Still plugging away at this long list of old movies.
This time I watched The Battle of Britain (1969).
It's easy to see why my Dad enjoyed this one. This is one of those big-budget spectacles with a lot of star power. Check the link; it's an impressive cast, even if some of the actors have little to do.
The production was made by the same people behind the James Bond movies (and directed by Guy Hamilton who did Goldfinger). The production definitely puts its money into the effects (I'm sure the cast didn't come cheap either) as there are a ton of vintage WW2 aircraft in the film.
And that is the main reason to watch this movie: the battle scenes are impressive. It's just plain fun to see all of that hardware being used in a film. There are some models and other "cheats" but a lot of it is real. The characters are rather thinly developed and the one subplot involving an romantic relationship could have been dropped with little consequence,
Dad surely liked seeing the planes (he worked at a P-51 factory during the war) and, well, so did I. If that aspect doesn't appeal to you, I'd give this one a pass.
Friday, February 15, 2019
Wednesday, October 3, 2018
Dad's Movies: "A Night in Casablanca" (1946)
A quick post about A Night in Casablanca (1946)
OK, so this one wasn't on the list and I have seen it before, many years ago.
For some reason, perhaps it was on TV a lot, this is one of the first Marx Brothers films I saw growing up.
This is one of the last films the Brothers made and is usually considered one of the lesser movies.
While I wouldn't rank this nearly as high as many of the earlier films, I found it to be better than I thought it would be. I remember liking this as a kid but figured it wouldn't hold up. It mostly does, as far as the usual Marx silliness goes.
The plot is pretty non-consequential (though the baddie does try and have Groucho killed which was perhaps a first!), which is normal for these films and the "romantic leads" or, the straight characters are cardboard-thin (again, par for the course). However, the movie is entertaining and has several good Marx Brothers set pieces, the best one being the scene where the brothers foil the Nazi guy by continually unpacking his luggage as he loads it.
There's a nice interlude of Harpo playing the harp and Chico (that's pronounced, Chick-O!) gets in a couple of tunes on the piano, complete with his "shooting the piano keys" thing. Groucho is, well, Groucho even if his lines aren't quite as sharp-edged or clever as the earlier classics.
It's all fine, really and if you like the Marx Brothers humor, it does the job, just a little less-good.
All three of the brothers look older, for sure (Groucho was 56 when this was released) compared to the earlier films.
This makes me want to go back and revisit the entire collection. Sounds like a good idea for a future entry. Now if I just had several days of free time to get all these damn movies watched!
OK, so this one wasn't on the list and I have seen it before, many years ago.
For some reason, perhaps it was on TV a lot, this is one of the first Marx Brothers films I saw growing up.
This is one of the last films the Brothers made and is usually considered one of the lesser movies.
While I wouldn't rank this nearly as high as many of the earlier films, I found it to be better than I thought it would be. I remember liking this as a kid but figured it wouldn't hold up. It mostly does, as far as the usual Marx silliness goes.
The plot is pretty non-consequential (though the baddie does try and have Groucho killed which was perhaps a first!), which is normal for these films and the "romantic leads" or, the straight characters are cardboard-thin (again, par for the course). However, the movie is entertaining and has several good Marx Brothers set pieces, the best one being the scene where the brothers foil the Nazi guy by continually unpacking his luggage as he loads it.
There's a nice interlude of Harpo playing the harp and Chico (that's pronounced, Chick-O!) gets in a couple of tunes on the piano, complete with his "shooting the piano keys" thing. Groucho is, well, Groucho even if his lines aren't quite as sharp-edged or clever as the earlier classics.
It's all fine, really and if you like the Marx Brothers humor, it does the job, just a little less-good.
All three of the brothers look older, for sure (Groucho was 56 when this was released) compared to the earlier films.
This makes me want to go back and revisit the entire collection. Sounds like a good idea for a future entry. Now if I just had several days of free time to get all these damn movies watched!
Friday, August 31, 2018
Dad's Movies: "The Black Rose" (1950)
Up today: The Black Rose (1950)
There are some definite holes in my classic movie viewing experience. Some are famous movies and some are important or famous actors that I have somehow missed.
One of these stars is Tyrone Power. I'd definitely heard about Power over the years; he was in a lot of successful films, including the original "Zorro" film in 1940. However, I somehow managed to miss his movies so let's Power Up! (sorry)
The Black Rose is one of those classic Hollywood studio historical adventure stories, not terribly different from my last entry, actually. As was typical, white actors played many of the leading "foreigner" roles. Like other examples of this, you just to take it all in context.
Power is fine as the lead but, we'll see how he is in other films, he seems kind of dull during many of the action scenes. He often seems to be slightly annoyed to be where he is but he is somewhat believable in the part (although most of the other English characters have accents, he definitely doesn't).
I always enjoy seeing Jack Hawkins in classic films but he seems a bit too old for the longbow-wielding sidekick part.
And then we get to Orson Welles.
Welles plays a Mongol warlord general, complete with Asian costume and makeup. It's pretty bad by any modern standard but Welles does his thing. It seems like when Orson Welles acted in other people's films, he either played the part genuinely or just played "Orson Welles" in the film in whatever costume he was given (and often a fake nose). I am a fan of Welles but he doesn't really do much for the warlord character besides lend it his always-solid authoritative delivery of lines.
And finally we have the character of Maryam, played by Cécile Aubry. The part is supposedly half English, half-Mongol woman who as escaped from a harem....uh, ok! She tries but her French accent, with whatever other affectation she was trying to do doesn't do the performance any favors.
If it sounds like I am being too hard on this movie, I have to mention that I often forgot a much of the oddness or weaknesses of the performances and was able to get into the movie. The film has great cinematography (Jack Cardiff!) and even has location work in England (it looks like the other scenes are done on stages).
So, I liked this one well enough to cross another Welles performance off the list and make me look forward to seeing what some of Power's other films are like.
There are some definite holes in my classic movie viewing experience. Some are famous movies and some are important or famous actors that I have somehow missed.
One of these stars is Tyrone Power. I'd definitely heard about Power over the years; he was in a lot of successful films, including the original "Zorro" film in 1940. However, I somehow managed to miss his movies so let's Power Up! (sorry)
The Black Rose is one of those classic Hollywood studio historical adventure stories, not terribly different from my last entry, actually. As was typical, white actors played many of the leading "foreigner" roles. Like other examples of this, you just to take it all in context.
Power is fine as the lead but, we'll see how he is in other films, he seems kind of dull during many of the action scenes. He often seems to be slightly annoyed to be where he is but he is somewhat believable in the part (although most of the other English characters have accents, he definitely doesn't).
I always enjoy seeing Jack Hawkins in classic films but he seems a bit too old for the longbow-wielding sidekick part.
And then we get to Orson Welles.
Welles plays a Mongol warlord general, complete with Asian costume and makeup. It's pretty bad by any modern standard but Welles does his thing. It seems like when Orson Welles acted in other people's films, he either played the part genuinely or just played "Orson Welles" in the film in whatever costume he was given (and often a fake nose). I am a fan of Welles but he doesn't really do much for the warlord character besides lend it his always-solid authoritative delivery of lines.
And finally we have the character of Maryam, played by Cécile Aubry. The part is supposedly half English, half-Mongol woman who as escaped from a harem....uh, ok! She tries but her French accent, with whatever other affectation she was trying to do doesn't do the performance any favors.
If it sounds like I am being too hard on this movie, I have to mention that I often forgot a much of the oddness or weaknesses of the performances and was able to get into the movie. The film has great cinematography (Jack Cardiff!) and even has location work in England (it looks like the other scenes are done on stages).
So, I liked this one well enough to cross another Welles performance off the list and make me look forward to seeing what some of Power's other films are like.
Wednesday, August 15, 2018
Dad's Movies: "Beau Geste" (1939)
My latest: Beau Geste (1939)
1939 was quite the year for Hollywood movies, wasn't it? Go do a search if you forget how many landmark films were released that year. I would also consider that year to be the end of an era. The coming of World War 2 would change the movie business (and everything else!) in both style and substance.
Beau Geste is a well-known film and one of those famous ones that somehow slipped through the cracks. I see from the above link that it's a straight-up remake of a silent era version, based on a 1924 novel. The story is, at least with its character writing, somewhat unusual. Three orphaned brothers (and a non-related sister, with whom one of the brothers has a relationship as an adult!) have a close relationship growing up under the care of their adopted mother but a scandal compels the brothers to leave home as young adults. They all end up in the French Foreign Legion (which seemed like an action Boys Club where guys would go to be "manly", at least that is how it was portrayed in old movies) where two of them find themselves under the heel of a thuggish commander. I won't spoil the rest since the movie is definitely worth watching.
Parts of the film may come off as a bit old fashioned but it moves along at a good clip, pacing-wise and the leads are are likable. The most dated aspects of the film really are the way that the Legion soldiers are the assumed tools of the European colonial system, fighting those pesky Arabs.
All in all, I liked this one and will revisit it again.
1939 was quite the year for Hollywood movies, wasn't it? Go do a search if you forget how many landmark films were released that year. I would also consider that year to be the end of an era. The coming of World War 2 would change the movie business (and everything else!) in both style and substance.
Beau Geste is a well-known film and one of those famous ones that somehow slipped through the cracks. I see from the above link that it's a straight-up remake of a silent era version, based on a 1924 novel. The story is, at least with its character writing, somewhat unusual. Three orphaned brothers (and a non-related sister, with whom one of the brothers has a relationship as an adult!) have a close relationship growing up under the care of their adopted mother but a scandal compels the brothers to leave home as young adults. They all end up in the French Foreign Legion (which seemed like an action Boys Club where guys would go to be "manly", at least that is how it was portrayed in old movies) where two of them find themselves under the heel of a thuggish commander. I won't spoil the rest since the movie is definitely worth watching.
Parts of the film may come off as a bit old fashioned but it moves along at a good clip, pacing-wise and the leads are are likable. The most dated aspects of the film really are the way that the Legion soldiers are the assumed tools of the European colonial system, fighting those pesky Arabs.
All in all, I liked this one and will revisit it again.
Another Podcast: Time To Lean
Some of you may be aware that I have done a long-running (with many breaks/hiatuses) podcast mostly about Star Trek. You can listen to/subscribe to it here (we WILL resume new episodes soon!).
Now, I have a newer one with my old friend Phil: Time To Lean...And Here's A Song!
This podcast is a catch-all discussion show where we have a couple of beverages and there's a song at the end of the show. The songs are often new ones, written and performed by Phil and me. We sometimes reuse old originals that we want to share. So please check it out, here.
Now, I have a newer one with my old friend Phil: Time To Lean...And Here's A Song!
This podcast is a catch-all discussion show where we have a couple of beverages and there's a song at the end of the show. The songs are often new ones, written and performed by Phil and me. We sometimes reuse old originals that we want to share. So please check it out, here.
Thursday, June 7, 2018
Dad's Movies: "Battleground" (1949)
Next up, Battleground (1949).
This is one of those films I'd heard about for years but had never gotten around to watching.
I think this movie sometimes gets overshadowed by its reputation as a symbol of the forces of change affecting the Hollywood studios in the post-WWII years. Battleground was produced by up-and-coming studio producer Dore Schary who clashed with studio chief Louis B. Mayer (the "Mayer" in MGM). Schary was trying to make films with a more modern sensibility whereas Mayer stuck to his guns and backed films that were more similar to the studio's output in the 1930s-40s that had made the company so successful. There were a few years where the two executives fought it out but soon Mayer was forced into retirement. Schary held on and made more progressive movies but MGM eventually collapsed along with the rest of the Studio System.
All of that is certainly important and interesting but it was instructive to evaluate this movie on its own merits.
The film has what I would say one foot in the past and one in the present/future. The film was shot entirely on sound stages with contract players at MGM at the time. It really feels like they just plugged the casting needs in from whomever was available on the lot at the time.
On the other hand the film, shot in black/white, looks somewhat gritty and not like a movie that would have been made just a few years earlier about the war. The scenes look pretty convincing, even though they were depicting snowy wintertime scenes indoors (I guess they didn't want to move the production to an ice house to make it realistic like Orson Welles did). The characters are pretty well developed; the film takes time to allow us to know several of them and doesn't bog down with a lot of light diversions. No, this movie was, as much as a studio movie in 1949 could, trying to show the audience a more realistic, scary, and at times hopeless view of the war. There are some heroic scenes but it's no commando raid. The soldiers are really just trying to make it out alive.
The cast does well: Van Johnson rises to the occasion in a role I wouldn't normally associate him with and it's always great to see a new (to me at least) Ricardo Montalban performance.
It's a war genre classic and one that still deserves its reputation.
This is one of those films I'd heard about for years but had never gotten around to watching.
I think this movie sometimes gets overshadowed by its reputation as a symbol of the forces of change affecting the Hollywood studios in the post-WWII years. Battleground was produced by up-and-coming studio producer Dore Schary who clashed with studio chief Louis B. Mayer (the "Mayer" in MGM). Schary was trying to make films with a more modern sensibility whereas Mayer stuck to his guns and backed films that were more similar to the studio's output in the 1930s-40s that had made the company so successful. There were a few years where the two executives fought it out but soon Mayer was forced into retirement. Schary held on and made more progressive movies but MGM eventually collapsed along with the rest of the Studio System.
All of that is certainly important and interesting but it was instructive to evaluate this movie on its own merits.
The film has what I would say one foot in the past and one in the present/future. The film was shot entirely on sound stages with contract players at MGM at the time. It really feels like they just plugged the casting needs in from whomever was available on the lot at the time.
On the other hand the film, shot in black/white, looks somewhat gritty and not like a movie that would have been made just a few years earlier about the war. The scenes look pretty convincing, even though they were depicting snowy wintertime scenes indoors (I guess they didn't want to move the production to an ice house to make it realistic like Orson Welles did). The characters are pretty well developed; the film takes time to allow us to know several of them and doesn't bog down with a lot of light diversions. No, this movie was, as much as a studio movie in 1949 could, trying to show the audience a more realistic, scary, and at times hopeless view of the war. There are some heroic scenes but it's no commando raid. The soldiers are really just trying to make it out alive.
The cast does well: Van Johnson rises to the occasion in a role I wouldn't normally associate him with and it's always great to see a new (to me at least) Ricardo Montalban performance.
It's a war genre classic and one that still deserves its reputation.
Friday, May 11, 2018
Dad's Movies: "The Silver Fleet"
I was going to do these in alphabetical order but I had watched this one shortly before I decided to embark on this little (ahem) project so I am doing it early.
The Silver Fleet (1943) is a very English film about Dutch resistance in occupied Holland during World War 2. It's an interesting film that came out of Powell and Pressburger's Archers production company but not directly made by the pair (this was unusual).
This film certainly does have the flavor of a wartime morale booster but doesn't quite fall into the realm of propaganda which makes it hold up better to modern standards. From what I understand, the story is only somewhat true. The primary inspiration for the film is the story of a German submarine, built by Dutch workers, that was stolen from the shipyards in Holland and sailed to England before the Germans could seize it. The screenplay does set a serious tone, even if the Nazis are watered down, as far as how ruthless they were to people in the nations they occupied. Fortunately the movie holds your interest enough for details like this to be overlooked.
The principal character, van Leyden (Ralph Richardson) is smart, cunning, and cool as a block of ice on the North Sea. But he's not a super hero. Van Leyden uses his position as the supervisor of the shipyard to outwit and schmooze the Nazis who are constantly pressuring him and his workers to crank out more subs for the war effort. Van Leyden comes off as such a professional spy that even his wife and kids believe he's sold out and is helping the Germans.
So, an interesting film of its time and a side of the war I haven't seen displayed very often in WW2 films. The pacing is a little on the slow side and the acting a bit stiff, but quite good overall. For all I know, Dad saw this one during the war (not sure how widely it played here in the States) but I'd bet he knew of the incident with the subs.
If you're interested in World War 2, this one is worth a look.
The Silver Fleet (1943) is a very English film about Dutch resistance in occupied Holland during World War 2. It's an interesting film that came out of Powell and Pressburger's Archers production company but not directly made by the pair (this was unusual).
This film certainly does have the flavor of a wartime morale booster but doesn't quite fall into the realm of propaganda which makes it hold up better to modern standards. From what I understand, the story is only somewhat true. The primary inspiration for the film is the story of a German submarine, built by Dutch workers, that was stolen from the shipyards in Holland and sailed to England before the Germans could seize it. The screenplay does set a serious tone, even if the Nazis are watered down, as far as how ruthless they were to people in the nations they occupied. Fortunately the movie holds your interest enough for details like this to be overlooked.
The principal character, van Leyden (Ralph Richardson) is smart, cunning, and cool as a block of ice on the North Sea. But he's not a super hero. Van Leyden uses his position as the supervisor of the shipyard to outwit and schmooze the Nazis who are constantly pressuring him and his workers to crank out more subs for the war effort. Van Leyden comes off as such a professional spy that even his wife and kids believe he's sold out and is helping the Germans.
So, an interesting film of its time and a side of the war I haven't seen displayed very often in WW2 films. The pacing is a little on the slow side and the acting a bit stiff, but quite good overall. For all I know, Dad saw this one during the war (not sure how widely it played here in the States) but I'd bet he knew of the incident with the subs.
If you're interested in World War 2, this one is worth a look.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)