Twelve O’Clock High

Command decision is a better film, it had a much better cast and thismovieis too long. Maybe if they had taken out about twenty minutes it would ofbeen better. Gregory Peck if fine as usual and even though Dean Jagger wonabest supporting actor Oscar, I didn’t even know who he was in this movie.Ican’t even think of one person in this movie who deserved an academyaward.

"We are poor little lambs who have lost our way," sing the young airmenof the 918th Bomb Group, a unit suffering from low morale. It is 1943, andthe USAAF is mounting a major daylight bombing offensive against Germanyfrom its bases in England. The great advantage of of daylight raids is theenhanced precision, but the toll in lives and nervous strain is high. Colonel Keith Davenport (Gary Merrill) commands the 918th, a notorious ‘hardluck outfit’, and though his men adore him, his leadership style simplyisn’t working. He is treating discipline too lightly and driving himselftoo hard. "Over-identification with his men," is how Brigadier Frank Savagedefines it. Savage (Gregory Peck) is a good, kind man with an excellentservice record, and when davenport is stood down, command of the 918thpasses to him.

Things change instantly. Savage roasts a sentry as he enters the basebecause the sentry did not scrutinize his papers closely enough. From nowon, the 918th will be committed to ‘maximum effort’. Daylight bombing mightwin the war, and Savage isn’t going to allow any failure. In the scenewhere he tears into Ben Gateley (Hugh Marlowe) for being a slack officer,Savage’s stillness is awesome. He has the might of the Air Force behindhim, and he knows it.

Harvey Stovell is the adjutant, and the spiritual barometer of theentire Bomb Group. Genial, wise Harvey (Dean Jagger) was a country lawyerback in peacetime, and as he draws on his pipe we can sense his emotionalbalance and homespun goodness. Like the men, Harvey had a deep affectionfor Davenport. He bristles at the methods of the new commander, butgradually learns to trust Savage and to work with him. He delays transferrequests in order to buy time for Savage, and because Harvey is ouryardstick of human decency, we respect Savage along withhim.

Some minor quibbles may be cited. Listening on the wireless to theBenedict Arnold of World War Two, Lord Haw Haw, was a serious criminaloffence. Would USAAF officers allow the broadcast to wash over them socasually? Did Brigadier Generals REALLY pilot bombers on daylight raids, asSavage does? It is hard to believe that senior officers stowed away oncombat missions at all, let alone with the frequency suggestedhere.

The airborne sequences are great, making clever use of real-lifenewsreel footage. Gregory Peck is marvellous as the strong man whoeventually begins to crack. His attempt to stifle tears, and his falteringfailure to haul himself into the bomber are very moving. The violence ofwar has ravaged his leadership qualities, and this is symbolised by thebackdraft of the propellors sweeping away his cap. Our relief when theengines stop is a clever comment on the air crews’ battlefatigue.

The film opens with a woollen-suited Harvey cycling through peacefulEnglish countryside. The war has been over for some years, and Harvey isrevisiting his old airfield. We see the runway, hear an ominous chord inthe incidental music, and then the roar of the engines. We have beenwhisked effortlessly back to 1943, and Harvey is now in uniform. Thisvisual elegance is symptomatic of a well-made, intelligent piece of cinema.

The core of this movie is the testing of the leadership of a bombingsquadron. The first commander, Keith Davenport, shows too much empathyforthe men, coming off as a chronic whining enabler. The second commander,Frank Savage (Gregory Peck), is aptly named. He is a no-nonsense,no-excuses, get-the-job-done kind of guy. The most interesting parts ofthemovie are the vintage aerial war footage and, more importantly, Savage’sinteractions with his men and his struggles to find the right balance ofleadership discipline and sympathy.

Maj. Harvey Stovall (Dean Jagger) is the adjutant (paper-pusher) for thecommander, and is a warm counterpoint to Savage’s sternness. He providesthe human bridge to the men that Savage needs. The movie begins and endswith a scene of him after the war, but these scenes add almost nothing tothe plot and should have been deleted since the movie runs a bit too long(2hours, 12 minutes).

I found the acting to be theatrical, as was common at the time of thefilming (1949), but wore well once I grew accustomed to it. Conversationsbetween characters seemed forced sometimes in order to abbreviate them (atleast once ending with `Well, that’s that,’ as if that could end most anyconversation). Despite these caveats, the acting was generally verystrong,particularly by Gregory Peck and Dean Jagger.

A good film, but not the best. "The Sand Pebbles" (1966), whileoccurring in 1926, is a WW II movie and far superior to "Twelve O’ClockHigh." "Pebbles" examines the nature of men under impossible stress,leadership in a crisis situation, the meaning of being part of a combatunit, and much more. It also shows that even good people can fail. It’sa WW II movie in that it examines forces that bring about WW II just 13years later. Also, as a Navy vet, I find "Pebbles" far more watchablethan the Hollywoodized "Twelve."

I recall seeing this film as a boy when it was first shown, it alwaysremained in my mind as a classic in every sense.

Seeing it in DVD form again only reinforced my original impression.

However, it was interesting to note that despite having expert BomberGroup advisers (see credits) the sequences showing the Luftwaffeattacks on the formations containing about 50% shots of P47Thunderbolts and Spitfires! This is a common weakness with Hollywoodproduced films and WW2 DVD's even to the present day.

I only hope that Peter Jacksons upcoming "Dam Busters" can focus onthis problem maybe by including the "experts" also in the cutting roomactivity.

Prior to the establishment of the United States Air Force in 1947,there was the Army Air Corps. This film tells a stirring story ofcombat in World War II by these brave airmen who were called upon toperform heroic missions.

Darryl F. Zanuck's film was characterized by outstanding performancesby Dean Jagger, who won an Oscar for his performance; and by Oscarwinner (To Kill a Mockingbird) Gregory Peck, who played the Generalresponsible for whipping a broken-down unit into shape and turning theminto a fighting machine.

Super war movie.

The flying fortress rules. Intense footage of actual WWII air battles.Gregory Peck plays a bomber-group commander sent to shape up a tired,overworked and hard luck group of flyers. The stress, strain and sacrificeof military command provides thick drama. The brave flyers of the 8th AirForce gained acclaim for their daylight low flying bombing raids overGermany.

A very strong cast featuring: Gary Merrill, Dean Jagger, Paul Stewart, JohnKellogg and Robert Patten.

A war topic that has never been given a whole lot of air time is the rolethat the Army Air Corps had in World War II. "12 O’Clock High" is a rarefilm that deals with this subject and does so in a good way, but the filmdrags a little too much during its 132-minute running time to be completelysuccessful in the end. Gregory Peck (Oscar-nominated) is sent in to trainand teach a group of rag-tag fighter pilots that have lost their patrioticdrive. Dean Jagger (Oscar-winning) is the most solid part of the film asPeck’s right-hand man. Real archive footage from actual air combat was usedduring some of the dogfight sequences. Not a bad film at all, but still afilm that never does excite or in
trigue the way it should. Just as tiring asit is interesting in spots. 4 stars out of 5.

How can you tell the difference between this and Command Decision? Verysimilar plots and psychology!

Personally, I believe this to be more gripping and better acted. Ofcourse,I like this cast over those in "Command Decision" Gergory Peck isimpeccable [wink], as usual!

A classic WWII air war flick filmed in 1949 starring Gregory Peck as acolonel chosen to rescue a floundering bomber wing after relieving theformer commander. He struggles to win the approval of men loyal totheir previous commanding officer, a friend whom Peck relieved onorders from a general dissatisfied with poor results. Peck achievessuccess against the German enemy and deals with the air corps drive for"maximum effort"–partly an experiment to find out how much stresspilots can take before cracking. The venue is an American airfield inEngland during the early days of U.S. involvement before airsuperiority was established and while B-17 losses were high.

Outstanding performances by Dean Jagger as the adjutant/ground exec(for which he won a best supporting actor Oscar) and Hugh Marlowe asthe deadbeat son and grandson of distinguished generals round out aterrific cast. The movie is unsullied by spurious love interest or poppsychiatry. Peck drives his men with single-minded determination untilthe limits he seeks to explore confront him. The performances are sonuanced and powerful I never tire of watching this movie.

read comments (0)

Nora inu

My favorite Kurosawa/Mifune collaboration! Consistently fascinatingtreasure hunt. In this case the treasure is a gun. The hunters are adesperate rookie detective and his seasoned superior. So many memorablescenes that I cannot include them all. Mifune’s walk through the slums isone of the best montages ever filmed. The music is wonderful. You will seemany pre-Rashomon moments here. The dinner scene between Mifune and Shimurais beautiful in its simplicity! The last twenty minutes of the film slowlybuilds to an incredible climax! I think Mifune and Shimura were the bestacting duo in cinema history. This film proves it! It is really too badthat this film is so unknown. Along with Rashomon and Seven Samurai thisranks as Kurosawa’s best!

Stray Dog (1949, Kurosawa) ***** (of *****) You can say one of my worstcharacter traits is how protective I am of my things. In "Stray Dog",this is one of Murukami’s (Toshirô Mifune) worst traits as well, or atleast the one that ends up getting him in the most trouble. The premiseof Stray Dog is simple – Murukami is a rookie cop who loses his gun. Hedoes what he believes is the honorable thing to do, he goes after hisgun. He searches through the underbelly of Japan for his gun, and comesacross an arms dealer. Around the same time, a crime is committed withMurukami’s gun. Murukami’s mentor and partner, Sato (played by anotherKurosawa regular, Takashi Shimura) continues with Murukami on hispursuit of the killer who has his gun. "Stray Dog" is, in my opinion,one of the finest film noir’s ever made. The film takes place rightafter WW2, and the cynicism and nihilism of the Japanese is showcasedhere to a degree which cannot be replicated.

I love the little things in Kurosawa’s films, and "Stray Dog" is nodifferent. The scene where Murukami is traveling through theblack-market looking for his gun, there is no dialogue for about8-minutes all you see is Kurosawa’s beautiful noir-ish photography, butthat’s enough for me. In a shot that actually pre-dates Kurosawa’s"Rashomon" by one year; the camera looks up at the rafters, as the sunpours through. This scene reminded me of a scene in one of my all-timefavorite films, "Treasure of the Sierra Madre", where Fred C. Dobbs(Humphrey Bogart) is traveling through Tampico, Mexico looking formoney, food, and shelter. A moment in which viewers would be turned offby such deliberate pacing is a scene Which takes place in an almostsplit-screen fashion while Sato is in a hotel, and the killer islurking nearby. Without giving anything away, the scene is verysuspenseful, but also very drawn-out. Personally, I had absolutely noproblems with this scene, but Kurosawa drags many of his scenes in thefilm out that if it were a second longer, it would be ridiculous*.Although the film is 122 minutes, it didn’t drag whatsoever, it is veryinvolving. Another comparison I made between this film and another isMichael Mann’s latest film, "Collateral". In "Collateral", Tom Cruiseplays a hit-man who is obsessed with getting his job done and doing itright. In a way, the characteristics or Murakami and his obsessionsover the gun is similar to that of Cruise. This is shown in the fightat the end, and after Murukami gets shot, how he holds onto his gun fordear life, as if it were a child.

Another thing that I really like about the film is how the killer’sface isn’t shown until the end of the film, right before the superbclimax. All of the performances are top-notch, especially Mifune asMurukami who is possessive, obsessive, and confused. Shimura is alsovery good in the film, as always. His character is very knowledgeableand has the honor that Mifune’s character is trying to attain bycatching the killer and getting his gun back. The end of the film(without giving anything away) establishes a message that Kurosawawould later explore in "Rashomon". The message is that killers andcops, rich and poor, and other polar opposites are all the same in theend, because in the end, they are all still human.

Stray Dog is Kurosawa’s second best film (My personal favorite is"Throne of Blood"), one of the best noir films ever made, and one ofthe best films ever made, period. Highly recommended.

*Stephen Prince mentioned something to the effect of this on the "StrayDog: The Criterion Collection" DVD audio commentary.

I just finished watching the Criterion edition of Akira Kurosawa's"Stray Dog," and I honestly cannot think of a better thing to say than,"Oh, my God!" This movie, clocking in at just over two hours, somesmerized me with its story, naturalistic acting and technique, Ihonestly did not notice the time. And when it was over, I was drained.

The story is simple — a rookie detective's pistol is stolen from himand, as he frantically tries to track it down, winds up being used incrimes that grow more and more violent. Sounds like the kind of thingtossed off every week in one of the "Law & Order" series or any otherfake police drama on TV. But the way Kurosawa and his co-writer, RyuzoKikushima, take this story and layer in shame and guilt andresponsibility and reality and acceptance and understanding and pityand anything else you can consider a decent human emotion isbreathtaking. Try finding anything like THAT on "CSI" or "SVU".

As Murakami, the rookie, Toshiro Mifune internalizes his usualintensity and lets his eyes and expressions convey his growing sense ofshame and horror when his pistol is used first in a robbery and thenagain in an even worse crime. As his mentor, Det. Sato, Takashi Shimuraoffers a gentle honesty and low-key approach to life that is nottempered by any pity for the criminals; he even tells Murakami that hehates them…and says it so simply, it's like it's the most naturalthing in the world. The bond that grows between these two men…thechemistry between them…is the heart and soul of the movie, but theincidental characters are just as important. A pickpocket who feelspity for Murakami and brings him a beer and some food. A young showgirlwho just wants something pretty in her life. A poverty-stricken sisterworried about her brother. A gun dealer who loves baseball. A hotelowner with the hots for one of his maids. All add to the tapestry ofTokyo in the immediate post-war period and expand upon the emotion ofthe piece.

Add to this Kurosawa's already masterful technique and sense ofstorytelling, and you have a thriller more gripping and involving thanjust about anything churned out by today's Hollywood (the "Bourne…"series excepted). The closest American film I can think of that evenbegins to approach this movie's combination of an honest, tediouscriminal investigation and real human emotion is "The Naked City",which was made in 1948. And that movie still had its "Hollywood-ish"elements in the home scenes with Don Taylor's detective.

"Stray Dog" isn't just a movie; it's like a Ferrari that seems tomerely purr as you drive it…until you look at the speedometer andrealize you're doing 110. On top of this, the Criterion edition of themovie has a wonderful documentary about the making of the film. Watchthe show, first, then watch the documentary to savor it. It's totallyworth the ticket.

Stray Dog together with Rashomon are the two films that boosted Kurosawainto international popularity as a great filmmaker.

Murakami (Toshiro Mifune) is a young police detective. One day during acrowded bus ride, he realizes that his pistol has been stolen. He soonbecomes obsessed with finding the pistol and feels especially guilty afterhe finds out that it has been used to commit multiple murders. He makes ithis duty to track down the thief and along with his partner (TakashiShimura)they realize that the case is far more complicated than theythought.

The plot is extrem
ely well crafted and ranks up there with the best filmnoir. But the film is uneven at parts and some scenes drag a little toolong. The film is well worth your time though, and offers an early glimpseat the amazing technique that dominated Kurosawa’s laterfilms.

This is a gritty, seedy, film noir that can be ranked with the bestAmericanNoirs from the 40s. It is interesting for many reasons:

the post-war Japanese mind-set of the characters.

A handsome young Mifune(but already very good at seething,glowering, and ranting:"WEAR THE DRESS!")

The plot that parallels the cop with the killer, psychologically.It’s very well done.

Visually rich. Location shots, tracking shots, compositions, allverynice.

I liked this one more than "Throne of Blood" but I’m a big Noir fan.Thereare some scenes that go on too long, and the first half is a bit slow. Butthe last 20 minutes are perfectly orchestrated, with beautiful tighteditingand small visual touches. The final meeting between the cop & criminal atthe train station is a classic sequence.

Even with some very slow bits in this film, I still have to say it is mysecond favorite film by Kurosawa (after Seven Samurai, of course). Scenesand dialogue in this film just stick with you, like when a youngpickpocketis sharing a popsicle in a police interrogation room with streetwise andexperienced Inspector Sato (played by one of my favorite actors, TakhashiShimura). They seem, strangely, to be enjoying themselves. But then Satogives the girl a cigarette and she sucks on it as if her last breath wascoming, smoking almost the whole cigarette in 30 seconds. The tensionthatpours out of the girl in that scene is incredible. Shimura and Mifune asthe wise, old cop and the young, earnest rookie are absolutely convincingand completely mesmerizing. The streetwise petty criminals that they meetpaint such a vivid picture of post war Tokyo that you feel the heat andchoke in the dust with them.

Straw Dog is another excellent film from Kurosawa. It deals with the guilt,and obsessive search, by a young detective, for his missing revolver. Withthis search Kurosawa explores the post WWII environment in Japan. This is aterrific multi-layered film well worth watching.

WOW!!! This film noir by Kurosawa is just breathtaking. I am surprisedthismovie isn’t well known like ‘Yojimbo’ and ‘Rashomon’ because this one isjust as good as both. Mifune is just a delight to watch in this moviewherehis feeling of responsibility is just eating him alive. The feeling of notbeing able to do anything has rarely been acted out better than Mifunedoeshere.

Overall, a very good movie and a must see in my opinion if not only fortheending. The ending is just a visual piece of brilliance.

A lot of people know a lot more about the films of Kurosawa than me, somaybe they explain why the brilliant ‘Stray Dog’ is so underrated, becauseit baffles me! Mifune plays a young and idealistic policeman who has his gunstolen by a pick pocket. He fails ashamed and then guilty when it looks likehis weapon has been used in a crime. He and his older and more experiencepartner try and hunt down the killer before he kills again. This fascinatingmovie works as a crime thriller, an interesting character study, and as athought provoking tour through the seedy underbelly of post War Japan,something I hadn’t seen on screen before. The acting is uniformly excellent,but Mifune really stands out, which is to be expected. ‘Stray Dog’ deservesto be mentioned in the same breath as Kurosawa classics like ‘Rashomon’ and’Throne Of Blood’, and alongside such American crime dramas as ‘Out Of ThePast’, ‘The Asphalt Jungle’, ‘The Killing’. It’s that good. Highlyrecommended!

This is one of the early movies in the long career of Akira Kurosawa and abrilliant movie nonetheless. This movie can be considered the first of theJapanese police dramas. The main topic of the movie seems to be post WorldWar II Japan. The movie deals with the similarities and difference betweenthe cop and the crook. They are very similar in background (both wereveterans of the war, both had their satchels stolen), yet ended up onopposite sides of the law. Kurosawa is showing the effects of the war onJapan. Where some steal and take the criminal way out to survive, otherssurvive by doing what is right (and harder - as characterized by Harumi’sspeech to Murakami about the dress from Yusa). Even in this world, thecriminal is not truly ruthless. Kurosawa accurately captures the feel ofpostwar Japan, by actually filming in its locations (when Toshiro Mifunetravels through the market - those are actual shots of the black markets invarious cities). So dangerous it was to shoot there in fact, that the "feet"of Murakami were actually a body double (or foot double) for Toshiro Mifune.Kurosawa uses the actors that he uses in so many classic movies - ToshiroMifune (a breakout role for Mifune, who had been typecast as a yakuza in hismovie roles thus far), Takashi Shumura (Detective Sato) and the first movieappearance for Minoru Chiaki. This movie starts out rather slowly in theprogression of the action (Murakami’s gun is stolen on a bus - revealed in aflashback to a superior), but picks up quickly once the Sato is assigned tohelp Murakami. This movie is recommended to any fan of the Japanese cinema,of Kurasawa, and of the police drama.

read comments (0)

Kind Hearts and Coronets

I can’t say I hated it, but I found it an extremely lame and tired attemptat wit. It tries so damned hard to be clever, but never succeeds. Thebiggest obstacle is the main character and the actor who plays him, DennisPrice. I can’t think of a more boring protagonist in any film I’ve everseen. He’s so dull he almost put me to sleep. And the gimmick of multipleroles with Alec Guinness. It should have worked; I think Guinness could havedone wonders with his eight parts. But no, his segments are so thinlywritten that all eight roles are imminently forgettable. I mean, the veryfunny picture of Guinness in a dress for the one female role he plays iscompletely squandered. Not only does Lady Agatha D’Ascoyne get a mere oneminute on screen, she doesn’t even get a single line! If it weren’t enoughthat Alec Guinness is wasted eight times over, the wonderful Valerie Hobsonis equally wasted. The sole performer who pulls off their role is JoanGreenwood, and even she’s not great. I seriously cannot see how people findthis movie worthwhile. 5/10.

This is revered as one of the Ealing greats. So I have to say whilstenjoying, applauding and admiring it; it didn’t quite live up to the hype.It takes ages to get going, will bring a smile rather than achuckle.

Is it perhaps Guiness’ acting that deserves the merit? "The Ladykillers"itis not.

I think this film is highly overrated on this site. Unlike the LavendarHill Mob or even Ladykillers this one isn’t very humorous. Alec Guiness isin much less of the movie then I expected (especially since he is like 8different characters). Several reviews found him to be "hilarious", but heis hardly that. I guess a few of the characters were funny, like theGeneral but are hardly given enough screen time to do anything. There arelots of scenes with the main character courting one of the two ladies withabsolutely nothing humorous going on. This isn’t an awful film, and I kindof liked the story, but it could have been a lot better. They should havejust done away with the pointless and unfunny romance scenes and lengethendthe murders and given Guiness more screen time. If you want to see a funnyAlec Guiness movie, I recommend the Lavendar Hill Mob.

Zoopansick

These little projects are worth watching just to see what gimmicks arepulled to breathe life into what otherwise would be fairly minorcharms.

In this case we have one actor (not a great one) playing all themurdered people. We have a double blackmail plot and we have thegimmick that attracts me: The story is presented as a book that is readas it is written about past events. We see those events in a slightlycomic telling.

Then the movie ends. Except the hero walks away from the book which nowwill factor in the story that follows what we see, and we know it willbe his undoing.

There is nothing along the way other than this.

It still is the case that the financiers of a movie will base the wholething on a few gimmicks like this and assume that with moderate qualityelsewhere it will pass. Comedy is particularly prone to this problem.

The reason such a thing happens is not because how films are financed.I thought it would be thus, because financiers need a few phrases onwhich to bet the farm. But I discovered that the studios at least hadpeople with pretty deep awareness of the whole composition and why itmight work.

No, I discovered, these gimmicks come from the shorthand used tocoordinate all the players and the artistic team. Its what Spielbergcalls the concept, sometimes the high concept. If you can say somethingabout a movie in a few words, then that becomes the movie.

Ted’s Evaluation — 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

This comedy is not as funny as it could have been. It has all theingredients, a nice black comedy situation - eight much talked about AlecGuinness’ - he’s good in his eight parts, and very subtly creates thedifferent characters delightfully, in the twenty screen seconds they eachhave. But its generally a wasted opportunity - this is no Dr Strangelove orNutty Professor.

Generally, this comedy doesn’t seem to know how to work through the comicsituations to the upmost. It just goes through the Alec Guiness relativesone after the other till they’re all dead - three or four who drop off oftheir own volition! Why waste the opportunity to get good scenes from them?It worked for variety, but it didn’t minimise the very fragmented, episodicfeel of this film. It doesn’t really all hang together.

The leading man should be better to watch. Your eyes should zip to him, asthey do to Alec Guinness, not feel like you have no-one better to watchbecause he’s onscreen so often.

2/5.

I like this movie. It is mildly amusing. It would be hard to hate it…but given the outrageous premise, it should be hysterical. The decisionto use narration to advance the plot supplies a few laughs, butgenerally drains the movie of its energy and forward momentum. This isnot a failure on my part to understand dry humor; I adore and live byit, offline. For the first hour the tone is rather unfunny (It explainstoo much plot via narration) and some of Price's victims are rathernice people. Although I can imagine it plays differently in a moviehouse, for home viewing it's more of a curio. This is more like aslightly funny Romantic novel filmed (Imagine Great Expectations withmore humor) rather than a rollicking black comedy.

Dennis Price made me mindful of how few young, attractive Britishactors make it into their films. There seems to be some sort of systemto insure that only average looking, doughy, phlegmatic men over 40ascend.

Guinness is funny even without too many lines. I wish the plot hadencompassed the daily news' reaction to so many deaths in a singlelineage. Surely, the trend would be noticed. This is my 3rd JoanGreenwood movie. I find her to be a rather annoying actress. For mymoney The Ruling Class is much, much funnier.

I finally saw this "classic" and was hugely disappointed. Thephotography is excellent and some of the actors (Greenwood, Guinness,Price - in that order) are good, but there are two major problems.First, this is supposed to be a comedy but I smiled only once: whenLouis, after several murders, reluctantly has to go hunting and tellsthe viewer that he disapproves of bloodsports because of hisprinciples. Second, the story is just not interesting. This is mainlybecause there is not a single character whose fate I could care about.The victims are only caricatures, and Louis is such a bore that I soonkept hoping that they would hang him and get the film over with.

This is not the first time a supposed Ealing classic has left me stonecold. I also found "Whisky Galore", "The Lavender Hill Mob" and "TheLadykillers" almost totally unfunny. I know that this could cause me tobe refused to ever enter Britain again, but such is life.

The first thing that struck me about this movie - which was one ofseveral Ealing Comedies that are currently being given away with aNational newspaper - was its similarity to Sascha Guitry's Le Romand'un tricheur; Guitry is writing his memoirs at a cafe table ratherthan a prison cell and one of the earliest is how he unwittingly wipedout his entire family, who ate poisoned mushrooms en masse afterbanishing him from the dining table as a punishment for some minor sin.Louis Mazzini (Denis Price) on the other hand sets out to eliminate themembers of a family that stand between him and a title with thecold-blooded calculation of Richard, Duke of York - another work fromwhich it borrows. On the whole it stands up reasonably well, muchbetter than another recent giveaway, Brighton Rock, which has agedbadly. It is replete with typically 'English' touches such as MilesMalleson's hangman enquiring in all seriousness of t
he prison governor(Clive Morton) how he (the hangman) should address the titled victimwhen they meet formally just prior to the execution and then, havingbeen told 'Your Grace', walking away repeating this to himself completewith the pertinent obsequious gestures. Denis Price captures the rightnote, a blend of impeccable manners and ruthless cunning but most ofthe parts played by Alec Guiness lack diversity with nothing, forexample, coming even close the complete unrecognisable quality hebrought to Fagin within a year of shooting this one. On balance a verypassable effort but one that may not stand up to repeated viewings.

Sitting in his cell with an 8am death sentence awaiting him, LouisMazzini decides to write his story to last after he is gone. His storystarts with his mother marrying outside of her class by going with anItalian singer (who dies on Louis’ birth). With her money all gone, MrsMazzini decides to appeal to her relatives in the D’Ascoyne family –who reject her without reply. With her birthright denied she schoolsher son in her family tree in the hope that he will someday gain hisinheritance. When she dies suddenly, her only wish is to be buried inthe family plot – a wish that is denied, enraging Louis. Selecting theliving members of the D’Ascoyne family, Louis decides to kill them oneby one in revenge.

It is a shame that this film has slowly started to be lost to modernaudiences and is not as highly regarded by younger viewers as it is byolder ones (look at the voting history for IMDb – not proof but anindication). The reason for this in my mind is that this is not arip-roaringly hilarious comedy that will have you rolling in the aislesbut one that is dark, clever and wonderfully droll. The script isdripping in humour but it is the drip of bile and blood – a very cruelhumour that is as deadly as an assassin. The plot is pretty simple andit’s main thrust works very well. The only bum note is Louis’relationship with Sibella, which serves to slow the film down a littlebit and take away from the slick pace that it manages to have for mostof it’s scenes. For audiences who expect a comedy to have them laughingevery 30 seconds, this film will be an enigma – where are the laughsthey will shout, where is the comedy? It is likely that those thatwould say this would be unlikely to come to such an ‘old’ film but itis sad that they will likely not have the patience to see the beauty inthe film. To me the humour of the film seeps from every pore – it is inthe droll dialogue and in the absurdities of the characters.

Of course this film would not have been so good were it not for twofantastic performances from two actors who totally ‘got’ the film’ssense of humour and deliver their characters absolutely spot on to makethe humour work. Although he is naturally overlooked in favour of hisco-star, Price is great (and also plays more than one character). Hehas to carry the less showy side of the film (ie his plot with Sibella)but his delivery is great both in performance and in his drollnarration. He could have played it up for laughs but, as I say, heunderstood the humour and delivered accordingly. Guinness is simplybrilliant. Some of his roles are very small (the Admiral for example)and others are rather ordinary but others are wonderfully absurd and hedelivers them perfectly. His Parson is my favourite character as he isthe most obviously absurd and enjoyable. His delivery of them all isgreat – very different characters even if most of them do lookunmistakably like Guinness himself.

Overall this is a marvelously classy film that will still be a greatfilm no matter how much the tastes of a modern audience plummet belowthe patience that the film requires to enjoy it. The script is darklyhumorous – dripping in dark humour throughout (albeit with few actuallaugh-out-loud moments). The two leads are wonderful and theirperformances show a real understanding of the film’s aims. It is sadthat this is not shown more on television – a fact that may be due tothe use of the n-word several times in the final 10 minutes rather thananything else.

*spoilaz* Alec Guiness is Louis Mazzini, son of a would-be countess, whosearistocratic family disowned her for eloping with an opera singer. Louis’father dies shortly after his mother gives birth. As a result, he grows upwatching her struggle sending him to school with the little money they have,and comes to learn of the Duke title that is rightfully his, but out ofreach. He’s young, ready to get revenge, and has the brains to manage it,too. Louis is also somewhat of a jigelow. The whole movie hints around athim having an affair with a attractive childhood beau perhaps even formoney. Generally speaking, he goes out and KILLS EVERY RELATIVE in his wayfor succession. In an ironic turn of events, he attains dukedom but is thenarrested for the one murder he did not committ! This was really bleak, darkhumor but I was drawn in. You’ll love the ending. I like to think he wentback into the jail and salvaged the diary. But we’ll neverknow.

read comments (0)

All the King’s Men

This Oscar-winning screen adaptation of the Pulitzer-Prize-winningRobert Penn Warren novel feels oddly truncated, like director RobertRossen filmed a much longer movie, and then an unqualified editorhacked it down to the movie we see. The pacing is off, scenes feel cutshort and much of it is confusing, as if there are elements missing. Itdoesn't come close to capturing the greatness of the novel, and it'sone of the weakest films to win the Best Picture Academy Award fromthat time period.

Broderick Crawford makes a fine Willie Stark, though, I'll give thefilm that. He's all bluster and hot-headed arrogance, just what thecharacter calls for. John Ireland does fine with the role of JackBurden, but the character itself is minimized. The book is really moreabout Jack than Willie, but the film doesn't give Jack much of acharacter arc, and he feels decidedly supporting. Mercedes McCambridgenabs the role of a lifetime playing Sadie Burke, perhaps one of themost colorful female characters ever put to paper. Here again, themovie doesn't begin to make use of her character like the book does. Ituses the elements of her character that are necessary for the plot, butleaves behind everything else—the more human dimensions of Sadie, andher own moral crises, are lost.

Overall I thought this was a tepid and forgettable movie based on alandmark and compulsively readable book. If you avoid this oneentirely, you won't be missing anything.

Grade: C

It's one thing to come up with a great title and quite another to writea novel that lives up to it and Robert Penn Warren more than succeededwith his Pulitzer Prize winner All The King's Men; it's possible thatnot too many people in England were aware that Huey Pierce Long wasalso known as the 'Kingfish' and that one of his most potent sloganswas 'every man a king' but even so the notion of a Humpty Dumpty figurefalling from a great height and being unmendable was still a greatmetaphor bearing in mind that the 'men' in question were Long's closecircle of powerful friends. Robert Rossen was able to extract the juiceof this great novel albeit condensing its richness and he was wellserved by an exceptional cast from Brod Crawford down; Bilko fans, forexample, will relish Paul Ford, albeit uncredited, in a 'straight' roleand mediocre actors like John Ireland, Shepherd Strudwick and JoanneDru (Mrs John Ireland) all did their best work here but ultimately itis Crawford's charismatic role that carries all before it. Don't evenconsider the trashy remake.

All the kings men was a good case study in how politics often works intoday’s world, rightly or wrongly. Willie Stark was your average rural Joein a southern state who didn’t like the way that politicians lied to thepeople. Willie thought that there must be a way to hold political officewithout all the lies and scandals that go with it. Willie Stark ending upbecoming what he had originally campaigned against.

This 1949 film shows how little has changed in politics over the last 50years. It does a good job with the character changes in Willie Stark overtime and with the people around him. A pretty good film tosee.

Spoilers herein.

As a film, this is something that hasn’t aged well. The variouselements, especially the acting, now seem dated and… well, lousy. Inits day we overlooked all its shortcomings because it was grand andrelevant and seemingly true.

That political sweep still resonates. But I suspect that where the filmreflected political reality, it and its siblings now create politicalreality. And thats what makes this worth watching because the focus onthe story is politics as theater.

Its not just simple theater where an illusion is created that seemsreal. This is a reality that is drawn out of the viewers. Our hucksterliterally says you’re hicks and I’m a hick too. It is a very cleverform of theater that works best in politics. I’m writing this beforethe 2004 presidential election in the US.

One politician in that race (Bush) is a privileged son from NewEngland. Went to Yale. Tapped by Skull and Bones.

Yet he affects a Texas drawl and a manner that says, I’m a hick withthe implication that I’m you. Worked for him once at least.

Ted’s Evaluation — 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

I decided to watch this movie after reading and enjoying the RobertPenn Warren novel on which it was based. As a companion piece to thebook the film inevitably disappoints, but taken on its own terms it's afairly good movie. Both book and film tell the story of Willie Stark, aman who begins as an idealistic, rural lawyer crusading againstpolitical corruption in his (unspecified) state, but only gains powerafter he turns into a cynical demagogue, as seen through the eyes ofJack Burden, the black sheep of a wealthy family, a former reporter,and Stark's right-hand man. The difference is in the emphasis; thebook's focus is really on Burden, and his moral development as seen inrelation to the polar opposition of the pragmatic, Machiavellian Starkand the unbending, idealistic doctor Adam Stanton. Of course, Burden'smoral struggles take place largely in his own mind, and as such don'tlend themselves easily to filming. Probably sensibly, the movie choosesto focus mainly on Stark's political rise and moral decline, withBurden's role reduced to more of an audience surrogate than a characterin his own right. No one in the cast sounds very Southern, giving themovie a somewhat timeless, disassociated feeling. Still, the filmmakersconvincingly evoke a world of back –country towns and back roompolitics, with little of the glamor associated with Hollywood films ofthis period. The performers are excellent, if also fairly vague interms of background. Broderick Crawford's Stark is convincing both as anaive country lawyer and a cynical demagogue, and John Irelandeffectively portrays the moral struggles of Jack Burden. MercedesMcCambridge, who I'd previously seen in the unlikely role of a lesbianMexican gang member in Touch of Evil, is more ideally cast here asStark's tough-minded adviser Sadie Burke. Warren claimed that the bookwas partly inspired by the similarities he saw between Huey Long andMussolini. Understandably for a post-WWII movie, Rossen's adaptationpumps up the references to fascism and makes Stark a much moreclear-cut villain. He has his own private army of black-shirt style,leather jacket-wearing cops, stages a political rally that looks like asmall-scale version of Nuremberg, and by the end is even revealed tohave ordered an assassination. Unfortunately, Rossen's changesoversimplify the book and greatly reduce the impact of Stark's climaticassassination by Adam Stanton, which Warren intended as a tragic clashof opposites, but becomes here a simple case of a tyrant getting hisjust deserts. Though the movie tries to deal with the issues ofpragmatism versus idealism, it too easily dismisses the representativeof idealism out of hand. The novel's Stark was not an admirable man,but he also could not be completely dismissed- by Burden or by thereader- in the context of a state hopelessly mired in corruption.Still, I don't want to completely dismiss the movie, which on its ownterms is an effective political drama that successfully captures thesmoky back-room atmosphere of old-time American politics.

I have not read Robert Penn Warren’s novel so my only knowledge is this filmthat I first saw several years ago and then recently saw again on VHS. Inmy view, it’s good and holds your attention and makes sense. But you’llprobably have to find domestic American politics interesting to enjoy it. The old-style movie-making and the side-romances won’t be enough to sustaininterest otherwise. If you know who Huey Long was - or better GeorgeWallace - or best of all, you know Broderick Crawford’s nose and intens
evoice, then this film will be a gem.

I liked the cars in this movie, and the scenes around tables, and theportrayal of ordinary hicks. The politicos always seemed to be taking aswig out of a flask. More seriously, the role of Sadie was more strikingthan the roles of women in most films today. Find me, in a modern film, acynical woman who is not self-absorbed.

With a different, more sophisticated take on ambiguity, ‘Primary Colors’covers similar territory. (The author of Primary Colors clearly copiedWarren.) But I appreciated the post-war moral clarity of ‘All the King’sMen’. Incidentally, the film ‘Blaze’ with Paul Newman as Earl Long is wortha peek too for fun. Finally, Woodstein’s book "All the President’s Men"derives its title from this book and film. Curious now? Well, rent, watchand enjoy.

All the King’s Men depicts what can happen in America if a despotseizes power.

This is just the case as Willie, fantastically played by BroderickCrawford, shows.

Willie runs for governor. As a small town hick, uneducated and uncouth,Stark is taught how to read by the lady who he eventually marries, AnnSeymour. Their son is a young John Derek in a memorable performance.Willie loses the race, but exclaims, 4 years later, that this time heknows how to win. Win he does, but corruption ensues.

Quickly losing the respect of his wife,his son is paralyzed in a wildcar crash. Willie starts drinking and drinking heavily. He will smashanything in his path.

When the town judge poses a threat to him, Willie is able to findinformation that leads the judge to commit suicide.

Mercedes McCambridge plays the unbalanced Sadie, a reporter, whobecomes close, very close to Gov. Willie.

Crawford and McCambridge both won well deserved Oscars. Crawford wouldwin for best actor. McCambridge was voted best supporting actress forher first film. Her win was made even easier by the nature of herrivals for Oscar- the 2 Ethels, Barrymore and Waters for Pinky andCeleste Holm and Elsa Lanchester, both for Come to the Stable.

All the King’s Men is based upon the life of Louisiana’s Huey Long, aman who would have challenged FDR for the Democratic nomination forpresident in 1936, had he not been assassinated in 1935.

This film, with its exciting climax, should be viewed by all to see theimpact of demagoguery in the U.S.

I never saw this until today on AMC. What a fantastic story about howpowercorrupts. Loosely based on the Governor of Louisiana, Huey Long. it holdsyour interest with a bang, and the acting is so superb and the drama ofhowand why such things could happen with corrupt society, etc. Such fineacting by Broderick Crawford, John Ireland, John Derek and many others;fantastic crowd scenes, and great musical background. The only criticismIhave is that the soundtrack didn’t always fit the mouths of the actors;likesomething slipped or sound was dubbed. I give it 8/10.

This is a fine adaptation of Robert Penn Warren’s novel based on thecareerof Louisiana’s Huey Long. It is one of Hollywood’s sharpest challenges tothe hypocrisy of politics. Its fast-paced language and hard-nosed actionkeep the viewer constantly engaged.

Power corrupts and politics is Power. That's the message of this film.Robert Penn Warren wrote the novel in the 30's, the movie was made inthe 40's, and here it is 50 years later and the message is just as truethen as it is now. Clinton selling pardons to raise money for hispresidential library - and his long line of cheap floosies. Pickanother politician, one you don't like, same story.

However, this movie has another message, stated by the corruptpolitician himself: out of evil comes good. That truth is the onlything that makes Democracy work. Even while Broderick Crawford'scharacter was corrupt, Nixonian corruption – selling out to protect hisown power, he still kept his promises: roads, schools, hospitals. Hestrong armed and blackmailed but he got them built.

Yeah, Democracy is ugly, but no uglier than the human clay it is madeout of. As Churchill said, 'Democracy is the worst form of allgovernments – except for everything else.' Sadly, 50 years from nowsomeone could again watch this picture and still see their own societymirrored in its images. Thankfully, it will still be a great film withsolid performances across the board, fast pacing and good writing.There's no wasted motion in this picture.

Hopefully, 50 years from now, good will still come out of evil.However, there is one other truth: if there is too much evil……no goodwill come out of it. Let's hope there's never too much of it here inAmerica……

read comments (0)

Adam’s Rib

ADAM’S RIB is probably the most well-known of the nine Tracy/Hepburn films(with, perhaps, the exception of Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner). It starsSpencer Tracy as Adam Bonner, and Katharine Hepburn as hisalliteratively-named wife, Amanda. When they wind up as opposing counsel onthe same Attinger v Attinger case (Adam prosecuting, Amanda defending),sparks of all sorts–romantic, angry, sexual–fly through the courtroom andtheir home.

Given the extremely flawed feminism of WOMAN OF THE YEAR (Tracy andHepburn’s first film together), I was worried that ADAM’S RIB would be moreof the same–understandable, given that it is written by Garson Kanin, themastermind behind the first film. The message of the film is certainly mutedby the shenanigans Amanda gets up to in the courtroom–deliberatelyflustering Adam by giving her client a hat he had given her, for example; orflirting with him under the table (a naughty, electric scene); or evenworse, having Adam literally shown up by a circus woman. It doesoccasionally make you wonder why Amanda has to resort to such silly tacticsto make such a serious point about equal rights for women. But this reallyis just a minor offense–I present the entire series of ‘Ally McBeal’ asproof that, if ADAM’S RIB *did* present female lawyers as silly and flighty,it is hardly the only offender, and the fact that it was made in 1949 mightexcuse it. ‘Ally McBeal’ doesn’t have that same excuse.

In fact, I *don’t* think that ADAM’S RIB is as schizophrenic about affirmingthe female and equal rights as WOMAN OF THE YEAR is. Yes, Amanda does somesilly things in court–this is a flaw in the film, albeit (I feel) a minorone. But, discounting that, Amanda is by all accounts a character theaudience can (and do) sympathise with. Moreover, she is affirmed at the endin a way the Tess Harding character never is. I find it very interestingthat, at the end, it is *Adam* who schemes to win Amanda back. (Contrastthis with WOMAN OF THE YEAR: Tess has to win Sam back, and to do so, must be’domesticated’.) The film actually makes the point that both Adam and Amandaare partly right–her cause is just as pertinent as his, and they botheventually come to respect what the other is fighting for. That’s what givesthem a true marriage, a true union based on sharing and trust, give andtake. (Again, by contrast, this came under serious fire in WOMAN OF THEYEAR.)

In the end, ADAM’S RIB really is a wonderful film: it’s not without itsflaws, of course, but what it comes down to is a truly delightful littleromantic comedy, with sparkling performances from its leads. It’s a truedelight to see Tracy and Hepburn playing a happily married couple whoevidently love each other deeply. They really do play togetherperfectly–always in sync, and so believable as people who are going tospend the rest of their lives with each other. For them, it’s the littlemoments that make all the difference; one of my favourites is when Adam andAmanda are screening a home movie for their party guests. Worried that Adamis mad at her (as he has every reason to be!), Amanda moves quickly acrossthe dark room to him, and gently rests her head on his lap, before returningto her seat. Such a sweet, romantic little gesture, and yet it says volumesabout their relationship.

Moreover, the film has plenty of little surprises (I was actually reallypleased, and surprised, at the verdict given by the jury); a lovelysupporting cast (including Jean Hagen and Judy Holliday, the latter’s rolebeing–effectively–a screen test for her later Hollywood career); andincredible dialogue fired off at an incredible pace. Plus, a sweet song byCole Porter (albeit a very irritating, and crassly forward/opportunisticsinger in the character of Kip), and some of the naughtiest scenes in filmhistory that never took place onscreen.

Well, well worth the watch. 9/10.

Maybe I have seen too many episodes of "Law and Order," but the unreality ofthe plot in this movie spoils the great acting and dialogue for me. Evenallowing for the nearly half-century that has elapsed since this film wasmade, it is difficult for me to believe that a competent prosecutor wouldnot have pursued the case as armed assault rather than attempted murder. Given the prosecutor’s foolishness in pursuing only the tougher charge, itwas irresponsible for the defense to turn the trial into some sort of "equalrights" forum rather than focus on her client’s state of mind and trueintent.

Yes, the dialogue in this film is "sparkling," as one reviewer writes. Ilove the back-and-forth between Hepburn and Tracy; they are trulyoutstanding. If I were voting for the acting, I would definitely give thisa 9 or a 10. However, as an overall assessment, the lame plot choices makethis a disappointing 6/10 for me.

Could Spencer Tracy be underplaying any more than here? The script isdreadful and I was simply bored. Now that’s one thing I rarely am in aHepburn picture. This, along with "Bringing Up Baby" just hasn’t agedwell at ALL. At least ‘Bringing Up Baby’ is funny because of thescrewball element.

‘Woman of the Year’ is still a far better film, covering some of thesame topics as this, but in a far cleverer fashion. I can even seeparallels between the two plots.

You still get a sense of the Hepburn/Tracy chemistry here, but the restof it is a gigantic mess. Even the Cole Porter song is boring.

The comedy and romance in this film are so well scripted, directed, andacted that it seems absolutely effortless. It’s grace, pure grace. SpencerTracy and Katharine Hepburn play two lawyers married to each other. Tracy isassigned to prosecute a wife who took a couple of pot shots at her cheatinghusband and his lover. She pulled the trigger with her eyes closed, andended up just wounding her husband. Hepburn chooses to defend her because,as she believes, if a husband had done the same he would get off scot-free.A woman, on account of the prejudices of the jury, would be certainlyconvicted to the full extent of the law. So by day Tracy and Hepburn battleit out in court, and at night in the bedroom. The humor is wonderfullyelegant. They’re not always belly-laughs, but they’re quite satisfying. Thebest moments come as the husband and wife testify. Judy Holliday, who playsthe woman, is perfect. Jean Hagan, who, of course, would go on to play LenaLamont in Singin’ in the Rain three yearts later, is great as the paramour.It’s unfortunate that she doesn’t have more scenes. And, as I said above,the romance between the Tracy and Hepburn is delightful. It’s a great film.9/10.

Of all the Tracy-Hepburn movies, I think this is the best. Its a nearperfect piece of writing, acting and directing.

Hepburn and Tracy are in top form and demonstrate why they werepossibly the best two actors to ever make films in Hollywood. That’squite a claim, but Tracy is widely regarded as the best film actorever, and if Hepburn isn’t the best actress, she’s damn close.

Put them together and they turn a simple scene like getting up in themorning and having breakfast, or making dinner at home into a delight.I never tire from watching them dress and undress or boil water.Perhaps no other actor could ever invest the simplest actions with suchapparently effortless naturalism as Tracy.

The story, written by Garson Kanin and Ruth Gordon, is witty, timeless,and clever. The directing by George Cukor, who was famous for directingwomen, is flawless and the supporting cast, especially Judy Holiday, isterrific.

Cukor has some wonderful shots, as Scott Schirmer noted in hisexcellent review, where he leaves the frame empty temporarily as actorsdisappear and reappear from off camera. This is a very theatricalapproach to film, and a refreshing contrast to today’s directors’constant camera movement. Cukor is not afraid to let his actors commandthe stage and his camera is an unobtrusive observer.

An interesting side note about the making of the film is
Hepburn’schampioning of Holliday for the role of the jilted wife. Hepburn andKanin were hoping to convince Harry Cohn at Columbia to cast her inBorn Yesterday, a role she had created on Broadway. The scene whereHepburn interviews Holliday was shot in one long take with Holliday incenter frame at Hepburn’s insistence. Judy Holliday went on to get thelead in Born Yesterday of course, for which she won a best actressOscar.

As Peter Bogdanovich would say, "an essential".

Warren Attinger (Tom Ewell) is an unfaithful husband.His wife Doris(Judy Holliday) doesn't like that and tries to kill him.Soon they go tocourt.Adam Bonner (Spencer Tracy) and his wife Amanda (KatharineHepburn) are both attorneys and they both get the case.She's defendingthe woman and he's defending the man.That causes worries at home.GeorgeCukor directed Adam's Rib (1949) and Ruth Gordon wrote it with GarsonKanin.Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn had a huge chemistry thinggoing on screen-and apparently outside it too.Other stars shinetoo.Judy Holliday and Tom Ewell are brilliant.Jean Hagen is great asBeryl Caighn, the other woman.David Wayne does a marvelous role work asKip Lurie-and he sings good too.If you look hard you can see the silentfilm star 'Snub' Pollard there as Man in courtroom.Adam's Rib offerssome brilliant moments in and out of courtroom.This is a movie thatdoesn't age.It was ahead of its time when it was made speaking aboutthe women's rights.All good men and women should watch this picture.

I wasn't as impressed by the movie as I had hoped. With Tracy andHepburn headlining, maybe I put my expectations a little high. Anyway,the story is decent, but the ending is long and drawn out a little toomuch for my liking. The two actors do as good as job as you can expect,but I personally think neither should have signed up. My guess is thatthey told Tracy his leading lady was Hepburn and vice versa, which iswhy they both signed on for a movie which personally I think isunsuitable for either.

Perhaps I am being a little overly critical because of who starred. Ifit was lesser known actors who did this movie, I probably would havegiven it higher marks. It isn't bad at all. It is worth watching justto fulfill any requirements for either actor.

I don't really understand the title, but that didn't matter, eventhough I missed the end of the film, what I saw was pretty good, fromdirector George Cukor (My Fair Lady). Basically Assistant DistrictAttorney Adam Bonner (Spencer Tracy) is assigned to prosecute DorisAttinger (Golden Globe nominated Judy Holliday) who tried to shoot herunfaithful husband, Warren Francis Attinger (The Seven Year Itch's TomEwell). Bonner expects to have a quick win, but he didn't plan on hiswife and fellow attorney, Amanda Bonner (Katharine Hepburn) defendingthe woman on the basis of "equal rights under the law" (in other words,insisting that a man could do the same to an unfaithful wife). As you'dexpect, the court case is more prominent than most other stuff in thefilm, and unlike other great courtroom films, I found it slightlytedious, and I was really surprised when the woman was let off in theend. Also starring David Wayne as Kip Lurie, Singin' in the Rain's JeanHagen as Beryl Caighn, Hope Emerson as Olympia La Pere, Eve March asGrace, Amanda's Secretary, Clarence Kolb as Judge Reiser, EmersonTreacy as Jules Frikke, Accountant, Polly Moran as Mrs. McGrath andWill Wright as Judge Marcasson. I can see small reasons to give thefilm five stars, but I don't think I'd want to see it again to come tothat opinion, I much preferred Hepburn and Tracy together in GuessWho's Coming to Dinner. It was nominated the Oscar for Best Writing,Story and Screenplay. Katharine Hepburn was number 38 on The 100Greatest Movie Stars, Spencer Tracy was number 9 on 100 Years, 100Stars - Men, Hepburn was number 1 on 100 Years, 100 Stars - Women, andHepburn number 9 on The World's Greatest Actor, and the film was number22 on 100 Years, 100 Laughs. Very good!

Adam and Amanda Bonner are happily married, despite the sparky natureof their relationship. Lawyers each, both are interested in a newspaperreport of a woman who shot (but not killed) her husband when shediscovered him in the arms of another woman. The Bonner’s takediffering views of the case and it is no surprise that Adam ends upprosecuting while Amanda is Doris Attinger’s defence counsel. With thegloves off in the courtroom with a legal battle of sexual equality, itis no surprise that the conflict and disagreements don’t end at thefront door and soon it is all kicking off.

The issue of sexual equality may have moved on from where it was in themiddle of the last century but this film occasionally hits aninteresting point, even if the majority of it is fairly shallow and abit unconvincing in terms of legal argument. Without really engagingme, the film still held my interest as the story developed and it wasfairly enjoyable even if it couldn’t settle on whether or not it is acomedy or a courtroom "issue" drama; as it was I didn’t think it dideither brilliantly but did both well enough to make it work. I didexpect more laughs because I thought it was going to be one of thescrewball genre, but once I realised that it was more amusing thanfunny then I was able to settle into it.

One of the main reasons that the film has continued to last down theyears is the chemistry between Tracy and Hepburn. Both are convincingas a couple in terms of romance, attrition, chemistry and other aspectsof their relationship on screen. Tracy is tetchy and enjoyable butHepburn is more than a match for him and she does it with style andreal humour. Support is good from Holliday as well as Wayne’s annoyingneighbour. Mainly though it is Tracy and Hepburn’s movie and they morethan carry it between them.

Overall though this is not quite the classic that I had hoped it wouldbe but it still did enough to make it work today. The courtroom stuffis not as dramatic or as relevant as it may have once been and thecomedy is more of the sharp variety than the laugh-out-loud sort;however the chemistry between the lead two keeps it going and makes itworth seeing still.

It always surprises me when I go to watch one of these supposed great oldmovies and find out how bad it is. This one has truly not aged well atall.

There are a few things this movie does well, but the things it does wrongmakes it impossible for me to consider it good.

The best part of this movie is the low-key chit chat and relationshipdialogue (as long as its the relationship stuff, the courtroom dialogue isinane to the nth degree). It’s done well, and there are quite a few mildchuckles to be had.

*mild spoilers for the rest*

The treatment of the court case however is unforgivable. These are mostdefinately two of the stupidest "movie" lawyers I’ve ever seen in my life.Iwas sitting throughout the court scenes pulling my hair out waiting foroneof them to at least make SOME argument that had anything to do with thecaseat all. It seemed like neither of them even had a clue what the personwasbeing charged with. Hepburn spends way too much time talking about equalthis, equal that, blah blah blah and none of it has anything to do withanything and Spencer is apparently too stupid to argue his side of thecaseeither. And during Hepburn’s closing where she is talking about reversingthe roles of the males and females, all I could do is sit there andthink… so what? Is she telling us we should let this lady off aftershootingher husband because we’d let a man off for shooting his wife? Whatuniverseis she living in? I have a hard time believing even people in the 40swerethat stupid. This kind of stuff totally ruined half the movie for me, andIalmost turned it off because these people were acting soirrationally.

Also as an aside, for a movie that brings up the is
sue of equal rights, Ifound it pretty misogynistic. The main female characters in the movie areall stereotyped as flightly, emotional, and illogical.

In a nutshell … relationship stuff ok to good … rest completegarbage.

read comments (0)