Short Review: To Catch a Thief (1955)

Jan. 30, 2011

26. To Catch a Thief (1955)

Starring Cary Grant, Grace Kelly, Jessie Royce Landis, John Williams

Directed by Alfred Hitchcock

Plot: “When a reformed jewel thief is suspected of returning to his former occupation, he must ferret out the real thief in order to prove his innocence. ” (from IMDb)

Some view this film as more of a Hitchcock “lite”, but I really enjoyed it. The plot was fun, the on-location shooting on the French Riviera was breathtaking, costumes by Edith Head were stunning, the dialogue was witty, Jessie Royce Landis was delightful as the mother, and the two leads played nicely off each other. Surprisingly, I did not really like Grant much in this role (though I know I will probably get lambasted for saying that). He just seemed a little…I don’t know…dull and bland. Maybe his performance will grow on me, though. But the picture as a whole is lot of fun and a wonderful escape into the glamorous Technicolor world of Europe, intrigue, mystery, and romance. What more could I ask for?

Short Review: Pillow Talk (1959)

Jan. 28, 2011

25. Pillow Talk (1959)

Starring Rock Hudson, Doris Day, Tony Randall, Thelma Ritter

Directed by Michael Gordon

Plot: “A man and woman share a telephone line and despise each other, but then he has fun by romancing her with his voice disguised.” (from IMDb)

Doris Day movies are kind of a guilty pleasure for me sometimes. They are silly, contrived, unrealistic, and oh so entertaining. This one certainly met those expectations. It’s fun to see the idyllic New York of the late 50s and just be strung a long into the cuteness and charm of it all. In a supporting role, Tony Randall is hilarious and steals every scene he is in. Doris Day is adorable as always and I enjoyed seeing the beautiful Jean Louis wardrobe she modeled. Plus there are some really funny scenes in the film. Rock Hudson’s character seemed to me to be a little bit of a cad, and not the kind of man possessing the traits desirable in a husband. However, I tried to take the movie’s own advice and not take any of it too seriously.

Short Review: To Have and Have Not (1944)

Jan. 26, 2011

24. To Have and Have Not (1944)

Starring Humphrey Bogart, Walter Brennan, Lauren Bacall, Dolores Moran, Hoagy Carmichael

Directed by Howard Hawks

Plot: “A skipper-for-hire’s romance with a beautiful drifter is complicated by his growing involvement with the French resistance.” (from TCMDb)

I personally didn’t find the plot in this that incredible, but it’s definitely worth the watch to see the legendary Bogart and Bacall light up the screen in their first film together. Needless to say, they had great chemistry and it’s fun to see their characters play off each other and trade one-liners. The rest is interesting enough and the movie moves along fairly quickly. 

P.S. Here is an amusing YouTube video that shows how Howard Hawks often repeated dialogue in his movies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FXpfYQPSGY

Short Review: Saboteur (1942)

Jan. 26, 2011

23. Saboteur (1942)

Starring Priscilla Lane, Robert Cummings, Otto Kruger, Alan Baxter

Directed by Alfred Hitchcock

Plot: “Aircraft factory worker Barry Kane goes on the run across the United States when he is wrongly accused of starting a fire that killed his best friend.” (from IMDb)

***MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS*** This is a fairly uneven but always entertaining Hitchcock effort. It is not among his best, yet there are some memorable scenes and certainly a few of the director’s signature trademarks—the wrongly accused man, blonde heroine, road trip, culmination at a national landmark, etc. I thought Priscilla Lane and Robert Cummings were a likable pairing, and the performances by the antagonists were fitting. Yet some parts of the film just felt out of place and kind of odd (like the scene with the circus people). I thought things started to get interesting when the blind man was introduced, but then they left and the film went in a different direction. I can only attribute this to the many screen writers that worked on the story; perhaps that is why certain elements seem incongruous. I read somewhere that Hitchcock himself regarded the script as being the weakness of the film. Some of the war-time propaganda also feels very muddled—like they weren’t quite sure what they wanted to say, and thus end up contradicting themselves somewhat. Despite its faults, this film is entertaining and worth the watch if only for the final scene which featured some cutting edge (for the time) special effects.

Short Review: The Maltese Falcon (1941)

Jan. 25, 2011

22. The Maltese Falcon (1941)

Starring Humphrey Bogart, Mary Astor, Gladys George, Peter Lorre, Barton MacLane, Lee Patrick, Sydney Greenstreet, Ward Bond, Jerome Cowan

Screenplay by John Huston

Based on the novel by Dashiell Hammett

Directed by John Huston (this was the first film he directed)

Plot: “A private detective takes on a case that involves him with three eccentric criminals, a gorgeous liar, and their quest for a priceless statuette.” (from IMDb)

Making many “greatest films ever made” lists, there’s no doubt that this movie is a classic. Its main strengths lie in the marvelous script, flawless casting, and—of course—great acting and directing. It’s gritty, compelling, and solid (and probably brilliant)…but it’s just not my kind of movie. I’m not denying its status as a landmark film, it just personally didn’t appeal to me. Maybe I’ll give it another try in a few years. In the meantime, I plan to watch some other film noirs to get a better taste of the genre. Suggestions?

Short Review: The Good Fairy (1935)

Jan. 23, 2011

21. The Good Fairy (1935)

Starring Margaret Sullavan, Herbert Marshall, Frank Morgan, Reginald Owen, Eric Blore, Beulah Bondi, Alan Hale, Cesar Romero

Screenplay by Preston Sturges
Based on the play by Ferenc Molnar

Directed by William Wyler

Plot: “A naive girl just out of a cloistered orphanage finds that being a ‘good fairy’ to strangers makes life awfully complicated.” (from IMDb)

With a screenplay by Preston Sturges, direction by William Wyler, and fairly high IMDb ratings, I was expecting to like this. However, it bored me to tears. I was counting the minutes until it would end. In fact, I’m typing this as I watch it. Most of the acting feels hammy and detached. It’s basically just a lot of yelling and drawn-out gags that really aren’t that funny. There’s also a love story, deception… and did I mention people yelling? Maybe I’m just not in the mood. I don’t know.

P.S. Sorry about the bad photo—it’s the best I could find. :(

Short Review: Caged (1950)

Jan. 23, 2011

20. Caged (1950)

Starring Eleanor Parker, Agnes Moorehead, Ellen Corby, Hope Emerson, Betty Garde, Jan Sterling, Lee Patrick, Olive Deering, Jane Darwell, Gertrude Michael, Sheila Stevens

Directed by John Cromwell

Plot: “A naive nineteen year old widow becomes coarsened and cynical when she is sent to a woman’s prison and is exposed to hardened criminals and sadistic guards.” (from IMDb)

Despite looking older than nineteen, Eleanor Parker does a great job showing the slow break-down and hardening of her character. This is a grim, sad—and at times, deeply disturbing—film, but it is also a very solid one.The array of marvelous character actresses each play their parts flawlessly. I particularly enjoyed Jan Sterling as 'Smoochie'. The last film I had seen her in was Johnny Belinda, and she is quite different here—even adopting an accent. As the ‘villian’ of sorts, Hope Emerson perfectly nails the role of the cruel and crooked warden, who despite her evil nature is also rather humorous (in a black way). Such stellar performances, the realistic atmosphere, and very quotable dialogue kept me riveted to the screen. In my opinion, these are the factors that elevate this movie beyond a mere ‘camp’ status. ***SPOILERS*** It is hard to imagine that such things could happen as are depicted in the film. Were prisons really that bad that? Could someone like Marie be so falsely convicted? Were wardens actually that cruel? Since this film is based on actual undercover research in a women’s prison of the day, I think it is very probable. I can only imagine that if this film strikes me as sad and tragic today, how much stronger its impact must’ve been when it was first released.