388. To Kill a Mockingbird (1962)

Running Time: 129 minutes
Directed By: Robert Mulligan
Written By: Horton Foote, from novel by Harper Lee
Main Cast: Gregory Peck, Mary Badham, Phillip Alford, Brock Peters, James Anderson

NEVER KILL A MOCKINGBIRD!

"To Kill a Mockingbird" may be the only adapted film in the book for which I read the novel that it was adapted from. I know it's sad, but I'm a movie watcher not a book reader. Anyway, since my wife had this from Netflix, I figured I might as well take the time to watch it so that I could polish it off.

I think most of us are familiar with the plot of "To Kill a Mockingbird", but if you're not, no worries...I'll recap it for you. The film basically follows around Scout Finch (Badham) and Jem Finch (Alford), as their childhood, living in the deep South, during the Great Depression, is recounted for us through narration from a grown-up Scout. Their father is Atticus (Peck), a man who embodies all that is good, proper and patient. Atticus is a lawyer and in his latest case he'll be defending a black man, Tom Robinson (Peters), accused of raping the young and white Mayella Ewell. Atticus takes the case without batting an eye, knowing deep down that he'll come under harsh scrutiny, but stating that if he doesn't defend Tom Robinson then he'll "never be able to walk down the street with his head held up" again. When the film is focusing on Atticus or his defense of Tom, we get to live through the eyes of six and ten year olds, as Scout and Jem develop a friendship with Dill Harris, tell tales of the scary and mysterious neighbor Boo Radley (Robert Duvall, in his screen debut), go to school and dress up as hams.

POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT!

I don't think I'm going to take very much of your time here, but we'll see what happens when my fingers start pecking away at the keys. I've seen this film many times in my days and in fact, I can remember seeing it for the first time in school, shortly after my class finished reading Harper Lee's novel. Speaking of the novel, I want to interrupt myself here and tell you that none of what follows will be any type of book to film comparison. I've read the book, but it has been years and I've seen the film and all of what follows will be my interpretation and thoughts on the film alone.

One very interesting thing that I noticed this time around is that the ENTIRE movie is told through the eyes of the children. I mentioned this to my wife and she said "Well, yeah...the grown-up Scout is narrating the film." But that's not it, because there are some scenes where Scout isn't present but Jem is, but at least one of them is present in every single scene of the film and never do we hear a word uttered or an action played out that the kids wouldn't have been privy to or delivered themselves. I found this interesting because for me, it kind of changes the entire scope of the film. Whenever I would watch this film in the past I would look at Atticus Finch as not only one of the greatest literary characters that was ever developed, but also one of the greatest hero's of the big screen. Now, realizing that the film is basically us living in the kids' shoes for a couple of hours it makes me think - Is Atticus really as good as he seems or are we merely viewing the film through the eyes of Scout and Jem and looking at Atticus as any young child looks upon their father? Atticus has no flaws in the film because to a child looking up, a father has no flaws to their children and everything they seem to say seems to be a piece of great wisdom, dropped upon their psyche from above.

Atticus Finch is still a great character, no question. I just found it interesting that while I always viewed Atticus as the great man that he is, it seems that the film maker's go to great lengths to make it so that we're viewing Atticus as the children would view him.

Everything else is fine and if I had to change anything, I simply may have trimmed the movie down a bit as it does drag (just a hair) at the end and seems really stretched out. Gregory Peck was brilliant, but the biggest surprise is the fantastic job that the children did. All three of them, including Dill, were marvelous little actors and I could listen to Dill spew the line "My God Aunt Stephanie, you about gave me a heart attack!!" every day and still bust out laughing every time. I also want to mention the score, which seems to really boost this film into that Oscar category that it was able to bounce into. The score is just so warm and welcoming, but powerful too. I love it! I don't feel the need to harp on the racial or social themes of the film, only to mention that they are there and they are well defined. The film (and the book) definitely tackled some hard issues for their time and they did it well, in my opinion.

RATING: 7/10 Good stuff here, no doubt. Despite my relatively low rating, I'd still call this a must see film, as I really can't imagine a film fan who hasn't seen "To Kill a Mockingbird".

MOVIES WATCHED: 235
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 766

March 21, 2011 7:07pm

Read More

315. 12 Angry Men (1957)

Running Time: 96 minutes
Directed By: Sidney Lumet
Written By: Reginald Rose
Main Cast: Martin Balsam, John Fiedler, Lee J. Cobb, E.G. Marshall, Jack Klugman, Edward Binns, Jack Warden, Henry Fonda, Joseph Sweeney, Ed Begley, George Voskovec, Robert Webber

Note: I wanted to let everyone know that I have started up a new blog, where I will be doing some DVD reviews. All of the information of the motives of the blog and what I plan to accomplish can be found in the introductory post at Just ADD('s) DVD Reviews. Please become a follower, as I would certainly appreciate it. Thank you.

SOMETHING STELLAR THIS WAY COMES

In my previous review for "Whisky Galore!" I noted that I needed something stellar to come along and save me from the slump that I had apparently fallen into. With the assistance of my DVD shelf, I was able to produce one of the most stellar films I have ever witnessed and every single time I see it, it's as if I'm seeing it again for the very first time. Of course, I'm talking about the film at hand, "12 Angry Men".

The twelve nameless men that make up a jury on a murder trial are sent into a room and told that they will be determining whether or not an eighteen year old boy murdered his father. They are told that the mandated sentence that will be carried out, if they choose to find the defendant guilty, will be death - and just like that "12 Angry Men", possibly one of the greatest films ever made, begins. Once inside the hot, stuffy jury room, the men take their seats, after some chit chatting and opening windows to try and let in a little cool air. They sit around the table in order of jury number and take a preliminary vote to see where everyone stands - guilty or not guilty. One man, Juror #8 (Fonda) stands alone in declaring that he has a reasonable doubt as to the boy's guilt. He is, of course, immediately under fire from the other men in the room, especially the hot headed Juror #3 (Cobb), the intelligent Juror #4 (Marshall) and crotchety, old-fashioned Juror #10 (Begley). He stands alone, stating that five minutes just doesn't seem enough time to decide the fate of a young boy and insists that they take at least an hour. Over the course of the hour, Juror #8 pleads his case, making it clear that he's not certain of the boy's innocence, only certain that his innocence is possible. That's your premise...

The words "possible spoiler alert" are not necessary here, because in my view there are much more important things about "12 Angry Men" other than whether or not the twelve men ultimately find the boy guilty or innocent. I won't spoil it, don't worry, but their are plenty of other factors that supersede that of the final outcome. For starters, the acting is here is, I'm sure, unlike anything you've ever seen. You've got twelve men laying their hearts out in a tiny room, letting it all out on the table and acting their hearts out. Lee J. Cobb and Henry Fonda are the best, but why quibble over who's best and who's not? Everyone has their spot, everyone knows their spot and everyone plays their spot to perfection.

But even acting, as stellar as it is, isn't the thing that I love about "12 Angry Men", although it certainly helps. The thing I love about "12 Angry Men" is going to be hard for me to put into words, but I'll try and hopefully I'll do this amazing film justice. This film makes me wonder how many real court cases in history have lacked a "Juror #8", who wasn't afraid to stand up for the accused and raise his hand alone when the Jury Foreman asked the question, "Who votes for not guilty?" I wonder how many wanted to be that "Juror #8" and had that reasonable doubt, but when they saw that they would be standing alone, they jolted their hand into the air and sent a possibly innocent man off to die. I'd like to think that if I were a juror on a murder trial and I happened to be that one lone man with that inkling of a reasonable doubt, that I'd take the queue from Henry Fonda's character and raise my hand alone and try to sway the decisions of eleven made up minds.

The passion that these twelve actors are able to evoke is uncanny. Whoever decided to give the script that one little twist of having it take place in the middle of the summer, in a hot room, was a genius. The entire movie gives off a heated, claustrophobic feeling as we slowly get used to the surrounding of the room and when the door finally opens at the end, I myself could almost feel a gush of cool air slap me in the face, as I was finally out of that room, with those twelve angry strangers, who argued and screamed at one another. I love the character study that comes along with "12 Angry Men" and how each individual man in the room has their own distinct personality. I can't help when I'm watching this film but wonder about the backgrounds of these characters and I know it seems silly because it's irrelevant, but I start to picture Juror #7 at that baseball game that he was trying to get to and knowing because I've seen the film so many times, that he never gets to it. I, for some reason, picture Juror #3 and wonder what he's like when he's not being called a "sadist" and trying to convince people that the boy who lives in the slums is a murderer. I feel like I literally know someone who mimics the personalities of every single juror sitting around that table. I'm sure sometime in my life I've come across a man just like Juror #10. Someone who had their opinions pre-formed and nothing (almost nothing) was going to ever change their minds. They were stubborn and they had a certain way of looking at things and that's just the way they were. I feel like I knew a man like Juror #12, someone who was a deep down smart guy, but acted a little foolish from time to time and sometimes got mixed in with the wrong crowd. And if I haven't already, I hope someday I come across a man just like Juror #8, a man willing to help his fellow man and not afraid to stand up for what he truly believes is right. A man who stands his ground and argues for what he believes and isn't afraid to break the rules (or the law) to lend a helping hand.

With the combination of "The Wrong Man", "The Ox-Bow Incident" and most notably "12 Angry Men" you could almost make a makeshift trilogy of films chronicling the silver screens statue of justice and innocence, Henry Fonda. On the surface "12 Angry Men" is simple. Put twelve men in a room and let them decide the fate of a young boy, innocent or guilty. But when you do a little digging it's deeper than that. It's about personal prejudices and issues. It's about fantastic acting and fantastic characters. It's about pivotal, meaningful, intricate movie making. Every single time the camera zooms in on the face of one of our jurors, it means something. When we zoom in on Lee J. Cobb's face about halfway through the film, his facials almost seem to indicate that he knows Juror #8 is right and that he's going to keep on fighting because 1) he doesn't want to admit that he's been wrong the whole time - and not only does he not want to, he's too proud to do so and 2) he needs this kid to go to the electric chair because he was involved in this case and if he can control this kid's fate then maybe, just maybe it will give him the illusion that he was able to control his own kid's fate. Everything means something and perhaps the most meaningful act and the one that brought me to tears this time around, was when Juror #8 takes Juror #3 his coat at the end of the film, as if to say, "I feel sorry for you, I'm sorry I had to break you and I forgive you."

RATING: 10/10 Did you even have to ask what my rating was? Ok, ok so you didn't actually ask, but "12 Angry Men" is a definite '10' and going to be nearly impossible to topple for top spot of the next TOP 20.

MOVIES WATCHED: 234
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 767

March 20, 2011 9:45pm

Read More

218. Whisky Galore! (1949)

Running Time: 82 minutes
Directed By: Alexander Mackendrick
Written By: Angus MacPhail, Compton Mackenzie, from novel by Compton Mackenzie
Main Cast: Basil Radford, Catherine Lacey, Bruce Seton, Joan Greenwood, Wylie Watson

MACKENDRICK HAT TRICK: PART TWO OF THREE

I've had "Whisky Galore!" sitting here at the house for most of the week now and with my wife off at work today, I figured I'd hunker down in the bed and give it a look. To be honest, I actually had to take a respite about half way through and catch "forty winks", which is sad considering the short running time of this film.

The plot is pretty simple, so I'll try to keep this synopsis short and sweet. The film takes place on the small, isolated Scottish island of Todday, where wartime rationing leads to a dry spell on the island. By "dry", I mean that the whisky has ran out and gloom descends upon the natives of the island, who have learned to go about their daily lives, only if their bellies are filled with the drink. The islanders go about their lives, with their heads hung low, speaking in monotone voices, unable to snap out of their depression over the loss of their beloved whisky. By chance, a boat carrying 50,000 cases of whisky and headed for America, runs aground and the crew are forced to abandon ship and leave it for the sea to swallow. When the natives get wind of what the precious cargo was, they plan to steal it and when the clock strikes midnight signaling the end of the sabbath day, they commence with their plans. The cast of characters are headed up by the brilliant Basil Radford (one of the few brilliant things about "Whisky Galore!) who plays Captain Paul Waggett, the English head of the Home Guard, who, with nothing better to do assigns his men to keep watch over the sinking ship, until it is well under the sea. When the natives succeed in capturing the cargo, Captain Waggett makes it his duty to find the culprits necessary and bring them to justice.

I really need to get out of Britain as far as my movies choices are concerned. I don't have anything against the Brits but their films are just to prim and proper and for my tastes, I should have spread them out and watched them sparsely. Now don't get me wrong, I've really liked some of the British films that I've been watching, but I think it's just too much and we need to make a detour and get into some other period or some other country. I just flat out didn't enjoy this movie and aside from a few short scenes and small elements, there was almost nothing about it I found appealing. Basil Radford was good and provided all of my laugh out loud moments in the film, but even those were reduced to small chuckles. I just didn't find anything funny or amusing about an island that is cleared of whisky and the inhabitants who go into a grand funk over the loss of it. Other than that, I really can't put my finger on why I disliked "Whisky Galore!" so much, I can say, however, that this is a prime example of a movie that really makes me scratch my head and wonder, "How in the hell did this make it into the book, when so many other, great films weren't included." This is NOT, by any means, something that one MUST SEE before they die and I'd say unless you're a fan of classic Britcom films, then it's a must to avoid.

RATING: 3/10 That's a generous rating as far as I'm concerned. "The Lavender Hill Mob" still holds up as the best Ealing Studios comedy thus far. Really need something stellar to come along as I've seemed to have hit a slump of bad - average films.

MOVIES WATCHED: 233
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 768

March 19, 2011 6:20pm

Read More

290. The Ladykillers (1955)

Running Time: 97 minutes
Directed By: Alexander Mackendrick
Written By: William Rose
Main Cast: Alec Guinness, Katie Johnson, Cecil Parker, Herbert Lom, Peter Sellers

MACKENDRICK HAT TRICK: PART ONE of THREE

After watching "The Lavender Hill Mob" the other night and thoroughly enjoying it, I immediately moved the rest of the Ealing Studios' comedies to the top of my Netflix queue, and it just so happens that "The Ladykillers" was the first one I received.

The film is set in England and starts off by introducing us to Mrs. Louisa A. Wilberforce (Johnson), an old widowed woman, who is terribly proper and visits the police station routinely to have a chat with the superintendent. Mrs. Wilberforce has just placed an ad in the paper notifying the public that she has rooms to rent and when she returns home from the police station one day, she hears a knock at her door. The knock belongs to Professor Marcus (Guinness), a seemingly proper man who claims to be a Professor at the University and a man who needs a room. He also notes that he and a group of his friends are amateur musicians and that if she doesn't mind, they would use the room she rents him to practice in. Being the kind old lady that she is, she of course has no qualms about that and the Professor's "friends" are invited. Professor Marcus' friends consist of the equally proper Major Claude Courtney (Parker), the weaselly Harry Robinson (Sellers), the muscle man with the low I.Q. "One Round" (Danny Green) and the quiet hitman Louis Harvey (Lom). What Mrs. Wilberforce doesn't know is that the men cannot play a lick of music and that they are actually plotting a bank robbery, of which Mrs. Wilberforce will unknowingly be their sixth man...or woman. They plan to trick Mrs. Wilberforce into picking up the money for them and delivering it to them back at the house. Of course, things don't go as planned and hilarity and chaos ensue.

POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT!

This will, more than likely, be kept just as short and sweet as "The Lavender Hill Mob" review. I'll start out by saying that I liked "The Lavender Hill Mob" better than "The Ladykillers", but not by much. The thing that I think I liked less about this one is that there was far less running around and confusion. In "The Lavender Hill Mob" the crooks are forced to run around the city of London to get their heist pulled off perfectly and then are forced to run around Paris to try and retrieve some of their lost loot. In "The Ladykillers" the heist is over with in the first thirty minutes of the film and then everyone is pretty much stationary for the remainder of the film, as the quintet of crooks and Mrs. Wilberforce quarrel about what will be done with the stolen "lolly". I know, it's a very small and unimportant thing to nitpick about, but I'll be the first to admit that. This movie was also just a bit too dark for me - from the sinister looking Professor Marcus to the desolate and haunted looking house that Mrs. Wilberforce occupied and even some of the camera angles and colors, it just wasn't as jovial as "The Lavender Hill Mob" and I think I may have taken it more seriously than I should have because of these aspects.

However, with all of that aside, the film was a lot of fun. Guinness, Sellers and really the entire main cast did an outstanding job and the script was actually quite genius, which is something you cannot say about any comedy made today in the States. Most comedies have a very cheap feel to them, while "The Ladykillers" felt very smart and thought out. I'll add that, before you ask, I have seen the remake of "The Ladykillers" and yes I did like it. I know a lot of loyalists to the original hated the Coen Brothers remake, but I saw the Coen Brothers version first, and liked what I saw. However, I did like the cast of the 1955 version a lot better and thought that both scripts were equally good, with the remake having enough changes to make it still feel fresh, even in retrospect.

RATING: 6.5/10 That's probably a bit harsh on the rating side of things, but I gave "The Lavender Hill Mob" a 7.5/10 and I liked it better than this one, so it's a just rating.

MOVIES WATCHED: 232
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 769

March 14, 2011 2:31pm

Read More

365. Peeping Tom (1960)

Running Time: 101 minutes
Directed By: Michael Powell
Written By: Leo Marks
Main Cast: Carl Boehm, Anna Massey, Moira Shearer, Maxine Audley, Brenda Bruce

POWELL AND PRESSBURGER WEEK: PART 6 - THE CONCLUSION

Well for the conclusion of "Powell and Pressburger Week" we drop Emeric Pressburger and take a look at a film that Michael Powell tackled on his own. It was a turn for Powell, from his normally much more tame and innocent movies and delved into the world of murder, lust and fear.

The film opens with our main character, a man we later identify as Mark Lewis (Boehm), murdering a prostitute and using his handheld camera to film her as she takes her dying breath to scream. The entire scene is shot P.O.V. and was actually quite effective in roping me in and getting me ready for something very un-Powell. Later we finally see the face of our predator and we learn that he is a photographer/cameraman. He has many different irons on the fire. Sometimes he goes to the local newspaper shop and photographs lurid pictures of models for the owner of the shop to sell in his store. In fact, one of the best scenes in the film is that of a man purchasing racy photos and having them wrapped in a package marked "educational books". When Mark isn't being an amateur Playboy photographer, he works on the film crew of a movie that is being shot, in hopes of one day being a filmmaker himself. Mark lives in a house that he owns and leases out the extra rooms. One day our shy predator is forced into striking up a conversation with one of his neighbors/tenants Helen (Massey) and as the film progresses Mark becomes attached to her. Mark continues to film many different things - from the women he murders, to the police that carry away his victims.

POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT!

I didn't like it! Sorry for being so blunt, but there's no use skipping around the facts. But don't worry, I can back up my opinion.

After seeing five movies that Michael Powell and his partner Emeric Pressburger did together and coming to the realization that these were men who made innocent films, that appealed to a very mature, classy and tame audience, I was really caught off guard when the opening scene of "Peeping Tom" showed a street straight out of "Nighthawks" and a prostitute about to get offed. I was excited, because in all of the P&P films there did lie an element of intrigue for me and in my mind, this was going to be the one that really made me realize what a visionary Michael Powell really was. I was, unfortunately, wrong. This movie was just a bunch of scenes thrown together and there really didn't seem to be any concept of linear storytelling. Not that the film wasn't straightforward, it just seemed to me like there were so many scenes that were just thrown in and made absolutely no sense. Take for instance, the VERY long scene where Moira Shearer dances around a cluttered movie set, alone in a dark room with Mark. It just seemed like a cheap way to write a part in for Moira and while I have no objections to watching the very beautiful Moira Shearer dance, it just seemed so out of place.

Then you have things that just don't make sense on a sense making level. Helen Stephens finds Mark peeping through her living room window and she responds by delivering a piece of her birthday cake to his door. Really? I mean, it just doesn't make sense. She should be frightened of Mark, because she has noticed him peeping at her and though she tries to communicate with him, he seems the type of character who would never allow her to get close to him, let alone allow her into his beloved dark room. Then you have Mark going from a film set to a newspaper shop and doing all these different things and then we get his back story, which is seemingly an effort to garner sympathy for Mark, but it didn't work with me. Mark was entirely too quiet too. I want a movie murderer like the guy in "Frenzy" who worked at the fruit market. It was so frustrating hearing Carl Boehm deliver his lines in a very halting, quiet tone. Anna Massey was annoying too and she seems to be the one that gets through to Mark the most. Honestly the character who finally breaks through Mark's wall should have been far less annoying.

Ultimately, the entire film was way too chaotic and random and unenjoyable. I think there was definite potential and if I had a chance to put in my input, I would've wished Powell would have kept it more simple. Mark kills women and films their dying reactions. That's all you need. Why does he do this? Because he's a sexual predator/pervert who gets off on such things. Don't give me all this mumbo jumbo about his father throwing lizards at him while he's in bed and shining flashlights in his eyes to wake him up. The character, in my opinion, should have been more perverse. I hate to sound like a total sicko, but a little more perversion on Mark's part, a little more nudity and a lot more P.O.V. shots would have given this movie the gritty feel that I felt it lacked big time. Don't get me wrong people, I don't NEED nudity in my films, but this was supposedly the first British film to feature nudity and so obviously Powell thought it was relevant too.

RATING: 3/10 A few scenes were good and it had all the potential in the world, but it was ultimately a MAJOR disappointment and a bad way to wrap up the week dedicated to Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger.

MOVIES WATCHED: 231
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 770

March 11, 2011 9:39pm

Read More

211. The Red Shoes (1948)

Running Time: 133 minutes
Directed By: Michael Powell, Emeric Pressburger
Written By: Michael Powell, Emeric Pressburger, Keith Winter, from story by Hans Christian Andersen
Main Cast: Moira Shearer, Marius Goring, Anton Walbrook, Leonide Massine, Robert Helpmann

POWELL AND PRESSBURGER WEEK: PART 5

Fighting some minor personal health issues, I was still able to muster up the commitment to check out "The Red Shoes" via the streaming portion of Netflix. My wife had been telling me since I started on the journey to watch the films of Powell and Pressburger, that "The Red Shoes" was excellent. Somehow I was still hesitant - I mean, come on, a movie about ballet? But, as usual, my wife was the one who was right.

The movie follows the Lermontov Ballet Company, which is headed up by Boris Lermontov (Walbrook). Upon the films opening, hundreds of people are jamming themselves inside a theatre to catch his newest production. Following the production, a party is held, where Boris meets Victoria Page (Shearer), who was hoping to dance for Mr. Lermontov at the party, but he declines the proposal. When he asks her "Why must you dance?", she combats with a question of her own - "Why must you live?". He tells her to come to auditions and that he'll see if he can make a part for her. In the meantime, Lermontov is also called upon by a young man, Julian Craster (Goring), claiming that the composer of Lermontov's previous ballet has ripped him off and used music that Craster himself wrote. Lermontov eases the boy and offers him a job - he accepts. Some time goes by, Craster earns his stripes and the reputation of being a hard worker and Lermontov realizes the greatness that is Vicky Page when he silently attends her rendition of Swan Lake of a much smaller production. Upon realizing the capabilities of his newest attributes, Lermontov begins production on "The Red Shoes", a story about a girl who goes to a ball wearing a pair of red shoes and at the end of the night can't seem to get them to stop dancing. The shoes eventually dance her until she dies. He casts Vicky as the lead role, despite everyone's hesitancy that she's ready and puts Craster in charge of the music.

POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT!

You can certainly imagine my hesitancy as I prepared to watch "The Red Shoes". Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger have yet to really "WOW" me with one of their pictures and ballet doesn't really get me into an uproar. However, I was totally dazzled by this film! It was probably one of the most colorful, vibrant and energy filled films I've seen, since Fellini's color films. There were images that frightened and images that were absolutely gorgeous. There were images that just made you sit back, clear your head and take everything in, as it came whipping at you through the screen. Moira Shearer was beautiful and watching her twirl and dance around on the stage during "The Red Shoes" ballet scene was a sight for sore eyes. I could have watched an entire film of JUST Moira Shearer dancing the dance of "The Red Shoes" and been completely satisfied. But, no, "The Red Shoes" wasn't just dancing and Moira Shearer wasn't the only standout part of the cast.

Anton Walbrook, in my opinion, was amazing. I love it when actors can really act and really add a flair to their dialogue, as it makes me want to hear every single word that they say and just hear them deliver. I know that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but when Walbrook spoke in this film, I listened, as he had a voice that commanded attention. Marius Goring was really good too and I didn't even realize until just now (when I looked it up) that he was the same man who played the Conductor in "A Matter of Life and Death". Such a different role he plays here and a much more likable one.

If you want to see some real color, vibrancy, great choreography, a great story, great acting, some tragedy and the beautiful, light on her feet Moira Shearer, then check out "The Red Shoes". The only nitpicking I'd do on it is that it does drag a little in the beginning and a little in the end, but what is sandwiched in between is some great stuff and worth a look from your eyes.

RATING: 7.5/10 I'll go out on a limb and say that "The Red Shoes" is the best Powell & Pressburger I've seen thus far. I enjoyed "A Matter of Life and Death" more, but this one was enjoyable and just flat out quality stuff. Next: We finish Powell and Pressburger week and cut out the Pressburger part with "Peeping Tom".

MOVIES WATCHED: 230
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 771

March 9, 2011 8:42pm

Read More

235. The Lavender Hill Mob (1951)

Running Time: 78 minutes
Directed By: Charles Crichton
Written By: T.E.B. Clarke
Main Cast: Alec Guinness, Stanley Holloway, Sid James, Alfie Bass

EASING INTO SOME EALING

I'll admit that prior to a few hours ago, I had no idea what an Ealing Studios Production was. Now, having watched "The Lavender Hill Mob", a film that I recorded off of Turner Classic Movies months ago, I realize that Ealing Studios produced some very good comedies...well at least one for sure.

Alec Guinness is Henry Holland, a timid and meticulous bank clerk living in London and who has been in charge of gold bullion deliveries for the past twenty years. Making sure that every speck of gold is accounted for, Henry has made sure that his co-workers have noticed his anal retentive ways, as he would like to get rich and if the opportunity should present itself, he wants to make sure he's the last one they suspect, if he should decide to rob them. One day Henry meets Alfred Pendlebury (Holloway) and the two begin to chit chat. Alfred is in the business of making souvenirs and shipping them to foreign markets. One of Pendlebury's more popular items is a paper weight shaped like the Eiffel Tower. When Henry gets a look at the foundry where Alfred makes his small replicas of the Parisian landmark, he gets an idea. He and Alfred will rob the delivery truck and then melt the gold down and use the Eiffel Tower mold to disguise it. No one would ever suspect that a small replica of the Tower would be stolen gold. Once they have it melted down, they'll ship it to France and then go over and pick it up. Not a trace of evidence will be left in London and Henry, Alfred and their two recruited criminal cronies, will be free and clear.

POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT!

It wasn't necessarily the comedy, but rather the fantastic script that I loved about this film. Everything seemed to mesh together perfectly and just when you thought that Henry and Al had it made in the shade, another roadblock would pop up and threaten to put our beloved main characters behind bars. Alec Guinness was great here and I really fell in love with his character early on. In fact, I'm hoping that allowing myself to get a little more fond of Guinness will also allow me to enjoy the Star Wars trilogy a little more when I get to it. Stanley Holloway was really great too and honestly guys, there's not a lot left to say about "The Lavender Hill Mob". It's a really funny comedy that has turned me on to the Ealing Comedies and after finishing it, I immediately rushed "Whisky Galore", "The Ladykillers" and "Kind Hearts and Coronets" to the top of my Netflix queue.

If you're in the mood to check out a really terrific comedy, with lots of laughs, a really smart plot and a lot of clever devices, then tune into Turner Classic Movies on Sunday, March 20, 2011 @ 2:15 pm and give it a look. Even if you're not a fan of comedies, it still may strike your fancy.

RATING: 7.5/10 WOW! That was a short one. Sometimes there's just not a lot to say/elaborate on, without sounding like a broken record. Good film, not just funny either.

MOVIES WATCHED: 229
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 772

March 8, 2011 2:29am

Read More