The Thing from Another World

Don't you get fed up with people telling you to go watch the original?

After seeing the brilliant remake by John Carpenter in my youth, I wastempted to watch the original and I eventually did on TV. OK, it musthave been great for it's time but, come on, get real people! Those whosay that it still looks great after all these years must have stoppedwatching other movies as soon as they left the theater after watchingthe original! John Carpenter's version is just so good, so unsettling,and those gross out creature effects make the original look so unscaryand dated.

So my advice as you can probably guess is, go see John Carpenter'sremake and give the original a miss, which as I said before wasprobably scary in it's time, but is now a bunch of c!#p that wouldn'tscare the most nervous of people.

The movie tries hard, but has too many laughable situations to really becalled "good". It does have mostly good performances and some decent dialogamid the silliness, however.

<<SPOILERS to the end>>

A round-shaped (of course!) flying saucer is discovered below the surface ofthe ice near the north pole. How it is determined to be "smooth, with nodoors or windows" through the ice is a mystery to me - I can’t see throughan ice cube.

Some air force guys blow up the ice with a "thermite" bomb, andunfortunately the frozen engine (!) of the saucer blows up (!) There is nofall out from the mushroom cloud onto the guys who are scarcely 100 feetaway. Groan!

Now, the guys look through the ice again (!) and see a large man-shapething, about 8 feet tall. Even through the ice they can tell it is bald andhas weird nails. Groan!

They decide to chop a big block of ice out with the thing inside. Threepeople start whacking the ice with picks, and not a scratch do they make(this is not part of the plot - it just is a noticeable detail). They haveto hurry because they only have an hour before the big storm blowsin…Groan!

So, OK, they get the thing back to base. The one guy designated to "guard"it unwittingly puts an electric blanket over the block. Drip drip drip meltsthe water (but the blanket never changes shape)…and the guard, who is nowfacing away and reading a book doesn’t notice, but the huskies outside do(!) The guard finally notices the approaching shadow (complete with dramaticmusic) and shoots the unseen thing, then hysterically runs away, only to be"sobered up" with the cliched glass of water to the face. Groan!

The thing is later compared to "some form of super carrot".Really.

That’s just the first 45 minutes. The other 42 I leave toyou.

POSSIBLE SPOILERS

I expected quite a lot from this film(because of Howard Hawks)but it was alittle bit disappointing.It has much inspired future sci-fi and horrormovies and it has a great last shot but otherwise it is a very slow andpretty dull affair.The creature is a copy of the Monster of Frankenstein bythe way.

This film was very important for John Carpenter who made a remake of thisfilm which is better if you ask me but not as good as his classic shockersHALLOWEEN and ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13.In HALLOWEEN we see the opening creditsof THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD(great haunting score by Dimitri Tiomkin)andafter that Carpenter would make the remake.Another important thing in THETHING FROM ANOTHER WORLD is the geiger counter which was later used as aheat seeker in the ALIEN series to great effect.

So historically it is an important film but for people who want to watchgreat 50’s science fiction I would rather recommend movies like THE DAY THEEARTH STOOD STILL,THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING MAN,PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE(yesit is a great movie),TARANTULA,THEM! and especially INVASION OF THE BODYSNATCHERS which is the greatest science fiction film of the 1950’s with it’ssuperb ending. 6/10

I realize this may upset a lot of people as this movie has a devotedaudience. I finally watched it last night and I have to say, it’sreally boring. There is very little action, and not much in the way ofcharacterization or dialogue to offset its glacial pace (sorry aboutthe pun). Normally if a movie bores me this much I’ll shut it off butbecause of its classic status I felt it deserved at least one completeviewing. Still, I wound up reading during the last half hour, glancingup only when something actually happened. It was very easy to followthe story while paying minimal attention.

If you’re thinking that I’m a young whippersnapper who has been spoiledby flashy visual effects and needs constant action, I assure you thisis not true. I’m over 50. I see all kinds of movies, including"sumptuous literary adaptations" i.e. "Wings of a Dove." I grew upwithout TV and didn’t own one until I was in my 20s. I am not a hugefan of "Star Wars" or "The Matrix" and my idea of a good SF film is"The Man Who Fell to Earth." I will admit I may have been spoiled byJohn Carpenter’s 1982 film "The Thing", which is really another storyaltogether. I feel Carpenter’s film is a classic that not only featuresground-breaking visual effects but a mounting atmosphere of suspicionand paranoia that speaks directly to the meaning of Campbell’s storytitle, "Who Goes There?" In the Howard Hawks story, you basically havea standard crew of 50s film characters having discussions. There isvirtually no tension or atmosphere of any kind.

If I’d seen this in a theater at a younger age, I might have loved itas do its many fans. But I’m sorry, folks; this one just never came tolife for me.

Always had great, vivid memories of The Thing, but having watched it after agap of 30 years, it pains me to conclude that it is not a greathorror/sci-fi flick. The required atmosphere that should inspire feelings ofbleakness, profound loneliness, terror, and paranoia never is established.It is further undermined by compulsive wise-cracking that even takes theterror out of having (though never shown) 2 team members hanging upside downand drained of blood!. I was rooting for The Thing to take out the reporter.Well-acted, but it is afraid to go into the black depths that truly great50s sci-fi do (e.g. Body Snatchers). Far too hollywood-ized with thebolted-on comic romance, relentless quips. Never establishes the atmosphereit should: people living in tunnels in a desolate place where no one canhelp them and facing an unknown, evil, and intelligent force, and not beingable to even trust your companions.

The Thing (1951) was a science-fiction horror film that was looselybased upon the short story "Who Goes There?" An Artic polar expeditionteam is holed up inside a U.S. Base. Some members from the teamdiscover an alien craft and some strange alien life form. Being thenosy bunch that they are, they bring the strange life form back to thebase and try to experiment with it. The crew learns the lesson that"somethings were just never meant to be fooled with" the hard way.James Arness makes an early appearance as a mean and nasty spacecreature. A superior remake was made thirty-one years later by JohnCarpenter.

Recommended.

Peter Biskind's excellent discussion of this film in his book Seeing IsBelieving is worth reading. The film is a cold war allegory. Aconservative film, it is quite anti-intellectual (the badscientist/traitor), and it shows us how conservatism shaped perceptionsin the fifties so that gays, deviants, and intellectuals were allparcelled together with communists. The background gender story issuggestive of how conservative foreign policy thinking during this eradove-tails with family/gender culture. Notice that when the thing,which is polysexual, is killed finally, the event coincides with theformation of a traditional heterosexual family between Nikki and thecaptain. Given the Bush administration's
attempt to squash the pressand keep information secret, it's also important to note that the pressremains loyal to the military to the end. The constitution inconservative eyes takes second place to a paranoid vision of foreignthreats that make authoritarianism necessary.

MORD39 RATING: *1/2 out of ****

For anyone who knows my taste in horror and sci-fi movies, this is a rarechance to hear me contradict myself. When I say that the horror genre isDEAD in today’s modern films, it comes as more of a surprise to me thananyone else when I say that THIS PICTURE IS AN OUTRIGHT BORE. THE 1982 JOHNCARPENTER VERSION BLOWS THIS "Classic" AWAY!!!

Talk…talk…talk…talk….zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. I won’t utilize a lot ofspace here praising the ‘82 remake, but I will say that it was terrifyingsimply by virtue of the fact that nobody knew who the Thing was, since itduplicated all life forms. Here we get a dumb-looking bald monster who doesabsolutely nothing of interest. I naturally prefer fifties sci-fi toanything else, yet I am totally immune to this sleepingpill.

In my defense, even though I’ve made clear my dislike for "modern" horror,the year 1982 is actually pretty long ago by today’s standards. Thehorror/sci-fi film endured at least until 1985. So, enjoy this one-timecriticism of an old classic from me while you can. Is there a full moon orsomething?????

Incredibly inferior to the remake, "John Carpenter’s The Thing," thismoviefailed to capture my imagination. It simply cashes in with theFrankenstein"monster run amok" formula, and fails to do anything impressive, even forthe 50’s. Overrated has a name. Here it is…

I expected so much more. Not worth your time! This is an overratedB-Movie.Even for its time, this is crap! THere are too few scary moments. Themonster ( a man in makeup) is laughable! However I liked this plant idea(the vampire plants). All in all I would rate this 5 out of 10. Carpentersremake is much better.

read comments (0)

The Lavender Hill Mob

I'll have to say that I wasn't expecting a lot when I sat down to viewthis little film, and fortunately, I was surprised! Weighing in at just81 minutes, this charming movie doesn't skip a beat.

I don't have a special soft spot for British films like many, but inthis instance it has a lot going for it — Sharp dialogue (although youmay have to listen closely to understand the heavy accents and Britishcolloquialisms), tension which slowly builds, witty and clever humorscattered throughout, a clever ending, and even a very early bitappearance by the impeccably elegant Audrey Hepburn!

My favorite parts? The witty, unforced double entendre humor betweenthe bank clerk and Guinness when he's making his deliveries, thecharming Eiffel tower stairway scene where Guinness and Holloway begingiggling like schoolboys, and the slick, unexpected ending.

What a wonderfully creative period Ealing was going through in the late40s and early 50s. With the best writers and directors in the businesson their books, they produced classic after classic. The Lavender HillMob (1951), written by TEB Clarke and directed by Charles Crichton,stars Alec Guinness and Stanley Holloway as two ageing nobodies whoembark on a joint venture to make a lot of money. Guinness is a bankclerk responsible for delivering gold bullion and Holloway owns afoundry which manufactures tourist souvenirs for the domestic andexport market. They arrange a heist of a security van carrying somebullion and proceed to forge Eiffel Tower paperweights from thebullion. After that they smuggle them abroad where there is a readyblack market for gold and they can't be traced. Things go well until…

Lavender Hill Mob won a host of awards,including significantly an Oscarfor Best Screenplay. Alec Guinness (in his third Ealing comedy) wasOscar-nominated for Best Actor. In a supporting role, its good to seecomedy legend Sid James before he made it big in Hancock's Half Hourand the Carry On series.

One thing about this film that baffles me is that surely the solid goldEiffel towers would be HEAVY? Far too heavy for a schoolgirl to run offwith holding casually in one hand, surely? Discuss. Not sure why I haveto write 10 lines to ask this question but here goes. The originals aremade from lead so perhaps that would be heavy too but not being ametallurgy expert I wouldn't know its relative weight compared withgold. Everyone in the cast just handles them like they are made out oftin. This may seem a very petty quibble but it bugged me all throughthe film. Oh and what a wonderful scene with the two men running downthe steps of the Eiffel tower! (is that long enough now?)

The Ealing Comedies constitute their own specific sub-genre in thehistory of film. They were wry, droll reflections on British life inthe late Forties and early Fifties and are always amusing but I feel itis misleading to characterise them as comedies. They are breezy andgood-humoured, rather than laugh-out-loud funny. However, the best ofthem are laced with understated satire and an occasional dark streak(epecially Kind Hearts and Coronets and The Ladykiller).

I have an affection for all of them, but The Lavender Hill Mob isprobably the one I have most difficulty with. Compared to the others,it seems somewhat perfunctory. To me, it is an outline sketch for amovie, but one that needed a lot more time in development before it wasready to go before the cameras.

Everything about it is a bit undercooked. For example, nobody is givenany real context or background. Henry is simply a dutiful drudge, whosesecret dreams and hidden ambitions go unrecognised, while Albert is afrustrated artist forced to prostitute his talent by making gift shoptrash for a living. This establishes a motive for their crime, butnothing that subsequently happens is a consequence either of theircharacters or their plan.

Other characters are introduced but play no real part in the story. Theelderly resident in Henry's guest house could (with her love ofdetective stories) have been made an unwitting thorn in his side, butis merely used as background 'colour'. Similarly, the various policemenwho pop in and out of the action are simply there to keep the plotticking along.

As a result, the movie is driven entirely by its contrived plotdevices, which I find a both frustrating and faintly irritating. Thenot-very-ingenious robbery is accomplished with minimal problems,despite Albert being prevented from carrying out his part in the planby Sidney Tafler's Clayton. The gold is then smuggled to France withoutmishap. Everything would have gone smoothly if it wasn't for a minorhitch, lamely based on the French pronunciation of the letter 'R',which results in six of the gold Eiffel Towers being accidentally soldto some English schoolgirls.

This leads to a series of frantic chases as Henry and Albert seek toretrieve them. These scenes are well executed, but at each point theconspirators are frustrated in their pursuit of the schoolgirls by aseries of wholly factitious accidents. It is as if God is deliberatelyintervening to give them a hard time. This kind of plotting always hasme grinding my teeth.

When they finally track the last Eiffel Tower to a Police Academyexhibition and snatch it from under the nose of John Gregson's policeInspector (why is he there, when there is a crime to solve?) all shredsof plot logic are abandoned. The final car chases are then simplyfilling up screen time until we are returned to the framing device withwhich the picture began.

The movie doesn't even bother to tell us the fate of Albert (StanleyHolloway), Lackery (Sid James) and Shorty (Alfie Bass).

This genial little caper has the professionalism of the Ealing teambehind it, so it is not disastrous. I suspect most viewers will find itconsiderably more enjoyable than I do (and why shouldn't they?), but Icannot help thinking there was a much better movie waiting to be made,if only more time and effort had been expended on fleshing out both thecharacters and the story.

The Lavender Hill Mob is a missed opportunity.

PS: One curious footnote is that Audrey Hepburn gets a credit for hersingle line early on, but Archie Duncan remains anonymous despite hismuch more substantial contribution. I guess she just had a betteragent.

When I first saw this film as a schoolboy, I actually fell off the couch,Iwas laughing so hard. Then I laughed so hard, I had troublebreathing.

This is the kind of movie one remembers all one’s life!

I used to really like this movie, and resented when A Fish Called Wandapilfered most of it. But on this viewing nothing really stood out. Forthe life of me, I can't imagine what I thought was funny when I firstsaw it back in the 70s. There's really only some mild cleverness hereand there. It's merits are better enjoyed in a first viewing. The giddyrace down the Eiffel Tower still offers a few chuckles and is prettyamazingly assembled from only foreground items and rear-screen footage.The photography around London is nice. But for a short movie, it feelsvery padded in the final half an hour. It's a very long 57 minutesuntil you get to the endless sequence about getting on a ship leavingParis. Then there's a long pointless chase around London. You couldtoss about 20 minutes of it away nowadays.

A special note on the DVD: The DVD menu is a model of understatement,and admirably utilitarian. You just pan to another area on an imposingbrick wall every time you click something. No idiot graphic designermucked things up giving away a major plot point or set piece (bysticking footage in the menu to make their own work look good. DVDmenus these days are otherwise just pathetic.

After seeing Kind Hearts and Coronets, I was definitely looking forwardto seeing another Ealing Studios comedy, especially with th
e great StarWars star again. Henry Holland (Oscar nominated Sir Alec Guinness) isthe shy retiring dreaming of riches and a good life, and he hasfaithfully worked as a bank transfer agent for the delivery of gold. Hebecomes friends with souvenir maker Alfred Pendlebury (StanleyHolloway) and Holland remarks that they could forge gold to look likethe Eiffel Tower souvenirs, and smuggle it from England to Paris. Theyget the help from co-criminals Lackery (Carry On's Sid James) andShorty Fisher (Alfie Bass), but there are many twists and turns whensome of the towers fall into the wrong hands. Also starring thenunknown Audrey Hepburn as Chiquita. Filled with some good giggles andgreat concluding chases, this is a fantastic classic comedy. It won theOscar for Best Writing, Story and Screenplay, it won the BAFTA for BestBritish Film, and it was nominated for Best Film from any Source, andit was nominated the Venice Film Festival Golden Lion Award fordirector Charles Crichton (A Fish Called Wanda). Sir Alec Guinnessnumber 12 on The 50 Greatest British Actors, he was number 2 onBritain's Finest Actors, and he was number 11 on The World's GreatestActor Oustanding!

An effective little diversion, "The Lavender Hill Mob" is one ofEaling's most beloved comedies, even if - like much of their output -it isn't exactly filled with hilarity and genuine belly-laughs. Yet ithas the best Ealing hallmarks, including another "little man" trying toovercome the authorities and a breezy plot that has a touch of fantasyabout it despite being firmly entrenched in the real world.

Alec Guinness gives a wonderful performance as the seemingly meek bankclerk willing to mastermind the greatest gold heist in history,Guinness enriching the character with so many subtle touches that itbears repeated viewings just to realise how great he is; it's notgrand, emotional acting, just playing a character and playing it bloodywell. Stanley Holloway, whilst not in the same league as Guinness, isalso very entertaining to watch and the two actors form a lovabledouble act. Less can be said about the rest of the cast as the storyreally only concerns Guinness and Holloway - even Sid James and AlfieBass, receiving prominent billing, get about 20 minutes of screen time.The cinematography is also notable, particularly the famous sequence ofour two stars running down the spiral staircase at the Eiffel Towerwhich manages to make the viewer feel as giddy as the characters are.It shows how even a small slice of whimsy can be enriched further witha bit of effort; nobody concerned with this film is giving less than110%.

The only drawbacks to the film are a certain datedness - especially thetoe-curling bit where a middle aged police constable sings "OldMacDonald" loudly and happily (did grown men really used to like thosesongs?) - and the fact that much time is spent on action with theresult that there isn't a lot that's actually *funny* in what issupposed to be a comedy. Certainly there are few quotable lines asthere isn't a lot of dialogue in the script. However, these problemsare slight and "The Lavender Hill Mob" remains a highly enjoyable 80minutes of whimsical charm. Nobody made such films quite as well asEaling did.

I enjoyed this movie quite a lot, but it was something of a let-downcompared to some of the other Ealing comedies I've seen with Guinnesslike "Kind Hearts and Coronets" and "The Ladykillers." This one doesn'thave acid in its heart like those ones do, and it also doesn't havequite the big heart of "Man in the White Suit." It's basically just acaper movie, but it is intelligently written and well made. It doesn'ttranscend caper films the way "Ladykillers" does, but it fulfills allof the genre's requirements and its potential to a very high degree.

Alec Guinness and Stanley Holloway are a pair of non-professionals whobecome criminals to escape their boredom with middle class life. Theyenlist a pair of lower class criminal types to help them with theirtask of robbing Guinness' gold deposits and turning them into EiffelTower miniatures. Sid James plays one of the accomplices, which isinteresting because he's one of the only British character actors I canthink of who plays both aristocrats and poor guys.

My favorite scene in the movie is when Guinness and Holloway arechasing the students down the stairs of the Tower. I almost felt dizzymyself watching it; I can only imagine the effect in a theater.

I didn't feel like this film was as ambitious as it could have been –it settled for clever or even cute a lot of times when it could havebecome more interesting. Still, a very polished film that doesn't talkdown to its audience.

This is the kind of small yet concise and entertaining movie that I findmouth wateringly delicious. It’s gentle and amusing story of a bungledrobbery (that we see all to little of in these times of the ultra violentheist movie) really clicks home the message that you can make a decent crimefilm without including death or bad language.

read comments (0)

The African Queen

I’m a movie lover, but inevitably I stick to films of the70s-90s. That’s usually disappointed by the classics which getthis hype and glamour about them and their stars that is usuallynot worth all the talk. The African Queen is one of thosemovies that I always hear talked about as one of the greats, asone of the films that Hollywood doesn’t know how to makeanymore. But you know what, it’s not that impressive now.

Sure, if I’d seen it when it was made, it probably would havestruck me, but so many films have copied the model of theAfrican Queen now that Bogie and Hepburn just make a cute littlecouple in a fluffy love story.

As a matter of fact, I kept on comparing this to Six Days,Seven Nights, which seemed to have more chemistry between itsstars Harrison Ford and Anne Heche than this film did. Itcertainly had more laughs.

I don’t know: I look to the greats for inspiration, but forone thing it’s a whole different experience on the small screen.For another, so many films have copied these models and addedBIGGER laughs, MORE chemistry, MORE effects and dangers that theclassics don’t really strike you the way they might have back inthe old days when they weren’t classic but rather the big newthing. That’s not all true: movies like the Hitchcock films,the Marx Bros. comedies, Some Like It Hot, even Casablanca grabmy attention mostly for their writing and sharp acting more thananything else. African Queen is enjoyable classic popcornfluff- it was then

I completely understand the reviewer that wrote "Did I miss something",because that’s what I feel about this movie. To see that it even made ittothe top 250 movies is even more ridiculous that this supposedly romanticmovie itself. The acting by Katharine Hepburn is bad, her make up artistbeing worse(c’mon, the woman looks 15 years older than Bogie), butleavingthe relationship between the two as the worst. I know that a lot haschangedin the man/woman relationship over the past century, but when exactly didguys regain their pride and ba..s? I’m talking about the scene where onthefirst night on the "Queen" it starts raining and poor old Bogie, leftsleeping in the rain, tries to take shelter where Hepburn is sleeping.Shegets p***ed off and says:"What are you doing?" or something like that.MANOH MAN, I get p***ed off just by remembering this scene because it’sSOOOOOirritating. The woman is on HIS boat, because HE had the courtesy ofsavingher life(if he had known what a drag she’d turn up to be, I bet hewouldn’tgive it a seconds thought) when zee Germans burnt the village, and whatdoesshe do, SHE actually has the nerves to kick HIM out of HIS shelterdespitethe heavy rain. What the f..k? I’m sorry, but I refuse to believe any manwould take this crap. I’d have thrown her Skeletor ass overboard thesecondshe’d even start considering doing this. Seriously, the guy gets treatedworse than George from Seinfeld, and that’s saying a lot! And later on hegets drunk (hmmmm, go figure why he does that), in a moment ofweakness(truth, if you ask me)explains to her that she’s an utterlyobnoxious and controlling person, which for some reason gets to her, andassoon as he falls asleep she’s at it again. Picture waking up with a bighangover and the first thing you see is the most annoying person you’veevermet in your life. Not pretty, right, well that person is destroying youproperty. Hepburn decided she had enough of Bogie (remember, she’s stillalive and kicking because of him) so she pours all of his booze into theriver. And I’m not talking about a single bottle, NOOOOO SIR, she unloadsthe whole case. Everything!!! I can’t really remember what happens next,mymind just went blank, probably because of the hatred I felt. Gofigure.Anyways, these were just some bright moments from the developing romancebetween the two actors. The rest of the film relies completely on thedialogue between the two, because the exact story is told in the firsttwominutes the woman gets on board the "African Queen". And what a plan shedelivers, you have to see it to believe it, but I’ll spare you with thisone. Well, the corny dialogues fail completely, but we are left with thedecades funniest moment when Bogie imitates a hippo.Another golden moment emerges when Bogie has to fix the propeller andgetsnaked. He’s one skinny man and that’s when it hit me that his characterisprobably supposed to be a slave of some sort. Under fed, with no dignity,wears the same clothes all the time, and even has to drag the ship onfootall by himself. There’s actually a scene where he’s dragging "The AfricanQueen"(Hepburn is doing nothing helpful of course) and then you see thewinning close up of his face. That was the Oscar winner for sure (NOT!),who’d let a white guy go through so much.And this movie actually got nominated for a bunch of Oscars, and Bogieevenwon one. He’s not bad, but that’s it, and if not bad wins an Oscar I canonly imagine how many Bruce Willis should have gotten. Shows what theyknow,the should-have-given-an-Oscar-to-Kubrick-for-at-least-two-movies. (notcounting the special effects one)This just might be the longest review I’ve ever written and the reasonwhyI’m in such a sarcastic mood lies in the opening page of this movie, theuser rating to be precise!I thought "Casablanca" was overrated, but this is just ridiculous.5/10

African QUeen was a movie that proved to be better than I expected.It’s a story of two different kinds of people coming from differentbackgrounds & teachings who r forced to take the trip for better orworse & it turns out to be an adventure that they learn from. The twobest personalities of BOgie & KaTe put together for a heart warmingtrip through the trails of Africa. THe most touching parts are thosewhen they squeal with joy at their team work & get through the rapids.A very humane film that shows that deep down we are all just men &women with no differences produced by where we’re coming from. IT’s theinevitable joining of the hearts stemming from the concern & respectgiven by the other & putting their own fears aside TO join their minds,hands & courage to overcome all obstacles.

I see this movie was number 16 on the AFI list. Why? Why did this movie,which essentially was a romance/adventure movie with good performances andsome nice cinematography but little more, beat out 2001: A Space Odyssey andOne Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest? Humphrey Bogart was good, but this washardly his best performance; that would be Casablanca, the Maltese Falcon orTreasure of the Sierra Madre. There is not one scene in this movie, in myopinion, that could classify it as a great film. Okay, all the scenes aregood, and I especially liked Katharine Hepburn’s transformation from a meanold lady to a romantic character (she looked like she lost 20 years in 2hours). But seriously, John Huston’s best? Better than Sierra Madre? No way.Somebody please inform me on what made this such a great movie, and not justa good one.

Only these two pros could make this claustrophobic script work. This is anall time favorite in great color. I’ve always liked it particularly becauseof the fact that they both appeared in many black and white movies and theylook good in this color film.

Here is a film that upholds good values; patriotism, religion, giving up thebottle. Bogey utters the famous "And you call yourself a Christian?" whenMs. Hepburn throws his booze into the river.

Some suspense and some laughs make this a perennial favorite.I also recall it as superior regarding technical things like cinematography.

I just can’t believe that Bogart didn’t geta Oscar nomination for this one! This movieis a typical "Bogart" special. "Houston" deservedhis Oscar, but Bogart did too! Great and entertainingmovie!

Before I ever saw this movie, I had heard nothing but rave reviews about howthis was the best of all cla
ssic movies, etc. I even read a comment from acelebrity interview (don’t remember whom) about the celebrity not seeingthis movie until he was on his death bed because it is so special. So withgreat anticipation sat I to watch this film!! And with great disappointmentsat I at the end of the film!! Okay, enough silly comments, heh. IMO thiswas a good movie, but an average movie at best. I fail to see what can be soclassic about it and wish someone would explain this to me. With a film like’Citizen Kane’, that film was amazing when it was first released and isstill just as amazing nearly 100 years later. There simply isn’t anotherfilm like it out there. Perhaps ‘The African Queen’ is truly too outdated tomake an impact today. Was this film revolutionary in any way back then andif so, how?

Ho-boy, Morgan Freeman really borrowed his method from Bogie. From JohnWayne to Bogart to Freeman, the cycle continues. Stallone uses a similartechnique, but he is regarded as a failure so we don’t watch his method withthe same attention to detail.

This movie is unique because of how it uses Hepburn, making it more usefulthan other Bogie films (Sierra, Casablanca) but not one of Hepburn’s best. It’s all straight, a manner that today’s movies don’t dare presentingthemselves as anymore because of the audience.

The way the African setting is photographed resembles Florida more thanAfrica. Still, there are a few clever tricks here to bring this out of thenorm, but most rely in the pacing and not the script.

Final Analysis = = Midrange Material

This is by far one of bogie’sgreat movie pictures, I put itup front ahead of Casablanca andSierra, Katharine Hepburn was alsosuperb in this movie, the look onBogie’s face after he inavertentlyhugged and kissed Ms. Hepburn was one of the best parts of the picture,I will always regard this motion pictureas one of the greats.

This is dominated by the two main stars on the boat, but it does notneed any other characters as they are so gripping and so brilliant towatch together. Oscar winning, and BAFTA nominated Humphrey Bogart asCharlie Allnut and Oscar nominated Katharine Hepburn as Rose Sayer arejust spectacular together as they travel down an African river todestroy a war vessel, the Louisa, planning to attack England orsomething. Charlie knows a way to make torpedoes from oxygen andtimers, and Rose knows where the boat is going. Along the way theencounter rapids, bugs, storms, the Louisa and of course, each other(both in the good and bad way). In the end they do find the Louisa, butare sentenced to hanging. Before they die they request marriage, andthere good misfortune, they crash into the wrecked African Queen (theirboat) and the torpedoes. One of the best film endings ever when theyblow up the Louisa and swim away together. Also starring Robert Morleyas Rev. Samuel Sayer and Peter Bull as Captain of Louisa. It wasnominated the Oscars for Best Director for John Huston and BestWriting, Screenplay, and it was nominated the BAFTA for Best Film fromany Source. Katherine Hepburn was number 38, and Humpherey Bogartnumber 36 on The 100 Greatest Movie Stars, Bogart was also number 1 on100 Years, 100 Stars - Men, Hepburn was also number 1 on 100 Years, 100Stars - Women, Bogart was number 27, and Hepburn number 9 on TheWorld's Greatest Actor, the film was number 14 on 100 Years, 100Passions, it was number 48 on 100 Years, 100 Cheers, it was number 17on 100 Years, 100 Movies, and it was number 89 on The 100 GreatestFilms. Outstanding!

read comments (0)

Alice in Wonderland

Okay. This isn’t a bad movie. In fact, it’s good as children’s movies go.This is certainly fine to entertain the young ones. However, I’m the kind ofperson who likes movies with some kind of plot or story. Alice in Wonderlanddoesn’t have any. Or at least it has very little. It’s just Alice stumblinginto one oddball character after another. In this sense, almost everybody isa minor character. And Alice herself is a strange one. She’s practically awhiny brat who can’t sing. I mean she REALLY can’t sing. Many of the songsare a tad awful. If you’re looking for a decent babysitter, this will do.It’s charming enough. However, if you’re an animation buff, this may be abit too strange to watch.

While her aunt reads her a story by the riverside, young Alice noticesa white rabbit and chases it down a rabbit hole. At the bottom of thehole she finds an entirely new world populated by all manner of strangecharacters. Struggling to get her head around the confusing things shesees and hears, Alice wants nothing more than to get back home but itdoesn’t look like being an easy task – certainly not once the Queen ofHearts gets involved.

It seems strange to think that, given my familiarity with the Alicebooks, that I had never seen the Disney version until it came ontelevision one Sunday morning. The first thing that struck me was that,not having seen an older animated feature for quite a few years, theanimation is almost unbearable cute and colourful. I know this is lessabout the period and more about the studio but I found it a littleharder to get into for that reason. I did get past this very quicklythought and did find that the colourful characters were still quite funeven if it rather took away from the sense of wonder that I wanted tofeel by being in this magical new world full of strange characters – byanimating them in this way the whole thing felt, well, almost ordinary.Likewise the Disney style of humour didn’t totally suit the wit of thebooks and, although it did get it at times, the film felt more aboutbright colours than about wit and charm.

The characters are pretty well imagined but I would have liked them tohave more personality rather than just being made into standard Disneycreations. Of course this is a minor complaint because they are stillgood and I’m aware I’m judging the film by modern taste – perhapsunfairly. It still works well enough to be worth seeing, the songs areaverage but there aren’t too many of them and the story will still beof great value to children who will love it regardless.

Overall this is a fun and enjoyable cartoon but the mix of books andfailure to really deliver the qualities of wit and childhood wondermarked it down to be not as good as I had hoped. My suggestion would beto read the books yourself of course but if you need a cartoon versionto get the kids into it then this is definitely worth a look.

Obviously, our perception of Lewis Carroll's classic novel has beenslightly altered by the quintessential '60s song "White Rabbit". Beingthe Disney movie that it is, "Alice in Wonderland" now looks kindahokey, but it does sort of maintain Carroll's wry humor. Still, aftereverything that's happened in the world since this movie came out - infact, maybe all of world history - a Disney movie doesn't quite seemthe same as it once might have. I know that this was during the heydayof Disney's animated features (think "Cinderella" and "Peter Pan"), butI wish to assert that their computer-animated movies from the past fewyears have actually been more clever ("Monsters Inc.", "Finding Nemo").

So overall, there's nothing particularly bad about this movie (the MadHatter has some neat lines). It's just that things have changed. Nomatter, I think that we can all agree that, to play off of a movietitle, Alice still does live here after all.

Why oh why does Disney mess up books beyond recognition? Almost all theorignal elements were destroyed or replaced as completely differentcharacters. I know it isn’t possible to completely change a book, but theycould have done a better job than this.

I saw this film when I was a child and saw it again recently, and Idisliked it just as much back then as I do now.

I personally thought that the beautiful novel by Lewis Carroll wascompletely butchered by Disney. They took away some of the best partsof the story, and made it too "cute", when in fact parts of theoriginal book are actually quite disturbing. The only good bit aboutthe film is the Cheshire Cat.

The film is certainly extremely over rated.

If you’re a fan of Lewis Carroll then I would personally recommendavoiding this film. You will only be very disappointed.

I remember the first time I watched this movie as a little girl. I founditscary, disturbing, and very upsetting. The caterpillar and Queen had themostviolent temper, and were upsetting. Alice in Wonderland involves madpeople,but Disney seems to make them too hot tempered for younger children towatchwithout being upset, scared, or just plain un-enjoying the expierence.Thismovie draggs along the classic story by changing the order, cuttingimportent parts, and changing the origanal text around. The movie haslittleimagined parts, and makes the main theme that mad people on rage are whatisin the imagined wonderland children dream about. Instead of the questionisa fantasy world better, it states from the second scene on that a fantasyworld contained mad and insane people about to kill Alice at any second.Isthat what you thought when you grew up as a kid? Instead of demonstratingthat the people are different and not psycho-murder mad, but thinkdifferently and contain some psycho’s like the Queen, they demonstratethatthat everyone there is about to kill Alice at any moment. I think thatthismovie has the most perfect mad people in it, but needs to have them bemorestrange and curious then just plain psycho. I give it a 5 for adults and a2for children. I think Disney failed to create a good childrens movie thistime.

This animated 1951 RKO/Walt Disney Pictures co-production derserves creditfor its lavish and very colorful animation as well as several highlyamusingand imaginative supporting characters but the film as a whole just doesn’tseem to be on the level of "a true Walt Disney classic." The film seems topay more attention to nonsense than sense and as good as that sounds for acartoon, that may be one of the problems. Fortunately, it ends at anappropriate time. A proximity of 1 hour and 15 minutes is about as long asany film like this should run.

After being disappointed with the supposed "remastered DVD" of the ‘72Shaftel production, I decided to give the renowned animated Disneyversion a chance. The last thing I remembered hearing about it was mygrade school English teacher giving it a thumbs down.

But, hey… it’s Disney! How bad could it be? Well, the animationitself is fine, but the story execution is abysmal. It’s like a WanerBrothers’ Looney Tune gone bad, and, considering the contention betweenthe two studios at the time, I’m sure that comment’s not too far offthe mark.

In Disney’s offering Alice traipses from one bizarre episode to thenext, seemingly for the sake of it (though she’s supposed to befollowing the white rabbit, but, in my opinion, Alice doesn’t give theaudience sufficient impetus for her actions, other than the fact thatshe’s curious). In other versions there’s a kind of child-like cohesionto Dodgson’s tale, but this one really zig-zags all over the place, andwithout rhyme or reason.

The voice acting is fine, the songs, for what they are, are OK, and asI mentioned the animation is up to Disney’s extremely high standards.But the rest of it, the actual story structure (and what little plotthere is) just is scattered, making watching t
his very technically welldone animated film a chore to watch.

Well, Disney’s learned the lesson of trying to be and create the kindof product they’re not known for, and it seems to have stuck for themost part. They weren’t WB then, and it shows.

Myself, I’m at a real loss as to why people heap praises on this film.It may be the upbeat and high energy delivery, but, personally, Iprefer the more sedate and character driven approach.

Well, to each his own. If you like it, then enjoy. Otherwise takeadvice from my English teacher; if haven’t already seen it, don’t.

Excuse some of my spelling and writing… I’m slightly lazy to go intodepth with this.

The whole story is about a young innocent little girl seeing thingsthat she has never seen before (AKA: DRUGS). She hop’s down a Rabbitwhole to which nothing seemed the same any more.

From there she discovers a small bottle in which she grows extremelylarge. I believe this symbolizes Alchol). Alcohol can make you seemlike your above the world in which you can do any thing (feeling whenyou hurt yourself when your drunk but you don’t feel it).

It escalates from alcohol to more extreme levels. The Catepillar seemsto smoke hookah….But can we be sure? We can only infer from thefacts…. the smoke is vivid with color, Little Alice inhales thecolorful smoke accidentally (peer pressure), the Caterpillar seems tohave no control over his body, the Caterpillar gets angry easily, notto mention he turns into a butterfly and flies away (High).

Alice feeling perplexed and lost; just wants to go home. The Catepillarinforms her of a solution… to eat a mushroom (shrooms)with someadvice as too which side of the mushroom (good trip vs. bad trip).

Then Alice meets the mad hatter, the hare, and the little mouse. (ThisPart I cant be sure if it is opium or coke… If id take a guess Id saythey were doing coke). Tea = Caffine = extremely hyper = coke. A Rabbit( the Hare) is a speedy creature as it is. For those of you who don’tbelieve this movie has ne drug relation…. look at the mouse and don’ttell me that mouse isn’t on something.

Alice then Faces the the queen ( Authority/ aka police). Then she seesevery one in the movie in a trippy turn of events ( the big trip out)and all she wants to do is have it all end and go home.

This movie is extremely satirical and has many drug relations.

Alice In Wonderland

Something that's different isn't necessarily ingenious. People ravewhat a mastermind Lewis Carrol was, and people praise this cartoonversion of his warped story.

But I asked myself as I watched this film in English class; what'sthere to appraise? How do people find this ridiculous string of scenesthat don't fit together a masterwork? Alice is a girl who one daybegins dreaming she sees a white rabbit, and for some reason shedecides to follow it. Why? Who knows. Her decisions and reactions tothe strange world of Wonderland make less and less sense as she goesthrough the encounters. She never questions what's happening, she'salways just trying to be polite for some reason.

And her adventures don't add together either. One moment she's in aforest, the next a tree extends to a hedge-maze. She's in the sea onsecond, and in the next in the woods. She grows bigger and smallerevery other frame, faster then the likes of Mario (she even eatsmushrooms!). Flowers sing, and caterpillars smoke bongs in this world,now isn't that great for children to watch! Add to this list ofchild-friendly Disney-works, is a cat so menacing and scary with hisinsane grin, that one might wonder why Disney made this. They cannotseem to decide; should the film be dark or light? The film crosses theline between both at every turn; it wants to be a Gothic cartoon (forkids), and yet it doesn't.

Is there a moral even at the end; an intention of one, even if it gotlost, somewhere amidst the obscenities of the film? No, there are none.There is however a scene where a walrus eats a bunch of innocent,child-like in persona clams, and isn't that just another great thingfor little kids to enjoy? 1/10

"A very merry un-birthday to you"-Alice In Wonderland

read comments (0)

A Streetcar Named Desire

The young Marlon Brando exploded onto the stage, and then into thecinema, with his performance as Stanley Kowalski in Tennessee Williams’play ‘A Streetcar Named Desire’. The plot centres on flighty, flirtyBlanche Dubois, a woman who resembles Gloria Swanson from ‘SunsetBoulevard’, or Emma Bovary allowed to grow old. Elia Kazan’s filmretains the theatrical structure of the piece, but alleviates iteffectively with some clever usage of camera angles. Unfortuantly,Vivien Leigh, playing an innately theatrical character, does sounnecessarily theatrically, her unbearable Blanche completely failingto win our sympathy. Brando’s acting is in another class altogether,all brooding menace and rippling muscle; Stanley is not a quiet man, oran articulate one, but there’s subtlety and eloquence in Brando’sportrayal. Althoguh there’s a whiff of unfashionable melodrama aboutthe whole movie, it’s decidedly more interesting than Kazan andBrando’s subsequent collaboration, ‘On the Waterfront’, in spite ofthat film’s fame. With performances like this, Brando set the templatefor a generation of actors to follow. Too bad the man himself grewbored of acting, and often let it show in his later, lesser work.

Somebody give me a break. There are any number of movies that are thebiggest hits of their time, but seem absolutely out of place in this dayandage. Streetcar, Casablanca, GWTW … the list goes on.

The one factor that absolutely puts me off is the acting. One has to begrateful to Brando for changing the paradigm of acting on a movie.Streetcarshows you how Brando stood apart from the crowds that made no distinctionbetween acting on stage and emoting in front of a camera. The movie iswortha watch (i’d say for 30 minutes) just to see the genius of Brando.

May i also add that it is not all movies that are relics. Happened towatchMonsiuer Verdoux the day before i watched Streetcar. I daresay thatChaplinwouldnt have changed much of the movie if he made it with today’sprinciples, technology and technique. Another movie that spring to mind isM(Fritz Lang).

The nostalgia for movies such as Streetcar seems to come from a bunch ofcritics that are past the age of 50. These are the movies they grew up onand have a pathological need to promote them.

To the future…!

I was a Brando late bloomer, as I only became aware of his geniuswithin the last few years after watching him in the Godfather (what Iconsider to be the best acting, ever). Needless to say, I was curiousto see this movie as it was the role that made him completelyworld-reknown ….within one film. Watching Marlon Brando act is likewatching Tchaikovsky conduct the Nutcracker , and my eyes never lefthim in any frame of this movie - he is truly a superb actor. Hisdialogue is timeless and accessible because it is common, everydaypeople speech, unlike the pretentious dialogue that Blanche DuBoischatters continuously. The movie feels very old….black and whitefilms by nature feel less lively, the poor and inappropriate soundtrackthat should have been used for a high school play, the cheezydirectional effects (like the rinings of voices in Blanche’s head), andthe EXTREMELY theatrical writing ("my, in all heavens, daylight hasnever exposed such a lie")…..who talks like that, really? This filmis far from being the masterpiece that many film critics claim it is-and the plot and the progression feels very unsatisfying….This movie,in my opinion, is only worth watching if you either a) have anappreciation for B-theatre (this does not feel like a film but a playwith a super8) or b)an enthusiastic Brando fan (like me). Otherwise,you will probably feel the same disappointment I did. At least theusers have agreed it does not deserve to be in the top 250- 6.5 out of10.

Spoilers herein.

The vast majority of films use someone else’s vocabulary, so when you canrun across one that helped create that vocabulary it is cause forcelebration. Usually the originality is in the vision of the filmmaker, buthere it is in the manner of acting, indeed what an actoris.

Brando changed the nature of society’s mind with this. Changed even howactors move in your dreams. Think of it.

To this point, actors existed in as many as two worlds: playing thecharacter in their world; and working on the stage to exaggerate in such away that the audience was affected. But the character’s world was alwaysviewed from the `outside’ of the stage. The `method’ changedthat.

In the method, you literally become the character. The two dimensions andthe center of gravity are changed. That center is now placed not on thestage but in the character’s world. In other worlds, the play is not set inyour mind, rather you are transported to an artificial world outside yourmind. Film alone has the power to do this repeatedly now, so in a very realsense film starts right here.

So the two dimensions are now: watching the character in his world, andwatching the actor manage the transformation. Brando is pure, at least fromhere to `Godfather.’ But he opened the door for actors to annotate theirmanagement of the transformation, with messages to the audience. Usuallythose are of an ironic form because it is easy. Sometimes — as with SeanPenn — the real power of the performance is all the extra metadialog thatgets overlain on the base of the character.

Leigh tried the transformative bit, and it eventually drove hermad.

I recently watched the film, in my college film course, and I have onequestion: Am I supposed to like/identify with Blanche? Because, whileVivian Leigh’s performance as "Scarlet, the later years" was veryimpressive, as a character I hated her. Brando on the other hand, wasextremely likable as Stanley. So as far as a recommendation, I’m only givingthis one a 6. Decent acting, especially from the supporting cast (KarlMalden) but as far as a film I want to watch and watch again…well it justdoesn’t work.

The only reason to watch this film is Vivien Leigh’s performance. I simplycannot imagine another actress playing Blanche. You wince in pain for thischaracter; her vanity, her delusions, her fragility, her deep yearning toreturn to the romanticism of what was once the Old South, when men weregentlemen, and women were ladies, and a kiss meant a proposal of marriage.When Karl Malden’s character is cruel to her you almost want to cry, "EscapeBlanche, get out of there, before they all destroy you completely." One caneasily imagine a Scarlett O’Hara type becoming a Blanche type in the rightcircumstances: old age, her support system gone, the world changing andbecoming more brutal, no money. I am sure this thought must have alsooccurred to Vivien Leigh, because you can almost see flashes of the oldScarlett in her performance. But alas, Blanche isn’t strong enough towithstand the brutality and piggishness of a Stanley Kowalski. In the lastscene you wish you could take her, instead of a mad house, to a beautifulcountry plantation in Georgia, where she could spend the last days of herlife in peace, attended to by servants who fan her while she sips lemonadesitting on a big sunny veranda. I am sure there alot of Blanches out therestill who could do with the kindness of strangers.

This movie was really weird. First of all, it’s almost impossible tounderstand what the heck Marlon Brando is saying half the time. Hetalks like he has marbles in his mouth. I don’t know if he’s "acting"drunk or if he has a speech impediment, but it is annoying.

The movie is mainly about some lady who is all washed up, so she goesto live with her sister and brother in law in a dinky apartment. Shebrings along a lot of baggage and the plot reveals how she came to bein this desperate state.

How this movie got an 8.1 overall rating, I don’t know, I’d say it’s a6 at best. The plot and acting were very good, but kind of left mefeeling cheated out of two hours of my life by the
end of the movie.However, if you are the kind of person goes in for all the dramaticpsychological bull, you’ll probably love this movie.

After seeing STREETCAR, my standards for watching films have changed.Everyfilm performance I see now, I compare to the brilliant Marlon Brando’sStanley Kowalski. Even current movie acting (which has progressed so muchsince the over-dramatic acting of Old Hollywood) is compared to Brando’sandis found inferior. This is my favorite film, my favorite director, andBrando is my favorite actor because of it. I strongly recommend anyone tosee this to realize what true acting is, what a brilliant performer canbe.

The screen chemistry between Vivien Leigh and Marlon Brando was reallygood. Its a fabulous film about a mentally disturbed person portrayed byVivian Leigh. Marlon Brando portrays a rough brute with perfection.Overalla good film to watch.

The acting in this movie was simply amazing. Vivien Leigh put on one ofthe best performances I have ever seen. She may have been a classicalactor but I still think she did better than most of the method actorsright alongside her even though they did awesome as well. Some criticscomplain about Marlon’s performance but I think he did a great job, hereally captured Stanley’s dirt and grittiness to perfection. Iseriously think this is in his top 3 performances obviously following"On the Waterfront" and "The Godfather". I also thought Karl Malden wasthe man playing Mitch, he’s just so endearing that his words really gostraight to your heart. To make it in film with a nose as big as his isno easy task so that alone tells you just how great an actor he is. Iwish he was in more movies though, so far I’ve only seen him in theother Brando movie mentioned about and "Patton" which he did extremelywell in too. This is a very sad story and has a messed up end comingfrom a moral standpoint so don’t watch it if you only like feel-goodmovies. However it is an awesome story and didn’t get outdated at all.It’s no wonder that most of the cast won Oscars for this. I love thisfilm!

Final Beckoning:

Movies : I’d go see it there in a heartbeat!

DVD Purchase : Is definitely worth it!

Rental : Do it, if you haven’t already!

read comments (0)

Ace in the Hole

I got interested in this film because I am a former newspaper man. Thetruth of the matter is, the film is a statement against society in generalwith its greed and corruption. The concept is, Let a man die just so we makea few bucks and everybody has a good time dancing and singing and riding onthe ferris wheel. Let’s not leave out the promotion to a better job andlife. The man in the cave did not have to die. The real warning comes at theend, when the by now evil Douglas falls dead. The Big Carnival is uniquewith a plot like no other movie I know of, I do not think it could be remadetoday, movie making and society has changed to much. It just falls short ofbeing a great film; probably because it reminds us to much of ourselves. Itcould be considered a cult classic. I am sorry it is not available on VHS orDVD.

I have to say this is one hell of a satire, much more close to SunsetBlvd than Billy Wilder's comedies. The story is engrossing. No scenewhere did I find it boring. The satire reflects a frightening darkestside of human being. In this case, a reporter (played by Kirk Douglas)who would manipulate for his personal gain a person (played by RichardBenedict) trapped in a mining disaster.

I thought the cast performance was exceptional starting with KirkDouglas. Kirk Douglas is quite an expert in playing a selfish andmanipulative person, much like his film producer role in The Bad andthe Beautiful. I am wondering if his these kinds of roles have greatinfluence on his son Michael Douglas' Oscar winning role in WallStreet. The wife of the trapped person was played by Jan Sterling. Shewas fantastic, especially those tension moments in the scenes betweenher Kirk Douglas. That slapping scene was top notch in the change offacial expression from admiration to shock.

I say the utmost credit has to go to the screen writing. Billy Wilderreally can write slick quotes. When the role Jan Sterling was about toabandon her miserable life instead of taking advantage of her husband'sdisaster, Kirk Douglas' role said something like "When they bleachedyour hair, they must have bleached your brain too" It is amazing that agreat movie like this one never appeared in any video medium until theCriterion DVD release. I highly recommend this movie.

This is a great film about a newspaper reporter who burned himself outin New York City with lots of boozing and fooling around with plenty ofwomen. This reporter is Chuck Tatum, (Kirk Douglas) who comes to townin Albuquerque, New Mexico in a tow truck after all his tires blew out.Chuck seeks employment from a local Albuquerque Newspaper and managesto get a position on the paper. Chuck gets a big assignment to cover arattlesnake convention but finds a more interesting story about thecave in of a mine which traps Leo Minosa,(Richard Benedict). Chuckknows from past experience that this will make a great story and hecontacts all the right connections for a doctor, construction engineersand the local sheriff. Lorraine Minosa,(Jan Sterling) is the wife ofLeo and is really bored with her marriage and Lorraine becomesinterested in Chuck Tatum. This entire event brings a media circus tothis New Mexico story. This is a film that will capture your attentionfrom the very beginning to the very end, there is some very serioussigns of violence and romance. This is a great Kirk Douglas film whogave an outstanding performance along with Jan Sterling who was verysexy and also a very tough and rough gal.

KIRK DOUGLAS was always a dependable actor and occasionally brilliantwhen he had a good script and a good director. Here he has both, andhe's in his element with Billy Wilder's direction making the most of acynical story of a reporter exploiting human drama for his own benefit.

JAN STERLING, as the trapped man's wife, matches Douglas for toughnessevery step of the way. "I met a lot of hard-boiled eggs in my time,"she tells Douglas, whom she sees through with his scheme ofprofiteering from the accident. "But you're twenty minutes." A few morecynical remarks and he's smacking her across the face twice.

No one looks any good, as far as the characters go. The gawkers areshown to be the sort that stare at accidents and are soon turningSterling's tacky establishment into a gold mine. The cynical screenplaycatches all of the nuances of the exploited situation and Douglas comesup with remarks like, "Tomorrow that will be yesterday's news andthey'll wrap a fish in it." As the arrogant man who delays the rescueto milk the situation for the most he can get out of it, KIRK DOUGLASgives a riveting performance as a louse. He never tries to soften thepart, nor does director Wilder ever shy away from exposing thehypocrisy at work.

Still a very timely story and expose of hypocrisy on several levels bythe press and public. RICHARD BENEDICT as the trapped man and ROBERTARTHUR as a naive young reporter are both excellent in strongsupporting roles.

Summing up: Brilliant film deserves much more attention than it gets.

When Billy Wilder's "Ace In The Hole" was released back in 1951 it wasnot a very popular film. It's reputation was such such that Wilderhimself referred to it has his "runt of the litter." While "Stalag 17'from the previous year had been a major hit audiences found nothingupbeat about this entry. It stars Kirk Douglass as a newspaper writerwho gets stuck out west doing stories about quaint local events becausehis reputations proceeds him at the big eastern papers. It seems as ifour hero has had a habit of seeking out his publishers' wives for hisown purposes.

Douglass gets his chance when he runs across a man trapped in a cave inthat happens to be in the middle of a sacred Indian burial ground. Asthe entrapment drags on Douglass gets exclusive rights to the story andmanipulates events to catapult his power until the trapped maneventually dies when he could have been rescued. A broken man, Douglasshas about the same future now as Walter Neff had in the closing framesof "Double Indemnity." Time has been good to "Ace In The Hole." It'scritique of the media has become what we now expect of all news andentertainment sources. We understand and feel for the reporter in a waythat was not possible in the 1950's and we are much more likely to rootfor him. The film was remade in 1997 as "Mad City." Those that are intofilm noir or classic Hollywood would be advised to take a look at "AceIn The Hole" and from what I have heard the knew Criterion DVD is agreat package.

Such is the mystery of movies; When this movie was released in 1950, itwas both a critical and commercial flop. In desperation, the studiotried to rename the movie "The Big Carnival." Were they trying to trickthe audience to going to a happy, "Greatest Show on Earth"-type movie?Or were they just taken over by Billy Wilder's trademark cynicism? Itdoesn't even matter; the movie was still a flop. Lost forever and neverreleased on VHS or DVD in America until July 2007, Ace in the Hole,along with Vertigo and just about any Nicholas Ray movie, gathered acult following and proved that time was all it needed to be recognizedas the masterpiece it always was.

Kirk Douglas is hard-shelled reporter Chuck Tatum, fired from justabout every big newspaper. Hoping to rebuild his reputation, hegrudgingly takes a job at a small newspaper in Albuquerque, wherenothing really happens…until a man gets trapped in a mine. Using hiswit and cunning, Tatum takes this small-town emergency and transformsit into a media circus before the word was even coined. Part of hisstrategy includes manipulating the corrupt sheriff into delaying therescue, which gives the story time to reach all over the country andbecome a media sensation, a la Baby Jessica, the real-life humaninterest story of the late 8
0s. And then, everything goes horribly,horribly wrong.

Billy Wilder, as noted above, was well-known for two things: forcrafting as many classic movies as Spielberg, Ford, Scorsese, Hawks andBergman, and his wit and undeniable cynicism. After his classic SunsetBlvd., a scathing tragedy disguised as a black comedy about theHollywood machine, it didn't seem like Wilder could get any morecynical. That was proved wrong by this movie. Chuck Tatum makes NormaDesmond look like Mary Poppins–throughout the course of the movie, henever grows a heart, and his only mild redemption is realizing that theman's wife is even more acerbic than he is, and through her seeing theempty human being he himself has become. Like all dark Billy Wildermovies, there is absolutely no hope or shining light at the end of hischaracters' tunnels. All paths lead to death, madness or both. Ace inthe Hole is absolutely no exception, and it's for that deep cynicismand pessimism that makes this movie so endearing, so timeless, socontemporary.

"Ace in the hole" (1951) directed by Billy Wilder as movie it is alwaysa tale concerning fake evaluation, that still explains no accomplishedrights of survivors dying slowly from a catastrophe that occurs dailyin the world like that. And what makes any people angry, when thingsare going badly and aren't immediately under prevention - before itmight have happened - even then when a sensationalist survey for thegood it is hysterical and whatsoever is already too late to secure thelabor activity.

Perhaps barely much more inevitably and a quite hypocritical still,because delaying its unbelievable truth that is also responsible for aninner circle and so that produces a bitter consciousness concerning thesocial value of every life in danger. Wilder here in this fiction ofstrength and passionate feelings, gave us almost one of his mostinteresting movies of the fifties about social values, when economicstandards weren't under regular check up by innovation andresponsibility from the owners of the wealthy underground. Thisspectacle in meantime at open air, view from the entirely sociallandscape around the horizon, it is of great angriness and despair ifyou understood what it was at stake here, as inhuman conception of sucha sensationalism in the press like a fairly day of payment in a givenmine from the beginning of the colonization.

Seemingly, director Wilder as Austrian of gem put some irresponsiblecarnival as being his own style of making a portrait of the collectivestupidity, in a time where others were searched by another motivationthan greed and cupidity either that it were such as mere items. Thecars driven around as in a kind of a caravan's race, going away fromthe place of all dangers, for the deaths as in the time of Indians, itis as scene showing us there as in an ambulant circus the speed oftheir drivers, after the news boom was finished for the bad. If it isthe truth, it is too with a flavor of ashes of the dust covering thelandscape sharply. Possibly getting out any adversity against this kindof running away, for confounding country people about the aim of thisspeculative event of a retainment of a death, for nothing more thanselling its result surely not on the front page of the sensationalistpaper. Faith, speculation, business, promotion, all linked with such ahappening in a cavern near the frontier of desert, when a man isimprisoned there by the legs and his wife and parents or relativesseemingly entering in such affair for earning something else with thisfatality for the communication at the scale of the entirely country,making a deal to sustain the attention of all people hearing the directbroadcast of this epiphenomena of disproportionated size as diversionfor keeping in touch with mediocrity for learning nothing than cynicismand hypocrisy. Wilder in his plot gave us the devolution of such ablack hole of tiny and reduced importance in news as social panic, forrevealing the nature of anyone before the chance of improvisation andbad instincts for social help on the spot of confusion, all that forearning money to increase the prosperity of a few characters there atexpense of a victim of popular mind and crazy conscience.

Many American movies indulge in overdrawn stereotypes and overblownthemes, but I can't think of one that does it to this degree. The storyline is simple enough: a tough guy alcoholic reporter stuck inAlbuquerque delays a trapped miners rescue all to make big headlines.The story went over the deep end for me when he summarily dismissed theauthority of the sheriff directing the rescue and took over the effortseemingly based solely on his loud mouth. In fact, throughout the filmall characters are unaccountably putty in his hands. It seems societyis just waiting for some arrogant tough with a kielbasa sausage in hiszoot suit pants to assume command. The trapped man is pathetic andincidentally unaware his wife is a floozy, getting it on of course withyou-know-who. Nothing original there.

Continually driving home the infantile message about the crassness ofsociety is a brass band loudly grinding out the trite Leo Minosa rescuesong every time the camera goes outside the cave. With autos full ofsightseers streaming in continually, there is now also a Ferris Wheeland merry-go-round, along with innumerable concessions. You might evengo so far as to say that it has become a 'media circus'. Despite thecomic book level of subtlety in hammering home this

'message', certain aspects of the film are okay. The role of Minosa'swife is played pretty well. She looks particularly convincing just theway she wears the late 40's clothing.

The newsroom set and the New Mexico location provide interest, but whata waste.

It would be easy to say my criticism of this flick is really a generalcriticism of the sophistication of films of that time, but I could citetoo many films which would be above that criticism and I doubt many arebelow this one. Lucky thing for me Douglas' character isn't alive toloose one into my ugly mush for saying so.

A fantastic dream team of Wilder and Douglas - excellent writing andfull-on acting - that somehow just doesn't quite deliver on itspromise.

Why? Well, it is shot in a classic film-noir style - but the pacing andespecially Douglas is full throttle all the time, meaning that by theend his bolt was way spent before the denouement.

The tale of a journalist looking for a way back into the big time andlooking to a mining cave-in to do it is timeless. However, the filmlooks more dated than many half a century later due in the main to thevery stylized approach.

It is hugely watchable, but doesn't quite reach the heights of Wilder'sbest efforts.

This is one of Kirk Douglas' best films, yet oddly it lost money whenit was released and is still a relatively overlooked gem. Why it neverhas caught on with the public is beyond me–perhaps it was just toocynical and people wanted to believe it couldn't be based on truth.

Kirk Douglas plays a newspaper man who happens to be out in the middleof nowhere. It just so happens that there is a cave-in nearby andDouglas decides this is exactly the sort of story he can bleed dry ANDestablish himself. So, this minor little story is soon blown totallyout of proportion and the area becomes a huge media circus. The onlyproblem is that soon Douglas finds out that the man trapped inside isalready dead, so he struggles with his conscience and his instinctsthat this STILL can be a top story. Amazingly, when the dead man'swidow finds out the truth, she isn't particularly concerned abouthim–just how she, too, can profit from the media attention! This is avery rich and insightful film–one that is as applicable now as it wasthen. In an age where minor stories are prostituted by the press (suchas when there is ANY car chase in L.A. or when a pretty White womaneither disappears or commits a crime), th
is movie manages to still bevery timely and brilliant. Amazing writing, acting and direction–thisfilm has it all.

read comments (0)

A Place in the Sun

This story just shows how terrible it is when a working class girl givesaway her virtue too quickly. Please. Did they cast Shelley Winters andfrumpher up as much as possible just to make the other stars look that muchbetter?

This movie was nice to look at with some interesting shots (like the radioin Winters’ window) and, of course, Taylor is just gorgeous. I didn’t muchcare for Montgomery Clift’s portrayal - he was much better in "From HeretoEternity" - but the rest of the cast does very well. The best scene in themovie comes at the end when Taylor’s face reveals the true conflict offeelings she has for Clift.

I still can’t get past the story and the emphasis on certain aspects ofit -such as the abortion doctor’s scene, which was done so poorly that Winterslooks like she doesn’t know what she’s doing. The scene in the boat wasjustclumsy and looked like it was tossed in to move things along. I wish theentire story was handled with more subtlety.

To the best of my knowledge it was the late great Pauline Kael who firstadvanced the theory that "A Place in the Sun" would have been much moreinteresting if Shelley Winters had played the rich girl and E. Taylor hadplayed the poor girl. She was so right. Despite the arty cinematicflourishes and the pleasure we get from watching the camera worship Cliftand Taylor during their love scenes (plus I’ve always been partial to FranzWaxman’s moody, stirring score), the film’s impact is blunted by its overlyromantic approach. If Winters had played the rich girl in the same drab wayshe played the poor girl, Clift’s interest in her would have been much moresuspect. And if Taylor had played the poor girl in the same vivacious wayshe played the rich girl, then Clift’s dumping of her would have been muchmore agonizingly poignant. As it is, the contrast between the two women isso obvious and heavy-handed we never seriously question the choices Clifthas to make in this movie. I haven’t read the Dreiser novel, but I’mcertain that the hero must have been portrayed much more unsympatheticallythere than he is in this movie. As for poor Shelley Winters, she’s not evenallowed to look attractive or have a personality, so we can’t even see whyhe would want to have a one-night stand with her much less consider marryingher! By implying that poor girls don’t even have any natural assets, thismovie seems to be an unintentionally glorifying the class system Americanstyle. The film’s striking black and white photography looks splendid onthe newly released DVD, but an audio commentary by George Stevens, Jr. andIvan Moffat is disappointingly bland and uncritical.

Several people here have seen this movie as very ’40s. Actually, it is anawkward mixing of that era and Dreiser’s 1900s. Dreiser was one of severalwriters who tried to bring the naturalism of European writers like EmileZola to America. His story was intended to be the antithesis of the HoratioAlger story, where a poor boy with pluck and ambition could always makegood.

Stevens was careful to keep Dreiser’s indictment of the American dreamintact but for some reason decided to update the book to his own time. Thuswe have the wide gap between the arrogant, overbearing rich and the meek buthonest poor facing a hopeless struggle. You would never guess the changesbrought about by two World Wars, Prohibition and the Depression from thisfilm. The only changes from Dreiser’s time seem to be more cars, radio andclothing styles.

To Stevens’ credit, he remained as neutral about his characters as Dreiserwas, though by 1951 it was no longer the height of realism. Elizabeth Taylorhad her first opportunity to show sexuality, and her performance stilleffective. Montgomery Clift’s method acting is not so lucky while ShelleyWinters does the best she can with a pathetic character.

`A Place in the Sun’ is film that is full of desire, hatred, love, anddeath. A story that begins with a man coming to see his rich unclelookingfor a job; it ends with the same man George Easton in walking to theelectric chair. This film entails a love triangle that has so many loopsand swirls. Through the course of the film George finds himself stuck inarelationship with a woman (Alice Trip) who is going to have his baby andwishes him to marry her, and the relationship he desires with anotherwoman.Through his relationship with Alice it always appears that when Georgeandher are together it is very dark around them, or not a very delightfulplacethey are at. For example, when the had their first kiss you could hardlyeven see it. However, when George was with the other woman it was easy tosee and very bright. This symbolizes that Alice is not the one forGeorge,but he gets himself in trouble by getting her pregnant. Especially sinceemployees of Mr. Easton are not suppose to have relationships with oneanother. So Alice threatens to expose the entire thing, and George doesnotwant this because he knows that his chances with the other woman with agoodlife ahead of her will be over. This leads George mad to the point hewishes to kill Alice, but at the last moment it appears he changes hismind,but she ends up dying from drowning anyway. Through the course of thewholeplot George’s personality changes a lot. He starts the film so nice andquite, and turns into a major jerk and lies to everyone. Loves, Desire,hate are all emotions that people have to deal with everyday day. Georgemade a terrible mistake, and he didn’t know what to do about it. Are wesuppose to feel sorry for him, that they convicted of Alice’s crime eventhough he didn’t do it. I truly don’t know, because there are examples inboth directions to make me feel sorry for him, and not at the same time.Ifeel sorry for him because when he arrived to get his job for his uncle heseemed to be a very respectful, and caring man, and through the course ofthe film he had some bad luck. If Alice hadn’t gotten pregnant therewouldhave been no problem at all. The reason I don’t feel sorry for him isbecause the night they had sex that got her pregnant he was totally tryingto get her to do it with him, so it is his fault. If she were trying togethim to have sex it then it would be a different story. The obvious socialissue in this film is pregnancy from sex before marriage. It is a verypotent topic probably now almost as much as back then. However, it bringsup major dilemmas in peoples lives when they get pregnant before marriage.As in this film it caused Alice to use it against George, and it madeGeorgego crazy. As we said in class, this would be a good film to show to youngpeople because it might give them an idea of how bad pregnancy beforemarriage can affect two peoples lives. In this film it was bad for boththeman and the woman. They both died because of this baby that was neverborn.

I enjoyed this movie. Good acting, good story (though sadly I read aspoiler before seeing it and it took the edge off for me). But Idisagree with the director's decision to do it in black and white. It'sELIZABETH TAYLOR for pete's sake! Now, although the director may havethought that technicolor detracted from the story, I think that saysmore about his directing abilities or lack thereof (or lack ofconfidence in himself) than reality bears out. Life is in color and weall know there's enough tragedy in that. And seeing Elizabeth Taylor inall her glory in glorious color would have made the dumping of apregnant woman (who frankly got on my nerves so much I might havereached for a paddle myself) more understandable to the viewers. Notjustifiable, but…It's ELIZABETH TAYLOR. What a waste at any time tolet such an opportunity of such beauty to be missed. And if you don'tknow how to use that palette of colors to include drama and trauma andpain, well. As I said, that says more about you as a director thanabout the film or subject.

Theodore Dreiser's novel "An American Tragedy" turned into a glossy,slick, surface-p
retty though still effective melodrama about troubledyoung people. Montgomery Clift is the poor ex-bellhop who gets a jobworking in his rich uncle's factory; he has eyes for a smoky societybeauty obviously out of his league, courting instead a plain-Janeworking girl who ends up pregnant. The story has been pushed up fromthe 1930s to the film's modern era, leaving some portions of the plotseeming antiquated (when Shelley Winters goes to a doctor for help withher condition, he acts more like a minister than a medico). DirectorGeorge Stevens painstakingly mounts this plot (in all its unfairness)with the surge of a romantic epic, turning Clift's character into ananti-hero (he's more like a coward, an extremely politerebel–alternating his leather jacket with suits and ties). ElizabethTaylor plays her country club princess with a mix of naughty spirit andmaternal instinct (intriguing if not quite believable), while Wintersgoes from shy and subdued to vindictive in no time flat (does Stevensmean her to be the villain of the piece?). The theme of a have-notskirting the world of the haves is certainly brought off with pomp andstyle (and some steamy clinches), but the courtroom theatrics in thethird act are laid on with a trowel. It might have played as a moralitytale at one time, but today it looks more like an overheated soaper.Stevens stacks the deck against his protagonist with needlingprecision, right up until the jaw-droppingly 'tough' conclusion. **1/2from ****

I can only say that George Stevens’ version of Theodore Dreiser’s "AnAmerican Tragedy" is not what I envisioned when I read the book. Therefore,I came away disappointed at the screen treatment with Liz Taylor (beautifulbut shallow), Montgomery Clift (beautiful but shallow) and poor ShelleyWinters looking like a drab little wren. An air of artificiality hangs overevery scene, every slow-moving scene, and only increases by the time thestory arrives at the courtroom climax where an unrestrained Raymond Burr isallowed to chew the scenery.

This is NOT the great picture everyone always says it is. It’s one of thosefilms that dates badly. Evidently, fans of Liz Taylor and Monty Clift arestarry-eyed about their favorite actors and refuse to see the weaknesses inthe plodding story and the thinly sketched characters. Elizabeth Taylor hadmuch better roles in her future career (Cat On a Hot Tin Roof, Giant) andMontgomery Clift would make an unforgettable Morris Townsend in The Heiress.Their acting here is as self-conscious as the arty camerawork that framesthem in huge romantic close-ups.

The novel had much more depth and meaning than this watered down version ofthe story. Read it and you will wonder what all the fuss was about when "APlace in the Sun" was released. Vastly overrated and noteworthy only for thesincere performance of Shelley Winters and Franz Waxman’s interestingbackground score.

It was probably inevitable that "An American Tragedy," in its evolutionto screen, would become more about the doomed love affair of MontgomeryClift and Elizabeth Taylor than the moral and ethical dilemmas thatreally form the foundation of Theodore Dreiser’s novel. After all,doomed love is a bigger sell, especially when you have the romanticfaces of Clift and Taylor swooning together in extreme close-up. I’mnot a fan of doing book to movie comparisons. I figure that film andliterature are two different art forms, so I shouldn’t compare theirrendering of the story anymore than I would compare the same story aspresented in a painting as opposed to a ballet. So I tried to take thefilm on its own merits (admittedly difficult to do, since I watched themovie on the same day I finished the book), but even at that, I thinkthe movie falls short.

Clift plays George Eastman, poor nephew to a rich, socially elitefamily in a small New York state factory town. He’s been invited by hisuncle to come and work in the Eastman factory, giving him an entre intoa world of luxury that has always been out of his grasp due to hisfamily’s humble position (they run a mission and preach on thestreets). George strikes up a love affair with Alice Tripp (ShelleyWinters), a girl who works with him in the factory, but his attentionsfor her quickly fade when he becomes interested in Angela Vickers,another member of the rich set, played by Liz Taylor. Complicationsensue, and George finds himself and his situation spiraling drasticallyout of control, with an ending more tragic than he ever thoughtpossible.

George Stevens directs the film with a sure hand, and there are somebreathtaking displays of directorial skill. For example, one thatstands out in my mind comes when the camera focuses on a radioreporting a possible murder, while the young, rich kids with whomGeorge has struck up a friendship goof off in the water in thebackground. There are also some great uses of dissolve editing, thoughthe technique is somewhat overused.

But there are many problems with the film, notably its pacing. Muchtime is spent on George’s love triangle with Alice and Angela, whilethe script races through the trial and George’s ultimate fate, as ifthe screenwriter realized he only had two hours to tell his story whenhe’d already wasted an hour and a half on front-end material. Rushingthrough the end blunts much of the story’s original intent and power,as that is where the majority of moral questions arise.

Also, the character Shelley Winters plays is so drab and mousy, thatone doesn’t understand why George would entangle himself with her inthe first place. But Clift does a great job with the lead role,delivering a performance of raw nerve.

It befuddles me somewhat as to why this movie is quite so acclaimed. Ican only imagine that its reception has to do with cultural moods atthe time it was released and that it just hasn’t aged well. It came outin 1951, a big year for literary adaptations ("A Streetcar NamedDesire" and "Death of a Salesman" were both given big-screen treatmentsthat year), and you only need to compare "Sun" to "Streetcar" to seehow short it falls at capturing the essence of a true literary classic.

Grade: B-

If you are looking for a movie that will parallel the book, An AmericanTradgedy by Theodore Dreisler, look elsewhere. This movie claims to bebased off the novel, but only in very few places are they similar.

Overall, it came off as weak and uninteresting. A huge disappointment forme as I was expecting so much more.

Taylor and Clift are at the height of their stunning physical beauty in thistale of greed and lust, based upon Dreiser’s 1931 "An American Tragedy". APlace in the Sun deals with a darker element of humanity - the power ofmoney, the position it can bestow, along with the consequences of lonelinessand sexual need. Franz Waxman’s beautiful score can be a bit intrusive attimes, but the heady, noir-ish quality of the film as it drags you deeperinto George’s complicated web of deceit is well worth thevisit.

read comments (0)