Woody Allen's first full directorial debut, though he did directorial work on What's Up Tiger Lily?...Here Allen wrote, directed and stars in what's been called one of the first mockumentaries ever made. Woody Allen in his first full directorial job created a new genre of films with his fictional autobiographical documentary about a poor boy from a poor family who turns to a life of crime and utterly falls at it.

When I first joined MoFo over seven years ago I didn't like Woody Allen or his films, though I hadn't seen many. Then a fellow MoFo challenged me to watch more of Allen's films. Now I'm happy to say I totally changed my mind and count Woody Allen as one of my favorite currently working directors. I like his movies, I like his writing and I like him as an actor. I find his work highly unique. Woody is quite the auteur.

I enjoyed Take The Money and Run, I thought it was originally clever and never pandering to low hanging fruit type comedy. It was funny and well made. I liked Woody in it as the lead actor Virgil Starkwell who's an inept bank robber and fails utterly at everything he tries to do.

Hard Times was a rewarding watch of a film that I hadn't really ever heard of before. I would describe it as straight forward, non-pretentious film making/story telling. The film style was well suited for Charles Bronson...a no nonsense, laconic actor. I appreciated the camera work and score as I was never aware of either aspect during my viewing of the film. To me the style of the film was enhanced by the unobtrusiveness of its components. That's not to say the film's cinematography is in anyway blasé, just the opposite. The viewer is treated to effectively filmed cityscapes of New Orleans, especially the French Quarter with it's historic buildings.

There's quite a bit of on-location shooting, both for interior and exterior shots. As someone who spent a wonderful weeks vacation in the French Quarter I just love seeing the sites of those grand ole buildings with their wrought iron trimmed balconies.

I read on IMDB trivia that the director didn't think much of Jill Ireland's acting and cut many of her scenes. I can't say I've seen her in anything else except as a guest star on the original Star Trek series, But I thought she was fine in Hard Times. I would've liked to seen more of her and more of Chaney's (Charles Bronson) side story, as it would've fleshed out more of Bronson's enigmatic character.

This is one of my favorite Woody Allen movies... 1.) because it's the first "mockumentary" I ever saw and 2.) because the humor is simple.

Unlike some of his later films, this one is not esoteric, it's not targeted at intellectuals with a minor degree in sociology - it's just good, old fashion, silliness with in-your-face jokes, ironies, situations and a dose of slapstick.

It's the little things that crack me up - like playing the cello in a marching band.

The first mockumentary I saw was The Rutles (1978)...ha the cello, yeah that was pretty funny with him running to keep up with the band.

Ah, The Rutles! I haven't seen that since I was a kid... and then I don't know if I ever saw the whole thing. Would love to see that again. Based on the dates, it appears The Rutles was the inspiration for (or at least the precursor of) This Is Spinal Tap (like The Big Bus was the precursor to Airplane!) ;)

Somebody once told me about The Big Bus;) fun movie! Hey, you're in luck The Rutles is on YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f36fkktbM0Q

Re: Citizen Rules...Cinemaesque Chat-n-Review
 

Thanks!

I seen this before sometime ago and liked it. This time around I still like it. I'd say I appreciate it's overall construction and elements more than ever...it's an excellent film.

OK, so now that you know where I stand on this film, I can talk about some negatives. People say Kubrick has technical film prowess but is cold and doesn't convey human emotions well. Barry Lyndon is suppose to be an exemption from Kubrick's detached mode. But I have to say on a second watch I found Barry Lyndon to be detached as much as the other Kubrick's films I've seen. If it wasn't for the VO narrator there would be scant little emotions in most scenes. The film is more of a pictograph of one man's stumbling journey though life's misfortunes. That's not a complaint btw.

Some will say Ryan O'Neil can't act, well he really wasn't a thespian or even someone with oodles of personality. He mostly had this one look of disappointment on his face through out much of the movie. That's probably because Kubrick drove him nuts. I read that Kubrick would do take after take after take:

Writer, producer, and director Stanley Kubrick would often shoot a great many retakes of a scene, just to get "that extra something" in a shot; twenty to fifty takes per scene was not uncommon. It has been claimed that Kubrick shot over one hundred takes of the scene in which Barry (Ryan O'Neal) first meets Lady Honoria Lyndon (Marisa Berenson).

Good grief! No director needs a 100 shots or even 50 to capture that special moment. Hell the scene where Barry meets Lady Honoria Lyndon was brief and unremarkable. And reading that about Kubrick has made me think less of him as a director. Truth be told I don't see very many acting moments of sublime clarity in his films. Nothing that transcends the film and goes right to the viewers 'awe' brain center.

So Barry Lydon technically a good movie. Kubrick, I'm on the fence.

Antwone Fisher was a nearly perfect film for me. I might compare it to Goodwill Hunting as both films have similar themes. Only this film felt so much more grounded in reality and focused on the story at hand. And I've always liked Denzel Washington too. He reminds me of Tom Hanks as both have this quiet, yet determined demeanor about them. That quiet resolve is what makes Denzel so effective in this movie. And I have to say I'm impressed with the actor who played the titular role, Derek Luke. Derek was able to show blind rage, OK that's probably not too hard for actors. I've heard actors say anger is the easiest emotion for them to do. But Derek isn't just angry in the film, he's emotionally wounded and trying to heal his mental scars. He's shy and unsure of himself which comes from years of child abuse. Derek made me believe I was watching a real person and that's also saying a lot!

The real Antwone Fischer must be quite a talented person because he wrote this movie! That's impressive...And it's the movie's script and the story it describes that impresses me the most. I felt like I was watching these events unfold in real time. Part of the credit for the honesty of this film has to go to the director Denzel Washington. I liked the way Denzel directed this, no cheese, no over the top-hey look at me type direction. Denzels' directing is like his acting, perfectly in sync for what he's doing.
What a great film!

I watched this film in one go...and the time flew by too. I've seen 90 minute movies that dragged, but with La Dolce Vita the visual sensory is on high and there's always something gorgeous to look at.

This was my first time watching it and I expected to be raving about Anita Ekberg. I mean whenever I see images from this movie, it's always of her. But I didn't find her or the scenes she was in to be all that fascinating. I didn't even really find her all that attractive. I mean she is of course, but just not my type. Probably nobodies type here! I actually found Marcello's wife Emma to be more attractive and interesting too. Well whenever she wasn't half dead from popping pills or screaming how much she loved Marcello.

Me, I loved the first 30 minutes of the movie, its kinetic energy and exploration of things common yet unseen, reminded me of another favorite Italian film L'Avventura.

I do however think Fellini is over indulgent and actually a bit lazy. He gives us three nearly identical and long scenes showing Rome's well-to-do engaging in drunken shenanigans. The first of these at Steiner's house with all the bored to tears, rich intellectual types, made Fellini's point crystal clear.

But then Fellini duplicates that party scene twice more: The old villa castle scene and the last party scene in the house where the unhappy Marcello pours chicken feathers over a drunken young lady...If you tell me that's symbolism, then the pizza stains on my sweatshirt are freakin' high art and surely must decipher the Da Vinci code just by looking at all that dried tomato sauce.

Shame examines the collateral damage of an ongoing civil war. The effects of that war is seen through the personal experiences of two former musicians. This hapless couple ekes out a meager existence on a sparsely populated island. They bicker, they love, they vacillate. Then it's too late...war comes to their very doorstep.

I'm always happy to watch a Bergman film, but for an odd reason. I have yet to find a Bergman film that I love.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I have nothing but respect for Bergman. I can see his film's greatness and understand why others love them so. Maybe one day I'll find that one special Bergman film that I can connect to...But for now I can only say that I find his films to be coldly austere, like the image of the forlorn couple on a desolate beach. His films never make me feel much, nor do I long to immerse myself in their world...And the people who inhabit his films seem distant to me.

Objectively: Shame is a 4/5 in my book.
Subjectively: I found myself checking the run time of the film all too often. But I have no complaints, it's a near perfect film. Nothing I'd change. I guess Bergman is just not my cup of joe.

My rating: +

Re: Citizen Rules...Cinemaesque Chat-n-Review
 

Ya I think Shame is really good. But I still like Virgin Spring and Autumn Sonata above it, perhaps a couple more.

I liked Virgin Springs. I've not seen Autumn Sonata. I'd like to see another Bergman, all the ones I've seen were in HoFs...maybe soon.

Re: Citizen Rules...Cinemaesque Chat-n-Review
 

My favorite Bergman is Fanny and Alexander the tv series. It is sumptuous. Which is not what you usually think of when you think of Bergman. My other favorite is The Best Intentions which is written by Bergman but directed by Bille August. this is a wonderful semi-autographical story about Bergman's parents as is Fanny and Alexander. Though The Best Intentions takes place in the early years of their marriage and Fanny and Alexander is that marriage seen through their children's eyes.

Re: Citizen Rules...Cinemaesque Chat-n-Review
 

Nice set of films. Someone should nominate them for a HoF if they haven't already done so.

Re: Citizen Rules...Cinemaesque Chat-n-Review
 

Shame is a horribly overlooked Bergman.



Maybe the most horribly overlooked.

I agree with you that as good as the movie is, there's no justifying its length. I also agree that Spotlight is a far superior film.

Re: Citizen Rules...Cinemaesque Chat-n-Review
 

You'd probably like The Guilty (2018). However, I disagree with the vast majority of your review this movie. Besides, there was only like 1 killing in Zodiac, wasn't there?

Interesting! I would've never guessed Bergman had directed a TV mini series. I hadn't heard of Fanny and Alexanderbefore. I see it's highly rated too.

Yeah all of the main HoFs have had great films nominated. When I go back and take a look at what was chosen I'm surprised by the diversity and quality.

I hardly ever hear Shame mentioned and yet it was well received by the HoF members and certainly is a worthy film to watch.

Thanks for the recommendation but I read the mini synopsis on IMDB and it doesn't sound like my cup of joe. But I'm sure it's a good film, just not the genre/style I usually watch.

August, 1962, was a stormy time for France. Many people felt that President Charles de Gaulle had betrayed the country by giving independence to Algeria. Extremists, mostly from the army swore to kill him in revenge. They banded together in an underground movement and called themselves the OAS.
[From the opening scene of The Day of the Jackal]

Those words that are spoken in the beginning of the film struck me with a blanket of despair. I viewed the message of this film as an ominous reminder of the specter of fascism in the world. Men of good faith don't change politics at the end of a gun barrel and yet as this fictional film pointed out, it has happened all too often throughout human history.

Especially hard for me to watch was the last scene of the President of France at the national parade, while a loan gunman seeks to change politics with a bullet. I wish events like this were limited only to fictional movies, at least I can wish that.

Not a film I'd love but a film I can respect. OMG the huge last scene with all those people in the national event, wow talk about staging a spectacular scene. The actor who played the Jackal was really good too. The custom made sniper's rifle was cool and I read that they made two for the movie AND they're working models. One's in a museum. But I really want is that white Alfa Romeo roadster!

Rudderless is a bitlike a Lifetime TV movie. And yes some of the acting wasn't the greatest. And yes Selena Gomez blew in this, not to mention that she looked 12 years old. So yeah there's alot of problems with this...BUT I still liked it.

Actually it did something many movies can't: It captured my imagination and attention right from the get go. I can't say I've seen another movie that told a narrative from the viewpoint of a parent of a school shooter. I image being a parent of someone who does murderous horrible things must be a certain type of hell. But does their story get told? Not often but in Rudderless it does. We see the damage effects it has on the parent of a school shooter, we see how such a horrible event has ruined his life as well as so many other peoples.

The other aspect I liked was the simple story of a struggling band trying to make a go of it. I've seen movies like that before and it's rewarding as it allowed me to live vicariously through the characters. I'm not over analyzing it just want to say I liked it and that's enough.

Aniara (Pella Kågerman 2018)

Swedish sci-fi with a different feel than most big budget, glossy CG Hollywood stuff. I prefer my sci-fi to be varied and I do have a fondness for indie sci fi. I don't know the budget of Aniara but it felt like a smaller budget indie film to me. So I didn't have a problem with the spaceship even though it looked more like a modern shopping mall than a spaceship. We often rank on the overuse of CG and so I can't complain that the real sets didn't look sci-fi enough. I was fine with them.

The first 30 minutes held my attention. In fact I was never bored during the movie and that's a good thing. But once the space accident happened the story then went a half dozen different ways. These story mini arcs were never fully realized or gelled into the main story and so I was constantly disappointed in what never was brought to fruition.

I read that this was based on a 1956 Swedish poem. I'm guessing the film makers felt obligated to be true to the poem. But I never read the poem so I ended up feeling unconnected from the story.

There were cool story aspects that I wanted explored like: The probe they recover, that supposedly contains needed fuel and yet they can't access the hull of the probe. That seemed to be key to the story and yet just when the probe arc got interesting, the film moved onto another chapter. I think those chapter stories are the main weakness of the film. Maybe if this had another hour we could've learned more about the food shortages, the loss of moral, the religious cult group and the authoritative captain of the ship.

Sorry to say this one didn't do anything for me. I didn't hate it or object to it, I just found it dry and flawed. The writing for the spoken dialogue was banal and sounded all the same regardless of the character speaking it. I didn't believe these people talked this way, hell I don't believe anyone talks that way. It seemed like a case of a poorly written film as far as the dialogue goes. The plot too was half backed and hard to buy into.

The film looked like it was all shot in three or four different rooms and at no time did I feel like I was in Argentina...And for the flash back scenes I certainly didn't feel like it was 1974. The romance part was a wash and the notion that 'love is in the eyes', pfft! I mean the husband of the murdered woman had revenge in his eyes. The twist ending was daft like something out of Tales from the Crypt. And the whole idea that the killer was found by an old photograph were he was glaring at the murdered woman years earlier seemed like a plot point from Murder She Wrote.

The only time the film got interesting was at the 1 hour 20 minute mark when it was revealed that the corrupt officials had employed the murderer as an anti-leftist rebel buster, or whatever he was called. But we never really see any of this, were just told about it.

Re: Citizen Rules...Cinemaesque Chat-n-Review
 

About that, did you like 12 Angry Men? If so, you'll get a kick out of it.

;):D:eek:

I loved the cinematography, the scene staging, the way it looked but I need another watch before I fully make up my mind.

The beauty of 12 Angry Men and The Guilty is that all the action happens in an enclosed area, and there's still a lot to absorb.

I like films that take place in one confined area, like submarine films. I don't know why I just do.

I love Sundays and Cybele, one of my all time favourite films.

Totally enjoyable documentary!...and that's thanks to the extremely interesting subjects...especially the tall guy on the left, Mark Borchardt who's the would-be film maker and focus of the story. If this was a Documentary HoF then American Movie might very well be my #1 choice...It's so good that I feel like watching it again!

Now objectively I don't know how to stack up a fun doc against classic cinema? I can't even say this is superb film making, because what drives the story is the completely off-the-wall people who's lives we look at.

So when I finished watching it I was thinking it was perfect but one thing: We never learn what happens to Mark Borchardt the would-be film maker? Did he complete his film Northwestern? Did he ever make any movies that were seen outside of his small community? What's he doing today? The doc didn't tell us any of that, I wish it would've told us that as an epilogue. I guess I'll have to go read on my own. Still I loved this

I could've guessed that;) Sundays and Cybele is one of my all time favorite HoF finds...Thanks for nominating it!

Yes, this was such a fun movie!

For some reason I thought this was a foreign language film. Nope it's English lanuage...though it is based of course on a classic French novel written in the mid 19th century by Victor Hugo.

Les Misérableshooked me right from the start and I was involved in the story all the way through the film. I've of course heard of Les Miserables, not that I can pronounce it, but I do know that this has been made into films many times. But I didn't know the story, so this truly was a first watch for me.

Fredrick March and Charles Laughton talk about stellar acting! March is both noble and theatrical, he reminds me of John Barrymore but more accessible for the audience. I like March every time I see him on the screen. Charles Laughton is always a highlight of any movie he's in. Here he's downright threatening and on par with his Captain Bligh in Mutiny of the Bounty which was made the same year as Les Miserables.

There's some amazing sets and the cinematography is real advanced especially for the time period. Who says film was static and stuffy back in the 1930s...not me! The scenes in the sewer tunnels were exceptional both in their lighting and framing. Was that the real Parisian sewers or a set? They look that good that it's hard to tell if it was on stage or in a sewer!

Yup it was a blast. I worked with a guy who I swear was his clone, he looked like him, came from a small town and had the same personality.

Both Sundays and Cybeles and American Movie are personal favorites. Both perfect in their own ways

Yup I'd agree that they are both perfect in their own ways. I have Allaby to thank for Sundays and Cybeles and Thief to thank for American Movie.

The artistic claustrophobia, maybe? It really does help.

Actually, that was my nomination.

It's criminal I tell ya! Just totally insane and all together unfathomable that I've never seen a Brigitte Bardot film before... Sure I've heard her name ever since I was a kid in school. Everyone knows the name Brigitte Bardot, so why haven't I seen her in anything until now.

I gotta say she could act up a storm, at least in this film. I totally believed the emotions that she was pouring out of her and onto film. I was clearly on her side from the get-go even though she did seem troubled with a capital T. But you know what, that troubled character was very believable and grounded in reality. She was both self destructive and needy at the same time with an underlying resentment of her sister and mom. Believable stuff for sure.

Gawd! I hate that guy in the screenshot above. Sami Frey was the actor who played a very well done, ******* of a person! Sometime during the movie a subtitle came on that described Gilbert (Sami Frey) perfectly...


That made me think of the movie Whiplash and Andrew the guy who wanted to be the jazz drummer and was willing to screw over his girlfriend all for his own selfish purposes. I can't stand self absorbed, smug people like that and for some reason most people root for Andrew in Whiplash but he's the same type of ******* as Gilbert is. Funny how one film can make a person hate a character and in another film that same type of character is lifted up and people admire him for his dedication to music, even though in the process he hurts people.

Orson Welles was a bonafide genius. He often referred to himself as having, "started at the top and worked his way down." At the top, refers to Citizen Kane, and Orson had an unheard of full editorial control over his 1st movie. Studios did not just grant youngsters like 26 year old Orson full control over a major studio film...but then again Orson Welles was no ordinary 26 year old!

Welles had started his career as a stage director doing plays based on Shakespeare but with a modern twist. So it's not surprising Welles chose a work of Shakespeare as the basis for his last feature length, non documentary film.

I hadn't seen Chimes at Midnight before...OMG this was epic! It had a sweeping vastness to the exterior long shots and the interiors made the castle seem vast and cavernous. And the film was drenched in Orson's unique cinema style...Like those low angled shots that made the characters look larger than life itself. I was awed at the scenes with the rows of those long spears. In one magnificent scene the clouds flew by like centuries peeling away layer by layer. How did Orson do that? I don't know, but that's why there's never been another like Orson Welles.

I'm impressed. This is my first Portuguese new wave film and there's much that I appreciated. Some might say there's little insight into the characters and their motives, but to me that screenshot says it all.

Dialogue and character deposition aren't necessary when the look in the character's eyes can explain more than words ever could...That screenshot perfectly encapsulates the emotional conflict of the couple.

The director intentionally keeps his distance from the story, as this is not a first hand telling, but a second hand telling by the uncle. Thus the lives of the young couple are seen as an impression through the eyes of the jaded uncle. I think that's brilliant film making.

There's been a lot said about some of the editing. Yes, it's a bit jarring at times. But that isn't a negative for me. I image shooting in the city presented special problems for the director with people walking into the frame ruining shots.

The cinematography: the way the camera moves, the way the director composes his scenes, the spacial distances and the angle of view...all magnificent. So many personable shots out of a window...and tracking shots that give movement to the story. Very nice.

https://www.movieforums.com/communit...chmentid=78484

A couple people mentioned the copy of the movie they watched had poor video quality. I understand how that can effect one's enjoyment of a film, it does effect me. Luckily I found a fully restored version that looked as good as new...and that quality made me appreciate the city-scape-cinematography. Much of the appeal of this film is the creative use of Lisbon. In a way the city itself is a character.

The one drawback for me is the ending, which felt tacked on so that the story could wrap up and the audience would have something to talk about afterwards. I'd preferred if the ending was earned by the movie's story and not just done for added 'flair'.

I tried watching Whiplash when it first came out, I shut it off after 30 minutes. Previously I wrote this:

Originally Posted by Citizen Rules
Whiplash lost me when the music teacher picked up and hurled a heavy metal chair at the student. I know the director wanted to show the teacher's intensity, but that scene broke the illusion of believability. No way could I believe that in today's sue-happy society would a teacher with such near-psychotic behavior be allowed to continue to work... and I sure didn't want to spend two hours listening to someone yelling & bulling. That's the problem with many new Hollywood films, they have to be bigger, louder, ballsier than the last picture.

So...I just watched the entire movie and yeah it was entertaining but akin to eating a big bag of pepperoni sticks for dinner. Sure it gives a big punch and hits the right emotional spots. But like eating a bunch of junk food, it sure in the hell wasn't good...

Miles Teller...what a bad actor, at least in this one movie. His one note method of acting never varied. It didn't matter if he was knuckling under to his instructor or 'fake acting' being shy as he asked the movie theater girl out for a date. Nothing about his acting rose above the level of mediocre.

J.K. Simmons ...he actually kicked ass as an actor and was the best casting choice in the film. But the crappy dialogue that he's forced to say by director/writer Damien Chazelle is just pure bunk, bombastic. You know J.K. Simmons could've been more intimidating just by brow beating someone with a steely glance and a snide remark. He sure didn't need the homophobia hate language, that was a cheap writer's trick to get the audience to hate the instructor's guts. That hate was not earned by the movie, it was shoveled in our face by a lame script. And yes the chair throwing incident was ridiculous. Instead: the metal folding chair should've been thrown at the ground with force. Less is more!

Melissa Benoist 'The girl'...yup that's her role in the film, to be a girl. We get one contrived meeting scene between her and the music student, that has him shyly asking her for a date. I've seen the same scene done better in corny 1980s teen films. Then there's a brief pizza eating scene, then he breaks up with her. Why bother to do a movie relationship if the script can't earn what it wants to achieve. What the film wants to do is get us to the one crucial spot where he dumps his girlfriend so he can then study music full time...thus pounding into the audience's heads that he really, really wants to be a jazz drummer. That break-up scene wasn't earned. There needed to be a couple more brief scenes establishing that 'the girl' was falling for jazz boy and that jazz boy was increasingly become obsessed with his career.

The abusive teacher....OK now that I've seen the entire film, I do know they address that the teacher was abusive. BUT that one brief scene with the lawyer (or whoever she was) trying to convince the drummer student to tell the authorities about the teacher's abuse, rang hollow...Once again the director/writer treats the scene like an afterthought. The demise of the abusive music teacher and the repercussions from that, should've been the entire third act.

Whiplash tricks the viewer into thinking they've seen something amazing when all we really did was go on a fast & loud ride.

I watched the whole thing and was that a chore! I liked the film at first as it was like a silent era comedy film about a working class man who sure coughed a lot and liked looking at pretty girls in mini skirts...He reminded me of Benny Hill at this point of the film. I'm not sure who the younger girl was in his apartment who kept exposing her breast to him...gosh I hope that wasn't his sister! But after watching the weirdness of the movie, I'm guessing it was.

I liked the social commentary from 1973...It doesn't matter that this is set in France, there was this baby boomer/hippie movement back then that endorsed well just about anything and were definitely anti-establishment. Themroc is very anti-establishment and for that reason I found it's sociological time machine look back to the early 70s interesting.

The film wrapped up with our man (don't know what his name was, Themroc maybe?) tearing apart his apartment with a sledgehammer and throwing the trappings of modern life to the sidewalk below. Clearly another statement on rejecting commercialism & capitalism. The falling debris was interesting to watch, but only for awhile, that scene went on too long. I kept thinking the guy was going to fall out of that gaping hole in his third story apartment. I hope the actor had a rope tied onto his waist as it looked dangerous. The cops come of course and well you just have to see the 'pig' roast and orgy scene for yourself...But I never thought endless closeups of people's faces as they had orgasms could be so boring.

This kinda felt like an Iranian version of Friends...at least in the beginning. Then after 30 really long minutes with nothing happening we get what felt like a contrived situation with the kid in the water and a long rescue that was suppose be thrilling, it wasn't. Then the movie turns into a 2 hour long version of a TV reality show, where a group of people crammed into one dingy, little house create drama by overreacting to the situation and accusing & yelling at each other...Then I became conscious that all I was seeing of Iran was this one little house and one small section of the beach...all shot with a hand held camera. It felt like a student film.

The actors were decent and Elly was pretty...and it was an easy movie to watch. Nothing to object to...but the story's drama should've been endemic to the social situation of Elly trying to escape a controlling fiance and as a woman not having the same rights as a man.

Re: Citizen Rules...Cinemaesque Chat-n-Review
 

So glad to see that someone sees in Whiplash what I did.

This was the nom I was most looking forward to watching...I'd seen it some 15 years ago but remembered nothing about it. I knew it had an all star cast and was directed by one of the great 20th century directors Stanley Kramer (The Defiant Ones, On the Beach, It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World, Inherit the Wind, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner). Kramer directed one of my all time top films, his tour de force Judgement at Nuremberg. So I expected big things from Ship of Fools especially as it features three of my favorite actors: Lee Marvin, Jose Ferrer and Vivian Leigh.

I hate to say this but I was underwhelmed and found the movie middle of the road. I think the problem stems from Abby Mann's screenplay of Katherine Anne Porter's novel Ship of Fools. When a screenplay is adapted from a lengthy and complex multi-character novel the screenwriter has literally two choices: They can include the bulk of the characters by skeletonizing the characters down to just a few core characteristics thus removing most of their story arcs and nuances, so as to save on film runtime...Or the screenwriter can cut mercilessly until the side characters are removed from the movie's screenplay allowing the main characters to be more fully explored in the shorter time that movies offer. Ship of Fools does the former and retains all the characters albeit in very reduced story form.

It's that lack of character exploration that disappointment me the most. Consider the rich uncle who has left all of his money to his young poor nephew with one catch, the nephew doesn't get the money until the uncle has died. But we learn nothing of their relationship other than that single fact. Then there's Vivian Leigh, we're directly told by another character she's an aging coquette who's looking for a kind of love she'll never find. But how about letting the character's actions divulge this to us instead of having the film directly tells us through a monologue...That's what happens when a novel has the characters skeletonized down to mere whispers of their former selves. It would've been better to cut the secondary story of the Spanish labors who board the ship in Cuba. Their story could be interesting but not in the short time the movie has when one considers all the numerous characters that the movie includes.


Pros: There are some real strengths in Ship of Fools. Simone Signoret and Oskar Werner who were both Oscar nominated for best actor/actress for their work on this film. Their acting and their scenes together are worth the 'price of admission'. The way they are written says much without telling us their whole story, we 'get them' through their emotions and actions, that elevates the movie and was greatly appreciated by me.

The scenes with the Jewish man (Heinz Rühmann) and the dwarf who also narrates the film (Michael Dunn) were among my favorites. Those two character added needed humanity and warmth. They felt alive, they felt real as opposed to some of the other characters who seemed like contrived archetypes. I did like Jose Ferrer's likable but loudmouth bigot. The funny thing is he doesn't even know he's a bigot and that is a bit of clever writing.

Strangely both Vivan Leigh who I adore and Lee Marvin who's just plain cool both disappointed me in this film. I don't blame the actors as I know they have the chops, I blame the script.

Despite the overly long runtime and the unevenness of the movie I am very glad to have watched this and find myself wanting to explore more of Stanley Kramer's filmography.