Style2

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939) Directed by Frank Capra

Posted by: Frank Veenstra Posted date: 8:36 AM / comment : 0 , , , , , , , , ,

-->



(Review originally written at 4 September 2008)

This intentionally was going to be a sequel to the movie "Mr. Deeds Goes to Town", also directed by Frank Capra, starring the same actors from that movie but instead the script was altered and an alternate title was given; "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington". But yes, when watching this movie it becomes visible how this movie could had worked out as a sequel to "Mr. Deeds Goes to Town". It features a similar sort of story about a random small time man who suddenly gets thrown into the big bad world of money and power. It a movie of a man against the crooked system.
I must say that I like this movie better than "Mr. Deeds Goes to Town", while that movie on its own right also already was a great and fun movie. This movie however seems to be better with its comedy, in its first halve at least, which makes this an even better and more pleasant movie to watch.
But above all things it also has a better story, which works inspiring. Yes, it's a patriotic movie but in this case I can really live with that. It's a moralistic movie, concerning politics and ideals but without all of the sappy elements. The movie actually received an amazing total of 11 Oscar nominations, something not too many movies can say but it unfortunately only took home one award, for its writing. It received nominations in all of the mayor big categories. Besides its drama and comedy the movie of course also features a healthy portion of romance. Not a big shame that it didn't took home any more awards, when you consider that it was nominated in the same year "Gone with the Wind" was and some other great classic movies, such as "Stagecoach", "The Wizard of Oz" and "Wuthering Heights", just to name a few.
It features James Stewart in a great role. He always had the ability to play a character comical like but also with a serious undertone and effective during the movie its more dramatic moments. Also great was Claude Rains in a role, in which he was made to look much older than he in fact was at the time. His very natural acting style seemed to be ahead of time. Both actors received their first Oscar nomination for their roles in this movie. They should had won both really.
One of the best, most powerful and most beautiful 1930's movies I've ever seen.
10/10


Watch trailer

Notorious (1946) Directed by Alfred Hitchcock

Posted by: Frank Veenstra Posted date: 11:14 AM / comment : 0 , , , , , , , , , ,





(Review originally written at 26 April 2008)

In my opinion '40's thrillers are often being forgotten and underrated. Thrillers from the '40's always know to create a perfect tense atmosphere, which truly enriches the movie's its tension, making those movies often genuinely tense ones to watch. "Notorious" is one fine example of this '40's thriller making movie style.

Alfred Hitchcock movies in general from the '40's and earlier, are often more or less forgotten ones, or at least not as good known as his later works. His '50's and '60's movies are much better known. A shame, since he truly already did some amazing things in the '30's and '40's, of which this movie of course a great example. Of course he also had some misses in his careers but this movie really hits the mark.

What I first noticed when watching this movie, from pretty early on in the movie, is how incredibly similar the story and some sequences are to "Mission: Impossible II". Sounds strange, since "Mission: Impossible II" is by no means a great movie, or one that is being praised for its amazingly clever story. Yet "Notorious" follows a very similar plot line but yet it works out an infinite times better in this movie. I must say that this is probably due to the Hitchcock touch, that provides the movie with lots of style and flair as well as some incredibly well build up and executed sequences.

The movie has some real classic thriller moments, such as a sequences involving champagne bottles (not going to spoil any more of it) and a great memorable ending.

Like basically all '40's and older movies, the movie starts of rather slow and formulaic but once things really start to take off (from the moment on they land in Rio) the movie just grabs you by the throat with its story, characters, atmosphere and thriller moments.

It's one fine looking movie with some real great camera-work. The movie uses a couple of really innovating shots and some incredibly good compositions, also often with a symbolic value for its story in it. The more times you'll see this movie, the more you'll notice.

The movie is also really well cast, with Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman in the main leads. It was not the first collaborations between this director and actors and it also wouldn't be the last. But the man who perhaps plays the finest role in the movie is Claude Rains, as the movie its 'villain'.

Seriously, spy-thrillers can't really get any better than this!

10/10

Watch trailer

The Unsuspected (1947) Directed by Michael Curtiz

Posted by: Frank Veenstra Posted date: 6:47 AM / comment : 0 , , , , , , , , ,



(Review originally written at 1 May 2007)

This was a great little surprise. Most film-noir's from the '40's are always a good watch and this movie is also certainly among the better one's of its period. A real surprise, considering that this movie is a fairly unknown one and is directed by Michael Curtiz, who had his most success- and is best known for directing entertaining, adventurous movies.

To be honest, the movie really doesn't begin well. At first it seems like the movie is a typical mystery/thriller in which a woman cannot remember a man, who claims to be her husband. The movie looks like a mostly talking-flick with standard characters and a good story that however lacks in serious tension and just isn't interesting enough. However soon the movie starts to take a positive turn, when it slowly abandons this plot line and turns into a murder-mystery. The movie becomes tense, atmospheric and completely captivating. The movie really gets better by the minute, as it heads toward the ending and it begins to develop better layered- and more developed story lines.

Too bad that still the fine second halve can't fully compensate for the more weaker first halve of the movie.

The movie is skillfully put together by cast and crew. The movie has a great visual look and I especially love the use of shadows in this movie. It makes some of the sequences really look marvelous, while they serve a purpose as well. They also help to make the movie as a whole a very atmospheric piece of work, that has a perfect required tense, dangerous and mysterious feeling all over it. It shows that Michael Curtiz could handle the genre really well as a director.

Claude Rains really plays a great role in this movie. Joan Caulfield also showed that she was beautiful as well as talented. Too bad that Ted North for most part ruins the first halve of the movie with his stiff and weak acting. Apparently he agreed with me, since this movie was his last movie role (or did he die shortly after this movie?). The movie further more features some great cast supporting actors, such as Jack Lambert and Harry Lewis.

A great little unknown genre movie from Michael Curtiz, that film-noir lovers will surely be able to appreciate, despite its weaker, less interesting, first 40 minutes, or so.

8/10

Kings Row (1942) Directed by Sam Wood

Posted by: Frank Veenstra Posted date: 7:21 AM / comment : 0 , , , , , , , , ,



(Review originally written at 17 January 2007)

 In the '40's these coming of age movies were pretty popular in America. Some good though always sappy movies were made in that time period. "Kings Row" is definitely one of the more better and memorable one's.

 It's a story of growing up in a small American town, around and before 1900. The movie features lots of characters but mainly focuses on the two friends Parris and Drake. The movie follows them from their early youth, to their early adulthood, involving their early love-life, study and jobs. Of course the movie also features the necessary drama and deaths. I mean, there probably is more drama in this, than in a month of soap-series episodes. Definitely an over-the-top dramatic story but it works amazingly well.

 As a matter of fact, the story is really the highlight of the movie. Lots is happening and the movie isn't heading in one clear main direction. It gives the movie a couple of surprises in its drama and doesn't make the movie as predictable as you maybe would expect from a genre-piece like this one.

 The many characters in this movie are just great and well written. Everybody serves a purpose in the story and for the development of the two real main characters of the movie. On top of that, they are also being played by some great actors. Robert Cummings and Ronald Reagan are real great as the two main characters. Reagan has never been known for his solid actor performances but this movie forms an excellent exception. One of his biggest and perhaps also best roles out of his career. See it to believe it. Also the supporting cast is great with Ann Sheridan, Charles Coburn and Claude Rains in some notable roles.

 The movie doesn't really ever pick on true main character. At first the movie mainly focuses on Parris but the second halve is mostly about Drake. Also, the key characters in the first halve of the movie differ from the ones in the second. It's an approach that works well for the story and keeps it interesting, original and unpredictable to follow, from start till finish.

 The movie is typically '40's looking, meaning that the style is kept simple and the sets cheap but all good enough to serve their purpose. The musical score by Erich Wolfgang Korngold is outstanding and deserves recognition.

 A great movie to watch and one of the better ones out of its genre.

 8/10

 Watch trailer

Now, Voyager (1942) Directed by Irving Rapper

Posted by: Frank Veenstra Posted date: 11:17 AM / comment : 0 , , , , , , , , ,





(Review originally written at 11 November 2006)

 I must admit that I was rather worried when I began watching this movie. The movie started of like a melodramatic soap-like movie, with a bad visual look and Bette Davis looked ridicules to say the least. However about half way through the movie I finally began to see where the movie was heading to and the story actually turned out to be rather original, gripping and effective.

 The story at first seems to be rather formulaic; An ugly duckling turns into a beautiful swan. And in the first halve the movie unfortunately also IS formulaic. When the main character gets on a cruise and meets her first(?) and true love, I was worried that the movie would turn into a typical '30's/'40's melodramatic and formulaic love-story, like dozens of were made, in mainly the '30's and early '40's. The movie however took some original and surprising twists after that. The love-story is not your average love-story were girl meets boy and they start falling in love. The movie and its story is multiple layered; The man (Paul Henreid) is married to a woman who is sort of in the same situation as the girl (Bette Davis) he falls in love with used to be; a timid, insecure woman. The man also has a daughter to whom the girls is really starting to relate to. What at first starts as a simple no-worries romance turns later into a deep bond between a man and a woman, who understand- and help each other. 'Faith' brings them together multiple times later throughout the movie and they always keep feeling a sort of connection and love for each other.

 The story doesn't always flow well and too often things occur too sudden. But oh well, that is sort of fitting for early '40's style of film-making. So if you've seen more movies from this time period, this hardly should be a complaint.

 This is really the sort of movie that is carried by its characters. So it definitely helps that the cast is a solid one. Bette Davis and Paul Henreid were good as the main characters and Gladys Cooper was great as the tough and strict mother who is not too happy with her 'unwanted' youngest daughter (the Bette Davis role). Smaller roles are there for Claude Rains and Mary Wickes, who always was surprising good and enjoyable in her role.

 Despite the fact that this is a movie from 1942 it looks like it was made in the early '30's. It makes this movie also perhaps look way more outdated than it in fact really is. The production values really aren't too high and it shows on the screen. I also wasn't too fond of the melodramatic musical score from Max Steiner. I agree with Bette Davis on this issue; it was distracting. Ironicaly Steiner won an (and the only) Oscar for this movie. The movie was nominated for 2 more Oscars for Bette Davis' and Gladys Cooper's performances.

In my book not a classic must-see, the first halve and the production values of the movie aren't good enough for that but the story and cast compensates a lot. It makes the movie at times intriguing and always interesting and effective.

8/10

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