Change Your Image
SimonJack
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
The Damned United (2009)
Well-acted story of a fictional biopic and British soccer legend
In spite of the high average rating at the time of my writing - 7.5, from nearly 47,000 people, "The Damned United" was a colossal bomb at the box office. It didn't even recover half of its budget. Why the difference in 2009 audiences, and movie mavens who watch the film later?
This is a story about England's favorite sport, football (which we call soccer in the colonies, to distinguish it from the very different American dominant sport of football). It's about real people and teams during the 1960s and 1970s. The film is based on an adaptation of a fictional novel about Brian Clough, with a focus on his 44 days as the controversial coach of the Leeds, England, The United soccer team. Video news clips at the end show the real Clough and Peter Taylor. The book by Peter Morgan, "The Damned UTD," was a best seller. Clough has been celebrated as one of the greatest coaches in UK history. But he developed a rivalry with another great coach, Don Revie, who had led The United team to several national championships. The film shows what is supposed to be the basis for the rivalry. But it's never really clear to the audience.
So, the audience is left to wonder about it, along with the rest of the film as portrayed. My guess about why the film bombed is because after 30 years, the Brits had gotten over whatever controversy there was, and held both of the men in high regard as legends for the game in England. So, they didn't like a movie that was going to make either or both of those fine legends look bad, or dig up the old controversy that rattled the cages of England's main sport.
Indeed, that's about the only logical or likely explanation for the film bombing. And that's because the movie itself, with the acting and various portrayals is very good. Whether or not Brian Clough's temperament and behavior were as portrayed by Clough, his - the actor's portrayal of the character on screen was and is superb. And so is that of Timothy Spall who plays Peter Taylor. And most of the rest of the cast give very good portrayals. If there was one that seemed lacking, it would be veteran actor Colm Meaney as Don Revie. He seemed withdrawn, overly quiet, not excitable as a coach and handling Clough's accusations and complaints. But even that may be more in line with the real Revie, I don't know, but Meaney and others surely might.
So, with all of the speculation out of the way - about the film, the source, and the film's bombing at the box office, what about the character, Brian Clough, as played by Michael Sheen? The early scene, in flashback, of Clough coaching a level three team and hosting a game with The United, which will be visiting, is curious. Clough has gone to the trouble to arrange a nice private reception or greeting of Revie. He has a very good wine and glasses set out in a private room. That seems a very unusual thing for a coach in any sport. The screenplay has him voicing his admiration for Revie, the greatest coach in England. Maybe this was just an effort to try to help him climb the ladder of success. Then a short scene has Revie arriving and walking from the team bus surrounded by players and talking with them Clough stands outside the stadium door to greet them but the mass of people just passes around and through him. It appears that Revie just doesn't see him, and Clough makes no direct effort to approach the coach or hold his hand out or get his attention
Then, Clough suddenly dislikes Revie and starts criticizing him and putting down his players. The impression with this viewer is that Clough was very conceited himself, and he became quite arrogant in regard to Revie after that. There is a short scene when he takes the helm of The United and must win over the players whom he had been criticizing for a few years. He shows some skill in handling the soccer ball. But that's all the indication in the film that this is a very knowledgeable and capable coach himself. On the other hand, it can be assumed that much of Clough's success was due to Peter Taylor, who was his friend and regarded as the best talent scout in the field. He found the key player or players that Clough needed at any time. And Clough would get them signed for the team. And, in this, he too was at odds often with the chairman of the ball club. Because Clough would always act without going through the club boss.
Well, after Clough's comeuppance with multiple losses at the helm of The United, he recants. He apologizes to Taylor and asks him to take him back. Taylor had stayed at the Brightton club that had hired them after Clough's firing from The United. But Clough had gone back on his word and instead took an offer to coach The United after Revie had gone on to coach the England team for international soccer.
It's a good drama and fictional biopic of sorts. People other than soccer or sports fans may find it boring. And there's hardly any action or excitement of watching soccer being played.
My American Wife (1936)
A count conquers the West
A number of comedies were made in the 1930s and 1940s that centered around a wealthy American marrying into European aristocracy. Most of them were rich daughters or heiresses who were seeking their princes. But sometimes it was the male nobility seeking a bailout for the lost or in-debt family estate. Both types were just high society and snobbish versions of the more familiar type of American situations with gold diggers and goldbricks. Of course, the ever erudite movie audiences of those days - in the Americas or Europe, knew that a rose is a rose by any other name. And so, most of these films were just lots of fun and entertaining.
Well, "My American Wife" does a sort of turn around of the usual formula. Francis Lederer comes from a European nobility. He is Count Ferdinand von und zu Reidenach. Linguists may see the play on words in his very title - he is von und zu, or from and to. He and Mary Cantillon, played by Ann Sothern, have real love and were married in Europe. Now they are coming back to her hometown, Smelter City, somewhere in the American West. Her family are among the upper crust of the community. That is, all but grandpa Lafe Cantillon, played by Fred Stone. He holds honor among the common folk as being one of the last of the pioneers who established the town. The film opens with a golden jubilee celebration of the town.
With a title like Count Ferdinand von und ze Reidenach, anything might happen. And, in "My American Wife," it does. Francis Lederer turns upside down the usual formula for comedies that include European titles. Instead of resting on the laurels of title to marry into American wealth, this new groom of Mary Cantillon wants to be a real American. Though, while she loves him for who he is and not his title, it does have a little hold on her. And her parents and in- laws do relish having nobility in their family. That is, all but grandpa Cantillon. He harkens back to the pioneer days when people fought and worked hard to build America.
Well, there are some good chuckles here, and a little come-uppances for Mary and her family. Freddie wins Grandpa's heart by taking to the land to work also. So, he and Lafe eventually win out over the rest of the clan. All of this supporting cast of familiar faces of the day give good performance's, including Billie Burke, Grant Mitchell, Ernest Cossart and others. It's not a laugh-out-loud comedy or one with clever dialog. But the situations range from warm to funny throughout.
Death at a Funeral (2007)
An outlandish plot provides some riotous comedy
Funerals are a serious matter for most people. Saying goodbye to loved ones and close friends is sorrowful at the least, and is often heart-wrenching for some. A funeral is rarely a part, or even the centerpiece as this one is, of a comedy film. So, in order for it to work as such, it has to be outlandish. Well, "Death at a Funeral" is outlandish, and so, very funny in places.
This is an adult comedy, and because of the setting, and some of the profanity, partial male nudity and script, it won't be for everyone. But mature adults who are not averse to - and those who appreciate, biting humor, will get some great laughs from this film. It is very mature British comedy, but not at all tongue-in-cheek.
Enough said. It's R rating is appropriate. Those who can really laugh at life, especially the outlandish things that might and sometimes do happen, will enjoy this film. Anyone who can't see herself or himself of such ilk, would best not bother to watch "Death at a Funeral."
Soldier of Fortune (1955)
Post war Hong Kong is setting for drama and romance
"Soldier of Fortune" is a very good, entertaining drama, adventure and romance, based on a popular 1954 novel of the same title. The author, Ernest Gann, also wrote the screenplay for this film. He also did so for a number of others of his highly popular novels that were made into popular movies. Movie buffs and avid readers will be familiar with some of them - "The High and the Mighty" film of 1954, "Island in the Sky" of 1953, "Twilight for the Gods" of 1958, "Fate is the Hunter" of 1964, "The Aviator" of 1985, and others.
Gann even appears in a promo for this film. Gann was a man of real adventure, exploration, and experiences of life. He went from rags to being well off, back to rags, back to well off, then to personal and family struggles, then to fame and fortune, and back down once more. He had more jobs and experiences in his life time than a dozen average men together might have. He was passionate about many things, two of which were the milieu of his best novels - flying and sailing He was interested in all aspects of aviation and sea travel. Gann's life alone would make a very interesting story, and he shows in film and most of his works, an uncanny awareness and feel for the people - of all kinds.
Clark Gable and Susan Hayward give top performances in their lead roles of this adventure drama. And the rest of the supporting cast are all very good. The premise of the plot is to rescue an American photographer, Louis Hoyt, from China where he has been arrested. His wife comes from the States to see to that. After Gable's Hank Lee falls for Jane Hoyt, he takes it upon himself to rescue Hoyt. So, when Jane doesn't fawn over him, Hank relents and becomes a gentleman hero.
Among the top supporting cast, Michael Rennie plays a British inspector. In 1955 Hong Kong was still a British colony, or more accurately, a British Protectorate. And, that's where most of the story takes place. Much of the movie was filmed there. So, the scenery of the once-fabled Oriental seat of international intrigue, adds a lot to this film. That includes the street scenes with people the rickshaws, and scenes around Victoria Harbor.
Lots of movies in the mid-20th century were made in or had scenes in Hong Kong. A mandatory part of each such film, it seems, was the skyline and views of the harbor and city from atop Victoria Peak They showed the beauty of the city. "Soldier of Fortune" also shows real street scenes and the spacious flotillas of junks and sampans nestled and tied together along the waterfront of Victoria Harbor. For decades, such scenes were part of the romantic mystique that lured tourists and vacationers to visit the Orient. And, very many did, especially from America and Europe.
But after Hong Kong reverted to China in 1986, the city underwent many changes. The junks were greatly reduced and moved away from the harbor front. The sampans were no long allowed to tie up in the inner harbor. The most striking change though, was the building craze with government sanctioned and planned modernization of the city. That led to the construction of several skyscrapers to top anything that was there before.
On my 2001 trip to China in a group to hike and walk the country, we began with a couple days in Hong Kong. Our Chinese guide proudly pointed out the several skyscrapers to our group. While the Red Chinese may gloat over such changes as progress, we Americans had come to hike, walk, and see the real China and its gems of the Orient. The great scenery of postcards and films we had seen of Hong Kong were no more. The city's beauty was blotted out by the steel structures that were the Chinese People's Republic efforts to create a Manhattan in the Orient.
So, besides being entertaining for their story in general, films like these may have some historical value and significance in the future. They serve as documented pictures of the Hong Kong of the early to late 20th century.
This is a very good movie, with a prominent cast of the period. It's one that audiences should be able to enjoy in the 21st century.
Arthur (1981)
Fantasy picture of the adorable super-rich sot
Yes, there are aspects of this film that tug at one's heart. And, Arthur is not such a bad egg or mean person. And, the story here is one that slowly develops toward a good outcome - maybe. But, even the happy ending is left up in the air, because with his mega-millions of dollars and a true love, Arthur is still an alcoholic.
Millions of people today have been affected by alcoholism. It's a disease that affects families. Many millions have been hurt by it. So, a movie that puts a romantic spin on alcoholism - and that is precisely what this film does to sell it, is a real fantasy. But, "Arthur" did go over big in the theaters in its day. And, it's still popular with many people who see it today.
I can remember watching Jackie Gleason and Red Skelton on TV in the 1960s. They each did occasional skits of a drunken character. They were funny and got many laughs. But those were just about the characters, and their antics. They didn't involve other people. This film does, and so other people are affected by Arthur's alcoholism. The fact that his father is so totally remote from his son just adds to the pathos of his life.
Dudley Moore's performance is very good, and funny at times. But, "Arthur" should be recognized for the fantasy that it is -- that it portrays. I doubt very much if the millions of recovering alcoholics (of which I am one), or their spouses or children, would find this movie that entertaining today. And not many people suffering with alcoholics at the time would see much humor in this film.
Serving Sara (2002)
Too crass, crude, and overboard for a comedy romance
The idea for a comedy built around a process-server was a good one. But, unfortunately, the makers of "Serving Sara" chose to go overboard with crass and crudity, which tanked this movie. Even with a culture that has been slowly descending on a slippery slope of social demise, audiences in 2002 and well into the 21st century still have some sound limits. Most aren't buying the brutality, violence, in-your-face crudeness, and overall abuse and abusiveness. Not even in movies that try to use it for comedy.
So, this movie bombed when it came out. I skipped it then, but thought there might be something to it when I recently got a cheap DVD of the film. There are definitely some scenes that were funny, and the plot showed some potential. The bit of spoofing and satire is okay, but it too gets lost in the crass. The film really has two main plots - the one is the process server and girl, chasing her husband. That has the most comedic situations with Matthew Perry, Elizabeth Hurley and Bruce Campbell. The second is with the process server disputes that Perry has with his boss and competitor. Much of the violence and crudity occur there, but not all of it.
It seems that the writers tried to cover the crudity by making it appear funny and light. A big problem with that is that too many people today have had any number of the bad experiences this film portrays. And most people don't find that very funny in their lives.
If all of that isn't bad enough, consider the Moore's, Gordon and Sara. Their marriage seems to be of the modern type, not based on love. When Perry's Joe Tyler goes to serve Sara her divorce notice, is she hurt because she doesn't think Gordon loves her anymore? Does she want to try to hold onto him? Is there any sadness, sorrow, hurt, or emotion? No, her immediate thought is to take Gordon for all she can. And, then in just four to five days with Joe, whom she disliked from the start, she falls for him. So, the Moore marriage was just about sex and nothing more. Then what will it be like for Sara and Joe?
Well, the audiences in 2002 weren't buying the phoniness of this plot. And they didn't see much humor in all the violence and crudity. The box office didn't event reach the level of the budget for the film. So, I don't mind the $5 I paid for the DVD of this film. Seeing a bad movie once in a while helps one appreciate the really good films that much more.
Big Daddy (1999)
Poor screenplay and crassness overcome the little humor
There weren't many laughs from the theater audience when I first saw this film in 1999. And I could find very little comedy these many years later. Although "Big Daddy" did well at the box office, and helped lift Adam Sandler's struggling career, I sided with the critics on this one. What passes as comedy is mostly Sandler's silliness and boorish behavior, which seem to go back and forth.
No doubt the sentimentalism struck a chord with a number of people, but to me, the crassness of his character at times cancelled that out. The plot is quite far out; but where that oft times can be a means of some very good comedy, it isn't here. The screenplay for this story needed a big rewrite. And, possibly another actor could have played a more likable Sonny Koufax. Or, perhaps Sandler plays the lazy jerk so well that his change at the end just isn't believable.
One interesting thing about this film is the number of Sandler's relatives in it. Besides wife Jackie (Jacqueline Titone), who plays a waitress, a nephew, Jared, plays the young boy of the same name; and Adam's niece, Jillian, plays the girl of her same name.
Three Bites of the Apple (1967)
A caper comedy and romance on a European tour
"Three Bites of the Apple" is a caper comedy and romance film that some will enjoy as much for the wonderful scenery. And, that adds one or two of the stars I give this film. Along with that is its portrayal of a European tour group and their trip. It's a rather small group - just a dozen or so people. The group here leaves from England and travels to and through some of France, much of Italy, and some of Switzerland.
But for others, this film may not be of much interest, precisely for the same reasons. That's because, following a tour group itinerary, as it shows quite a bit, can be quite slow. Maybe even boring for other than people paying for the trip to see the sights and sites.
The film is slow in that regard, and the comedy is quite thin. But there's some interest in the characters on the tour, and especially in David McCallum's very good portrayal of a tour guide. For those who have taken such travel tours, his Stanley Thrumm is a very good docent and proper and caring group leader.
The main plot of the film is the caper, and it takes time to pull off, as it follows the tour group. What the film isn't billed for is its romance, and that's okay. But it is a very good aspect of the film that helps put it over on a nice note at the end. And an extra plus for this movie is its opening prologue with all the film credits. I remember as a youngster going to movies and wishing they would skip all the upfront credits and get right to the movie. Hollywood must have caught the public drift, and by the mid-1950s, movies started to have very artistic and clever opening scenes or cartoon work with the opening credits. This one has superb comical cartoon work and a song that parody the Bible story of the temptation of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.
I've been to several European countries, and driven much of the regions shown in this film. I've also gone on travel tour groups - of about 30 people, including one to eastern Europe. I don't recall having seen more than a couple movies over several decades that showed or had much content about a tour group. So, this may be the best such picture.
Sneakers (1992)
Intrigue and action in this high tech caper mystery
Those who enjoy high -tech thrillers should especially like this film. "Sneakers" is one of the most sophisticated high-tech mystery thrillers of the last two decades of the 20th century. Today, these seem to have been a subgenre of mystery films that incorporated lots of action, thrills, and espionage - to say nothing of the mayhem so often a part of them. That genre came on the heels of and was inspired by the James Bond films of the 1960s and '70s.
All kinds of technical aspects are covered, from hidden cameras and mics, other electronic devices and hacking security systems. There's some dark comedy as well. Robert Redford is a top security expert, Martin Bishop. He has assembled a team of high tech specialists - all from troubled backgrounds, that hire out to check security systems of banks and other corporations. Now they have to pull off their toughest job ever to keep Martin out of prison and to save the world. Members of his team include a fistful of top actors of the time -- Dan Aykroyd, Sidney Poitier, Ben Kingsley, David Strathairn and others.
The acting is very good and the action keeps one on the edge of his or her seat for much of the film. It was a lot of fun in the theater of the day, and still holds interest on home screens these decades later.
My spoilers warning is because of mention of the two obviously moronic moves by the Redford and Mary McDonnell characters. The rest of the crew even lambast Bishop for falling for the two impersonators of national security agents. And then, McDonnell's Liz inadvertently spills the beans of Bishop's whole scheme to get into Cosmo's enclave to recover the black box. As she is being led out of the enclave she comments to Kingsley's Cosmo that it is the last time she would ever go on a computer date.
Of course, but for either of those blunders by the two stars, the subsequent thrilling action and intrigue would not have occurred.
Neighbors (1981)
Plotless, clueless and senseless
Two houses go up in flames and high voltage power lines throw off some sparks. For those bits of action and excitement, this film gets two stars. For the rest, it's a real dud. Plotless, clueless and senseless is the only way to describe this film. If one doesn't have a story with any possibility of coherence or continuity, what can you do? Just throw together a bunch of scenes of nonsense and call it a movie.
Well, a sufficient number of moviegoers did pony up the ticket price in 1981, so "Neighbors made some money. The draw was probably from the Saturday Night Live TV program that had propelled a number of its early unknown performers to stardom. The two male leads were examples. John Belushi and Dan Aykroyd were two of a handful who did make it big on the silver screen. Belushi's celebrity was short-lied with his overdose suicide at age 33 - the year after this film was made.
But "Neighbors" was far from a blockbuster. Indeed, it didn't even get released outside the U. S. My guess is it wouldn't play well with audiences just about anywhere else.
The humor here is supposed to be all of the mishaps that Belushi has or experiences. Most are at the hands of, or because of his new neighbors, Vic and Ramona Zeck, played by Aykroyd and Cathy Moriarty. I struggled to stay with this film to the end, because for the first three-fourths I felt much like Belushi's Earl Keese's portrayal. He was understandably irritated, annoyed, and generally fed up with Vic's goofiness and the moronic Ramona.
Then, all of a sudden, at the end, Earl wants to join Vic and Ramona and go off into the wherever for whatever? As his house burns down in the background. And who cares about wife and daughter? What a senseless portrayal of morons. Again, but for the two houses going up in flames and the power line scenes, this film has no spark at all.
The Big White (2005)
A flop because of the plot and terrible script
"The Big White" is an example of a perceived Hollywood effort to label so many movies as comedies, part comedies, or dark comedies. This is done, one might guess from viewing a number of such films, to sell the films, and hopefully make some money or at least, to recover or minimize the losses. But, judging from the main production company listed, Ascendant Pictures, it may just have turned out to be a film made and distributed anyway precisely for the loss. In other words, a tax hedge for one or more very wealthy sources.
Just because this film has a couple of witty lines, and a couple of quirky characters, doesn't make it a comedy. To me, a film must have some significant comedy - in dialog, situations, characters, plot or combinations of these, in order to be considered a comedy. But "The Big White" lacks such. It is definitely a dark film, a drama, a crime picture, with a little mystery.
Like other reviewers on IMDb, I watched this recently because I thought it might be a clever, well-done and plotted film with Robin Williams. As it turns out, his part not only isn't comical or the source of comedy, but is the best part of the drama of the film. And the acting by Williams and Holly Hunter as his wife, Margaret, are what earn this film the four stars that I give it. Otherwise it would be a zero.
A plot that involves a dispute or controversy over using a dead body - in order to be a comedy, must be outlandishly funny, and pretty much devoid of drama. But this is a drama with a plot that is far too serious to have it come out even as a dark comedy. There are other faults with the film, but those are meaningless when the overall story is so bad.
I find it interesting that as of the time of my writing here, just over 15,000 people had rated this film. That is about one-third of the total number of people worldwide who bought tickets to see this film in theaters. While this is one of the two films made by Ascendant Pictures that viewers rate as good (6 or above), it was like all others of the total seven films made by the company from 2005 to 2008, a big loss. And most of those films had some big name stars.
Ruthless People (1986)
An ingenious plot and cast make this dark comedy
If ever a movie title fit the plot of a film, "Ruthless People" is it. And, no one could better play the epitome of ruthlessness - with such humor, that is, than Danny DeVito. Bette Midler does a pretty good job on the female side, and Anita Morris is quite good at it in her more subtle, less loudly vocalized way.
This is a very good adult comedy. And, it is a dark comedy with satire. People who have had or known of kidnappings among families or friends understandably won't find humor in a comedy about such. And, it is properly rated R, partly so that younger audiences, especially, might not think that there's anything humorous about kidnapping. So, then, the rest of us, mature and older folks, can really enjoy the humor set in this story that is built around a kidnapping. Because this is an ingenius plot with at least four subplots woven together. They are the basis of most of the humor.
This isn't a comedy of witty and crisp dialog, but it has some funny lines. While DeVito and Midler were known for their frequent outbursts or blurting insults or demeaning comments in their film personas, that is just a small bit of this film. The comedy here is mostly situational. And much of it is about and with supporting cast members. Judge Reinhold is hilarious as the flustered kidnapper, Ken Kessler. Helen Slater brings smiles just for her naiveté and innocence in going along with her devoted husband, who just wants justice for his wronged wife, however wrongfully obtained.
Then there's Anita Morris as Carol, DeVito's mistress or girl on the side. The really smart, conniving, and chiseling Sam Stone (DeVito) actually believes she loves him. But she has her own young lover that Stone doesn't know about. And Bill Pullman plays the dufus Earl for many laughs. William Schiiling is a riot as the Police Commissioner. Other cast members add to the humor as well.
"Ruthless People" isn't a great comedy, but it is very good one that has some good laughs in many situations. Understandably, there haven't been many comedy films made around a plot of kidnapping. There is one truly great one that is over the top hilarious - "Too Many Crooks," a Mario Zampi British film of 1959. A great cast of top comedy actors of that time provides laugh after laugh. Anyone who enjoys "Ruthless People" should want to see that great 1959 comedy.
House on Haunted Hill (1999)
Macabre and special effects gone wild
Macabre and special effects gone wild is the best way to describe "House on Haunted Hill" of 1999. Except for an even overly macabre opening, this film generally follows and is a remake of the 1959 film of the same title. But, where that film had some mystery in a genuine plot that was peppered with frightful or scary scenes, this movie is little more than a massive hodgepodge of weird, macabre and horror shots plopped together. It's a showcase of horror and special effects, none of which are anything special.
I was tempted to watch this film after recently watching again the original that I first saw in a theater when it came out in 1959. But I quickly recalled why I had skipped this on the big screen. The previews and promos for it in 1999 gave the impression that it was a modern hatchet job of an original good fright flick. And the critics, early reviews and comments from the scant few I knew who had seen the film scored it very poorly. How true that all turned out to be.
It's not hard to see why this film was a big flop at the box office. There were no movies of much quality showing when it came out on Oct. 29 for the weekend of Halloween, and it did top the box office sales for the week at just under $16 million. The next week it was number two at just under $8 million and then it plummeted. Its total worldwide box office of $42.6 million barely edged above its $37 million budget. So, it lost the studio about $13 million.
Even though some of the special effects of the 1959 film may seem corny to people today, most audiences would probably still enjoy that film well into the 21st century. If nothing else, it shows the level of techniques for special effects that were then getting much attention.
House on Haunted Hill (1959)
The horror genre was quite different in the mid-20th century
Halloween is just around the corner as I write this, after watching this film again recently. My first "watch" was when it came out in theaters in 1959. I can't imagine how "horrifying" this film might be to younger people well into the 21st century. Today, I find some of it more funny than scary - the flying skeleton, for instance. Today I see it for what it is or was then -- filming trickery like others being used back in the mid -20h century. But I recall seeing the film in high school then, when many of the skills and techniques for special effects in film were being tried and invented. So, the scary things like a flying skeleton or ghost was more startling and new and had their fright value.
These type of horror films were always good "date" movies. Whenever a frightening scene would show on the screen, a guy's girl or date would get really close to him for security. There were some very good spooky, scary, and frightening films back then that were good date movies. Of course, those were mostly for younger audiences, because older folks knew better and mostly had outgrown that level of imagination. But we teens enjoyed them a lot then, and watching them today, some seem almost corny in places. It's interesting to see how the horror genre has changed since the late 20th century. There are very few ghosts and overgrown creatures. They have been replaced by more macabre things such as chainsaw murders, walking dead, and psychological monsters.
Another thing struck me in watching "House on Haunted Hill" again. Scenes in the film are very much like scenes one would find going through a commercial or neighborhood haunted house. The last one of those I found and went through was in the early 1990s, and people were lined up for half a block to go through it. It was a community fund-raising project of a local Jaycees group. I haven't seen or heard of one since, so perhaps the haunted houses -- that were real works of art in their day, have gone out of style.
Well, this film has many scenes like that, and no one was more convincing or frightening than Vincent Price. He was one of the great masters of fright in the early decades of cinema. The others included Bela Lugosi, Boris Karloff, Lon Chaney, and a few more. They played the monsters or evil characters so well that audiences took them for real. I don't think the early 21st century has anything like that group of frightful character actors.
This movie may still be too scary for the very young, but older kids and adults may still enjoy it - if for no other reason than to see what horror was considered to be in films then, compared to the more macabre, surreal, and demonic of the modern horror genre.
The First Time (1952)
Too many errors for the time of this film
"The First Time" is a comedy and family drama about starting a family. Robert Cummings, Barbara Hale and the rest of the cast give good performances. But some big aspects of this film were very unrealistic - and not in a funny way, which likely accounted for its flop in theaters in 1952. And modern audiences may find the plot too dated and not very interesting to be able to sit through it. However, those who like history and enjoy learning about society in the past should enjoy the early scenes with Joe and Betsy Bennet.
In this film, there was nothing wrong with the cast - Robert Cummings was a big name actor at the time and Barbara Hale was well known and on her way to stardom. The rest of the cast were fine, but one was totally out of place. Cora Witherspoon was a very good actress, but her Nurse Salisbury was totally out of place for this plot. Why? Because the Bennet's weekly income was just $55.
The vast bulk of moviegoers has always been middle class - low income and middle income. Many movies were made during the Great Depression and in other tough times with movie stars playing the roles of wealthy people. These were comedies, romance and even some mysteries. While a very small number of people lived the types of lives portrayed, audiences could dream about such lives. And, however exaggerated or far-fetched the plots might be, people enjoyed what they saw or thought such life might be like.
But when it came to portraying average people, the middle and low-income classes, the social situations had to be accurate. There could be comedy enough in such stories, as well as romance, drama, mystery, etc. And, that's where this movie failed - with a middle-class couple and family in an unreal and unbelievable plot and screenplay. Middle class families didn't have nurses for their babies. They couldn't afford them.
Joe's $55 per week job amounted to an annual salary of $2,860. The average household income in 1952 was about $2,300. A nurse then made about $30 per week, which would reduce the Bennet's income a great deal -- at his salary. To get a better idea of how audiences would have found the plot unreal in 1952, consider those economics in 2024 dollars. Joe's salary would be $67,500 in 2024; and the average wage earner makes about $60,000. Who could afford more than $7,000 a month for a nurse for their baby? Or, even be able to find a live-in nurse for such a position today?
Movies of the 1950s to 1960s frequently showed the frenzied and humorous aspects of a man and wife when they have their first baby. With the mothers-to-be, it's often food and the odd, unusual, and funny cravings. Here, Hale's Betsey craves banana sandwiches. (I recall two cravings that my wife had when pregnant with two of our children. One was dill pickles, and another was peanut butter and cucumber sandwiches). As for the men, the most common scene in movies was hospital waiting rooms where they paced or fidgeted anxiously. Here, Cummings' Joe Bennet, has a frenzied night of rushing to get Betsey to the hospital.
The second problem with this film is Betsy Bennet's portrayal as a quite dumb woman for her time. What woman living then didn't know something about birthing, having a baby, babies' habits and raising one? They all came from families where women passed down their family learning and knowledge. Women didn't have to attend home-ec courses or learn homemaking skills in the school classrooms. Although, such classes were just around the corner for the Baby Boomer generation. So, depicting Betsy as following a nurse's exact schedule for the baby's eating, bathing, sleeping, etc., makes her out to be very naive. It would seem preposterous -- not funny, to a 1952 audience.
A third absurdity was a diaper service that the Bennet's had for a time. It's true that diaper services became popular during the war years when millions of women entered the production and manufacturing workforces. But they vastly reduced after the war. And, in the moderate sized towns and small cities of the 1950s, there just weren't such things as diaper services. In the years of raising my own family, from the mid-1960s to mid-1970s, we still used cloth diapers with diaper pails in the bathroom. Disposable diapers came on the market in 1961, but those were a luxury and unnecessary expense for most middle class families back then. Since then, of course, disposable diapers have replaced cloth diapers that were the standard for many decades.
I offer this background, especially for the younger audiences of modern times. While the film surely is dated, it has these significant faults that spelled its doom at the box office in 1952. Knowing this bit about the culture and society of that time, one can see how the preview audience reactions to the film could be cause for the studio to hold it back and be reluctant to release it -- it was filmed from April to June 4, 1951. And, then, when the studio did release it on January 31, 1952, why it flopped at the box office.
Seven Dials Mystery (1981)
Lots of scurrying and silly diversions, but still an okay mystery
"Seven Dials Mystery" is a London-made TV movie based on a 1929 Agatha Christie novel, with "The" in the front. Apparently, the book was not of the usual style and quality of Christie, and it wasn't as well received as were most of her works - by critics or by readers.
This isn't one of the Christie stories I read after discovering her mysteries in the 1960s, so I can't weigh in on the book, or say how well this film follows it. But, my guess is that there's much revision especially in adding the frivolity and comedy to the story to overcome its plot and style shortcomings. And, it seems to have some considerable plot changes as well, judging from reviews of the book. Christie surely had a sense of humor, and ever so nicely applied it in many of her mysteries. It's most noticeable in subtle nuances and quips in most of the many yarns of her suoer sleuths, Hercule Poirot and Miss Marple.
But here, the rambunctious, overly lively and snappy persona of the lead character is way overdone. Cheryl Campbell plays the part of "Bundle" Brent - Lady Eileen. At one point in the film, her grandfather, the Marquis of Caterhan, tells one of the young men that he'll find out, after the guy asks him why he calls her "Bundle." She is a bundle of activity to the point that her manner, silliness and zipping around draw much of the attention away from the mystery. So, rather than making up for any weaknesses there might be in Christie's story, that aspect compounds the confusion of the plot that darts from scene to scene with little coherence
Well, even with that and the disjointed segments, there is the intrigue with some puzzling aspects that still hold one's attention. Then, a cast that includes such staid British actors as Harry Andrews (Superintendent Battle) and John Gielgud as the Marquis has alure as well. And, after all, it still is Agatha Christie. And, I confess that my admiration for her marvelous mystery concoctions and story telling just won't let me rate a film based on her work less than a 7.
So, there you have it (must be my touch of Welsh ancestry).
Sound of Freedom (2023)
Superb exposé of the horrific underworld of sex trafficking
"Sound of Freedom" is an important film as an exposé of a horrific crime that is increasing around the world. And, of the social cultural diseases that underlie the widespread evil of human and sex trafficking. That these prey and thrive upon the very young is all the more horrifying and ugly. The film has short clips of children being snapped off the streets and kidnapped, as happens in some third world countries. But, it focuses more on the sweet-appearing and phony methods that the trafficking underworld employs to lure children and unsuspecting parents. Various fronts that tout opportunities for fame, fortune and fun in modeling, advertising, photography, films, TV, etc. Appeal to unsuspecting parents and young children. Then the criminals snatch the kids away and disappear.
The film is a true story about a former U. S. government agent who undertook special missions to recue hundreds of children from sex-traffickers and their clients. Such a film obviously can't be made in the real settings, and with the real people and same situations. The film focus centers on Ballard's efforts to find and rescue a brother and sister. While there are no graphics of sexual or other physical abuse, the inuendo and implications are there and quite clear. And, even that may prove too difficult for some people to sit through, as when I saw the film and some people left at points from part way to near halfway into the film. .
Jim Caviezel is superb in the role of Tim Ballard, and all of the cast give very good performances. The filming, scenes and all aspects of this production are superior. This clearly is not a movie to enjoy or for entertainment
While the entertainment industry exists primarily for that - entertainment, the branch of cinema also serves as a tool for education, information, and news in depth. Most of the latter uses of film are products of civic, public or charitable sources. But, occasionally, Hollywood itself ventures into this area. When it does, the movie industry provides something far beyond the realm of pleasure and enjoyment. It serves society by fostering the good and values of life and exposing the evils that threaten humanity, society, and civilization.
These films may not garner awards and praise from the entertainment industry, but they earn great respect among people of good will. And they are a great public service that prompt and aid government and citizen efforts to reign in crime, and stop evils that are counter to civilized society. "Sound of Freedom" is one such film and a great public service. It was a smash hit at the box office on its release in mid-2023.
Claudia (1943)
Very good comedy drama and family love story
"Claudia" is a very good story of family, love and newlyweds filled with light comedy and drama. It's also the first film made by Dorothy McGuire and a very good and unusual look at that superb actress. That's because, McGuire's persona in later films, for which she was most identified and remembered was as a more quiet, serene and dignified person. So, this early look at McGuire is quite a contrast. Yet, it clearly shows her acting talent. She was chosen for this film which reprises the role she played in the highly successful stage play of the same title, that ran 722 performances on Broadway in 1941 to 1943.
McGuire was 27 when this movie was made. Her "late" start in film, came after she had been on the stage. Her first role was at age 13 in an Omaha community playhouse. She then performed in high school and college, and wound up in summer stock at age 21. By 1937 she was acting on Broadway.
McGuire never won an Academy Award but was nominated for one, and later for three Emmy's for television. Of all the roles of the few actresses who received nominations in their debut films, McGuire was certainly deserving of an Oscar nomination here. But 1943 was like many another year during the golden age of Hollywood. So many very talented actresses were in as many great movies that made the competition exceptional that year. Jennifer Jones won the best actress Oscar for her role in "The Song of Bernadette;" over Ingrid Bergman in "For Whom the Bell Tolls." And three other great actresses nominated were Greer Garson, Jean Arthur and Joan Fontaine.
McGuire had many succeeding films with lead roles, most of which were highly successful films. While she did appear in a few TV series late in her career, she didn't have her own show or series. She made occasional movies in matronly or other dramatic roles, and she made TV movies as well. She also returned to the stage and helped Gregory Peck and some other actors form the La Jolla Playhouse.
Well, this is a fine movie about life, with McGuire's Claudia as a very young bride. She's almost immature, very energetic and almost childish in her enthusiasm at times. She is somewhat naïve, very close to her mother, and very much in love with her husband, played very well by Robert Young. This was McGuires first of three very successful pairings with Young. While he had a long career in cinema with many good films under his belt, Young will forever be remembered mostly as Marcus Welby, M. D., for that highly popular TV series that ran for eight years from 1969 through 1976.
Others of the cast of this film give very good performances. Ina Claire is Mrs. Brown, Claudia's mother. Reginald Gardiner is a playwright neighbor in the Naughton's rural Connecticut setting. And, Olga Baclanova, the Russian actress who defected from the Soviet Union in 1925, has a nice role, adding some comedic spice to the film.
One word of caution for those who might think of watching this film in a family setting. The younger audiences of the 21st century may find this film hard to sit through. It is heavy with talking and dialogue. So, younger folks (through middle age, no doubt) who thrive on lots of action and relentless motion in their viewing may quickly be bored.
Penny Points to Paradise (1951)
Silent film parody and old comical persona don't work in this film
"Penny Points to Paradise" is the first feature film to star the three members of the popular "The Goon Show" that aired on British radio from 1951 to 1960. But this is a comedy with a very thin plot that bounces all over the place, from parodies of silent films and vaudeville, to slapstick and antics. That latter was the style of Red Skelton, Laurel and Hardy, and the Marx Brothers. It may yet have appealed to some in 1951, but by the mid-20th century most of these types of comedy were fast becoming a thing of the past. And, aside from an interesting cast, this film has very little going for it in the 21st century.
The leads here all had talent, and all audiences will know Peter Sellers who went on to worldwide fame with a considerable number of great comedy films. The plot for this film is very skimpy and the screenplay is even worse. The movie starts off as a parody of silent films, with bouncy piano playing included. But that soon becomes annoying, and it repeats for two more scenarios in the film. Those include car scenes and chases reminiscent of the Keystone Kops.
No doubt Harry Secombe was very good as a comedian in his day, but most of his varied antics and changes in persona don't go over well many decades later. He very closely resembles Red Skelton at times. Sellers has two roles, but neither of those have any good comedy. Marks is somewhat funny just for his persona as the big guy shyster who's full of himself, but his accomplice, Digger, can do little more than spew what are supposed to be comical complaints.
While Harry Secombe and Peter Sellers had been in a few films before, this was the first film of Spike Milligan. Only four other members of this film cast had or would have much of a career in cinema. Alfred Marks is the shyster Edward Haynes; Bill Kerr is his accomplice, Digger Graves; Vicky Page is Sheila Gilroy; and Sam Kydd is the cross-eyed porter. Most of the rest of this cast have no other films to their credit, including hazel Jennings who plays the Landlady with a considerable part. Marks and Paddie O'Neill, who plays Christine Russell, would marry the next year, for life, and have two children. O'Neill likely gave up the cinema to be a homemaker, but she clearly shows the talent to have had an entertainment career.
The only thing that keeps this film from a complete bore is the scenario toward the end when most of the cast wind up fleeing and chasing in a wax museum. The frequent posing and costume changing to fit into various wax displays is amusing. Here are a couple of lines - the best of the humorous dialog in the script.
Landlady, "There's a lovely view of the sea from the window if you stand on a chair and lean well out"
Spike Donnelly, "Listen, big guy, you're a terrific man. You're a financial lizard." Edward Haynes, "Wizard, laddie, wizard."
The Meanest Man in the World (1943)
The barbs fly and provide much of the fun of this film
Jack Banney and Rochester (Eddie Anderson) really go to it in this comedy romance. The two toss barbs back and forth with ease that even outdid their frequent banter on Benny's radio show at the time. "The Meanest Man in Town" is a light comedy with a simple plot and not much of one. Benny's small-town lawyer can't make it as a lawyer at home, nor as an ambulance chaser in the Big Apple. The reason is because of his big heart. But, when circumstances happen that make him appear mean in the press, much changes.
And, from that point on, the film turns into screwball comedy. The ending is a real hoot. Edmund Gwenn has a small role, but it's one of the few in which he played the meany, or a villain or bad guy. But, because of the nature of this film, even Gwenn's nasty appearance is occasion for a chuckle.
Jack Benny was highly popular with his unique laid back humor, using long pauses with a sometimes dour and sometimes cynical persona. A Jack Benny program ran weekly on the radio from 1932 through 1948. Then he had a long-running TV series, "The Jack Benny Show," that ran from 1950 thru 1965. His movie making was sparse during the latter, but he had many appearances on other TV series and shows. Most of his two dozen films before that were box office hits.
And, from his first appearance in 1937, Eddie Anderson became a major part of Jack Benny's radio and then television shows. In the 1950s, Eddie was the highest paid African-American in radio and television. The two men were great entertainers, loved by audiences in the mid-20th century. They remained close friends until Benny's death in 1974.
The film may be far too slow for modern audiences, but those who like good old fun and comedy in films, should get a kick out of this movie.
Bride for Sale (1949)
An original, period comedy that's still very funny
"Bride for Sale" is a very good comedy of mistaken assumptions, preposterous match-making, and table turning. It eventually develops into a love triangle with very funny shenanigans along the way. And, it has a screwy but delightful ending. Claudette Colbert, Robert Young and George Brent are just right for their lead parts. And, a supporting cast of some familiar names and faces and some knockout characters (literally) lend much humor. A former heavyweight boxing champion of the world, Max Baer, is in the ring, not with gloves but as a wrestler. Gus Schilling and Charles Arnt have nice parts.
The film has an original plot and superb screenplay loaded with some very funny dialog. Brent is Paul Martin who owns a CPA firm that handles the taxes for several upper crust clients. After a former employee leaves to start his own business, Martin hires an Army major with many accolades for expertise, efficiency and superb work. He had no idea the major was a woman. Colbert's Nora Shelley had used her first initials to land the job. Martin doesn't think women belong in the business world, but he soon changes his tune. Shelley knows tax law, the rules and the business better than anyone. She gets his office in tip top shape and has clients lining up to see her.
But, Martin discovers that she has another plot of her own. She is out to find the perfect match for a mate. And she thinks she can do that by studying the tax records of Martin's wealthy clients. She says she will be able to find a man who is stable, can provide a nice home and be the perfect mate. Martin thinks its preposterous, and when an old schoolmate and pal, Steve Adams shows up, Martin enlists him in a ploy to dash Nora's theory. Shelley lived around the world, moving with her father who had been an oil wild-cater She has never had a real home for any period of time, and that's now her goal for the rest of her life. Adams is assistant curator of a large museum and an archaeologist. He has just returned from a major dig for a respite. He loves the field work and discoveries from digging in the dirt. Oh, yes, and Martin serves on the museum board of directors.
Well, it a fun film with some wacky scenes in places. One of the funniest is when Shelley interviews Adams. Just her technique of switching subjects and prying personal info out of him is hilarious. And, of course, he is already on to her as after talking with Martin ..
Steve Adams, "But I'm sure that this junior in your office here can handle it much better." Shelley, "Oh, no, Mr. Adams. Now that I've seen your tax picture more clearly, I think I'll handle you myself." Adams, "You do? Oh, but you're so busy, these corporations.." Shelley, "Oh, there's always room for one more."
Shelley, "You're not a married man, but perhaps you're planning on it?" Adams, "No. No plans. I, I'm quite content with my work, my books and music, and a night on the town now and then."
Shelly, "You must know some fascinating things about the ancient civilizations." Adams, "Some things I know fascinate me." Shelley, "I'm sure they would me too. I, I , uhm, trying to think of that famous head, uh, some queen. I saw it in Berlin. They're trying to get it back to Cairo." Adams, "Nefertiti." Shelley, "Oh, it's beautiful." Adams, "Yes, it is." Shelley, "So royal, so queeny. This is an irreversible trust, isn't it Mr. Adams?" Adams, "You mean uh? Yes, to me, and my family." Shelley, "Of which there is none." Adams, "That's right" Shelley, Oh, yours must be a wonderful life." Adams, "A little dull, perhaps."
Here are some more lines worth a laugh in this film.
Paul Martin, "Good morning, Gentry. Sorry I'm a little late." Gentry, "You're two days late. I bet you 5 to 1 that Miss Shelley would last three months. It's three months and four days, sir." Martin, "Fine. What price would you give me if she wouldn't last a year?" Gentry, "10 to 1." Martin, "I'll pay that too, in advance - and with pleasure."
Martin, "It's impossible to tell what any man is like from a set of figures. You can't add up a bunch of numbers and marry the total."
Shelley, "You don't seem to understand. I want a home. I've wanted one since was a child. I lived in 19 countries before I was 21 years old." Martin, "Restless, weren't you?" Shelley, "My father was. He was in the oil business - a wild-cater. After mother died, we went to Syria, then Egypt, China, Venezuela - living in tents in the desert, in jungles, in oil towns. Then after that, the war. Another cook's tour. More tents, barracks, Quonset huts. Believe me, Mr. Martin, I'll make a very good wife. I'd really appreciate a home and a husband." Martin, "But you're going about it the wrong way."
Martin, "No, she's a dish. Really, a dish. As a matter of fact, she just thinks she has an adding machine for a heart."
Sarah (Patsy Moran, uncredited), "I'd be a little suspicious about a guy that took me to a concert." Shelley, "Well, what's the matter with concerts?" Sarah, "Sound kinda cheap to me. Them concerts are loaded with free passes. Even piccolo players get stacks like that." She gestures a large stack in one hand. Shelley, "Sarah, I don't think he knows a piccolo player."
Sarah, "I like a man that makes a little investment in the date. If I'm gonna spend my time with him, he's gonna hafta spend a little somethin' too."
Adams, to his chauffeur, "Edward." Chauffeur, "Yes, sir?" Adams, "The Abdullanah Club." Chauffeur, "Very well, sir." Shelley, "The Abdullanah Club? I don't think I've ever heard of it." Adams, "Not many people have."
The Final Countdown (1980)
A good 'what if' sci-fi film set just before Pearl Harbor
"The Final Countdown" is a sci-fi and fantasy film with a plot that keeps one on the edge of her or his seat. The setting is military, mostly at the time of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor that propelled the U. S into World War II. But it starts as a modern (1980) naval exercise in the Pacific. The sci-fi happens when the Carrier Nimitz enters a vortex and is transported back in time.
The film has a superb cast of the day with Kirk Douglas, Martin Sheen, Katharine Ross, James Farentino and Charles Durning. All give very good performances.
History buffs may recall the post-war controversies about whether Pearl Harbor had been warned in advance of the Japanese attack. Or, if it should have been notified by the Pentagon. There were at least three different controversies. That led to various conjectures about how December 7, 1941 might have turned out quite different, and how the war would have been different.
Well, this sci-fi film fits such speculation to a T. How might things have turned out differently if a modern aircraft carrier had been transported back in time to intercept the Japanese fleet? I enjoy such fantasies myself, but don't give such speculation much credence for one simple reason. We have the history how it happened. And any amount of what-ifs or maybes are little more than fluff that is soon forgotten.
Military folks, and those who enjoy war films especially should find this film entertaining. It was just a mild success in 1980, after WW II films had had a long run from the mid-1940s through the 1970s. Cold War films had been capturing the imagination and interest of Hollywood since the 1960s.
The Company (2003)
Very good look at ballet from the inside, and fine dancing
Those who enjoy live theater and ballet should be interested in "The Company." And others who perhaps never had a chance to see ballet, but enjoy all types of stage and film entertainment, should also enjoy this film. It is indeed, a very good look at life and lives within ballet. The film has scenes of training and the rigors of the art. The story covers an array of characters. The acting overall is good. But, if for no other reason, this film is worth watching just for the scenes of ballet.
The setting is within the Joffrey Ballet of Chicago. It's a young company, in the ballet field, having begun in 1956 in New York. The first half dozen members then went on the road and settled in and worked out of Los Angeles for a time. Then it was back to New York for a few more years, and finally to Chicago in 1995.
Only a few movies have been made about ballet, and all have been successful. That may be in part because so many people don't live in the larger cities where ballet is available. And, unless one is an aficionado and can travel to New York, Los Angeles Chicago or other places to see ballet, there just aren't many chances otherwise to enjoy it.
When living in the Washington, D. C. area in the late 1970s, my wife and I saw Mikhail Baryshnikov perform at the Kennedy Center. The Latvian-born Baryshnikov defected from the Soviet Union in 1974 while performing abroad. He was a dynamic danseur who has done much creative work and become a renowned choreographer and director.
I have seen some other ballet shows on broadcasts and on film. Those who enjoy ballet or are interested may like some of the other good ballet films of the past. "Billy Elliot" of 2000 is the story of a young English boy who loves dance and becomes a ballet star. "Center Stage" of the same year is about a group of teens who train at the American Ballet Academy in New York "The Turning Point" of 1977 is a drama and part bio story about two women from ballet who took different paths in life, and Baryshnikov has a fine role with some brilliant dancing. "The Red Shoes" of 1948 was a ballet film set in Paris, and "The Black Swan" of 2010 is a mystery and fright film centered around ballet.
Brewster McCloud (1970)
This one is strictly "for the birds"
This movie is strictly "for the birds," as the idiom implies. Come to think of it, that would have been a spot-on title for it, rather than "Brewster McCloud." It's billed as a dark comedy, comedy, crime and fantasy, but one word would suffice and be more accurate - weird. The only thing I could see that was comical, was the bird droppings at various times. Even though that had dark overtones because the recipients of the gifts from the sky then turned up dead. Perhaps a more comical title and a little rewriting of the script could have turned it into a real comedy. How about something like "The Deadly Bird Poop?"
And, the film reminded me of a situation that would have fit a real comedy plot to a T. I spent many summer days along the Oregon coast over a couple of decades when a group of us would get ice cream cones and stroll on or near the beach. The challenge was always to get our cones eaten before a seagull added a topping to them. Seriously, we had that happen one time to a friend, and for years thereafter it was a matter of humor among an ever-widening group of summer beach strollers.
Well, back to this film. I don't even recall ever having heard of it in 1970. Probably because it was a flop at the box office with a mere $3.9 million in ticket sales. That was even though it didn't need too much in sales because it didn't have any well-known actors of the day who would command large salaries. John Schuck, Stacy Keach and Wiliam Windom would later become well known, mostly through TV series.
Director Robert Altman used several of the same cast for this box office flop as he did for his highly successful M*A*S*H of the same year. That film finished third in box office gross for 1970 at $82.9 million. In it, Sally Kellerman played Major Hot Lips O'Houlihan, Rene Auberjonois was Father John Mulcahy, and Schuck played Capt. Painless Waldowski.
For anyone interested in a real mystery flick about birds, nothing beats Alfred Hitchcock's "The Birds" of 1963. And, for comedy, "Something for the Birds" of 1952 is quite good.
Bitter Sweet (1940)
The film lives up to its title
Any film with Jeanette MacDonald and Nelson Eddy can't be bad. But that's about as good as can be said for this one. "Bitter Sweet" is the second last of eight pairings Hollywood made of the couple. And the film is bitter sweet, in more ways than one. Other reviewers delve into the controversy involving Noel Coward over the Hollywood treatment of his play here. So, I'll stick to the film as its presented here.
Of course it has a bitter sweet ending. But throughout the film, the music itself seems so bitter sweet. There are no memorable tunes and much of Nelson's singing here seems almost bland. Together with that is his seeming dour persona for much of the film There's no bouncy, lively, energetic Eddy that was in his other films. He seemed to always have some dreary thought on his mind. Perhaps it was intended that he play it that way, sort of fitting the story, but I think it backfires. I think this must be about the least of the films that the otherwise lovely couple made together.