daoldiges

I can see how his comical spoof of behind the scenes old Hollywood would have been a lot funnier and fun back in the days of its original release. I can still appreciate what they were going for here but it does feel rather dated, but not always in the good way. Doris Day of course gives her all here and she does have good comic timing as do both of her male co-stars. A few celebrities stop by for some fun cameos with Joan Crawford taking the top prize for her small but potent appearance. It's not a terribly long film but it felt that way and could have definitely benefited from some editing down. Still, with the solid cast and some fun cameos it's worth a watch for those genuinely interested.

Not exactly sure what compelled me to want to check out Death Cruise, but despite some reservations I did indeed go there, and am actually glad that I did. So the premise of this movie has already been stated and three couples and a new ships doctor are involved. Two of the couples stories are kind of interesting - Bosley and Holmes story is the best of the three with Long and Bergen coming in second and Alberts and Jackson a distant third, but Jackson herself makes up the gap. Constantine turns in a nice performance as the doctor/amateur sleuth. It really shouldn't work as well as it did but I was engaged throughout and found in moderately entertaining. Not great but I think worth checking out.

I won't rehash the entire storyline here as that's already been done. I will say that Mr. District Attorney is a better and more enjoyable film that I initially expected. It's filled with a solid and well rounded cast all of which bring the goods. With Chapman strong and only surpassed by Adolphe Menjou, who I think really pulls everything together nicely. The script is pretty good as well and it does a credible job of keeping the true motives of Chapman's character intentionally hazy as long as is needed. The end isn't really a surprise but still everything leading up to it, including steady and brisk direction, all contribute to a positive viewing experience.

The was playing recently at L'Alliance NYC and I randomly decided to check it out and am so very happy that I did. When I purchased my ticket at the box-office the staff member handed me an index card sized piece of paper with a few lines of text on it. She proceeded to tell me that it was basically a silent film with just a handful of brief subtitles that were in French. Well after she said it was a 'silent film' my mind went to the many silent films that I'd seen before, those with Chaplin, Keaton, Gish etc. Well, Conte Cruel/Cruel Tale is nothing like any of those film and is a unique, mesmerizing, almost haunting experience. The cinematography along with the lighting was stunning. So many frames and shots looks to me like works of art. Unlike the silent films I was used to that had a piano accompaniment, this was presented with a recorded soundtrack accompaniment by Leon Rousseau which perfectly enhanced the beauty, bleakness, darkness, and horrors of the film. Gaston Modot's Conte Cruel/Cruel Tale is a very special film and one worth checking out.

Of Cocteau's film work I've only ever seen Beauty and the Beast and was looking forward to checking out other films of his. I don't recall hearing anything about this particular work of his but i found it to be fairly interesting. Romanticism rules the day here with the story and themes reminding the viewer of something Shakespearian in tone and structure. The cast creates characters who are strong willed and not afraid to express themselves. The sets, art direction, and costumes are all well done and they create a world the viewer might like to spend time in. The film requires the viewers full attention and despite its occasionally challenging story I found The Eagle with Two Heads to be thoroughly unique and worth checking out.

I had my share of reservations going into my viewing of Pirates of the Caribbean. The always unpredictable Johnny Depp was one concern along with my love of this specific genre of film, I had naturally high standards/expectations. I am happy to say that I was very pleasantly surprised by how much fun, intrigue, and what a real sense of adventure they were able to imbibe into this film. As for the performances everyone does a fine job and contributes their parts fully. The cinematography, sets, location, and effects are all well done. And then there is the story itself, which is solid and well developed throughout. Pirates of the Caribbean is great fun and something worth checking out.

The Wolf of Wall Street is interesting and has quite a few good things going for it. For one the direction is well done and briskly paced throughout. Almost all of the performances are good, in particular DiCaprio does a fine job in creating his character. For me though it started to feel very redundant at a certain point. Yes, we are introduced to the DiCaprio character as he evolves from a small guy and through ambition and hard works learns how to swindle average folks out of lots of money and we observe how he subsequently lives the 'high-life' that young men always seem to do when they suddenly come in to extreme wealth - they behave rather badly, and yet are proud of it and all their male peers oddly look up to and admire them for these actions. This is established not that far into the movie and it is repeated for the next 80 minutes as we see him continue to swindle even more money from the unsuspecting and develop ever more clever/tasteless ways to spend that said money, but not really that interestingly. Of course, his fall does eventually come but we didn't really need three hours to tell his story as it's written. Without the script being expanded in some fresh ways this story could have been better told in two hours. For me this is not a bad film but neither is it a great film.

The Lion King has been highly and praised by many and while I do find several good and quality elements within, I am unfortunately not one who finds himself under it's 'magical' spell. I wish I were because I love and have loved many Disney animated films throughout the years and for me this is not all that high up on that list. The voice actors do a wonderful job, the score and several of the songs are very strong and have stood the test of time quite well. The story itself has great, Shakespearian aspirations and that does work but only to a degree. For me those themes are spread very thin throughout and they do not evolve and gain in strength as the film itself proceeds. In the end I wasn't all that moved in the ways the film had intended. It was overall a fine film but not one that made much of a difference.

Shockproof seems to be a random title for this promising little film, as I see little connection to it and what actually occurs within. Beyond that slight observation I was optimistic for Shockproof since it was directed by Sirk and starred Wilde, who is usually pretty good. There are quite a few good things happening here, with the best being Sirk's direction. He does the best he can with the material he's been given, of which is a very weak script that sees our female lead character for most of the film conduct herself with severely limited wits about her as she makes one absurdly, and yes, unbelievably bad decision after another. Cornel Wilde though gives a very solid performance as her good and overly patient parole officer and makes the film watchable and made me want to stick around to the end just to see what becomes of his character. The sets and art direction are also quite good, which is why the weak script is all the more disappointing because Shockproof to me could have been so much better with just a few tweaks to the script.

With Patrick Knowles and Marie Windsor in this 70 minute Who-Done-It, I decided to give it a view. I regularly enjoy Knowles quite a bit but his character here is rather dim-witted and as such it doesn't make for a credible character nor an engaging performance. Marie Windsor on the other hand is the sole supplier of any heat and momentum No Man's Woman can muster, so good for her in basically carrying this film. Unfortunately, her character leaves us all too quickly and we are left with a cast of also dim-wits (especially Betty and her sailor boyfriend) towards a somewhat predictable and unsatisfying conclusion. If you're a Marie Windsor fan than this is worth checking out, for everyone else, that's up to you.

Now and Forever is a film that seems like it's never quite sure of where it's going or what it wants to be. At times it's a lighthearted humorous romp between Cooper and Lombard as they live the fast live with Cooper as the petty thief and Lombard as the hopelessly in love second wife. It's going along fine and then Temple arrives as Coopers daughter from his first wife and things get all muddled. Temple is a fine little actress but is not utilized very well here. Her character it written with more maturity than someone of her age would have, and to top it off she delivers the mature lines with an over exuberance that feels very dissonant with the rest of the film. This is the time when things gets overly sentimental and at points serious, another dissonance with the first half of the film. Despite a great cast Now and Forever lets the viewer down in the end.

David Niven (along with Vera Ellen) in a musical comedy was definitely something that I wanted to check out. Everything considered I'm surprised how much I enjoyed Happy Go Lovely. First off there is the 'musical' aspect of the film - they are rather slight in regards to the singing as there are only two numbers where Ellen sings, and she's known primarily as a dancer and not a singer. As for the dancing, there's one dance sequence of some length but otherwise it is a handful of small, brief dance interludes, none of which are particularly memorably. David Niven is quite enjoyable and Ellen is too. Romero can be quite good but he overplays his part here almost to the point of annoying, he really needed to dial it back a notch or two and it would have worked. The story itself is cute and it works. While Happy Go Lovely is not one of the great Hollywood musicals, it is one worth checking out.

That was the night I decided to give A Thousand and One Nights a viewing. With Cornel Wilde and the Arabian Nights story I had some real expectations for a positive experience, only to be let down by this disappointing, uneven, and farcical take on a classic story. I soon realized that this was not a serious retelling of the arabian nights story but that's fine, I'm up and completely open for a light, tongue-in-cheek version . . . When it's well done. Unfortunately for the viewer this isn't one of those examples. The wisecracking Silver character would have been a lot funnier if it were played buy someone who actually looked and sounded like someone who remotely appeared and sounded like someone from the era but instead of anachronistic jiberish, real comments that the scenario would have generated. There are plenty of eye-rolling moments the side-kick character has to endure, it didn't need Silver to over sell it. Speaking of overselling, just look to Keyes with her slapstick portrayal of a genie. No, I'm not taking the source material too seriously, I'm up for the satirical humour, this just is just not the optimal way to do it. Some apparently like it, and I'm happy for them. But this A Thousand and One Nights is a no go for me.

After hearing about and seeing Paris, Texas referenced for many years I decided it was time I finally checked it out for myself. I had expectations for a positive viewing experience, which I certainly did. The cinematography, art direction, set design, sound and music were all wonderful. The craftspeople did a great job of creating a very distinct and impactful look and feel. Then there are the performances, both Stanton and Stockwell give wonderful performance, with Stanton being the standout and real heart of the film. Then there's the story, which starts off very strong and I was immediately engaged and invested as to what happened to this guy prior to us seeing him wondering the desert and where was all of this was going. I was on board and completely invested in these characters, until eventually things changed about two thirds in and the momentum was beginning to fade and the conclusion was ultimately not very satisfying and not what the first two thirds of this up till then wonderful film, and Hunter, deserved. Firstly I question whether a child so young as Hunter would be so eager to run off and abandon the only parents he has ever known up to that point. Then the fact that he just leaves him with his 'mother' after not really knowing the person she is or has become since he saw her last many years ago is quite egregious and irresponsible, all while he has a loving uncle/father and mother who have provided a loving and stable home for him. This story turn also erases all of the goodwill that the viewer has developed for this character. Sure, it is plausible but one that is a letdown from everything that came before it. Extremely disappointing finish but Paris, Texas is still one worth checking out.

I've always enjoyed these seafaring adventures and Mutiny has kept that streat going despite some shortcomings. The print that I recently saw was rather poor quality and at times hard to see the action during the dark of night sections. Throughout the rest of the film at did have the look and feel of a somewhat lower budget affair but it was good enough to transport me to another place and time. The three main leads, Stevens, Knowles, and Lansbury were solid and elevated the weak script, Lansbury's performance the strongest, although it was odd that she was perpetually dressed to the hilt in ball gowns the entire film. At 77 minutes it works and for anyone who enjoys this genre of films it is worth checking out.

I have always enjoyed these type of fantasy/adventure/'historical' films and this version of Hercules was no exception, despite quite a few shortcomings. The cast - Steve Reeves as Hercules in actually pretty good and his closest allies all offer acceptable performances as well. Several of the minor characters however fail to the point of being kind of humorous. Then there's the story, there were so many things thrown into this story with the Amazonian women, the giant dinosaur/creature, the man/ape/bigfoot creatures, the argonauts, it was just a lot going on with not enough context to support most of it. Despite the shortcomings I was still able to find it mildly entertaining, but only really for lovers of this specific type of film.

Early 60's British crime drama was exactly what I was in the mood for when I stumbled upon Jigsaw. It did not disappoint. The cast, in particular Warner and Lewis were very solid, as was the entire cast for the most part. I did not have this crime mystery figured out and admit to being a bit surprised to discover who the perpetrator ended up being. Lots of twists and turns, likely suspects, and all the while the detectives keeping their cool and exchanging pleasantries and sometimes witty banter made Jigsaw a pleasant watch throughout. The print quality of my screening wasn't great but definitely good enough to enjoy both the scenery and the mystery of it all.

I just feel the need to begin by noting that the promotional poster/art for this film is very misleading and should be disregarded. Now, onto the film itself: I was anticipating something good but my expectations were greatly exceeded. The story itself is very solid and the script fully supports it through to its final conclusion. The entire cast does a fine job with Victor, Walsh, and Murray all delivering exceptional performances. Gilling does well in directing this thoroughly engaging and interesting film from beginning to end. Its is very British in all of the best ways and I can hardly think of a recent film that so thoroughly delivered such entertainment in such a short run time. The Frightened Man is definitely one to check out.

Three Blind Mice is a story that's been put to film too many times to count or keep track of. The three leads here are Young, McCrea, and Niven, all solid performers who I generally enjoy. However, despite their likeability I almost feel like they're miscast here. This screwball comedy is fine but what it likes is the screwy/zanniness of the genre, it just isn't silly enough. Sure, some of that is due to the direction but I think Young, as good as she is, is the weak link with this specific material. The film for me does pick up a bit with the entry of Binnie Barnes as Niven's sister. She has the comedic chops and timing this project needs, unfortunately she arrives a little too late into the proceedings. Still, despite its shortcomings The Blind Mice does come together favorably in the last third to make it a pleasant enough watch.

For starters I detected nothing within this film that, at least to me, represented Noir. Melodrama yes, noir no. This in itself is fine, or would have been fine if it had instead delivered on other aspects of interesting film making. To begin with there's the story, which is highly predictable and I saw everything from the beginning,including the ending. Then there's the dialogue, which consisted of a lot of statements, platitudes and words that didn't really mesh into n=much and didn't progress that plot/story. As for characterizations, everyone is very one dimensional, everything is black and white/good and bad with very little shading. As for the performances, they're all serviceable at best. On the plus side the black and white photography is well preserved and looks great and was a pleasure to look at. Unfortunately, that's not quite enough to make me want to revisit Bad for Each Other again.

I find the poster art for The Hand great and it made me want to check it out. British 1960 also intrigued me as well. It is a very British affair, the jazzy score is wonderful, and it did keep me engaged for the most part despite a story that I found overcrowded with character names and all a bit confusing. It's not really a horror film as much as a suspense/who done it affair with a couple slightly grisly moments. As for the cast, it's a large cast many of whom look somewhat alike due to the rather poor film quality. Despite its shortcomings I still found The Hand to be a small little film to be one worth checking out.

He Ran All the Way with Garfield and Winters caught my eye and I thought it might be worth checking out. It was worth checking out, but only to a degree. I've always kind of liked Garfield and despite everything I think he turns in a very solid performance, one that is engaging and at times compelling. As for Winters, she plays an ineffectual debbie-downer type character in which she turns in an effective, if uneven performance. Her character here kind of reminds me of the one she played in A Place in the Sun, in which she gave a much better performance. The remainder of the cast turn in solid performances with the exception of Royale, whose static facial expression were plain odd and jarring to witness. The basic story isn't new but is solid. The set and staging is claustrophobic but in a good way. The weak link here is the script, it doesn't really progress in the way it should have and relies too much on the naivety and guilelessness of some of the characters. Still, despite the shortcomings He Ran All the Way is worth checking out.

I don't recall seeing much of Ray Danton before, and certainly not in the lead role but I have to say I kind of enjoyed him. He has a great voice and I'm wondering why he never made more of a name for himself in the movies. The story is kind of basic but I guess this is a circumstantially unique telling of it. There are a few moments of mild suspense but mostly of curiosity. The story does develop and has some momentum but not as much perhaps as everyone involved was hoping for. The pacing is even which is good but it didn't quite build to the degree I was expecting. Despite some reservations with The Night Runner it did provide me with some easy, relaxed entertainment and as such think it's one worth checking out.

Of course everyone's heard of Sunset Blvd. And heard it quoted from endlessly and as such it's a must see. In general I think it delivers on its main promise to the audience and that is to entertain, which it definitely does. I agree that it is a bit uneven stylistically and is kind of all over the place. I also agree that the Holden character could have been better developed and is rather one dimensional. Still, the story itself is an ageless one that is one some level very satisfying to experience again and again. The film also looks really good as well with the stark black and white and interesting use of lighting. Sunset Blvd. Is referenced quite often and for good reason and one to check out for those who have not yet done so.

When I saw the list of distinguished persons behind the restoration and support of Detour I was very curious to check it out. Having seen the film I'm still happy that I took the time to check it out but do not have the apparent high level of enthusiasm shared by others. I guess as a film, piece of art it is very indicative of its era. The characters are slaves to their bleak, working class pasts and are convinced that is their lot on life and they are helpless to even try and make positive changes for the chance at a better future. As such, the dialogue is full of hard-nosed/down on my luck phrases that are so common amongst this genre of films from this period. As such, it sounds very familiar. The film quality itself is quite good and I certainly appreciated that. Despite what I consider some shortcomings Detour is still worth checking out.