Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘MGM’

A Rather Convoluted Lack Of Justice

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 10, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“David Copperfield”  (1935) — movie review
[Apologies (in advance) to any post readers who may find this review excessively long / detailed.  Although, the movie itself isn’t unusually long, the multiple story lines are each important to the plot and therefore make an adequate review long and convoluted, too.  Because I’ve never read the novel, this review had to be “supplemented” by reading other reviews – and particularly Wikipedia (for novel and film).  I did try to “incorporate” and not plagiarize.  LoL.  I’ll try to get back to shorter and more reader friendly reviews going forward.]
Today’s second review is for the classic film adaptation “David Copperfield”, directed by George Cukor and starring Freddie Bartholomew as young David, gentle, observant, and trying to survive a childhood full of loss and cruelty;  Frank Lawton as the adult David, earnest and hopeful as he tries to build a life of his own;  W. C. Fields as Mr. Micawber, the eternally optimistic debtor whose charm somehow outweighs his irresponsibility;  Edna May Oliver as Aunt Betsey Trotwood, sharp‑tongued, fiercely protective, and the first adult to truly stand up for David;  Basil Rathbone as Mr. Murdstone, the cold, domineering stepfather who tries to crush David’s spirit in his early years;  Maureen O’Sullivan as Dora, the sweet but fragile young woman David marries;  Madge Evans as Agnes Wickfield, David’s steady childhood friend and moral compass who quietly becomes the real partner of his adult life;  and Roland Young as Uriah Heep, the oily, “’umble” clerk whose false modesty hides a calculating ambition.  The film follows David from childhood hardship to adult self‑discovery, weaving together Charles Dickens’ humor, heartbreak, and social criticism.
Background:  This is my first viewing of this film.  I’ve never read the Dickens’ source novel nor seen any of the other versions.  This film was a major production for its time and it received three Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture, Best Film Editing, and Best Assistant Director. It’s historically significant as one of the earliest large‑scale Dickens adaptations that tried to capture both the sweep of the novel and the emotional beats of the characters.  It’s also remembered for W. C. Fields’ performance as Micawber, which many critics still consider one of the best Dickens character portrayals ever put on screen.  The film came out during the Great Depression, and audiences responded strongly to its themes of perseverance, kindness, and the hope that life can get better if you keep going.
Plot:  The story begins with David’s birth and early childhood, where he lives happily with his widowed mother until she marries Mr. Murdstone.  Murdstone and his equally harsh sister quickly take over the household, imposing strict discipline and emotional cruelty.  [Side note:  in old England, a widow retained use of real property after a husband’s death, but she didn’t “own” it.  If she remarried, the “ownership” of the property passed to the new husband.  In this case, to the cruel and abusive Mr. Murdstone and not to the bloodline heir:  David.]  After David fights back, he’s sent away to a boarding school and later to work in a London bottling factory — a grim, lonely existence.  Eventually he runs away to find his Aunt Betsey Trotwood, who takes him in and gives him a real home.  From there, the film follows David into adulthood:  his friendships with the ever‑optimistic Mr. Micawber and the loyal Traddles;  his deepening bond with Agnes Wickfield, who quietly supports him through setbacks and bad choices;  his infatuation and marriage to Dora, which turns out to be more fragile than he wants to admit;  his growing awareness of Uriah Heep’s scheming;  and his eventual discovery of love, purpose, and stability.  The story builds toward the exposure of Heep’s fraud, the collapse of several illusions in David’s life, and his gradual realization of who he is and what (and who) he truly wants.  It’s a long journey (both funny and sad), but always grounded in the idea that character is shaped by hardship and the people who help you through it.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  very good;  classic MGM craftsmanship;  a few;  yes.
Any good?  Yes.  “David Copperfield” is a strong adaptation without the novel’s length.  The pacing is steady, the emotional beats land, and the film balances humor and hardship in a way that feels more honest than sentimental.  It’s not perfect — some sections feel rushed, others linger — but overall it’s a well‑crafted, engaging film that still works almost ninety years later.  The story’s themes of resilience, kindness, and personal growth come through clearly.
Acting:  Freddie Bartholomew is excellent as young David — expressive, vulnerable, and believable in every scene.  Frank Lawton, as the adult David, is solid if a bit understated, but he carries the later sections well enough.  W. C. Fields is the standout:  his Micawber is warm, funny, and surprisingly restrained (for Fields), and he steals every scene he’s in.  Edna May Oliver is terrific as Aunt Betsey — sharp, commanding, and unexpectedly tender.  Basil Rathbone makes Murdstone genuinely intimidating, and Roland Young gives Uriah Heep the perfect mix of false humility and quiet menace.  Maureen O’Sullivan’s Dora is sweet and appealing, which makes her limitations feel sad rather than annoying.  Madge Evans brings a calm, steady presence to Agnes, and even though the film doesn’t give her much time.  You still feel why she is the person David should have been leaning on all along.  The supporting cast is large, but most of them make their characters feel distinct and memorable.
Filming / FX:  This is classic 1930s MGM — polished sets, careful lighting, and a sense of scale that makes the world feel full and realistic.  The black‑and‑white cinematography is clean and expressive, especially in the darker childhood scenes.  The London sequences look convincingly grimy, and Aunt Betsey’s home feels warm and safe by contrast.  There are no special effects to speak of, but the production design does most of the heavy lifting.  The crowd scenes, the courtroom, and the various interiors all feel like part of a coherent world.  The editing is smooth, and the film has that “studio prestige” look that MGM specialized in during the era.
Problems:  A few.  The film compresses a very long novel, so some characters and subplots feel rushed or simplified.  The transitions between childhood and adulthood are abrupt. Dora’s story line, in particular, feels underdeveloped — she’s sweet, but the emotional impact of her arc is muted compared to the book.  Agnes, while present and important, could have used more screen time to fully sell the shift from “friend” to “true partner” for viewers who don’t know the novel (like me – LoL).  The tone occasionally swings too quickly between humor and tragedy.  And, like many adaptations of its time, the film softens some of Dickens’ harsher social criticism.  None of these issues ruin the movie, but they keep it from being a fully complete version of the novel.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes.  It’s warm, engaging, and surprisingly moving.  The performances (especially Fields, Oliver, and the two Davids) give the story real heart, and the film’s mix of humor and hardship feels true to Dickens.  I appreciated the craftsmanship, the pacing, and the way the film captures the idea that life is shaped by the people who help you along the way.  The Micawber scenes are genuinely fun, and the quieter moments with Agnes and Aunt Betsey give the film emotional weight.  It’s not a movie I’d watch every year, but it’s one I’m glad I’ve finally seen.
Final Recommendation:  Strong recommendation.  “David Copperfield” is a well‑acted, historically significant adaptation of one of Dickens’ greatest novels.  Its Best Picture nomination makes sense, and its influence on later Dickens films is clear.  If you enjoy classic Hollywood, literary adaptations, or stories about resilience and personal growth, this one is well worth your time.  It’s not perfect, but it’s heartfelt, memorable, crafted with care, and it does a respectable job of bringing David, Dora, Agnes, and the rest of Dickens’ world to the screen.
.
Click here (10 June) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

A Whole Lotta Shakin’ Goin’ On

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 17, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“San Francisco” (1936) — movie review
Today’s review is for the musical-drama / romance / disaster film “San Francisco”, directed by W.S. Van Dyke and starring Clark Gable as Blackie Norton, a brash saloon owner trying to climb the social ladder in pre-quake San Francisco;  Jeanette MacDonald plays Mary Blake, the classically trained singer whose voice (and conscience) complicate Blackie’s ambitions;  Spencer Tracy is Father Tim Mullin, Blackie’s childhood friend and moral counterweight;  and Jack Holt plays Jack Burley, the wealthy rival who wants Mary for his own world.  The film follows Blackie and Mary through nightclub politics, class tensions, and the eventual 1906 earthquake that literally shakes everything apart.
Background:  I’ve seen clips of this film over the years — mostly the earthquake sequence — and I have seen the whole thing, but that was as a child on TV.  This was my first viewing in well over fifty years.  LoL.  Released in 1936, “San Francisco” was a major MGM production and one of the studio’s biggest hits of the decade.  It earned six Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Actor for Spencer Tracy (his first nomination), and it won the Oscar for Best Sound Recording.  Historically, the movie is remembered for two things:  the spectacular earthquake sequence (a landmark in 1930s effects work) and the title song, which became one of the city’s unofficial anthems.  (The other is, of course, Tony Bennett’s “I Left My Heart In San Francisco“.)  It’s also one of the early examples of MGM blending melodrama, music, and spectacle into a single package.
Plot:  The story begins on the Barbary Coast, where Blackie Norton runs the Paradise Club — loud, profitable, and just respectable enough to keep the police at bay.  Mary Blake, newly arrived in the city and trained for opera, auditions for Blackie and surprises him with her voice.  He hires her, partly for talent and partly because he sees a chance to class up his act.  Mary’s singing draws attention from the more refined Nob Hill crowd, including Jack Burley, who wants her for his (family’s sponsored) San Francisco opera house.  Blackie and Mary clash over ambition, morality, and the kind of life she wants to lead.  Father Tim tries to steer Blackie toward something better, but Blackie’s pride keeps getting in the way.  When Mary leaves for the opera world, Blackie spirals, and the city’s tensions rise.  Then the earthquake hits — buildings collapse, fires spread, and the city is thrown into chaos.  Blackie searches for Mary through the ruins, and the disaster forces him to confront what actually matters.  The film ends with a mix of loss, reconciliation, and a forward-looking optimism that feels very 1930s Depression Era Hollywood.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  strong leads;  impressive effects for the era;  melodramatic stretches;  yes.
Any good?  Yes.  “San Francisco” works because it blends character drama with large-scale spectacle without losing track of its emotional through-line.  The story is predictable:  love triangle, moral awakening, disaster as catalyst, but it’s done with enough energy that you don’t mind.  The earthquake sequence is still impressive, and the movie earns its big emotional beats.  It’s very much a studio picture of its time, but a well-made one.
Acting:  Clark Gable plays Blackie with his usual mix of swagger and charm, and he gives the character more depth than the script sometimes does.  Jeanette MacDonald handles both the singing and the dramatic moments well, and her voice is the film’s standout musical element.  Spencer Tracy brings quiet strength to Father Tim, and it’s easy to see why he earned an Oscar nomination — he grounds the movie whenever it threatens to drift into pure melodrama.  The supporting cast fills out the world effectively, even if some characters are more types than people.
Filming / FX:  The “back-screen” work doesn’t hold up well, the city / building models and the city on fire looks hokey, but the film IS almost a century old.  The earthquake sequence is the technical highlight for its time — collapsing sets, practical debris, and clever editing that still (mostly) looks good (much better than the fire) almost ninety years later.  The sound work (which won the Oscar) adds weight to the destruction.  The rest of the film is classic MGM:  polished interiors, clean lighting, and musical numbers staged with confidence.  The contrast between the Barbary Coast and Nob Hill is handled visually rather than through long explanations, which helps the pacing.
Problems:  The movie leans heavily on melodrama, especially in the middle stretch where Blackie and Mary argue about ambition and morality. Some of the musical numbers feel inserted to showcase MacDonald rather than advance the story.  The romance moves quickly (typical for the era) and a few character turns (particularly Blackie’s late-film transformation) happen faster than they probably should.  The ending also dips into a kind of civic sermonizing that feels dated now, though it fits the film’s 1930s optimism.  My own personal problem is I don’t like operatic singing and MacDonald’s singing is operatic even when she’s not singing opera songs.  This didn’t ruin the film for me, but it was definitely hard going in some sequences.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes.  The combination of Gable’s energy, MacDonald’s singing, and Tracy’s steady presence makes the movie work.  The earthquake sequence is still fun to watch, and the film has a sincerity that carries it through the more melodramatic moments.  It’s a product of its time, but an entertaining one.
Final Recommendation:  Strong to highly recommended.  “San Francisco” is a well-made blend of music, drama, and spectacle, anchored by strong performances and one of the most memorable disaster sequences of early Hollywood.  Its Academy Award recognition and historical significance make it worth viewing, and the film still has enough emotional and visual impact to hold modern attention.  If you’re interested in classic MGM productions, early special-effects work, or films tied to San Francisco’s history, this one is definitely worth your time.  FULL DISCLOSURE:  I was raised in San Francisco and have a personal bias for a favorable review of any film featuring the “City” or the Bay Area – even if I don’t “really” like the film.
.
Click here (17 April) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

And Where Are You Going?

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on February 24, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“Quo Vadis” (1951) — movie review
Today’s review is for the large-scale biblical era epic “Quo Vadis” (1951), directed by Mervyn LeRoy and starring Robert Taylor as Marcus Vinicius, a Roman commander whose return to Rome is disrupted by his growing respect and affection for Deborah Kerr’s Lygia, a Christian hostage raised in the household of Aulus Plautius and Pomponia, played by Felix Aylmer and Nora Swinburne.  Peter Ustinov plays Nero as a needy, theatrical tyrant, with Patricia Laffan as his sharp and calculating wife Poppaea.  Leo Genn appears as Petronius, Nero’s weary adviser, and Marina Berti plays Eunice, whose quiet loyalty to Petronius ends up giving the film more heart than some of its speeches.  It’s a full-dress studio epic, but the cast keeps it grounded enough that the story doesn’t get lost in the spectacle.
Background:  I saw this film a couple of times as a youth and I always considered it one of many / just a “sword & sandles” movie.  I always thought some of the more biblically based (and some – like “Spartacus” – non-biblical, too) were better.  My brother, on the other hand, really loved this movie and would frequently recommend it for a re-watch.  “Quo Vadis” was MGM’s major postwar gamble, shot partly in Italy with enormous sets, thousands of extras, and full Technicolor pageantry.  It was a major box-office success and earned eight Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture and acting nominations for Peter Ustinov and Leo Genn, though it didn’t win any.  The film helped restart the biblical-and-historical epic cycle that dominated the 1950s and early 1960s.  It’s very much a studio “event picture,” built to impress audiences who wanted scale and seriousness after years of wartime austerity.
Plot:  Marcus Vinicius returns to Rome expecting political maneuvering and military honors, but instead he’s thrown by Lygia’s quiet conviction and her refusal to be impressed by his rank.  Her foster parents, Aulus and Pomponia, are sympathetic Romans already touched by the Christian faith, which puts their household in a risky position under Nero.  Marcus’s pursuit of Lygia runs straight into the growing tension between Nero’s court — Nero himself, Poppaea at his side, and the flatterers who feed his ego — and the Christian community.  Nero’s paranoia grows, Rome burns, and he blames the Great Fire on the Christians, turning the city’s grief into a public bloodsport.  Petronius tries to steer Nero away from disaster, while Eunice stands by Petronius with a loyalty that makes the court look even more hollow.  Marcus has to choose between loyalty to the empire and loyalty to the woman he’s fallen for.  The final act moves into the arena, where the film leans fully into its epic scale.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Solid epic;  strong ensemble;  big and impressive;  long and stiff;  yes;
Any good?  “Quo Vadis” is straightforward, but the scale gives it weight.  When the film focuses on character — Petronius managing Nero, Poppaea watching everything, Aulus and Pomponia trying to live their faith quietly — it’s better than you expect from a 1950s biblical epic.  When it leans into sermonizing, it slows down.  Still, it plays as a studio production that knows exactly what it’s offering.
Acting:  Robert Taylor does solid work as the officer whose worldview gets shaken, and he’s better when he drops the swagger.  Deborah Kerr brings steadiness to Lygia, and Felix Aylmer and Nora Swinburne give Aulus and Pomponia a believable moral backbone.  Peter Ustinov’s Nero is ridiculous, dangerous, and oddly theatrical rather than cinematic — his Oscar nomination makes sense if you favor his interpretation.  It’s a terrible choice if you don’t.  I kind of split down the middle.  Leo Genn’s Petronius is the film’s conscience, cutting through the noise with dry wit.  Patricia Laffan’s Poppaea is sharp and observant, and Marina Berti’s Eunice gives the film one of its few genuinely emotional threads.  Together, they give the movie more texture than the script alone provides.
Filming / FX:  The production is the main draw.  The sets are enormous, the crowd scenes are real, and the Technicolor photography gives everything a polished look.  The Great Fire sequence still works:  practical flames, collapsing structures, and enough chaos to feel dangerous without turning into confusion.  I felt it was even better than the Burning of Atlanta scene from “Gone With The Wind“.  The arena scenes rely on scale rather than tricks, and that choice holds up.  Some staging is stiff by modern standards, but the craftsmanship is clear.
Problems:  The film is LONG, and you feel it.  The romance is serviceable but not especially dynamic, and some dialogue leans into wooden proclamations.  The movie also pauses too often to spell out its moral points.  You may find yourself thinking:  “Yeah, I already got that point.”  LoL.  Strong supporting characters — Poppaea, Eunice, Pomponia — sometimes disappear when the film could have used their perspective to break up the speeches.  Some of the scenes, like the lions in the arena, are re-used (looped after a brief cutaway) and thereby lose some of their effectiveness.  None of this ruins the film, but it keeps it from being as tight (short) as some later epics.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes.  Even with the slow patches, “Quo Vadis” delivers what it promises:  a sweeping historical drama with enough character work to keep it from feeling hollow.  The Nero – Petronius – Poppaea triangle and the quiet loyalty of Eunice and Lygia’s foster parents are worth the time, and the production scale is still fun to watch.
Final Recommendation:  High moderate to low strong recommendation.  If you enjoy classic epics particularly “sword & sandles”, “Quo Vadis” is worth viewing or revisiting.  It’s historically significant, visually impressive, and anchored by strong performances in Nero’s court and Lygia’s household.  It’s not perfect, but it’s a solid example of big-canvas studio film making and a reminder of what could be done with practical sets, committed actors, and a studio willing to spend the money.
.
Click here (24 February) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

There Are Many Paths To God, My Son

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on February 4, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“Ben-Hur” (1959) — movie review
Today’s review is for the historical epic “Ben-Hur” (1959), directed by William Wyler and starring Charlton Heston as Judah Ben-Hur (a Jewish prince whose life is shattered by betrayal and Roman brutality);  Stephen Boyd as Messala (Judah’s childhood friend turned Roman tribune whose ambition destroys their bond);  Jack Hawkins as Quintus Arrius (the Roman commander who rescues Judah from slavery and later adopts him);  Haya Harareet as Esther (Judah’s quiet but steady love interest);  Hugh Griffith as Sheik Ilderim (the colorful Arab horse breeder who backs Judah in the chariot race);  and Sam Jaffe as Simonides (the loyal steward of the Ben-Hur household).  The film also features a number of uncredited performances surrounding the life of Jesus, whose presence shapes Judah’s journey without taking over the narrative.
Background:  I first saw “Ben-Hur” as a kid on TV, back when “epic” meant three-plus hours, an intermission, and a cast list longer than some phone books.  I’ve seen it three or four times since – mostly to watch the chariot race.  LoL.  Released in 1959 by MGM, the film was a massive production — shot in 70mm, with thousands of extras, enormous sets, and practical effects that still hold up.  It became one of the most honored films in history, winning 11 Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Director (Wyler), Best Actor (Heston), Best Supporting Actor (Griffith), Best Cinematography, Best Editing, and Best Score.  For decades it held the record for most Oscars won by a single film.  Its historic significance is obvious:  it set the standard for the Hollywood biblical epic and remains one of the most influential films ever made.
Plot:  Judah Ben-Hur, a wealthy Jewish nobleman in Roman-occupied Judea, reconnects with his childhood friend Messala, now a Roman tribune.  Their reunion collapses when Messala demands Judah betray his people;  Judah refuses, and Messala retaliates by condemning him to the galleys and imprisoning his mother and sister.  Judah survives years as a slave, saves the life of Roman commander Quintus Arrius, and is adopted into his household.  Still driven by anger, Judah returns home seeking revenge and discovers his family has suffered even more than he imagined.  His path eventually leads to the famous chariot race against Messala and, later, to an encounter with Jesus during the crucifixion — an event that forces Judah to confront the limits of vengeance and the possibility of forgiveness.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  strong and committed;  spectacular;  a few;  absolutely.
Any Good?  Yes.  (Duh – 11 Oscars including Best Picture.)  “Ben-Hur” is long, earnest, and built on a scale we rarely see anymore.  The story mixes personal drama with historical sweep, and while some of the dialogue feels dated, the emotional through-line — friendship, betrayal, revenge, and redemption — still works.  The film earns its reputation as a landmark epic.
Acting:  Charlton Heston is… Charlton Heston (mostly stiff / wooden – but he did win the Oscar for Best Actor).  Big presence, big gestures, but it fits the role.  He sells Judah’s pride, rage, and eventual softening.  Stephen Boyd is excellent as Messala — ambitious, cold, and believable as someone who convinces himself he’s the injured party.  Jack Hawkins brings gravitas to Quintus Arrius, and Haya Harareet gives Esther warmth without melodrama.  Hugh Griffith’s performance as Sheik Ilderim is memorable, though modern viewers may find it broad.  Overall, the cast carries the film without slipping into parody, which is no small feat in a biblical epic.
Filming / FX:  This is where the movie still shines.  The chariot race remains one of the greatest action sequences ever filmed — practical stunts, real horses, real danger.  No CGI safety net.  The naval battle is also impressive, with large-scale sets and physical effects that feel heavy and dangerous.  The cinematography takes full advantage of the 70mm frame, and the production design is meticulous.  The score by Miklós Rózsa is sweeping without overwhelming the story.  For a 1959 film, the technical achievement is staggering.
Problems:  A few.  The pacing can drag, especially in the early Roman political scenes.  Some performances lean theatrical by modern standards.  The subplot involving Judah’s mother and sister is handled with a heavy hand.  And the film’s length — over three and a half hours — requires commitment (and a healthy bladder).  Still, these issues are part of the genre and era, not fatal flaws.
Did I Enjoy the Film?  Yes.  Even with its age and length, “Ben-Hur” remains compelling.  The chariot race alone is worth the time, but the emotional arc — Judah’s shift from vengeance to something like grace — gives the film staying power.  It’s a movie that requires patience but, even then, viewing it still feels like an event.
Final Recommendation:  Very Highly Recommended.  “Ben-Hur” is a cornerstone of classic Hollywood filmmaking — winner of 11 Oscars, historically significant, and still visually impressive.  Rated G (in later re-releases), it’s suitable for most audiences, though younger (and seniors with bladder issues) viewers may struggle with the runtime.  Watch it for the chariot race, the craftsmanship, and the reminder that practical filmmaking at scale can still take your breath away.
Final Thought:   As many times as I’ve seen this film, I never remember the two main characters (Ben-Hur and Messala) were childhood friends and the breakdown of this friendship is what leads to the life-long defining animosity between them.
.
Click here (4 February) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

You Eat Life Or Life Eats You

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on January 14, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“Mutiny on the Bounty” (1962) — movie review
Today’s review is for the sweeping historical adventure “Mutiny on the Bounty” (1962), directed by Lewis Milestone and built around three central performances:  Marlon Brando as Fletcher Christian (the aristocratic first officer whose idealism and polished manners slowly give way to frustration and rebellion), Trevor Howard as Captain William Bligh (a rigid disciplinarian whose command style pushes his crew to the edge and then past the breaking point), and Richard Harris as Seaman John Mills (a voice of the lower deck caught between duty, survival and conscience).  Supporting roles include Hugh Griffith as the ship’s perpetually drunken ship’s doctor, Richard Haydn as the fussy Purcell, and Tarita Teriipaia as Maimiti, whose presence symbolizes the seductive pull of Tahitian life.  With its massive sets (a full-size Bounty replica), Ultra Panavision 70 photography, and Brando’s famously idiosyncratic performance, the film attempts to retell one of maritime history’s most mythologized uprisings.
Background:  Released in 1962 by MGM, this version of “Mutiny on the Bounty” was conceived as a prestige epic — lavish, expensive, and intended to rival the studio’s earlier 1935 adaptation (review here).  The production became notorious for delays, rewrites, and Brando’s on-set eccentricities, ultimately ballooning the budget to one of the largest of its era.  Despite a mixed reception, the film earned seven Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture, Best Cinematography, and Best Music Score, though it did not win in any category.  Over the years, it has settled into a reputation as a visually impressive but uneven retelling of the Bounty story, notable for its scale and for shifting the focus from simple tyranny to a broader clash of values.
Plot:  Set in the late 1700s, the story follows the HMS Bounty as it sails from England to Tahiti to collect breadfruit plants for transport to the West Indies.  Captain Bligh, obsessed with efficiency and discipline, imposes increasingly harsh measures on the crew.  Fletcher Christian, who starts out detached and aristocratic, becomes disillusioned with Bligh’s cruelty and increasingly sympathetic to the men under his command.  When the Bounty reaches Tahiti, the crew experiences a level of ease and freedom that stands in sharp contrast to life aboard the ship.  Christian’s loyalties shift, and when Bligh’s punishments escalate, Christian finally leads a mutiny.  The aftermath includes Bligh’s long open-boat journey, Christian’s attempt to build a new life with the mutineers, and the eventual collapse of their fragile settlement.  The film ends on a sober note:  rebellion solves one problem but creates others.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  committed but uneven;  spectacular;  several;  mostly.
Any Good?  Yes — mostly.  The film aims high and delivers a large-scale adventure with clear themes about authority, conscience, and the appeal of a simpler life.  It isn’t as tight or focused as the 1935 version, but it tries to give the mutiny more psychological weight.  The pacing can drag, especially in the middle, but the overall story still works.
Acting:  Brando delivers one of his most unusual performances — mannered, eccentric, and at times bordering on parody, yet undeniably compelling as the film progresses.  His Fletcher Christian is less a rugged seaman (than Clark Gable’s version) than a conflicted aristocrat, torn between privilege and principle he becomes a reluctant rebel.  Trevor Howard is excellent as Captain Bligh, portraying him not as a cartoon tyrant but as a man whose rigid worldview blinds him to the humanity of those he commands.  Richard Harris brings energy and frustration to his role, grounding the lower-deck perspective.  The Tahitian cast, particularly Tarita, adds warmth and authenticity, though their roles are shaped more by the film’s romanticism than by historical nuance.  Overall, the acting is strong, but Brando’s choices dominate the film and throw the tone off balance.
Filming / FX:  The film’s biggest strength is its look.  Shot in Ultra Panavision 70, the widescreen vistas of the Pacific are breathtaking — emerald islands, turquoise waters, and the imposing silhouette of the Bounty under full sail.  The ship itself, a full-scale reconstruction, is a marvel of production design.  The storm scenes, Tahitian sequences, and open-sea shots are staged with grandeur and precision.  Bronislau Kaper’s score supports the film well, mixing orchestral sweep with lighter island material.  There are no modern visual effects, but the practical scale and location shooting give the film a physical authenticity rarely matched today.
Problems:  Several.  The pacing is uneven, particularly in the second act, where the film lingers on Tahitian idylls which slows the story down;  Brando’s performance, while interesting, sometimes clashes with the rest of the cast;  the script softens some of the harsher historical realities and leans into a romantic view of both the mutiny and Tahitian life;  Bligh is written as more complex than the usual absolute villain, which is good, but it occasionally weakens the dramatic pressure leading up to the mutiny;  and, the final act feels rushed compared to the long middle stretch.
Did I Enjoy the Film?  Mostly.  “Mutiny on the Bounty” is long and occasionally slow, but it’s also impressive to look at and has enough character conflict to stay interesting.  The themes about leadership and responsibility still land.  Brando’s performance is uneven but memorable, and the production values alone make the film worth watching.
Final Recommendation:  Moderate to strong recommendation.  “Mutiny on the Bounty” (1962) is a large, ambitious, and sometimes frustrating epic, but it’s also a distinctive entry in Hollywood’s widescreen era.  It didn’t win any of its seven Oscar nominations, but its scale, its cast, and its place in the long line of Bounty adaptations give it lasting interest.  If you enjoy maritime history, character-driven conflict, or Brando’s experimental period, this version is worth your time.  It isn’t a definitive telling of the story, but it remains a striking and memorable one.
.
Click here (14 January) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Mahoney Sisters Can’t Carry A Melody

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on December 29, 2025| Leave a Comment »

“The Broadway Melody” (1929) – movie review
Today’s review is for the landmark musical drama “The Broadway Melody” (1929), directed by Harry Beaumont and starring Charles King as Eddie Kearns (a songwriter and performer whose ambition is matched only by his romantic entanglements), Anita Page as Queenie Mahoney (the younger sister whose beauty and vulnerability draw both admiration and exploitation), and Bessie Love as Hank Mahoney (the elder sister, pragmatic and fiercely loyal, whose dreams of stardom are tested by betrayal and sacrifice).  Supporting roles include Jed Prouty as Uncle Jed, Kenneth Thomson as Jock Warriner (a wealthy socialite with predatory intentions), and Mary Doran as fellow performer May.  This ensemble anchors MGM’s first all-talking musical, a film that not only defined the backstage musical genre but also became the first sound film to win the Academy Award for Best Picture.  Perhaps less significant due to its being only the second ever Best Picture winner, it was also the first film to double-up as the highest gross attendance for the year.
Background:  In my continuing effort to gain an appreciation for cinema, I’m trying to work my way through a number of lists of great movies.  This film was second to receive the Best Picture Oscar.  I watched this on YouTube for free with no commercial interruptions.  Released in 1929, “The Broadway Melody” arrived at the dawn of Hollywood’s transition from silent films to “talkies.”  MGM promoted it as its first all-sound motion picture, and audiences flocked to see the spectacle of synchronized music, dialogue, and dance.  With a modest budget of $379,000 and a box office return of $4.4 million, the film was both a commercial and cultural triumph.  Its success paved the way for sequels (“Broadway Melody of 1936“, 1940, 1947) and cemented the musical as a dominant Hollywood genre.
Plot:  The story follows sisters Hank and Queenie Mahoney, vaudeville performers who journey to New York City to break into Broadway. Eddie Kearns, a songwriter and Hank’s longtime friend, introduces them to producer Francis Zanfield.  While Hank struggles to secure their place in the show, Queenie’s beauty attracts attention, particularly from wealthy Jock Warriner.  Eddie, initially Hank’s romantic interest, finds himself drawn to Queenie, creating a painful love triangle.  As Queenie is tempted by Jock’s wealth and Hank realizes Eddie’s affections have shifted, tensions rise.  Ultimately, Queenie rejects Jock’s superficial advances, Eddie declares his love, and Hank sacrifices her own happiness for her sister’s future.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  earnest but uneven;  innovative but dated;  several;  frankly, no, but with historical appreciation.
Any good?  Historically, yes;  personally, no.  “The Broadway Melody” is a fascinating artifact of early sound cinema.  While its narrative feels melodramatic by modern standards, its cultural significance and pioneering use of sound make it essential viewing for film historians and enthusiasts.
Acting:  Bessie Love delivers the standout performance as Hank, balancing grit with vulnerability.  Her Oscar nomination for Best Actress was deserved.  Anita Page embodies Queenie’s innocence and allure, though her role leans heavily on archetype.  Charles King’s Eddie is energetic but occasionally stiff, reflecting the transitional acting style of early talkies.  The supporting cast provides texture, though most characters serve as foils rather than fully developed personalities.
Filming / FX:  The cinematography by John Arnold captures both the intimacy of backstage life and some of the spectacle of musical numbers from that period.  The film includes two brief Technicolor sequences — a novelty at the time — which underscores MGM’s ambition.  Musical highlights include “You Were Meant for Me” and the titular “Broadway Melody,” staged with choreography that, while static compared to later musicals, thrilled audiences in 1929.
Problems:  Multiple and some severe.  The pacing is uneven, with melodramatic dialogue that feels stilted today (IMHO).  Having said that, there are some expressions used and I don’t know whether they are New York, Broadway, or simply era based.  For example:  Hank accuses Eddie of not fighting for Queenie because the other guy has more “jack” (money) than he (Eddie) does.  The love triangle dominates the narrative at the expense of deeper exploration of Broadway’s competitive world – which IS explored in cinema at least once in every decade since.  Sound technology was still in its infancy, resulting in awkward pauses and limited camera movement.  Queenie’s characterization leans toward objectification, reflecting gender norms of the era.  The acting, dancing and singing is actually quite terrible from all three of the lead characters.  It’s difficult to tell if the fault is the sound recording available in those days, or if the actors were really just that bad.  LoL  The female leads asks the male lead to sing them a song in their hotel room and a full orchestration breaks out in the background.  At no point did I feel there was any chemistry (romantic or sisterly) between any of the three leads.  Credit to the two female leads, they held their own (acting) in their individual / solo scenes.  King tries to sing a “swing” based version of the title song, but it comes across as a poor man’s Al Jolson – and suffers in the comparison.  There were more problems, but I don’t want to proverbially “beat a dead horse.”
Did I enjoy the film?  No — with reservations.  What enjoyment I did have came less from the story itself and more from the film’s historical significance.  Watching “The Broadway Melody” is like stepping into cinema’s transitional moment, where silent-era theatricality meets the promise of synchronized sound and black and white has brief intersections with sepia-colorization.
Final Recommendation:   Strong recommendation — for historical significance;  Low recommendation otherwise.  “The Broadway Melody” may not dazzle modern audiences (to put it lightly) with its plot, pacing, dancing or musicality, but it remains a cornerstone of film history.  As the first sound film to win Best Picture, it represents both the excitement and limitations of early talkies.  If you are interested in the evolution of musicals, the Academy Awards, or Hollywood’s leap into sound, this film belongs on your list for reference viewing.  Watch it not for perfection, but for the moment when cinema found its continuous voice.
.
Click here (29 December) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Happenings At The Grand

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on December 22, 2025| Leave a Comment »

“Grand Hotel” (1932) – movie review
Today’s review is for the ensemble drama “Grand Hotel” (1932), directed by Edmund Goulding and produced by Irving Thalberg for MGM.  The film stars Greta Garbo as Grusinskaya (a fading Russian ballerina haunted by loneliness), John Barrymore as Baron Felix von Gaigern (a charming but impoverished nobleman turned thief), Joan Crawford as Flaemmchen (a stenographer with ambition and vulnerability), Wallace Beery as Preysing (a ruthless industrialist entangled in shady deals), and Lionel Barrymore as Otto Kringelein (a terminally ill clerk determined to live fully before death).  With cinematography by William H. Daniels and music by William Axt, the film weaves multiple lives together in the opulent setting of Berlin’s Grand Hotel.
Background:  This is another of the old, black and white films I’m committed to viewing to gain an appreciation for cinematic “art”.  Having said that, I’m finding out that ANY film which wins the Oscar for Best Picture generally has something to say and is worth viewing…   Released in 1932, “Grand Hotel” was adapted from Vicki Baum’s novel “Menschen im Hotel” and William A. Drake’s stage play.  It was a landmark production:  the first major “all-star” Hollywood film, showcasing MGM’s roster of talent in a single narrative.  The film won the Academy Award for Best Picture in 1932, notable as the only Oscar it received.  Its historic significance lies in pioneering the ensemble drama format, later echoed in films like “Airport” and “Crash“.  The famous line:  “Grand Hotel. People come, people go. Nothing ever happens” became emblematic of its theme:  the fleeting intersections of human lives.
Plot:  Within the luxurious Berlin hotel, disparate characters cross paths.  Grusinskaya contemplates suicide until she meets the Baron, whose charm rekindles her spirit.  The Baron, however, is secretly plotting theft to escape poverty.  Flaemmchen, caught between ambition and survival, becomes entangled with both the Baron and Preysing.  Kringelein, facing imminent death, seeks joy and dignity in his final days, while Preysing’s ruthless business dealings spiral into violence.  The narrative culminates in tragedy and renewal:  the Baron’s death, Grusinskaya’s departure, Kringelein’s bittersweet liberation, and Flaemmchen’s uncertain future.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  exceptional;  elegant and atmospheric;  a few dated elements;  so-so.
Any Good?  Yes.  “Grand Hotel” remains a masterclass in ensemble storytelling.  Its ambition — weaving multiple arcs into a single setting — was groundbreaking in its day.  The film’s themes of mortality, ambition, and fleeting connection resonate even today.
Acting:  Greta Garbo delivers one of her most iconic performances, balancing fragility with grandeur.  John Barrymore brings charm and pathos to the Baron, while Joan Crawford shines with wit and vulnerability.  Lionel Barrymore provides emotional depth as Kringelein, and Wallace Beery embodies ruthless capitalism with menace.  The ensemble’s chemistry is remarkable, each performance distinct yet interconnected.
Filming / FX:  The cinematography by William H. Daniels captures both intimacy and grandeur.  Long takes and fluid camera movements emphasize the hotel’s labyrinthine corridors, symbolizing the intertwining of lives.  The production design conveys opulence, while lighting underscores emotional contrasts.  Though lacking modern effects, the film’s visual style remains elegant.
Problems:  Some dialogue feels melodramatic by modern standards, and pacing occasionally drags.  The film’s depiction of women, while progressive in giving agency to Garbo and Crawford, still reflects 1930s gender norms.  Yet these issues are minor compared to its achievements.
Did I Enjoy the Film?  So-so.  “Grand Hotel” is captivating in an old fashioned way, both as cinema and as cultural artifact.  I admired its ambition and enjoyed both its performances and its thematic layering / interwoven story lines.  Watching it feels like stepping into a time capsule of Hollywood’s golden age.
Final Recommendation:  Moderate to Strong recommendation.  “Grand Hotel” is a historic ensemble drama that won the Academy Award for Best Picture and pioneered the “all-star” format.  Its themes of mortality, ambition, and fleeting human connection remain relevant.  If you appreciate classic cinema, landmark performances, or films that shaped Hollywood history, this one is essential viewing.  Trust me…  I never thought I’d say that during the first five minutes of this film, but it really grows on you.
.
Click here (22 December) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

She Was Yar

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on December 20, 2025| Leave a Comment »

“The Philadelphia Story”  (1940) – movie review
Today’s review is for the sophisticated romantic comedy “The Philadelphia Story” (1940), directed by George Cukor and starring Katharine Hepburn as Tracy Lord (a wealthy Philadelphia socialite whose upcoming wedding is complicated by the return of her ex-husband), Cary Grant as C.K. Dexter Haven (the charming ex determined to win her back), James Stewart as Macaulay “Mike” Connor (a cynical reporter who unexpectedly falls for Tracy), and Ruth Hussey as Elizabeth Imbrie (Connor’s sharp and loyal photographer colleague).  Supporting roles include John Howard as Tracy’s fiancé George Kittredge and Roland Young as Uncle Willie.
Background:  Hepburn is one of my all-time favorite actors.  Stewart and Grant are both waaayyy up there, too.  LoL.  So, this was an easy choice to make for viewing a rom-com.  Based on Philip Barry’s 1939 Broadway play, written specifically for Hepburn, the film was produced by MGM and released in late 1940.  Hepburn had been labeled “box office poison” after several commercial failures.  This role revitalized her career.  The film was both a critical and commercial success, earning over $3 million at the box office against a modest budget.  It won two Academy Awards:  Best Actor (James Stewart) and Best Adapted Screenplay (Donald Ogden Stewart), and was nominated for Best Picture.  Today, it is considered a landmark in the romantic comedy genre and preserved in the U.S. National Film Registry for its cultural significance.
Plot:  Set among Philadelphia’s upper class, the story follows Tracy Lord on the eve of her second marriage.  Her ex-husband Dexter Haven arrives with a tabloid reporter and photographer, ostensibly to cover the society wedding but secretly to prevent scandal.  As the weekend unfolds, Tracy confronts her own perfectionism, her strained family relationships, and her conflicting feelings for Dexter and Mike.  The film builds toward a wedding day full of revelations, where Tracy must choose not only between men but between ideals of love, humility, and authenticity.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  superb;  elegant and restrained;  minor pacing issues;  absolutely.
Any Good?  Yes.  “The Philadelphia Story” is a witty, layered comedy of manners that balances screwball humor with genuine introspection.  It asks what marriage is for—status, perfection, or companionship—and whether love can survive pride.  The screenplay sparkles with repartee, while the thematic undercurrent explores class, vulnerability, and second chances.
Acting:  Katharine Hepburn delivers one of her defining performances, portraying Tracy as both imperious and fragile.  Cary Grant’s Dexter is suave yet wounded, a perfect foil.  James Stewart, in an Oscar-winning turn, brings warmth and humor to Mike, especially in his drunken late-night scene with Hepburn.  Ruth Hussey adds intelligence and subtlety as Liz, grounding the ensemble.  The chemistry among the leads is electric, and the ensemble elevates the film’s emotional stakes.
Filming / FX:  Joseph Ruttenberg’s cinematography frames Philadelphia’s elite world with elegance — manicured estates, polished interiors, and carefully staged gatherings.  George Cukor’s direction emphasizes dialogue and character interplay over spectacle, allowing the performances to breathe.  Franz Waxman’s score underscores the film’s shifts between comedy and romance.  There are no flashy effects, but the restraint is deliberate, highlighting wit and character rather than visual excess.
Problems:  Minor.  The pacing in the early acts can feel slow, as exposition builds toward the central conflicts.  Some supporting characters, particularly George Kittredge, are included for show not substance.  The film’s class critique is gentle, never fully interrogating privilege.  Yet these are quibbles in a film that prioritizes character and dialogue.
Did I Enjoy the Film?  Yes.  “The Philadelphia Story” is a reminder of how comedy can illuminate human flaws with affection rather than cruelty.  Watching Tracy’s transformation — from goddess-like perfection to a woman who admits her humanity — is both moving and entertaining.  The interplay of Hepburn, Grant, and Stewart is timeless, and the film’s final reconciliation feels earned.
Final Recommendation:  Very highly recommended.  “The Philadelphia Story” is a classic romantic comedy that revitalized Hepburn’s career, showcased Stewart’s versatility, and cemented Cukor’s reputation for ensemble direction.  It won two Academy Awards, remains preserved in the National Film Registry, and continues to resonate for its wit, performances, and thematic depth.  Rated “Approved” under the Production Code, it is suitable for all audiences.  Watch it for the laughs, and for the reminder that love requires humility — and that second chances can be sweeter than first ones.
.
Click here (20 December) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started