Change Your Image
liscarkat
Reviews
The Black Knight (1954)
Another Deliciously Bad Evening of "Cardboard Medieval Theatre"
Awful but entertainingly so. To begin with, Alan Ladd was too old (or at least looked too old) to pull off the role of a dashing young knight. He was out of shape, pudgy, and his doughy face looks even worse when framed by his jousting helmet, which he wears in nearly every scene. He was not a physically graceful or athletic man, yet we have to see him running and leaping around endlessly, awkwardly. And as for that helmet, Ladd's and all the knights' helmets in the movie are apparently the result of a deranged costume designer out of control, with ridiculous appendages and raging birds, etc. No self-respecting knight would have appeared in one of those things, except maybe Sir Liberace.
Then there's the issue of Stonehenge. In one scene, a group of knights and soldiers are shown completely demolishing the famous monument. Every stone is toppled. The main reason I kept watching this stinker to the end was out of curiosity about how they were going to explain how Stonehenge came down to us with most of its components still standing. Would some other, more responsible knights go back and restore it, or what? Amazingly, the film never shows or mentions it again!
For a good knight movie from this period, give "The Black Knight" a pass and see "Ivanhoe", "Prince Valiant", or "The Court Jester" instead.
The Belle of New York (1952)
Almost the Worst Fred Astaire Musical
You have the number-one musical-producing studio and number-one musical star of all time, a worthy partner, a supporting cast of terrific character actors, a pair of great songwriters, top pros writing and directing, and yet the result of their collaboration is this lifeless waste of an hour and a half. This is Astaire's second-to-worst movie, better only than the dreadful "Yolanda and the Thief". The plot is uninteresting, and Fred's character is perhaps, this time, just a bit too much of a wastrel to be sympathetic. The special effects of the main couple floating and dancing in the air are too silly to watch without a little embarrassment, and the comedy gags don't work. One protracted dance number bringing to life the paintings of Courier and Ives (the Thomas Kinkades of the 19th century) goes on so long you almost forget what the movie was about. "The Belle of New York" is a genuine flop, without one memorable musical number, and no redeeming attribute other than Vera-Ellen's legs, which are finally shown off near the end.
Too Many Husbands (1940)
Best of the three
"Too Many Husbands" impressed me as the best of the three main versions of this plot (the others being "My Favorite Wife" and "Move Over Darling"). Only in "Too Many Husbands" did I get a distinct sense of the terrible dilemma faced by the spouse who has to make a choice. This is because in this version alone are the two competing spouses portrayed as equally worthy, charming, and attractive by actors who were close to one another in those qualities, as well as in their respective levels of stardom at the time the film was made. In both "My Favorite Wife" and "Move Over Darling", it is quite clear, from the portrayal of one of the competing spouses and from the casting of a lesser star in the role, whom we are supposed to be rooting for. Not so in "Too Many Husbands". Douglas and MacMurray are very near equals in star power and in the way their characters are written and portrayed. Unlike the other two films, this results in as real a conflict for the viewer as it does for Jean Arthur's character. Unfortunately, it also results in the movie's weakest point--the ending (or lack of one). The dilemma was apparently so strong that the film makers themselves were unable to decide. After having Arthur's character seemingly make her choice, they tacked on a rather strange ambiguous ending suggesting that the "losing" husband might still have a chance. The effect is a non-ending that suggests the film makers couldn't make up their minds, so they just turned off the camera.
The Claim (2000)
Pretentious drivel
Some of the things that make this a bad movie:
I. The movie is confusing, either intentionally (pretentiously) or due to ineptitude.
A. A flashback near the beginning of the movie gives no indication that it is a flashback. There's just a shot in which we see people we haven't seen before, without any verbal or stylistic suggestion that this is a scene from the past. The younger actors portraying Dillon and his wife in the flashback bear no resemblance to the actors playing the same roles in the present.
B. Although approximately twenty years have elapsed since Dillon sold his wife, he appears to have aged at least thirty years, while she has apparently aged less than ten years. The two actors portraying the woman look so close in age that either of them could have played the part in both the present and the flashbacks. That would have alleviated a small amount of confusion.
C. The two unfamiliar actors portraying Dillon and his right-hand man are approximately the same age, have the same build, are the same height, have the same style of gray beard, and wear the same style and color of clothing and hat.
II. Much of the plot and the characters' actions seem unmotivated.
A. Why does Dillon sell the woman and baby? Near the beginning of the movie, when we see him do this in a flashback, it makes a little more sense. We are led to believe that he has no more attachment to them than to hitch hikers he picked up along his way. His only description of their relationship is that he has "been dragging them across the country," and the woman barely protests. There is little or no emotion or hesitation. It's somewhat believable that he might trade them for gold. But what gives him the right to sell them? Does he own them? Much later in the movie we find out that he and the woman were married and the baby was his. Near the end of the movie, there is a vague implication that he was drunk when he sold them (although there was no hint of it in the flashback). Drunk or not, he must have been pretty angry at both of them for some reason we are never let in on.
B. Why does Dillon move his house? It seems to be no more than a gratuitous action scene to give this soporific movie a moment of liveliness (like the pointless explosion of the survey party's supply wagon).
C. Why do Dillon and many of the town's men go ballistic when the railroad engineer decides that the tracks can't go through their town? Did the railroad have a contract with them? Did the railroad owe them anything? Dillon and his men were not justified in showing up with rifles and threatening the railroad surveyors.
D. Why does Dillon murder two railroad men, and why are there no consequences to him for this brutal, pointless act? There are at least two references to a sheriff in the town, yet he never makes an appearance. No one seems to be upset at all as a result of the murders.
III. The actors use accents inconsistently. Both Dillon and Lucy sometimes have accents, and sometimes don't. Dillon, in particular, is ridiculous because at times he has almost no accent and then in the next scene he has a thick brogue that's barely understandable.
IV. Anachronistic speech. "You're full of ****!" in 1867?
V. Anachronistic hair styles.
A. All of the women in the movie, be they prostitutes or not, have stringy, badly groomed hair hanging in their eyes. Try to find a photograph from the 1860s of any woman, anywhere, of any occupation or social class (including prostitutes) with hair like that. Either a studio portrait or a candid shot. You can't.
B. Several men of the survey party have long, poorly groomed hair. This is not from the 1860s; it is left over from western movies of the early 1970s.
VI. The railroad surveyors are portrayed as semi-literate ruffians. In reality, railroad survey engineers were college-educated, literate men (and real, 19th century college).
VII. The railroad survey takes place in deep snow.
A. How do they steady their tripods on the snow?
B. They are measuring the snow surface, which, in the Sierra Nevada in winter, can be several yards deep. What use would that be? The ground surface would be incorrectly measured, and many prominent topographic features would be overlooked.
VIII. The story is set in a mining town, with a large stamp mill next to the hotel and residences where most of the action takes place, yet the mill is obviously never running and the miners seem to spend all of their time carousing and whoring. If this mill had been in use we would have heard it roaring and seen it pouring smoke night and day throughout the movie. Apparently no mining is going on at all. Only the prostitutes are employed.
IX. General implausibility.
A. A large, wood-framed house is dragged (for no apparent reason) over several hundred yards of ungraded ground, down a hill slope. When it arrives at its destination, no leveling takes place; it's just perfect the way it lands. Dillon, the owner, walks inside and there are no cracks in the walls or broken windows. Even more amazing, the tables and shelves are covered with vases of flowers, decorative pottery, and sculptures that have not tipped over.
B. Dillon sets fire to the town with a magic torch. All he has to do is tap any object, be it upholstery, wooden wall, or thick timber framing, and it instantly bursts into fully engulfing flames.
In conclusion, the evidence appears to indicate the unfortunate fact that this movie is FULL OF ****!
Leave Her to Heaven (1945)
Beautiful Technicolor; Disturbing Drama
Called trashy melodrama by some critics, "Leave Her to Heaven," the story of a demented woman and the husband who becomes trapped in her web of possession, insanity, and murder, is trash at its zenith, a prime example of 1940s studio opulence. This film noir, told in extended flashback as the husband (Wilde) returns home from an unjust prison term, is unusual in that it is in vibrant Technicolor rather than the genre's usual black-and-white. But the contrast between visual brilliance and psychosis enhances the horror. In her autobiography, Gene Tierney wrote that she had wanted to play Ellen Berent ever since she read Ben Ames Williams's novel. She worked well with John Stahl, and "blossomed under his direction." Besides the sets at Twentieth Century-Fox, filming was done on location in Arizona, northern California, and Georgia. The real star of the film may be Leon Shamroy's Technicolor cinematography, which earned the picture its only Academy Award and is still beautiful sixty years later.
The recent Fox Studio Classics DVD release of "Leave Her to Heaven" contains an excellent transfer of the restored film, relevant contemporary newsreels, a restoration comparison, and commentary by supporting actor Darryl Hickman and critic Richard Schickel. Both Hickman and Schickel offer interesting insights, but each is sometimes condescending toward the acting talents of Tierney, Wilde, and particularly Crain. Inexplicably and inexcusably, Schickel repeatedly pronounces director Stahl's name "Sphal."
Lady Be Good (1941)
A Lot of Fun and Great Musical Numbers
Everyone in this movie is terrific, and the story is one of the better ones among musicals of the period. The songs and dances are great, too, with two of the high points being beautiful Ann Sothern's "The Last Time I Saw Paris" and Eleanor Powell's dancing finale. But most amazing of all is Powell's duet with her dog. This number should be rated along with Fred Astaire's dance on the ceiling in "Royal Wedding" and Donald O'Connor's "Make 'Em Laugh" as one of the best of all time. If you're looking for social commentary, turn on NPR. If you want something deep, find a stable and pick up a shovel. This movie was meant to be fun and entertaining, and it succeeds perfectly on both counts.
The Turning Point (1977)
A lot of silly crap
A big deal is made of this movie seemingly because Anne Bancroft and Shirley MacLain have a ridiculous catfight near the end. The only reason not to cut this thing up for guitar picks is that it showcases some of the leading ballet talent of the 1970s. The backstage story is not only silly but completely unrealistic, and the whole Bancroft/MacLain thing is sheer drivel. Really, who cares?
Chariots of Fire (1981)
Why Pan and Scan?
My only comment about this great movie is that it's a shame, with such a visually beautiful film, that a decision was made to bring out the DVD only in a 1.33:1 pan and scan version, when it is supposed to have an aspect ratio of 1.85:1. This means that approximately 1/3 of the picture is cropped off.
The Pace That Thrills (1952)
A fun "B" movie
While writing an article exposing its dark side, beautiful reporter Eve Drake (Carla Balenda) is drawn into the world of motorcycle racing, where she becomes involved with egotistical racer Dick "Dusty" Weston (Bill Williams)and clean-cut engineer Chris Rhodes (Steve Flagg). As Dusty and Chris battle to win on and off the track and mechanic Rocket Anderson (Frank McHugh) keeps their powerful machines running, everyone works together to save the failing motorcycle company run by Mr. Barton (Robert Armstrong). Exciting footage of authentic flat-track and TT racing in 1951 is effectively integrated with shots of the actors and is believable, except for a preposterous stunt pulled by Dusty in his first race that will leave fans of the real thing laughing. A fun "B" movie, flawed by the message that cheating is an acceptable way to win motorcycle races. Dozens of vintage British and American bikes are a highlight. With bad boy Dusty and nice guy Chris competing for the checkered flag and Eve's heart, which do you think will win?