Reviews

5 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
9/10
A lot more going on here besides Bette Davis
30 December 2007
First and foremost, "The Man Who Played God" (1932) is not a Bette Davis vehicle. She was still a few years away from receiving top billing and graduating into 'A' pictures. However, the mere fact that she's in this overlooked and forgotten film will only push it into wider circulation and rapidly increase its number of viewers. So much has already been said about her, there's very little one can add to further compliment her. Personally, I think she gave some of her best performances in these early 1930s B programmers for Warner Bros. Sure, the material wasn't nearly as good, which only made her performances stand out all the more. But Bette Davis has little to do with what stands out about this movie.

After losing his hearing, a well-loved and respected piano player (George Arliss) becomes a recluse. He rejects most of his old friends and companions, and is cruel to the few he does see. He learns to read lips, but grows more and more depressed at the same time. And finally when he has hit rock bottom, he finds a purpose in his life,... philanthropy. Putting aside his own problems and selfishness, his salvation comes from helping others. This is a theme that would recur over and over again to varying degrees in the Depression era 30s (especially in Frank Capra's movies).

The other thing of interest here is the act of voyeurism. Through the aid of binoculars, he's able to read lips, and essentially, spy on everyday New Yorker's. One can't help but wonder if this little movie may have had some influence or have been the basis for the idea of Cornell Woolrich's short story "It Had to Be Murder", which would be eventually adapted into Alfred Hitchcock's "Rear Window" (1954).

This movie, is, by no means a masterpiece, but its still an important one. With so many interesting ideas going on here, its well worth the watch.
14 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
So Big (1953)
7/10
Why Robert Wise?
12 September 2007
This is a remake of the 1932 version starring the great Barbara Stanwyck. Not quite a shot-for-shot remake. This version is longer and includes some material the original left out and has a slightly more cynical ending than the original. All you need to know about the first version is Warner Bros./ First National/ Vitaphone, which equates to a mass produced, assembly line product running typically 60-80 minutes in length. That's just how most Hollywood films were in the early 30s. And often times, the movie suffered, as a result. All that being said, this version is considerably better.

Jane Wyman is great as always, and by this time in her career, she was able to be much more selective of the types of roles she chose. Sterling Hayden is pretty much the same in every role he ever appeared in: stoic; regardless of the material. Nancy Olson does a good job, but is not on screen hardly at all. The biggest problem, however, is Steve Forrest as Wyman's son. He's stiff, bland, and doesn't appear to have any acting ability whatsoever.

The most curious aspect of this picture, however, is it's director,... Robert Wise. Wise first made a name for himself early on as the editor for Orson Welles' first two films, "Citizen Kane" and "The Magnificent Ambersons". This is one of only a few directors (the other 2 who come to mind: Howard Hawks and George Cukor) who made a movie in every genre. And to go a step further, he made masterpieces in every genre except perhaps comedy and western (horror- "The Body Snatcher", "The Haunting"; sci-fi- "The Day the Earth Stood Still", film noir- "The Set-Up", "Odds Against Tomorrow", musical- "West Side Story", "The Sound of Music", drama- "The Sand Pebbles", "Somebody Up There Likes Me")

Does this sound like someone who should be directing a remake of "So Big"? (He already had "The Set-Up" and "The Day the Earth Stood Still" under his belt.) That's not to say there's anything wrong with this picture. It is what it is: an above average melodrama. The point is a much less talented director could have handled it. It always amazes me how such a brilliant man like this wasn't appreciated more. His career was filled with films just like this, sandwiched in between his great ones. It was quite common at that time for directors to be assigned to direct something, often without even having a chance to read the script before deciding whether they wanted to or not. Saying 'No' to the studio bosses wasn't much of an option either, if you wanted to keep working. And I can't help but wonder if that was the case quite frequently with Wise as well, directing whatever he was told to. As a result, he's never mentioned with the great directors, and that's very unfortunate. If you haven't already, make it a point to start watching his movies. Not just his masterpieces, all of them. This is a great director who deserves to be more recognized.
24 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Tennessee Williams' South (1973 TV Movie)
5/10
Don't Expect Much
13 March 2007
Included in Warner Home Video's Tennessee Williams boxed set, this 1973 quasi-documentary consists mainly of interviews of Williams himself and actors acting out in some cases actual scenes from his plays/movies ("The Glass Menagerie" and "The Night of the Iguana") or scenes that never actually occurred, but that Williams imagined to be extenuations of his characters thoughts/emotions (Jessica Tandy, who played Blanche in "A Streetcar Named Desire" on Broadway but was snubbed in favor of Vivien Leigh for the filmed version, recites a scene) and (Burl Ives acting out a younger version of his 'Big Daddy' character from "Cat On a Hot Tin Roof").

Overall it is a disappointment. The interviews with Williams, while informative aren't all that interesting. The acted out scenes are very dull (compare the two reciting from "Iguana" to Richard Burton and Deborah Kerr-- the difference is day and night). Although with an extremely low budget, one should probably not expect too much. Not a total waste of time, but nothing too insightful either, and something you'll quickly forget.
3 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
You've got to see Stepin Fetchit for yourself to believe it!
21 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This long forgotten B movie from 20th Century Fox magically popped up on the Fox Movie Channel this morning. The fact that among its cast members was Stepin Fetchit, naturally drew my curiosity. The only previous film I'd seen with Fetchit was John Ford's "Steamboat Round the Bend", which was without a doubt the worst portrayal I had ever seen of an African-American on the big screen (except perhaps "Birth of a Nation"). Fetchit, along with Willie Best, were the two most well-known of the Coon stereotype. The coon is a lazy, worthless, unreliable, clumsy, slow-witted, big bulgy-eyed (looks like they're stoned), butchers the English language, making his speech incoherent. His sole purpose is for comic relief. While Best's portrayals are pretty awful too, they're nowhere near as bad as Fetchit's. (If you're interested in learning more about this and the four other major stereotypes, I highly recommend reading Donald Bogle's "Toms, Coons, Mulattoes, Mammies, & Bucks", an excellent read). The film also features very briefly a well spoken, intelligent Tom in two separate scenes.

This film centers on a gangster hiding in a small town in California, now number one on the FBI's wish list. Realizing he won a small fortune in a sweepstakes, he hops on a train to Kansas City to collect it, convinced nobody will catch onto him. On board, he meets an undercover agent disguised as a reporter and an actual reporter (played by a very young and beautiful Gloria Stuart, who by far and away shines brighter than everyone else in this movie) disguised as a runaway witness to a political crime. The entire 2nd act takes place on a train where we are introduced to the porter, played by Fetchit. Here, Fetchit is no exception to the above-mentioned characteristics, except even worse. Here, he appears to be downright mentally retarded. No joke. The one small positive is that the film counters Fetchit's comic relief with the white gangster's side kick (unintentional I'm sure). He's more of the big oaf, moron type. However, he's also lazy, worthless, slow-witted, unreliable and clumsy.

Aside from the offensive portrayal of Fetchit, the rest of the film isn't too bad. None of the other studios could match Warner Bros. back in the 1930s with the gangster picture, but this is a reasonably well done picture that will keep you entertained. Well worth watching as a time capsule and if you're interested in seeing Fetchit for yourself.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Carmen Jones (1954)
5/10
Lose the Technicolor
19 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
While this film is highly praised for being one of the first to sexualize African-Americans on screen, the end result is nevertheless disappointing. Joe (Harry Belafonte) begins the film as a likable guy, and the audience identifies with him and wants him to succeed and realize his goals of being a pilot and advancing his career in the military. He's 24 hours away from being married to a 'good' girl, Cindy Lou (Olga James), and everything appears well in his future.

Enter Carmen (Dorothy Dandridge), the main problem with the movie. She seduces Joe. She abandons him. She stands by her man while he's in jail, caging herself in, the very thing she detests. When Joe gets out and wants to go to flight school, which will keep them 40 lousy miles apart, her loyalty disappears in a flash. In Chicago, which she's responsible for his being there, she grows tired and bored with him very quickly as he's forced to hide in a cheap hotel. In short, Carmen is a very inconsistent character, poorly written and highly unlikeable.

The sad thing about all this is it has the ingredients for a great film noir. You got Otto Preminger ("Laura", "Where the Sidewalk Ends") directing. You have a man who makes one bad decision after another (1. the cliché 'short cut' 2. seduced by Carmen) gets his 2nd chance and once again (3. Carmen manipulates him 4. decks his superior officer 5. flees to Chicago instead of facing reality) until he's in over his head and there's no turning back. Carmen very much serves as a femme fatale, destroying Joe in every way. And finally Joe's isolation from the real world and his monomaniac obsession with Carmen, which brings both of them to their eventual doom. This latter part was an opportunity not taken advantage of by the writers or Preminger. Joe's transformation from nice guy to deranged psychopath was all done offscreen. (By the way, if you want to see Belafonte in a great noir, check out "Odds Against Tomorrow", usually pops up on Turner Classic Movies a couple times a year, in which racism plays a major role in the film.)

Now just imagine if this were in black and white, cut several of the singing sequences (especially Belafonte's, the one when he's a prisoner is outright distracting and too long), Carmen could have been a nightclub singer, and instead of all the long pointless singing sequences, capture Joe's mental deterioration. An all black cast, highly sexualized, in a disturbing, moody, alienated world; now that would have been really groundbreaking. Not that this film is bad, but its not really that great either. Despite everything I've said, I'd still recommend viewing it.
2 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed