officers about what to do about Queeg, the transformation of the Van Johnson character, and the canniness and cowardice of the Fred MacMurray character are also positive elements in the movie.
All this makes the ending absolutely infuriating. Jose Ferrer's speech is beyond ludicrous. It's based on two premises – MacMurray was the brains behind the mutiny and the mutiny was unjustified. Half the movie is about MacMurray laying the groundwork for the mutiny so Ferrer's conclusion is news only to himself.
The second premise is just dumb. Bogart had acted incompetently and cowardly at sea twice before the typhoon – and blamed others for his mistakes. Ferrer's declaration that Johnson would not have had to act against Bogie during the typhoon if officers had months earlier accepted their captain's plea for help – and Johnson agreeing with Ferrer – makes no sense. Lives were in danger during the typhoon. Period.
The conclusion has the stench of U.S. Navy censorship.
I noticed that many IMDb posters rip the romance between the young officer and his girlfriend. This is interesting since there are countless 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s movies with unconvincing romances that appear to be patronizing attempts to win over female viewers, and many of those romances are barely criticized.
The romance in this movie is less distracting and time-consuming than many others. At least I can see what the writers were trying to do – make us interested in the young officer so we viewers care about what happens to him later on. This works up to a point. It ultimately does NOT work -- not because the romance is uninteresting, but because the officer's character is NOT developed. He is an uninteresting observer for most of "Caine," and he is a milquetoast when he takes stands on principle later in the film.
Robert Francis' lack of development in "Caine" compares unfavorably to the transformations of Jack Lemmon and Charlie Sheen in "Mister Roberts" and "Platoon." It doesn't help that Francis is not a good actor.
The writers should have spent more time developing Francis' character instead of using 35 minutes before Bogart enters the movie or they should have downplayed Francis and focused on Van Johnson instead.
I gave "Caine" a 7.
P.S. -- By the way, nominating the actor who played Queeg's predecessor instead of MacMurray for a Best Supporting Oscar is preposterous.
ECCENTRIC CHARACTERS MAKE 'FISH' A JOY
"A Fish Called Wanda" (1988) -- 8/10
By Martin Zabell
(Wrote June 26, 2007)
I almost always base my decision on the quality of a movie on its plot – possibly because I'm a professional writer/editor.
Using my own criteria, "A Fish Called Wanda" shouldn't be rated a good movie. The number of plot holes is enormous and, frankly, I didn't even care who got the hidden jewels or even whether the thieves were caught and/or found guilty.
However, I am giving this movie an 8. Why? In one word, "characters." I'm really hard-pressed to think of a movie with more eccentric characters. These characters made "Wanda" an enjoyable movie.
I read at least a few reviews that said this movie wasn't funny. By conventional standards, it wasn't because the one-liners and comedy bits weren't particularly strong on their own. What made this movie funny was its characters, their quirky personalities, and their actions. The four primary characters were all extreme.
Kevin Kline's character stood out because of his extreme stupidity, impulsiveness, pushiness, and rudeness. Michael Palin's character was extreme in his love for animals and stuttering problems. John Cleese's character was involved in an extremely repressed marriage. Jamie Lee Curtis' character was extremely seductive and had a strange passion for foreign languages.
The writers did a great job of creating excellent character conflicts based on the characters' quirks. Kline ate Palin's fish. Cleese was easy prey for Curtis' come-ons. Kline's inability to grasp that girlfriend Curtis was play-acting to get the jewels led him to attack Cleese. Overlaying these individual tussles was a Brit vs. American conflict that provided lots of laughs.
For those who don't know, Kline won an Oscar for his performance. In addition, I should point out that the dialogue was often very smart – particularly when the very attractive Curtis explained how stupid Kline was.
I know many people objected to the killing of animals. As I sit here looking at my cute Beagle, I can honestly say that these scenes were funny. They weren't funny because dogs and fish were killed. They were funny because of how the quirky and extreme characters reacted to the deaths.
I watched "Wanda" one more time than I usually watch a movie to make sure the plot holes I perceived weren't my own fault. I shouldn't have bothered. "Wanda" deserves to have a point deducted because of its plot holes. If it was a drama, these holes would have led me to give this movie a thumbs-down, but it's a comedy so I rate it as a top-notch movie.
By Martin Zabell
(Wrote June 26, 2007)
I almost always base my decision on the quality of a movie on its plot – possibly because I'm a professional writer/editor.
Using my own criteria, "A Fish Called Wanda" shouldn't be rated a good movie. The number of plot holes is enormous and, frankly, I didn't even care who got the hidden jewels or even whether the thieves were caught and/or found guilty.
However, I am giving this movie an 8. Why? In one word, "characters." I'm really hard-pressed to think of a movie with more eccentric characters. These characters made "Wanda" an enjoyable movie.
I read at least a few reviews that said this movie wasn't funny. By conventional standards, it wasn't because the one-liners and comedy bits weren't particularly strong on their own. What made this movie funny was its characters, their quirky personalities, and their actions. The four primary characters were all extreme.
Kevin Kline's character stood out because of his extreme stupidity, impulsiveness, pushiness, and rudeness. Michael Palin's character was extreme in his love for animals and stuttering problems. John Cleese's character was involved in an extremely repressed marriage. Jamie Lee Curtis' character was extremely seductive and had a strange passion for foreign languages.
The writers did a great job of creating excellent character conflicts based on the characters' quirks. Kline ate Palin's fish. Cleese was easy prey for Curtis' come-ons. Kline's inability to grasp that girlfriend Curtis was play-acting to get the jewels led him to attack Cleese. Overlaying these individual tussles was a Brit vs. American conflict that provided lots of laughs.
For those who don't know, Kline won an Oscar for his performance. In addition, I should point out that the dialogue was often very smart – particularly when the very attractive Curtis explained how stupid Kline was.
I know many people objected to the killing of animals. As I sit here looking at my cute Beagle, I can honestly say that these scenes were funny. They weren't funny because dogs and fish were killed. They were funny because of how the quirky and extreme characters reacted to the deaths.
I watched "Wanda" one more time than I usually watch a movie to make sure the plot holes I perceived weren't my own fault. I shouldn't have bothered. "Wanda" deserves to have a point deducted because of its plot holes. If it was a drama, these holes would have led me to give this movie a thumbs-down, but it's a comedy so I rate it as a top-notch movie.
MORE CHARACTER STUDY THAN WESTERN
"The Naked Spur" (1953) -- 8/10
By Martin Zabell
(Wrote June 23, 2007)
I am tempted to write that "The Naked Spur" is one of the best Westerns I've seen, but it is not really a Western.
This 1953 movie is really a character study like "The Breakfast Club" or "The Big Chill." Except for "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf," I've never watched a movie with so few characters. There are only five who speak plus several native-Americans who appear for only one scene.
The presence of so few characters gives viewers a chance to get to know all of them, and the writers do a great job of introducing the characters, developing them, getting inside their heads, and portraying their conflicts. This character portrayal dovetails neatly with the plot – an 1866 bounty hunter captures a murderer after persuading two other people to help him without mentioning the huge reward and then has to march the killer from Colorado to Kansas with his angry new cohorts.
The writing was so good that I found myself rooting for the villain although the actor, Robert Ryan, delivers a subpar performance by smiling constantly and not coming across as threatening. Basically, I was rooting for a David whose hands were shackled and his quasi-girlfriend against three Goliaths with guns. If he could time travel, I would have loved to see Jack Nicholson as the villain.
The fact that the Goliaths are all flawed and plotting against each other makes the movie even better. In addition, Jimmy Stewart is the best actor ever.
Non-Western fans will like this movie a lot, but there's also something for Western aficionados. There is relatively little action, but the action at the start is very interesting and the action scene near the end is one of the best I've ever seen. The end-of-movie action is enhanced by gorgeous photography and scenery in the Rockies.
On the negative side, there were some slow moments in the middle of the movie and, maybe it's me, but budding romances just don't work in most old movies that I've watched. Women are treated as too needy and too willing to fall for every guy they see. It's just not credible that drop-dead gorgeous, very young women like Grace Kelly, Kim Novak, and, in this movie, Janet Leigh will fall for a middle-aged and gawky Jimmy Stewart who has lots of problems.
I gave the very similar "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre" a 9 and "The Naked Spur" an 8 because the former was a great character study that wasn't diluted by a non-credible romance while the latter included such a romance.
In addition, Stewart's decision to choose Leigh over the money at the end was too sudden. Perhaps, a meatier conversation between the two during the middle of the movie would have made Stewart's turnaround more explicable.
By Martin Zabell
(Wrote June 23, 2007)
I am tempted to write that "The Naked Spur" is one of the best Westerns I've seen, but it is not really a Western.
This 1953 movie is really a character study like "The Breakfast Club" or "The Big Chill." Except for "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf," I've never watched a movie with so few characters. There are only five who speak plus several native-Americans who appear for only one scene.
The presence of so few characters gives viewers a chance to get to know all of them, and the writers do a great job of introducing the characters, developing them, getting inside their heads, and portraying their conflicts. This character portrayal dovetails neatly with the plot – an 1866 bounty hunter captures a murderer after persuading two other people to help him without mentioning the huge reward and then has to march the killer from Colorado to Kansas with his angry new cohorts.
The writing was so good that I found myself rooting for the villain although the actor, Robert Ryan, delivers a subpar performance by smiling constantly and not coming across as threatening. Basically, I was rooting for a David whose hands were shackled and his quasi-girlfriend against three Goliaths with guns. If he could time travel, I would have loved to see Jack Nicholson as the villain.
The fact that the Goliaths are all flawed and plotting against each other makes the movie even better. In addition, Jimmy Stewart is the best actor ever.
Non-Western fans will like this movie a lot, but there's also something for Western aficionados. There is relatively little action, but the action at the start is very interesting and the action scene near the end is one of the best I've ever seen. The end-of-movie action is enhanced by gorgeous photography and scenery in the Rockies.
On the negative side, there were some slow moments in the middle of the movie and, maybe it's me, but budding romances just don't work in most old movies that I've watched. Women are treated as too needy and too willing to fall for every guy they see. It's just not credible that drop-dead gorgeous, very young women like Grace Kelly, Kim Novak, and, in this movie, Janet Leigh will fall for a middle-aged and gawky Jimmy Stewart who has lots of problems.
I gave the very similar "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre" a 9 and "The Naked Spur" an 8 because the former was a great character study that wasn't diluted by a non-credible romance while the latter included such a romance.
In addition, Stewart's decision to choose Leigh over the money at the end was too sudden. Perhaps, a meatier conversation between the two during the middle of the movie would have made Stewart's turnaround more explicable.
MAUDE IS NOT WHO SHE SEEMS
"Harold and Maude" (1971) -- 6/10
By Martin Zabell
(Wrote June 18, 2007)
I have never been so undecided about how to rate a movie.
"Harold and Maude" deserves a 10 for originality, black humor, storytelling, and chutzpah. On the other hand, it deserves a 1 for ickiness and its trite expressions of "live life" philosophy.
As the end of the movie approached, I felt inclined to give it an 8, but I changed my rating to a 6 and a "thumbs down" because of the ending.
My review includes spoilers as I explain my logic. Here's my problem with the movie – Maude's suicide contradicts the entire point of everything that happened earlier!!! If she died via a car accident or stroke or if she revealed a terminal illness, I would have given the movie an 8.
The writers exhibit thinking that infuriates me. They do NOT understand the difference between personality and character. I see this on the news whenever there is a murder and neighbors say the suspect is a "nice guy" because he starts conversations with them, smiles, and is friendly.
In fact, the suspect has a nice personality and the neighbors generally know little about his character. The same is true here. Maude appears happy and nice because she is extroverted. In fact, the movie's conclusion reveals she is unbelievably selfish and/or depressed.
She is very healthy so there is no reason to kill herself. The writers foreshadow Maude's suicide because she implies she will kill herself early in the movie. "It's all going to be over after Saturday," she says, a line I forgot about until the end. Yet, for most of the rest of the plot she befriends Harold, goes out with him, and responds in kind to his "I love you" remarks.
In short, Maude is a bad person – not the lover of life who inspires Harold.
I will NEVER accept the premise that dancing, as Harold does at the end, means a person changed. This was also a flaw in "Zorba The Greek" when the Brit acts like a wimp as his girlfriend is killed by a mob and the house of Zorba's wife is ransacked. Yet, I'm supposed to believe he changed because he danced. He was MORE wimpy at the end of the movie than he was at the start.
If Harold has a brain, his experience with Maude will make him MORE negative about life.
It's difficult to give a 6 to a movie I gave a "thumbs down," but I loved the eccentric supporting characters, the audacity of Maude's teenlike rowdiness, Harold's fake suicides, the non-dates with young women, and the character conflicts, especially the Harold-Mom relationship.
I watched the movie a second time to see if Harold ever talked to his mother before he briefly told her near the end that he was marrying Maude. The Mom spoke dozens, maybe hundreds, of lines to Harold. The son's only response was "I have a sore throat" – a line he delivered in front of several people. He NEVER responded to his Mom in one-on-one encounters.
The "Graduate On Steroids" was enjoyable, but failed because its creators do NOT understand that personality does NOT equal character.
By Martin Zabell
(Wrote June 18, 2007)
I have never been so undecided about how to rate a movie.
"Harold and Maude" deserves a 10 for originality, black humor, storytelling, and chutzpah. On the other hand, it deserves a 1 for ickiness and its trite expressions of "live life" philosophy.
As the end of the movie approached, I felt inclined to give it an 8, but I changed my rating to a 6 and a "thumbs down" because of the ending.
My review includes spoilers as I explain my logic. Here's my problem with the movie – Maude's suicide contradicts the entire point of everything that happened earlier!!! If she died via a car accident or stroke or if she revealed a terminal illness, I would have given the movie an 8.
The writers exhibit thinking that infuriates me. They do NOT understand the difference between personality and character. I see this on the news whenever there is a murder and neighbors say the suspect is a "nice guy" because he starts conversations with them, smiles, and is friendly.
In fact, the suspect has a nice personality and the neighbors generally know little about his character. The same is true here. Maude appears happy and nice because she is extroverted. In fact, the movie's conclusion reveals she is unbelievably selfish and/or depressed.
She is very healthy so there is no reason to kill herself. The writers foreshadow Maude's suicide because she implies she will kill herself early in the movie. "It's all going to be over after Saturday," she says, a line I forgot about until the end. Yet, for most of the rest of the plot she befriends Harold, goes out with him, and responds in kind to his "I love you" remarks.
In short, Maude is a bad person – not the lover of life who inspires Harold.
I will NEVER accept the premise that dancing, as Harold does at the end, means a person changed. This was also a flaw in "Zorba The Greek" when the Brit acts like a wimp as his girlfriend is killed by a mob and the house of Zorba's wife is ransacked. Yet, I'm supposed to believe he changed because he danced. He was MORE wimpy at the end of the movie than he was at the start.
If Harold has a brain, his experience with Maude will make him MORE negative about life.
It's difficult to give a 6 to a movie I gave a "thumbs down," but I loved the eccentric supporting characters, the audacity of Maude's teenlike rowdiness, Harold's fake suicides, the non-dates with young women, and the character conflicts, especially the Harold-Mom relationship.
I watched the movie a second time to see if Harold ever talked to his mother before he briefly told her near the end that he was marrying Maude. The Mom spoke dozens, maybe hundreds, of lines to Harold. The son's only response was "I have a sore throat" – a line he delivered in front of several people. He NEVER responded to his Mom in one-on-one encounters.
The "Graduate On Steroids" was enjoyable, but failed because its creators do NOT understand that personality does NOT equal character.
THE BEST MOVIE I PREVIOUSLY NEVER HEARD OF
"Paths of Glory" (1957) -- 9/10
By Martin Zabell
(Wrote April 13, 2007)
I watch about 100 movies per year, but I NEVER heard of "Paths of Glory" until I recently saw it on a list of great movies.
It is the BEST movie that I have never heard of and one of the best movies I have ever seen!! I'm stunned that I knew nothing about it.
As an anti-war movie, "Paths of Glory" rivals "All Quiet on the Western Front" and "Dr. Strangelove." It has one great scene after another. Most of the scenes consist of two- or three-person conversations that include very smart dialogue, sharp character portrayals, and conflicts that induce viewers to root for some people and root against others.
During the movie, I became depressed when something bad happened to the good guys and happy when something bad happened to the bad guys. I can't think of too many movies that were written so well that I reacted this way.
I know many people, including myself, don't like military movies with so much action that you can't follow who has been killed and who is winning. This movie wisely has only about 10 minutes of (World War I) battlefield scenes and the result is crystal-clear.
Instead of scenes of mass killings, the writers and director Stanley Kubrick focus on the confrontations between high-level and low-level officers, an unfair court martial, and a farcical trial. The results of the action convey vividly how military leaders care more about themselves than the heroes who fight for their nation.
The movie also wisely has one central character played by Kirk Douglas. He is outstanding as a very principled and strong mid-level officer who essentially represents the perspective of viewers like ourselves. Like Douglas, we want to express moral outrage as the plot unfolds.
I almost gave this movie a 10, but I thought the ending was too sudden. I wanted it to continue. I'm also on the fence about whether I preferred this movie to either be about English soldiers or French soldiers with French accents or left as is with French soldiers who are clearly not French.
I swear I'm not normally a cheerleader for movies. In fact, I think I gave a movie that came out at about the same time a 1. The fact that Gigi won a Best Movie Oscar and "Paths of Glory" received zero nominations is a stain on Academy Award voters.
I gave "Paths" a 9.
By Martin Zabell
(Wrote April 13, 2007)
I watch about 100 movies per year, but I NEVER heard of "Paths of Glory" until I recently saw it on a list of great movies.
It is the BEST movie that I have never heard of and one of the best movies I have ever seen!! I'm stunned that I knew nothing about it.
As an anti-war movie, "Paths of Glory" rivals "All Quiet on the Western Front" and "Dr. Strangelove." It has one great scene after another. Most of the scenes consist of two- or three-person conversations that include very smart dialogue, sharp character portrayals, and conflicts that induce viewers to root for some people and root against others.
During the movie, I became depressed when something bad happened to the good guys and happy when something bad happened to the bad guys. I can't think of too many movies that were written so well that I reacted this way.
I know many people, including myself, don't like military movies with so much action that you can't follow who has been killed and who is winning. This movie wisely has only about 10 minutes of (World War I) battlefield scenes and the result is crystal-clear.
Instead of scenes of mass killings, the writers and director Stanley Kubrick focus on the confrontations between high-level and low-level officers, an unfair court martial, and a farcical trial. The results of the action convey vividly how military leaders care more about themselves than the heroes who fight for their nation.
The movie also wisely has one central character played by Kirk Douglas. He is outstanding as a very principled and strong mid-level officer who essentially represents the perspective of viewers like ourselves. Like Douglas, we want to express moral outrage as the plot unfolds.
I almost gave this movie a 10, but I thought the ending was too sudden. I wanted it to continue. I'm also on the fence about whether I preferred this movie to either be about English soldiers or French soldiers with French accents or left as is with French soldiers who are clearly not French.
I swear I'm not normally a cheerleader for movies. In fact, I think I gave a movie that came out at about the same time a 1. The fact that Gigi won a Best Movie Oscar and "Paths of Glory" received zero nominations is a stain on Academy Award voters.
I gave "Paths" a 9.
MR. CHIPS' STUDENTS WERE INVISIBLE
"GOODBYE, MR. CHIPS" (1939) -- 5/10
By Martin Zabell
(Wrote Jan. 31, 2007)
I began watching "Goodbye, Mr. Chips" certain that I would like it. In fact, I love quiet movies about teachers and how they inspire their students to take chances, become ambitious, transform themselves academically, etc.
I really, really wanted to love this movie, but I did not.
The problem with this movie is that I know NOTHING about any of the individual students Mr. Chips taught. I don't know what their interests are, whether they are smart or dumb, what they are thinking etc. I just watched the movie and I'm not even sure I know any of their names.
For a movie like this to work, there have to be some meaningful interactions between the teacher and his or her students. There were none. I see NO evidence that Mr. Chips inspired any individual student to do anything. And I don't know what the students did other than some of them fought in World War I.
Contrast that with "Dead Poets Society" and "Mr. Holland's Opus," to name two, where five or six students stand out and are inspired by their teacher. I saw those movies several years ago and I still recall the students' stories.
This movie conveys a general sense that Mr. Chips himself was transformed after meeting his wife. Before that, he was stodgy and unpopular. Frankly, he was an incompetent teacher for 20 years and should have been fired. After his midlife romance begins, though, the students as a whole liked and respected him a lot.
But other than a couple of jokes told in front of a class of 30 students, there is nothing to justify why the students liked and respected him so much. I want to be SHOWN, not told, Mr. Chips is a great teacher. The movie also has a very timid plot and little conflict and character development.
By the way, Jimmy Stewart deserved the Best Actor Oscar for "Mr. Smith," not Robert "Mr. Chips" Donat. I gave "Mr. Chips" a 5.
By Martin Zabell
(Wrote Jan. 31, 2007)
I began watching "Goodbye, Mr. Chips" certain that I would like it. In fact, I love quiet movies about teachers and how they inspire their students to take chances, become ambitious, transform themselves academically, etc.
I really, really wanted to love this movie, but I did not.
The problem with this movie is that I know NOTHING about any of the individual students Mr. Chips taught. I don't know what their interests are, whether they are smart or dumb, what they are thinking etc. I just watched the movie and I'm not even sure I know any of their names.
For a movie like this to work, there have to be some meaningful interactions between the teacher and his or her students. There were none. I see NO evidence that Mr. Chips inspired any individual student to do anything. And I don't know what the students did other than some of them fought in World War I.
Contrast that with "Dead Poets Society" and "Mr. Holland's Opus," to name two, where five or six students stand out and are inspired by their teacher. I saw those movies several years ago and I still recall the students' stories.
This movie conveys a general sense that Mr. Chips himself was transformed after meeting his wife. Before that, he was stodgy and unpopular. Frankly, he was an incompetent teacher for 20 years and should have been fired. After his midlife romance begins, though, the students as a whole liked and respected him a lot.
But other than a couple of jokes told in front of a class of 30 students, there is nothing to justify why the students liked and respected him so much. I want to be SHOWN, not told, Mr. Chips is a great teacher. The movie also has a very timid plot and little conflict and character development.
By the way, Jimmy Stewart deserved the Best Actor Oscar for "Mr. Smith," not Robert "Mr. Chips" Donat. I gave "Mr. Chips" a 5.
MOST DISTASTEFUL FILM I HAVE EVER SEEN
"Gigi" (1958) -- 1/10
By Martin Zabell
(Wrote June 20, 2006)
This movie was stunning. I bought 36 classic movies a few months ago, and this was the first one I completely disliked. I hated it.
I thought this movie was supposed to be a "delightful" musical. That is what numerous reviews I read said.
This movie was beyond despicable. It was about two elderly women training an innocent teenager to be a hooker and a 40-year-old man pursuing her. I'm not kidding. There were five main characters in the movie, and Gigi, the would-be hooker, was by far the most appealing.
Halfway through the movie, I found myself rooting for Gigi to pull out a rifle and kill her aunt, grandmother, suitor, and Maurice Chevalier, the suitor's uncle. I thought this kind of character conflict could save the movie. Unfortunately, Gigi marries her suitor, who starts conversations by insulting her clothes, manners, etc.
I wish Gigi had been a strong character.
I can't believe that no one commented on the low point of the movie. Eva Gabor kills herself after Gigi's eventual suitor (Louis Jourdan) dumps her and 1900 Paris celebrates. Chevalier says to his nephew while smiling broadly "Congratulations. Your first suicide. What an achievement....May this be the first of many." Later, Chevalier pours champagne to celebrate the suicide and labels it a "victory" for Jourdan.
I realize that there are lots of horrible characters in movies. I like many of those movies. However, those movies are not supposed to be "delightful" musicals and are not cheery and optimistic.
What were IMDb's reviewers thinking? By the way, the music wasn't particularly good either. I give "Gigi" a 1.
By Martin Zabell
(Wrote June 20, 2006)
This movie was stunning. I bought 36 classic movies a few months ago, and this was the first one I completely disliked. I hated it.
I thought this movie was supposed to be a "delightful" musical. That is what numerous reviews I read said.
This movie was beyond despicable. It was about two elderly women training an innocent teenager to be a hooker and a 40-year-old man pursuing her. I'm not kidding. There were five main characters in the movie, and Gigi, the would-be hooker, was by far the most appealing.
Halfway through the movie, I found myself rooting for Gigi to pull out a rifle and kill her aunt, grandmother, suitor, and Maurice Chevalier, the suitor's uncle. I thought this kind of character conflict could save the movie. Unfortunately, Gigi marries her suitor, who starts conversations by insulting her clothes, manners, etc.
I wish Gigi had been a strong character.
I can't believe that no one commented on the low point of the movie. Eva Gabor kills herself after Gigi's eventual suitor (Louis Jourdan) dumps her and 1900 Paris celebrates. Chevalier says to his nephew while smiling broadly "Congratulations. Your first suicide. What an achievement....May this be the first of many." Later, Chevalier pours champagne to celebrate the suicide and labels it a "victory" for Jourdan.
I realize that there are lots of horrible characters in movies. I like many of those movies. However, those movies are not supposed to be "delightful" musicals and are not cheery and optimistic.
What were IMDb's reviewers thinking? By the way, the music wasn't particularly good either. I give "Gigi" a 1.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
