Change Your Image
Dire_Straits
Reviews
Raw Deal (1948)
Anthony Mann's barrage of noir elements makes it near-perfect
Tremendous film from director Anthony Mann is a tour de force in the noir department, bringing in a whole barrage of nifty visual cinematic treats and noir elements like: prison escape, jealousy, kidnapping, bitter darkness, criminals on the lam, fistfights, gunfights, revenge, a cold femme fatale and a fire-happy, sadistic crime boss.
Mann's direction is the star, but Dennis O'Keefe, Marsha Hunt, Claire Trevor and Raymond Burr give excellent, realistic performances as the prison escapee, a kidnapped female lawyer, faithful femme-fatale and crime boss, respectively.
Favorite scenes:
* Trevor surprised by a speeding train as she waits for her boyfriend to escape from prison and get into the getaway car
* The hellacious fight between Joe and Rick's thugs (at the supposed meeting place with Rick)
* Bad-ass, agitated boss Rick throwing his blazing dessert on some chick who spills a drink on him!
If you like film noir, this is a must-see, one-of-the-best, don't-missers.
Champion (1949)
Mark Robson's greatest film, too
CHAMPION is an excellent film about win-at-all-costs ambition (in this case, the ambition belongs to Kirk Douglas).
Mark Robson does his finest work as director here. The cinematography is also very well done.
The ambition storyline is as strong as the 'greed' storyline in THE TREASURE OF THE SIERRE MADRE. Douglas does a wonderful job of conveying the part of Midge, who gets chummy with everyone he comes across - then systematically steps on them to climb to the top of the boxing game.
I like the way Robson portrays Midge with a monstrous, beaten-up face near the film's end - the last time he shows us Midge in direct lighting.
The boxing scenes in this film are much inferior to another film noir of the same year (1949), Robert Wise's THE SET-UP.
It must also be said that THE SET-UP is a finer film in all aspects to CHAMPION.
The House on 92nd Street (1945)
Nazi fifth column docu-drama
This FBI docu-drama propaganda film (much like the films, "The Street With No Name" and "T-Men") is barely noir, but it's a real attention-grabber because it is done in such a gripping, realistic manner.
Made not too long after WWII, you can still feel the dark paranoia of the Nazi fifth columnists - this itself makes it noir. Crime, as we now know it, is barely existent in the film. The crimes being committed here are of the subversive pro-Goebbels variety, at that time - alive and well in New York City.
The film is ridden with outdated FBI methods (two-way mirrors, microfilm, etc.); so keep that in mind, and the very end is pretty ridiculous too, but try and play along.
Not a bad performance in the film but no stand-outs either. Definitely worth watching as both a period piece and a sell-out to J. Edgar Hoover (who is hunting something other than Commies for once).
Thus were the times.
Chappelle's Show (2003)
This show will be in your grandkids' history books!
Dave's "Chappelle's Show", will go down in the books as the TV show that changed the way we looked at life and TV.
Chappelle, was almost always -not just funny- but brilliantly hilarious. His show looked at the humor in *everything* and was as taboo and bizarre as it could be (Dave beats a kid with cancer in a Playstation basketball game and rubs it in his face... Dave plays a crack-addict on 'Fear Factor' that destroys the competition...etc.) And my friends, that was just the tip of the iceberg. He made fun of just about every race and he did it so brilliantly that you just had to laugh.
He used all kinds of rap lyrics and his own unique street talk - even white, middle America began using his/the lingo at work and meetings ("I'm Rick James, B@&$%*!" among many other things I dare not print here.)
Dave's not a racist, he's simply a social commentator. And a fine comedian; a brilliant mind let loose - like Groucho Marx or Robin Williams.
His show should always be remembered as the most-brilliant TV ever to the point that it sadly ended.
The Awful Truth (1999)
Republican WASP wants more Moore
Big-time Republican here. My friends all hate Moore. I like him.
THE AWFUL TRUTH, while not a consistently funny show, does have lots of laughs. I admire Moore for his ballsy approach to people. You see plenty of it in this series.
He makes his points (usually) and even though I don't agree with 90% of his tripe, I like the show.
My favorite show was when he put a Fica plant in an election. That's typical of something Moore would do; his sarcasm is over-the-top and it usually works well. Sometimes, there is way too much of it - but I'll take the bad with the good.
I'd like to watch another series like this by Moore. I hope he does another one day.
The World at War (1973)
So good, you'll want to watch it over and over and over!
War is hell. But this documentary of WWII is heaven.
Not only is this series a breath-taking, almost-exhaustive look at the Second World War, it's a poetic masterpiece told clearly and superbly by Laurence Olivier.
This documentary series defines the genre. It's sweepingly long, no doubt, but you will enjoy all of them and want to come back for more and more. (I have the series on DVD and I probably watch the series three times a year).
Truly, this is an impeccable bit of film-making. Other than Olivier, the best part of the series is listening to the veterans tell their stories; whether it be about an actual battle or about finding a hog to butcher so they could have something delicious for supper.
I'm going to go watch it right now (again, my... 11th time).
Born to Kill (1947)
Should have been titled, 'Born to be Boring'
The first two or three scenes in this film are brilliant and exciting. The brilliance and excitement quickly ends there.
It's hard to imagine that Robert Wise would direct a film that ended up being so 'ordinary'. This film is filled with unbelievable situations and below-par performances. Wise's cast is plagued with a wooden script (and *no one* in this world is more boring in this weighed-down junk than Lawrence Tierney - except for the first couple of scenes).
The supporting actors and actresses in this film are unbelievable and wordy. An exception is Esther Howard, who does a very fine job as the lonely and boozed-up landlady. But Audrey Long, Phillip Terry and the ever-diminutive Elisha Cook Jr. give perhaps their worst performances on celluloid as characters with over-zealous vocabularies. Long is especially unbelievable.
The lead, film-noir stalwart Claire Trevor, does well with her part and gets mega-points for being a lot less boring than those around her. The same goes for Walter Slezak, who looks comfortable as the over-fed private gumshoe.
If you enjoy film noir, you'll really enjoy the first 10-15 minutes. Otherwise, avoid this film unless you like getting bored-to-death by Tierney. He's born to be boring in this film.
I've seen a lot of film noir in my lifetime; this is perhaps the worst. If not for the first couple of scenes, I'd give this film 2/10. Those first few scenes pack a wallop though and are easily worth a couple of stars by themselves.
Black Angel (1946)
Typical noir plot - but decent film
The plot in THE BLACK ANGEL is pretty typical of the noir film period in the 1940's. However, the film is better than average, thanks to a pretty good performance by Dan Duryea.
He's an alcoholic musician here, instead of being his normal 'tough guy'. He does a fine job, but not great.
The film has an excellent noir nightmare/dream scene in it (again, typical for the noir of that period). For that alone it is worth watching the movie, especially if you are a fan of noir.
The film was put together by Roy William Neill, who directed many of the Sherlock Holmes films. BLACK ANGEL would be his last directorial effort. It is based on a novel by Cornell Woolrich, who wrote a lot of noir-ish screenplays before this and went on to become a excellent writer for television dramas later.
Nothing really special all the way around, but it's held together nicely by the likes of Peter Lorre, who plays a somewhat-decent club owner instead of the usual bad guy, and other somewhat-less-known character actors of the 1940's.
Killer's Kiss (1955)
Film has problems, but...
This film has a *lot* bad things about it. They are pretty obvious when you see the picture. That's why I only gave it a '6'.
However, instead of focusing on the many bad points, let me point out some very nice things about it: It looks realistic. The streets of New York are alive. The alleys and the interiors are authentic and give you a sense of actually being there. The story (written by Kubrick) is believable.
The last 15 minutes of the film is a real nail-biter. While the final action scenes are certainly choreographed, I never felt as though I was watching Kubrick's second film. Even then, he knew what he was doing, he just made a lot of mistakes (needless to say, he got better).
I was going to avoid negativity but I am compelled to say the sound department for this feature did a horrible, sloppy job; that alone takes 3 stars away from my rating.
But worth watching for the last couple of scenes, which are amongst the best (or at the least, most memorable) film-noir scenes in history, in my book.
Lolita (1962)
Not erotica; blackest of all humors, though
I have seen Kubrick's Lolita about 6 times. I find the film fascinating. Not just for the dozens of innuendos and double entente's, but for the mere fact that Humbert cannot stop his fascination (love, probably) of Lolita and it continuously leads to trouble.
There's really nothing hysterical about the film at all. As a matter of fact, it's a disturbing film if taken literally.
However, Kubrick never makes you go down the disturbing path, rather, he tries to lead you down the path of black humor the whole way.
Nothing stands out in my mind that I would call 'funny', rather simply, every situation he is in IS funny, because he's helpless to his erotic desires. He's helpless to Lolita.
If you watch this film the right way, you won't find a funnier movie, period.
The end of the film slips a lot - it slows and mutters - but that aside, a must-see.
The Street with No Name (1948)
Excellent crime docu-drama
This FBI -vs- the gangsters film seems a bit stiff and hokey in the first 15 minutes, then takes off when Alec Stiles (Richard Widmark) shows up. When he's on screen, the movie bolts forward, leaving it's 1950's school-film documentary approach, into a seedy world where crime is the panorama.
Widmark's performance is really the only noteworthy one in the film. His presence, while not overwhelming, is still bodacious. He's neither chilling nor very menacing (even though he's mean as hell to his non-femme fatale girlfriend); yet there's something charismatic about him that makes you want to watch his unique screen presence here.
The last 45 minutes of the film is truly excellent entertainment and the final 10 minutes or so is a wet, dark, dripping noir.
I'd give it 10 stars if not for the first few scenes that don't involve Widmark.
Victory at Sea (1952)
Would love this but...
I have the series on DVD.
Everything about it is wonderful - except the music.
I know, I know, the music is supposed to be the best part, but I hated the music. To me, the music by Rogers just gets on my nerves. There's far too much of it.
Just when you are getting into a show, here comes these patriotic horns. I'm not a brass man anyway. The music seems to really stand out. Maybe it was mixed too loud.
As a matter of fact, the whole series is loud! But there's a lot of guns going off and Japanese planes crashing...and HORNS.
The added (DVD) introductions by Peter Graves are excellent.
Kung Fu: The Way of the Tiger, the Sign of the Dragon. (1972)
Probably the best TV movie ever
This TV movie, which played as a pilot for the series, Kung Fu, is the best TV movie I've ever seen. "Brian's Song" would be a close second.
The movie - and the series - is as innovative (using flashbacks, slow-motion, focusing fade-ins, and a lot of Eastern quotes that make a great deal of sense) as any you will find.
And this was a Western! There was nothing like it before and there's been nothing like it since. KUNG FU is one of a kind.
The TV series was excellent as well. The various directors all used the same interesting techniques as the pilot film to achieve almost a dream-like effect of the West during the early part of the 20th century.
The Petrified Forest (1936)
Perhaps Leslie Howard's finest work
I'm not a big fan of Leslie Howard but THE PETRIFIED FOREST is his best film, in my book.
He was great in THE 49th PARALLEL and OF HUMAN BONDAGE, and he's great here too. In this film, he is a lazy writer gone awry, trying to live out his dreams in Bette Davis' character (who is a painter).
In a way, he's totally opposite of Humphrey Bogart's Duke Mantee character, and the dichotomy really is the justification of 'classic' given to this film.
Bogart's and Davis' performances are just average in this film - although at the time of the release, this was Bogart's best film.
I think the old man - Charley Grapewin - and Genevieve Tobin (as Mrs. Chisholm) do a great job with their small parts. Tobin is also a very attractive lady!
I enjoyed the banter between the two drivers as well, both African-Americans cast in a "white" movie at WB in '36. It's a shame they weren't given larger roles.
Talky and melodramatic - and certainly unbelievable (the middle-of-nowhere desert gas station is almost always FULL of people, for starters), this stagy, yet classic film is not for everyone. Your kids will hate this film. But to me - this is good stuff.
This **is** prototypical 1930's cinema.
Street Scene (1931)
King Vidor's time machine to 1930, NYC
This wasn't King Vidor's best 1930 film (he would also direct THE CHAMP that same year) but STREET SCENE is a look at a community full of different ethnic characters in an apartment building. The character-development is deep; Vidor uses different angles very well and perhaps most-perplexing is the fact that Vidor never lets us leave the street and maybe once or twice do we ever leave the apartment front. It's a play, basically, but it's a play that will take you back to more innocent times - yet the innocent times have their flaws as well.
Not everyone will like this film; yet those who choose to view it will be rewarded in some way. Perhaps only to 'visit' a side street in NYC in 1930, because Vidor allows us to do just that.
Armored Car Robbery (1950)
Taut and punchy Fleischer B-noir
Richard Fleischer could get more out of a small budget than any director could in the 1950's. His string of 50's 'B' films-noir are legendary to any film noir fanatic.
This film is short and quick-paced. You'll have to watch and not blink or the movie's gone.
Do yourself a favor and grab some cigarettes and a beer and sit down and catch this one the next time it's on; it's an extremely brisk, tight and taut thriller.
There are no holes. Charles McGraw - who looks amazingly like Dick Tracy would if Dick were a real guy, is tough and solid as usual. I would have hated to meet McGraw in an alley back in the day!
I can't wait for the DVD...
His Kind of Woman (1951)
Vincent Price is too much!
There are a lot of good things to say about this film. But perhaps the best thing there is in this picture is Vincent Price. He is totally over the top - way hammy, but in a good way. Imagine Price at his hammiest and you know then what kind of a performance he does here - but it's all good! Mitchum and Russell are the same as always (Russell is always underrated IMO) but it's Price who makes this movie fun.
If Price wasn't in the film, this would would be a very dark film - which would have been fine to play it straight noir...Price changes the face of the movie like he does in LAURA. Price was quite an actor - in his own way.
Vertigo (1958)
_almost_ a waste of 2 hours 9 minutes...
I watched Vertigo for only the 2nd time yesterday (the first time being some 15 years ago). I had forgotten most of the plot, so I was hoping to be surprised.
I was surprised. This movie, although it's VERY NICE to look at with it's vibrant colors and lovely San Francisco scenery, is simply a boring film.
There's a lot of unnecessary footage in the film; this movie could have been cut by 20-25 minutes and it would have been a better film.
I LOVE most of Hitchcock's stuff; this really doesn't seem to resemble anything I know of Hitchcock, save Jimmy Stewart (who acts like Jimmy Stewart on Grateful Dead Mushrooms). Stewart acts rather strangely...I don't like his character at all. If he was any kind of actor at all - he would have been scary (perhaps). Instead, he comes off looking deranged...and not because he has vertigo. Novak comes off as stupid - watch the movie and you'll see what I am talking about.
I'm not really sure at what Hitchcock was trying to do in this picture...the animation and dream scenes DO NOT HOLD UP AT ALL. As a matter of fact, they seem juvenile.
A rather convoluted story doesn't help, but this picture wasn't bad - just very tedious and a lot of pointless, wasted time during the first hour of the film. Plus Hitchcock uses a lot of McGuffin's and he stretches them -at times- beyond what he should. Maybe it was all a joke. I'm not alone in this - many professional reviewers have said the same thing.
The best job of acting in the film is done by Barbara Bel Geddes and sadly, that's not saying much (although she is very pretty in 1958 - she's more alluring to me than Kim Novak).
The Thing from Another World (1951)
The day the north pole didn't stand still
This movie is fine - it's not a great film - it's not even remotely scary. But I'm sure it was - in 1951 - and it still holds up well. The actors take the movie quite seriously. That's what makes an early sci-fi like this work so well. But there are no stand-out performances.
After the first 10 or minutes, it's a pretty brisk film - and you never know who will "come in from the cold" (excuse the cold-war pun) when the door slams open.
I like the Tiomkin score of this film. There's really not much to it, just really 6 notes - but they are very memorable. There is really very little incidental music - and when he does have some, it's that same 6 notes.
I think it's important to point out that THE THING is 180 degrees different than another picture put out the same year, THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL.
THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL takes a positive view of the aliens and portrays the aliens as those who want to help our world. On the other hand, THE THING portrays the aliens in a dark light; inhuman, no feelings, brutal to humans and animals - just some kind of horrible plant-being that enjoys blood.
The lead scientist (Cornthwaite) can get absolutely no sympathy from anyone in the film - until the VERY end of the movie, by the civilian reporter. Seems to me, the Air Force hates the guy.
The message herein is so much different than THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL. Still, I didn't have any pity for the lead scientist. I was kind of glad when The Thing pops him...
Hell Drivers (1957)
Stout, taut, dark, star-studded neo-noir
I've seen this film twice. I'd like to see it again.
The look of the film-quality is that of many other British films around the same time period. It's dark and grainy (think "Frankenstein"). It makes for pleasant viewing, because of the tenseness provided the whole way.
The story is convoluted (and as someone else mentioned, where are the police?) and the film is sped up sometimes when they are driving, but you won't care - as the film is tense and there is a lot of action prevailing.
The film is loaded with stars-to-be. Sean Connery and Patrick McGoohan just to name two. Come on, you HAVE to watch this!
It seems the film is available in Region 2 on DVD, but it's not available in the US. Well it will be someday I hope.
The Woman on Pier 13 (1949)
Yes, =L O T S= of propaganda but a haven for Film Noir lovers...
Caution: there is a sickening amount of propaganda in this film.
Another caution: this a below-average time filler.
However, if you love film noir like I do, then this film is a must-see.
There is some good lighting in the exterior shots and no matter how average a film is (this is about a 6 on a 1-10 scale); if Robert Ryan and Laraine Day are in it, it's going to scream "noir". And Ryan does a good job here, but has a bad script to work with. The subject of the film is way out of date; yet, it's still an intriguing time machine.
As I recall, this film is very short (maybe 62-67 minutes long?) and thus, isn't listed in most film guides. I had no idea what I was getting into when I watched it the first time. Don't miss it if you like film noir/crime types.
Pee-wee's Big Adventure (1985)
Creative, silly, Saturday morning-type film
I can understand why a lot people who write comments at IMDb hate this - they aren't children at heart.
Being the child-at-heart that I am, I thought the film was quite good. I've probably seen it 3 or 4 times and I enjoy it every time.
It's not just Pee-Wee that holds this film together - it's Tim Burton's creative, colorful direction.
Notice how much color is in this film? The colors remind me of the TV series, "The Prisoner", only for a different reason. The colors seem to represent Pee Wee's incredible energy, especially early on; the colors seem to diminish as the film progresses. I might be making too much of it.
Anyway, if you like Pee Wee, you'll love this movie and I'm sure you have already seen it. Those who hate Pee Wee aren't going to watch it anyway...
I gave it 7 stars...
I bambini ci guardano (1943)
I cried and I'm a big fat guy
Luckily, this movie came on Turner Classic Movies a few years ago and I had the opportunity to see it.
Since then, I have searched for reviews and couldn't find one; it's nice to see that other people have seen this de Sica masterpiece. ;) I was beginning to wonder if I was the only American to see this.
If you have seen it, how can you not love this? As I said, I saw this a few years ago - and only saw it once - yet, there are so many images in my head as I think of the film. The story is heart-wrenching. I cried when I watched it. {blushing}
This film made me a fan of neo-realism. It also was the impetus for me to watch more of de Sica's films and then those of Rossellini and Fellini.
A terrific 'tear-jerker' which SHOULD NOT BE MISSED if you ever get the chance. You'll have missed something very special if you miss it!
The Narrow Margin (1952)
Perhaps the best B movie of all time?
I'm a huge Charles McGraw fan. Every film he had a large part in, he excels and makes the film better.
Having seen this film 4 or 5 times, my respect for it has grown over the years.
The cinematography isn't perfect - the film probably could have benefited by staying dark and grainy as it seems to be in the early, night scenes.
The taut train scenes seem too bright, but there's nothing wrong with it, simply my preference. A darker train would have made for a more sinister film. Even so, there's plenty of excitement.
The crackling dialogue between Charles McGraw and Marie Windsor is consistently sharp. Seriously, you will have a hard time finding anything more bitter than those two. I'm not sure any other male-female could have made the dialogue (which in a 1950's way is almost corny) come off so terse, as they continuously bark at each other. Someone needs to count the number of times McGraw tells Windsor to "Shut up!".
The film has some exciting twists and turns; you'll enjoy each one.
Great story, solid performances all the way around. This is a FUN movie.
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
Beautiful film - great plot but...WTF?
I had heard about 2001 practically my whole life of 33 years before I actually got to see it. The anticipation for this film was fantastic on my part. I simply could not wait to see what Kubrick had cooked up; my brother - the family sci-fi expert - wouldn't part with any details.
So I sat down and watched this movie in complete silence and isolation - wanting not to be bothered and to focus completely on the film and every aspect of the "Kubrick Masterpiece".
Half-way through the film, I was thinking to myself, "This is one really great movie!" I could sense Hal going nutty by this time and got chill bumps...oooh what would come next? Three-fourths through the film, I'm sitting there with a ruffled brow and a scrunchy nose, wondering if this is Kubrick directing or Fellini.
When the film was over, I was MAD. So mad that I said I'd never watch the movie again. What kind of ending is that? The feeling I had is the feeling you get when you invest time and money in a girl that you have deep affections for and instead of returning those affections, in one way or another, she simply tells you that she loves you like a brother. I was hurt by the ending, literally. How in the name of all that is classic cinema can this movie end the way it did? I'll never understand why. And I will never understand the meaning of it - ever. It's simply not fair to end what truly is a beautiful - and to some extent - great movie this way.
Whatever the meaning is at the end - and I tend to agree with some that it has something to do with the whole evolution cycle of ape to man to computer to - "whatever it was in the green room that supposed to represent whatever"...agrgh! Just reliving the ending - which I have not seen in some 7 years still makes me very angry.
It is such a beautiful film, though. One should see it. It will always be remembered. And I fear, most will be confused and angry afterwards.