Reviews

In spite of its faults, I was really impressed by this movie. Warner made a number of social justice flicks during the thirties, and I thought this was one of the best. Strong performances, tight script and lots of action.

Some people have complained about certain plot points, and it's true that the writers could have made things more believable. And while some of the mountain folk are portrayed sympathetically, over all the script does not paint a flattering picture of the townspeople. My biggest problem with the script is the ending. For most of the film the main character is determined to become a nurse so that she can help her community. At the end she decides to dump all that and become a housewife. I didn't buy it.

Still, this movie really pulled me in, and the tension keeps building right up to the climax. Writers Norman Reilly Raine and Luci Ward do a good job with the characters and situations. Josephine Hutchinson is excellent, and most of the cast is strong. Michael Curtiz keeps the pace brisk. The scenes where the young woman confronts her father are intense and harrowing. I think this movie is one of Curtiz' high points from the thirties, and it's a shame it's not better known.

A nice example of what you can do on a small budget. The script offers plenty of action and characters drawn in simple, bold strokes. Witney's direction gives you both pace and punch. He does a great job with the cast, getting forceful, lively performances from many of the actors. Fans of the JD genre will not be disappointed.

Jack Marta's cinematography is also worth looking at. While he's obviously hampered a little by the budget, this film looks way better than your average quickie JD flick. He does some nice things with lighting and composition. A few years later he got a chance to show what he could really do when he worked on Route 66.

I was really surprised by this film. I have no interest in ships or shipbuilding, but the visuals caught my attention immediately. The photography is dynamic, even poetic, as the camera explores a major shipyard in Scotland. The film documents the process of creating a large sea vessel in the twentieth century. Iain Hamilton's score is excellent.

I came across this film by accident. It was part of a VHS tape compilation of John Grierson's work. Sadly, the print they started with was not in good shape and the color is badly faded. I have no idea if it's available on DVD.

I thought The Key was excellent. Interesting story, strong dialogue and good performances. To my mind this is one of Michael Curtiz' best films. It's not just a matter of creating atmosphere. In shooting the street scenes and club scenes Curtiz fills the frame with movement. This film really has the feel of life in the city. With the help of cinematographer Ernest Haller and art director Robert Haas, Curtiz makes the tension of the situation palpable. There are some weak moments, but my only real complaint is that William Powell could be stronger. He's fine at the beginning when he's just playing the breezy adventurer. But as we see that the character is more complex, Powell needs to do more to show the conflict within. Instead he keeps it mostly on the surface. On the other hand, a lot of the actors in small roles are marvelous. Over all, this is a really solid movie.

I really enjoyed this movie. Some of the other users have complained that there are scenes that don't advance the plot. I can't say this really bothers me in a movie that's less than ten minutes long.

I was most impressed by the production design. The sets and backdrops were lovely, and the whole film has a coherent look. The makers of this film obviously put a lot of effort into creating their fantasy world. Even if the journey through the zodiac didn't move the story forward, it held my attention because it was so imaginative and so beautiful.

While the effects are primitive by today's standards, they work because they're consistent with the design as a whole. Modern special effects are much more sophisticated, but that means nothing if they aren't smoothly integrated into the rest of the film. Melies and his collaborators created a world that I wanted to believe in.

This film may only appeal to fans of early silent cinema, but I thought it was interesting. The story is simple, the scenes are all played in a continuous long shot and the acting is very broad. But these characteristics were typical of most other films of the period, and Nerone has a visual richness that is unusual for the time. Apparently the Italian producer Arturo Ambrosio was willing to invest much more money in sets and costumes than producers in other countries. What makes Nerone effective, though, is that the scenes are staged and photographed with a sense of drama. By today's standards the film may seem tame, but audiences of the period were thrilled by Italian spectacles like these, especially the later ones which were much longer and much more spectacular. The Italian films of this era set a new standard for production values, and influenced filmmakers all over the world, including D. W. Griffith.

It may seem odd to describe this film as tedious, considering it's only a short, but I found The Changing of the Guard extremely slow and static. It may be of interest to historians as an early example of Technicolor, but the photography is unimaginative. Sybil Jason fans will probably enjoy her dance number. Jason was present when I saw this screened, and I believe she said the choreography was by Busby Berkeley, though his name doesn't appear in the credits.

The story begins with Sybil visiting her grandfather on New Year's Eve. As it gets late, Sybil falls asleep and dreams her dance number. Okay, so the film was probably made just to showcase Warners' child star, but there's still no excuse for the weak dialogue and plodding direction. You'd think if the studio was going to lay out the money for Technicolor they'd want something that was a little more lively.

Warner definitely seems to have seen Sybil Jason as their answer to Shirley Temple, and this film takes many elements from "Little Miss Marker", which Shirley starred in the year before. But the screenplay spends a good deal of time with the gangsters who are the cause of Sybil's troubles, and there is a very real sense of Depression-era desperation. Director Michael Curtiz makes all this very vivid, framing and lighting the shots to give this urban melodrama a hard edge. Robert Armstrong gives an excellent performance as one of the con men who takes Sybil in. This film may be a little too intense for Shirley Temple fans, but it's a strong melodrama with a solid cast.

After reading comments on Green Fields by other users, I'm afraid a lot of people won't bother with it, and that would be a shame. It's been a few years since I saw it, but I recall it as being a lovely, gentle film, and one of Edgar Ulmer's best. It's probably not for the average viewer. It is slow moving. Also, describing it as a comedy might not help, since the humor is very low key. I don't recall laughing out loud. The play is old fashioned, but it has a lot of warmth and tenderness. And it's interesting to see Ulmer tackle something like this, since he's better known for intense, expressionistic films like Detour and The Black Cat. Here the shots aren't as obviously "designed". Instead the camera lingers on the sleepy beauty of the little village. The pace is leisurely, and I thought that was the right choice to capture the lives of these country dwellers. This film isn't for everybody, but Ulmer fans should check it out. While he directed a few other movies in Yiddish, I think this is by far the best of the ones I've seen. And I think it stands on its own as a first rate piece of film-making.

I'm absolutely shocked that the critical reaction to this movie has been so negative. I was overwhelmed by The Weight of Water. I guess part of the problem is that the ad campaign seems to have presented it as a thriller, which it's not. It's also not a mystery or a love story. It's a slow-paced, decidedly downbeat look at two women who are trapped in loveless relationships. Kathryn Bigelow's direction is masterful. She uses images and sounds to express the powerful passions which the two main characters feel but can't express themselves. She gets excellent performances out of the entire cast, but Sarah Polley is especially fine. I'm sure the fact that none of the characters are sympathetic (at least not in the usual sense) is one of the reasons people aren't responding to the film. Bigelow isn't telling a simple story here, and she doesn't want to manipulate the audience by trotting out the usual cliches. This is a complicated movie about how complicated love really is. I haven't read Anita Shreves's novel, but I'd like to. I imagine Bigelow was attracted to it because it offered a blunt, unsentimental look at relationships. The Weight of Water is not a conventional Hollywood entertainment. If you're open to it, if you throw away your preconceptions, you may be surprised at where this film takes you.

I've been checking out the comments on this film and they seem to be in line with most of the other reactions I've heard. It's important to say up front that this is not a film for Western fans. It's not a film for action fans. It's not for history buffs who care only about the facts. It's not a film for people who want to see a good story told simply.

Wild Bill is one of the richest and most disturbing films ever made about the American West. It shows us a complicated man without trying to explain or rationalize the contradictions in his character. He's capable of love, but he also commits acts of brutal violence. He cares for his friends but he holds them all at arm's length. And he feels compelled to play the part of the living legend to the end, come what may.

I suspect that Walter Hill chose this subject because he identified strongly with Wild Bill himself. But whether or not this is true, the contradictions in Hickok's character are a part of this country's character. Hill was lucky to have Jeff Bridges in the lead. It's one of his finest performances. Though Wild Bill doesn't voice doubts about his life out loud, Bridges' face shows us that he doesn't understand himself the reasons for many of his actions.

The story is not told in chronological order, but the organization of the sequences is not haphazard. In fact it's beautifully thought out. This is not a film for everybody, but I think it deserves a lot more attention than it's gotten so far. I feel like fans of Walter Hill's work will see the same thing I do: a beautiful and haunting meditation on why this country is the way it is.