Change Your Image
glendalough
Reviews
Fury (1936)
Good despite New Deal propaganda
Some very interesting plot elements and cinematography puts this above many comparable films of the day. Tracy's character is interesting. He is not the two-dimensional victim but is more complex as seen as the film develops. It is also fun seeing a fairly young Walter Brennan who, unlike later roles, is a more ambivalent character. "Fury" is an overall good treatment of mob psychology though one could have done without the New Deal propaganda and equation of everything bad with conservatives and strike-breaking scabs. At times its so heavy handed as to be silly. Mob violence knows no political boundaries as the French Revolution shows. But taken as a treatment of the need for fairness and rule of law it imparts a good message.
Gaslight (1940)
The 1940 version has its own charms
Both the 1944 and 1940 versions came on the same DVD, though I didn't watch them back-to-back. I viewed the older film a few months later. It was different enough to be enjoyable. On the plus side, I prefer just about any actress to Ingrid Bergman. Anton Walbrook plays despicable better than Boyer. What I liked best was that the hero wasn't an American obviously miscast (Joseph Cotton) with the de rigueur romance role, but instead a jolly, elderly retired policeman (Frank Pettingell) turned detective. There are some comic and light touches not found in the 1944 film. I also preferred the sets and atmosphere in this one. Charmingly reminiscent of the old UK produced Dickens' films of the period. On the minus side, while the film never drags, there is probably more plot development to the 1944 version. Also, I said that Walbrook is more loathsome, and probably more convincing overall, but I have to admire the subtlety of Boyer's manipulativeness. At times Walbrook is too obviously a bully. Also, no one can top the young Angela Lansbury (1944) as Nancy, the air-headed domestic tart.
Saints and Soldiers (2003)
Not perfect, but better than most new war films
People seem fairly strongly divided on this movie. The biggest complaint seems to be that the soldiers don't use enough profanity. But that strikes me as a distraction... like saying we should see portrayals of a person's every bodily function. Is it necessary or even desirable? After all even the most "realistic" film is still not reality, but a representation thereof. As for violence, "Saints and Soldiers" is definitely not for kids but neither is it the exhibitionist gore found in many war flicks that makes them unwatchable. The weak spot is in the plot which seems unnecessarily melodramatic and fantastic in parts. The role of the English pilot could have been done away with and left plenty of believable action. On the other hand, the story is engaging and suspenseful and the characters (despite, or perhaps because of, the "no name" actors) are very strong -- distinct, believable and interesting. Other war films could learn from this as "Saints and Soldiers" takes a step in the right direction, back to classics like Twelve O'Clock High or Pork Chop Hill, by being realistic without being simply gross. Some people also complained about the "Mormon proselytizing." I'm a practicing Catholic, and I didn't find it a problem. More like a depiction of how a Mormon soldier might have behaved in World War II. After all, one has to put up with movies with plenty of atheist proselytizing, so get over it....
Benedict Arnold: A Question of Honor (2003)
Not a family film... or a very good film
I made the mistake of assuming that this would be something for the whole family. I guess the casting of Kelsey Grammar should've tipped me off. Though his portrayal of Washington is fairly straight, it includes at least one lewd comment. Not that I think Washington was a saint or that there wasn't lewdness galore in the 18th century. It just doesn't suit Washington. But it gets worse. There are two bedroom scenes with Benedict Arnold and his wife one of which is very suggestive (partial nudity). That and the harrowing battlefield medical procedures push this film to at least a PG-13 (if not higher). Unfortunately, since it was a cable TV production, there's no rating, and hence no guidelines for parents. Luckily my wife and I previewed it before deciding not to show it to the family. We'd seen "Master and Commander" which has some pretty gritty scenes -- also not for kids -- but in some respects I thought "Benedict Arnold" was much more objectionable for graphic gore and distress. I put aside questions of Mr. Quinn's over-acting. I won't say there was nothing good to the movie. It had potential. It just didn't live up to it.
The Lone Ranger (1956)
An underrated Western classic
I found this film at our local library while searching for the old TV series. I never knew Clayton Moore had done a feature length movie as the Lone Ranger, so this was a pleasant surprise on many counts. It's a strong performance for a "B" movie, better in fact than many contemporary westerns with bigger stars. It has an excellent supporting cast (though Lyle Bettger as Reece Kilgore is just as weak here as he is as Ike Clanton in Gunfight at the O.K. Corral). Strong moral themes, lots of action and an interesting, even rather complex, plot for a piece like this. Michael Ansara is great as Angry Horse, the volatile Indian who is at odds with the Lone Ranger. A very re-watchable family favorite!
Story of G.I. Joe (1945)
Wartime Film Noir that Flounders
Despite the acclaim on the DVD cover of the version I borrowed, this film was a disappointment. Yes, it is far more realistic than other war films of the period for depicting the mud, boredom and frustration of the grunt, but unfortunately one comes away from it thinking that's ALL there is to this movie. There is no plot and the dialogue is monotonous. It's not that a good war film needs to have a battle scene every five minute. One of the best World War II films, "Twelve O'Clock High," has very little action. But it compensates with crackling dialogue and psychological tension. The exception to "The Story of G.I. Joe" is a brief battle segment (titled "city under siege" on the DVD) which takes place in Italy. Admittedly it is one of the most fast-paced and convincing combat scenes of any war movie. But alas, the rest of the film is not worth watching just for this highlight. Another turn-off is Pvt. Dondaro, played by Wally Cassell, who is meant to be a "romeo" but comes off a pervert. By contrast, Sgt. Warnicki is a sympathetic, if flawed, man. As he says to Capt. Walker (Mitchum) when volunteering for another patrol: "Every step forward is a step closer... to home." But that last step one patrol too many drives him over the mental brink. Too bad the rest of the movie doesn't do justice to some otherwise fine touches. As for Meredith's portrayal of Pyle... it is practically comatose.