Reviews

This film was unjustly panned as lethargic and bleak without a purpose. Considering how Hold 'Em has developed into one of the biggest social fads in the last decade, I would say that this film captures every emotional aspect the 'swings' of No Limit typically carry.

I had absolutely no idea how to play the game when I first saw this movie about five years ago. The dialogue is wrought with jargon that almost makes a mockery of itself. Especially since much of the movie is done with voice-over, I can see where critics are coming from. However, the viewer should not allow themselves to get bogged down with it all, we get the gist with well-developed staging and performances.

Damon and Norton play off each other better than Damon and Affleck. Though the story echoes in the wake of Scorsese's 'Mean Streets', the performances seem more detailed than the Keitel/DeNiro combo. The supporting roles add great depth to the film, and Tutorro shines as the wise-old has-been that successfully provides Damon's character with the cold-hard truth he never seems to adhere to (until it is too late).

Above all, we feel compelled to cheer for Damon's Mike McDermott the ENTIRE time. He acknowledges his 'bad' play but constantly tries to explain that this is a game of skill and not luck. This is an important element considering the widely accepted belief that any success in gambling is the result of luck. This may be true in the bloodsucking casinos, but in Hold 'Em you play the chips AND the man.

Now that baseball is out of the Olympics, perhaps we will see a push for a true "WORLD Series of Poker". Then again, I also wanted to see 'Four Square' made into an official event when I was 8, so maybe I'm just talking out of my ass...

Should be commended as a precursor to a pandemic fad that is costing teens (and their parents) millions daily.

*** (of ****)

Right away this title grabs your attention. It has to. It is certainly audacious and somewhat condescending, which is probably why I took it off the shelf. Why not? Every other feature title out there generally spells out the movie anyway, so why not go for something more enigmatic? Next to 2004's 'Primer' this is one of the most interesting titles in the last few years.

The story revolves around a socially disconnected youth that commits a heinous crime without any particular reason. While the actual crime 'shoots for the moon', marvelous editing keeps us from knowing all of the information. The crime itself is not important, so much as how everyone else is affected by the consequences.

An ensemble cast of mostly Gen-Y rising stars promotes believability against the backdrop of modern suburbia. Gosling delivers an even-paced and restrained performance as Leland. Jean Malone picks up yet another troubled and sexually exploited teen role. I mention this because it seems she is certainly capable of more advanced work but continues to choose roles that are hyped with drug use and strong sexuality. Don Cheadle, who is one of the top five best actors working today is somewhat of a let down, but this is mostly due to the weak writing of his character. Kevin Spacey shines as the estranged father although he only has about 2-3 scenes of dialogue. The 'dark horse' of this film unquestionably goes to Chris Klein. After some poor choices and weak performances he reaffirms an acting presence that has not been seen since his role in 'Election'.

Hoge employs some interesting camera and cinematic choices that prevent the film from becoming a WB-drama. The editing takes center stage, and is ultimately what keeps our interest. NOT being spoon-fed every piece of plot and action is a nice change of pace from current industry practices. The simple and low-key production design allows the reality of the film to sink in better for the viewer, thereby disposing unnecessary distractions.

I suspect we will see more of Mr. Hoge's work in the near future.

*** (of ****)

First Men in the Moon begins with a very interesting scenario, as an international space expedition to the moon turns into havoc as the astronauts discover evidence of a previous voyage from the year 1899! This twist provides a shock-factor to the story, and eventually sends us back to Wells' turn-of-the-century England that many of his novels frequent. The film devotes serious time to the beginnings of the flashback that derails the audience's attention after too long. Though I never read the novel, I am willing to bet that the author wrote extensively about the character's actual journey in space, and the spectacular sights the fortunate threesome witnessed as the first humans to leave our atmosphere.

A very strong and comical performance is delivered from Lionel Jefferies as the scientist Cavol. Christopher Lloyd's character in Back to the Future seems to echo in the wake of Jefferies' portrayal. The relationship between Arnold and Kate is comical, however distracting. Even worse for Kate, is the fact that despite his lies and misgivings, she feels compelled to help his cause. The transition between their supposed final argument is awkward, as the following scene shows her gathering supplies for the mission. With the discovery of the moon's inhabitants, Arnold becomes the aggressor by instantly trying to kill the bug-like aliens. While Cavol is completely passive in trying to pursue scientific virtues, Arnold abandons his ‘friend' in the heat of battle. Stop-motion photography is the film's biggest asset. The giant worm in the cave is outdated by today's digital cinematography, but nonetheless effective for the sequence. Some terrific matte-paintings of the moon's landscape and inner tunnels provide a low-funded project with some nice results. The ending is dismal, as we are brought back to present day to see the current mission decide to destroy the colony. Perhaps this is a commentary providing insight about how our war-like tendencies still plague the human race.

NOTE: The Time Machine was made four years earlier (1960) and has much better effects.

Hastily thrown together, and it shows.

** (of ****)

Although The Trouble With Angels, offers little toward social commentary, this film still accomplishes many simple, but significant feats. The novice directing ability of Ida Lupino is evident as she takes an even-handed approach to the construction of the picture. She does not really take any daring challenges, but definitely captures youthful innocence conceived through a charming comedy. The use of panning is clearly one of the more frequently used shooting tactics that Lupino employs. Many times the cut and edit from one scene to the next would be followed by a wide angle master shot, and a pan-left of right to reveal any action. A very effective method often used in narrative films. She takes the concept slightly further by bridging her scenes together with full-screen close-ups and a rapid pull-back to establish the setting. The camera might be fixed on a painting, flamboyant hat, light fixtures, etc. to highlight some of the particular scene's themes. Production value for this film is an area worth discussing. When the students arrive and leave from the school, they all wear stylish, sophisticated women's clothing. The outfits are brightly colored and perfectly accessorized with pill-box hats and vanity purses. Even at the introductory dinner, all of the girls have professionally done hair and makeup. There was a serious amount of time devoted to scene design. The film progresses with the utilization of just a few main stages (not counting any exterior locations). The main hallway, main staircase and landing, the girls' dormitory room, and some select classrooms. Each of these locations are deliberately filled with scene props (student artwork, holy relics) to establish a sense of depth and reality. Since this film takes place over the span of three years, it is important to create a sense of development and maturation among the students.

A fuzzy Haley Mills comedy.

**1/2 (of ****)

The hurried approach that Lewis Seiler takes with King of the Underworld establishes a deeper plot, while still maintaining an efficient run-time. One of the clearest examples of this is the transition between poverty and wealth for the married medical couple. The audience is instantly transported from a shanty medical office to a luxurious suite at the city's most prestigious inn. This development is critical to understanding the position the doctors have been thrown into. The story suggests from the intro that these two people are generally happy with providing medical practice to those who are less fortunate. By abruptly cutting from this scenario to the morally conflicting occupation (the mob's personal physician), the viewer is called upon to experience this sudden turn of events. The Nelsons (Kay Francis and John Eldredge) are forcibly employed by Gurney (Bogart) without objections. This stylized notion of organized crime being too influential and powerful to overcome has become a standard component in every gangster picture. The one aspect of this film that raised some questions for me, ironically dealt with the pacing of the story, and that rate at which it was told. I think that character development and social identity can suffer when certain aspects of a story are not fully examined. This paradox happens to be a result of personal taste, in that I think that the movie going experience can be enhanced through rigorous character development. However, for the purposes of this film, I must admit that the rapid action contributes more dynamic flare to the impact of the film.

**1/2 (of ****)

My Man Godfrey is a delightful comedy that serves up some tough questions regarding the worth of the individual and the layered perspectives in society. Many of the film's scenes are quite long. Although length and development seem to stretch from time to time, each segment is purposeful. La Cava directed in a time when films cautiously strayed from distracting the audience. Many of our contemporary pictures have a great deal of ‘fluff' to administer different effects. By devoting more time to development, the script yields humorous moments more frequently. I was most surprised with the clarity and focus of the film from a technical standpoint. For 1939 this is a beautiful picture that utilizes many distinct locations, but never falters in sharp imagery or detail. The wide open house serves as a great opportunity to use dolly and tracking shots. Since humor is the main objective, it is imperative to exploit moments that use physical humor. When Godfrey comes home drunk and serves the women drinks, he follows a routine serving pattern while the camera tracks him around the circle of chairs. The humor in this instance can be found in the sways and sluggish stepping of Godfrey. He seems to progressively get ‘worse' after each lady is served before he must retire to the kitchen. Although there is a certain amount of social commentary in My Man Godfrey, I think that the comedic element of this film tends to drown out the seriousness of depression and worthiness. Though the story excels at sending a moral message about prejudice, any attempt to dignify the casualties suffered (at the time) flails in the warm blanket of romantic comedy.

A solid, depression-era flick.

*** (of ****)

Essentially this western is just another 'coat-tail hitcher' that so many other films in this genre frequent. However, it is evident that this film was shot in a matter of days, amidst a standing western set that, no doubt, was employed by others.

Although the production value is limited, the story is still treacherous as two rangers set out to disband a local posse. The narration is used effectively in the beginning to set up the plot. Unfortunately, this tool is used throughout the film, therefore alleviating any suspense. This is the biggest letdown, especially as the end nears, and the posse's mastermind is unveiled.

Some interesting camera-work in some bar sequences again prove that even the most modest of films can still retain qualities of originality of expression. The limited use of sound and music allow the film to inhabit 'noiristic' tendencies, but the use of day-for-night filters is disappointing.

The acting is adequate, but effective, despite the total lack of star-power. A distinct companionship is understood between Ryan and Vance, and Thomas Carr attempts to actualize their bond at the end with a silent pull-in to the famous 'Texas-Rangers service plaque'; a cheap way to enamor the brave, but dead lawmen.

I was lucky to catch this one of a rare 16mm print while in school, so I refuse to totally condemn the film. It is worth seeing if you are interested in seeing how quick westerns were literally thrown together, or you are simply a DIE-DIE-HARD western buff.

** (of ****)

Fail Safe pays attention to detail in order to have a more effective ending. Lumet does a nice job setting up the individual storylines that will no doubt mesh together at some point. Again, Lumet employs a wide array of characters in order to encapsulate the varied social impact as a near-apocalyptic catastrophe develops. Good taste in actors serves Lumet well, as many of the players have such a wide range of expressions. This film is yet another exploitation regarding the shouldering of responsibility; a common theme for Mr. Lumet. (See 12 Angry Men and Dog Day Afternoon)

The time devoted to each storyline varies between each subject. Walter Matthau delivers a chilling performance as a near-mad scientist, bent on using the miscommunication to the American's advantage. The best acting of the film however comes from Henry Fonda and a bit-part by Larry Hagman. For such a serious subject, Lumet is able to extract some humor from these telephone sequences. Although Fonda lends his 'everyman-superman' style to yet another Lumet film, he still does the role justice. Essentially, he acts like a President we would vote for. Perhaps even more impressive in these scenes would have to be the length of each cut. The very first (and arguably most important) phone call from the President to the Soviet Chairman is a three to four minute take. The camera rests in a two-shot of Fonda and Hagman without any interruption.

As noted, the attention to detail is integral to support the dismal end. Many instances of cut-away shots or extreme close-ups of hands, folders, phones or codes seem to indicate Lumet's desire to capture our incarnations and self-marvel. Simply look to the scenario of the film: our relentless desire to gain superior defenses has been manifested through the human will to destroy. Therefore, by examining our most simplistic and necessary creations, we might shed emotion for the film's closing moments. The bomb has been dropped on New York. Lumet begins with random action scenes of people throughout the city. Each instance captures their obliviousness, which sharply contrasts the 'doomed' men who are responsible. The instant freeze-frame is an effective ending because Lumet wishes to show the instantaneousness of this type of death.

Yes, this film is comparable to Dr. Strangelove in many respects. The reason why Kubrick's film became the more memorable work is because a perfectly-written satire has more political influence over a bleak, gut-wrenching drama simply because it is harder to laugh about this subject. (And the subject matter can reach more members). As humans, we can cope with problems and difficulties much easier with a sense of humor. Let's face it, this subject is about as serious as it can get. Either it never happens, or everyone dies (a painful death). This is a rare consequence, so we might as well have a good laugh before vaporization.

Good stuff, not Lumet's best. (*** of 4)