Style2

The Best Years of Our Lives (1946) Directed by William Wyler





(Review originally written at 29 August 2009)

This is one rather fine and almost 3 hour long epic running drama, that focuses around 3 WW II veterans from the same town, going back home after the war had ended.

It's a real interesting and subtly made drama, that isn't ever being melodramatic but always realistic and compelling with its themes and emotions. The movie handles some great subjects, especially for its time. You have to consider that this movie got made really just after the war had ended. Yet it already handles some of the themes war WW II veterans and also lots of later war veterans had to deal with. The world, their families and themselves all changed, with brings along some at times devastating effects but also often some hopeful things. They have to pick up their 'normal' lives again, with a job, their wives and the rest of their families. It shows how the veterans were often being treated and looked upon. This isn't just a movie glorifying the WW II veterans but also one that has the guts to be bold and straight-forward, by showing life how it truly is but never without the respect those deserve who all fought in the second world war.

I guess you still have to be an American though to fully appreciate this movie. You could say that this movie is a real Americana one, filled with pride and hope, for and about a generation, that should make American's feel warm from the inside. Not that the movie is being overly patristic or anything, it's just pride in a good and understandable way, that is still best appreciated by American's themselves.

The movie is being quite epic, mostly due to its long running time. Director William Wyler used its long running time to slowly set up its characters to build up the right themes and emotions for the movie. It makes "The Best Years of Our Lives" effective as a genre movie and perhaps still more accessible and less sappy than some of the other similar dramatic movies made during the same decade.

It's of course also really a real actors movie. Luckily the movie has some great actors in it, such as Fredric March, Myrna Loy, Teresa Wright and Dana Andrews. Real WW II veteran and amputee Harold Russell attracted the most attention at the time and even took home two Oscar's for his one role in this movie. He received a special award dedicated to him 'for bringing hope and courage to his fellow veterans through his appearance'. He lost both of his hands during the war due to exploding TNT during an exercise and ever since used hooks to get around. It's amazing how well he got around with them and how much he still could manage with it, without the help of others. This is mostly what earned him the Oscar because in all honesty I sincerely doubt that he would had won an Oscar otherwise. It's not like he is bad but he just wasn't a real actor anyway and also only appeared in just a few movies throughout his life.

Simply a great genre movie, that also still applies this present day with all of its themes.

8/10

The Thin Man (1934) Directed by W.S. Van Dyke





(Review originally written at 30 April 2008)

"The Thin Man" surely is a fun enough movie to watch but it sort of annoys me that there are way better same type of movies out there from the same period that are better than this movie but far less known and appreciated.

Yes its a good entertaining movie but it's also a very simplistic one in many regards. Simplistic in the way it's made. It's has a very simple look and apparently it also only cost 2 weeks to shoot this movie, which unfortunately really showed on screen for me. It's also very simplistic with its story. Well these type of entertaining '30's comedies are never really about its story but in this case it works sort of distracting since the movie is a detective movie with a murder mystery in it, in which the story always sort of automatically gets pushed toward the foreground.

The only thing that can still save these type of simplistic movies are good characters and actors portraying them. This movie really has that. What mostly makes this movie is its main character former detective Nick Charles, played by William Powell and his wife Nora, played by the popular silent movie star Myrna Loy. They are a real odd couple, who perhaps are more best friends than truly lovers. Or perhaps brother and sister would be a better description of it. They love to have fun together and poke fun at each other. It's the most charming aspect of "The Thin Man" and at the same time also what makes this movie still an entertaining one to watch.

On its own this movie really isn't that comedy filled as you would expect. The movie is lacking some good laughs for a comedy, which just more makes this a fun murder-mystery, rather than a full-blood comedy.

The movie is perfectly cast with William Powell and Myrna Loy. They are great but they are even better together in this movie. They share some good screen chemistry together. It's also the movie that sort of re-launched Myrna Loy's career. She was a big actress in the silent era but she was one of those actresses that didn't quite made the step between the silent- and sound movies. She got rediscovered in this movie again and continued to act till the early 80's. Also the other characters and actors are good but you can debate and wonder if there aren't one or two too many characters in the movie, which also makes the movie at times a bit too convincing and tiresome to watch, simply because you don't care- and can't really follow the story, also due to its simplicity it gets brought to the screen with.

Really not bad, I just hope that any of its 5(!) sequels is still better and more entertaining.

7/10

Columbo: Étude in Black (1972) Directed by Nicholas Colasanto, John Cassavetes & Peter Falk





(Review originally written at 7 March 2008)

Story-wise this isn't among the best or most cleverly written Columbo movie but the movie is extremely well made, with excellent directing and truly fine acting.

Especially the acting within this movie attracts the attention. Director Nicholas Colasanto did a great job with the actors in the movie. Appereantly he allowed Peter Falk and John Cassavetes lots of space to play with, also since both are being credited on here as uncredited directors of this movie. Must be part of his directing style to allow the actors this much room. It works out extremely well for this movie. Perhaps he did this because Colasanto himself also used to work as an actor. He is perhaps best known for playing the role of Coach in the hit-series "Cheers", from the very start of it in 1982 until his death in 1985.

So Peter Falk seems better than ever before in his role as Lt. Columbo. Also veteran actor John Cassavetes does a real great job as the movie its murderer and is a good match for the lieutenant. Beside them, the movie also features Myrna Loy. A big star from the silent movie era and also Pat Morita, in a small early role.

But not just the acting-directing within the movie is real good. Visually and technically it's also a really great made movie, with slow long shots, without the use of any cuts. Also obviously the reason why this movie is longer than most Columbo movies. It really takes its time to set up things and tell its story. The movie also features a couple of nice artistic and experimental kind of shots. Of course all really fitting for the '70's.

But like I said before, story-wise this just isn't among the best Columbo movies. Also the clues being left out for the lieutenant are a bit too obvious this time. It makes the murderer come across as a bit dumb, like he didn't thought his plan over good enough, while the character obviously is an intelligent man. Columbo this time also tries to irritate the suspect and other characters a bit more than he usually tries to do, in order to solve the crime. This and Peter Falk's different acting approach are a reason why his character might come across as different than he does in other Columbo movies. But different does not mean worse in this case.

The movie also features a quite good musical score by Richard DeBenedictis, who after this became sort of the steady composer for the Columbo movies.

A great Columbo movie to watch!

8/10

Watch trailer

Love Me Tonight (1932) Directed by Rouben Mamoulian





(Review originally written at 1 January 2008)

This is one incredible charming musical/comedy, from the early '30's. And that coming from a non-musical fan of course says a lot.

It's not a musical with big dance acts, feather costumes, or anything of that sort but just a movie that happens to feature songs in it, which is the sort of musical approach I prefer. The characters would often burst into singing in the middle of the movie, which of course sounds totally ridicules but it's so charming and the songs are so nice that it attributes to what it is that makes this movie so irresistible, joyful and entertaining to watch. This is really not the sort of movie you would expect from the guy who had previously directed "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" before this movie.

Maurice Chevalier didn't had the best signing voice, also of course due to his accent and also especially compared to different genre actors from the same time period. Same goes for most of the actors within this movie. But I sort of like that he isn't perfect in his signing. It seems to fit the movie and its style.

The movie has got some nice cheerful innocent humor in it. The great fun but of course simple written script, contributes to the whole fun feeling and atmosphere of the movie.

The movie doesn't necessarily really has a typical '30's style and more seems ahead of its time. It also makes this movie feel less outdated than most others, especially from the same genre, movies.

The cinematography is really amazing at times. It moves a lot, with pans and also zooms. It makes the cinematography in parts pretty original and innovating for its time. The movie also features some other 'tricks', such as split-screen and slow-motion, among other things. Perhaps this has to do with the Russian origin of director Rouben Mamoulian. His style seems more innovating than most of his fellow Hollywood colleagues from the same time period. It all adds to the atmosphere and unique quality of the movie. It of course also helps that the movie is set in France and Paris. It always has been the best backdrop for these sort of movies. There also was obviously put some effort and money into the sets of the movie.

Some real quality entertainment! This is as good as they can get.

10/10

Watch trailer

The Prizefighter and the Lady (1933) Directed by Howard Hawks & W.S. Van Dyke



(Review originally written at 15 February 2007)

This really is not the most original or enjoyable genre movie to watch. It features a formulaic love-story about a rising boxing star who falls for the girl of a notorious criminal.

It are the sport elements that still provide the movie with some good moments. It's interesting to see a boxing movie from the early '30's, when the sport itself was still so much different compared to now days. Especially the end match is a delight to watch. It's well and effectively filmed. A great finale, for an otherwise bit of dragging and formulaic movie.

Not sure what to think about the style. At times it seemed like the movie-makers tried to make the movie a comedy and at others it was more a sport movie, with the usual dramatic moments in it. They even managed to put musical numbers in the movie! Can you just now imaging a boxing champion appearing, singing and dancing on a stage? The movie is really a mixture of styles, that are not too well balanced. The movie too often switches from style, to give the movie an overall consistent atmosphere. Because of that the story also doesn't always work out as effective as it could had.


Not too happy about the acting in this movie either. Casting an athlete as the main character is always a questionable choice. Max Baer is good enough in some sequences but just plain bad in others, especially the ones that require some more emotional acting. Otto Kruger is also a bad choice as a tough gangster leader. He is far from believable in his role. And who ever told Jack Dempsey he could act? They gave him far too many lines, just because he is, well Jack Dempsey. The same goes for many other famous boxing champions of its period, that make a cameo in this movie toward the ending. Yet it also is what makes this movie so special to watch. What other movie does feature so many former boxing celebrities? It in a way still makes this an essential viewing for the boxing fan.


Definitely true that the end fight makes this movie worth watching but by no means this movie is a must-see.


6/10

Top