Change Your Image
Con-Deuce
Reviews
Seven Brides for Seven Brothers (1954)
It Shouldn't Work...It Couldn't Work. But It Sure Does!
- The plot is ridiculous. Absurd.
- The idea of a woman taming not one, but seven men would not go down easy today. She is essentially a slave.
- Some of the acting is so broad that it feels like the actors are in a stage production rather than a movie.
- The sets (though nicely constructed) are exactly that: sets.
Just the elements that I have cited above should doom MGM's "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers" and make it unwatchable. How can a movie with those elements in them work? Well, they work all right and they work gloriously to produce one of the very best of the MGM musicals.
"Seven Brides for Seven Brothers" is a perfect example of "lightning-in-a-bottle". Almost miraculously the disparate elements come together and achieve a kind of grace.
Certainly the score helps especially Howard Keel's opening number "Bless Your Beautiful Hide". It sets just the right tone and so does Keel. He is magnificent here. In top vocal form, very handsome and totally believable. Jane Powell is lovely as Milly, the young woman who very quickly (too quickly) agrees to marry him without knowing he has six unruly brothers at home. It is a shame that Jane Powell never achieved the level of fame some of her MGM contemporaries despite being in some of the best of the MGM musicals.
"Seven Brides for Seven Brothers" is most famous for its choreography which has secured its legacy forever. The most famous of its dance scenes is the barn raising sequence which pits the six of the seven brothers against the suitors of the six young women the brothers have their eyes on. It is exuberantly alive, exhilarating and a joy to watch.
Lastly, the main reason why "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers" works is because of Stanley Donen's solid direction. Stanley Donen's talent as a director has never been given the credit those films (and he) deserve. He had his own unique style that emerged first in "Funny Face" in 1957 and was sharpened in his non musical films like "Charade", "Bedazzled" and "Two for the Road". He was a visual genius and it shows in "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers".
Many might scoff at the film's rather retro attitude to the roles of men and women especially Powell's character of Milly. All of that is relatively minor and should be overlooked to appreciate this film's joyful exuberance.
Airport (1970)
Tasty, Well Made and Very Enjoyable Junk
Dismissed by a lot of film critics when it was released, "Airport" was a big hit with audiences. It is easy to see what critics were critical of but just as easy to see what made audiences like it so much (it was the second highest grossing film of 1970 behind "Love Story").
The main action takes place at the fictional Lincoln Airport in Chicago during a big snowstorm. There's Burt Lancaster as the airport's general manager, Mel Bakersfeld. His love interest, Tanya works for the fictional airline Trans Global and is played by Jean Seberg, (who is a strong presence in the film). Dean Martin is Vernon Demerest, a pilot for Trans Global and brother in law to Mel Bakersfield. Rounding out the main characters is Gwen Meighen, a chief stewardess for Trans Global and mistress of Vernon Demarest played by a very lovely Jacqueline Bisset and last (and definitely least) is Ada Quonsett, an elderly woman who also happens to frequently stowaway on Trans Global's flights and is played by Helen Hayes.
These characters and many others converge on the airport and play out a kind of "Grand Hotel" style film. Just like "Grand Hotel", "Airport" makes no pretensions that it is nothing more or less than soap opera melodrama and if you like that kind of thing when it is done well (I DO! I DO!) then I'm certain you will enjoy "Airport".
One could quibble about how old fashioned the film making is (and it is). Film critic Judith Crist nailed it when she called "Airport" "the best film of 1944". That's a bit harsh. I think 1954 is more like it. For a film made in 1970, "Airport" looks and plays very "retro". Examples (IMO) include Jean Seberg's hair (did women ever wear their hair like this?), the sickeningly cute character of Ada Quonsett, and the laughable music that plays when Bissett and Martin have scenes together. The worst performance in the film has to be Dana Wynter as Cindy, Mel Bakersfeld's wife. She comes across as shrewish and icy cold. The special effects are, at times, and laughable.
But one could also point out a lot of good things about "Airport" and in my opinion, there is a lot.
I will not get into every single one of them but for starters there's Maureen Stapleton as Inez Guerrero. She is the wife of the suicide bomber (played by Van Heflin) who attempts to blow up the plane to get insurance money for her. Stapleton's performance is a knockout. She seems to acting in a different film. Every time she comes on, "Airport" really comes alive and feels real. Just check out her apologizing to the passengers of the plane her husband tried to make crash. Remarkable.
Jacqueline Bisset is touching and lovely as Gwen. She adds a modern touch to the film. Jean Seberg is believable as Tanya. She has a few clunky line readings (like her reaction to Ada Quonsett) but Seberg still keeps us on her side and her performance feels fresh. Dean Martin is surprisingly good as Vernon Demerest.
The film is also edited nicely. There are some good, quick cutaways. And say what you will about the direction by George Seaton, "Airport" is solid and well-paced. The camera is where it needs to be move the story along. It is amazing to me how so many film makers do not have the basics of film direction down or think using them isn't "artful" or something.
The story, characters and pacing of "Airport" (not to mention its Star Power) is what brought audiences out to see it en masse. Perhaps the film's retro look was overlooked by audiences at the time. They also probably knew what they were getting into considering "Airport" was produced by Ross Hunter, a producer whose specialty was high gloss soap opera melodrama.
Lastly, it is said that Burt Lancaster profited handsomely from the box-office profits of "Airport" (something like 10% of the gross after the film's take exceeded $50 million which it did in the United States alone) but called the movie "junk". He's being too hard on the movie. Perhaps "Airport" is junk. But like junk food, it's got some tasty parts.
Climax (2018)
Will Definitely Make You Say "WTF" but You'll Keep Watching
Director Gasper Noe's horror dance movie has to be seen to understand why you'll saying WTF throughout it's second half but you'll be compelled to keep watching. A group of dancers is recruited (I think) to take part in some kind of dance...thing. I dunno. The establishing part of the story was lost on me but it didn't matter.
The first main scene (or set of scenes) are brief interviews with each of the dancers. What might seem tedious isn't as each of the actors is compelling in their own right. They were all naturals.
Then we cut to a truly mesmerizing dance sequence that was shot uncut. For once a contemporary director shoots a dance sequence the way they should be: straight on with no cutaways. This is how big dance numbers were shot back during the golden age of movie musicals (the 30s, 40s and 50s). The effect is enthralling, enchanting and truly mesmerizing. Then we get to hear conversations among the various dancers where we get a glimpse of their personalities. Then there's another dance sequence (shot from above!) that, while not as good as the first, is still fantastic.
Then something happens. There's a discernible shift in the film's tone and the characters attitudes. Where before they were pleasant and encouraging to each other now they are hostile. Things go from bad to worse to nightmarish. What could have caused this to happen? A force from outside? Were they drugged?
Some of the scenes during the "nightmare" portion of the film bordered on being silly but I still could not NOT watch. Amazingly the film actually reveals the cause of the disturbing behavior and it is a solid resolution. Believable and effective.
I'm not exactly sure what the point of "Climax" is or even if the Noe had a point to make. Perhaps he just wanted to mash together the dance and horror film genres.
Fleabag (2016)
One of THE Best Shows I Have Ever Seen
I've only watched Season 1 of "Fleabag". What can I say except WOW. "Fleabag" is brilliant. The writing, acting, the editing, camerawork, etc. It's almost flawless. Phoebe Waller-Bridge's Fleabag is a remarkable character. Many of the things she does throughout the season are reprehensible but we keep rooting for her anyway. We are firmly and forever on her side. Then, in the last episode, something is revealed that shows that she's even more technically reprehensible than we imagined and yet we are still totally on her side. I'm not insightful enough to understand why "Fleabag" works as well as it does but part of it is because it's characters are humans and very flawed. The show never becomes overly sentimental and It's often wickedly funny. The cast is wonderful. Of course Waller-Bridge is fantastic but so is Sian Clifford as her sister Claire and Jenny Rainsford as her doomed best friend Boo. I have to offer a special hand to Olivia Colman as Fleabag and Claire's truly evil stepmother. Colman's "digs" to Fleabag are marvels at understatement. She positively brims with barely hidden resentment toward Fleabag. There is an amazing "exchange" near the end of episode 5 between Fleabag and her stepmother that took my breath away (I kept "rewinding" it to view it again and again). Both of their responses to it are marvelous.
I could go on and on about the show. I'm going to start watching season 2 and can't wait to see what happens.
A Touch of Class (1973)
Watch it for Glenda Jackson Only
When "A Touch of Class" was released in 1973, it was a big hit and generally well received by most critics. The consensus was that the film was "realistic" and "a film made for adults" (the last quote is paraphrasing from Judith Crist's review in New York magazine). The film isn't realistic or very adult. At best it's occasionally amusing and cute. It's a rom-com with an oh-so-hip downbeat ending that was de rigueur for films of the time. Segal and Jackson meet cute several times in London and almost instantaneously end up agreeing to take a vacation together in Spain. They bicker and argue but also fall in love. They return to London and attempt to (completely unrealistically told in dumb sitcom style) continue their affair but it's all too difficult for them both and in the end, they part. It's incredible to me that anyone seeing this film at the time would consider this a realistic film. Many of the situations are unbelievable even if you grant the film the conceit that these were "different" times (the sexual revolution post 60s in full swing). For example, Segal's wife comes across as cold but for reasons that are never made clear, he feels devoted to her. His wife is so cold, that it makes the film's ending even more ridiculous. We're going to believe that he'd give up on Jackson's hot fired sexy character for that wife? No way.
Which brings us to the sole reason to watch "A Touch of Class" and that's Glenda Jackson. She's astonishing. I would argue that she DID deserve the Oscar for Best Actress that year because only an actress of her caliber and talent could elevate such bad material. She's sexy, fiery, intelligent, warm and completely likeable. The fact that Segal's character would fall head over heels in love with her is the only believable part of the film. Jackson makes the film worth watching. She's is an amazing actress and did some of her finest work in comedy. She is even better five years later in the comedy "House Calls" with Walter Matthau. She's so good in "A Touch of Class" that I wished the material was equal to her talents. Sadly, it's not.
Mother! (2017)
A Future Camp Classic
"Mother!" (why the exclamation point???) is an example of what happens when an artist's impulses are left unchecked. Lawrence's involvement is probably what made the studio execs leave him alone because they figured it might still make money. This film is just artistic hogwash. I've enjoyed all of Darren Aronofsky's films except for this thing. The last 30 minutes are so incoherent that it's not even offensive. It's just stupid. The only way to even get a bit of enjoyment from it is to view it as camp. The house's explosion near the end is what made realize that camp is exactly what this film is and will eventually become. It's a major, major misstep for Jennifer Lawrence and Aronofsky.
Annie Hall (1977)
It Works Despite Itself
Woody Allen's "Annie Hall" works despite some flaws mostly in Allen's direction. This is likely due to the fact that Allen wasn't entirely sure what the film was going to be about but the film editor Ralph Rosenblum was instrumental in putting all the pieces together. It doesn't matter how it was put together: the final product is terrific. I wish I could watch it fresh all over again. It's comedic scenes are unpredictable, Allen's one liners are often priceless. It is partly an autobiography (of sorts) about Allen that morphs into focusing on his relationship to Diane Keaton as Annie Hall. Keaton is tremendous here. She possesses everything a star actor needs: she's charming, pretty and smart. She captures the audiences affections early on and that is key to the film's success. "Annie Hall" is the only one of Allen's films that really feels human. The ending is truly touching, an achievement that Allen rarely was able to achieve (though he often tried very hard to).
Colossal (2016)
It Deserves to be a Hit. It Eventually Will Be....
My 20 year old daughter said it best when describing her reaction after seeing "Colossal", she said "I wasn't prepared to like it as much as I did.".
Ten, fifteen and certainly twenty years ago, "Colossal" would have been a big hit in theaters. I am absolutely certain that this movie will eventually catch on and be at least a BIG cult hit.
I think many who see "Colossal" will be very surprised. Not by Hathaway's performance. She is always a reliable actor but by the film itself. I am reluctant to call "Colossal" allegorical because that might scare away potential viewers but that is what it is at heart. It is also one of those films that can be enjoyed at one or multiple levels: you can enjoy it strictly as an action comedy film or as an action comedy with a an allegory about relationships, regret and yearning to be more than what you are. Or you could view it as a satire on action films. It's a lot of things but it's also intelligently and thoughtfully made. It amazes me that there are really only four main characters in the entire movie yet the great director Nacho Vigalondo makes the film feel fully populated. The main cast is excellent with Hathaway clearly outstanding but Jason Sudeikis is also really good. He's an actor who plays a character so well that you feel it is part of him.
In the end, it's Nacho Vigalondo's direction that makes the tricky material work. When I see a film like "Colossal" it makes me hopeful for films because there are directors like him and Fede Alvarez who directed 2016's great "Don't Breathe".
The Last of Sheila (1973)
Good Enough to Make You Wish It Was Better
In "The Last of Sheila", movie producer Clinton Green invites six of his friends to join him on his yacht in the south of France for what is ostensibly to play one of his "games". The game starts with Clinton handing out cards to each of the six participants. Written on each card is a secret about one of the other six people and the object of the game is to figure out which secret belongs to whom. Things go awry when Clinton is murdered and it's up to the guests to figure out who the culprit is. They undercover the fact the Clinton's invitation was for more than just to play a game.
The setup of "The Last of Sheila" is promising and after a bumpy, confusing start, things actually get going about halfway through but Herbert Ross' direction feels unfocused and unsure which is surprising. This may be due to the difficulties he encountered while filming (the actors and crew apparently were getting nauseous filming on the boat and a set had to be built). In addition, the film doesn't take advantage of the lush locales like Hitchcock did in "To Catch a Thief" and it has been inexplicably photographed with a dusty, dry look that makes everything look drab. This type of movie requires tight direction with a lush touch like the kind that Sidney Lumet provided a couple of years later with "Murder on the Orient Express". The setup feels rushed. We're not entirely sure what everyone's relationship is to one another even after they all get onto the boat. The writers (Stephen Sondheim and Anthony Perkins) may have done this intentionally thinking it added to the mystery but coupled with Ross' muddled direction, it makes the early scenes a bit a mess. But the film eventually starts to come together and seeing the cast trying to figure out what's up is done well. The finale is a bit of a letdown though. The reveal is good and satisfying but only three of the six participants are present and this feels like we've been cheated. On the plus side, the actors are all very appealing with Richard Benjamin, James Mason and especially Dyan Cannon being the standouts. "The Last of Sheila" could have been better but as it is, it is certainly watchable and never boring.
10 (1979)
Blake Edwards' Best Film
After directing three "Pink Panther" comedies, director Blake Edwards made his most seminal film with "10" and it is his most sustained, mature work. Nothing before or (sadly) after would match this film. With "10", Edwards masterfully combined his unique gift for inventive sight gags with pathos and inflection that worked beautifully for the most part. The film is extremely well directed and acted especially by Dudley Moore. "10" would not have been as good as it is without him. For once, Edwards controlled his tendency toward self indulgence which sank some of his films.
Moore plays a middle aged music composer facing a self inflicted spiritual crisis regarding his age. Though he's successful and lives in a gorgeous home in Bel Air, he's miserable. We've seen this character construct dozens or more times but Edwards manages to make the material fresh by staging some terrific set pieces that, unlike many other films he directed, feel integrated into the story rather than tagged on for just for laughs (compare "10" with his later "Skin Deep" to get an idea of what I mean). There's a great bit with Moore falling down a steep hill and another involving cars speeding across the Hollywood Hills. What Edwards excelled at was a kind of minimalist sight gag, a gag that appears out of the corner of the eye like the old lady and the priests home or how he captures the speeding cars by putting his camera above an intersection. He directs his best comedy bits with assuredness and subtlety.
Moore's spiritual crisis causes him to chase a newlywed bride to her honeymoon in Mexico. One would think this setup would lose steam but it doesn't (just check out the scene as Moore crosses a rope bridge). Only at the very end does the film's narrative falter a bit when Moore realizes his dream woman is actually vapid and he returns to his senses. The films wrap up at the very end, though, is satisfying.
Julie Andrews is fine in her role here though some of her line readings are a bit cringe inducing (i.e. "do you want to fight or make love"). Edwards throws in some of her singing and in one rehearsal scene, it's jarring. For just a moment the movie falls apart. While Andrews is adequate, a better, more believable actress would have made the film even better but it's a quibble. "10" works brilliantly in spite of some problems.
Angie Tribeca (2016)
You GO, Angie Tribeca! Comedy Like This is an Art....
I'll give "Angie Tribeca" a solid 10 rating because the type of humor employed in it is very hard to pull off well and I think the show succeeds. It doesn't succeed every time or every episode but that's part of what make it a fun ride. You don't know when the next great bit will come out.
Many people will say that "Angie Tribeca" is either a homage or a ripoff of the Zucker brothers' "Airplane" and "Police Squad" but "Airplane" and "Police Squad" were derivative of some of Woody Allen's great all funny films like "Bananas" and "What's Up Tiger Lily?". Allen's films (and his shtick) were derivative of a host of comedies from the 30s and 40s especially the Marx Brothers and Bob Hope. And the Marx Brothers and Bob Hope were derived from vaudeville and burlesque humor. The humor employed in vaudeville and especially burlesque were for "the masses". It was never high brow and very often hit or miss. The lows could be low but the highs could be very high indeed.
One of the best things about Woody Allen's films like "Bananas" and "Take the Money and Run" was the manic feel of it all. There were scenes that didn't work but the comic energy was such that it didn't matter. It was off to the next gag that might work better and the next one that might work brilliantly.
"Angie Tribeca" is exactly like Allen's films, the Marx Brothers, Bob Hope and the humor of vaudeville and burlesque. It's very easy to say it's stupid or uninspired but to me, it's actually an art form. It's an art form that, on the surface, is too easy to dismiss. It lacks "sophistication" but it takes a lot of talent to pull this kind of comedy off and this show nails it. It's not perfect but I don't want it to be. It's messiness is part of what appeals to me. When Woody Allen made "Sleeper", it was a let down. Good and funny as it was, it felt streamlined and neat. Without the messiness of his earlier films, it felt like something was missing. If "Angie Tribeca" were to straighten itself out (get rid of some of the goofiness, go for more straightforward gags) it will be a different show and one I probably wouldn't enjoy.
As one of the characters says in the pilot episode (and I may be misquoting) "You GO Angie Tribeca!"
Sweet Smell of Success (1957)
Very Talky. Ah, But What Talk It Is!
"Sweet Smell of Success" has to be one of the most "talky" movies ever made. The whole movie consists of people talking between, amongst and around one another. It demands you pay attention because to reap the rewards of watching it, you have to. You have to be in the right mood for it because if you are tired or impatient or simply not in the mood, you won't "get" how great this film is.
I knew about "Sweet Smell of Success" for years but it was one of many films that I knew of but never actually watched. I first watched it on a Saturday morning when I simply stumbled on it on some cable station (TCM maybe? I can't remember). Why this film managed to suck me in at that time is something that I can't explain. All I know is that it did and it was unforgettable. The film is one of the best examples where the plot (Hudsecker using Falco to break up the relationship between Hudsecker's sister and a jazz musician) is used to examine various characters both good, bad and very bad. People are used and discarded, ignored completely (Falco's decent secretary) or somehow manage to take the higher ground. They all weave in and out of the story. One of the best things about "Sweet Smell of Success" is the awesome on location filming. It lends the film a real authenticity and also captures the look and feel of Manhattan at that time (look at all those movie theaters in Times Square!).
"Sweet Smell of Success" was not a hit when it was first released and it's understandable. It was a film of its time and perhaps too much so. People may not have wanted to be shown how greedy and corrupt some people around them were. The film's talkiness may have also contributed to it's box office failure. This is an intelligent and perceptive film with some of the most witty and sophisticated dialogue ever written for a film but it's very subdued and low key. It's not bombastic or in your face.
Lancaster and Curtis are outstanding. They hold the film together. Some of the supporting roles are memorable like Barbara Nichols as a mistreated cigarette girl.
"Sweet Smell of Success" is a film that truly deserves the title of "classic".
The First Great Train Robbery (1978)
Good but Disposable Entertainment
"The Great Train Robbery" is a perfect example of the creative skills of Michael Crichton. He was no master director or writer but what he did excel at was making and writing fast paced, imaginative and highly enjoyable entertainments.
"The Great Train Robbery" provides great entertainment at the expense of historical accuracy. From what I understand, some of the plot elements are based on the actual train robbery of Crimean gold but a lot of it is highly fictionalized. While watching the film, you don't care about whether or not it's accurate. It moves so briskly and assuredly that you don't mind. But like so much of Crichton's work, it evaporates from memory pretty quickly. It's disposable entertainment but of that kind, it is exemplary. The art direction and cinematography (by the great Geoffrey Unsworth) are superlative. It could have been a much better film if it had tried to deepen the characters just a bit. The three leads (Connery, Sutherland and Down) are attractive and likable but there isn't much shading to their characters.
Crichton's direction is as sure footed as anything done by Spiellberg and makes you wonder why he didn't direct more often.