Dec 192017
 
four reels
starwars8

Following the events of Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Rey (Daisy Ridley) has found broken and depressed Jedi Master Luke (Mark Hamill), and wants him to return to civilization to bring hope to the rebellion. Personally, she wants him to train her in the use of the force so that she can find her placeā€”neither of these requests is of much interest to him. Meanwhile, The Resistance, led by Leia (Carrie Fisher), has been caught in the middle of the evacuation of their main base by the forces of The First Order, led by General Hux (Domhnall Gleeson) and Kylo Ren (Adam Driver). When Vice Admiral Holdoā€™s (Laura Dern) plan strikes hotshot pilot Poe Dameron (Oscar Isaac) as foolish, he, Finn (John Boyega), and Rose (Kelly Marie Tran) come up with their own plan that involves the latter two going off to a not-cloud-city to get help from a mysterious stranger.

As The Force Awakens was a remake of Star Wars (A New Hope), The Last Jedi is a remake of The Empire Strikes Back. Once again it is a bridge film, that has no beginning and no end and is incomplete on its own. Once again we have the rebels evacuating and getting caught. Once again our heroes split up, the young Jedi-to-be going off to a weird outback to work with a grumpy, odd master and that training plan not working out as hoped. Once again the most rebellious of rebels strike out on their own andā€¦ OK, Iā€™d get deep into spoiler territory if I spelled it all out so Iā€™ll say there are similar captures, similar escapes, similar threats, similar realizations, similar confrontations, similarly laid out battles and so on. Nearly beat for beat this is The Empire Strikes Back. It reached a point that I found it ridiculous that theyā€™d given this film a new name. Itā€™s a remake.

But, it is a cleverly made, artistically constructed, updated and upgraded remake. The Force Awakens seemed to me to be less of a movie and more an amalgamation of parts from the previous Star Wars episodes. The Last Jedi is a remake done right. Yes, we get all the old notes, but some are sung differently and we get a few melodies we didnā€™t before. The old themes are on display, be we get some new ones too. It is shocking how the same this movie is while managing to feel really different. Better still, it knows its place. It understand that it is a remake and plays with that fact, twisting here and there, playing a game of oneupmanship with Star Wars V. The meta-message is clear: This is the new version of the old, made by new filmmakers who must deal with what the old ones did, about new characters who dwell excessively on the old characters and events of the old films. It plays with nostalgia, but it also is yelling, ā€œGet over yourself.ā€

Which means this film is surprisingly good. The acting is solid (always a sore point with the original trilogy), with all of the young kids shining and Mark Hamill proving that all he needed was a little experience and a good director. Carry Fisher is fine and it is a nice sendoff for her, but she isnā€™t the standout that Hamill is. Better are the characters. Everyone introduced in The Force Awakens is improved upon. Rey, Poe, and Finn have previously hidden depth. And Kylo Ren is significantly less annoying, no longer appearing to be whining Anaken 2.0. Rose is a nice addition who lets us look at who the true enemies of freedom are in the Star Wars universe, and in our own, and aids is stepping us away from the elite nobles and special chosen ones that have infested the franchise for too long. And Luke is treated best of all. In The Force Awakens, Han seemed a bit silly, acting just as he had nearly forty years ago. It was unnatural and off-putting. Luke isnā€™t the twenty-year-old kid with a hooked-on gray beard. Heā€™s aged. Heā€™s a man twisted by the tragedies of life and by self-doubt. And it makes sense that he went off to play hermit (I always had some doubts on if our previous two Jedi hermits really would have done that). If you were going to bring back a classic character, this was the way to do it.

You already know the action is good. It is a Star Wars filmā€”the action is going to be good. And the special effects are amazing. I watched Justice League a week ago, but these two films look like they were made decades apart. Technology is on the side of Lucusfilm. I cannot help but imagine the team at ILM going to an afternoon screening of JL just to laugh.

The Last Jedi also has humor without ever getting campy or inappropriate. It has plenty of cute critters without getting on my nerves (like Ewoksā€¦). And damn is it pretty. There are some sets (the throne room) and some shots (overhead of the speeders on the salt planet) that are magnificent.

No, it isnā€™t all brilliant. It is a bridge film, so we do not get a full story and nothing is finished. We spend a bit too much time on side projects and at least one new character should have been cut from the script. Plus a few characters make decisions that are hard to fathom and take a bit too long to make obvious ones. We have some good duels, but none to compete with the best of the pastā€”though it does have some fabulous moments. But the flaws donā€™t stop The Last Jedi from being rip-roaring entertainment. And it is also smart. Star Wars was never the place to go for layers, but The Last Jedi changes that. You want to think about social issues? Itā€™s got you covered. Gender issues? Yup. Fan culture and nostalgia? Plenty there. The meaning of heroism? Sure. Animal rights? Yes. Personal identity and finding your way in life? Yeah.

Thereā€™s been grumbling from some fanboys, but ignore that as their upset has nothing to do with the quality of the film. Itā€™s a combination of nostalgia-kids who wanted exactly the same thing with exactly the same characters acting in exactly the same way and are unhappy that some things (mainly Luke) have changed, and Doomsphere residents who are angry that there are as many lead female characters as male ones and both a Black man and an Asian woman have prominent roles. Assuming you arenā€™t joining a menā€™s rights group, ethno-nationalists, or the Sad Puppies, you can ignore the frothing negative comments on Reddit.

The Last Jedi is a solid action film and one of the better entries in the franchise. See it.

Dec 172017
 
three reels

Four stereotypical teenagers, the nerdy weakling, the smart overly serious girl, the popular girl, and the football player, get detention in stereotypical ways and find the Jumanji video game. The game sucks them into a jungle world where they take the forms of the avatars they had chosen: the powerful guy (Dwayne Johnson), the combat girl (Karen Gillan), the scholarly guy (Jack Black), and Kevin Hart (Kevin Hart). In order to return to the real world, they must finish the game by saving the world in a way that doesnā€™t really matter. Along the way they meet Alex Vreeke (Nick Jonas) who entered the game twenty years ago and is their missing fifth player.

Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is somewhere between a sequel and a remake of the 1995 Robin Williams kidā€™s flick that people remember as better than it was. Really. Sit down and watch it. Not that good, but not that bad. As such, this sequel doesnā€™t have any real legacy to besmirch, and as it dumps the oddly self-serious tone of the first, is a mild improvement.Ā It also has a tenuous attachment to the original and given an hour or two at the script stage, could have been made completely stand-alone. But the connection doesnā€™t hurt anything.

Welcome to the Jungle is a by-the-numbers action-comedy. Nothing is earnest for more than a minute and I never worried about whatā€™s going to happen next. Thatā€™s just as well because the basic flow of the film is weak and thereā€™s some hard-to-fathom decisions that still have me shaking my head: If everyone else in Jumanji is an NPC, why do we spend time away from our heroes with the evil guy?

The body-swapping gags get old fast (and the poorly thought-out messages about being a teen are horrible from the start), with the shocking exception of Jack Blackā€™s gender swap. I went in with the assumption Blackā€™s take on being an obnoxious, phone-obsessed Millennial would land as unfunny approaching offensive, but it is both humorous and sympathetic.

In fact, Black is good overall and this is where my review switches gears as he and Karen Gillan are the MVPs, always fun and engaging. The Rock is fine, as he usually is, and has plenty of jokes that land. Kevin Hart just plays Kavin Hart, so youā€™ll like or hate him depending on how youā€™ve felt about him inā€¦everything else heā€™s ever been in. But Black and Gillian are worth your matinĆ©e bucks. I canā€™t tell if it is good dialog or just the actors elevating the material, but either way, there are a lot of laughs here. A scene in which Black teaches Gillian how to flirt could so easily have been mocking and mean-spirited, but it sidesteps that and works, as does the follow-up “dance fight.” Gillan, after her time on Doctor Who and in the Guardians of the Galaxy series, is proving herself to be the next kick-ass superstar.

Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle isnā€™t deep or thoughtful and I doubt it will be remembered in twenty years, but itā€™s a good-time, lightweight family film.

 Fantasy, Reviews Tagged with:
Dec 172017
  December 17, 2017

RonaldColmanThe best film stars are defined by their voices and none had a finer voice than Ronald Colman; I would bet it has been imitated more often than any other. His good looks got him parts in silent cinema, but when the talkies came along, he really bloomedā€”the man with theĀ mellifluous voice. But even with that liquid gold voice, great parts were few and far between, and even this list of his best films gets a bit weak toward the end.

Before his top eight, an honorable mention to Raffles (1930), which defined the ā€œgentleman thiefā€ in film.

#8 – Lost Horizon (1937) ā€” Itā€™s a bit long, and has a dim philosophy, but it also has some nice adventure moments and no doubt felt like the answer to all things for people in the Great Depression.

#7 – My Life With Caroline (1941) ā€” A wild farce with a basic premise that would be hard to believe if the film cared about you believing it. Every few years his wife takes up with a new man, forgetting sheā€™d done it before, and he must persuade her to return.

#6 – Random Harvest (1942) ā€” Colman is a war vet with amnesia who falls in love, gets married, then gets amnesia again and wanders off. Itā€™s a weepy melodrama, but a well-made one.

#5 – A Tale of Two Cities (1935) ā€” It does a passable job of translating a great novel for the screen, and while the directing is mediocre and several actors fail, Colman is excellent; it is one of his best performances.Ā [Also on theĀ Basil Rathbone list]

#4 – Kismet (1944) ā€” A non-musical version of my favorite musical. Itā€™s Arabian fantasy with all sorts of dashing about and romance and swordplay.

#3 – If I Were King (1938) ā€” A witty costume comedy/drama that is really a series of brilliant conversations between Colman (as a roguish poet) and Basil Rathbone (as the king). [Also on the Basil Rathbone list]

#2 – Champagne for Caesar (1950) ā€” In this zany comedy, Colman plays a brilliant man who decides to bankrupt an arrogant businessman by winning a quiz show. Vincent Price is the businessman. [Also on the Vincent Price list]

#1 – The Prisoner of Zenda (1937) ā€” A magnificent Swashbuckler, easily intertwining romance, humor, and heroics. Douglas Fairbanks Jr., playing one of the great cinematic villains, almost steals the showā€¦ Almost.

Back to all Best Films By The Great Actors Lists

Dec 152017
 
two reels

An autistic speedster (Ezra Miller), the mighty bro-dude who has some unimportant water powers (Jason Momoa), a bland self-doubting millionaire (Ben Affleck) with his sharp-tongued servant (Jeremy Irons), a magic tech man (Ray Fisher), and Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot) must band together to battle a giant CGI guy who is after three ā€œdestroy the worldā€ MacGuffin boxes. Alone they are not enough, so they need to resurrect the lovable boy scout (Henry Cavill).

Well, itā€™s better than Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. Itā€™s much better. Itā€™s not good, but it is better. BvS was created by an artistā€”a terrible, terrible artist. Justice League appears to have been made by an artistically-devoid, amateur committee. BvS attempted to say stupid things it shouldnā€™t have and did so poorly. Justice League doesnā€™t say anything at all. BvS is passionately hated by those with taste and passionately defended by those with no taste (itā€™s not clear if they love it, only that they are defending it). Justice League is not a film to elicit passion in anyone.

The troubled production of Justice League is well known. For anyone who has missed the last few years, this is the fifth film in the DC Extended Universe. Man of Steel was a critical mess as was Suicide Squad. BvS was despised by many, including me, and underperformed at the box office by at least 200 million dollars. Wonder Woman was a critical and financial hit, but it had a very different tone from the others. Justice League started as two films and then it was reduced to one. The studio pushed for a change in direction once they saw the swamp crud that was BvS, and again when Wonder Woman hit the right notes. Director Zack Snyder had to step away due to a personal tragedy, so Joss Whedon stepped in for reshoots that added up to a quarter of the movie and yet another change in direction. The studio (smartly) demanded an under two hour runtime, even though Snyderā€™s material required two and half to three hours. And Henry Cavill had grown a mustache for his role in the next Mission Impossible film and was not allowed to shave it, so his face needed to be CGIā€™d in the reshoots. All of that is visible in the finished product. It looks like it was edited by a high school AV club, but under the circumstances, perhaps no one could have put the pieces together successfully. For the first two-thirds, it is less of a coherent film, and more just a series of scenes plopped one after the other with no flow. The tone shifts from scene to scene and sometimes in a single scene. The messages of Man of Steel and BvS are ignored or contradicted and continuity is in shambles. Yes, Superman did die in the earlier film, but now he was always loved by allā€”a beacon of hope to the world. Heā€™d been happy and comfortable as a hero and Wonder Woman knew him well. (Oh, and remember Bruce Wayneā€™s future dream of the parademons? The filmmakers don’t.) Well, I canā€™t argue with ignoring BvS.

It is harder to explain why the CGI is so poor. Cavillā€™s face looks weird from time to time, but thatā€™s nowhere as distracting as the horrible work in the fight scenes where the actors are clearly replaced by cartoons. And every time Steppenwolf appears I was ripped out of the film. He is the worst superhero film villain in conception and execution in the last thirty years, and thatā€™s including Apocalypse, Malekith, and the Enchantress. He has no personality, no back-story, and no motivation, and looks worse than Parallax from Green Lantern. I could defend such shoddy work in a SyFy channel movie, but this project cost 250-350 million dollars. Where did it go? Yeah, Iā€™m sure it cost big bucks to recolor the film from dark and dreary to cheesy, plus that whole mustache thing apparently cost enough to feed a small city for a year, but thereā€™s still a good $100 million lost somewhere.

We get very little character development, no arcs, and not nearly enough material to care about any of these heroes. The actors do the best they can. Gal Godot continues to be the MVP and is still charismatic, which is a trick considering her part is underwritten with an unnecessary faux-feud with Batman. Affleck manages a mildly amusing Batman (do we want an amusing Batman?) but I swear I saw him looking for the exits to the franchise. Iā€™ve seen worse Batmen. The others don’t come off as well. Miller is comic relief, and I can see how, with better direction, he might have been funny, but his jokes donā€™t land. And I’m pretty certain that every single line he had was an attempted-joke. Momoaā€™s bro-dude shtick should have been entertaining or annoying, but it doesn’t have the energy to be either, and Iā€™m afraid Iā€™ve lost any enthusiasm for the upcoming Aquaman film. Fisher is just tech-magic guy. He doesnā€™t do anything and it looks like he had a character arc that was cut. Cavillā€¦wellā€¦heā€™s more complicated. His take on Superman (call it Snyderā€™s take) has been terrible. And when he is in scenes clearly shot by Snyder, he keeps his scowl. But the later Whedon shots are another matter. The acting isnā€™t stunning, but Cavill can be fun when he smiles and his rendition of the boy scout Superman in the later parts of the film is pretty good (And no, at this point, Superman being in the film is not a spoiler).

The plot isnā€™t much of anything, but with some good character interaction, a solid villain, and some nice fights, the slight plot would have served well enough. But as is, it is another hole in the film. Nothing has weight. Nothing matters. which is another reason the fights don’t work. The CGI is bad and combat is just jumping around, but it is the lack of and weight to the plot and characters that makes the fights nothing but pointless dances.

The closest comparison I can think of is the original 1967 Casio Royale that fell apart in production and a film-of-sorts was constructed from the pieces as best they could. And like that film, thereā€™s some fun moments and some pleasant quips in Justice League, but the whole doesnā€™t work. ItĀ never had a chance. They had some kind of garbage pile, so they constructed a film not to be good, but to avoid being a disaster. So, win one for Warner Bros. It isnā€™t a disaster, and that should be its tag line.

 Reviews, Superhero Tagged with:
Dec 152017
 
three reels

Following immediately after Dawn of the Planet of the Apes such that a recent viewing of the previous entry is required to understand this one, Caesar (motion-captured Andy Serkis) leads a band of apes that are being hunted by fanatical humans under the command of the deranged Colonel (Woody Harrelson). An attack by The Colonel kills Caesarā€™s wife and child, so Caesar sends his followers to what he thinks is a safe place while he and three other apes set out to find The Colonel. Along the way they meet a mute human girl (Amiah Miller) and a circus chimp who goes by ā€œBad Ape.ā€ Things do not go well for anyone.

War for the Planet of the Apes is a technological wonder. Perhaps you want to start a film discussion somewhere else, maybe with story or character, but any discussion of this Ape series, and particularly this film, has to begin with the special effects because they are like nothing before. Star Wars and Guardians of the Galaxy have great motion-capture characters, but not this good. Previously, films have gotten away with their so-close effects because thereā€™s a degree of unreality built in. But War for the Planet of the Apes is shooting for the real world, one that happens to have talking chimps. And it succeeds. They couldnā€™t have done better if theyā€™d genetically engineered super apes and given them the roles.

The third part of the Ape trilogy (and it is a third part) goes epic in its world building, but small in its story. This is all character. What The Colonel describes as THE most important conflict in history isnā€™t between armies (though there are some small armies), but between personalities. And due to the previously mentioned technological advancement, thereā€™s tons of personality on display. A couple humans get time to emote (so much emoting), but primarily it is apes. And it pulls you in; well, it pulled me in. By the end I cared about Caesar and Maurice and Cornelia and Luca and token Nova. And this is a full tragedy, in the theatrical meaning of the term. We have a great man (well, ape), with a tragic flaw, which will doom him. It is his fate. And as that fate is expressed primarily in discussions rather than actions, this really is Planet of the Apes as Shakespeare would have written it. Wellā€¦ Almost.

You see, War for the Planet of the Apes suffers from the RESPECT problem. It so respects the material, and so wants you to respect it, that it forgets that you should be entertained by it. It is a mistake often made with Shakespeare adaptations, but never made by Shakespeare himself. He knew that in a truly dark tale, such as Macbeth, you need a few clowns, a few moments of levity, and maybe a few of excitement to get the blood flowing. But such moments are in scarce supply here. War for the Planet of the Apes is suffocating in its grimness. It never changes in tone. The charactersā€”those that speakā€”speak every line with the same, slow intensity. Itā€™s two hours of simmering. A score that wasnā€™t the musical equivalent of grief would have helped. This is a serious film. A very serious film, and you better know it. Every scene, ever decision, is to make it clear to the audience that this is the most serious film theyā€™ve ever seen. Logan? Oh yeah, thatā€™s serious, but not this serious. You think aging, mental deterioration, death, and loss are serious? Hold my beer! We are an hour and 49 minutes in before the movie cracks its one jokeā€”that apes throw poo. The film manages an exciting climax, but it is too late by then.

WarĀ even tries to be respectful with its fan service. Theyā€™d have been better off avoiding that altogether and just going their own way, but I know, as did the filmmakers, that the series exists because of fan service. So the nods to the original five films continue as the child is named Nova (ā€œHey, did you see the original Plane of the Apes? It had a Nova in it too. Isnā€™t that cool!ā€).

So a movie that clamors for my respect, get it. I respect War For the Planet of the Apes; I just donā€™t like it very much.

 

The previous films in the trilogy are Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011) and Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014). The original series consisted of Planet of the Apes (1968), Beneath the Planet of the Apes (1970), Escape from the Planet of the Apes (1971), Conquest of the Planet of the Apes (1972), and Battle for the Planet of the Apes (1973). The first film was remade as Planet of the Apes (2001)

Dec 142017
  December 14, 2017

basilrathboneAn actor with both one of the most distinctive profiles and most distinctive voices in Hollywood, Basil Rathbone became identified with Sherlock Holmes to his dismay. He should have taken more joy in the connection as few of his other lead roles have been remembered. He was in a large number of classic films, but, except for Son of Frankenstein, always as a supporting player and usually as a villain. Itā€™s lucky for viewers that he made a superb villain. He was in some of the very best films ever made as the antagonist.

But before getting to those masterpieces, some honorable mentionsā€”far more than normal if I counted separately some movies Iā€™ve grouped together. First, a few cases where he excels but the film does not: Rathboneā€™s pre-code charmer in Sin Takes a Holiday (1930), his most psychotic villain in A Night of Terror (1937), and his comedic pick-pocket instructor in Heartbeat (1946). Then an honorable mention for the comedy Tovarich (1937), where Rathbone has only a small part. And a big honorable mention to his 14 Sherlock Holmes films, particularly The Hound of the Baskervilles (1939) and The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes (1939). And finally an honorable mention to The Court Jester (1955), a rollickingĀ SwashbucklingĀ comedy starring Danny Kaye.Ā and #9 on the list below if the list went to 9.

#8 – A Tale of Two Cities (1935) ā€” It does a passable job of translating a great novel for the screen, and while the directing is mediocre and several actors fail, Ronald Colman is excellent. Rathbone is very good in a small role. [Also on theĀ Ronald Colman list]

#7 – If I Were King (1938) ā€” A witty costume comedy/drama that is really a series of brilliant conversations between Ronald Colman (as a roguish poet) and Rathbone (as the king).Ā [Also on theĀ Ronald Colman list]

#6 – Son of Frankenstein (1939)Ā Ā A surprisingly good third entry in the franchise. It is seeped in German expressionism. Karloff gets a reduced role; Rathbone is the lead, but Bela Lugosi steals the film in what is probably his best performance.Ā (My Review) [Also on the Bela Lugosi listĀ and the Boris Karloff list]

#5 – The Dawn Patrol (1938) ā€” One of the finest war pictures, with Rathbone, David Niven, and Errol Flynn as WWI pilots in horrible situations, having heroism forced upon them. [Also on the Errol Flynn list]

#4 – We’re No Angels (1955) ā€” Humphrey Bogartā€™s last great performance, with Rathbone as the villain. It is a Christmas comedy and absolutely lovely. (Full Review) [Also on the Humphrey Bogart list]

#3 – Captain Blood (1935) ā€” The first of the three great Errol Flynn Swashbucklers. Rathbone plays a pirate who ends up on the wrong side of Peter Blood. (Full Critique)Ā [Also on theĀ Errol Flynn listĀ and theĀ Olivia de Havilland list]

#2 – The Mark of Zorro (1940) ā€” No Swashbuckler is more fun. Tyrone Power is the masked swordsman who pretends to be a fop. Rathbone is a ruthless general. (Full Critique)

#1 – The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) ā€” The best classic SwashbucklerĀ and one of the Best films ever made. It also contains the finest cinematic sword-fight of all time between Errol Flynn and Rathbone. (Full Critique)Ā [Also on theĀ Errol Flynn listĀ and theĀ Olivia de Havilland list]

 

Back to all Best Films By The Great Actors Lists

Dec 122017
  December 12, 2017

gingerrogersGinger Rogers will forever be known as the dancing partner of Fred Astaire; they fit together. Together they made some of the greatest film musicals of all time. She could manage the steps, as well as both the sophisticated and common attitudes needed for the comedy and romance. Astaire danced with others who were technically better, but no one who was such a perfect partner. Apart from Astaire she strove to have a ā€œseriousā€ career (after a group of ā€œletā€™s put on a Broadway showā€ films) that led to a string of turgid melodramas that she could never pull offā€”not that anyone could have made Kitty Foyle watchable. Her best ā€œsoloā€ works were comedies.

An honorable mention goes to the anthology film, Tales of Manhattan (1942) simply for the large number of golden age stars in it.

#8 – The Major and the Minor (1942) ā€” 31-year-old Rogers pretends to be a child to get a half price train ticket and ends up with Ray Milland at a military school. As this is a romantic comedy, theyā€™d never make it today. [Also on the Ray Milland list]

#7 – Carefree (1938) ā€” A lesser Astaire/Rogers film which is more of a screwball comedy than their typical musicals.

#6 – Star of Midnight (1935) ā€” A ripoff of the Thin ManĀ series; if I can’t get another real one, close is good enough.Ā William Powell is a gentleman detectiveā€”this time a lawyerā€”and Rogers is the girl who wants to marry him.

#5 – Flying Down to Rio (1933) ā€” The first pairing of Astaire and Rogers, though not as the leads. It was intended as a vehicle for breathtaking Mexican actress Dolores del Rio and sheā€™s good, but the pair steal the film. Beyond the music, thereā€™s the exquisite and totally unreal world. Brazil never looked like this but I wish it did. This is a pre-code film; jokes about rounded heels (look it up) and what South American women have thatā€™s better below the equator would have been censored a few years later. Likewise the transparent tops of the female wing-walkers.Ā [Also on theĀ Fred Astaire list]

#4 – Swing Time (1936) ā€“ The 6th Astaire/Rogers film, it has some of the best dance numbers, but with a weaker script than their earlier films. The humor fails and the world is not as magical, none of which matters when Astaire sings ā€œThe Way You Look Tonight.ā€Ā [Also on theĀ Fred Astaire list]

#3 – Shall We Dance (1937) ā€“ Another Astaire/Rogers, with another assist from the always good Edward Everett Horton and Eric Blore. I find this to be the funniest Astaire film with Astaire playing a jazz dancer who has made it in ballet so must put on a persona of an arrogant Russian. The songs are solid, with ā€œThey Canā€™t Take That Away from Meā€ the standout.Ā [Also on theĀ Fred Astaire list]

#2 ā€“ The Gay Divorcee (1934) ā€“ The 2nd Astaire/Rogers film, and the first with them as leads, this one has Rogers attempting to get a divorce from her absent husband and mistaking Astaire as the gigolo she planned to use for cause. Horton and Blore appear again.Ā [Also on theĀ Fred Astaire list]

#1 ā€“ Top Hat (1935) ā€“ The 4th Astaire/Rogers picture and theyā€™d perfected the routine. The jokes are solid and the fantasy world of shining marble is wondrous and where I want to live (much less depression era audiences). And of course the dance numbers are fantastic. Rogers falls for a very forward Astaire until she incorrectly deduces that heā€™s the husband of her good friend. Horton, Blore, and Helen Broderick add to the comedy. [Also on the Fred Astaire list]

 

Back to all Best Films By The Great Actors Lists

Nov 282017
  November 28, 2017

RayMillandHandsome and debonair, Millandā€™s early career was mainly in romantic comedies and light action films. His big break came with The Jungle Princess (1936), which made Dorothy Lamour a star as The Sarong Girl. His reputation changed with The Lost Weekend (1945) which won multiple Oscars, but is hard to view as anything other than suffering-porn nowā€”it lacks a plot and an ending. It was no doubt important for people who never realized that alcoholism was bad. But this did alert Hollywood to his skill as a serious actor.

An honorable mention for The Thing With Two Heads (1972), which is terrible, but hey, it is called The Thing With Two Heads. Also an Honorable mention to the sappy, but surprisingly moving Love Story (1970). And a big honorable mention for his portrayal of Mephistopheles in Alias Nick Beal (1949). And another for Irene (1944), a breezy music comedy with little music.

Now for his eight best:

8 – The Lady Has Plans (1942) ā€” A spy comedy as light as fluff. With Paulette Goddard, Millandā€™s frequent co-star.

7 – The Major and the Minor (1942) ā€” 31-year-old Ginger Rogers pretends to be a child to get a half price train ticket and ends up with Milland at a military school. As this is a romantic comedy, they’d never make it today. [Also on the Ginger Rogers list]

6 – Ministry of Fear (1944) ā€” A light thriller with Milland just out of an asylum facing Nazis. It screams Hitchcock.

5 –Ā Easy LivingĀ (1937)Ā ā€” AĀ Preston Sturges pennedĀ romantic comedy entwined with the misunderstandings of the very rich.

4 – Dial M for Murder (1954) ā€” Milland plots to murder Grace Kelly. This one is Hitchcock.

3 – The Big Clock (1948) ā€” One of the great Film Noirs as Milland is placed in charge of an investigation to find a man who turns out to be himself. Remade in ’87 as No Way Out with Kevin Costner. (Full Critique)

2 – Beau Geste (1939) ā€” The definitive Foreign Legion film, with Milland one of three brothers who run off for the sake of honor.

1 – The Uninvited (1944) ā€” The greatest ghost film, and the mold for most of those that have followed. Milland and his sister buy a house which turns out to be haunted. (Full Review)

 

Back to all Best Films By The Great Actors Lists

Nov 222017
 
two reels

Uther (Eric Bana) is usurped by his brother Vortigern (Jude Law) with the help of dark magic, but Vortigern fails to kill Utherā€™s son Arthur or acquire the sword Excalibur. After being raised in a brothel, Arthur (Charlie Hunnam) becomes an underworld boss. When Excalibur resurfaces in a stone, Arthur and his criminal friends (Kingsley Ben-Adir, Neil Maskell) team up with resistance fighters (Djimon Hounsou, Aidan Gillen, Craig McGinlay) and a mage (Astrid BergĆØs-Frisbey) to kill Vortigern.

It is refreshing to see a different take on the King Arthur legend. We certainly didnā€™t need another generic version and this isnā€™t generic Arthur. So if you are a purist, looking for a retelling of the old story with all the pieces in their predetermined places, you are going to be angry. If on the other hand, you are a fan of Guy Ritchie and his street punk, speed-up, slow down, jump randomly style, then you are going to beā€¦ Well, you arenā€™t going to be pleased exactly. Maybeā€¦interested.

I havenā€™t seen this much Guy Ritchieism in a Guy Ritchie film since Snatch. Thugs mumble incoherently or speak too quickly to be understood. Everyone is a smart ass. No one runs more than ten feet without slipping into slow-mo or having an edit move him ahead three steps. No sword swing can finish its arc without three time shifts. Is this good or bad? Well, itā€™s a style. Itā€™s a bit odd when stuck in a fantasy story, but Iā€™m amused by the anachronism of it.

So, if you can get past, or even enjoy, Guy Ritchieā€™s style, then you have yourself a clever film, with an engaging story, good characters, a world worth spending time in, idiosyncratic dialog, lots of action, and some fascinating, if not attractive, cinematography. And with all that, it is unsatisfying. The problem is that is doesnā€™t feel like a movie. This is a eight part TV series with large chunks missing. You can see the episode breaks:

Ep 1: The Fall of Uther
Ep 2: Young Arthur in the brothel
Ep 3: Arthur, criminal boss
Ep 4: Arthur on the run
Ep 5: Arthur meets the resistance

We needed four or five more scenes of Vortigern using his increasing magical powers. There should have been another half hour of Arthur dealing with street crime. We should have seen several more raids by Arthur and his outlaw team. The dojo master and his martial artists should have had another fight or three, or been removed entirely. The structure and pacing is wrong for a feature. There is a vision quest segment, but it means nothing as is. It is shown as a montage and we are not given the information or enough of what this means to Arthur for it matter. It needed to be cut, or enlarged. For a feature, there needed to be more focus. But if it wasnā€™t a feature, Iā€™d have loved to see bro-Arthur and his entourage carrying off a few medieval heists.

The look and special effects donā€™t belong in a feature either. They spent $175,000 and Iā€™ve no idea where half that money went. For a TV series, it looks great. For a blockbuster, it looks cheap. Much of the CGI screams CGI. The exception is the gigantic mammoths, which look fantastic, but they are only onscreen for a few minutes and then we rarely see full body shots (which is the way you would construct the scenes for a show trying to keep under budget).

Guy Ritchieā€™s first cut was rumored to be three hours long, which Iā€™m betting fixed some of the problems, but not nearly enough, and would be a bit numbing. No, this needed eight hours with snack breaks.

 Fantasy, Reviews Tagged with:
Nov 212017
  November 21, 2017

BasilrathboneholmesBasil Rathbone starred as Sherlock Holmes in 14 films, with Nigel Bruce as a blustering, foolish Doctor Watson. When I watched these as a childā€”broadcast one each week by a local TV stationā€”I treated them like a TV show, with all of the movies being approximately the same. They arenā€™t.

The first two were made for 20th Century Fox with a reasonable budget. Then Universal pictures took over, shrinking the budget and updating the story to 1940s wartime. Stopping Nazis was the goal and Holmes was more spy than detective. As the war wound down, the films took on more of a Gothic feeling, with crumbling castles and frightened peasants. The setting was still ā€œcurrentā€ times, but with locations in Scottish villages and cutoff manor houses to decrease the effects of modern technology. A few were standard mystery films (no Gothic mansions), but while the 1940s were more visible than in the more Gothic ones, these mystery films could have been transported to the 1880s with few changes.

Ranking the Rathbone/Holmes films is pretty straightforward. The Fox films are best, followed by the Gothic Universals. Standard mysteries slot in next, with the later films (where Rathbone was tired of playing the roleā€”and being quite vocal about it) and the spy films vie for worst. Starting with the best:

 
#1.Ā The Hound Of The Baskervilles (1939) ā€” The first of the Fox films and the most famous Holmes tale. Rathbone never had a chance to stretch as much again. This Holmes has a sense of humor. (My review)

#2.Ā The Adventures Of Sherlock Holmes (1939) ā€” The second Fox film and the last one set in the proper decade. This is the defining Sherlock Holmes movie. George Zucco, one of the great character actors, takes a turn as Moriarty.

#3.Ā The House Of Fear (1945) ā€” This one is fully Gothic and all the better for it. At a seaside estate, the members of a club are being murdered one by one after receiving an envelope containing orange seeds. It feels nearly like a horror movie, which is a genre Universal was skilled with. (My review)

#4.Ā Ā Sherlock Holmes Faces Death (1943) ā€” The first of the Gothic films, breaking away from the three propaganda ones before it. It is a dark house mystery, with Holmes trying to find the murderer of the head of a rich and old family among the strange characters staying at the house. (My review)

#5.Ā The Scarlet Claw (1944) ā€” Holmes verses a supposed marsh monster in Canada. The setting is a strangely isolated (since it is 12 miles form a major city), tiny village cloaked in fog and surrounded by marshland. The superstitious dread of the people gives it a nice tone, but side characters (and villain) lack needed personality.

#6.Ā Terror By Night (1946) ā€” Holmes plays in Agatha Christieā€™s realm as he investigates a murder on a train. The train car is filled with a number of unusual characters, any one of whom might be the killer.

#7.Ā The Pearl Of DeathĀ (1944) ā€” Another criminal mastermind is in London along with his massive brute of a killer. He stole a pearl but had to hide it. Holmes races to find it, deducing that a series of murders is related. This is one of the standard mystery films.

#8. The Spider Woman (1944) ā€” Important men are being driven to suicide for their insurance. Holmes knows the villain is a woman since it is a cruel and controlling crime. Yeah, Holmes being sexist isnā€™t a shocker. Gale Sondergaard is a lot of fun as the Spider Woman, but the story is weak.

#9.Ā Sherlock Holmes And The Secret Weapon (1942) ā€” Holmes must stop a bomb site from falling into Nazi hands. Itā€™s WWII spies again, but at least with a mystery. Moriarity (this time played by the always reliable Lionel Atwill) feels like an odd villain to drop into this war pic that would have been better served by a SS officer.

#10.Ā Dressed To Kill (1946) ā€” The final film has criminals missing the auction of three music boxes that contain a musical code, so Holmes races to find them first. The mystery is both overly simple and unsolvable for the audience, but if feels like a good old Holmes and Watson case and Patricia Morison makes a memorable villain.

#11.Ā Pursuit To Algiers (1945) ā€” This 12th entry takes us back to spies. Holmes acts as escort (wouldnā€™t a few armed guards be better for that purpose?) for the heir to the throne of Rovinia. Itā€™s a fun film, but isnā€™t a Holmes filmā€”it feels more like something by Agatha Christie. Thereā€™s a group of peculiar characters with secrets, cut off from the outside (this time on a ship), and the constant threat of murder. I like it, but would like it better without Holmes.

#12. The Woman In Green (1945) ā€” Young women are being gruesomely murdered around town and Holmes disagrees with Scotland Yard that it is the work of a madman. He knows it to be Moriarty, this time played by Henry Daniell. This is one of the normal ā€œcaseā€ type films, though a bit darker, but it doesnā€™t come together very well.

#13. Sherlock Holmes In Washington (1943) ā€” Not a mystery at all, but a spy caper where everything is known. It feels like an old time serial, with shootouts and secret lairs as Holmes must retrieve a secret document and rescue a girl from evil Nazi agents. Itā€™s nice to see both George Zucco and Henry Daniell as villains (neither playing Moriarty as they both did in other films), though neither have much to do.

#14. Sherlock Holmes And The Voice Of Terror (1942) ā€” The first and the most over-the-top of the WWII spy films has our hero trying to stop a stream of disasters that are first predicted in a Nazi radio broadcast. It ends with Holmes giving a propaganda speech that would have been too much even in 1942.

 

Nov 192017
 
one reel

Teenager Jake Chambers (Tom Taylor) is psychologically disturbed by the death of his father and by his dreams of another world where a Man in Black (Matthew McConaughey) and his minions are trying to destroy a tower that holds the universe together and are opposed by the last gunslinger (Idris Elba). After some mind-numbing family drama, Jakes finds a magic portal and travels to the world of Roland The Gunslinger, who has grown bitter. Jakeā€™s dreams are a indication that he has the ā€œshiningā€ (yeah, like in the movie The Shining), and so is both the magic boy the Man in Black needs to destroy the tower and the key to the gunslingerā€™s victory.

Based on Stephen Kingā€™s elaborate gunslinger series, The Dark Tower is not an adaptation, since the filmmakers claim (after the fact) that it is a sequel to the books. Well, that at least makes discussions of the books irrelevant, which is to the movieā€™s advantage as no fan of the books is going to have anything nice to say about this movie.

Since theyā€™d thrown out the books, there is no reason for Jake to be inĀ The Dark Tower (something the PR department picked up on as he is absent from advertising) except that young adult movies areā€”or wereā€”very popular. This is the story of a gunslinger verses the Devil; everything with Jake is unnecessary, and worse, uninteresting. While it might be relevant in the books that children are magical batteries, it is a plot point that needed to have been dropped. With super-battery-kid as the lead, Roland, the powerful gunslinger out for revenge, is reduced to a bland babysitter for a generic magic child. Neither he nor the kid can support a film.

McConaughey does better as the Man in Black (also known as Walter). Heā€™s a sleazy kind of evil that is entertaining and deserves a better film. His techno-magic hints at a more appealing universe that we are never shown.

The Dark Tower isnā€™t interesting enough to be a disaster. Its failing is in lack of imagination. It doesnā€™t try to be much of anything and in that it succeeds.

 Fantasy, Reviews Tagged with:
Nov 172017
  November 17, 2017

JamesStewartStewart had a more varied career than most actors and far more than most leading men of the golden age. He not only was in, but was known for, comedies, dramas, melodramas, family films, romances, thrillers, and Westerns. Early in his career, he was in a string of sentimental Frank Capra movies, with Itā€™s A Wonderful Life being the most famous. Iā€™m not a fan of these as they tend to go over the top with shmaltz, letting both real human interaction and humor die for the sake of sentimentality. The worst offender is You Can’t Take It with You, a wonderful play that is gutted by Capra. Luckily, Stewart had other moments, with strong turns in comedies before becoming one of Hitchcockā€™s two favorites (Cary Grant being the other).

Stewartā€™s performances were unusual too. He pushed the edges, and his brilliant performances were often one twitch away from a ham mess. When he held it just right, he was a master at frustration, anger, hatred, and loss. When he let it go too farā€¦

Honorable mentions go to Vivacious Lady (1938)ā€”a romantic comedy with Ginger Rogers, Destry Rides Again (1939)ā€”a comedy western with Marlene Dietrich, Call Northside 777 (1948)ā€”a detective crime drama, and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)ā€”a western with John Wayne and Lee Marvin.

And for the best:

8 – The Mortal Storm (1940) ā€” The movie that upset the Nazis; Hollywood finally took a stand on what had been going on in Europe. Stewart plays the friend of a ā€œnon-Aryanā€ family during the rise of the Nazi party in Germany.

7 – Bell Book and Candle (1958) ā€” This should be on everyoneā€™s Halloween viewing list, or Christmas. Stewart is a bit gray for his starring role in a supernatural romantic comedy, but Kim Novak is breathtaking as a powerful, sexy witch and Ernie Kovacs, Else Lanchester, and Jack Lemmon are all marvelous. [Also on the Jack Lemmon list]

6 – Vertigo (1958) ā€” A second Hitchcock film, this one even more over-hyped than the last having replaced Citizen Kane as the greatest movie of all time according toĀ Sight and Sound. Itā€™s still a good flick, with Stewart as an obsessed and troubled man. While it is shot as a thriller, it is really a character drama.

5 – Rear Window (1954) ā€” A Hitchcock thriller seeped in voyeurism. Itā€™s become hip to love it in recent years, but don’t let that dissuade you. It is a nicely tense work.

4 – Anatomy of a Murder (1959) ā€” A courtroom drama that questions our prejudices. Stewart attempts to defend an unpleasant and violent defendant with a promiscuous wife from a murder everyone would be happy to hang on him.

3 – Harvey (1950) ā€” A happy man with a giant invisible rabbit as his best friend upsets his uptight family. This may be Stewartā€™s best performance. It is certainly his most unusual.

2 – After the Thin Man (1936) ā€” Stewart plays third banana to William Powell and Myrna Loy. Taking place soon after The Thin Man, Nick and Nora are summoned by Noraā€™s snobbish family because a husband is missing. The relationship material is wonderful, the humor is spot on, and the mystery is engaging. [Also on the Myrna Loy list and the William Powell list]

1 – The Philadelphia Story (1940) ā€” This is the essential romcom, and was the perfect vehicle for its three leads, Stewart, Cary Grant, and Katherine Hepburn. None of them ever had a role that more completely played to their strengths. This is as witty as film gets. [Also on the Katherine Hepburn list and the Cary Grant list]

 

Back to all Best Films By The Great Actors Lists