Citizen Rules...Cinemaesque Chat-n-Review

→ in
Tools    





I still have Planes, Trains and Automobiles on my watchlist from when you and Capt. Steel recommended it. Hopefully I'll get to it soon, now that I finished watching movies for the 1940s countdown.
When you watch it, pop in here and let me know what you think?

Rules, I don't remember what you rated Summer Rental, but which was better in your opinion? (I still have never watched The Great Outdoors.)
Easy Peasy, just click on the Movies link on top of any MoFo page and then type in the name of the movie you want to find. A number of title matches will pop up, then click on the one that matches and then click Find Movies...

I reviewed Summer Rental see if you can find my review



[center]


[left][font=Georgia]Homicidal (1961)
Director/Producer: William Castle
Writer: Robb White
Cast: Joan Marshall, Glenn Corbett, Patricia Breslin
Genre: Horror, Mystery, Thriller
Never heard of this movie and, as you know, not my favorite genre, but this one looks kind of fun I might check it out.




Strategic Air Command (1955)
Director: Anthony Mann
Writers: Valentine Davies(screenplay), Beirne Lay Jr(screenplay)
Cast: James Stewart, June Allyson, Frank Lovejoy
Genre: Action, Drama, War

A ex WWII bomber pilot who's currently playing baseball in the big leagues is recalled to active duty by the U.S. Air Force.

Lt. Col Robert 'Dutch' Holland (James Stewart) is assigned to America's Cold War defense program S.A.C. Otherwise known as Strategic Air Command which is responsible for reconnaissances of hostile forces, and if need be the deployment of nuclear weapons.



Mostly forgotten today, Strategic Air Command was a big glossy Paramount film back in 1955, being released in wide screen VistaVision and shot in Technicolor. The film is a rarity in featuring actual military aircraft as 'one of the stars' of the film.

Much footage is dedicated to the nuclear bombers the B-36, nicknamed the 'flying cigar' which was a long range bomber and the new B-47 which was a mid range jet bomber. We see both planes on the ground, and on an actual airbase...as well as in the air. We even see the big KC-90 refueling plane gassing up a B-36 while flying non stop from Florida to Japan.

If that ain't enough aviation goodies we spend a lot of time behind actual cockpits of the planes and interiors of the B-36. The vintage planes are half the appeal.

The other half of the films appeal is the low key story of two people played by James Stewart and June Allyson. Both are believable in their roles. And unlike similar films where drama is ramped up to soap opera proportions, the personal story here is of a man who responds to his countries call to duty...and his wife who is left all alone. They clearly love each other but the military life is hard on both of them.



Love that 1950s kitchen and hey that's not retro, that's the real thing! And could June Allyson look any more doll like in that black and white crinoline dress?

On the DVD that I watched, the film was beautifully restored and looked phenomenal. And if you like history this film goes into great detail explaining S.A.C.s operational role and reasons for being.




Attachments
Click image for larger version

Name:	B47.jpg
Views:	1179
Size:	209.8 KB
ID:	34908   Click image for larger version

Name:	100arsKC97linez.jpg
Views:	586
Size:	212.0 KB
ID:	34909   Click image for larger version

Name:	Strategic Air Command.jpg
Views:	501
Size:	302.1 KB
ID:	34910  



As I've mentioned before on other threads, Donnie Darko is among the handful films I just don't understand. It also made my most disturbing film experiences list.



Save the Texas Prairie Chicken
The People V. OJ Simpson (2016)
I honestly tried to watch this when it first came on and I was just bored. I don't know what it was. I have considered giving it another go, but I don't know! Maybe I know too much about the case to care now, but I don't know if it was that. It just didn't seem to draw me in as fast as it should have. I think I only watched 1 1/2 of the episodes. If I remember right I changed the channel during the middle of the second one and I just never went back. I've been waiting for a marathon of it on TV at some point, but it hasn't happened yet. So I don't know if I will ever go out of my way to watch it otherwise.


This was made in 1973 by ITV Yorkshire Television and as such it doesn't have a big budget or a splashy look like a BBC production would have. That's OK, as the film was actually filmed in the Bronte's Haworth parsonage.
I think ITV has surpassed the BBC in quality in the past few years (there are a couple of their programs that I think you would like). I just find myself preferring their programs nowadays. Anyway, you gave me a fact that I didn't know - or maybe did but I didn't let it sink in - that they filmed this at their home. That is interesting. I'm glad to hear that you liked it, though, because I thought it was a good production, too. I think if you want a more thorough telling of their lives, you almost need a little more time put into it. And this definitely gives you that.


Best of all it has Howard Keel and Dolores Gray both who can belt out a tune! and so can Ann Blyth.
No! Best of all you get my Vic Damone belting out in this film.

You may not have given my vocal god any credit in words, but at least you put a picture of him in your review.
__________________
I became insane, with long intervals of horrible sanity - Edgar Allan Poe



The People V. OJ Simpson (2016) I honestly tried to watch this when it first came on and I was just bored. I don't know what it was. I have considered giving it another go, but I don't know! Maybe I know too much about the case to care now, but I don't know if it was that. It just didn't seem to draw me in as fast as it should have. I think I only watched 1 1/2 of the episodes. If I remember right I changed the channel during the middle of the second one and I just never went back.
I don't know if you caught the discussion on this, but I had said that I was bored after the second episode and almost didn't finish it. But after the 3rd episode and especially the 4th, I was hooked.


No! Best of all you get my Vic Damone belting out in this film.
You may not have given my vocal god any credit in words, but at least you put a picture of him in your review.
Just for you, l'll update my review with a paragraph on him I did like his story line as the young prince.




Angel Face (1953)
Director: Otto Preminger
Writers: Frank Nugent & Oscar Millard (screenplay), Chester Erskine (story)
Cast: Robert Mitchum, Jean Simmons, Mona Freeman, Herbert Marshall, Leon Ames
Genre: Film Noir


Executive Producer Howard Hughes, the famous billionaire, churned out some pretty far fetched movies in his time, with both his own production company and at R.K.O. studios including...

Angel Face with it's A-list talent: Robert Mitchum, Jean Simmons and director Otto Preminger, should have been a big hit...but this B-budget Noir with it's C-story, has faded into obscurity, with one exception...

The film is noted for a big name fan, French New Wave director Jean-Luc Godard who in 1963 named Angel Face as his 8th best American Sound film.

What Godard seen in this troubled production I'll never know. The story plays out like a first draft of a promising premise. That premise being a young well-to-do-woman (Jean Simmons) suffers from a father fixation and despises her step mother, who she feels has stolen dad from her.

The opening scene is an apparent suicide attempt by the mother who's bedroom has the gas valve turned on and she almost asphyxiates. That's when we're introduced to the brooding leading man, (Robert Mitchum), and ambulance driver who's called to the estate.

Here's where the problems begin. Mitchum who's so perfect for Noir, doesn't fit the bill of an easily manipulative, clueless man, who so easily falls for the, all to obvious scheming by the daughter... who then plots to steal Mitchum from his girlfriend (Mona Freeman).


In one of the film's better scenes, Mona Freeman on the left is set up for a fall by scheming socialite Jean Simmons, who's after the blondes boyfriend.

Jean Simmons is decent as the proper and prim, yet unhinged woman. It's fun to see her derail the former girlfriend with a healthy dose of subterfuge. In fact I love the premise and maybe so did Godard. But there's something lacking in the nuance of the film.

Mitchum and Simmons have no chemistry, maybe because this is such a troubled production. Otto Preminger hated the original script and refused to direct the movie. Howard Hughes ends up taking Preminger on a car ride where he tells him, "I'm going to get even with that little bitch (Jean Simmons),and you're going to help me."

Preminger was then allowed to rewrite the script and given a financial bonus to boot, but only if he could finish the film in under 18 days, by which time Jean Simmons would no longer be under contract to Howard Hughes.

Jean Simmons, knowing that Hughes preferred his leading ladies with long hair, purposely cut her hair short. Thus she wears a rather bad looking wig throughout the movie. So if all this isn't enough to poison the atmosphere on the movie set, this happens:

When Robert Mitchum got fed up with repeated re-takes in which director Otto Preminger ordered him to slap Jean Simmons across the face, he turned around and slapped Preminger, asking whether it was this way he wanted it. Preminger immediately demanded of producer Howard Hughes that Mitchum be replaced. Hughes refused.
That sounds like Robert Mitchum and good for him!...It's too bad that his character is more or less a wimpy sap, who easily gets strung along by the movies femme fatale, without any real motivation for him to fall for her.

Jean Simmons' character is neither sinfully alluring like Barbara Stanwyck in Double Indemnity, nor is she a thing of sheer beauty and grace that men fall head over heals for like Gene Tierney in Otto Preminger's' noir Laura.


Leon Ames proves himself not only to be a well versed character actor but a pretty darn good defense attorney too.

The one saving grace of the film is the courtroom scene, no doubt a Preminger strength. In the courtroom we see Leon Ames as the slick talking attorney...hell he just about convinced me and I had just seen the murder a few minutes earlier.





Attachments
Click image for larger version

Name:	Angel Face 1952  (1).JPG
Views:	294
Size:	124.2 KB
ID:	35014   Click image for larger version

Name:	Angel Face 1952  (3).JPG
Views:	308
Size:	106.0 KB
ID:	35015   Click image for larger version

Name:	Angel Face 1952  (2).JPG
Views:	488
Size:	158.8 KB
ID:	35018  



Save the Texas Prairie Chicken
I don't know if you caught the discussion on this, but I had said that I was bored after the second episode and almost didn't finish it. But after the 3rd episode and especially the 4th, I was hooked.
I saw what was written, but you actually made it through the 2nd episode to get to the 3rd. I couldn't make it through the second at all. It felt like a struggle. Like I said, though, if they ever have a marathon on TV (this is the kind of thing that is apt to be something like a New Year's Day marathon), maybe I will give it another try.


Just for you, l'll update my review with a paragraph on him I did like his story line as the young prince.
Aw, thanks. You want to know what has always bothered me with that movie regarding Vic? "Night of My Nights" is one of my absolute favorite songs to come out of a musical (and the original classical piece that the music is taken from is one of my favorites). In the original Broadway show the Caliph sings the majority of "Night of My Nights" alone until the chorus joins him. They took that opportunity of singing that song away from Vic. On the soundtrack that I own he sings throughout the song but with the chorus singing with him (with the exception of one part). It sounds better than what you see in the film, but I still don't know why they took that song, basically, away from him. It makes no sense. I know Minnelli hated him. No real reason either (kind of like the detective in The Hurricane - it is a mystery). Maybe that had something to do with what they did in the film with the character. I can't remember the incident anymore (I have to look through the book again to see what happened exactly), but I know Minnelli was pretty bad to Vic and I guess Ann Blyth said something along the lines of how she doesn't think he should be treated like that, and Howard Keel said that if Minnelli had treated him the way that Vic was treated, he would've hit Minnelli. I can't for the life of me remember what it was anymore. I will have to look into that and get back to you on it.




In Dubious Battle (2016)

Director: James Franco
Writers: Matt Rager (screenplay), John Steinbeck (novel)
Cast: Nat Wolff, James Franco, Vincent D'Onofrio, Ed Harris
Genre: Drama

Actor James Franco
directs a John Steinbeck novel, bringing it to the big screen for the first time with, In Dubious Battle.

Right off the bat the directorial choices seemed odd, or more to the point they seemed mediocre, like something one would expect to see on a made for TV movie. Almost all the elements of the film were average, and I got the feeling budget concerns was an issue with the movie. The films one claim to fame is it stacks the deck with lots of big name stars in supporting roles: Ed Harris, Robert Duvall, Sam Shepard, John Savage and even pop singer

Selena Gomez. But the soul of the film is lacking.




Perhaps the best thing James Franco does is act in the movie, and in that job he's pretty good. Unfortunately the other lead actor,

Nat Wolff seemed to be out of place in a film set during the Depression era. His mannerisms seemed very modern...and that's the fault of the director, not the actor.

Beyond that the movie has a rather oppressive at times music score, though I did love the closing credit song. And I couldn't help notice the editing put the camera shots together in a way that continuity sometimes seemed to go out the window.

My biggest problem with this movie version of Steinbeck's 1936 classic novel, is the way the director takes liberties with the story and makes the union organizers, unscrupulousness...that's pure schlock. The director takes these labor organizers who were fighting for fair treatment of the field hands and makes them into cut throats who don't care about human life but only care about the end results. Even if those end results means setting their friends up to be killed...which was never happened in the novel.

I think Steinbeck would be pissed at James Franco.





Attachments
Click image for larger version

Name:	In Dubious Battle (1).jpg
Views:	260
Size:	268.4 KB
ID:	35029   Click image for larger version

Name:	In Dubious Battle (2).jpg
Views:	252
Size:	169.0 KB
ID:	35030  




Mr. Sardonicus (William Castle 1961)

Director: William Castle
Writers: Ray Russell (screenplay), Ray Russell (novel)
Cast: Ronald Lewis, Audrey Dalton, Guy Rolfe, Oskar Homolka
Genre: Horror, Mystery

Synopsis
: In the fictional European country of Gorslave, in 1880 lives a rich baron who's face became frozen in a monstrous grin after a bizarre incident. The baron wears a mask, and has married a beautiful woman who despises him. A young doctor is sent for from London on urgent business to the castle. When the doctor gets there he finds a house of horrors.

Review
: This is probably Producer William Castle's most serious and hard hitting horror film. It's a shame more people don't know about it. I suppose that because Castle for each of his films did a gimmick to sell tickets. This time around:

During Mr Sardonicus initial theatrical release, audience members were given small white cards with luminous thumbs with which to vote thumbs-up or thumbs-down.

Although the audience could vote on whether the main character could be pardoned or receive further punishment. William Castle filmed only one ending for the movie.
This gimmick in itself would have been fun for the audience back in 1961....but during the film the story stops and we see William Castle telling us to vote now. Half a century later this gimmick makes the film seem like it was made for kids, but Mr Sardonicus stands up well against Hammer horror of the same era. It deserves some respect.



The film is well made with a nicely appointed castle set. Looks great! And the actors are all up to the task too. My favorite was Krull (Oscar Homolka) who plays an Igor type henchman to the evil baron. Oscar Homolka was in a number of big pictures earlier in his career including I Remember Mama (1948) and Ball of Fire (1941). He makes a memorable bad guy who just maybe has a bit of decency left in him.



The movie is based on a novella by
Ray Russell and horror master Stephen King has called the novel the best horror fiction he's read. I haven't read the book, but the movie works well and is a mix of Phantom of the Opera, meets The Man Who Laughs...with a creepy castle that Dracula would have been at home in.

The torture scenes are still powerful even today, and at at the time of the films release those scenes had to be cut for showing in the UK.


Attachments
Click image for larger version

Name:	Mr Sardonicus 1961 (2).jpg
Views:	365
Size:	45.2 KB
ID:	35043   Click image for larger version

Name:	Mr Sardonicus 1961 (4).jpg
Views:	353
Size:	43.6 KB
ID:	35046   Click image for larger version

Name:	Mr Sardonicus 1961 (1).jpg
Views:	302
Size:	110.4 KB
ID:	35048  




[center][size=5]In Dubious Battle (2016)
Nice to see James Franco distancing himself from the Judd Apatow rep company...never heard of this book, I thought I had at least heard of all of Steinbeck's work.




Mr. Sardonicus (William Castle 1961)

For some reason I always want to call this movie "Dr. Sardonicus."

I can relate to it though - in the past some people have called me Mr. Sardonic (due to my "grimly mocking or cynical" sense of humor).




Patriots Day (2016)

Director: Peter Berg
Writers: Peter Berg & Matt Cook (screenplay)
Cast: Mark Wahlberg, Michelle Monaghan, J.K. Simmons
Genre: Drama History


"The story of the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing and the aftermath, which includes the city-wide manhunt to find the terrorists responsible."

All I really knew about Patriots Day before watching it was that it starred Mark Walberg and looked like a Hollywood action flick from the poster. So I didn't have high expectations going into it.

I hated the way the first 30 minutes was filmed...It looked like a Showtime TV show...with lots of close-ups of the actors, while using a hand held camera with very short scene length. It just looked like cheap film making. Indeed it does cost more to shot wide angle as you have to have a much bigger set, than if you just fill the frame with the giant face of Mark Wahlberg.



The introduction of the people who lives would later become affected by the bomb is a standard film troupe, but one that usually works damn good, that's why it's a troupe. But not here. I never felt like I knew who these people were, so I never cared about them...That resulted in me not being emotional impacted by the bomb blast scenes, as all the previous scenes of the victims were mere snipets. So when their body parts are laying on the street in a bloody mess, all I'm thinking is: is that CG blood or is it F/X blood? And that's not right, the real bombing incident changed lives forever but the director failed to get any emotional impact out of his scenes, because they look more like a video game, than real life.

When we get into the investigation the film is still weak without strong expose. It's only when we see the bombers and their POV that the movie becomes real, and tense.

I have to say when we see the bombers execute the cop and take the Chinese boy hostage, that was emotionally intense. I was hooked at that moment and thought the film was redeeming itself. But then OMG, along comes Hollywood style explosions, as we see cop car after cop car being blown sky high by the bombers with their homemade pipe bombs. That ruined any credibility the film had built during the hostage scenes. The entire last shot out with the bad guys, was so fake it belonged in a John Wicks movie.

So at the end the director shows us the real victims with photos and screen captions...and sure that's heart felt... but that 12 minute style documentary epilogue doesn't redeem the directors lame decision to turn a tragic real event, into a lame ass action movie. Boo

Attachments
Click image for larger version

Name:	Patriots Day.jpg
Views:	329
Size:	352.6 KB
ID:	35144   Click image for larger version

Name:	Patriots Day 1.jpg
Views:	244
Size:	259.9 KB
ID:	35145  



What is it with real-life movies these days?
Stories I was really looking forward to - like the trapped Chilean Miners (The 33) and the "Miracle on the Hudson" (Sully)- just made for disappointing movies. Now this (haven't seen it, but I trust your rating).



What is it with real-life movies these days?
Stories I was really looking forward to - like the trapped Chilean Miners (The 33) and the "Miracle on the Hudson" (Sully)- just made for disappointing movies. Now this (haven't seen it, but I trust your rating).
Don't trust my rating! I was actually thinking of you when I watched this, I wondered if you have seen it before?

The bombers POV, from the time they go on the run, then kill a cop point blank and then take a Chinese boy hostage was intense! My heart was pounding and the shot-out with the terrorist was exciting.

I think you might like it from an entertainment stand point, but I don't think it was good film making per say.

Two other reviewers here gave it
so I think you should watch it and see for yourself.



Don't trust my rating! I was actually thinking of you when I watched this, I wondered if you have seen it before?

The bombers POV from the time they go on the run, kill a cop point blank and take Chinese boy hostage was intense! My heart was pounding and the shot out with the terrorist was exciting. And I think you might like it from an entertainment stand point, but I don't think it was good film making per say.

Two other reviewers here gave it
so I think you should watch it and see for yourself.
I'd probably watch it just because it was a story I followed in real life (like The 33 & Sully) and as you probably know, terrorism is a topic I'm interested in. For some reason I thought this movie was brand new (like just hitting theaters) - guess not.

The intro you described sounds like so many other movies these days - filmmakers get this avant garde idea in their head that extreme close-ups and shaky cam is "the thing" so they all do it (kind of like how in the 70's every movie had to have a gratuitous nude or sex scene in order to be considered sophisticated enough). When in reality, most would prefer a more traditional style of filmmaking. i.e. It's a fad.

Other movies in this vein were World Trade Center (I just remember being somewhat disappointed) and United 93 (which wasn't bad at all, I just remember that the TV docu-drama seemed better than the big budget feature film.)



...The intro you described sounds like so many other movies these days - filmmakers get this avant garde idea in their head that extreme close-ups and shaky cam is "the thing" so they all do it...
If you ever watch Showtime/HBO TV shows, then the style of film making in Patriots Day will feel familiar.




Saving Mr. Banks (2013)
Director: John Lee Hancock
Cast: Emma Thompson, Tom Hanks, Annie Rose Buckley
Genre: Biography, Drama


This is the type of film I love, a historical period piece, bio-pic about an iconic figure...And who's more iconic than Walt Disney himself!

Tom Hanks
as Walt Disney was spot on. What a fine job he did! I wish this film had been more about Walt. If it had I would have loved it. Maybe Tom Hanks can reprise his role as Walt Disney and this time tell the story of the creation of the Disney Studios. Well I can wish can't I.



What I didn't like was the way the author of Mary Poppins, P.L. Travers (Emma Thompson) was shown to be so one sided, completely unlikable and demanding. So much so that I just wanted Walt Disney to smack her a good one. She kept making ridiculous demands and belittling everyone at Disney Studios. I guess the director thought her over the top behavior would be funny, but I found it annoying and strongly disliked her character.

For the film to work for me she had to have a soft side to herand she does but it's not until the end of the film that this icy lady begins to warm and so a spark of humanity shows. That's when I started caring about her character.



P.L. Travers wanted the central character of the movie to be exactly the person who she grew up with and wanted everything exactly the way she remembered it. She did not understand that things had to be enhanced for entertainment value, nor did she care about entertainment value, all she wanted was to see her childhood recreated onscreen and I can understand that to a point.

I actually loved when she asked Disney how they were going to train the penguins to dance and when he explained they would be animated she would have none of it.

What I thought strange was the fact that everything Travers fought against, ended up on the screen anyway. A process which began during the fabulous scene where she is shown the "Let's Go Fly a Kite" number for the first time and finally realizes that Disney does understand that the story is about Mr. Banks, not the children.

Any problems I might have had with the Travers character melted away during the scene where she is sitting in the dark theater at the premiere of the film, not really liking what she's saying but unable to deny that everyone around her was absolutely loving what they're seeing, a scene brilliantly executed by Emma Thompson, that scene alone should have gotten her an Oscar nomination.

Attachments
Click image for larger version

Name:	Saving Mr Banks 2013 (3).jpg
Views:	267
Size:	138.1 KB
ID:	35181   Click image for larger version

Name:	Saving Mr Banks 2013 (1).jpg
Views:	204
Size:	171.0 KB
ID:	35182   Click image for larger version

Name:	Saving Mr Banks 2013 (2).jpg
Views:	229
Size:	263.1 KB
ID:	35183  



Great write-up of Patriots Day, CR!!!

I agree with everything you said. The Chinese dude and all that was also one of the only places where I felt some excitement and felt involved in what was happening on screen. The best drama Berg created himself was with this dude.

And I agree about the whole fact that everything is drawn so thin and done so poorly that the bombing scenes never has the impact it needs. Not even close.


On Saving Mr Banks I didn't find it that good either. Watchable, but not that much more. I gave it half a star less I think...



Great write-up of Patriots Day, CR!!!

I agree with everything you said. The Chinese dude and all that was also one of the only places where I felt some excitement and felt involved in what was happening on screen. The best drama Berg created himself was with this dude.

And I agree about the whole fact that everything is drawn so thin and done so poorly that the bombing scenes never has the impact it needs. Not even close.


On Saving Mr Banks I didn't find it that good either. Watchable, but not that much more. I gave it half a star less I think...
Thanks MM.....BTW I'll be watching another Berg film Deep Water Horizon, sometime in the near future. I seen where you liked it better than Patriots Day so that gives me some hope.