1010. Mrs. Miniver (1942)

Running Time: 134 minutes
Directed By: William Wyler
Written By: Arthur Wimperis, George Froeschel, James Hilton, Claudine West, from the novel by Jan Struther
Main Cast: Greer Garson, Walter Pidgeon, Teresa Wright, Richard Ney, Dame May Whitty
Click here to view the trailer

Note: So since this is both a former/future BOOK movie AND my very first Blind Spot review, I'm going to be tinkering with the review format just a little, as I'm looking to try a shorter style review for the Blind Spot movies.

2016 BLIND SPOT SERIES: JANUARY

WHAT I KNEW GOING IN AND WHY I CHOSE IT

Literally knew nothing going into Mrs. Miniver. I had an inkling that it was a Best Picture winner, but I wasn't even 100% sure on that fact. Giving a perusal to the other contenders that year, I've personally only seen three of the ten noms; this one, The Magnificent Ambersons and Yankee Doodle Dandy - the latter of which I'd have to give the coup. However, despite knowing literally nothing about Mrs. Miniver prior to my viewing, I had always heard of the film and it was one of the ones that I was always shocked didn't make it into my edition of the 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die book. And after watching it yesterday, this seemed to me like just the thing that would've been up THE BOOK'S alley. And yes, a few years ago when they completely revamped THE BOOK, this one was finally included.

It was pretty much chosen because 1) I'd heard about it so much, in passing, but had never seen even a sliver of it and 2) at this point, any Best Picture winner that has escaped my eyes has to be considered a blind spot, right?

---

The film revolves around the Miniver family (imagine that), headed up by Mrs. Miniver (Garson), along with her husband, Clem (Pidgeon). They're a fun couple, at times playful - who have raised one son, Vincent (Ney) into a fine young man and are in the process of raising two more kids - 1 boy, 1 girl. The family has surpassed the middle class and live comfortably, thanks to Clem's efforts as a successful architect. However, when World War II breaks out, even the upper class aren't exempt from the wrath of warfare. The film follows the Miniver clan as they face the struggles that living in a war torn country present - watching their beloved "Vin" go off to battle and spending sleepless nights in a shelter, while bombings and air raids sound like the end of the world outside. There's also this whole subplot about a rose - which is also named the "Mrs. Miniver"...

SPOILER ALERT!

I realize it was a different time and this was probably just the sort of film that got the Academy drooling back in the early forties, but DAMN, this was kind of a chore to get through. To be fair, I started out liking it. Greer Garson was quite the looker and the chemistry that she and Walter Pidgeon had was just so fun - reminding me of the great, playful chemistry that Myrna Loy had with William Powell. The whole movie starts out with Mrs. Miniver buying an expensive hat behind her husband's back, afraid to finally tell him that she's made the purchase. Meanwhile, Mr. Miniver, wants to bring up the subject of buying a new car, afraid to do so as well and not yet knowing that his wife has already made a large purchase. It's all so fun and a fine way to get me at least interested in the couple. Albeit, that interest didn't really last long, as we're soon thrown into the throes of WWII and we've plenty discussed my dislike for war films or even anything resembling a war film. Add to that the fact that the film was very OF it's time (which it kinda' had to be I guess, to really give us a taste of the time), and I just couldn't get into this, whatsoever.

I will say though that the film made me realize what an impact World War II had on literally EVERYBODY who was living at the time, especially those living in Europe where the battle was being waged. It also made me realize why there's probably so many films on the subject, as artists have a tendency to create based on what has worn on them emotionally and CLEARLY, WWII wore down a lot of artists (filmmaker's and novelists, I'm talking about here) emotionally. Be it the Holocaust and the massacre of millions of Jews or simply a family who had to spend a few unforgettable nights in a bomb shelter, while their babies bawled their eyes out and they wondered if they'd ever see the light of day again. Speaking of that, I'd have to call that particular scene the best of the film - a scene where Garson and Pidgeon's characters' hear bombs going off outside and try to mask their fear by discussing Alice in Wonderland - played masterfully by both actor and actress. Despite my dislike for the movie, I'll still admit that there are a handful of perfectly acted, perfectly executed scenes - including one where a German soldier holds Mrs. Miniver at gunpoint and another where Dame May Whitty's Lady Beldon forfeits the rose competition. Unfortunately, all of these wonderful scenes are interlaced with quite the boring affair and again, it's a war movie, which for the life of me, I just can't get lost in. My imagination just clams up on me when I'm presented with war material and no matter how hard I try, 95% of the time, I'm unenthused.

RATING: 4/10  I'll consider the discovery of Greer Garson as the one big takeaway of this film and everything else is just very rough to get through. Unless you're a list hound (like me) and don't care about seeing all of the Best Picture winners, then give this a pass.

February 29, 2016  4:33pm

349. BEN-HUR (1959)

Running Time: 212 minutes
Directed By: William Wyler
Written By: Karl Tunberg, from novel by Lew Wallace
Main Cast: Charlton Heston, Jack Hawkins, Haya Harareet, Stephen Boyd, Hugh Griffith
Click here to view the trailer

DIG THAT CHARIOT RACE!

Man, what a chore this was! My wife and I started this last night, but after about thirty minutes, I was dozing. We picked it back up this morning and scooted through it pretty effortlessly, but it's still a damn long movie, that barely provides enough reward. Read on...

Because it's nearly four hours in length with over 100 speaking parts, I certainly can't be asked to relay the whole plot here. So I'll give you the cliff notes version and we'll all get on with our lives. Judah Ben-Hur (Heston) is a Jew from Judea - a humble, kind man, who adores his sister & mother and holds his fellow people in high regard. Ben-Hur grew up with a boy named Messala (Boyd), who, now grown, is a Roman tribune. After several years apart, the two reunite and don't miss a beat of their brotherly love (early versions of the script actually had the two engaging in a homosexual relationship). However, when Messala asks Ben-Hur to become his informant and betray any Jews who even speak ill of the Roman empire, Judah refuses and the two are almost immediately sworn enemies. In fact, when a ceramic tile accidentally falls off of a roof and kills a Roman governor, Messala orchestrates the imprisonment and death sentence of Ben-Hur. On his way to his death, via ship, Ben-Hur is admired by Roman Consul Arrius (Hawkins) and when their ship falls under attack and sinks, it is Judah who saves the life of the Roman Consul. The two are eventually rescued and Arrius pledges his life to Ben-Hur, naming him his new son and dubbing him Arrius, the younger. The two are thick as thieves, but Ben-Hur decides to return to Judea and find his mother and sister (who were also imprisoned at the same time Ben-Hur was). On his way home, Judah meets a horse owner named Shiek Ilderim (Griffith), who begs Ben-Hur to race his four prize, white horses in an upcoming chariot race that Messala will also be involved in. Yada yada yada, we'll leave it at that...

SPOILER ALERT!

Look, I know you film snobs turn your noses at those who are fans of professional wrestling, but here's the deal: I'm a big professional wrestling fan - ever since I was a little kid - and one of the reasons I liked this is because it's basically all one big professional wrestling angle! In one corner, you have Judah Ben-Hur, the Jew with a heart of gold, firm but fair. In the other corner, you have Roman tribune Messala, wanting to make a name for himself and make examples of the Jews. Boyhood friends, turned bitter enemies. I mean, this is the same type of thing that I've been watching since I was a kid. If you're completely unfamiliar with pro wrestling (which most reading this probably are), I promise this is just the types of stories that they were telling on a weekly basis, on Saturday mornings, in the squared circle. In fact, you could book Ben-Hur, changing a few things so that they'd transfer from the days of Caesar to current times, but almost word for word and build the whole thing to one big showdown at WrestleMania! Here, WrestleMania is the chariot race, which serves as the big blowoff to the feud, complete with handshake from the loser to the victor (that scene where Messala is dying, but tells Ben-Hur where to find his mom & sister). Okay, okay, I'll stop with the wrestling talk.

With all that being said, I still can't go too terribly high on the rating here. I mean, this damn thing is long and that's an understatement. Another thing I really, really didn't care for was all the Jesus stuff. I mean, was it really relevant? Especially at the end, it was so uncalled for. The big ending SHOULD have been the chariot race and then maybe Judah going back home to reunite with Esther and his mother & sister. However, after the chariot race ends, we still get something like forty more minutes of movie, with Ben-Hur going to the leper colony not once, but twice to search for his family and then the whole Christ crucifixion scene. It all felt so tacked on and unnecessary and completely irrelevant to the main story, which was the life of Ben-Hur and the feud between he and his once friend, now enemy Messala. The scenes depicting Jesus Christ throughout are fine, as they don't take away from the main story that much, but then it comes down to the end and it should and DID make this audience member say, "What, I thought we were done at the chariot race?". Let's look at it like this: Suppose there's SOMEONE out there who doesn't know the about the Bible AT ALL. Doesn't know who Christ is, doesn't know anything about it. If that ignorant son of a bitch watched this movie, then that ending would be REALLY unnecessary. I mean, they took the most minor character in the movie (in the context of the film, Jesus Christ was a very minor character) and revolved the whole ending around him. I'll end by saying that chariot race was freakin' awesome!! Had they just ended there, I'd have been hard pressed to get this movie into '7' territory. As it is...

RATING: 6.5/10  Can't get it higher than that. Not something I'd really ever want to see again, however, I'll happily watch clips of the chariot race anytime you want to show em.

MOVIES WATCHED: 931
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 70

July 1, 2015  7:49pm

The Collector (1965)

Running Time: 119 minutes
Directed By: William Wyler
Written By: John Kohn, Stanley Mann, Terry Southern, from novel by John Fowles
Main Cast: Terence Stamp, Samantha Eggar
Click here to view the trailer

FRIGHTFEST 2013: NIGHT THREE

It was an anonymous poster who came to the blog and said "I recommend William Wyler's The Collector for Frightfest" and it was faithful Ray who seconded the nomination. While I wouldn't go so far as to call "The Collector" an out and out horror movie, I am grateful for their insistence that I watch it!

The film has two stars and really only three (including the neighbor) notable cast members, with everyone else playing the role of extra or glorified extra (that is, extra with a line or two). The film's main is Frederick Clegg (Stamp), an amateur entomologist, professional bank teller and socially awkward misfit, whom, upon the film's opening, is purchasing a house in a secluded area. If you're wondering where Freddie has gotten the money to purchase this house, he's apparently just won a lottery - something called "football pools", which is apparently exclusive to England, where the film is set. The winnings also give Freddie the means to carry out his master plan: kidnapping a girl. He selects a very specific girl, Miranda (Eggar), a girl that he used to ride the bus with at school and one who never gave him the time of day. He stalks her in his van and when the time is right, uses a chloroform soaked rag to render her unconscious, taking her back to his new house, which incidentally is equipped with a sound proof cellar. Arriving back at his place, we learn that he's gone to a lot of trouble, tidying up the cellar and making it look like a small apartment, complete with a whole new wardrobe of clothes, that he hopes will fit her. He tells her that he loves her, that he's always loved her and that his hopes in kidnapping her being that she will fall in love with him. He makes a deal with her: If she doesn't try to escape, if she talks to him (actually converses with him) and if she promises to eat the meals he brings her, he'll let her go in four weeks. The film is filled with suspenseful climax cues and some great back & forth between the prisoner and her captor.

SPOILER ALERT!

This film just goes to show you that there are thousands of cinematic gems out there, just waiting to be consumed by the movie lover. I hadn't even heard of this picture before it was suggested to me by the anonymous poster, but now I've heard of it and loved it! So I guess a hearty "thank you" to the poster that suggested the film is in order: Thank you!

Everything was just perfect, from beginning to end, they never took a misstep that I disapproved of and even the ending was just perfect. Let's face it, there were several choices on how to end this movie. 1) You have the girl escape to the authorities, report Clegg, thus seeing him arrested. I kind of thought this was where they were headed, as there was some minimal narration that came at the beginning and end and I kind of thought we were listening to Clegg's story from his padded cell. 2) Have the girl actually fall in love with him. Again, this is something I thought they were heading for and am so glad they didn't do. How awful would that have been? I guess those were really the only two foreseeable options, as the third would be having the girl die and having Clegg succeed, which is what happened. However, the way it all went down was just perfect. You couldn't have Clegg just kill Miranda, because he loved her. So she's killed when she's left to starve and freeze in the cellar, while Clegg is at the hospital, getting treated for a wound she inflicts on him. And then the cherry on top, having the film's ultimate end be Clegg stalking another girl, preparing to go through the cycle all over again.

Here's the question though: Whose side are we supposed to be on? Am I the only one who found myself urging the nosy neighbor to JUST LEAVE, before the water came rushing down the stairs - the water that Miranda had forced on with her big toe, hoping to draw the attention of whomever came to visit Clegg? I certainly wasn't urging the neighbor to JUST STAY A LITTLE LONGER, while the water made it's way to his line of vision. I think it was a movie where I didn't care so much about the outcomes of the characters, as much as I just wanted to see all of the pieces fit together to make for a really good movie. As long as Miranda is tied up and helpless, this movie continues and I get to bask in it for a little while longer, to see a few more suspenseful pieces and to see a little more brilliance from Terence Stamp. I have to say, speaking of Stamp, I loved the casting choices and the fact that there were really only two cast members. I'm a sucker for a film that could easily be a stage play, though, ironically, I've never seen a live stage play. One last thought and if this thought is a popular one, I promise I've seen it nowhere: Is there some sort of connection between this movie and "The Silence of the Lambs"? I'm talking about the butterfly/moth stuff, not just the obvious "guy holds a girl captive" thing. The butterfly thing in both films, as well as the obvious parallels between the plot lines just seemed odd to me, that's all. Anyway, damn fine film!

RATING: 8.5/10  I can't go whole hog and I really don't know why. I think it's like that first date with a girl you really like and you really don't want to end up in bed at the end of the night, because you don't want to rush things and end up screwing something up. Doesn't matter though, great movie - end of story.

October 27, 2013  8:00pm

182. The Best Years of Our Lives (1946)

Running Time: 172 minutes
Directed By: William Wyler
Written By: Robert E. Sherwood, from the novel Glory for Me by MacKinlay Kantor
Main Cast: Fredric March, Dana Andrews, Harold Russell, Myrna Loy, Teresa Wright
Click here to view the trailer

YOU CAN'T GO HOME AGAIN

Another epic picture slayed, as I use my day off to take in the nearly three hour film that is "The Best Years of Our Lives" - Best Picture of 1946.

The film tells the story of three soldiers returning home from World War II. When the film starts, it's Captain Fred Derry (Andrews) trying to get a ride home to Boone City. He eventually hitches a ride home on a military aircraft and along the way meets some Boone Citians: Sgt. Al Stephenson (March) and Officer Homer Parrish (Russell), the latter of which lost his hands in the war and now dons hooks in their place. After a long flight the trio arrive back in their native city and share a taxi to their respective homes. Homer is hesitant to return home, fearing how his family will react to his deformity. He doesn't want to be looked at any different and certainly doesn't want pity. Later the trio reunite at Butch's Place, a local bar, where Fred and Al drink to excess and wake up the next morning with foggy memories of the previous night. Fred wakes up at Al's place where he meets Peggy Stephenson (Wright), Al's daughter and a romance is hinted at between the two. Ultimately the three try their best to return to normal life; Al returns to his job at the bank with a promotion to boot. Fred returns to his job as a soda jerk, making $32.50 per week, which isn't enough to spoil his wife (Virginia Mayo), who yearns to be spoiled. Meanwhile, Howard struggles to accept his family's adaptation of his deformity, most notably his fiancee.

SPOILER ALERT!

I actually have fond memories of this film, as the only other time I saw it was at my wife and I's first apartment, during a stretch when we had a broken down car and had to spend a matter of four days holed up in the house. It sounds awful, but it was actually perfect. Anyway, I can remember lying on the bed and watching this movie for the first time and I remember both of us liking it quite a lot. Well, as I've noted many times previous, my tastes have drastically changed since starting this journey and this film just didn't hold up. My first reaction is that it's just WAY too long. The story that is told just doesn't warrant a running time of three hours. Let's take a look at the goings on of this three hour epic, shall we? First you have Al, who returns home from the war, spends his first night getting drunk off his ass, returns to work at the bank and eventually turns into a bit of an alcoholic. Then you have Fred, who also gets drunk off his ass the first night, finds his wife the next day, deals with the embarrassment of having to return to work making $32.50/week and falls in love with Peggy Stephenson. Lastly you have Homer, who really does nothing the entire film but try to deal with the way his family is dealing with his deformity. That's really all that happens. I mean, that's at least the high points of the picture. Just writing it out, it sounds ridiculous to think that so little plot took so much time to tell. This could have easily been wrapped up in a couple of hours. Within the first five minutes of the film, the three men are in the air and headed home and an hour and fifteen minutes later all that's happened to them is they've returned home, left home again, went to a bar and woke up - that's it!

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to shit all over this picture, because it's really not as bad as all that. In fact, I got amusement out of watching Fredric March awake from his slumber, examine his grizzled face and compare his reflection to a dashing photo of himself, followed by jumping into the shower with his pajamas still on. And speaking of March, I really want to see "Inherit the Wind" again now, because I just cannot believe that Al Stephenson and Matthew Harrison Brady are being played by the same person (with more credit going to the Brady role that to this one - he was GREAT in that!). The cast was hit and miss with me actually, as I enjoyed March and thought Virginia Mayo was excellent (and even sexier here than she was in "White Heat"). On the other hand, Teresa Wright was just annoying as Peggy Stephenson and Dana Andrews was average at best. I had to look up and find out that Harold Russell was actually a deformed veteran and a non-established actor, and to his credit, he did a really great job. Apparently there's also a lot of political argument that surrounds this film and I won't get into all that. The movie itself does bring up a fascinating train of thought though, about soldiers returning home from the war and how well they can adapt to a once familiar life, but one that is now very strange.

RATING: 6.5/10 Not terrible, by any means and I almost went with a '7', but I just couldn't be THAT generous. It's worth at least one look, but be warned...it is long!

MOVIES WATCHED: 426
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 575

April 16, 2012 11:34pm

101. DODSWORTH (1936)

Running Time: 101 minutes
Directed By: William Wyler
Written By: Sidney Howard, from novel by Sinclair Lewis
Main Cast: Walter Huston, Ruth Chatterton, Paul Lukas, Mary Astor, Kathryn Marlowe

Note: For those of you playing the home game, I decided to substitute this in the place of "Vidas Secas", as per the tentative list that I posted yesterday afternoon. No reason really, just decided to switch things up a bit. "Vidas Secas" will still be included in this 100. Also, for those of you who have been following me from way back, you may remember the trouble I had tracking this one down, back when I was still moving through THE BOOK in chronological order. It ultimately ended up as a "saved" movie on Netflix, but TCM aired it months ago and I managed to record it. Now then...

GOING BACK IN TIME

I must say it was a nice little change of pace re-visiting the 1930s. As I moved through the book in chronological order, going directly through the 1930s and into the 40s, I developed a bond with that time period and this was another knockout film from the days when Hollywood made films for adults.

When the film opens, we see Samuel Dodsworth (Huston), automobile industrialist, at his last day as head of Dodsworth Motor Company. We soon find out that Sam has sold the business that he built and plans to retire and see the world with his younger, thirty-five year old wife, Fran (Chatterton). Fran is thirty-five, but lives as though she's twenty-one, almost refusing to accept the fact that she IS aging and that eventually she'll be an old woman. As the story progresses, Sam and Fran hop a luxury liner for Europe, where they plan to see England and Paris. Aboard the vessel, Fran gets a bit promiscuous, flirting with other men, while Sam acts his age, filling with the excitement at the mere sight of lights from the shore of England. Months later, when their vacation is about to come to an end, Fran expresses her desire to stay in Europe and "live a little" without being tied to Sam. Sam, wanting nothing but happiness for his wife, obliges her and returns to the United States, a separated husband. Months later, Sam returns to Europe, to retrieve Fran, but finds that she's still not ready to settle down and is devastated when she announces her plans to marry one of her suitors.

SPOILER ALERT!

The book makes note that Wyler was careful here not to make Fran a total villain, but instead allow the audience to sympathize with both characters, at different points of the film. I agree with this, to a point. When Fran initially announces her intent to stay behind, in Europe and basically "sow some oats", you feel bad for Sam, but you also still respect Fran, because she announced her intentions, before actually following through with them. As the film progresses, Fran becomes less and less appealing, until the point that she comes crawling back to Sam, near the end of the picture. At that point, she's lost all her appeal, as her selfishness shines through and you really just want to reach through the screen and choke her! Normally I would argue that the end of the picture is a little too sappy and too cliche, but the character of Sam was so lovable that you just can't help but be glad that things, for him, turned out for the best. There are so many layers to that character and you really get where he's coming from, whether you totally agree with him or not.

At one point, Sam exclaims "old habits are hard to break", when trying to reason with his new girl, Edith (Mary Astor), on why he's returning to Fran, after she betrayed him. You feel so sorry for the guy, because he loves this girl so much so that he'll allow her to walk all over him and he'll still take her back at the end of the day. The scene where he leaves her, at the train station is heart wrenching, his final words to her being "have I told you today how much I adore you?", as he leaves the woman that he loves, but who wants to divorce him. You realize quick, that here's a man who was great at conducting business, but couldn't hold his own when it came to conducting himself socially or handling his marriage. You also realize that Fran was more than likely nothing but a gold digger, who married the head of Dodsworth Motor Company, but when it was sold off, she wanted nothing more to do with the former-head of said company.

"Dodsworth" is a film rife with insinuation. I mean, obviously it was made in the 1930s, so they're not going to come right out and say what Fran is doing behind Sam's back. Hell, I was surprised that they'd even insinuate some of the things they were insinuating. Couples separating and divorcing, promiscuous sex, it was all very taboo for the time period, if you ask me. In fact, this is one classic piece of cinema that I wouldn't mind seeing remade. I think it would really translate well to the screen today, as situations like these occur on a regular basis nowadays and men of a different time act a different way. Men in the 1930s didn't break down into tears because their beloved wife was leaving them. Men were tougher and more hard skinned back then. Today, I think the film could be a little more on the emotional side and I think if given to the right person, this could be remade into a really fantastic film. However, THE BOOK reminds me that the Hollywood of today doesn't really cater to adults, but rather teenagers and this wouldn't be material that a teenager would appreciate.

RATING: 8/10 Surprisingly a really good movie. I say surprisingly, because to be quite honest, I wasn't expecting much. Never expect anything, and you'll always be shocked when you get something.

MOVIES WATCHED: 377
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 624

December 26, 2011 3:02am

258. Roman Holiday (1953)

Running Time: 118 minutes
Directed By: William Wyler
Written By: Ian McLellan Hunter, John Dighton
Main Cast: Gregory Peck, Audrey Hepburn, Eddie Albert, Hartley Power, Harcourt Williams

WHEN IN ROME...

On an Audrey Hepburn high from "Breakfast at Tiffany's", I immediately jumped to my Netflix queue and moved "Roman Holiday" to the top, so that I could experience her charm one more time.

This time around Hepburn plays Princess Ann, the crown princess of a country that is never revealed. During a European publicity tour, the princess hits all the big cities: Paris, London and she ultimately lands in Rome. It is in Rome, that the princess has an outburst and expresses her discontent with being the princess of a nation. She wants to do as she pleases, where pajamas to bed instead of expensive silk nightgowns and she's tired of all the "pleases" and "thank you's". On the night of her outburst, the doctor gives her a shot of something to make her "happy" and leaves her to her boudoir. In the night, however, Princess Ann sneaks out and makes a getaway. Meanwhile, Joe Bradley (Peck) is an American, working in Rome for the newspaper, the Daily American. One night, while leaving a poker game, he comes across a woman, half asleep and seemingly drunk on a park bench. He tends to her, pulling her into a cab with him and eventually having no choice but to bring her to his hotel room, to sleep off the booze. In reality, the girl is Princess Ann and she's hopped up on the Doc's happy medicine. When Joe awakes the next morning, he quickly finds out who he has in his hotel room and quickly schemes up a plan to break the biggest story of his career and return home to his native New York. With help from his photographer friend Irving (Albert), the duo spend a day with the Princess taking in the Rome sights and snapping candid shots of her highness.

SPOILER ALERT!

We'll get to my thoughts momentarily, but first, a story. When me and my wife were first married, in June of 2007, we moved into an apartment and it was my first taste of living away from home. One of our favorite things to do back then (and even today) was watch movies and after a failed attempt at watching every Eddie Murphy movie, we decided upon watching the IMDB Top 250 list, in it's entirety. That particular project never panned out, but I remember "Roman Holiday" as being #250 on the list. So on a hot August night, in 2007, after tracking the film down at our local library, we cuddled up together and watched it on the couch of our first apartment. This was back when I was still rating films on a 1-5 scale and I can still remember giving it the full five points. Today, it didn't hold up as well, as maybe my film palate has been so refined that I'm not so easily impressed nowadays.

For starters, I couldn't help but to be reminded of "It Happened One Night", as I watched this movie. Sure the plots are different, but you have a couple of newspapermen who act very similar, in my view. You have a man and woman who are thrown together unintentionally and ultimately you have these two characters falling in love. When thinking about all that, I also couldn't help but realize how, even for 1953, this was still a formula that had been done quite often. Man meets woman, they DON'T hit it off, but they're forced to spend time with one another and ultimately they're lovebirds. It was done in "It Happened One Night", "His Girl Friday" and "Bringing Up Baby" - all very different films, but all utilizing a very similar plot structure.

However, this time around you have Audrey Hepburn and Gregory Peck in the lead roles and those two aren't anything to sneeze at. Peck had such a commanding presence when he was on the screen. His voice seemed to boom when he talked and by the looks of him, he wasn't a small man - height wise. He oozed class and sophistication and it's hard to dismiss anything he does as not up to snuff. The same pretty much goes for Audrey Hepburn, except she oozed charm and beauty and it was hard not to take notice when she was on the screen. However, the two together didn't have as much chemistry as you'd think they would. Sure, there was a hint of something there and when Princess Ann falls apart, right before leaving Joe to go back to her kingdom, there was a slight tug at the 'ol heartstrings. But what you had here, seemed to be a case of too much vigor on one set. You had these two larger than life personalities and I think in this case, two positives, made more of a negative than another positive.

The film isn't terrible, by any means, but would this plot still hold up today. While watching "Roman Holiday", I kept thinking how lenient we used to be as far as accepting a film. I love old movies as much as the next guy, but will admit that there was a lot of sub par stuff being given a very generous nod of approval, back in the day. Would a film about a Princess and a newspaperman - well it's the 21st century, let's call him a web designer - get as many "thumbs up" as "Roman Holiday" did back in 1953? I don't think so.

RATING: 6/10 It's not BAD, but I wouldn't have even as gone so far as to include it in a "1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die" book.

MOVIES WATCHED: 322
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 679

August 14, 2011 7:50pm

214. The Heiress (1949)

Running Time: 116 minutes
Directed By: William Wyler
Written By: Augustus Goetz, Ruth Goetz, from the novel Washington Square by Henry James
Main Cast: Olivia de Havilland, Montgomery Clift, Ralph Richardson, Miriam Hopkins

JUMPING BACK TO THE '40S TO CHECK OUT A TRUE CLASSIC

Since deciding to go random last week and after a brief hiatus following "The Maltese Falcon", I hadn't watched a movie from the decade of the 1940s in some time. In jumping back to the decade, I wasn't disappointed and was once again reminded of the fact that they made some truly great flicks back in the day.

Olivia de Havilland plays Catherine Sloper, a very homely looking girl, who spends lonely days at home, highlighted by embroidery. She lives with her father, Dr. Austin Sloper, who is constantly comparing Catherine to her deceased mother and trying to coax her to get out of the house more and be more social. One evening, with the help of his sister, Lavinia, Austin finally convinces Catherine to go to a gathering that the family is attending. While at the gathering, Catherine meets Morris Townsend (Clift), a handsome, young bachelor who immediately sweeps her off her feet, both literally and figuratively, as they share a dance and swoon over each other, despite the hesitancy of Catherine. They go their separate ways following the party, but Morris promises that he'll visit and he does...every day, for several days. Following a series of many house calls by the suitor, Dr. Sloper decides that it would only be proper if he invited the fellow for dinner.

Over a conversation at dinner, where Morris reveals that he has no real career and has never saved a lick of money, Dr. Sloper begins to become suspicious of Morris' infatuation with Catherine, for as meager as she is, a gentleman with the looks and smarts of Morris couldn't possibly be in love with his Catherine. However, Morris continues to proclaim his love for Catherine and eventually, although again hesitant, Catherine returns the sentiment. They plan to marry, but after a talk with Dr. Sloper, where he makes his opinions heard, the plans are immediately veered into a different direction. Dr. Sloper proclaims that Morris could only possible be interested in Catherine's ample inheritance and nothing more. Catherine fights with her father and the couple plan to elope, and Catherine plans never to return to the home of her father. They set the meeting time for 12:30am and Morris fails to show up, making Catherine realize that her father was right and that Morris was indeed only interested in the financial perks of marrying Catherine.

Since I had never seen "The Heiress", watching the film with my wife (who had also never seen it) was a fun experiment. While my wife (the romantic) sided with the character of Morris through the first half of the movie, stating that surely he loves her and that the inheritance has nothing to do with his feelings, I tended to side with the father's perspective. I loved watching the film and not really knowing which one of us was right, only being able to guess and finally getting the big reveal and eventual payoff. The cast was excellent and while de Havilland and Clift shone, it was Ralph Richardson who caught my eye, as I loved him in the film and wouldn't mind seeing some more of his work. If I had to gripe about anything it would only be that I wish they had held the father's tongue for a little bit longer, before he made his opinions about Morris known. It would've given the audience a chance to draw our own conclusions about Morris, instead of having the ideas put into our head by the Dr. Sloper character. But that, my friends, is only a minor gripe and in the end, what I thought would be a film not for me, turned into a really great one and a good time for me and my wife at the movies.

RATING: 7.5/10 I constantly blab about knee-jerk ratings and that's what the '7.5' for "The Heiress" is and as I always tend to say, I definitely forsee that rating rising in the future.

MOVIES WATCHED: 139
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 862

September 9, 2010 9:33pm

131. Wuthering Heights (1939)

Running Time: 103 minutes
Directed By: William Wyler
Written By: Charles MacArthur, from novel by Emily Bronte
Main Cast: Laurence Olivier, Merle Oberon, David Niven, Flora Robson, Donald Crisp

GOODBYE THIRTIES...

We wrap up the 1930s with "Wuthering Heights", a love story for the ages, which sports some classic performances by Laurence Olivier and Merle Oberon.

The film begins with a lone man named Lockwood, traveling on a snowy night and seeking refuge at Wuthering Heights, a lavish estate. Upon being granted entry into the estate, he is shown hospitality, from the hostile master, Heathcliff. While sleeping in the room that he's been lent for the night, he hears the window making racket. When he gets up to pull the shutter closed, he sees the figure of a woman and cries out in the night, bringing Heathcliff into his room. Heathcliff rushes to the window and begins to cry out the name "Cathy". He goes downstairs, rushing out into the cold. Once Heathcliff leaves, Lockwood begins to inquire about what has just happened and the housemaid Ellen, begins to tell him a tale.

The tale begins, when Mr. Earnshaw arrives home from town one day, accompanied by a child. The child is dirty and rambunctious, yet orphaned. Earnshaw, being the generous man that he is, tells his staff at Wuthering Heights that they'll be taking the kid in and giving him a place to stay for a little while. His own children are a bit perplexed by the presence of the boy. His daughter Catherine, however, becomes fast friend's with the new boy, who's name is Heathcliff. The son of the pack, Joseph, doesn't like the boy at all and resorts to scorning him, by throwing rocks at him, jealous of the attention that Mr. Earnshaw is paying him. Atop a hill Cathy and Heathcliff make a pact to be friends forever and christin a large rock on the side of The Moors, to be their "castle". Some years later when Mr. Earnshaw passes away, Jospeh takes over control of the estate and reduces Heathcliff to a stable boy, belittling him every chance he gets. Despite the love that they share, Heathcliff and Cathy can't seem to get past the class barrier that stands between them and Cathy winds up married to a neighbor, Edgar Linton (Niven). Heathcliff disappears for a while, going abroad to the United States. When he returns he's a rich man and Cathy has nearly forgotten all about him, living happily with Edgar.

While I wasn't totally crazy about "Wuthering Heights", it was still a classy love story, with a high amount of drama, romance and emotion. Laurence Olivier would go on to become a much better actor, as it seems here he was still honing his skills. Although, I really had no complaints with the rest of the cast, as Merle Oberman was also a pretty good, little actress and very enjoyable to watch, as she shifted her emotions between Heathcliff and Edgar. The one problem I had with the story, was that the romance between Heathcliff and Cathy wasn't emphasized enough. I mean, don't get me wrong, it's not hard to see that these two characters are in love with each other, but despite a few scenes atop their "castle", there's really no screen time, with high amounts of romantic dialogue, between the two. The climax is awesome and the final scene in the film is a marvelous sight.

RATING: 6/10 Well that just about wraps up the 30's, and not a terrible note to go out on either.

NEXT UP: His Girl Friday...but first a short break...More on that to come later on, in an update post.

March 6, 2010 4:14pm

113. JEZEBEL (1938)

Running Time: 103 minutes
Directed By: William Wyler
Written By: Clements Ripley, Abem Finkel, John Huston, Robert Buckner, from play by Owen Davis
Main Cast: Bette Davis, Henry Fonda, George Brent, Donald Crisp, Fay Bainter

201, HERE I COME!

I hope you all enjoyed the Top 20 list that I posted and it was nice being able to reflect on all of the films that I've watched this far, good and bad. I'm ready to tackle the next 100 films in the book and we're kicking it off with "Jezebel", a film that had massive potential, in the form of, William Wyler, John Huston, Bette Davis and Henry Fonda, but seemed to come up a bit short, at least as far as my tastes are concerned.

Bette Davis plays the lead role of Julie Marsden, a spoiled, southern belle who is engaged to banker Pres Dillard (Fonda). When she interrupts him in the middle of a big banking deal and forces him to go with her to shop for a new dress, he refuses. In retaliation for his refusal, she buys a red one, a big no-no at the time, as only white dresses were meant to be worn by unmarried women. Despite his arguments telling her to change the dress, her strong will prevails and she wears the red one to the Olympus Ball. Once at the ball, Julie realizes the mistake she made, as everyone is staring at her, but Pres doesn't budge, forcing her to live with her blunder and dance with him. When they arrive back home, later that night, they break off their engagement. After her embarrassment and her broken engagement, Julie takes shelter in her home, refusing to leave or see visitors.

One year passes and Julie still dwells in her home, regretting her decision to wear the red dress and thus cause arguments between her and her true love, Pres Dillard. Meanwhile, Pres has gone North, and word arrives that he's arriving back in town, to help Dr. Livingstone (Crisp), to convince city authorities to take measures against a recent outbreak of yellow fever. When Julie hears that Pres is returning, she decides that she'll make the best of it, suiting up in her best white dress and planning to beg forgiveness of Pres. Her and her family take refuge in their big plantation house and await the arrival of Pres and other visitors. Julie can't wait to see Pres and reconnect with him, however, when he arrives he unveils his new wife, whom he married in the North. The moment when Julie meets Amy, Pres' new wife, is a absolutely gripping one, where we wait for Julie to go into hysterics, but it never happens. With an outbreak of yellow fever sweeping New Orleans, the love triangle plays out and eventually Pres is sent into the heart of the infected area, possibly never to return.

I am a huge Henry Fonda fan and didn't even know he was in this until the beginning credits rolled. He was fantastic in it, playing the good guy with a stern head about him and Bette Davis was fine too, as the spoiled belle. This was actually my first Bette Davis movie ever and so far, I'm semi-impressed with what I've seen, although I'd have to chalk up most of my disappointments to the plot in general. It just wasn't for me, and I never imagined Henry Fonda as a 19th century, New Orleans banker, although, I'll say it again...he played it well. I just couldn't get into this one as much as I would've liked to and I really have no out and out reasons why. I just wasn't feeling this one at all, and despite some really good performances, I'd have to call this one a fairly average film. There are some really good scenes though, such as, when Julie meets Amy and the duel between Julie's other lover, Buck and Pres' brother, Ted, which Julie eggs on and the scene is carefully constructed and plays out very well.

RATING: 5/10 I'm glad Fonda is on the scene now, as I really love his work and acting and I'll look forward to future Bette Davis roles, that suit my taste better.

NEXT UP: The Adventures of Robin Hood...I've been waiting a long time to see this one and after seeing Flynn in "Captain Blood", I can't wait to see what he does with the story of Robin Hood.

February 22, 2010 5:01pm