Recently watched: "The Great Ziegfeld"

A 1936 movie about the life and times of Florenz Ziegfeld Jr, "America's Greatest Showman".  The movie is "suggested by romances and incidents" so we don't have the true story of his life.  Played by William Powell, the movie follows Ziegfeld from sideshow barker (at the 1893 Chicago World's Fair) to creator of the Ziegfeld Follies, the Broadway shows which helped launch the careers of Fanny Brice, Ray Bolger and Harriet Hoctor (all who appear as themselves).

The movie is long (185 minutes) and we see several musical numbers in their entirety (the 8 minute "A Pretty Girl is Like a Melody" is amazing, even for someone who isn't a fan of showy musical numbers).   The movie won Best Picture, and Luise Rainer (as Ziegfeld's first big star, and first wife, Anna Held) won best actress.  Powell's "Thin Man" costar Myrna Loy appears late in the movie as Billie Burke, Ziegfeld second wife (who would play the good witch in "The Wizard of Oz" three years later (along with Ray Bolger as the Scarecrow).

Recently watched: "The Three Musketeers/The Four Musketeers"

I can remember reading the novelization of these when I was a kid, but don't know that I actually watched the movies (originally released in 1974) beyond bits and pieces on a network movie showing.  Several years ago I finally read Dumas' novel (in a newly released translation at the time) and enjoyed it a lot.  I then watched the Gene Kelly movie version, and liked it also (though I think Kelly was a bit old to be D'Artagnan).  Now, with Lester's adaption (with script by George MacDondal Fraser) I've seen what many consider to be the definitive movie version.

It's certainly a lot of fun, with some great casting (Oliver Reed is perfect, and Charlton Heston is very good as Richelieu).  The fights are great, with the Musketeers using whatever is handy as weapons.  I would like to see the 1921 Douglas Fairbanks version, which many say is a template for Lester's films.

Recently viewed: "Battleground"

I'm not that familiar with a lot of the movies that Hollywood made about WWII, and I had never heard of this one until recently, when I happened to find a cheap copy.  Made in 1949, it was the first major film about the war that was released after it was over (and the studio was apparently worried that the audience would be tired of war stories).  Set during the Battle of the Bulge, it is focused on Seige of Bastogne, as the Germans were trying to get control of the crossroads at Bastogne as a crucial part of their drive to get access to the harbor at Antwerp.

The movie follows the 2nd Squad, 3rd Platoon of Item Company (a ficitonal company) of 327th Glider Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne Division.  To me, it's notably in that the members of the squad appears very human; they are clearly scared at times, and frustrated with the lack of supplies and support that they have.  As to the siege, the movie is apparently fairly accurate.  There's also a wealth of good performances here, starting with Van Johson as Holley and James Whitmore as Kinnie, the sergeant who continues doing his duty as he deals with frostbitten feet.  Notable faces include Ricardo Montalban (Kahn himself!), James Arness and Richard Jaeckel. 

The result is a great movie, about an important piece of history.  It was a huge hit for MGM, and well regarded (a handful of Oscar nominations, with wins for Best Cinematography, Black-and-White (Paul C. Vogel) and for Best Writing, Story and Screenplay (Robert Pirosh). 

Highly recommended.

Recently viewed: "The Eagle Has Landed"

Filmed in 1976, this is the movie version of the Jack Higgins novel.  Directed by John Stuges (his last film), it has some strengths, though it isn't as good as some of his other movies (The Great Escape, The Magnificent Seven).  As with the novel, it concerns the German's plan to land paratroopers in a remote English village, which is due a visit from Winston Churchill.  I really liked Robert Duvall as Col. Stadl, and Donald Pleasance gives a nicely chilling performance as Himmler.  There's a ton of familiar faces here (Larry Hagman in what is almost a comic role as the blustery American Ranger, Jennay Agutter, Jean Marsh and a young Treat Williams).  I didn't like Donald Sutherland's Liam Devlin, though that's really more an issue with the character than the actor I think.  Michael Cain is fine, though his accent is a bit of a problem (though his character was supposed to be educated in England).

The English village gives some great scenery, and Stuges handles the action well.  As with the book, most of the plot is told through the German's eyes.

Differences between the book and movie include: 
the book has a framing device (with the author finding out about the incidence)
there's no mention of Stiener's father being held by the Gestapo
there's no doublcross of Devlin by the black marketeers (and thus no mention of Scotland's Yard Special Branch tracking Devlin down)
in the movie Molly (the lass that falls in love with Devlin) shoots the villager Aurthur Seymour
Cain's Stiener actually succeeds by shooting "Churchill" in the movie before he is killed (the "surprise" revelation is handled after the shooting in the movie, whereas it's handled in the framing story in the book)

Opening night for Thor. It has been a long time since I've seen a big budget movie on opening night.

Recently viewed: "The Charge of the Light Brigade"

The Charge of the Light Brigade



The first real disappointment I've had watching an Errol Flynn movie.  The first two-thirds is great, with Flynn part of the 27th Bengal Lancers on the Indian frontier. I think the ending, while filmed quite well with the cavalry charge, falls apart though.

While it's not unusual for a Hollywood movie (and an Errol Flynn movie...see They Died with Their Boots On) to get the actual history wrong (and this movie has a disclaimer at the beginning), the way in Brigade gets it wrong ends up making it hard to respect Flynn's Major Georffrey Vickers character.

Stationed in Indian, Flynn's Vickers saves the life of Surat Khan (the leader of the fictional country of Suristan).  Also in India is Vickers' brother, Captain Perry Vickers, who has stolen the love of Geoffrey's fiancee Elsa (Olivia de Havilland).  Later, Surat Kahn (angered that the British will no longer pay him for his loyalty) massacres the inhabitants of Chukoti (mainly wives and children) but spares Geoffrey and Elsa to repay his debt.  Kahn aligns himself with Russia, and ends up in Balaclava during the Crimean War.  When Geoffrey finds out that Kahn is with the Russian troops opposite the 27th Lancers, he changes the written orders of Sir Charles Macefield, ordering the commander of the Light Brigade, Sir Benjamin Warrenton, to attack.  Vickers orders the attack so the Lancers can avenge the Chukoti massacre.  He sends a note to Macefeild explaining his actions, and has his brother Perry deliver it so he will survive.

The charge takes place, the cavalry facing the Russian cannons, and though the Lancers are wiped out, Geoffrey is able to find and kill Surat Khan, even as he dies.  Receiving the note, Macefield takes responsibility for the charge, burning the note.

While I can accept that Geoffrey felt the need to avenge the terrible massacre, he condemned not only the 27th Lancers but the other members of the Brigade to death, and did it by disobeying orders.  This leaves a bad taste in my mouth, making it impossible to feel as if he is a hero.  I suppose it would be difficult to film the actual history and have a hero, but I would have expected the fictional story to do a better job.

The charge itself is well staged, though it was filmed with trip wire, which resulted in dozens of horses being killed.  This helped lead to the ASPCA banning trip wires from films, and the U.S. Congress taking action to protect animals during filming.

Recently viewed: "The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex"

The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex (1939)

Wow, another great movie from 1939!  Bette Davis plays Queen Elizabeth, who must deal with her love for the Earl of Essex (Errol Flynn) and his desire to rule England (either along side her, or alone).  Davis was only 31 here, and plays the much older Elizabeth through makeup (shaving her eyebrows and hairline) and actions.  Flynn plays the much younger Earl (though he was only a year younger than Davis) as hot tempered and eager to achieve military fame.

Like many movies around historical figures, this one plays loose with facts (painting the Earl much more favorably, and adding in a conspiracy preventing Elizabeth and Essex from receiving each other letters) but the acting is marvelous.  The interior scenes are great, with the color being very vivid, but the exterior battle scenes are clearly on a sound stage and suffer a bit.

This DVD version is one of the "Warner's Night at the Movies" designed to stimulate a typical movie night from the time.  We get a preview (Davis in Dark Victory), a Newsreel, a musical short ("The Royal Rodeo") and a Chuck Jones directed cartoon ("Old Glory" with Porky Pig).  It makes for a fun viewing experience.

Recently viewed: "Shutter Island"

Shutter Island




This is the Martin Scorsese adaption of the Dennis Lehane novel, set in 1954, with Leonardo DiCaprio playing the main character, U.S. Marshall Teddy Daniels.  I read the novel (and am rapidly catching up on Lehane's entire back list) and thought it was quite good as a psychological mystery, with a twist ending that I didn't see coming.  The plot has Daniels and his (new) partner taking the ferry (the book and movie opens with them on the ferry, with Daniels being sea sick) to Shutter Island, where there is a penal institution for the criminally insane.  There is an escaped patient (disappearing from a locked room, and trapped on an island with only a single way off), and the marshalls are called in to find her.  Daniels has an additional reason to be there, since he believes that one of the patients is the arsonist that was responsible for the fire that killed Daniels' wife.

The movie ends up being disappointing to me.  Scorsese makes it appear as Gothic horror, with Daniels seeing visions (his dead wife and a child, memories of his war experiences in liberating Dachau), and the institution appearing menacing (including an isolated lighthouse, where Daniels believes experimental surgeries are taking place).  It's quite clear early that Daniels has problems, where the book seemed to draw out the suspense a bit more (though I don't think you could figure out the final twist in either book or movie).

Both book and movie do address some of the issue with treatment of mentally ill patients (the head psychiatrist, played by Ben Kingsley, believes that with the right care he can possibly cure patients, instead of using lobotomies or drugs)

Recently viewed: "Foreign Correspondent"

Foreign Correspondent




Though I consider my a Hitchcock fan, I've by no means seen all of his movies.  I have always considered this one a "minor" movie, and never gotten around to watching it.  We finally took the time and caught it on Netflix, and I am very happy with it.

Joel McCrea (later a major star in Westerns) is an American reporter sent by his paper to Europe as their foreign correspondent.  Things are heating up, with war on the very near horizon (the movie was filmed in 1940).  McCrea (playing Johnny Jones, but given the dom du plume of Hadely Haverstock by his publisher) witnesses an apparent assassination of a Dutch politician, and quickly finds himself with information about a spy ring.  He's also falls in love with Laraine Day, playing the daughter of peace activist.

In a lot of ways, it's very typically Hitchcock, but as with much of his work, it's the details that make it shine.  There's a handful of marvelous scenes (the escape of the assassin through a crowd of umbrellas, the cat and mouse in a Dutch windmill).  McCrea is winning enough, playing a very "American" character, and Day handles her part well.  There's also several standouts in the supporting cast.  The action climax (on a plane traveling to America, under fire from a German battleship) suffers from the special effects, but is still effective. 

The ending makes it a piece of war propaganda aimed squarely at Americans, but what the heck, we were about to fight the Nazis.

Recently viewed: "Destry Rides Again"

Destry Rides Again



1939 is sometimes thought of as the greatest movie year (Gone With The Wind, Wizard of Oz, Stagecoach, etc).  It also saw Destry Rides Again, a semi comic western, based upon a Max Brand novel.  We get 31 year old Jimmy Stewart (still early in his career) and 38 year old Marlene Dietrich (already looking somewhat hard to my eyes, and coming off a series of box office bombs).

Stewart is "Thomas Jefferson Destry", the son of a famous lawman, who has decided to forgo guns (they didn't prevent his father from being shot in the back).  He's asked to come to the lawless town of Bottleneck by the sheriff (and former town drunk, appointed by the corrupt mayor) to be a deputy.  Upon his arrival, he becomes somewhat of a laughing stock, but quickly understands the situation and begins to take charge. He has to match wits with the villain (Brian Donlevy, intent on controlling the valley and charging ranchers a toll when they drive their cattle to market).  Dietrich is "Frenchy", the saloon girl and mistress to Donlevy, helping in his crooked poker games.

There's humor (a big fight between Dietrich and Una Merkel, wife to Russain Mischa Auer, who provides much of the comic relief) and we get Dietrich singing "See What The Boys in The Backroom'll Have".  There's some romance between Stewart and Dietrich, though she doesn't get him in the end.

A fun western, and a worthy entry in the list of great movies in 1939.

Recently viewed: "Quantum of Solace"

"Quantum of Solace"



Is this the worst Bond movie ever?  I know that's saying a lot, but still...

Daniel Craig still makes a fine Bond, and Judi Dench has certainly handled the role of "M" well, but for a movie that depends on action...you have to be able to see the action!  The film and editing style is such that every single action scene is confusing. 

The plot is no worse than many a Bond film, though it still isn't that clear what the Quantum organization really wants.  It's really a revenge film masquerading as a Bond film.  I have a bit of a problem with that (one of my complaints with "Casino Royale" is that the filmmakers didn't have the courage to end the movie as Fleming did the book) but can understand it.  I just want to be able to understand the fight and chase scenes.