Style2

The Paleface (1948) Directed by Norman Z. McLeod

Posted by: Frank Veenstra Posted date: 12:05 PM / comment : 0 , , , , , , , , , , ,





(Review originally written at 26 September 2009)

This is really one great fun comedy, that can be seen as an early parody of the western genre.

Parodies actually weren't quite common yet in the '40's. Besides, westerns themselves also weren't that popular anymore at the time, so this movie seemed a bit like an unlikely one and a bit of a gamble that paid off very well in the end.

It's a real fun movie to watch, thanks to its humor. As a comedy this movie is just great and does definitely has some funny moments in it. Not just physically but also it's writing and acting from Bob Hope is what's making this movie often so fun to watch.

I must say that Bob Hope was really one great comedy actor, who know how to handle its slapstick as well as its dialogs. A real actor who just seemed to be made for the genre. He adds quite a lot to this movie and often makes scenes that otherwise wouldn't had been very funny hilarious to watch. Too bad that Jane Russell impresses less. She just wasn't being a very great actress in this movie and it doesn't seem like a big wonder that her career never got off the ground and mostly played her film roles in the '40's and '50's only. There also is absolutely no chemistry between her and the Bob Hope character, not even in the sequences when there really is supposed to be. She must hate the character for most part of the movie though luckily, which still makes her performance a bit bearable for some parts of the movie. Oh well, at least the movie knew who to put it's main focus on though; Bob Hope.

It was kind of weird though seeing Bob Hope blast away all those Indians with his guns, just for the comic effect of it all. I don't know, it just didn't felt right. The whole thing just had a bit of a racist thing over it.

It was a good choice this shoot this picture in full color. It makes the movie a bright one to watch obviously, which adds to the fun feeling of the overall movie. It also makes the movie perhaps a bit fake and campy looking but again, this also adds to the overall feeling of the movie and seems suiting for an early genre movie such as this one.

Still they could had spend some more time on its story. Now the story is mostly being dull and hard to follow, simply because it's such an uninteresting one. They tried to put in perhaps a too serious main plot-line, which is in huge contrast with the movie its comedy and the reason why the story just never becomes compelling. The movie is best to watch while switching your brain off and when you're just not wondering too much what the movie is all about, who all these characters are and what their motivations all are. No, just sit back and enjoy this movie please!

A surprisingly great and funny western parody from the late '40's!

8/10

Watch trailer

The Snake Pit (1948) Directed by Anatole Litvak

Posted by: Frank Veenstra Posted date: 11:54 AM / comment : 0 , , , , , , , , , ,





(Review originally written at 19 September 2009)

Years before there was "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest", there already was "The Snake Pit" in 1948. It handles a not so quit everyday and sensitive subject of the treatment of mental patients, inside an asylum, set in the '40's, after the war. The autobiographic novel already aroused some controversy at its time, making it a big sell-out. It's movie must have no different at its time, though it was still a bit too controversial perhaps the award it with any big awards, which the movie certainly did deserved though.

Despite its daring and controversial subject the movie is still being quite standard though, in a good way. It doesn't try to go over the edge or to deliberately put its viewers in a state of shock but instead it features a typical' 40's dramatic approach, completely with a love story in it. It's a well written story though, making the movie overall a great one to watch throughout. The movie knows to create a safe and effective balance between its main subject and it's consideration toward its '40's audience, without loosing any of its power with its main story. The movie is being a mystery, a drama, a romantic one and perhaps even a bit of a thriller, all at the same time.

The movie features flashbacks in it, which slowly starts to reveal how our main character got into the mental institution in the first place, as well as her battle for sanity and release. It keeps the story going at all times, the one way or the other.

Perhaps Olivia de Havilland is better than ever in her role in this movie. She was mostly known for playing the pretty, innocent lady but in this movie she also dares to be ugly and acts out crazy. She is hard to recognize in her role. She manages to carry the movie for most part by herself, though of course credit also needs to go to the other actors, who all seemed to be cast well, despite not being big names in the business.

It's a quite surprising and simply great movie, about a, for it's time, not much talked about subject.

8/10

Watch trailer

Xiao cheng zhi chun (1948) Directed by Mu Fei

Posted by: Frank Veenstra Posted date: 11:40 AM / comment : 0 , , , , , , , ,





(Review originally written at 11 September 2009)

This is a nice little movie with a nice story, that plays the most important role in the entire movie.

It's a quite intriguing dramatic story, with also romance present in it. The story is being told slowly but this works out all too well for its build up. The characters are nice and portrayed nicely by its actors. Normally I'm not a too big fan of the Asian acting style but the acting in this movie was simply good.

Of course the movie is quite different in its approach and style from other genre movies, produced in the west. In a way this movie is more advanced already with its approach than the western movies made during the same era.

I only wished the movie its visual style would had been a bit better. For a movie that is considered a kind of an art-house movie this movie is certainly lacking in some well looking sequences. This was obviously a quite cheap movie to make and it got made quite generically. Not that this is a bad thing, it just prevent this movie from truly distinct itself and raising itself above the genre.

But oh well, this movie is all about its well constructed story and characters that are in it. In that regard this movie most certainly does not disappoint.

8/10

Rope (1948) Directed by Alfred Hitchcock

Posted by: Frank Veenstra Posted date: 11:27 AM / comment : 0 , , , , , , , , , , , ,





(Review originally written at 5 September 2009)

Well, Hitchock movies always had been experimental in some ways, making his movies often something unique and spectacular, even by todays standards. But this movie is perhaps more experimental and daring than most of his other projects. What makes this movie unique and experimental is that the entire movie consists out of 10 long shots.

It makes the movie perhaps look and feel more like a stage-play but it still manages to give the movie a typical movie look and feel to it. Notmally when you film a stage-play as a movie it rarely ever works out but somehow Hitchcock manged it but picking a fascinating and provoking subject and characters.

Of course the movie relies heavily on its main concept and story of 2 young men killing one of their friends because they feel intellectual superior to him, which they think, gives them the right to commit murder. As if this isn't enough already they decide to test the perfection of their carefully planned and executed plot by inviting a couple of their friends and even the victim's parents, while is body is still in the room. They drop small hints, which soon rises the suspicion of one of their old teacher's, played by James Stewart.

It's a provoking movie with its subject, that isn't just being black and with but also questions its themes in a sophisticated manner. It raises a couple of discussions with its well written dialog and actors delivering them.

Fore of course the movie is also relying on its actors. After all, the main actors are in frame for basically the movie its entire running time and there are no in between cuts to conceal a badly delivered line or other goof-ups. It relies on the professionally of the actors and therefor the movie also uses some real typical stage actors. Its acting style isn't always compelling but luckily there also is still James Steward who with his acting style counterweights some of the overly typical stage style of acting. I though he played a great role in this movie and it shows him like we didn't get to see him too often. For his role he was also made to look older than he was in real life.

Despite it's obviously very restrained locations and room to move the movie never gets dull or slow. The pace at all times remains good and steady, which of course also is thanks to its limited running time of about 80 minutes.

It's a small and simple movie from Hitchcock that is still daring and unique. It's daring that he had to guts to make a movie with an approach like this one had and unique through its successful execution. Perhaps in a way you could say that this movie was a sort of practice for his later "Rear Window", that shows some similarities to this movie in its approach and also stars James Stewart in it.

Hitchcock's first color is not just unique and fascinating because of its color!

8/10

Watch trailer

Ladri di biciclette (1948) Directed by Vittorio De Sica

Posted by: Frank Veenstra Posted date: 5:52 PM / comment : 0 , , , , , , , , ,

-->



(Review originally written at 7 July 2008)

This movie can be interpreted and viewed in many different ways. Most people praise the movie for its father-son relationship in it but to me the movie was an adventure through town, in which the main character encounters the many different social layers of post-war Italy. after his bicycle got stolen and he spends the entire weekend looking back for it, since he needs th bicycle or else he'll loose his new job. It basically is a great and honest portrayal of life in post-war Italy for a common man, who tries hard to find and eventually keep his job, to support himself and his family. It's not a movie that tries to bloom things or follows the usual standard common rules of cinema. It's an early neorealistic movie, in which director Vittorio De Sica used only amateurs to give a realistic and honest portrayal of life.
It's a great social and character study. Through his travels through town he visits all kinds of places and meets people from the different society layers. A great study of post-war Italy. The main character himself also isn't without his flaws, which can also be seen back in the father-son relationship within the movie. It's a real honest and straight-forward movie that also shows how far some people are willing to go to get what they want. A great character study.
But yes I do agree that the movie is perhaps a tad bit too overrated. Sure it's great and appreciate all the movie tried to achieve but it also isn't an easy movie to watch, due to the low pace and just not being interesting enough at times. It still rate this movie high but I don't think I agree that this movie is deserving his spot in all of the top movie-list and also don't really consider this to be an absolute must-see or classic.
Having said that "Ladri di biciclette" is just a great movie. To be honest I was surprised that it got made with amateurs and some sequences were also obviously improvised on the spot. The movie really doesn't look and feel as if it mostly involved amateurs and this also really goes for the acting within the movie.
Even though it perhaps is not the must-see, or influential movie, everyone wants to make you believe it is, it still is one great unique movie which most certainly is worth watching.
8/10


Watch trailer

Key Largo (1948) Directed by John Huston

Posted by: Frank Veenstra Posted date: 11:19 AM / comment : 0 , , , , , , , , , ,





(Review originally written at 14 January 2008)

The movie got based on a stage-play by Maxwell Anderson. The movie its story and setting really all have the typical stage-play ingredients but thank goodness the movie does not feel like a stage-play. Yet the movie knows to maintain all of the elements that make a stage-play powerful. The movie has some great written dialog and constructed story and one great cast that knows how to handle it all.

What an incredible dream cast this movie has. It's the fourth (and last) collaboration of Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall and it even isn't their best but that says something more about their other movies than this one really. It's above all a perfectly cast movie, in which all of the actors suit their roles. Edward G. Robinson is of course great as the big, mean, tough gangster boss. The movie also features other acclaimed actors such as Lionel Barrymore, Claire Trevor and Marc Lawrence.

It's a movie that is mostly set at one location (a small hotel), which allowed the writers to use their creativity to make the movie interesting and intriguing to watch and gave the actors as well the opportunity to let their talent shine. The end result is also an extremely well constructed and intriguing movie to watch, from start till finish. Never a slow or dull moment here! It's of course also thanks to John Huston's professional directing that the movie and its 'simple' concept works out so well.

In my opinion this is not really a film-noir, even though it uses some of its elements. It's more a 'modern' crime thriller, that lays its emphasis mostly on the dialog and characters, that get deepened out a lot.

A fantastic John Huston classic.

10/10

Watch trailer

Bud Abbott Lou Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948) Directed by Charles Barton

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



(Review originally written at 3 March 2007)

 In my opinion this movie can definitely be seen as a sequel to other Unveriscal classic movies such as; "Dracula", "Frankenstein", "Bride of Frankenstein", "Dracula's Daughter", "Son of Frankenstein", "The Wolf Man", "The Ghost of Frankenstein", "Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man", "Son of Dracula", "House of Frankenstein" and "House of Dracula". It does not only feature the same character and actors, it also follows and continues some of these plot lines even though obviously this movie is more spoofing and comical, the reason why it's debatable whether or not this movie is canon.

 Of course there is not really much to the story here and why should there be? All the ingredients to make this is a good and fun movie are already pleasant; the two comical actors Bud Abbott and Lou Costello and the classic horror movie stars Bela Lugosi, Lon Chaney Jr. and Glenn Strange. In the end Vincent Price even makes an 'appereance' as The Invisible Man.

 Lugosi for the second and last time plays the movie famous blood sucking vampire; Count Dracula. He does this with just as much passion as the first time and even manages to handle the comical dialog in a good way, with his crazy accent. Lon Chaney Jr. reprises his role as Lawrence Talbot/The Wolf Man. Glenn Strange once more plays the Frankenstein creature. I've always found Strange's Frankenstein's creature performances to be an underrated one. He plays the monster in the same way as Karloff did. Too bad that his character gets way underused in this movie. Weird, especially considering that this movie is named Bud Abbott Lou Costello Meet FRANKENSTEIN. Chaney Jr. and Lugosi play a far bigger role in this than Strange does.

 The movie has some good comical moments in it mixes this all perfectly with the classic monster movie ingredients, without being disrespectful about it. The humor mostly works in my opinion thanks to Lou Costello, who really steals the show in this movie with his comical performance. His character is the most entertaining, has the best lines and he has the silliest actions.

 The movie is good looking with its sets, costumes, make-up and cinematography. The movie does a good job at recreating the horror atmosphere from the '30's movies.

 Nevertheless I feel that this movie is always being slightly overrated. Other Unverisal monster mash movies work just as good or even better as entertainment. Movies such as; "Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man" and "House of Frankenstein". It's a different kind of 'fun' but they in my opinion work better in terms of entertainment. Nevertheless, this movie is of course also still perfectly fun to watch.

 Fun and well worth to watch, especially if you're familiar with either "Dracula", "Frankenstein", "Bride of Frankenstein", "Dracula's Daughter", "Son of Frankenstein", "The Wolf Man", "The Ghost of Frankenstein", "Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man", "Son of Dracula", "House of Frankenstein" and/or "House of Dracula".

7/10

 Watch trailer
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Copyright © 2014 Boba_Fett1138's movie reviews
⬆
Top