Wrapping up Mother's Month, here's a western from 1962 featuring two great classic actors; James Stewart and John Wayne. For those more familiar with the John Wayne who calls people "pilgrim", this is pretty much the movie that made that famous. The film begins with an aged Senator Ranse Stoddard (Stewart) and his wife, visiting the small town of Shinbone. It is there that a funeral is being held for the likes of Tom Doniphon (Wayne). It is here that the Senator is asked to review is past, and who Tom Doniphon was to him in his past. The story then does a 25-year flashback to when Stoddard arrived in Shinbone as a young attourney. His stage coach is robbed by Liberty Valance (Lee Marvin), and when Stoddard stands up to him, he is brutally attacked by Valence's men. This results in Doniphon rescuing him, and giving him a place to stay until he gets on his feet. When told about Valance, Stoddard finds out that Doniphon is the only man brave enough to stand up to Valance and his men, which sparks an energy inside Stoddard to train up and do the right thing, all while gaining respect as the new lawyer in town, as well as a teacher for some who can't read or write. This is another example of a great American classic that one might look back on as inspiration for many other films. For example, one that springs to mind is the general scenario of 'Back to the Future III' in which Marty finds himself having to stand up to Tannen while gaining his own respect as a new man in town, willing to stand up to the bullies. Though it stands with just the one Oscar nomination for Costume Design, it has gone down in history as one of the most important films of all time. Important enough of a piece of American history, that In 2007, it was chosen for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant."... but how did I like it? Well, to be honest, I've never been insanely big on the whole western genre. To me, that was more where my parents heroes lied, while I got the opportunity to see some of my comic book heroes instead. And I mean, as a whole, it's not exactly the most sought out genre Hollywood has to offer anymore, either. However -as far as the classic western goes, this title should probably be at the top of anyone's watch list when seeking out the "best of". This is one of those classics that struck me as perhaps a little bit dry and even predictable, at first. However, one always has to take into account when it was released, and the whole cowboy/western thing was kind of the big deal of the time. All things considered, it has actually aged quite well, and I'm glad to have reached back into the past movie collection I would have otherwise ignored as a kid to see it. 4/5
1 Comment
Carrying on with Mother's Month, she has recommended one from acclaimed 'It's a Wonderful Life' director, Frank Capra. This one ends up being much more of a dark comedy, though, and probably about the furthest back the idea of dark comedy goes. The concept is dated as being some time in the 60s, but this is a 1944 movie, which leads me to believe this kind of movie was very rare back then. We meet a couple of newly weds - a drama critic who has written several books on the idea of marriage being a bad thing, Mortimer Brewster (Cary Grant), and his childhood girl-next-door love interest, Elaine Harper (Priscilla Lane). The couple head back to their hometown of Brooklyn, where Elaine heads to her father's house to pack for the honeymoon. In the meantime, Mortimer drops in on his two aunts, Abby (Josephine Hull) and Martha (Jean Adair), along with his brother, Teddy (John Alexander) who is convinced he's Theodore Roosevelt. The visit begins innocently enough, but soon enough Mortimer discovers a dead body in the window seat, soon discovering that his aunts are murderers who believe they are doing a service for lonely old bachelors. To make things even more complicated, Mortimer's brother, Jonathan (Raymond Massey) drops in with his accomplice, Dr. Einstein (Peter Lorre). A killer on the run, he's looking for a place to lay low, and needless to say, it's just one of those disaster after disaster piling up kind of movies where the humor is well in the forefront of an otherwise dire situation. I think what's to be admired the most about this movie is everyone's performance. Grant is hilarious, being the innocent victim of his surroundings, Hull and Adair are very convincing as sweet little old ladies who believe they are doing some good in the world, Massey is really quite comically intense, and Lorre... well, he's Lorre. For those unfamiliar, he was one of the more typically parodied classic actors, often portrayed in Warner Bros. cartoons, or here, as Boo Berry. When all said and done, it's still not quite as dark as some of the stuff we have around today, but for 1944 I'd have to say that's pretty understandable. It certainly still has its moments, but it's mostly a light comedy for a dark comedy, if that makes any sense. It's one I'd recommend for someone looking for something classic, funny, but somewhat morbid all at once. I had fun with it. 4/5 Next up, I confess I have a replacement review. This was gonna be 'The Man in the Iron Mask', however, a few days ago, she requested this one as a replacement, and I was happy to oblige. I'll still to that one some day, but for now, we're gonna go with The Dude and his brother. There's a combination of things going on here for this request. For starters, Mom knows I like Jeff Bridges an awful lot, especially as The Dude. Call it a "Dude crush" if you must (pun definitely intended), but this guy is just one of my favorite actors from things I HAVE seen him in. Of course, this will soon lead to a Jeff Bridges month for this particular section of the site. Secondly, I'm really quite unfamiliar with Beau Bridges' work, for the most part, and this was a good role for him, and a good film to tackle two birds with one stone. Of course, a dash of Michelle Pfeiffer certainly doesn't hurt either, and she's really quite good here. The film itself has to do with two brothers, Jack (Jeff) and Frank (Beau) Baker. They are two talented jazz pianists, who play various lounges and jazz clubs, making a living at it. While Frank handles the business, Jack is starting to get bored with the same old routine, and suggests they bring on a singer for their act. This leads to the brothers hiring the lovely Susie Diamond (Pfeiffer) - an ex-call girl, looking for something more in her life. Eventually, Jack and Susie begin to develop feelings for one another, which begins complicating things as well. All in all, the story goes pretty much as one would expect for this kind of movie, so it may feel a bit dated for some. But, truth be told, I still enjoyed it for what it was, and there's very little to actually criticize about this one. I can't quite put my finger on what the best parts of it are, but I think it's just these performances as a whole. The cool part about it is having two real-life siblings play sibling on the screen. There will always be a certain chemistry between the actors that wouldn't be there otherwise, and it really comes through here between Jeff and Beau. Pfeiffer even got a nomination for her performance here, which is always impressive, and I'd say pretty well-deserved. She lent her own vocals to her singing, too, which always warrants respect from me. This is one of those movies I'd recommend throwing on during a rainy Sunday afternoon with the lights dimmed, a fire going (if you can) and a nice hot cup of coffee. I know, specific, right? But still. Give it a watch for yourself, and see if you get a similar vibe from it. 4/5 Up next for Mother's Month, I checked out the Terrence Young '67 thriller, 'Wait Until Dark'. In case that name might be ringing a bell, but you're not quite sure about it, he'd probably be best recognized as a 'Bond' director, with titles like 'Dr. No', 'Thunderball' and 'From Russia With Love'. Furthermore, Audrey Hepburn was nominated for an Oscar for her role of Susy here. She was recently blinded in an accident along with becoming recently married. Her husband, Sam Hendrix (Efrem Zimbalist Jr.) is followed home by a group of criminals, lead by a man named Roat (Alan Arkin), after acquiring a random doll from a random woman. The criminals wait until Sam leaves for business before making their move, attempting to get their hands on the doll, only to find the blind Susy in the apartment alone. The whole thing eventually leads to a pretty intense climax, featuring a life-threatening game of cat and mouse between a blind woman and these crooks. Think 'Home Alone' if it was more of a to-be-taken-seriously thriller. Much like 'Rear Window', this is sort of a bottle movie, and plenty of comparisons can be drawn between the two. However, with two like movies, one usually picks a favorite, and mine has to be 'Rear Window' over 'Wait Until Dark'. While this was still perfectly fine, I just didn't find it offered up as much. And despite her Oscar nomination, Susy sadly wasn't particularly likable to me. But hear me out. She's a lovely character and all, and her overall personality is very likable, but this is a 1967 version of an independent woman, which, let's just say wasn't exactly fleshed out yet. In my mind, not quite until Lori Strode starts battling Michael Myers in '78. But please, if there's someone before that, feel free to educate me on the matter. Susy here is a fighter, but also a trope. For example, she falls over, cries and begs a lot while she's fighting. That said, there should be a level of fairness offered to the fact that she's supposed to be recently blind and not quite used to it, and your average everyday girl next door. Still though, personally, I didn't quite feel it. Perhaps a good way to compare my feelings on it would be to compare it to an escort mission in your favorite game. Yeah, you're having a lot of fun with it, but this person in trouble can be such a pain. All that aside, I have to admit that the movie still did a good job at entertaining me. I may not have loved it, but I liked it enough to be able to say I might very well revisit it some time to see if I get more out of it. There's great atmosphere here, it still feels like something different (or at least not-heavily explored) to have a blind person fight off criminals, and it's actually pretty intense at times. It certainly meets the standards of what a thriller was back then, so I can't be too critical about things. I'd say it's just a bit dated. But worth checking out if you're on the lookout for a classic thriller you can have a fun time with. 3/5 The month of May is here, and with it comes that annual celebration of mothers everywhere. This year, I'm gonna show my appreciation by taking a look at some of her highest film recommendations - some of her personal favorites I have yet to see. Don't worry, I'll do something that's actually special for her too. Anyway, as a reviewer and overall lover of film, I kinda regret to have to admit that Hitchcock is actually a somewhat unturned stone for me. I recall 'The Birds' scaring the crap out of me as a kid (those pecked out eyes, man), and I consider Anthony Perkins' portrayal of Norman Bates from 'Psycho' one of the best all time movie villains, but it pretty much ends there. So, for one, I chose this from her list due to it being my "nest on the list" of Hitchcock films I wanted to finally see, and for two, this pretty much sets up next month's catching up theme as well. Hitchcock is most definitely a director worthy of a list of movies I feel a NEED to catch up on. But for now, perhaps considered Hitchcock's best overall film, this is 'Rear Window'. If you've somehow managed to find yourself under a rock for the past 60-plus years, you've probably missed the countless parodies of this. They tend to be pretty much the same, involving someone in a cast and a wheelchair with nothing better to do than look out the window at his or her neighbors. They spot something mysterious, suspect a horrible crime has gone down, and in the end, often it's all a big misunderstanding, but sometimes not not. Well, it's the same plot here at the source material of all those parodies, featuring Jimmy Stewart in the lead role of L.B. Jefferies; a magazine photographer who's injury comes from an accident at a racetrack while he was covering a story. But how it ends exactly? I won't say, only because for me, it caught me off guard. Perhaps most intriguing about this movie was that I expected to be laughing through it considering the amount of parodies I've seen of it. Kinda like how I giggled my way through 'The Shining' the first time I saw it, due to the 'Simpsons' parody (by the way, 'The Simpsons' also tackles this one with 'Bart of Darkness'). However, I didn't. This was something I was able to take seriously, have a good time with, and, though perhaps a bit dated on it, even feel the overall suspense with the climactic scene. It's interestingly shot, and a testimony to how a film can work really well with some sort of ultimate limitation to it. For example 'Buried' featured Ryan Reynolds in a box for an hour and a half, but worked great as a thriller. This does the same thing, with all camera angles either taking place within the apartment, or looking out the window. But a lot happens, and I have to give Hitchock some ultimate credit for his creativity here. For my own tastes, I'm not sure this one tops something like 'Psycho', but damned if it doesn't pose that dethroning potential. I could see myself growing to love this movie upon more viewings. And the good news is, it's a movie worth checking out more than once. One where you look for the clues to it's ending all along the way. Not quite as strong as 'Fight Club' or 'Sixth Sense' in that... sense, but still. It's a mystery thriller, and it's always fun to do that with those. I'm very happy that this was at the top of my mother's recommendations this month. She was very much convinced that I would enjoy it, not only for story and performance, but for it's overall execution. She was absolutely right. It's certainly one I'll be revisiting in the near future. 5/5 |