Reviews

Next to the The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly (1966), They Call Me Trinity (1970) was my favorite childhood Spaghetti Western. I always wondered why TCMT 1970 had such a different feel to it when compared to its 1971 sequel, Trinity Is Still My Name. Both films were directed by the same director: Enzo Barboni. When seeing other Terence Hill-Bud Spencer-Enzo Barboni collaborations, it became even more apparent. It wasn't until I read Christopher Frayling's 1981 published "Spaghetti Westerns: Cowboys and Europeans from Karl May to Sergio Leone" book did I finally received my answer. TCMT 1970 was 'ghost-directed' by none other than Spaghetti Western maestro Sergio Leone. Why Leone did not credit himself as this film's actual director only he could have answered. Enzo Barboni was really Assistant Director on TCMT 1970 just as Tonino Valerii was in For A Few Dollars More (1965). Later, Leone produced My Name Is Nobody (1973) with Tonino Valerii as director. Even when Terence Hill discussed TCMT 1970 in subsequent interviews, he never mentioned anything of Leone's involvement. One would suspect that Leone had a private, gentleman's agreement with the Cast and Crew of TCMT 1970 to never divulge this. All anyone has to do is very carefully watch Leone's Dollars Trilogy and compare it to TCMT 1970. Then compare TCMT 1970 to its 1971 sequel TISMN. There is one shot which clinches this revelation. It is when Trinity's horse & travois ride into town early on in the film and a close up of this opens the sequence. This is IDENTICAL to when Eastwood's Man With No Name rides into town early on in the film in A Fistful Of Dollars (1964). Also, the whistling that accompanies the music in Leone's Dollars Trilogy is present in the title song of TCMT 1970. It is not present in its 1971 sequel TISMN directed by Enzo Barboni. Nor is it present in the Tonino Valerii directed My Name Is Nobody (1973).

This film had a near-perfect lead cast...This was a terrific concept and storyline that begged to be executed to its fullest potential. The two weakest factors here are the screenplay (Richard Brooks notwithstanding) and the direction; the Fuchs/Brooks treatment should have been credited as Story, while a definite re-write was in order. Stuart Heisler, as good as he was, fell flat here. This film needed either King Vidor, Howard Hawks, or William Wellman at the directorial helm. Dalton Trumbo should have done the screenplay ... Or if he could have been persuaded, the one and only John Steinbeck (who scripted 'Viva Zapata' 1952)... Ginger Rogers was perfectly cast, as was the girl next door, Doris Day. Reagan was good but Fred MacMurray would have been better and edgier (a la 'Double Indemnity'). This film could have been a cinema masterpiece. There was at least one scene in which Reagan actually says "well..." Of all the superstar actresses of the Golden Age of Hollywood, Ginger Rogers had to be the most luscious and delectable...Simply because she didn't try to be. She just was...

The ONLY reason why a 10-star rating eluded UNFORGIVEN (1992) was the casting of Morgan Freeman. Certainly NOT because of his acting but because of the credibility of a Black man in 1880 Wyoming whose best friend is a former Missouri gunman... Anyone who knows anything about history and cowboys, gunslingers, outlaws, and lawmen from 1880s Missouri (and Wyoming), knows that no 'redneck peckerwood' (as Peckinpah Westerns described them) would have befriended a Black man...Let alone one who is his best friend. Historically, that would have been a one-in-a-million chance of occurring. That right there killed much of the neo-realism of this revisionist Hollywood Western. Had the Ned Logan character been realistically (not idealistically) cast with a white man, it would have hit a home run with all bases full. No way would a Black man in the 1880s Old West be allowed as a patron in any Wyoming cowtown saloon...And least likely of all, one who is allowed to be a john to white frontier strumpets. Eastwood's casting was spot on with everyone else ... Especially Hackman. The Ned Logan character could have been played by either James Coburn, Robert Duvall, Bruce Dern, or Jon Voight (see Return To Lonesome Dove). Dern being a year older than Freeman while Voight a year younger. Coburn and Duvall were closer to Eastwood's age. Dern would have been an interesting choice mainly because he played a few nasty cowboy characters and a sympathetic one would have been an unexpected change of persona. Coburn or Duvall would have probably been the best choices to play Ned Logan. So many reviews of UNFORGIVEN have covered so much. There isn't too much more to elucidate. The only other critique of UNFORGIVEN would be that the profanity in this film was anachronistic. Too modern-day. It is no secret that Eastwood as a filmmaker has been obsessed with George Stevens' SHANE (1952/3) throughout his film career. It was Clint's input to Leone when he remade Kurosawa's YOJIMBO as FISTFUL OF DOLLARS to make the main villains the Rojo Brothers (after the Ryker Brothers in SHANE). As with Morgan Ryker in SHANE, Esteban Rojo frequently laughs like a hyena and gets killed the same way (trying to ambush the hero at the end). And Eastwood's main antagonist in ANY WHICH WAY YOU CAN was named 'Jack Wilson' and played by a somewhat Jack Palance look-alike, William Smith. Finally, he himself loosely remade SHANE in 1985 as PALE RIDER. For UNFORGIVEN, he had it set in Wyoming as was SHANE. In spite of the neo-realistic revisionism of Eastwood's vision, Clint approached UNFORGIVEN with modern, late 20th Century sensibilities, standards, and social values. In 1880 Wild West America, when the Little Bill Daggett character publicly brutalizes English Bob or bullwhips Ned Logan, the town onlookers and his deputies are shown flinching from the savagery of his actions. This would have been the reaction of modern, late 20th Century Americans. Eastwood forgot that the America where his fictional story is set was a very, very different place. An America where public lynchings of outlaws and criminals were commonplace. In 1893 at Paris, Texas, just 13 years later from when this fictional story is set, a black man named Henry Smith was charged with the brutal murder of a 4-year old little white girl (without any trial). His subsequent public lynching (on 1st February 1893) was attended by over 10,000 people which included women and CHILDREN. Henry Smith was tied to an elevated scaffold and tortured for 50 minutes with red hot irons and then doused with kerosene and burned alive (!!!). Dozens of photographs were taken of this event and some were made into postcards (!!). Clint Eastwood should have further researched or remembered factual events like this when making UNFORGIVEN.

THE DARK KNIGHT clearly surpassed all superhero flicks that preceded it. And since its release in 2008, none have eclipsed or equalled it. Where Chris Nolan took this particular entry of his own Batman trilogy, even the other 2 could not compete with it. TDK didn't just transcend the superhero genre, it redefined it. Starting with the film's opening which everyone acknowledged as a homage to Michael Mann's HEAT (replete with a cameo by actor William Fichtner), to every scene which followed...All the way to the end...TDK was unpredictable. This will remain the most entertaining and engrossing superhero movie all time. TDK's pace and wit are an anomaly in Nolan's own Batman trilogy, let alone all the other superhero flicks from DC, Marvel, and the rest. It is unlikely that it will ever be equalled or surpassed. It is to be noted that Jack Nicholson in a 2007 MTV interview stated his great displeasure at not being asked to reprise The Joker character in Nolan's trilogy. Who knows what Nicholson really thought after viewing Heath Ledger's performance as The Joker. Ledger's Joker will remain a standout and will probably never be eclipsed. Ledger made Nicholson's Joker seem like a cross between Bozo the Clown and Carrot Top. Where Heath Ledger would have gone on to after The Joker will never be known. To quote him directly from one of his last interviews -- "The Joker was actually the most fun I've ever had or probably will ever have playing a character..."

So many astute reviews of this classic film noir have been posted, what could another one offer? Reflected on this before adding my 2 cents worth. This is J. Lee Thompson's masterpiece, arguably a film director that is still underrated and may never get his just recognition (while degenerates like Martin Scorcese and Quentin Tarantino are lauded to high heaven). This was Thompson's homage to Alfred Hitchcock. In 1960, Gregory Peck's film production company Melville (which produced Peck starrers THE BIG COUNTRY and PORK CHOP HILL) bought the rights to the John D. MacDonald novel THE EXECUTIONERS (which this film is based upon). Peck purchased the rights from Cornel Wilde (who first acquired the rights in 1958). Wilde was unable to raise financing for the film adaptation from any independent backers or from any major Hollywood studios before he sold the rights to Peck. Peck purchased the rights originally intending to play Max Cady (Peck had played a true villain once before in his film career in Selznick's 1946 epic Western DUEL IN THE SUN). Peck wanted Charlton Heston to play Attorney Sam Bowden, switching personas from their earlier onscreen collaboration... Heston had played the antagonist to Peck's hero in THE BIG COUNTRY in 1958. At the last moment, Heston was unavailable so Peck cast himself as Bowden and both he and J. Lee Thompson decided on Robert Mitchum (their first and only choice for Max Cady). Initially, Mitch did NOT want to play Cady but Peck and Thompson were persistent (even sending him a case of bourbon to help him change his mind). Mitch eventually gave in. In the IMDb Trivia section for this film, some ridiculously incorrect information has been stated that Charles Bronson, James Coburn, Jack Palance, and even John Wayne (!!!) were considered for Attorney Sam Bowden...And that Ernest Borgnine was considered for Max Cady. First of all, Peck had intended from the very beginning to have a Hollywood star of equal or near equal stature as himself to play Bowden with Peck as Cady. Neither Charles Bronson nor James Coburn were anywhere near the superstar level that Peck or Heston were in the early 1960s. Nor was Jack Palance. Besides, Palance would never have been considered for a square, good guy role like Bowden when a character like Max Cady was more suited to his screen image. And as for John Wayne, no Hollywood villain could be menacing enough to appear as any kind of threat to the onscreen persona of the 6-foot 4-inch Duke... John Wayne would have been the least likely candidate to play Attorney Sam Bowden. Neither Peck or Thompson would have ever considered The Duke for Bowden. When Mitch continually refused to play Cady, Thompson considered Telly Savalas (who had already been selected to play Private Investigator Charlie Sievers) for the role of Max Cady and even persuaded Peck to have Savalas screen tested for the part. Peck, however, remained firm in his conviction to cast a star of equal stature as himself to play Cady. When Rod Steiger got wind that an alternate actor other than Mitchum was being sought for Max Cady, he expressed keen interest in the part but Thompson and Peck would only consider Steiger for the supporting role of Charlie Sievers. When Mitch finally relented, the real reason being that Peck ended up offering him an exorbitant salary, Savalas played Charlie Sievers as originally intended. CAPE FEAR (1962) was clearly ahead of its time in its groundbreaking approach toward the suspense thriller sub-genre. In an America of 'Leave It To Beaver' and 'The Andy Griffith Show', CAPE FEAR must have been a cultural shock. This film sent American values down a path to which there was no return. It is where 'Ozzie And Harriet' entered the 'The Twilight Zone'. Consequently, this film failed at the box-office and ended Melville (film) Productions of Gregory Peck (and his partner Sy Bartlett). The film's co-star Martin Balsam summed it up best : " When a couple goes to the movies, the woman may not always pick the movie, but she definitely has veto power over it. When CAPE FEAR came out, how many women looked at the reviews and said, 'Oh, honey, let's go see this new movie about a homicidal psychopath who's trying to rape a woman and her daughter?' " ... The 1991 remake was not only totally unnecessary but an exercise in stupidity. Scorcese's insane remake bordered on the surreal like possibly Andy Warhol's version of Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel. A total cinematic disgrace. DeNiro as Cady ??? The pint-sized 5-feet 7-inch actor playing big, brutish Southerner Max Cady ?? After viewing Mitch's Cady in this original, anyone can envision that Mitch could snap DeNiro's spine in half, almost like a twig. Who could even believe that DeNiro's runt of a Max Cady take down brawny good-ole-boy Joe Don ("Buford Pusser") Baker as Charlie Sievers ?? As for DeNiro's performance, it was like viewing a MAD Magazine version of Yosemite Sam. A parody of a cartoon replete with a ludicrous attempt at a Southern drawl. Why Peck, Mitchum, and Martin Balsam lent their talent and reputation to the 1991 remake (appearing in different roles from the original) was inexplicable...Especially with Scorsese as director. The IMDb Trivia section for this film did provide some correct and factual information. The behind-the-scenes account of the following: According to Robert Mitchum, during the filming of the final fight scene between him and Gregory Peck, Peck once accidentally punched him for real. Mitchum, knowing that Peck didn't mean to and ever the professional, refused to break character and continued filming the scene. However, upon entering his trailer, Mitchum said that he "literally collapsed" due to the impact of the punch and said that he felt it for days afterwards. Mitchum said, "I don't feel sorry for anyone dumb enough who picks a fight with him (Peck)."

The rating of 10 is based not on its cinematic prestige (lol, this film is no Henri Georges Clouzot's THE WAGES OF FEAR). The 10 rating is based on its sheer entertainment value as a cheesy, camp disaster epic. When comparing it to EARTHQUAKE and the 4 AIRPORT films of the 1970s, this ranks as a "classic". Irwin Allen's own POSEIDON ADVENTURE is almost as entertaining but did not have the superstar power of 'INFERNO. The scenes with Bill Holden and Richard Chamberlain are hilarious (!) Wagner is as superficial and phony as a $3 dollar bill. A convincingly concerned O. J. Simpson almost has to be seen to be believed. And even a Brady Bunch is onboard: Bobby Brady, Mike Lookinland. This is the only film to feature Paul and Scott Newman (dad and son). Scott should have been given a meatier role in this film and at least one scene with his dad, he certainly had the screen presence. His scenes with McQueen are memorable. Mr. Frederick Austerlitz (Freddie Astaire's real name) adds a touch of class to this potboiler; he was of German and Austrian descent (Deutsch mother and Osterreich father). Aside from McQueen, Felton Perry gave the coolest and most natural acting performance such a film would allow. I remember seeing this the 1st week of its release back in L.A. McQueen was instinctively clever in switching from his original role of Doug Roberts (the actual lead character) to the Fire Chief (whose role was elevated from a supporting character to the film's eventual main hero). Now to the much ballyhooed equal or staggered/diagonal billing of McQueen and Newman that is still debated by film buffs and film historians. There was no "equal" billing in TOWERING INFERNO. McQueen was unequivocally first billed. I vividly remember in all the radio ads, TV trailers, and film previews at theaters, Steve McQueen was named FIRST. In the actual film itself during the opening credits, Steve McQueen is still named first despite the staggered or diagonal billing format. This staggered/diagonal billing format was NOT the first time it was used as some grossly misinformed articles have listed (e.g., Wikipedia). The diagonal/staggered billing was used earlier that very same year in THE KLANSMAN between Lee Marvin and Richard Burton. However, it was 2 years earlier in 1972, that the diagonal/staggered billing (between Paul Newman and Lee Marvin in POCKET MONEY) was made widely popular. There may have been even earlier examples in cinema history, but POCKET MONEY and all its posters clearly depicted the diagonal/staggered billing between Paul Newman and Lee Marvin: Newman was to the left and first, while Marvin's name was to the right but higher. In THE TOWERING INFERNO, Steve McQueen received first billing over Paul Newman (one of his career ambitions). No argument. Both the names of McQueen and Newman appear together with McQueen's to the left and Newman's to the right (but higher). The English language which is read from left to right sealed this argument before it even began.

Watching MOD SQUAD as a pre-adolescent, this show had sentimental & nostalgic value that almost cannot be expressed in words. This show set standards that were imitated by later iconic 70s, 80s, and 90s TV shows during the Age of Television (when TV was free).

-- Virtually every formula and episodic plot that became cliches during the 70s & 80s action TV shows were first presented in MOD SQUAD.

-- The salt & pepper undercover cop duo of Pete & Linc (Cole & Williams) was reworked for MIAMI VICE (Crockett & Tubbs) with equally balanced lead roles as in MV.

-- The 1st TV show to have a female lead cop character: Julie (Lipton).

-- The idea of a trio of youthful undercover cops that bridge the generation gap, working the youth scene was copied in 21 JUMPSTREET; even Jumpstreet's captain's 1st name was "Adam" (Steven Williams) taken from Capt. Adam Greer (Tige Andrews).

-- From seasons 3-5, the sporty car of Pete's with the slick red streak design...A concept imitated in STARSKY & HUTCH. Even though S&H was supposed to be an unofficial TV knockoff of THE SUPER COPS (1974), S&H modeled the two cops after Pete & Linc and their wild stunts in chases and fight scenes.

-- Hitting the psychedelic scene in-depth a full year before the release of EASY RIDER (1969).

-- Spectacular contemporary fight scenes and hip "acid era" music (Earle Hagen and Billy May).

-- Dealing with a wide array of contemporary social issues that were not previously covered or spotlighted in TV shows (e.g., from abortion to militant fascist groups).

Michael Cole was one super-hip dude with a natural, unassuming, no-nonsense portrayal and a delivery that was his own style (a comparison to Brando's and Dean's brooding deliveries combined with McQueen's hip delivery). Cole rocked as Pete...The coolest white guy on TV. Clarence Williams III was the coolest bruther out there. His posture and walk stood out and was all his own...Before the likes of Calvin Lockhart, Richard Roundtree ("John Shaft"), and Ron O'Neal ("Superfly Priest") hit the scene. Linc was the granddaddy of them all. Not even Sidney Poitier in BLACKBOARD JUNGLE and as Virgil Tibbs evoked the urban contemporary hipness that Williams' Linc presented. Peggy Lipton was so hot (and so cool) as Julie that one cannot imagine anyone else as Julie Barnes...She set the standard for all future female leads in action and urban TV dramas...However, Lipton added a 3-dimensional portrayal to her role...She could be both sensitive, wistful and vulnerable and yet tough and resolute when required. Tige Andrews was arguably the best police captain any TV cop show could ask for....The forefather of KOJAK's McNeil (Dan Frazer), HILL STREET BLUES' Furrillo (Daniel J. Travanti), and LAW & ORDER's Cragen (Dann Florek). Andrews was of pure Syrian descent, son of Syrian immigrants Selma Shaleesh & Jurjy Androwas (Anglicized from the original Arabic to George Andrews). This show took a decade to get accepted by TV executives, being based on the real life concept of Buddy Ruskin (a former LA city policeman who ran a narcotics squad of youthful cops). And the man himself--Danny Thomas (of pure Lebanese descent, born Amos Muzyad Yakhoob Kairouz), was an executive producer of this iconic show (and the driving force in bringing it on TV...More so than Spelling, who always got most of the credit). MOD SQUAD is a must see for any generation of TV show fans as it set the standard and groundwork for so many others that followed.

I had seen this Lerner & Loewe adaptation back when it was first released in 1974 (as a pre-adolescent elementary schooler ). I think it was either a Thanksgiving or Christmas release. The only thing from this film I recalled from that initial theatrical viewing was a song-and-dance sequence involving a therianthropic transfiguration of a snake into a man. That dance sequence by a certain man was all I recalled from this film. Years later when learning about the performing arts industry in general (both stage and screen), I realized it was Broadway icon Bob Fosse(!)...The greatest Broadway dancer & choreographer of all time...Surpassing Jack Cole and Jerome Robbins as a choreographer and even surpassing Fred Astaire & Gene Kelly as a dancer. Fosse was the only dancer who went toe-to-toe with and matched Tommy Rall (arguably the greatest modern stage dancer ever): The 'Alley Dance' from the 1955 film My Sister Eileen between Fosse and Rall is the evidence. But the thing that is absolutely mind-blowing about The Little Prince (1974) is how Bob Fosse's dance sequence in the musical number Snake In The Grass virtually defined Michael Jackson's post- 1982 performing career(!) Michael Jackson's signature dance moves for the most successful period of his performing life (1982-1997) were a direct plagiarism of Bob Fosse's Snake In The Grass sequence. This sequence has all of Michael Jackson's hallmark dance moves. And it is all genuine FOSSE(!). That this film contains the blueprint of Michael Jackson's performing career as an adult is why it is invaluable and A MUST SEE(!)

As already covered in one of the user reviews, this film has dialogue which reflects the day and age the story is set. The following are some reflections which define TG :

-- The character of Ruben J. "Rooster" Cogburn is a role that was tailor-made for a Lee Marvin. That is why it was a pleasant surprise for cinema audiences to see John Wayne play such a character. Up until this part, Wayne had never played such an undignified, uncharacteristic role. Yet there is enough of the "John Wayne" screen persona and old school masculinity & decency evoked by the Duke to render him recognizable.

-- The eccentric brilliance of Rooster's "family"...Merchant Chen Lee and a Morris the Cat lookalike named "General Sterling Price". What a name for a pet cat! Especially for US history buffs who were well acquainted with General Price's involvement with the state of Missouri and the Civil War, at one point arriving in Richmond, VA to "replace" President Davis.

-- Kim Darby's timeless and unrivaled performance as Mattie Ross...'Mattie' was the prototype & blueprint for the contemporary trend in Hollywood films which have been on a mission to redefine women's roles as the hero of the film. Now, of course, this trend has become a tired cliché. The latest hackneyed effort being the latest Star Wars installment (The Force Awakens). However, back in 1969, nothing like this was ever envisioned. Darby's portrayal not only stood up to the Duke on screen, but virtually dominated him throughout the film. A feat no female co-star of John Wayne was able to do (not even Susan Hayward) and no male co-star ever could do (with the possible exception of John Carroll, who came close in Flying Tigers). Darby was cute and amiable in her screen presence. There is also an innocence to Darby where today's teenage actresses are (for example) aged 16 but going on 30 in looks and manner. Darby (who was actually 21 portraying a teen) represents an era when teen girls were naive and gullible. As mature and headstrong as Mattie was, Darby elicited enough gullibility, freshness, and even sweetness to come across as a breath of fresh air when compared to our current "slut" culture of "progressive" feminism. The one thing which the Coen Brothers' remake with Hailee Steinfeld as Mattie totally lacked was genuine charm.

-- Glen Campbell was wonderful in his role as the Texas Ranger La Boeuf. In comparison, Matt Damon's methodical re-interpretation lacked the natural unassuming charisma exuded by Campbell. Reportedly, the Duke picked out Campbell for the part. Campbell's lack of acting experience is actually what made his La Boeuf so unassuming and humorous. Some of the lines Campbell delivered are so funny that they almost caricature the image of the Texas Ranger. At times, it almost suggests a subtle parody of Jethro Bodine of the Beverly Hillbillies as a Texas Ranger. Campbell not only held his own against the masterful Duke but displayed superb on screen chemistry with Darby's Mattie. And that title song sung by Campbell was incomparable. What a lovely, beautiful song! They don't make songs with that depth, beauty, and soul anymore. Contemporary country western doesn't even come close to capturing what the title song TRUE GRIT still evokes. Was sort of a Glen Campbell fan back in the 70s with hits like "Rhinestone Cowboy" and "Southern Nights".

-- Lastly, had to cover the Coen Brothers' remake. It may have been more faithful to Charles Portis' novel, but a remake should never have been attempted. The stark, bleak, nearly humorless 2010 remake left a real bad taste in the mouth. How these pseudo-intellectual dipstick film critics lauded the Coen Brothers' lifeless, soulless remake is beyond me. First of all, where can contemporary America produce character actors like Strother Martin, John Fiedler, James Westerfield, John Doucette, etc. Both Martin and Fiedler have priceless character roles. Strother Martin is one of the all-time classic scene-stealing actors. He could virtually steal a scene from the biggest of stars. The Coen Brothers should have realized that they could never fulfill comparable character actors which are so crucial to carry a film. Conclusion: Henry Hathaway probably turned over in his grave at the 2010 remake.

Producer-Director Mehboob Khan proved his versatility as the fabled filmmaker he was with personal dramas like NAJMA (1943) and ANOKHI ADA (1948), as well as blockbuster epics such as HUMAYUN (1945) and MOTHER India (1957).

In NAJMA (1943), the viewer is treated to both a personal romantic melodrama and a social commentary...The social commentary on the lavish lifestyle of the high aristocracy in Indian society of a bygone era. A terrific social statement on the transition of Indian culture from the traditional to the modern.

The cast is flawless: Ashok Kumar, Sitara Devi, Kumar, Yakub, and in the title role, Veena. This film made an overnight sensation of actress Veena establishing her as a major star of Hindi cinema. In the 1930s, Devika Rani was the top actress and the 1st true female star of Hindi cinema. Followed by a new roster of major star actresses such as Naseem Banu (mother of Saira Banu), Mumtaz Shanti, and Noor Jehan. Then came Veena. Her period of popularity was 1943-1947 after which Suraiya took the limelight from 1948-1951.

Ashok Kumar (real name Kumudlal Kunjilal Ganguly from Bihar) gave a superb lead performance as the face of the modern young man of Indian society as the medical doctor Yusuf. While character actor Kumar (real name Syed Ali Hasan Zaidi from Lucknow) gave an excellent portrayal of the self-indulgent, lavish old tradition in the form of the Nawab's son Mukarram. The contrast in their values and purpose is well defined by Mehboob Khan. The inimitable Yakub provides colorful support as Ashok Kumar's best friend. Actress Sitara Devi has the most intriguing part in this film which fits her mischievous persona perfectly.

Films such as NAJMA (1943) make viewers who appreciate artistic cinema, lament over the state of contemporary Indian films. There is nothing of culture or value left in Indian films. This irreversible decline began in the 1970s and has pretty much hit rock bottom with the turn of the new millennium. Films such as NAJMA are reminders of what Hindi cinema once was but will probably never be again.

There were historical epics that preceded HUMAYUN (1945) but this one took the genre to a new level in Hindi cinema. Made by pioneer filmmaker Mehboob Khan, this film reportedly reached the attention of even Hollywood (in the person of Cecil B. DeMille). This film rates a 10 because of its significance in Indian cinema. History has always been a fusion of fact and fiction. And this film makes no pretense otherwise.

The sets, costumes, and general art direction are over-the-top, surpassing anything that had yet been filmed in Hindi cinema. This was the achievement of Mehboob Khan--the Cecil B. DeMille of India.

The casting was stellar: Ashok Kumar, Veena, Nargis, Chandra Mohan, Shah Nawaz, and K. N. Singh. All were nearly perfectly cast but a couple of performances fell short of the mark. The usually superb Chandra Mohan looked uncomfortable in his part which is surprising considering he played an excellent Emperor Jahangir in the 1939 epic PUKAR. The same can be said of Nargis. In all fairness to Nargis, she was very young here and still inexperienced in large scale film roles. Both Chandra Mohan and Nargis were overshadowed by the powerhouse presence of Veena in this film. In their scenes with Veena, both seemed edgy and uptight, which is a clear sign of actors who are not secure in their roles. Veena displays alternately a fiery and yet tender warrior princess which blows away the viewer. She somehow managed to go from a tigress to a dove in this role. How she achieved this, only Mehboob Khan could have known the answer. There never was an actress in the history of Hindi cinema who could deliver a dialogue like Veena or who had that inimitable voice. Ashok Kumar seems to be enjoying himself in the title role. He genuinely looks like he had fun playing this part. He was perfect for the part of Emperor Humayun. K. N. Singh played a real menacing part in this film and made his screen presence felt. Shah Nawaz made a regal and powerful Emperor Babur, founder of the Mughal Empire in India. A terrific supporting actor, Shah Nawaz had co-starred with Ashok Kumar in the diamond jubilee hit KISMET two years earlier in 1943, where he played a tough yet sympathetic police inspector which set the standard of important cop roles for decades to come by later character actors.

In conclusion, HUMAYUN is a costume drama of epic proportions...Classic songs, great music, eloquent dialogue, opulent sets, spectacular battle scenes...This film has it all. For its cultural significance, as well as its commercial value, this film is a must see.

Based on Marie Corelli's novel "Vendetta", AFSANA certainly has all the ingredients of the classic Film Noir genre. Veteran Hindi film producer & director B. R. Chopra (in his directorial debut) along with another veteran, I. S. Johar (who wrote the screenplay adaptation without crediting the source), put forth a mesmerizing Hindi film noir with AFSANA. Why this veteran team remade this very film as DASTAAN (1972) 20 years later defies reason. The remake was so incredibly inferior in comparison in spite of the presence of the Tragedy King of Hindi cinema Dilip Kumar.

AFSANA was arguably the last major role as a heroine of actress Veena before her screen career gradually slipped into supporting roles. This was mainly due to the fact that Veena was such a class act that she was really incapable of performing silly song-and-dance routines which became the standard of Hindi films. Keeping this in mind, B. R. Chopra did 2 things which the Hindi cinema audience longed to see: (1) Veena playing a truly vulnerable, mournful character that was a total 180 degree opposite turn from her dragon lady role in the ironically titled DASTAN from the previous year (1950). (2) Veena had played the romantic interest of Ashok Kumar in the 1943 classic NAJMA, in which they play soulful lovers who end up marrying other partners which left audiences unfulfilled. AFSANA was the long overdue film which fulfilled the unfulfilled: Ashok Kumar & Veena playing characters which reunite with each other. Had any other actress been cast in the role of the heroine of this film, this would have indeed been considered a rather bland, depressing part. However, B. R. Chopra remedied this by capturing some of the best screen shots of Veena: She never looked more breathtakingly gorgeous than in this film. An East Indian version of a cross between Paulette Goddard & Hedy Lamarr.

Ashok Kumar proved in this film that he could stand on par with the upcoming Hindi film superstars Dilip Kumar, Raj Kapoor, and Dev Anand, who were clearly his junior and undoubtedly inspired by him. His acting talent is equally matched by his charismatic screen presence. Actress Kuldip Kaur had the role to die for in this film and she makes the most of it. Pran is excellent in this film and displays something he almost never had a chance to: An antagonist who is vulnerable. One of Pran's finest roles. And it is a real treat to see the often sinister & devious Jeevan portray a light, comical role in which he has some real scene-stealing dialogue.

What B. R. Chopra achieved in this film begs the question: What happened to him later on in his career as a filmmaker? Directing all those masala potboilers which only had commercial value but very little artistic value. But in this film, B. R. Chopra and I. S. Johar really brought forth a hypnotic tale in AFSANA...65 years later, this film holds the viewer spellbound. An unmistakable testament as to what B. R. Chopra was capable of accomplishing.

Saw this film for the 2nd time after a very long gap. The DVD print was very sharp and that always helps. CKNG is a landmark Hindi film for 2 reasons: (1) It is the only Hindi film which starred all 3 Kumar brothers (real family name Ganguly). (2) It paired the 2 most beautiful actresses of all time in the history of Hindi cinema--Veena (real name Tajour Sultana) & Madhubala (real name Mumtaz Jehan Dehlavi); note that this pairing was as adults. Madhubala did appear as a child actress in a 1946 film in which Veena starred. With all due consideration that old time actress Veena was in disheveled make-up for most all of her scenes, Veena's stunning beauty still managed to break through. Only at the last scene of this wacky comedy, do the viewers get to see Veena all neat and prim. Even so, it is apparent that the filmmakers did not go all out to showcase Veena's full beauty via the most suitable make-up and hairstyle befitting her. Film director Satyen Bose must have been well aware of the Marx Brothers, the Three Stooges, and the forgotten Ritz Brothers when he directed this fare. As crazy and talented as Kishore Kumar was on screen, there were generations of Indian filmgoers who for the life of them could never understand how the gorgeous Madhubala ever married him of all the people in the world. It was like gorgeous Ava Gardner marrying Mickey Rooney in the early 1940s...Truly jaw-dropping. Of the 3 brothers, only Ashok Kumar looked somewhat like a matinée idol in his youth. Let's face the facts, Anoop and Kishore looked like cartoons...And on occasion, acted like cartoons. But for this film, it was right on the money. Speaking of money, this film was the 2nd highest grossing Hindi film of 1958. Where this film fell short is in the backdrop of the romance of Ashok's Brijmohan and Veena's Kamini. That was a very promising subplot which certainly should have been given a far superior treatment than it was. The same can be said of the romantic subplot of Anoop's Jagmohan and Sahira's Sheela. Veteran screen great K. N. Singh provides a powerful, menacing presence in this movie as the main heavy. Singh was reunited in this film with his HUMAYUN co-stars Ashok Kumar & Veena, the 1945 Mehboob Khan epic. Singh was even more menacing here than he was in that historical drama. This movie most certainly had the potential of being an all time classic Hindi film comedy but ended up falling short of it. Nevertheless, it is a film that must be viewed at least once by fans of Hindi films.

Without giving away any of the surprises of this landmark Hindi film, this movie was clearly ahead of its time in its social commentary and its subtle satirical approach of the transitioning East Indian society post independence from the British Raj. It has a delightful blend of the effects of British influence upon Indian society and traditional Indian cultural & social values. This was very well balanced by Guru Dutt. Guruji proved his versatility in handling comedy as articulately as he did melodrama. With the assistance of the ensemble of Hindi cinema greats like Abrar Alvi, O. P. Nayyar, Majrooh Sultanpuri, etc., this movie is a another gem of the golden age of Hindi cinema.

Madhubala (real name Mumtaz Jehan Dehlavi), whose screen presence begs description, delivers a performance which captures all the emotions that could ever be desired in a film heroine. After Veena (1926-2004), Madhubala was the most beautiful actress ever to grace the silver screen of Hindi cinema. She was one of 2 of the all time greatest heroines in the history of Hindi cinema: The other was Meena Kumari (real name Mahjabeen Bano).

Almost as beautiful as Madhubala, is the Guru Dutt protégé Yasmin (born Vinita Bhatt in Lahore). Breathtakingly beautiful, it is incredible that Yasmin's screen career never took off. She reportedly married film technician, Englishman Jimmy Vinning. Yasmin appeared in a famous song sequence in RUSTOM SOHRAB (1963) starring Prithviraj Kapoor, Suraiya, Premnath, and Mumtaz.

As terrific a natural actor Guru Dutt was, he was better off behind the camera rather than in front of it. Guru Dutt was incomparable as a character actor which he proved in his own film SAHIB, BIBI, AUR GHULAM. With all due respect to his cinematic genius, Guruji should have cast either Dilip Kumar or Dev Anand in the role of Preetam. As for the comic sidekick, instead of Johny Walker, Shammi Kapoor should have been cast to match the beauty of Yasmin. It almost chokes the viewer to see breathtakingly gorgeous ladies like Madhubala and Yasmin paired off with fellows like Guru Dutt and Johny Walker. JW is inimitable as a comic sidekick, but in this particular film, Guruji should have gone with a 5 star casting: Madhubala, Dilip Kumar, Shammi Kapoor, Yasmin. Dilip Kumar and Shammi Kapoor were a long overdue screen pairing which proved spectacular in VIDHAATA (1982).

The incomparable Lalita Pawar has to be mentioned. A truly stunning beauty in her youth, this veteran actress of Hindi cinema had a screen presence which elevated any film in which she appeared. And of course there is the inimitable comedienne Tun Tun. Last but not least, there is the special guest appearance by the dashing Hindi film hero Al Nasir parodying a tennis superstar.

Having already been cited in other reviews of this film, the title of this movie could have been different. Overall, this is a timeless classic from the cinematic genius of Guru Dutt.

HAM SAB CHOR HAIN (1956) is a true comedy masterpiece of Hindi cinema. This film probably popularized the concept of identical twin siblings both lost & separated in childhood. This became a very familiar and popular theme which was reworked in later films: CHINATOWN starring Shammi Kapoor, RAM AUR SHYAM starring Dilip Kumar, SEETA AUR GEETA starring Hema Malini, etc. HSCH is an episodic film but there is a definite storyline to it and its continuity is superb. Especially for a Hindi comedy film. It was in this film that Shammi Kapoor got his opportunity to display his comedic talents which became his career trademark. However, the star of this film is the incomparable Nalini Jaywant. An actress whose sweet, innocent face has never been equaled in Hindi cinema. Nalini Jaywant has played in some rather serious melodramas in which she was quite effective but in this film, she displayed a talent for comedy which set the standard for all subsequent Hindi film comedies for decades to come. The original comedy duo of Hindi cinema, Johar & Majnu, are as indispensable to this film as is Nalini Jaywant. Before there was the serio-comedy team of Johar-Mehmood, there was Johar & Majnu. Classic Mohammed Rafi & Asha Bhosle songs greatly add to this film as well. The incredibly cute actress Ameeta and the erstwhile villainous Pran also deliver excellent performances. Certainly a must see film for the whole family, HAM SAB CHOR HAIN is a film which can be viewed a dozen times and it will still retain its freshness. One of the finest directorial efforts of Hindi screen veteran I. S. Johar. Another Nalini Jaywant title which is highly recommended is BAHEN (1941) which co-starred Sheikh Mukhtar (who in this film, cemented his reputation as the original angry young man of Hindi cinema).

Before adding my own review of this widely acknowledged iconic film of Hindi cinema, I went through several of the reviews of this film. Majority of the reviewers appear to have been born just before or just after this film was first released in August 1975. In other words, they didn't experience it firsthand at theaters and were probably already preconditioned with all the incredible hype surrounding this film. I remember its original release at Minerva Theater in Bombay very well. I have seen this film in both its endings: The one in which the Gabbar Singh character gets killed by Thakur and the alternative ending where Thakur just stops short of killing Hari "Gabbar" Singh at the behest of the police. Salim Khan (father of actor Salman Khan) and Javed Akhtar wrote one of the most memorable dialogues for a Hindi film character in Gabbar Singh. However, this film's key storyline is nothing but a rip off of several classic Westerns: Both from Sergio Leone and from John Sturges' remake of Akira Kurosawa's SEVEN SAMURAI. Gabbar's killing of Thakur's family is nothing but a rip off of Henry Fonda's "Frank" who kills off the McBain family (including McBain's little boy) in Leone's ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST. Amjad Khan (son of veteran Hindi film villain Jayant) owns this film. Without his interpretation of Gabbar Singh, this film would not be worth watching. With that being said, his interpretation of Gabbar is also a rip off of the great Italian actor Gian Maria Volonte's "Indio" from Leone's FOR A FEW DOLLARS MORE. The base theme of SHOLAY is a Hindi reworking of SEVEN SAMURAI / THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN. The vast majority of the Hindi film audience who praised SHOLAY to no end were not aware that its key points were plagiarized from the classic Italian and Hollywood Westerns. There were also some really silly scenes: Dharmendra's ridiculous mock "suicide"; the very annoying Basanti character of Hema Malini; etc. Aside from Gabbar Singh, the only interesting characters were that of Thakur (portrayed by Sanjeev Kumar) and Thakur's widowed daughter-in-law (portrayed by Jaya Bhaduri). Film director Ramesh Sippy ought to be ashamed of his plagiarism of the classic Westerns he ripped off and never openly credited. Aside from the key action scenes, SHOLAY really drags. SHOLAY is hardly a true "Hindi" film in the tradition of Golden Age classics of Hindi cinema which were truly Indian subjects (e.g., Roti-1942; Do Bigha Zamin; Pyaasa; Sahib, Bibi, aur Ghulam; Mughal-E-Azam; Pakeezah; etc.). SHOLAY is one of those movies which can be truly be labeled "Bollywood"...AKA when (way too often) Hindi cinema rips off Hollywood. Having seen SHOLAY in its 2nd week of release back in late August 1975 at Minerva Theater and a couple of times since, I can only state that SHOLAY is the most overrated Hindi film ever.

In spite of the incredible popularity of Mehboob Khan's own 1957 remake MOTHER India, Mehboob's AURAT (1940) is the superior of the two films. This assessment is not one arrived at lightly. A lot has to be taken into account: The advancement in technology of filmmaking in India; that the remake was in brilliant color; etc. Mehboob's MOTHER India is one of two of the all time greatest hits in Hindi cinema...The other being Karim Asif's MUGHAL-E-AZAM (1960)--still the all-time box-office champion of Hindi cinema if adjusted for inflation. AURAT (1940) has a neo-realistic quality to it similar to the later trademark of Satyajit Ray films. It is this very neo-realism which makes AURAT superior to MOTHER India. When comparing the "Mother" portrayal of actress Sardar Akhtar (Mehboob's real life spouse) and Nargis' later rendition, Akhtar's is clearly the superior performance. The soulful, wistful vulnerability which she brings to her character is not matched by Nargis. And neither is the role of the baghi (rebel) son Birju. When seeing Yakub's portrayal of Birju and comparing it to Sunil Dutt's rendition...Dutt's Birju comes across as mentally challenged...Especially the way Dutt portrays Birju before he officially turns into an outlaw. Yakub (born Yakub Khan in Jabalpur to a Pathan family) brought a devilish streak to his Birju which was inimitable. There was also a sense of vulnerability to Yakub's Birju which was almost totally absent in Dutt's portrayal. It was this vulnerability and yet a dangerous incorrigibility of Yakub's Birju which makes his interpretation not only believable, but acceptable. What especially makes Yakub's Birju so much more tragic is the inner conflict of him being tormented by his outrageous actions, and yet he cannot control them. The viewer feels this throughout the film. In comparison, Dutt's Birju almost comes across as an overgrown brat that evolves into an unrepentant juvenile delinquent, a quasi muscle-headed moron. Which then brings us to the very handsome protagonists Surendra and Arun Kumar Ahuja (father of actor Govinda). Surendra's portrayal of the "good" son is equally effective to Yakub's Birju and far superior to Rajendra Kumar's almost mute, downplayed characterization. Surendra's portrayal elicits the anguish of a brother for his rogue brother whom he cannot help but love in spite of his despicable ways. This particular aspect of Surendra's interpretation is not properly covered in Rajendra Kumar's portrayal. As for Arun Kumar Ahuja's tormented husband who eventually abandons his family, Ahuja's superb character degeneration is more strikingly disturbing to watch than Raaj Kumar's reworking of the same role. And finally there was Anil Biswas' classic music which greatly contributed to Mehboob Khan's AURAT. This film is a cultural masterpiece in every sense of the word and ought to be obligatory viewing in all film schools. A must see for all cinema-goers.

DASTAN (1950) could have been a truly haunting classic had its director Abdur Rashid Kardar approached it with the fatalistic style of his brother-in-law Mehboob Khan; fyi, Kardar's wife, Hindi film actress Bahar Akhtar, was the elder sister of Mehboob Khan's 2nd wife Sardar Akhtar (the original "Mother India" in Mehboob's AURAT-1940). This film is a Hindi remake of the 1948 Hollywood film ENCHANTMENT starring David Niven, Teresa Wright, and Jayne Meadows. Comparing the two films, DASTAN is actually the slightly better of the two films. However, DASTAN was designated to spotlight the legendary Hindi film heroine Suraiya; she sang her own songs ! In spite of this almost prodigious talent for a screen heroine, Suraiya is overshadowed by the overwhelmingly stunning screen presence of Veena (a Hindi film star in her own right). Veena (born Tajour Sultana in Quetta, Balochistan) was the most beautiful actress in the history of Hindi cinema, second to none. Veena was a screen siren like no other in that her bewitching looks combined with her powerful voice and modulated style of delivering dialogues made her leading men come across as boys. And this film is no exception...Even with big name heroes of that era: Raj Kapoor, Suresh (real name Nasim Ahmad), and Al Nasir (Veena's real life husband). A real oddity of casting has Al Nasir playing his wife's "brother" in this film; in Indian culture especially of that era, this would have raised some eyebrows. When Suraiya's character 'Indira' has her climactic scene in which she stands up to Veena's 'Rani', Veena owns the scene just by the glare in her eyes. Veena was too powerful a screen presence for any of her co-stars throughout her 40 plus year acting career. This film is highly recommended in it's own right, but a must see to behold the Hindi screen siren Veena. DASTAN was the 3rd highest grossing film of 1950 earning over Rs. 65 Lakhs, just behind SAMADHI (Rs. 75 Lakhs) and BABUL (Rs. 70 Lakhs); in the year 1950, 65-75 Lakh rupees would be like Rs. 650-750 Crores in 2015. Photographs of Veena available via the internet do NOT do her justice. Viewers would have to see her films in good quality prints to grasp Veena's beauty. DASTAN is one of them...While AFSANA (1951) co-starring Ashok Kumar & Pran, NAJMA (1943) co-starring Ashok Kumar & Yakub, and HUMAYUN (1945) co-starring Ashok Kumar & Nargis are notably some others; in this latter film, Veena's character portrayal summed up her entire screen persona: She was hard enough to kill you and soft enough to disarm you...

A highly underrated, much overlooked classic from the Golden Age of Hindi cinema. As stated in the Trivia section of this film, this was the 1st Hindi film which depicted the oft-filmed theme of brothers lost & separated at childhood only to be reunited later as adults. This movie also featured a couple of other precedents: The 1st time a Hindi film lead character is openly defiant toward a deity. And probably the very 1st ever "rap" song by a recording artist called "Worli Ka Naaka" sung by the incomparable Mohammed Rafi (lip-synched by Raj Kapoor). This Hindi "rap" song was 2 decades before rock group Aerosmith's "Walk This Way" and Sugar Hill Gang's "Rapper's Delight". Many of the trademarks of subsequent Shammi Kapoor films were performed here in this film by his elder, more illustrious brother Raj Kapoor. Madhubala proved to be the greatest heroine of Hindi cinema who could effortlessly do both tragedy and screwball comedy. Her much underrated comedic genius is fully on display here. There is not one Hindi film actress before or since who captivated an audience with her personal charm and beauty. And last but not least, we come to the real star of this film: The legendary, now forgotten once-upon-a-time Hindi film star Sheikh Mukhtar. A star who was senior to Raj Kapoor and Madhubala, Sheikh Mukhtar became a leading man during the 1930s. The pioneer Hindi film maker Mehboob Khan made a star out of Sheikh Mukhtar. Sheikh Mukhtar was the original angry anti-hero of Hindi cinema when Amitabh Bachchan wasn't even born. Mukhtar was the original "lambu dada" at 6 feet 2 inches with a shoe size of 12 UK (13 US) as highlighted in this film. He almost steals the film from both Raj Kapoor & Madhubala. This film classic also features probably the best performance ever by Raj Kapoor's eldest son Randhir Kapoor (as the adolescent Sheikh Mukhtar character of Jagannath). This movie was filmed in 1957 but released in 1959. Film director Tara Harish was a former lead actor who had first co-starred with Sheikh Mukhtar in Mehboob Khan's EK HI RAASTA (1939), in which Sheikh Mukhtar played an anti-hero. DO USTAD is a must see for any generation of Hindi cinema fans.