Spanish | Kevin Barrett's Blog

Posts Tagged ‘Spanish’

Speed Is Good Only When Wisdom Leads The Way

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged Around the World in 80 Days (1956) — movie review, Best Picture Oscar, Buster Keaton, Cantinflas, Chaplin-esqe, David Niven, England, Frank Sinatra, General Comments, Hollywood, Inspector Fix, London, Low Moderate Movie Recommendation, Michael Anderson, Mike Todd, Movie Reviews, Passepartout, Phileas Fogg, Princess Aouda, Reform Club, Reviews, Robert Newton, Shirley MacLaine, Spanish, Three Stooges, Victor Young on May 14, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“Around the World in 80 Days” (1956) — movie review
Today’s review is for the “epic” adventure‑comedy “Around the World in 80 Days”, directed by Michael Anderson and starring David Niven as Phileas Fogg, the impeccably punctual English gentleman whose life is governed by precision, routine, and an almost mathematical sense of propriety; Cantinflas as Passepartout, Fogg’s newly hired valet whose athleticism, charm, and improvisational instincts carry the film’s physical comedy and much of its heart; Shirley MacLaine as Princess Aouda, the rescued widow who becomes the emotional anchor of the journey; and Robert Newton as Inspector Fix, the dogged (and frequently wrong) detective convinced that Fogg is a bank robber fleeing justice. The film also features a parade of cameos — from Buster Keaton to Frank Sinatra — in a sprawling, colorful, globe‑trotting spectacle that mixes travelogue, comedy, and adventure.

Background: I first saw this film sometime in the early / mid 1960s at a theater, long before I had any sense of how big a deal it was in its own era. Back then, it was just “the long movie with the balloon and the funny guy running around.” I have a VERY vague memory of this, but as I recall we spent the better part of a whole day at a Cantinflas “review” and watched several movies. This was with several of my cousins and most of the films were entirely in Spanish, so I didn’t really understand much of what was being said, but Cantinflas was really a “Three Stooges / Chaplin-esqe“-slapstick kind of comedy, so it was more visual humor than spoken anyway. In the 1950s, Cantinflas was one of the top movie stars in the “world” and starring in this film was meant to introduce him to the American / English speaking public. Revisiting it now, it’s easier to appreciate the scale of this production. Released in 1956, “Around the World in 80 Days” was a massive hit and went on to win five Academy Awards, including Best Picture. It was produced by Mike Todd (his only film) and it shows the kind of “spare no expense” ambition that only a showman could bring. Historically, the film is significant as one of the last great “travelogue epics,” a genre that showcased exotic locations, huge casts, and big set pieces before television and cheaper travel made such spectacles less novel. It’s also a curious time capsule of 1950s Hollywood attitudes toward culture, comedy, and global adventure.

Plot: The story begins in London, where Phileas Fogg (a man of absolute routine) wagers his fellow Reform Club members that he can circumnavigate the globe in 80 days. With his new valet Passepartout in tow, he sets off immediately. What follows is a series of episodic adventures: a balloon ride (not in the original novel, but iconic here), a bullfighting sequence, train chases, shipboard crises, and a rescue of Princess Aouda from a forced ritual death. Inspector Fix shadows them across continents, convinced Fogg is a bank thief. Delays, mishaps, and cultural encounters pile up as the clock ticks down. The film ends with the famous twist: Fogg believes he has lost the wager, only to discover he gained a day by traveling eastward. He wins the bet — and gains a companion (spouse) in Aouda.

So, is this movie any good? How’s the acting? The filming / FX? Any problems? And, did I enjoy the film? Short answers: So-so (with caveats); 1950s “charming”; spectacular for its time; several; mostly no.

Any good? So-so (with significant caveats). “Around the World in 80 Days” is a grand, old‑fashioned spectacle — the kind of film that exists mainly to show you places, faces, and large‑scale set pieces. It’s not a tight narrative; it’s more of a cinematic buffet. The charm comes from the performances and the sheer ambition of the production. It’s leisurely (dragging), colorful, and occasionally meandering, but it (almost) works on its own terms. If you accept it as a 1950s “event movie,” it’s enjoyable. If you expect modern pacing, you will find it painfully slow.

Acting: David Niven is perfectly cast as Phileas Fogg — crisp, controlled, and unfailingly polite. He plays the role with a dry wit that keeps Fogg from becoming a caricature (unlike the rest of the British cast). Cantinflas is the film’s secret weapon. His physical comedy, timing, and athleticism carry entire sequences, and he brings warmth to a story that could otherwise feel mechanical. Shirley MacLaine does what she can with a role that is… let’s say “of its time.” She brings sincerity and presence, even if the script doesn’t give her much agency. Being honest, I did not recognize her at all in this role and yet still found it strange they had cast someone who was so obviously white to play the role of an Indian (sub-continent) princess. Robert Newton is barely tolerable as Inspector Fix — part antagonist, part comic relief. I just didn’t find him amusing. The cameos are a mixed bag, but they add to the film’s “big show / Hollywood” energy / reputation.

Filming / FX: The filming is the movie’s biggest strength. Shot in 13 countries with thousands of extras, the film uses widescreen cinematography to show off landscapes, cities, and elaborate sets. The balloon sequence is iconic, even if scientifically dubious (absurd). The bullfighting scenes, train sequences, and shipboard moments are all staged with visually impressive scale. The film’s pacing is leisurely (most of the time too leisurely) but the visuals are consistently interesting. The score by Victor Young (which won an Oscar) was the most interesting thing about the film – with multiple transitions between classical and popular music. The editing is straightforward, and the film’s travelogue structure gives it a “unique” rhythm.

Problems: Several. The film is long — VERY long — and some sequences are included mainly to show off locations rather than advance the story. The cultural portrayals are dated (racist), sometimes uncomfortably so, reflecting 1950s Hollywood / American stereotypes. The pacing drags frequently, particularly in the middle third. The cameos, while amusing for someone with a knowledge of Hollywood from that era, occasionally disrupt the narrative flow. You’re caught looking for them and / or wondering who that familiar face was. The romance subplot is thin to the point of non-existence. Finally, there is just no basis for believing the characters made the trip in the allocated time and the film doesn’t really bother to track the time very closely on a calendar – and there is a reason for that. It just doesn’t track… If you are willing to turn off your brain and pretend your a child enjoying the scenic wonders of the world, then none of these issues ruin the film, but they keep it firmly in the “classic but extremely flawed” category.

Did I enjoy the film? Mostly no. It’s not a movie I’d re‑watch again without a very good reason. It tries to be an enjoyable, sprawling adventure with charm, humor, and a sense of cinematic showmanship that’s rare today – and it misses at almost every turn. Cantinflas is delightful. He is why I was taken to see the film as a child. Niven is pitch‑perfect, and the film’s scale is still very impressive. It’s a pleasant, old‑fashioned epic that expects patience and a willingness to enjoy the ride. It probably made for a good afternoon out when TV was still rare in the home.

Final Recommendation: Low Moderate. “Around the World in 80 Days” is a colorful, ambitious, historically significant Best Picture winner that showcases the height of 1950s Hollywood spectacle. While its pacing and cultural portrayals show their age, the film remains an impressive production (if little else). If you’re interested in classic cinema, large‑scale epics, or the evolution of Hollywood showmanship, it’s worth watching. Just be prepared for a LONG journey — fitting, given the title.

.
Click here (14 May) 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 »

No Soy Yo

Posted in Movie Review, Movies, Music and Concerts, Quotes, Reviews, tagged Alice Bloomfield, Beauty and the Beast, Cab Calloway, Charles Aidman, Daniel Valdez, Edward James Olmos, El Pachuco, George Shearer, Hamilton, Henry Reyna, John Anderson, Judge F.W. Charles, La La Land, Library of Congress, Marry Poppins, Paint Your Wagon, Poor to Moderate movie recommendation, South Pacific, Spanish, Swing Dancing, Tando, Target Audience, That's Entertainment, The Lion King, The Little Mermaid, The Wizard of OZ, Tyne Daly, United States National Film Registry, West Side Story, Wikipedia, Zoot Suit (1981) -- movie review on August 9, 2023| Leave a Comment »

“Zoot Suit” (1981) — movie review (my advance apologies: this is a long review)
Today’s review is for the musical / drama movie “Zoot Suit” starring Daniel Valdez as Henry Reyna (the main character / “gang leader”), Edward James Olmos as “El Pachuco” (Henry’s conscious and the film’s narrator), Charles Aidman as George Shearer (Henry’s Defense Attorney), Tyne Daly as Alice Bloomfield (civil rights activist / journalist), John Anderson as Judge F.W. Charles (the racist judge in the trial). This film is about the trial of some young Mexican gang members which roughly corresponds with some Mexican-American race riots in the Los Angeles area in the early 1940s. The film is an adaptation of a theatrical play of the same name which explored the event, trial and aftermath as a social / racial commentary.

Background: For many decades after the Mexican-American War, American’s of Mexican descent were the subject of open “racial” discrimination in the American Southwest – particularly in Southern California. A “zoot suit” is a men’s two-piece suit with high-waisted (typically to the lower ribs instead of at the waist), wide-legged, tight-cuffed, pleated trousers with button-suspenders and a belt (typically 2-3 inches below the top of the pants), and a long (typically knee-length) coat with wide lapels and wide padded shoulders. The suit was almost always worn with a long watch-chain (from waist to mid-calf and back to the pocket) together with a wide-brimmed fedora (“Tando” / hat). The look was a fashion fad carryover from the big band (Cab Calloway) era of the 1920s-30s and became widely adopted by many African-Americans and other minorities – particularly young Mexican-Americans in Southern California who had the nickname “pachuco” (which roughly translated to “young gangster“).

Basic plot: Shortly after the death of a “pachuco” at a dance, members of a rival gang are arrested and tried for the death. The film shows only four of the gang members, but their were actually closer to twenty (in real life). The film showcases the abusive treatment and the flagrant prejudice on display at the trial. All of the four are found guilty, but all are subsequently freed after appeal (lack of evidence and improper judicial procedures during the trial which prejudiced the jury towards a guilty verdict). The play ends with a number of actors listing how Reyna’s (the main character) life played out – 1) goes to war and wins a Congressional Medal of Honor; 2) commits another crime and goes back to prison for life; and, 3 ) gets married, has five children and lives a full life.

Within this story we are shown the “discussion” of societal circumstances, prejudice, a lack of work opportunities, and peer pressure intermix in the life of a young charismatic Mexican-American (Reyna), which is portrayed as a conflict between Reyna and his conscious (El Pachuco). Pachuco is extremely negative and claims this IS reality and Reyna’s only reality and certainty for the future.

So, is this movie any good? How’s the acting? How’s the singing / dancing? And, is this movie worth seeing? In order: so-so; terrible; okay (with qualifications); and, it might be.

Any good: I first saw this movie during it’s theatrical run back in 1981. I was unimpressed then. I am still unimpressed. I seem to have a bias for musicals and I’m not sure how to describe it (the bias). Either I really like it, or I don’t. Like: “The Lion King“, “The Little Mermaid“, “Beauty And The Beast“, and “That’s Entertainment“. Unmoved: This movie, “Hamilton“, and “La La Land“. And then there are musicals where I only like one or a couple of songs, for example: “Marry Poppins“, “Paint Your Wagon“, “The Wizard of OZ” and “South Pacific“, but don’t think much of the overall film.

The idea of a movie about a play where audience members are part of the flashback scenes was just very off-putting to me. I felt like: make up your mind! Do a play and have the audience on stage or do a (musical) movie and don’t show the audience, just the actors when they’re in the flashback. It seemed as if the director was trying to create an artificial fourth wall and then break it and re-create it when it suited the story. Except I never felt it suited the story to reintegrate.

Acting: Plays which are filmed tend to suck. This movie follows the rule (it’s really more of a general observation). Plays are actually quite different from movies. An actor in a play (particularly and older play) can’t rely on being “mic’d” up and so they not only have to exaggerate their voice, they have to exaggerate their expressions to convey what’s happening to a live audience. The problem is: WE are NOT a live audience. As acting in a play, the acting was okay to good. As acting in a film – it was terrible!

Singing / dancing: As bad as I know this will sound – I DON’T speak Spanish and despite the music, the songs did nothing for me! If you are going to make a movie with Spanish songs – exclusively – then give me sub-titles, so I can understand what you are trying to convey. Music itself is expressive, but if there are accompanying lyrics, I want to know what’s being sung. Now, I know the cost of sub-titles “may” have been a problem back in 1981, but I don’t believe it was. (And I don’t think it’s too much to add closed captioning, now.) I think it was just laziness or inconsideration to your potential audience during production. …Or, maybe I just am not a part of the “target audience”.

Despite the above comment, the dancing was pretty typical (very good) staged dancing for a play or for a film. The style was “swing” so there was a lot of spins and gymnastics and there was a good mixture of wide-angle shots and close-ups to help us appreciate the spirit of the music and the artistry of the dancers. I was also struck by how much color there was in the dance numbers. It reminded me of a number of Indian musical films I’ve viewed over the last few years.

Worth seeing: I have very mixed feelings here as I did when I first saw this film forty years ago. As a Mexican-American, I felt a certain sense of pride in being depicted “at all” in a film. This film does illuminate some aspects of our culture and our desire to both exist in and stand out in American society / culture. As a minority, we still had (and have) much to offer this country (our home). On the other hand, I felt a bit like I (my culture) was being used as a cultural re-tread of “West Side Story“. And, yes, the film left “ME” with the feeling that “our” story was really more about the mistreatment of the working families than it was about the mistreatment of young gangsters. This is the problem of seeing “yourself” so infrequently represented in film. I want each story to convey a positive message; not a mixed or negative one. But, I guess that’s me being sensitive… …And, it’s not very close to reality where every sub-culture has its good and bad aspects.

Final recommendation: poor to moderate. [Wikipedia says:] “In 2019, the film was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being “culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant”.” As much as I would like to feel “biased” for a representative film, this film may be culturally representative, but it’s just not a very good film. I wanted to feel more sympathetic during the movie, but I just never got that far because the movie never gave me a reason to feel close to the gang members. Of course, I was emotionally outraged by the trial scenes and the blatant racism of the prosecutor / judge / court, but it (the racism) wasn’t “surprising”, or really, even “unusual” feeling. It was just (to me tragically) expected as this trial was also representative of America in the 1940s. Maybe, if you are fluent in Spanish, you’ll get more from this film than I did.

One additional comment: Back in 1981, before the internet allowed us to look these things up, I felt Olmos’ character was “El Diablo” (the devil / a demon) and not Henry Reyna’s conscious. I felt the same after this viewing.

.
Click here (9 August) 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.