Style2

Only Angels Have Wings (1939) Directed by Howard Hawks

Posted by: Frank Veenstra Posted date: 1:39 PM / comment : 0 , , , , , , , , , , ,





(Review originally written at 11 April 2009)

During the late '30's and early '40's a lot of dramatic movies got made, by big name directors, often starring big name actors. Lots of them have grown into becoming classics but of course in a way they are also all sort of the same. "Only Angels Have Wings" is one of the more original ones though, due to its original settings and main concept.

The movie can be called an aeroplane drama, with plenty of adventurous and comedy elements involved. The entire movie is set at a small airport, with dozens of pilots, who do errants by plane for costumers and numerous other reasons. It's an unique original world that isn't handled too often in movies but it's quite intriguing really. It concept and settings provide the movie with plenty of great moments.

It's also a movie that is being made great by its characters and the actors which portray them. Great thing is that this movie has more than just a handful of great characters and big name actors portraying them. With Cary Grant it has a great leading man and with Jean Arthur and Rita Hayworth the movie also has two more than great female actresses. Richard Barthelmess was also really great in this, in one of his talking roles. He is still best known for the work he made during the silent-era, especially the classics movies he did with director D.W. Griffith.

The movie also has a good story, that looks pretty formulaic on the surface but still works out better than usual because it knows how to blend several themes and also genres. The movie is not purely just a drama and not just purely an adventure movie or romantic one. It's a rather pleasant mix of it all that works out on basically all levels. The movie is also more pleasant and perhaps also easier to watch for today's modern audience than most of its other fellow genre movies.

The movie has some great sequences with its planes in it. Especially for its time it must have really been something to watch. The movie has some good stunt flying in it and also at times uses some pretty good looking early special effects. It also received an Oscar nomination for this, as well as for its black & white cinematography by multiple Oscar nominee Joseph Walker.

It's a movie that perhaps is not as well known as Howard Hawks's most other work but it's just as great and well worth watching. Hawks was a director who could handle many different genres just as well and with this movie he proofs and shows this once more, by letting several different genres and themes blend in extremely well with each other.

9/10

Watch trailer

Gunga Din (1939) Directed by George Stevens

Posted by: Frank Veenstra Posted date: 2:48 PM / comment : 0 , , , , , , , , ,

-->



(Review originally written at 8 October 2008)

Loose from its last 30 minutes or so this movie really isn't anything too greatly written or something too exciting too watch.
Seems to me that a story is almost non-existent in the first part of the movie, or at least it isn't anything to renewing or exciting. For an adventure movie this movie is certainly lacking with its adventure and exciting and spectacular moments. The movie begins well but it then not much later begins to sort of drag, when the movie more starts to rely on its three main characters, who just aren't good enough on their own and are only fun when they are together.
There isn't always a too great balance between the movie its light amusement and the movie its more serious tone. Because of this mostly the more serious tone of the movie doesn't always quite work out. The movie foremost focuses on its fun and adventurous aspects that also at times fall short however. Guess you could also say that the movie just hasn't aged too well and that this was still a better movie to watch in 1939 than it is now days. Much have been quite refreshing and spectacular for 1939 standards, especially it's action sequences.
But of course it's not an horrible movie or one that I hated watching. I actually quite liked it but for a movie with such an high rating and the status of a classic it's just a slightly disappointing one. The movie is not horrible by any means but just not much special either. It's average in basically every way thinkable, which doesn't make the movie bad but just a good and fun enough movie to pass some time.

The movie is mostly enjoyable to watch when its action kicks in. The movie also often features some large scale action and battle sequences, which are of course always something special to watch. 

 Especially the final battle sequence is quite epic and enjoyable to watch. I just wish I could say that the movie as a whole was also an epic one to watch but its very simplistic- and not present enough story is the foremost reason why "Gunga Din" isn't a classic '30's adventure movie in my book.
Of course the movie its cast should be reason enough already for the movie to be a watchable one. Cary Grant, Douglas Fairbanks Jr. and Joan Fontaine were all big stars at the time. Sam Jaffe was just a beginning actor at the time of this movie, as weird as it might sound, considering that he already was close to his 50's at the time of making this movie.
Good and fun enough to watch but it doesn't fully live up to its reputation.
7/10


Watch trailer

Wuthering Heights (1939) Directed by William Wyler

Posted by: Frank Veenstra Posted date: 2:10 PM / comment : 0 , , , , , , , , , , ,

-->



(Review originally written at 29 September 2008)

This movie was quite different from what I was expecting. It's quite an unique combination of love, drama and a ghost story. It may sound real odd and ridicules but it's a movie that works out surprisingly well and is truly powerful and effective.
Director William Wyler was of course really at ease within this genre and he directed some powerful drama's in mostly the '30's, like this movie. He always knew to create some 'real' emotions with 'real' characters, without ever really going over-the-top with it, unlike often was the case with the genre movies from the same time period.
Laurence Olivier was a pretty unique and special actor. He is one of the very few actors who actually was successful throughout his entire career. Seriously, which other actor can say that he starred in some classic successful movies in the '30's, '40's, 50's, '60's and '70's? He really is one of my favorite actors of all time. He was so successful throughout his entire career because he was willing to adapt his acting style as movie-making and acting changed throughout the years. Most of the other actors from the same time period simply didn't even bother to try and went in to early retirement. 
If you compare the roles he played in the '30's to his roles from the '70's you'll notice a quite big difference in style and approach. He was also an actor who simply accepted his age and didn't pretended to be younger than he was as years went by and big main roles became scares for an actor of his age. Olivier also received his first ever Oscar nomination for his role in this. 9 nominations would later follow (including some directing nominations) and he also received an acting award in 1949 for his role in his directed "Hamlet" movie, an honorary Oscar in 1979 and also already in 1947, for his outstanding achievement as actor, producer and director in bringing 'Henry V' to the screen. He's a true movie legend, with an impressive and successful career that span over many decades.
The rest of the movie its cast is also real solid, with also some great supporting actors in it, such as David Niven (without his small mustache!), Donald Crisp and Geraldine Fitzgerald. It's too bad that Merle Oberon never really ever broke through, for she was a real fine actress, playing opposite Laurence Olivier in this movie.
The movie has some great dialog. Yes, it's old fashioned and yes some lines obviously come straight out of the novel by Emily Brontë but it suits the movie so well. It makes this a real typical early British costume drama, produced and shot in America and with also for some part American actors in it.

But it needs to be said that the movie doesn't always progresses logically. The pace and time-line doesn't always feel right and the movie its story really feels like it got based on several different chapters of a book being thrown together into one movie, which of course also was the case. Not all of the sequences within the movie really connect well together.
Otherwise the story of this movie is really solid. It's a great romantic love-story that of course however features more drama than any romance. It's a tough love-story of a 'forbidden' love and persons trying to make life as tough and painful as possible for each other. The movie is filled with some fine solid characters as well as some real powerful and memorable sequences.
Funny thing about this movie is that it completely looks as if was shot in the United-Kingdom however in fact it got completely shot in America. The movie has a real great look and atmosphere over it, of course also with some fine looking sets and costumes as you would expect from a period piece such as this movie.
A movie like only could be made in the 1930's!
9/10


Watch trailer

Zangiku monogatari (1939) Directed by Kenji Mizoguchi

Posted by: Frank Veenstra Posted date: 1:08 PM / comment : 0 , , , , , , , , ,

-->



(Review originally written at 18 September 2008)

This is one real powerful and effectively directed movie, that also is fine looking and features some fine acting performances.

It's a quite long movie, which is not really due to its story but more in the way its sequences are handled. Director Kenji Mizoguchi maintains a very slow pace with many long static scenes in it, in which the camera doesn't move and there are no in between cuts. It does work out well though for the movie. It makes the movie visually beautiful to look at but also makes the story more powerful. It's a real fine directed movie, for which the director can not be praised enough. He handles the movie and its story really well and effectively.

The story features some typical and important Japanese themes in it, such as honor and family. Fans of Japanese cinema or Japanese culture will surely get a blast out of this movie. The entire story is set in the Japan, or Tokyo to be precise, of 1885. This means that the movie is also being filled by some wonderful looking sets and costumes.

It's also a pretty well acted movie. Normally I'm not a too big fan of acting in Asian movies but this movie feature some rather realistic performance, that don't ever go over-the-top, which also is a real accomplishment for a '30's movie in general.

Mostly due to its directing approach the movie works out so well and effectively. Because lets be honest, the story itself is actually quite simple and also not something that hasn't done before in any way. It's the reason why director Kenji Mizoguchi is still so loved and appreciated by many, even now, well over 50 years after his death. The themes are all handled well and despite being not too original, it all works out still well and refreshing.

But it's not just a style for everybody though. I can understand that some people might not like watching this movie, since it's pace is so slow and overall cinematic style is so outdated now days. Nevertheless cinematic lovers, or just fans of Japanese cinema, should be able to really appreciate this movie.

9/10

Ninotchka (1939) Directed by Ernst Lubitsch

Posted by: Frank Veenstra Posted date: 1:00 PM / comment : 0 , , , , , , , , , ,

-->



(Review originally written at 17 September 2008)

Ernst Lubitsch was a good genre director, who made more fun movies like this around the same time. He already began his career way back in 1914 as a director, in his native Germany. Writer and acclaimed director Billy Wilder, who co-wrote the screenplay for this movie always had regarded him as one of his favorite directors. His style, called 'The Lubitsch Touch' was even a well known phrase at the time. The movie features some great humor, which makes this movie a very amusing one to watch. This is thanks to Lubitsch's but also really thanks to its script with some fine, comical written dialog in it.
It's the kind of movie in which the story is more secondary. Having said that it doesn't mean that the movie has a bad story though. It's a quite good story on its own right and basically one fine and effective story to build a good and fun movie around, like this movie turned out. But besides being a comedy the movie of course also still is a romantic one and a quite good and original one I must say, which is mostly due to Greta Garbo's character and her performance, in one of her last movie roles till her early retirement.
Greta Garbo deserved an Oscar for her role in this movie but unfortunately she only received a nomination. She plays a tough, cold, stereotyped Soviet official, who melts for the charms of the Melvyn Douglas character. She plays it in an entertaining way, without falling into comical and overdone clichés. Melvyn Douglas was also truly great in the movie and he and Garbo formed a great couple in this movie. The movie also features Bela Lugosi, in a rare comical role. Not that his role is anything too comical though. He probably is the most serious character out of the movie. His role is also quite small really and only is in the movie for a couple of minutes, at the very end of the movie.
The movie can also be seen as a satire on the former Soviet union and the different social classes. East meets west in this movie and the movie doesn't leave an opportunity wasted to make fun of both worlds but without ever getting offensive or crossing the edge. It's a fun satire, rather than one that is trying to make a statement with it.
Delightful movie!
9/10


Watch trailer

Babes in Arms (1939) Directed by Busby Berkeley

Posted by: Frank Veenstra Posted date: 8:38 AM / comment : 0 , , , , , , , , , ,

-->



(Review originally written at 5 September 2008)

Former child-stars Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland both star in this movie about two young talented artist who try to make it in the world of show-business. It wasn't the first movie they appeared in together and it also wouldn't be the last. They appeared in several Andy Hardy movies together for instance, in which Mickey Rooney played the title role.

Judy Garland was actually still only 17 when she appeared in the movie, the same year she did "The Wizard of Oz" and also Mickey Rooney looked like he was 15, while he was actually around 19 years old at the time. Both also play young teenagers in this movie and it earned Mickey Rooney actually an Oscar nomination. There of course weren't a lot of musicals around at the time which purely had teenagers in it. In that regard this movie is a refreshing little entry in the musical genre.

It's an enjoyable and obviously light movie. But this of course also has as a result that the movie doesn't really ever reaches the a level of true greatness. The movie is enjoyable but just nothing more than that. It's obviously rather formulaic and predictable but this doesn't take away the entertainment value of it all. The movie is dragging in some parts but then again which '30's movie doesn't do so in parts? The movie perhaps also doesn't end in the way as it should have had, when some more sentimental themes start to kick in.

In all fairness, the movie features some good songs. I'm normally not particularly too fond of songs featured in most musical movies but this movie does form an exception. Nothing I would be singing along with but it's nice sounding and of course gets performed by some capable artist.

I enjoyed watching this movie simply for what it was.

7/10
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Copyright © 2014 Boba_Fett1138's movie reviews
⬆
Top