Change Your Image
mjr1114
Reviews
A Star Is Born (1937)
Very poignant
This is a very good film with a great cast. I've seen reviews stating this film pales in comparison to the remake, due to the fact that you get to 'see' that Judy Garland's character can sing, but you don't get to 'see' that Janet Gaynor's character can act. This is where I think the point of what this story is meant to portray is being lost by the viewer. The title isn't referring to the 'meteoric rise' of the female character, it is referring to the tragedy she endures, and how she chooses to overcome it that brings the birth of the 'Star'. In a way, Norman Maine gave his life for his wife to be born, he felt he was hampering her career and her life, so he wished to free her. Janet Gaynor was a star long before this movie came out, so it is really unfair to state that one can't believe she didn't appear to be someone that could have made such an impact in Hollywood. She'd been playing the naive type for quite some time, she played it well here, but she, also, portrayed her progressive maturity quite well and quite believably. As for me, this version shines far above the remake, because of the main character portrayals and for the outstanding supporting cast. This movie focused on the Gaynor character's experiences influenced by those around her, mostly with March's character. The remake seemed, to me, to focus mostly on the Garland character a little too much, not really getting the feel of those around her other than James Mason's character, but even it wasn't as deeply explored and conveyed as the Norman Maine character of the 1937 version. This is not taking anything away from Mr. Mason's performance, because there's no doing that, he was a great actor. However, the Frederic March portrayal was more compelling due to the fact the script allotted him to be, plus, Mr. March was a wonderful actor, one of my all time favorites. Then, you, also, have Adolphe Menjou, May Robson, Lionel Stander, and Andy Devine, all giving stellar performances. When you have a great cast like this, with a script this well written and a great director like William Wellman (whom had some very, very great pre-codes under his belt), it's a win-win situation. This movie deserved it's best picture award. And just reading comments on this movie, especially, in regards to the ending of the Norman Maine character through to the end line, I tear up, so corny, but true. This was, and still is, a great film.
Stella Dallas (1925)
Better than the 1937 version
It was a very moving experience for me to finally view this movie. It is definitely, without, a doubt superior to the already great 1937 version. Belle Bennett is absolutely brilliant in this role. It is only the second silent film that, not only brought tears to my eyes, but overfilled them, until almost bawling. It is that good. Even without the spoken word, the actors were able to display the emotions even better than actors whom had spoken their words.
I have been begging TCM for a couple of years, now, to please, air this movie. Mainly, because, I would love to know more people out there would get the chance to see this movie. If you haven't had the pleasure to see this movie, try to find a way. It won't be a waste of your time.
3:10 to Yuma (2007)
For those that just don't seem to get it... this is a remake of the 1957 version. A 50th anniversary present, possibly.
*******SPOILERS, SPOILERS, SPOILERS*********** The following is the plot/summary of the original version: Synopsis
In the Arizona Territory of the 1880s, rancher Dan Evans (Van Heflin) and his young sons witness a stagecoach holdup. When the driver, Bill Moons (Boyd Stockman), overpowers one of the robbers and uses him as a human shield, Ben Wade (Glenn Ford), the leader of the gang, callously shoots both men.
Wade and his men stop at the saloon in nearby Bisbee, posing as cowhands. When Wade stays too long to become acquainted with the pretty barmaid, Emmy (Felicia Farr), he is captured, but his henchman, Charlie Prince (Richard Jaeckel) gets away with the news. The townspeople fear what his men will do, so the marshal (Ford Rainey) decides to have two volunteers sneak the prisoner to Contention City to catch a train, the 3:10 to Yuma. Mr. Butterfield (Robert Emhardt), the stage-line owner, offers $200 for the dangerous job. Desperate after three years of drought, Dan jumps at the opportunity, but the only other man interested is the town drunk, Alex Potter (Henry Jones). When no one else steps forward, the marshal reluctantly accepts them.
Wade is placed on a stagecoach, which then stops (in view of some of the gang) for a faked repair; the outlaw is secretly taken off while the stage continues on with an imposter, in the hopes that by the time the outlaws figure out what has happened, it will be too late. Wade is taken to Dan's ranch, where Dan's devoted wife Alice (Leora Dana) serves supper to the family and their "guest".
Dan, Alex, and Wade leave under cover of darkness, reaching Contention City at daybreak. Butterfield has reserved a room at the hotel. While they wait for the train, Wade tries several times to bribe Dan into letting him go. Dan is greatly tempted. The local sheriff is out of town, but Butterfield hires five men to help escort the prisoner to the train.
Things go awry when Bob Moons (Sheridan Comerate) barges in unexpectedly and threatens to shoot his brother's killer. Dan wrestles his gun away from him, but in the struggle, it goes off. Downstairs, Charlie Prince, who has also come to Contention City, hears the gunshot, and spots Wade in a window. Charlie is seen riding off to fetch the rest of the gang.
The men Butterfield recruited watch as seven riders enter the town. Not liking the odds, they retreat, leaving only Dan, Alex and Butterfield. When Alex goes out to reconnoiter, he spots one of Wade's men on a rooftop opposite the hotel. Alex calls out, warning Dan, but is shot in the back by Prince. The gang hangs the wounded Alex from the lobby chandelier, killing him. Butterfield decides that maintaining Wade as a prisoner is not worth the risk, and releases Dan from his obligation. Alice arrives and also tries to change her husband's mind, but he is committed: "The town drunk gave his life because he believed that people should be able to live in decency and peace together. You think I can do less?"
When the clock strikes three, Dan escorts Wade out the back door. Gang members take shots whenever they can without endangering Wade, but despite their best efforts, they cannot stop the pair from reaching the platform, where the train is waiting. Finally, the outlaws emerge to confront Dan as the train starts to leave. Charlie shouts for Wade to drop to allow them a clear shot at Dan. Instead, Wade unexpectedly tells Dan to jump into the passing baggage car. They jump together. The gang starts to run after the train, but Dan shoots Charlie and the rest then let it go. Wade explains himself, saying he felt he owed Dan for protecting him from Bob Moons in the hotel room, and confidently claiming he has broken out of the Yuma jail before (implying he can do so again), but whether these statements reflect his true motivations and prospects is not clear. Alice sees Dan safe on the train as rain pours down on her, breaking the long drought. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/index.html?curid=3374650
The differences are mainly that the son is along in this, the wife is less present, Dan dies in this one, and Ben kills the whole crew rather than just Charilie. In the remake, it did appear like Ben was about to draw on Ben Wade, once he defended himself against him, he had to take the others out, being they, too, were attempting to draw, it's called self-preservation. He wasn't on the train, yet, as he was in the original version. Plus, he plans on escaping in both versions. In this version, he gets to keep all the money, and he let the other man look like a hero. It's idealism, you don't need realism in everything. Just because it's not a fantasy genre, doesn't make it not. Movies are just that. Not every movie is based on fact. Actually, even the 'based on' movies aren't always 100% fact. I didn't need to suspend belief for a moment, I've seen too many westerns, horror flicks, gangster movies, thrillers, romances, sci-fi etc, etc, etc to expect anything other than to be entertained. When a movie fails to do that, then that is when it has failed. Only, then.
This was a good film and it did make you care for the characters, and because I was able to get it, I cried. Not too many movies have done that to me, lately.
Downstairs (1932)
A very good film that you won't forget seeing
This is true pre-code. Great acting by John Gilbert, he plays the character believably, not over the top, either. I saw this film only once about 8 years ago, and I never forgot its name or the desire to have it either on tape or on DVD. This was before actors played against type and got away with it. Mr. Gilbert did this in this movie and did it greatly, it's a shame the movie did not fare well with the audience of its time. They missed out on a gem. Thank the Lord there's TCM to bring such types of movies to the viewing area, at least, until they do become available for purchase. If you get the chance to see this, it won't be a waste of your time.
Meet John Doe (1941)
This is my favorite movie of all time!!!
There is so much greatness in this movie. It is definitely a Capra film. To me, it is his best. I think Gary Cooper WAS Long John Willoughby. He too transferred into John Doe almost seamlessly. Barbara Stanwyck was excellent, as well. Including the ending when she finally showed some true emotion. It was needed. If she would not have shown that side, then definitely the film would have not been so believable. She would not have been seen as a good sort at the end. She would have ended up being looked upon as being too callous. That would have ruined the premise of the movie, being she was the one writing the words behind the movement. I think all the supporting actors where phenomenal and played key parts in the storytelling. Every one of them, even the ones that seem insignificant. Every scene was significant, the movie would not be what it is without a single one. I read that someone felt the baseball scene was a waste of time. I love this scene, it is very well executed. Plus, it made me believe the story of the whole idea that Long John Willoughby was a baseball player. I remember when AMC aired it (before commercials were implemented and ruined the station) and the host, Bob (cannot recall his full name) spoke of the scene in such a way that made me love it even more. I love Walter Brennan's 'Heelot's' spiel all throughout. I can't tell you how much I loved it. Especially, when the other guys start to use the word towards each other. Perfect! Plus, who can't help but be sucked in by the 'Love thy neighbor' theme? That riot at the rally is somewhat difficult to watch, not that it's graphic or vile or anything in that manner. It's just you so want them to listen to John and they won't. You are sitting there watching it wishing you could stop the madness for him. It's kinda like when you're watching Jesus of Nazareth and they're yelling to free Barabus and someone punches Mary of Magdalene when she yells out Jesus' name. It's that type of feeling. Almost as if you're in that helpless situation, and that helps you to understand how the character of John must be feeling. That's what makes the ending so believable to me, because I can believe that's why everyone whom showed up did when they did and reacted as they did. Because they felt the helplessness that this man had felt and realized he may do whatever it took to take control and get things back on track, even if it meant taking his own life. I think Capra was a genius. This movie is more relevant for today than most people will ever allow themselves to believe. Most won't even give it a chance just because it's an 'old' movie. They did try to make a remake, a very loosely adapted remake, called 'Hero' with Andy Garcia and Dustin Hoffman. It was an alright movie, but they strayed too far, probably from fear that the people of the time would not 'get' it by doing it like the original. Plus, at that time, you would have had to get Harrison Ford to play the role of Long John Willoughby. He was the closest thing this generation has come to the great Gary Cooper. Unfortunately, even his time has past to be able to pick up that role if it was to ever be done, he's definitely not cynical enough to play the Colonel role convincingly, either. Too bad. Maybe the James Gleason role? Who would play Edward Arnold's overtly evil role? I don't like to use the word hate, but I hated that character. That's proves how well he played that role. I wish everyone would watch this movie at least once and while they are do so as if you'd never seen another movie, before. I think they'd all be surprised at how well they would appreciate it.
War Babies (1932)
A very cute & Innocent Spoof of a Silent Classic!!!
This is the second Baby Burlesk short to be released, and probably the most popular one, is a spoof of the 1926 silent film What Price Glory.
I watched this and I do not understand the kiddie-porn that is being claimed. It is just a cute little film. I have seen family shows that I grew up watching in the '80's and '90's that had little girls dressed more provocatively acting in a 'mature manner'. It was more provocative because they WEREN'T dressed in diapers. There's nothing provocative about a diaper unless you have one of those fetishes. (just a joke) I read that description of the movie and where it states only a pedophile would enjoy watching this. That is sick. To me, if you watch this and are bothered by it, then maybe you need to look into your own psyche and try to figure out why it bothers you. It is an innocent film that was made as a parody of another film. All of the B.B. films were parodies, nothing more. The parodies/spoofs of today are graphic in nature and have true almost pornographic scenes and quite vile language. Shouldn't those be more appalling? I can watch those without issue, but they sometimes take children's stories and turn them into filth on those parodies. That is what should get under your skin. Not that they babified (not a word, I know) an adult movie from 1926, because we know how PORNOGRAPHIC those silent films were, huh? Not to mention those 'Forbidden Hollywood Pre-Code era films' so vile and filthy. They would NEVER make such filth today? (note the sarcasm)