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

Trilogy of Terror II (1996) (TV) Directed by Dan Curtis

Posted by: Frank Veenstra Posted date: 10:09 AM / comment : 0 , , , , , , , , , ,





(Review originally written at 3 January 2009)

When you compare this movie to its predecessor, which got released 11 years before this one, you'll have to conclude that this movie is not a better than its predecessor because of the reason that it's stories all are slightly weaker ones.

Again, just like its predecessor, this movie tells 3 different, unrelated stories that somehow all involve the supernatural. What they have in common is that in all 3 stories the main characters is being played by the same actress. In "Trilogy of Terror" this was Karen Black, in "Trilogy of Terror II" its Lysette Anthony. She of course is not as great as Karen Black, though its fun to see her playing 3 totally different characters in each story.

This is more an horror movie than its predecessor was. All of the stories this time feature horror elements. Again, the last story of the movie features the Zuni doll, which also was the highlight of the first movie. Perhaps this is also the reason why it's named "Trilogy of Terror II"? Fore otherwise this movie of course has little to nothing to do with the first movie that got made 11 years(!) before this one.

None of the stories are extremely well written or anything and they all got based on different short stories. The movie is longer than "Trilogy of Terror" and every story this time is about 30 minutes long instead of 20-something minutes. That doesn't really mean though that the stories are well layered or anything like that. At times they are even a bit dragging, which causes them to be a bit uneven in parts. The build up to the eventual horror often takes too long, which makes the movie itself needlessly long as well.

Of course these type of movies are never dull for the lovers of the genre. Dan Curtis is obviously a director with a love for the genre and that passion really shows on the screen at certain points.

6/10

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

Stagecoach (1939) Directed by John Ford

Posted by: Frank Veenstra Posted date: 6:44 AM / comment : 0 , , , , , , , , , , ,

-->



(Review originally written at 22 August 2008)

It's a movie that is mostly mainly set at one location; of course in a stagecoach. It makes this already quite an original movie for its time but its also original with its overall approach. "Stagecoach" is not just purely a western about cowboys fighting Indians, it's also a real character movie, in which all of the characters have their own personality and motivations and start to bond together, since they are all together in the same situation. Under any other normal circumstances they would had most likely never met. It's a movie that has basically everything in it; action, romance, comedy and drama. The fact that the movie is almost entirely set aboard a stagecoach and therefor is always on the move, gives the movie also a great adventurous feeling.
You could say that this movie was John Wayne's big breakthrough, even though he had starred in many movies before, including westerns, prior to this movie. He was still a big unknown at the time and isn't even the top-billing actor of this movie. It must be said that he also just doesn't play the biggest role of the movie. He is just one of the characters. It was the first of many collaborations between director John Ford and the actor John Wayne. The movie has a great assembly cast next to Wayne, with actors such as John Carradine and George Bancroft, who were quite big names at the time. It's of course really a movie that allows its actors to shine, since its a movie that mostly relies on all of its characters. I especially liked John Carradine in the movie.
It above all things is a great made movie, that is beautifully looking. The John Ford directing for the movie is dynamic and knows to combine elements from all kind of genre, with always keeping the movie look and feel like a western, despite featuring so much different 'non;-western like elements. Ford also received an Oscar nomination for his directing of this movie. The movie received a total of 7 Oscar nominations but took only home 2 awards, of which not the most important ones. I also really liked the movie its Oscar nominated cinematography, which gave the movie a great look and overall atmosphere. The movie also uses some nice settings. For some part the movie was filmed in Monument Valley, Utah. A location director John Ford would use many more times again after this movie but he used for the first time ever in this movie.
Some of the stunts in the movie also deserve credit.
Guess it's not a movie for just everyone, especially not those who are expecting a typical John Ford or John Wayne western. The movie for most part feels and progresses like a typical '30's drama. It nevertheless is a timeless classic. When people call this movie outdated, they just probably have something against black & white pictures in general, for "Stagecoach" was a quite modern movie for its time and still perfectly holds up this present day.

 A wonderful timeless movie, even for those who aren't into the western genre.
9/10


Watch trailer

Make Way for Tomorrow (1937) Directed by Leo McCarey

Posted by: Frank Veenstra Posted date: 6:01 PM / comment : 0 , , , , , , , , ,





(Review originally written at 9 July 2008)

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

In Hollywood your career is already mostly over once you're over the age of 40, especially if you're a female. This in the '30's was even more so the case then now days actually. So making a movie about 2 aging people was quite an unique and daring move for 1937 standards. For this the movie mostly deserves credit but it on top of that is also simply a fine movie, that gets carried by its story and strong characters.

It's not the usual sappy dramatic story and movie as perhaps you would normally expect from a '30's movie. It instead is a movie that focuses on some more real emotions of life, without ever having to force to much with its emotions to carry out its story and perhaps also some morals.

Well yes, it's a '30's movie set in the '30's, so of course it's sort of outdated with its story. In this modern age the two elderly people the movie focuses on shall be less lonely and they at least will remain more in contact with each other, after their forced separation in this movie. But of course this doesn't make the movie or any of its emotions any less powerful.

It's a real movie about life, with realistic characters and a story that is more or less recognizable for everyone. Even though the children obviously love and care about their parents, they just can't take care of them after they had lost their house to the bank. Instead they are even embarrassed for them and they get in the way with their average normal lives.

Don't really know why this movie isn't any better known, since everyone everywhere speaks so well of it. Perhaps it's because it's not your typical average '30's movie and drama has some to do with it.

8/10
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Copyright © 2014 Boba_Fett1138's movie reviews
⬆
Top