Suddenly, Last Summer

This movie is excessively talky, but the chilling, memorable climax isworththe wait. It’s better to go into this unprepared (as I was the first timeIsaw it), so be very careful when you’re reading other reviews of the film,because they kind of spoil the final "twists". Elizabeth Taylor, who hasnever been more beautiful, also gives the best performance, but MontgomeryClift looks (understandably) uncomfortable. (***)

Suddenly Last Summer (1959) Another Tennessee Williams vehicle onlythis time the playwright delves too deeply into the twisted psyches ofhis players, resulting in a storyline that crashes in on itself. Waittill you get a load of this plot: Mother in-law Katherine Hepburn isstrong arming Doctor Montgomery Clift into performing a lobotomy on herniece (Taylor) in order to silence her seemingly mad ravings.

Apparently Taylor has lots of secrets locked inside that pretty littlehead of hers concerning her cousin. Add a pinch of incest, a dash ofhomosexuality and a dollop of cannibalism, boil on high for an hour andhalf and you have the recipe for the dawning of the sixties!

Famous shot from movie, Taylor on the beach in a form fitting bathingsuit, directed to wear by cousin so all the boys will flock around.It's a hoot! Though I would advise not letting young adolescents watchthis. It will screw em up for years.

Sebastian was a homosexual. Violet knew it and actually promoted it.That way he would truly love only her. The movie is about Violet’sinsanity, not Cathy’s, and she wanted Cathy lobotomized to hide thetruth. Unfortunately, when this movie was made people such as Sebastianhad to die or go crazy because of the production code’s rules.Homosexuals were considered crazy or bad at that time and like all"bad" or "defective" people, they had to pay the price for their"badness." I found this film a little confusing in places, but when youhave actors like Katharine Hepburn, Elizabeth Taylor and MontgomeryClift working together, it is always worth watching.

I was confused on the plot of this movie!!! What is the reality of thismovie without the surrealism? What was with the sea turtles, Mom comingdone the elevator cage, ? I would like the real answers for Sebastian’spersonal life.

WHAT IS THE TRUE ENDING OF THIS MOVIE. I AIN’T BUYING THIS CANNALBALISMWITH THOSE Latin YOUTHS.

I do not like trying to cypher a movie and the deep mental undertonesof a movie.

Would somebody explain some of the mysterious of this movie.

Why did they even try to handle movies that were so coded in thosetimes and the movie could not explain itself.

I liked the acting of Katherine Hepburn, Montgomery Cliff and LizTaylor.

Where does one begin on a such a waste of time this film is–for thosewho made it and for those unfortunate enough to watch it? And why suchpraise for such a dud? This is right up there with "Reflections of aGolden Eye" as films with supposedly "progressive" themes that are notonly trash, they're not even good trash.

Enough has been said in other comments about the plot line, so I won'trehash. But geez, what a story! If Gore Vidal was, again, supposedly so"progressive" in his handling of gay themes, do you think he could havewritten something more credible than "crazy gay man using family tolure boys to sexual encounters" routine? Wouldn't progressive have beento create a portrait of a normal, well adjusted gay man? Other writershave touched on the biggest blunders of the screenplay–why would guysoogling Liz be interested in Sebastian? Is the bisexual population ofSpain all at the beach? And what could possibly be the motivation ofmurder….the suggestions of some writers here are laughable…'well,the young men knew he was leaving and never coming back, so they killedhim'. What??!!! And how about that "eating his flesh" bit? Hilarious!Just beyond belief.

Other unintentionally hilarious bits: *–Clift walking around with hiseyes huge and with a semi-lobotomized look on his own face. At thebeginning of the film he has a German accent. Then he doesn't. Then hedoes again.

*–Liz doing the same character she always does. Liz. And herrecounting of the events at the end had me rolling.

*–How about when Liz starts yelling at Hepburn who starts the palsyshaking thing that would mirror her normal state a few decades later.Add to it that fringy hat she is wearing and he is like a shakingpoodle.

*–The guys at the beach. They all look like 20s to me. Someoneinsinuated perhaps some child molestation occurred. Where were thechildren, you mean the guys jumping over the fence to get at Liz?*–When would Hepburn have ever been a lure for young boys? *–Howabout the garden scene at the beginning that goes on, and on, and on,and on, and on, and on, and on and….

*–Hepburn's elevator rides–let me see, metaphor for her descent intomadness? How clever. How stupid.

It's not bad enough to be camp, but it almost is. And in between allthe insane parts, it's incredibly boring. No one here is interesting,amusing, or thought provoking. I cannot believe I even got through it,and just thought I would do a service to the community to help preventmore collective time wasting by watching such unbelievable garbage.

I view this picture as a psychological horror film because it lacks thedrama and characterization of the more popular plays and films of TennesseeWilliams’ works. Like the genre of horror, it relies on grotesque imageryand shocking the audience, much like Silence of the Lambs. Because ofthis,I can not recommend it for everyone; only tried and true TennesseeWilliams’fans. If you are not sure you like the works of Tennessee Williams, Isuggest you see A Streetcar Named Desire, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, Night ofthe Iguana, The Rose Tattoo, or The Glass Menagerie.

This overwrought mess is so tightly wound it’s barely watchable.Elizabeth Taylor goes insane-VERY insane-after witnessing the murder ofher cousin, a homosexual "poet." Her aunt, played by Katherine Hepburn,wants doctor Montgomery Clift to lobotomize Taylor before she tells toomuch about her son. Hepburn plays a Southern ghoul that borders on camp– surely a drag queen could have played her part! Taylor acts and actsand acts. She so shrill and out of sync with the other actors it’sdifficult to believe that director Joseph L. Mankiewicz didn’t try toreel her in. Clift walks around in a daze appearing to have givenHIMSELF the lobotomy Hepburn is hoping he’ll perform on Taylor! Thesqualid screenplay is credited to Gore Vidal.

While the movie starts out slowly it comes to life as ElizabethTaylor’s narrative unfolds, reaching a crescendo in her description ofSebastian’s final tragedy in a powerful dramatic performance thatjustifiably earned her an Oscar nomination.

Apparently there were a number of tensions on the set, they seem tohave benefited the film in the tautness that helped emphasize theconflict between Katherine Hepburn’s and Elizabeth Taylor’s respectivecharacters.

Notably, this is also one of Hollywood’s first attempts to deal with agay character. Probably a result of the Gore Vidal/Tenessee Williamsscreenplay; two pioneers in the gay rights movement.

This is a landmark film, both for Elizabeth Taylor’s performance, whichmust have surprised critics at the time, and the audacity of thescript.

It’s a pity this is one of Katherine Hepburn’s and Elizabeth Taylorsless widely known movies

indeed one of the best movies ever made, if you ask me. All three maincharacters are very well acted, the whole movie is one big dark menacingentity, unveiling itself slowly but never totally. There is this awfulsecret that we will never understand but, we will surely understand theevilness of it. This
is the dark side, the one we always feel is there butthat we never get to see or grasp. Nor do we in this movie, but it grapsusto never let go, probably even after we’re dead.

This expansion of Tennesse Williams' one act off-Broadway play is aprolonged melodrama. Adapted by Williams and Gore Vidal, the silly,unconvincing plot asks the audience to believe that doctors, with thefamily's consent, would perform a totally unnecessary lobotomy on abeautiful young woman (Taylor) who is clearly not insane. Heraunt(Hepburn) wants her lobotomized so she won't be able to tell, orremember, witnessing the events that lead to the cannibalization ofHephurn's homosexual son, Sebastion. This high-on-the-hog melodramaticplot serves as an excuse to exploit mental illness and homosexualityfor shock and horror. The never-more-gorgeous Taylor looks absurdly outof place in the mental institution and her character seems moregrounded than anyone else. Taylor was Oscar nominated for her showyperformance the highlight of which is her big monologue scene at theend. The also nominated Hepburn is amusing as she flounces aboutdispensing her dotty vocal mannerisms, and ironically, Montgomery Cliftas the neurosurgeon speaks as though he's been lobotomized. The filmfeels talky and long, and it takes the doctor and the director JosephMankiewicz too long to crank out the obvious. Some campy interest here;not much else.

read comments (0)

North by Northwest

before i begin, i will say that i understood every part of this movie.I had to study it for film class.

Secondly, i've seen many BAD movies, especially in Bollywood, and thosemovies happened to be VERY similar.

This movie cannot be any cornier. With each stupid plot point and thebad acting, the movie only has a name because Hitcock made it. IfHitchock did not exist, and if anyone else made this movie, making anidentical copy, the movie would fail. The movie cannot maintain itsposition alone, it needs Hitcock.

Movies considered the best of all time must be able to compete withthose from anytime, past or future. Therefore, technology, color, andanything you can think of that has acted as a disadvantage towardsHitchcock because of time period does not matter, because theseelements are not needed to make a great film–such as On theWaterfront. great film, made during the same time period.

PLENTY of films made today are SIGNIFICANTLY better, yet are underratedbecause their directors do not have a name that compares to Scorsacce,Speilburg, or Kubrick. North By Northwest alone would be one of theforgotten movies of its decade, except the world is filled withHitchcock fanatics

One of the big IL’ movies. Hitchcock. Cary Grant. 8.6 here at IMDb!This move, along with a lot of other "golden oldies", are given muchtoo high ratings at IMDb. I argue that the reason for this over ratingis that people review movies as if it was sports and not art. Let meexplain When you review a world cup soccer match from the 50:s youmust take into consideration that the game was much slower, the tacticssimple, and that the players were not very well trained, compared totoday that is. The world cup final between West Germany and Hungary in1954 was top quality entertainment, performed by world class artists,if you looked at it 1954. If you look at it today the first thing thatstrikes you is how much everything has improved. Put simply,the worldcup winners of 1954 would not win one match in any division two seriesin Europe today. But still we can look at the cup final from -54 andsay, yeah that was a great game, considering it was played 50 yearsago. With art, it’s another story. You don’t consider, or rather,shouldn’t consider, age as a factor. You won’t hear anyone say - Yeah,Picasso painted some good shiit back in his days, but he could nevercompete with today’s artists. The same goes for Mozart, Beethoven,Leonardo, Michelangelo etc etc. My argument is that the movie artshould be treated as any other art form.

Let’s apply this to the movie in question. Acting: I would like anyonethat gave this movie a rating over 6-7 to look at the car chase sceneone more time and tell me what they think of Cary Grants acting in thatscene. I can tell you all that one of my friends, at age 15, acteddrunk better than old Cary did here. (And nobody even believed that myfriend was drunk.) It pisses me off when someone says that the actingis superb in this movie. It is an insult to all actors of today.

Plot: I won’t bore you with an analysis. Lets just state that the plotis unbelievable and some scenes ridiculous.

Script: Hitchcock is said to be the master of suspense. In North byNorthwest the suspense level is so low that not even a ten year oldwould get a pulse from watching it. The dialogue is however smart andfunny.

Conclusion: Bad acting. Unbelievable plot. Pretty funny. Extremelyoverrated. 4/10. If you are hungry for a Hitchcock flick, watch Rearwindow instead.

"North by Northwest" is just a light-hearted,unserious move with lostof illogical scenes in the plot.An advertising man, Roger Thornhill(played by Cary Grant), is mistaken for a government agent and pursuedby spies who want to kill him. Thornhill is framed for murder andforced to elude the police as well as the secret agents.During thesequence of event you see many coincidences and unreasonableactions.One of them is Grant’s character being chased by a crop duster.To think of killing a man with a chopper twisting around him above!Grant and leading lady Eva Marie Saint’s clambering over the faces ofMount Rushmore in an attempt to evade their enemies but somehow theenemies are bypassed(one of them falls down) the other is shot by thepolice which arrives at the last minute in such movies that havenon-apodictic plots! Another one is Grant’s meeting Eva Marie Saint inthe train. Have you ever seen a secret agent who involves her emotionin the job she does at least in love-at-first-sight struck way? Wellthe only thing I find in the movie is a little bit a sense of humor.Nothing more! Just an average light-hearted movie of which plot wandersaimlessly! And that is not enough even to be at the bottom of top 250?You call this a thriller good gracious good heavens!

This has to be one of the better Hitchcock movies despiteinconsistencies. I find Hitchcock vastly overrated which is not thesame as incompetent; basically he's a first-rate journeyman with afirst-rate press agent but here he wisely cast Cary Grant in the leadand supplied him with a worthy villain in the talented shape of JamesMason. Given that pairing you could practically cast Marjorie Main asthe love interest and get away with it. For an average man in thestreet Grant is urbanity personified in the face of real,life-threatening danger and witty with it. It defies credence thatsomeone who'd just been force fed an entire fifth of Bourbon would beable to sit up straight in a car let alone negotiate a winding road inthe face of oncoming traffic and if you swallow this then nothing thatfollows will faze you. Enjoyable, Yes; Credible, No, but what the hey,it's only a movie, Ingrid.

Cary Grant, who was a homosexual who lived with his lover RandolphScott for twelve years and sexually abused Barbara Hutton's son, wasfar too OLD at 55 to be playing the romantic lead. It's hilarious thathe looks the same age as the actress playing his mother, horrendouslybad casting! This movie is a slow, overlong, dated and boring crap festand it is inferior to all the Bond movies. Grant could never haveplayed Bond, because he was too OLD and too GAY. If this rubbish hadbeen half an hour shorter, filmed on location instead of onfake-looking studio sets, and if it hadn't been so old-fashioned andboring then maybe it would be watchable. Gregory Peck would have beenfar better than Grant the Homo.

North by Northwest is a fine film, but hey, did you notice that it’s over40years old? I say it’s due for a good ol’ Hollywood remake! Just thinkwhatcan be achieved and how much better the movie can be with modern CGI andfresh, young talent.

First off, casting is vital. Cary Grant may have been an uber-stud backinthe 50s, but he’s way too Ward Cleaver for today’s hip audience. Irecommend Will Smith or the Rock. Replacing Eva Marie Saint would be anaccomplished actress like Cameron Diaz or Jessica Simpson. And for thevillainous Vandamm, go with Agent Smith from the Matrix. Also, I don’tknowwhat role they would play, but squeeze DMX and Jet Li in there somehow.Cause I mean, you put those two together and it’s like gold everytime!

Now Hitchcock’s plot is involving enough but it might be a bit too slowfortoday’s kids. Fortunately I have lots of great ideas. In the drunk carchase scene, replace the pursuers’ car with an M1 Abrams tank and insteadofa convertible, Thornhill should be in either a hovercraft or a HummerH2.

The scene where Thornhill is being attacked by the cropduster is perfect;just use a stealth fighter instead, have it happen in Times Square, andhaveThornhill shoot down the plane with a bazooka; oh, and it should be doneallin slow-mo. Finally, the last scene should end with Mt. Rushmoreexplodingas Thornhill/Kendall jump off the top screaming "COWABUNGA TO THEEXTREME,YO!"

But otherwise the movie is perfect as is! Well except for thesoundtrack,but I have plans for that too…

Hitchcock was likely a genius in his day, and many of his filmsextraordinary. But at least this one has aged poorly. I was prompted torevisit it because I’m making my own Shakespeare film festival, and thetitle of this ostensibly comes from Hamlet. He is mad north by northwest asa ruse. There is nothing remotely as sophisticated here.

What this film has going for it is Grant’s suave composure in adversity,which must have been rare 40 years ago. But this has been played to death inrecent decades.

What it has against it:

–the sets, even the monument are obviously fake junk

–the story is unbelieveable. This is normal in film, but in this case thereare assumptions about the cold war which even in historic context seemoffensive.

–there are huge logic holes: for instance the bad guys are spies who on theone hand must hide microfilm in a statue, but at the same time fly theirescape plane into one of the most popular national parks!

–Eva just isn’t that charming, and what’s up with her motivation? She’s aprostitute that turned good at risk to her life because ofpatriotism?

–If Grant is to be killed, why lure him to a remote location so he can berun down by a biplane? Why does the plane run into the gastruck?

–If the spy is so smart, why kidnap Grant and take him to a house illegallyborrowed from the head of Intepol? Recall that they knew (or thought theydid) that Grant knew who he really was, and they intended to kill himanyway. Why the charade?

–Hitchcock was a clever user of the camera, with scenes well framed. Butthat was in the era of largely stationary cameras. A moving camera was sorare as to have been then a noticable effect. Not so today. Hitchcock’scamera is just plain primitive now.

–Grant was already an old man. His curvature of the spine is noticeable aswell as his stiff gait.

–Any tension felt by prior generations was lost on me, and I’m a pretty oldguy myself!

Lord Edward Bulwar Lytton was highly regarded in his day too. Now, he’s ajoke, of interest only to historians of the novel. To me, this film is onlyof historic interest.

The title of my summary basically tells it all, I don’t know why peoplestill think this movie is great in the year of 2001! Many scenes werefunny,it is just way dated, may be it was good back in the days but not intoday’sstandard, this movie sucks 0 stars out of 5

Not much of suspense, but you got to love those cranky jokes. Cool womanmeets cool man, heated exchanges ensue - this is what made this movieinteresting to me. If the same interests you, I would recommend TheWrecking Crew. 8/10.

It is incredible that a film, as dire as this, can be placed in the top250films of all time.Terrible acting, awful script, and a boring climax, are some of the betteraspects of this film.Why on earth I accepted the reviews and bothered to watch this cheap tvdrama I will never know.Top 250 film of all time?It’s not even worth talking about! (the cover looks sopromising).Fails to deliver on all fronts.Awful.

read comments (0)

Hiroshima mon amour

Difficult to criticize a film with such worthy subject matter, but it is apretentious, wooden, badly-acted piece of gomi [Japanese word for, uhh..rubbish]. Scenes of 1950’s Hiroshima mildly interesting, but aside fromthat virtually unwatchable.

What an incredible drag this THING is, temporally,intellectually, spiritually. I was forced to watch it in filmschool; had I known what this confusing farrago of mish-mashedideas and images was like, I probably would have tried to getout of class by having a root canal done - oral surgery wouldhave been less enduringly painful

Marguerite Duras's screenplay must be one of the most pretentious everwritten. It's meant to be some sort of analogy for interracial loveamidst world wars and tragedies - but it's just trash. The charactersstand around and postulate incoherently and endlessly about Hiroshima,love, their pasts…from what I care to remember. I watched thisbecause I had read so much about it and Alain Resnais that as a filmstudent I felt I had to see it.

It's insulting to writers, and to audiences too. I still cannot getover how terrible the writing was. Duras's attempts at semi-poeticsymbolism, her inflated dialogue and her tendency to write rambling,pompous monologues for the two characters make this whole thing a choreto sit through.

OK, so I'm studying this for French at Uni and I'm not sure I evenunderstand, I loved the way everything was put, much more beautiful andcomplex but simplistic and arty than most films. But what did it mean?why did she go from calling her first love "him, he" etc to "you" whentalking about him to the Japanese man? What did it mean at the end whenthey called each other Hiroshima and Nevers? Did the two loverssymbolise the two countries after the war? you know, symbolising allpeople affected by war, their love, lives etc? Also why was she left ina cellar and hair cut off? was she a Jew who fell in love with a Nazi?or again is this just symbolism of something which happened to othersduring/post war? Finally who was the Japanese man? a memory? a symbolof Hiroshima's people? or an actual person who she really did fall inlove with? please help me! i need to understand this! Thanks X

I never fell asleep in a movie until we started studying the French NewWave cinema in my international film and television class, but this wasa monstrosity. Alain Resnais has made some incredible films. Mostnotably the holocaust documentary Night and Fog. This is not up to par.

I never thought I would see a film that ran out of story when its onlyninety minutes long. The opening sequence was beautifully shot but itjust seemed to go on and on and wouldn’t stop, not to mention it wasirrelevant to the story. This film had two messages. One is, thosedamned American’s going around bombing people. The other is a lovestory between a french woman with a dark past and a Japanese man.

This movie looses ground in several ways. One is the use of excessivevoice over. Voice overs are okay if they are essential in lettingpeople know the back story and you are unable to do that any other way.But these voice overs account for a large percentage of the film. Theynever stopped, they just kept going, and going , and going, and going,and going, and going. You get the idea.

Well, eventually the story takes us to yet another endless sequence ofthe couple eating dinner at a restaurant and the woman complainingabout her life to a man who lost his family in the war, his story wehere very little about. And, like most older french films the womengets a little riled up, the guy slaps her and back hands her, shesmiles "thanks for snapping me out of it" and keeps on going. Of all ofthe french films I’ve seen this semester Jean-Luc Goddard’s film"Contempt" is the only one that had a slap actually mean something andactually appear to cause some physical pain.

Believe it or not the story just dwindled from there. It goes into yetanother voice over about Hiroshima’s cruel fate and this is followed bya half an hour of the same scene repeated over and over and over andover and over again in different locations. The woman enters alocation, the man follows her, he asks her to stay, she refuses andleaves; she enters another location, the man follows her, he asks herto stay, she refuses and leaves; she enters another location, the manfollows her and asks her to stay, she refuses and leaves. Bored yet? Iguarantee you they repeated that scene more than three times too.

Bottom line, just because its french and its old doesn’t make it greatart. Quality storytelling is essential in the making of any film andthat is something that Hirshima Mon Amour does not offer.

I think this movie has been much over-rated. What the movie attempts islaudable: an exploration of the anguish the heart suffers in losing alover.. and somehow trying to connect it to the anguish of the survivorsofthe atomic bomb in Hiroshima… in a general mishmash way that life is.Themovie however is not very aesthetically done. Right from the word go, youhave the characters mouth out dramatic, poetic lines that seems completelyout of place, unnatural. And Resnais tries to weave in imagery ofHiroshima’s devastation in a rather corny way (like in the very beginningwhen the two lovers are tied together in one mass of flesh).

May be it just that I fail to appreciate the nuances of movies from thisperiod, but I would warn you not to go to this with high expectations, asIdid.

Hiroshima mon amour. The opening sequence of the film showing all of thevictims of the bomb was extremely powerful and moving. It can easily beused as an argument against nuclear technology. Then the filmmaker seems tojuxtapose the nuclear holocaust with the female lead’s tragic past duringWorld War II. Maybe it’s just me, but I think that the death and deformityof a couple hundred thousand Japanese civilians cannot be compared with thedeath of a woman’s love (who himself was a Nazi) followed by her nearinsanity and banishment. One is a global and cultural travesty while theother is personal. Albeit the scale is different, both tragedies wereequally traumatic to each.

Visually, the film is phenomenal. The naturalist lighting is great. Theneon lighting of the city coupled with the darkness creates a beauiful blackand white frame. The sound is also terrific. There are moments when nobackground noise is present such as when the woman describes her tragic pastto her lover. This causes the audience to hang onto her every word. Themusic has a definite Oriental sound, although at times there is a Westenquality to it (i.e. the music in the opening credits).

All in all, the visuals are great but the story, I think needed a littlework. Boredom? A touch.

This film is an acknowledged classic of World Cinema and I cancertainly appreciate that it is a very well-made film and possibly evena great one, but I didn’t like it.

The film revolves around a married French film actress (EmmanuelleRiva) who has a passionate affair with a married Japanese architect(Eiji Okada) while she is filming on location in Hiroshima for ananti-war film. The affair triggers memories of the actress’ first loveaffair with a German soldier in occupied France.

The film’s main concerns seem to be memory and it’s relation to thepresent and healing. The film is beautifully made with a poetic andelegant screenplay from novelist Marguerite Duras, but it remainedcuriously uninvolving. All the style and formality prevented any realengagement with the characters. It also suffers from moments ofmonumental pretentiousness. It is worth watching for World Cinema fans,just because of it’s reputation, but others should really approach withcaution.

With her memory of love and death associated with the war being triggered insymbolic city
Hiroshima, a French actress has a sudden and intense affairwith a Japanese architect. Her lover seems to have to be someone from the"opposite," as she fell for a German soldier during the WWII in Nevers,France.

The film flows with an extremely slow pace as if the entire film wasremaining in one extended moment. Many flashbacks and montages build up thecomplicated layer, which oscillates the audience from the past to thepresent, from Nevers, France to Hiroshima, Japan.

This is a phenomenal film, which encapsulates the social atmosphere at acertain point of history and showed the universal quality of love regardlessof the national origin probably for the first time in film history. However,unfortunately there are some factors which make this film look more datedthan the other French New Wave landmarks, such as Breathless and The 400Blows. One of those factors may be the acting style, which looks like onefrom the avant-garde theater. Though it does enhance the intensity of thefilm and must’ve been remarkably innovative at the time, it looks a bitawkward from the contemporary view.

Duras and Resnais have decided to produce a pseudo poetic andintellectual disaster. The central subject of this film is love, thatthey tried to dissect : the result is a total lack of spontaneity withabsurd and ridiculous dialogs and monologues. The music is alsounbearable, making the audience nervous like jangles during a 1h30 slowmotion. It is really difficult to understand why so many praises havebeen written on it. Perhaps because once more, the avant-garde cinemameant to please to the wealthy class which needs mental masturbation.Furthermore, this film shows Japanese like innocent lambs, but can weforget their extreme imperialistic attitude during the war and theirslaughters in China where without atomic bomb, they killed 300 thousandpeople in two weeks in Nankin? This film stumbles over history,sentiments, spontaneity and art. Don't waste your time.

read comments (0)

House on Haunted Hill

In 1959, the eccentric millionaire Frederick Loren (Vincent Price) and hisfifth wife Annabelle Loren (Carol Ohmart) invite five different persons to aparty in a house considered haunted by evil spirits. They are locked in thehouse at midnight by the house keepers, and who stays alive in the nextmorning will share US$ 50,000.00. Along the scary night, dark secrets arerevealed, in a story with a very surprising end. This classic horror movieis excellent. Although being a low budget movie with only 75 min. runningtime, the story is great and the sound effects and the black and whitephotography contribute for the fearful atmosphere. I do not recall how manytimes this storyline has been copied. In Brazil, there is a new distributor(London Films) specialized in horror movies. I bought many titles on DVDs,which have never been previously released, and now I am going to have thechance to watch films like `The Wicker Man’, `Black Sabbath - The ThreeFaces of Fear’, `Possession’, `Black Sunday (The Mask of Satan)’ and others.My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil: `A Casa dos Maus Espíritos’ (`The House of BadSpirits’)

It was the spookiest movie I ever saw in my entire life! I was scaredout of my underwear! The top 2 scariest things was when the freaky ladycame. I knew it was the caretaker’s wife but I wondered how shefloated. In and out of the movie.I was so scared of that part becauseher pupils were missing! only ghosts can remove their pupils! And theother thing. I always wondered how she floated. Did they hang her froma thick string? I always thought that was it because it seemed the mostpossible and because I noticed her shoulders were going up.

The next scary thing was when the skeleton came out of the acid. Theweird thing about all scary or horror movies (except "The thing"because there were no women!)is every time at least the woman is scaredfirst. This time the host played the trick on his own wife! I was soscared I felt like I was going to faint! You might wonder what I meantby tricked. The weird thing was that even in the movie, it was all atrick. A plot. The most absolute scariest part was at the end. In exactdialog, the narrator said, "then they’ll come for me, then they’ll comefor YOU!

Again and again I've said that a trip to Wal-mart for a dive into thedollar DVD dumpster will usually cough up a lot of phlegm, but anoccasional gem (I'm a poet and don't know it). On a dive last August inVeradale, Washington, I found William Castle's House on Haunted Hill. Ifound it to be 75 minutes of pure, unadulteratedly campy cheese. InHHH, actors you may or may not recognize get to panic and scream andplot against and slaughter each other in Grand Guignol style, all on ashoestring budget.

I remember watching this movie on the Saturday Afternoon CreatureFeature on KHQ in Spokane, a good forty years ago, and all I couldremember from the movie, when I found it in the vat of DVD's lastsummer was the big pool of acid used to kill, then strip the flesh offvarious victims in the movie. My idiot teenage sister and her idiotgirlfriends, over for an afternoon of video cheese-whiz, screamed andshrieked at the campy assassinations (and I think they invited me intothe rec room to watch it with them in order to let me know how theywould like to deal with me, an obnoxious 8 year old).

I haven't seen the 1999 remake, nor do I really want to. The onlyreason I kept this silly little horror flick is that as long as I haveit in my disc collection, we'll never be short of cheese sticks.

Besides, I haven't watched the movie on the flip side, "Attack of theObnoxious 8 Year Old."

This is a great movie for a Halloween party. Not sure how funny it wasintended to be, but it’s just hilarious. What you’d expect from directorWilliam Castle.

Vincent Price has never been better than this. He’s hosting a Halloweenparty at a ghost-filled mansion with a very deadly ulterior motive; his wifehas murderous ideas of her own, and she’s being helped by her deceitfullover. Elisha Cook, Jr. is the owner of the haunted house, and he overactswith wild abandon. There’s a helpless young girl, stalwart hero pilot, anda gambling female columnist to round out the cast. This is the ideal moviefor a Saturday night; it’s campy, it’s actually scary in parts, and it’s alot of fun. One of my favorites.

Had this movie been produced a decade later, it would havebeena TV movie - perhaps a movie of the week! It would havedrawnhuge ratings not only because of the cast but also thesetting.The house (a Frank Lloyd Wright classic - the outside, thatis)is a draw in itself. The special effects are strictly 50sbutthat only adds to the nostalgia factor. I’ve been lucky to

have recorded this movie in a letterbox format - it remainsasone of my stalwarts in my video library.

A completely undisputed classic, with everything you’d expect from WilliamCastle, including big scary houses, skeletons, constant fright music, and avoluptuous woman. Vincent Price is great in this, and even though most ofthe film is laughable in a campy way, there are actually some scary parts.Especially the part when Nora is in the cellar…

My wife and I occasionally watch this movie for kicks. We both really likeVincent Price and the party he throws. He’s so amusing.

Among the films of William Castle, House on Haunted Hill stands astestimony to the success one can achieve with a great atmospheric theme.While the plot is somewhat lacking, the real draw is in the mood of thefilm: powerful storms, a maze-like haunted house, paranoid guestsbrandishing pistols against a menace that may or may not be real. From theopening sequence showing the arrival of the strangers, escorted in hearses,to the final pan out the door of the house as sinister laughter fills theair, this movie manages to make the skin crawl and will undoubtedly causethe audience to look over their shoulders a few times. To anyone lookingfor a good thrill to enjoy alone in the dark, this movie offers exactlywhat’s needed.

Vincent Price is one of the greatest horror actors that ever lived. Thisisone of his best roles, in my opinion. I absolutely LOVED this film! Thescares are few and far between, but an actual horror movie PLOT (which, inmy opinion, most horror films lack) makes up for it. Despite few scares,there are PLENTY of chills to keep you interested!

read comments (0)

Imitation of Life

I've seen the original Claudette Colbert version of "Imitation of Life"and loved it for its unapologetic profile of an extremely successfulbusiness woman who starts out with nothing but her brains and guts. Theoriginal is also bold in its portrayal of race issues. Delilah (themaid and confidante)has a daughter who successfully 'passes' as a whitegirl and rejects her mother in her quest to be white.

Given my admiration for the original, I was disgusted by the LanaTurner version. The high powered executive turns into a movie star (theonly respectable money making career for a 50s woman) who dependstotally on her boyfriend and has no mind of her own. Her career isn'treally addressed in the movie beyond that it keeps her out of herrightful place at home. And Delilah's daughter, who in the originallooked, and probably was, bi-racial. Well in this version she has blackhair…and she also becomes a stripper the minute she leaves the safetyof home. Because in this version, black=slutty, thats a nice message.

This film flies all over the map, and equals little by its conclusion. Thefilm’s main foci are two sets of a mother and daughter. One is made up ofLora and Susie. The father has just died, and Lora is trying to make it asan actress. This is one of the oldest plots in the book, and it gives uslittle or nothing we haven’t seen better elsewhere. The other pair is muchbetter, Annie and Sara Jane. Annie is black, and her daughter’s father wasmostly white. Sara Jane despises the fact that she is part black, and triesto pass herself off as white all the time. Because of the interesting racialangle, this film is worth watching. It’s too bad it works adversely to theway it wanted to, for, although the film desperately wishes to be seen asprogressive (and it succeeds probably more than most films of that era, bymaking Annie such a potent character), it keeps relegating Annie to thestatus of a maid. She’s little different than Hattie McDaniel in Gone withthe Wind. McDaniel may well have won an Oscar, she also very well may havedeserved it, but she still was nothing but a Mammy. Annie is also so. Whilethe script is trying to come in from the "you should always be yourself"angle where Sara Jane is concerned, it is being tremendously racist. Sure,she should be herself, but all of the characters keep trying to convince herthat "to be yourself" = "to be black." Sara Jane eventually flees and triesto build a life elsewhere as a dancer. There are plenty of powerful scenesinvolving her character, and, indeed, she was the only character who wasexceedingly interesting.

As for Douglas Sirk, I really loved Written on the Wind, and kind of likedMagnificent Obsession, but I disliked this one for the most part. Hisexuberant style in Written on the Wind made that one a masterpiece, but heis too straight-edged with Imitation of Life. It’s too much just a soapopera with few signs of subversion or parody. The only one I can see comeswith a MAJOR SPOILER:

Annie’s deathbed scene and funeral are horribly ridiculous. Her deathbedspeech goes on for something like 10 minutes, and her funeral is more lavishthan Princess Di’s.

I saw this movie for the first time as a teenager on the late show some25 years ago and it just cracked me up and has become one of myfavorite guilty pleasures. 1959’s IMITATION OF LIFE was one of thoselush, weepy, Ross Hunter melodramas that Lana Turner had a copyright onduring this decade. The film followed the relationship that developedbetween a struggling actress (Turner) and an unemployed black woman(Juanita Moore) and their daughters. Lana becomes a Broadway star inabout 10 minutes and Moore becomes her housekeeper. Their daughtersgrow up and turn into Sandra Dee (Susie) and Susan Kohner (Sarah Jane).Sarah Jane’s father was white and she has spent much of her life tryingto pass for white because she is very light-skinned but her mother willnever let her forget that she is black. There is an unintentionallyfunny scene where Sarah Jane’s high school boyfriend finds out she’shalf-black and beats her up. I know that may not seem comical, butKohner’s half-baked performance takes it to that level as she’s lyingin an alley wiping her face and screaming at her boyfriend to comeback. Lana has her share of funny moments too…especially laughable isa scene where she agrees to accompany a lecherous agent (Robert Alda ina very amusing performance)to a party and finally realizes what heexpects in exchange for helping her with her career, symbolized (as ithad to be in the 50’s) by his "gift" of a mink coat to wear to theparty. Sandra Dee also garners chuckles as Lana’s neglected daughtergrows up and falls in love with her mother’s boyfriend (John Gavin) andloses it when he rejects her. The only completely satisfyingperformance in the film is by Juanita Moore as Annie, who brings somuch more substance to the role than the script provides. She receivedan Oscar nomination for her performance as did Susan Kohner (God knowswhy). For unintentional giggles, this movie rates right up there withVALLEY OF THE DOLLS. Check it out.

Let me start by saying that I am sure that back in it's day, this wasquite the film on "life". But I didn't see it back in its day, Iwatched it through my eyes and generation of today - and this is notthat great of a film. Too sappy, broad, WAY overblown, sentimentalinstead of too real life.

Here's the story about a pretty blonde actress down on her luck with aplucky daughter who meets a dark skinned black woman and her very lightskinned daughter daughter who are down on their luck too. The two womenstrike up a friendship and the black woman decides to help keep thehouse and the two daughters while the blonde woman makes her way in theacting profession. And the blonde woman does - she gets her break,becomes the toast of the town and the black woman gets a bump up too -she's now the house maid.

Well, the two little girls grow up too - the plucky blonde grows up tobe quite the female competition for the aging actress mom and the lightskinned black girl decides to pass as white - because after all, backin the day, whites had it better than blacks. The little light skinnedblack girl degrades her maid mother at every turn - that is, until theend of the film when the black mother passes away - she cries out herlove for her.

Now, this may make some folks cry up a storm, but I was unmoved. I wastrying to figure out how a house maid could have such an extravagantfuneral. I was trying to figure out why the blonde didn't send herchild away for longer than she did. I was trying to figure out why theblack woman didn't just let her daughter live the life she waspretending to be and let her rot. I don't chalk this all up to "caring"and "having a heart" - I chalk it up to sappy sentimentalism -something to try to jar the heart strings and I'm sure it did to thosefolks back in the day. Today, things would be handled quitedifferently.

"Imitation of Life" is maudlin, manipulative, lifeless, shameless,truth-free, mommy martyr porn with a strangulating dollop ofanti-racism preachiness thrown in for good measure.

There are a few good things in this movie. The opening titles, shotover diamonds – or teardrops – falling down behind the cast names, islovely. Lana Turner is a solid gold star, and she's in complete controlof herself here. In one scene, she wears a white Jean Louis gown with ateal sash that complements her blue eyes.

Robert Alda is wonderfully smarmy as a conniving theatrical agent.Singer Mahalia Jackson gives a fabulous rendition of a spiritual. JohnGavin is better looking than 99 % of human males.

Otherwise, this movie is so contrived they could have cast it withBarbie and Ken dolls and it would have had as much life and heart. Theplot is a disjointed series of unconnected scenes of saintly moth
erssuffering: losing their children, being put upon by nasty males, beingmistreated by their demonic daughters. The true emblem of a mommy pornmovie is that the daughter/s are depicted as only slightly lessrepugnant than the demon-possessed teen girl in "The Exorcist."

Juanita Moore plays Annie, an African American mother whose daughtercan pass as white. Since this is a mommy martyr porn movie, Annie ismore pure and beneficent than God. Her daughter, Sarah Jane, isbasically a serial killer in a poodle skirt – she's even worse thanVeda in "Mildred Pierce." Because this movie has preachy pretensions,it ladles on some more suds – Sarah Jane hates mommy because Sarah Janecan pass as white, and Annie won't let her. Eventually, Sarah Jane'scruelty literally kills her mother. Again, as per mommy martyr porn,Sarah Jane realizes the error of her ways – too late! — and runs toher mother's funeral to weep, profusely, on her casket, screaming, "Iwas so bad! You were so good! I was so wrong! You were so right!"

Have you vomited yet? How much do mothers have to hate their owndaughters for watching that scene to be fulfilling? The viewer issupposed feel admiration, even love, for Annie, and hatred for SarahJane. But Annie is really annoying. All teen girls, not just lightskinned African American ones, want to separate from their mothers.That's part of their job as budding adults. It's even mandated by theBible. Annie won't let Sarah Jane go. She follows the girl everywhere,smothering her.

Lana Turner is just on screen to be a "typical white person" as acertain presidential candidate might put it, being insensitive to Annieand to race relations, and to be ill used by a series of men who areeither bad because they want to have their way with her, or becausethey do not want to have their way with her, because they respect hercareer too much, or because they respect her career not at all. Men,like daughters, come off very badly in mommy martyr porn.

I wish this movie had an alternate version, in which all the phonypreachiness is stripped away and the core is a weird and wonderfulrelationship between Robert Alda, as the sleazy theatrical agent, andLana Turner, the middle aged widow and mother trying to become aBroadway Star. Annie can come along, too, as a wise cracking maid whomakes a million on the side. Her daughter can come back, not to throwherself on Annie's coffin, but to get a job. Now that would be worthwatching.

This re-make of the 1934 Claudette Colbert film, was Lana Turner’s comebackvehicle after her 1958 scandal which involved her daughter in the slaying ofgangster Johnny Stompanato. The film was a huge hit and re-established LanaTurner as a box office star.

*Slight spoiler if you never seen it before!*

I saw this movie last night at a Revival screening at LACMA and more thanhalf of the audience were laughing like crazy! This story of friendshipbetween to women and their daughters is a mix of high melodrama and racialequality, or at least it tries to be.

Among the over designed sets, strong lighting, every other scene shotwithin a frame, a doorway, a partition, or a mirror, director Douglas Sirkis trying to distance us from the characters. Sirk obviously wants to showus that this world that they live in is artificial, totally superficial incontrast to the characters’ emotional depth

The confusing thing about Sirk is beneath this melodramatic fluff, what isexactly is he trying to say? Following the scene Sarah Jane gets beaten upby her boyfriend for being Black, Annie is massaging `Miss Lora’s foot.There is also something to say about the sugar-coated Suzie, she haseverything a girl could ever want [a horse, a closet full of nice clothesand an awesome room] except her Mothers ex-boyfriend.

Finally the racial issue comes up. We are to assume that Annie and Loraareequals, both financially and as friends, between the best and worst offinancial situations. But when Lora makes it as an actress, Annie isstillthe maid. That’s not equality. In the new house, Lora has outfit afterglamorous outfit, while Annie still has plain clothes that almost suggestthe help, even though there are other servants in the house. Anniepreparesthe food, dresses Lora, and massages her feet! Throughout the wholemovie,there is no indication that Annie is getting paid for her services. Theonlyagreement that is shown is the work that she does is for room and board.Umm.last time I heard of that I think it was called SLAVERY!

Sirk is showing that they even though Lora and Annie are the best offriends, they have the same problems with their daughters; they live inthesame house but not in the same world. Lora is surprised when Sarah Janedoesn’t like being Black. Lora is surprised when Annie tells her that shehas hundreds of friends, like Annie’s life consists of waiting on her handand foot. Ultimately, Lora is also surprised that Annie isdying.

But played for high camp this movie was funny. I wanted to cry butcouldn’t. Even the Annie’s death scene was almost laughable with SaraJane’ssmirking picture in the background. In the final scene where Sara Janethrows herself on the mother’s casket, you were almost expecting Lora toslap her. But I really do love this movie that shows how the 50’s were ormore accurately how the 50’s were supposed to be.

"Imitation of Life" is the bitter sweet story of a black maidstruggling with her light skin daughter who wanted to pass as white.The story begins in post WWII NYC when Lana Turner (in the role of astruggling actress) hires the maid to work for and live with Turner andher then 7 year old daughter (same age as the maid’s little girl).Times are tough at first, but the 4-some gets on fine. Only littleSarah Jane (the maid’s daughter) has constant trouble accepting hercolor.

The story spans about 15 years and shows various instances where theloving black maid is humiliated by her daughter who in the end disownsher mother. The ending is the ultimate heartbreaker; the film deserves5 stars for that alone!

This is the 2nd Hollywood treatment of "The Aunt Jemima Story". Thefirst version (1934) with Claudette Colbert has better acting, but isnot quite as sentimental as the Technicolor Lana Turner film. Thelatter also has a memorable title song by Earl Grant (who usually playsthe organ in his recordings, but here he sings).

I could watch this movie anytime, for no reason at all…it’s the bestin its class! This film is the ultimate in Hollywood tear-jerkers, andone of my favorite movies ever. Lana Turner was not exactly"Oscar-material", but neither was Marilyn Monroe–still they bothcaptured an audience with their presence like few other actresses everdid. Nothing but pure "Hollywood Candy" here!

Picture four women. Picture four stereotypes. Imitation of Life (1959)presents us with a gripping view of these four women in a situation wedon’tnormally expect. More specifically this parody demonstrates the ignorantviews on race and gender relations of the previous version of the film.

The four women in this film are seen through the male gaze, represented bySteve. Each woman is oversimplified and stereotyped when being seenthroughthis gaze. Annie is portrayed as the ideal mother figure or mammy; Lauraasthe working mother who gives up her family for her dream of being anactress. Suzie is portrayed as the ideal, happy daughter; Mary Jane ispresented as an ungrateful brat. However, instead of being sold thisstereotypical view, the exaggerated acting creates a defamiliarizationeffect. The audience may then critically examine these stereotypicalviewsas well as the interactions between races.So, getting to the warm juicy center beyond this romantic drama, there isanexamination of how each woman’s identity is shaped. Annie, who ishomelessat the beginning of the film, helps Laura to become a successful
actress,but is never able to move beyond a servant in Laura’s household because ofher race. Laura is able to follow her dreams and become a famous actress,but remains unfulfilled because she is a woman away from her family.Laurais only able to find `true happiness’ when she gives up her career. Suzieis left unfulfilled without her mother or the love of Steve, but becausesheis a good daughter, she accepts these rejections. Mary Jane is alsorestricted by her race, but because she appears to be white, she denieshermother. This allows her to escape this prejudice and she forms a newidentity as a white woman. She ultimately regrets this denial upon thedeath of her mother.Each of these women’s identities is shaped by the expectations put uponthemand their own expectations of what life should be. Laura and Mary Janefollow their own expectations of life and are unhappy because of theirdeviation. Annie and Suzie accept what is expected of them based ongender,race and social class and are portrayed as happy to fill these roles.

Thanks to the gestik, over-the-top, acting, the educated audience is notenveloped in the romantical plot. They see the absurdity of theexpectations put upon these women based on their gender, race and class.However, an unobservant audience may be romanced by the plot and misstheseimportant factors.

This is probably the best of the slick ’50s soap operas of the era. SusanKohner gives a knock-out performance as a tormented soul and Juanita Mooreis just as fine as her long-suffering mother. They give the best moments inthis film whose "stars" are Lana Turner, Sandra Dee, and John Gavin. A realtear-jerker at the end.

read comments (0)

Journey to the Center of the Earth

Reasonably imaginative telling of the Jules Verne tall tale. The initialperiod Edinburgh and Iceland locations are charmingly right.Twentieth-Century Fox splashed out on some rather spectacular sets andeffects for the earth’s interior - some really quite haunting, like thecavern that opens onto a forbidding subterranean sea. Pity theback-projected monsters look so tatty, even though they used real lizards.Worse, the model work in the finale is just needlesslydire.

Still James Mason is fine as always, though anyone would struggle withsomeof the lines he’s given. Nor does the script let Thayer David quite plumbthe depths enough [sic] as the dastardly villain. Pat Boone looks like bewandered in from a Brigadoon musical on the next soundstage, embarrassingeveryone with his singing (and in a Hollywood-Scottish accent, to boot!) -in fact, why on earth did the producers want to insert a couple of songsinto it anyway?

It’s left to Bernard Herrman’s music to lend the grim note missing inHenryLevin’s cheerful direction, giving the proceedings just the ominous edgethey need.

Sir Oliver Lindenbrook (James Mason) puts together a scientificexpedition that will take him straight to the center of the earth. Andthis is just the beginning of a wondrous journey, as only Hollywoodcould create. It is a wonderful, old-fashioned adventure tale, madecredible by Mason's completely believable performance (Mason's classmanages to give credibility to the most absurd situations). Inaddition, the movie has a nice sense of humor and strong productionvalues. It is a tad too long, with many scenes that look unnecessary(like Pat Boone singing a couple of songs); it takes forever for thestory to get to the good stuff. But this is a minor complaint - it's agenuinely entertaining movie. The special effects are good (for 1959)and Bernard Herrmann's score is a plus. Not great, but it is a fun filmif you are in the mood for good, simple family entertainment.

In this age of CGI it’s a pleasure to look once more (as I am now; it’splaying on BBC2 here in England!) at a film I’ve seen several timesover the last 20 years or so. I remember watching it at age 13 andbeing highly impressed with the fantastic sets, the adventure story andArlene Dahl’s magnificent bosom. I’m surprised to see now that theropey effects don’t overwhelm the film’s virtues, and James Mason givesit gravitas. Plus Arlene’s costume gets more and more ragged as thefilm goes on. Bit like a thinking man’s Raquel Welch. Anotherinteresting aspect is the Victorian technology (including highlyadvanced portable lighting, based on resistor coils or some such). Ifyou watched ‘Friends’ for the chick and the duck you’ll be pleased, andI am because we’ve just reached the whirlpool scene where Arlene’scostume (already pretty ripped) gets very very wet.

James Mason leads an expedition to the center of the earth. This moviewas great fun for kids when it was released in 1959. Since then it hasnot aged well. First of all is the presence of Pat Boone, thesaccharine crooner, who is so wholesome and clean-cut that he’s toomuch to bear and listening to him sing is nauseating. The venerableJames Mason leads the expedition to the center of the earth and he isfine. The scenes of the expedition descending into the volcano anddeeper into caves with their rainbow crystals has charm and the scenewith the giant mushrooms is fun. But don’t look for any science in thisfilm unless you still believe in men on the moon. Bernard Hermann’sscore is, as usual, first rate. The sets are impressive. This is aDisney-morality film where everyone is proper, no one swears, drinks orfools around. It’s just a little too goody-goody for today’s tastes.This movie would make great material for a remake. Worth seeing if youare a fan of fantasy.

I first saw this movie on the big screen with my Dad when I was a young boy. I really enjoyed it. The plot concerns a group of scientist travelingbeneath the earth and trying to reach the center of the earth. It was filmin part in the Carlisbad Caverns. Since the earth is approximately 7000miles in diameter-it would be a very long journey of at least 10 thousand miles (since they would have to travel at an angle) to reach the center. Also the dinosaurs are obviously lizards with fake spikes. Still, this isan enjoyable movie-worth seeing if you like science fiction. I rate it8/10, perhaps not quite in the league with the Time Machine (1960 version)but still a good movie.

I hadn’t see this movie in years but since AMC was running it last night Itook another look.

First, I was very happy to see one of my favorite actors, Thayer David,playing the villain. Dark Shadows fans may remember Thayer as Ben Stokes. Iconsider him one of the best character actors of all time. It’s always niceto find him in a new role.

As for the movie, well, I try to be generous with older movies. What lookssilly today probably looked very impressive 50 years ago. The importantthing is that the acting never gets as dumb as the special effects. Everyoneis the main cast, including Pat Boone, plays it straight and that makeseverything work.

Okay, so we all know the story is ridiculous and the special effects arelaughable. So why am I recommending it? Because despite the silliness, itall works together and makes you WANT to belive in it.

If you’re looking for great cinema, look elsewhere. But if you want to havea good time for a couple of hours watching a talented cast in anentertaining story, you could do a lot worse.

And maybe it’s just me, but I kept kept wanting to see Alec and Hans makeout. I thought their love story had a lot more potential than Mason andDahl’s.

I guess I’d give this movie 2 1/2 stars out of 5. It’s not great, and youhave to forgive a lot, but overall I think it holds up a lot better thanmost movies of its time.

P.S. I liked the duck. I think she added a visual interest without beingDisney cute.

A pleasant entertainment from my past (watching Creature FeaturesSaturday afternoon on KHQ in Spokane), Journey to the Center of theEarth is, in retrospect, a bit slow in places, but still very engaging,with James Mason, Pat Boone, and Arlene Dahl sweating and squeezing(say, where are you going with this?) through subterranean passages(does this sound faintly homoerotic?) to find whatever it is they'relooking for.

It's good, clean fun and pretty suspenseful for kids of all ages. Maybethe only glaring flaw in the movie is the assassination of a big, cuteduck. I saw this movie with my family about a year ago and they stillare grumbling about the quacker getting whacked.

I try to lighten the mood by pointing to the AFLAC commercials andsaying, "See, he's alright!"

Rent it and have some fun.

But be sure to quack, "AFLAC!" when the duck gets chilled.

The movie is about a journey to the center of the Earth. Of course, weknow now (or we're 99% sure, that would mean unbelievable pressure inmolten iron. But this movie was never about fact. It was about fun, andatmosphere.

The feel of a simple existence, of Academia, of small villages, ofpeaks and caves is made into cinema magic by an expert director. Levinwas also crafty in other ways. He could come up with terrible villains(The Man From Colorado), and the bad guy here is special. In fact, hisquote of "slices of death" is still often used today.

Mason steals the show, seeming to be much like Rathbone's SherlockHolmes, or Cushing's vampire slayer: calm, cool, and civilized in theBritish way, another perfect example of "atmosphere." Not to take awayfrom Boone and the others, who, as in most Levin works, are well cast.Levin could get the most from his people. But Mason is the star.

Or perhaps the star is the colorful world we are introduced to inadventure after a
dventure.

No, the true star is "Atmosphere." The one word that sums up thisspectacle. Sit back and enjoy. Enter a world you always wanted toexist.

I recommend that anyone who enjoyed the movie should pick up a copy ofthe book. Jules Verne was a master story teller and arguably the firstscience fiction writer ever. The most recent translation was by ADClassic Books in 2008: To find this book, type in 'A Journet to thecenter of the earth (AD Classic)' in Google, Amazon search fields orBarnes and noble. www.amazon.com/Journey-Center-Earth-AD-Classic Thiswas the first science fiction story to be written. The 2008 translationwas by A.R. Roumanis, and it has removed quite a few dated words andsayings. This is important in any work that was originally translated.In this case it was translated from French. Happy reading.

This 1959 film, starring Pat Boone, is the earliest screen adaptationof Jules Verne's 19th century novel "A Journey to the Center of theEarth". It is typical for the originals to be superior to the remakesand this is a common perception for me as well. Most audience membersand critics feel that this film is the best out of all of theadaptations of Verne's book.

For once, my opinion sways from the mainstream.

Don't get me wrong. This movie showed a lot of promise, but failed toact upon it. It's not a horrible movie, or even a bad one in general.It's well-acted and well-written, the music score's nice, and thespecial effects, for their age, are fantastic and entertaining. Sowhat's wrong with this film? It's crippled by the fact that it'sboring.

This is a film where the title describes what the entire movie is aboutand sometimes that's not a good sign. The film is two hours long andonly about twenty or thirty minutes of it actually takes place in thecenter of the Earth. Before that we have about a half-hour orpreparation for the journey and then a full hour of the characterstrekking through underground caverns, jumping over ravines, and tryingto decide which way to go next. I generally enjoy adventure movies thatshow the beforehand process of arriving to the destination instead ofsimply arriving there early in the running time, but here it overstaysits welcome. And once we do finally get the center of the earth, themovie has overstayed its welcome and the fact that nothing interestinghappens while we are at the climax doesn't really help any. I wanted tosee wonder, dinosaurs, and general entertainment and I got none ofthat.

What also cripples the movie is the fact that it becomesunintentionally comical. For some reason, the filmmakers thought it wasnecessary to add a duck as one of the characters. Yes, one of thecharacters has a pet duck and just as you'd expect, he brings it alongfor the journey.

So as much as I hate to admit it, for once, the original is not thebest. It's most certainly not the worst (not by a long shot), but itneeded a serious rewrite. A great shortening on the middle section ofthe film and a strengthening of the climax, the part we want to see themost, would have done it wonders.

read comments (0)

The Twilight Zone

The Twilight Zone is a mixed bag. Any fan of the show knows that for everygood episode there are 3 bad ones! The twilight zone works on many levels,but fails on others. The key theme of the show is how it manages to scareyou on an intellectual level, using thought provoking stories instead offlat out horror! However, sometimes the episodes were so poorly executed, orit was just a bad idea, and the show was boring and tedius. But when itdelivered, boy, did it do it well - I fondly recall one unforgettableepisode where a woman is in hospital bandages, and is trying to get anoperation, to get rid of her horrible disfigurement. At the end she removesthem and looks as beautiful as ever - she starts screaming - then we finallysee the faces of all the hospital staff, and they are pig snouted andhorrible - in this alternate universe beauty is abnormal and unacceptable!This episode stuck in my mind forever, as it was a great idea, but even thatepisode had poor execution - throughout the entire episode they would onlyshow the hospital staffs faces in shadow, and it was obvious that therewould be a twist, like the one there was!

This was a great show when it showed good episodes, but that only happened aquarter of the time! If you get the chance to view it, don’t pass it up, aswhen it tried, this was the best sci fi show around!

Picture if you will a television series which can handle any subjectmatter, make you wonder, laugh, or cry, express emotions about humanity& make you wonder if there are things other than humanity, express evil& goodwill, plus almost always be entertaining and you can sum up RodSerlings "The Twight Zone". Many imitators have since tried to rise tothe level of this anthology series, including some re-visits to theZone itself, but none have risen to this level of excellence.

Rod's life itself was cut tragically short partly from excessivesmoking but mostly due to burn out from working too far into his ownZone. In a TV interview with Mike Wallace in 1958, Rod Sterling sat onthe set puffing heavily along with Wallace on cigarettes, but makingcomments about working so many hours that he had no work-life balanceas far as seeing his family.

Imagine if you will Rod bringing up this issue about 40 years before itstarted being mentioned in most of corporate America. Rod was truly avisionary and this series, like that interview, proves that over andover again. The availability of great guest stars to help his effortsnever hurt either. The 1950's & 1960's had a very talented generationof actors & actresses looking for work & finding it in the infant &developing television works going on. William Shatner, ElizabethMontgomery, Agnes Moorehead, Wally Cox, Burgess Meredith, Art Carney &many others appear in different episodes.

Different defines this series as Rod Sterling went to the corners ofimagination to come up with ideas. One classic episode that did not getsyndicated had a young George Takei (Sulu on Star Trek) playing acharacter that you would not expect.

The quality of this series was ahead of its time. Throughout theseries, he would always use name references to the Southern Tier areaof New York where he grew up. Ironically, his high school Englishteacher outlived him. Sadly, his Cayuga production company was namedafter the lake near Ithaca, New York where he would die, or maybe he isstill living there in the Twilight Zone.

I only saw one episode of this old series. It was aired Feburary 20,1959 I think. It was the episode with the man, Henry Bemis, a manobsessed with reading and books and anything written. He even reads atwork, and at home, his snitchy wife gives him trouble about it,snatching the newspaper and ripping up his poems.

So one day, he decides to read in a vault while an H-bomb hits the cityhe lives in. When he gets out of the vault after the damage he is alonewith all the books at his disposal, but his glasses break, and he isalone forever with hardly any sight and hyperventilates at the end.

The episode is promising, and it ends with a twist. I hope to see moreepisodes from the early series.

Recently, during a Twilight Zone marathon, I caught "Queen of the Nile"(episode #5.23), originally aired 3/6/1964. It stars Ann Blyth as Pamela,amovie star with a secret. Without spoiling it too much, this story,writtenby Charles Beaumont, pre-dates the film "The Hunger" by almost twentyyearswhile covering the same ground (although in a much moresafe-for-family-viewing fashion).

Many of the TZ episodes may seem trite now, but they pre-figure still thewell-used narratives of pop culture.

Twilight Zone is an interesting show with bazaar episodes of peoplewith guilt and missing feelings. It’s bazaar of what the people do tothemselves or other humans. The characters in Twilight Zone act welland serious. The new Twilight Zone with Jessica Simpson is just scaryor croupy. The new Twilight Zone is just not the same. It’s not bazaarand the characters can’t act that well. Twilight Zone is a great showof thinking and mysteries. Twilight Zone is an interesting zone for me.The new Twilight Zone is just bad for me with no interest. TwilightZone is a great and interesting show for me. I think a lot to find outwhat did what or who did what.

I have seen many TV Shows , but none as good as the twilight zone. Eachepisode is a thriller novel in itself. Each ,a completely new anddifferent story which not only keeps a person spellbound in till theend but the end itself will turn out completely the opposite of whatyou could have imagined.

It is really great to see ideas & technologies that were shot 50 yearsago and still do not look out of place. Even if the show is Black andwhite I have never really felt a need for the show to be colored. Manymovies have taken some idea or the other from this show.Its a mustWatch.

My favorite episodes are The 4 of us are dying, mute, to serve man,TheTrade-ins,Deaths-Head Revisited,The Rip Van Winkle Caper, Eye of theBeholder,The Howling Man, A World of His Own , People Are Alike AllOver………………….

THE TWILIGHT ZONE COMPLETELY ORIGINAL AND IT ROCKS!!!!!!!!!!

My wife and I celebrate Every New Years Eve, by watching the originalTwilight Zone Marathons. I find that watching certain episodes areironic. I remember as a child, Rod Sterling was my neighbor who livedon the corner of Monaco Drive & D’ Estes Drive in Pacific Palisades,CA. and how I would join all the neighborhood kids at his house everySaturdays & Sundays, in hopes of being selected to enter his poolsidewriting studio and then be personally invited to the Studio to watchthem film a Twilight Zone TV Show.

All I can say is buy this New Deluxe Box Set that was Released onDecember 31, 2004. It will be well worth the investment and in return,you will receive hours of viewing pleasure. .

Rod Sterling, you were not only my neighbor as a child, but your workas a writer, inspired me to become a working filmmaker.

MAY YOU REST IN PEACE FOREVER, ROD STERLING. December 25,1924 - June29, 1975

Gregg A Film Producer & Screenwriter From Neon Lights Entertainmenthttp://neonlightsentertainment.com

This show has the best acting ever. Its not your usual ears are looking atyou kid kind of show.

See when I want something to really boble me I will tune into this show. Isawsome really good episodes.

The earth is coming right into the sun.A guy gets a watch that freezes time and then later breaks the watch andeverything remains frozen.

Its also the music. I mean the acting is good. This has to be the perfectshow ever.

The acting by Richard Basehart was a usual excellent. Great way to letpeople see the Adam and Eve beginning. Good visuals. The way they came upwith their names and the name of th
e planet was wonderful.

All in all a worth while story to watch. I love the black andwhite.It sometimes can be seen on TV on the Science Fiction Channel. I likedthisTV story by Rod Sterling very much.

Although Rod Serling did not win an award for Best Screenplay in thisseries, he is in my books by far the best screenplay writer there is. Hisdebut with ‘Where is Everybody?’ scored by Bernard Herrmann wasphenomenal.The single man experience as well as the marginalised experience can allbeimposed upon the Earl Holliman character.

read comments (0)