Movie Review: The Desert Fox
Year of Release: 1951
Country of Origin: USA
Director: Henry Hathaway
Cast: James Mason, Cedric Hardwicke, Jessica Tandy
Plot outline: The life and career of the respected World War II German General Erwin Rommel (IMDb).
What you get from The Desert Fox is that while being an acknowledged tactical genius, Rommel was either not too bright in other areas; i.e., unable to see Hitler’s true character despite his abandonment of perfectly good armies in Africa and at Stalingrad, or a flagrant opportunist; as long as he's OK, to hell with everything else. This is where I think the screenplay is too forgiving. Rommel may have been a heckuva soldier, but he served one of the worst tyrants in modern history. Nevertheless, the characters are vivid. James Mason is stellar as Rommel. Sterling support from Cedric Hardwicke as Dr. Strolin, Jessica Tandy as Frau Rommel, and familiar faces George Macready, Everett Sloan, Richard Boone, and Leo G. Carroll as German officers, with savoury (and animated) Adolf Hitler impression provided by Luther Adler. Directed by Henry Hathaway, with cinematography and music by Norbert Brodine and Daniele Amfitheatrof, the movie contains quite a bit of actual WWII footage to placate action fans while the bulk of it plays out in conversations between the various parties. Sets and costume were very impressive with good attention to detail. I noticed that Rommel correctly wore both the Pour le Merite (Imperial Germany's highest decoration) and Iron Cross at his collar. I would have liked to see more of the events that established Rommel’s credentials as a great tactician and warrior, but we are required to take this for granted. All in all it is a good watch, but don’t be too sure you’re getting good history here, more like beatification. (GC)
My judgement: *** out of 4 stars
Movie Review: They Died with Their Boots On
Year of Release: 1941
Country of Origin: USA
Director: Raoul Walsh
Cast: Errol Flynn, Olivia de Havilland, Gene Lockhart, Anthony Quinn
Plot outline: Romanticized biography of General George Armstrong Custer and his last stand (IMDb).
They Died with Their Boots On marks a rather low-key, fitting farewell to the intense, onscreen pairing of Errol Flynn and Olivia de Havilland. Their final scenes, as charismatic General Custer leaves his supportive wife for the doomed battle with Crazy Horse at the Little Bighorn, are moving. As an onscreen couple in British and American period epics, the two generated an intense energy, and one gets a sense the actors were also saying farewell to their bygone roles, before de Havilland embarked on her quest to get richer, more prominent female parts, and Flynn more or less became trapped as an aging action hero. As an accurate historical chronicle of Custer's years from cadet to famously determined General, the movie is sandwiched tightly between fleetingly acceptable and hogwash. Even those unfamiliar with Custer's life will sense the screenwriters are responsible for the stereotypical villain: former cadet school bully Ned Sharp (colourfully played by a young Arthur Kennedy) becomes a greedy exploiter, before voluntarily and honorably redeeming himself, Hollywood style. Warner Bros. have used a sparkling print for their superb transfer, and Max Steiner's lively score booms from the movie's original mono mix. Another well-produced Errol Flynn release - and for film buffs, look fast for Gig Young, unbilled in an early speaking role in the movie! (MH)
My judgement: **1/2 out of 4 stars
Movie Review: D.O.A.
Year of Release: 1950
Country of Origin: USA
Director: Rudolph Maté
Cast: Edmond O'Brien, Pamela Britton, Luther Adler, Beverly Garland
Plot outline: Frank Bigelow, told he's been poisoned and has only a few days to live, tries to find out who killed him and why (IMDb).
Rudolph Maté's D.O.A. opens with what is quite possibly one of the greatest beginnings of all time. A disheveled man strides calmly into a police station and walks firmly down the halls of the large building while the credits role. As they come to an end, he arrives at the homicide division of the station. "I want to report a murder," he says. "Who was murdered ?"
a detective behind a desk asks. "
I was," he replies. D.O.A. is police jargon for "Dead On Arrival," and that’s pretty much what Edmond O’Brien is as he arrives at the police station and begins his tale to the detective. O’Brien appeared in dozens of movies, often as a reporter or editor with alcohol problems, like he did in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance. In this movie he got one of his only chances to play the leading man, and frankly I can see why the pudgy actor was not more often chosen. He just does not have the charisma to carry a full length performance where he appears in nearly every frame. Nonetheless, Maté surrounded him with enough interesting characters and situations that O’Brien’s limitations as an actor did not seem to detract as much as they would in a more conventional story. For example, his preoccupation with women and their apparent attraction to him did not ring exactly true. Maté started out as a cinematographer, and became highly regarded. In this movie his great eye for camera angles and lighting is apparent and many of the scenes are classic, making the movie better than it has a right to be. The jazz club scene with the musicians jamming really is admirable and gets you into the crazy world they inhabit. The story is great but some of the dialog is really laughable, especially in the frequent phone calls between O’Brien and girlfriend Pamela Britton and his other encounters with women. Giving great support to the production, Beverly Garland appears, as do Neville Brand and Luther Adler, all of whom provide interesting moments that help D.O.A. live in that shady film noir world where nobody is innocent and everybody finally pays. The score, by Dimitri Tiomkin, is well done and keeps the pace moving. (GC)
My judgement: **1/2 out of 4 stars
Movie Review: Gandhi
Year of Release: 1982
Country of Origin: UK, India
Director: Richard Attenborough
Cast: Ben Kingsley, Candice Bergen, Edward Fox, John Gielgud, Trevor Howard, John Mills, Martin Sheen
Plot outline: Biography of Mahatma Gandhi, the lawyer who became the famed leader of the Indian revolts against the British through his philosophy of non-violent protest (IMDb).
In the middle of this epic movie there is a quiet, small scene that helps explain why Gandhi is such a remarkable experience. Mahatma Gandhi, at the height of his power and his fame, stands by the side of a lake with his wife of many years. Together, for the benefit of visitors from the West, they reenact their marriage vows. They do it with solemnity, quiet warmth, and perhaps just a touch of shyness; they are simultaneously demonstrating an aspect of Indian culture and touching on something very personal to them both. At the end of the ceremony, Gandhi says, "We were thirteen at the time." He shrugs. The marriage had been arranged. Gandhi and his wife had not been in love, had not been old enough for love, and yet love had grown between them. But that is not really the point of the scene. The point, I think, comes in the quiet smile with which Gandhi says the words. At that moment we believe that he is fully and truly human, and at that moment, a turning point in the movie, Gandhi declares that it is not only a historical record but a breathing, living document. This is the sort of rare epic movie that spans the decades, that uses the proverbial cast of thousands, and yet follows a human thread from beginning to end: Gandhi is no more overwhelmed by the scope of its production than was Gandhi overwhelmed by all the glory of the British Empire. The movie earns comparison with two classic works by David Lean, Lawrence of Arabia and Doctor Zhivago, in its ability to paint a strong human story on a very large canvas. The movie is a labor of love by Sir Richard Attenborough, who struggled for years to get financing for his huge but "non-commercial" project. Various actors were considered over the years for the all-important title role, but the actor who was finally chosen, Ben Kingsley, makes the role so completely his own that there is a genuine feeling that the spirit of Gandhi is on the screen. Kingsley's performance is powerful without being loud or histrionic; he is almost always quiet, observant, and soft-spoken on the screen, and yet his performance comes across with such might that we realize, afterward, that the sheer moral force of Gandhi must have been behind the words. Apart from all its other qualities, what makes this movie special is that it was obviously made by people who believed in it. (GT)
My judgement: **** out of 4 stars
Movie Review: To Have and Have Not
Year of Release: 1944
Country of Origin: USA
Director: Howard Hawks
Cast: Humphrey Bogart, Walter Brennan, Lauren Bacall
Plot outline: A skipper-for-hire's romance with a beautiful drifter is complicated by his growing involvement with the French resistance (IMDb).
To Have and Have Not was Howard Hawks’ answer to Casablanca and while he never quite equals Michael Curtiz’s classic, he does deliver a good picture thanks in large part to Lauren Bacall. Making her movie debut at only 19 years of age, Bacall exudes the confidence and charm of a veteran actress, easily matching star Humphrey Bogart’s considerable screen presence. The chemistry between the two makes the movie, and the sparks flying on screen didn’t stop when the camera’s stopped rolling, as Bogart married Bacall in 1945. Bacall’s great chemistry didn’t stop there though. Her scenes with Dolores Moran (who found her role reduced in favor of Bacall’s) are dynamite, especially the subtle gag when Bogart asks her to fan some fumes away. Despite her relative inexperience, Bacall refuses to allow anyone to overshadow her, yet she goes about it in such a subtle, seductive way, that you can’t help but admire her. To Have and Have Not is considerably weaker when Bacall is off screen, as the rest of the cast is somewhat lacking, especially compared to Casablanca. Dan Seymour has neither the intensity of Conrad Veidt nor the presence of Sydney Greenstreet, and thus makes a sub par villain, while Walter Brennan’s character seems to exist solely as a plot device. Finally, while the script does a good job maximizing the Bogart-Bacall romance, the abrupt ending will no doubt leave some scratching their heads. (FML)
My judgement: **1/2 out of 4 stars
Year of Release: 1951
