Movie Review: Destination Tokyo
Year of Release: 1943
Country of Origin: USA
Director: Delmer Daves
Cast: Cary Grant, John Garfield, Alan Hale, John Ridgely, Dane Clark
Plot outline: In order to provide information for the first air raid over Tokyo, a U.S. submarine sneaks into Tokyo Bay and places a spy team ashore (IMDb).
Despite his urbane manner being ill suited to military movies, Cary Grant does a fine job carrying the picture. Here, he’s the ideal captain, weathering storm after storm, be it Japanese bombers, depth charges, or even a crewman’s rush appendectomy, Grant’s character is unflappable, with nary a hair out of place. The supporting players are solid. John Forsythe even makes his first credited appearance in a small part. Unfortunately, the movie doesn’t work as well as an ensemble movie, and drags whenever Grant isn’t on screen. Further, the script is quite preachy, with several characters delivering propaganda-laced monologues about the evils of the Japs, which only serve to further drag down the story. Ultimately, fans of war pictures, or of Grant, will find Destination Tokyo worth a look. (FML)
My judgement: **1/2 out of 4 stars
Movie Review: The Petrified Forest
Year of Release: 1936
Country of Origin: USA
Director: Archie Mayo
Cast: Leslie Howard, Bette Davis, Genevieve Tobin, Dick Foran, Humphrey Bogart
Plot outline: A waitress, a hobo and a bank robber get mixed up at a lonely diner in the desert (IMDb).
The Petrified Forest is a tight, well-written thriller with a knockout cast. Leslie Howard manages to mix just the right amounts of vulnerability, courage, and despair into his role as a disenchanted writer coming to terms with his own failed ambitions. On paper, the part could come off as pretentious or whiny, but Howard plays it perfectly without ever stooping to sentiment. Opposite him, Bette Davis is the very epitome of the wide-eyed dreamer. Though her role is written a bit thinner than Howard’s, Davis makes up for it with sheer charisma, winning the audience over the same way she wins over Howard’s character. Overshadowing both Davis and Howard though, is Humphrey Bogart. The Petrified Forest served as his first big break in Hollywood. While it wouldn’t be until High Sierra some five years later that he would graduate from supporting actor to star, it was this movie that made him a name. And for good reason. The script gives him a great role to work with. As Duke Mantee, Bogart is a force of nature, a chaotic whirlwind. Further, the script does a fantastic job of fleshing out Mantee with minimal dialog, creating a pair of anti-heroes in Howard and Bogart’s characters that have more in common than one would think. And that’s the movie’s strength. It’s not a hostage drama at all, but an exploration of dreams and ambitions, both gone and yet to come. That the script has the guts to follow this theme through to the end is, ultimately, what makes the movie, as a typical “Hollywood ending" would have killed it. The Petrified Forest’s only weakness lies in the sets, as the desert backdrops are so ridiculously fake they can be distracting early on, but it’s a small blemish on an excellent story. (FML)
My judgement: *** out of 4 stars
Movie Review: We're No Angels
Year of Release: 1955
Country of Origin: USA
Director: Michael Curtiz
Cast: Humphrey Bogart, Aldo Ray, Peter Ustinov, Joan Bennett
Plot outline: After escaping Devil's Island, three convicts end up aiding a shopkeeper they initially intended to rob (IMDb).
Michael Curtiz and his all-star cast are clearly having a blast with this roguishly charming comedy, even though they never shift higher than second gear. Too dark for a farce and not wild enough to classify as screwball comedy, the movie teeters along an odd middle ground, searching for an elusive tone that never comes. The main fascination comes from seeing tough-guy Humphrey Bogart in one of his very few comedies. His wry sense of humour practically drips with sarcasm. Peter Ustinov excels at effete snobbery and gets off some of the best lines, while the gravel-voiced Aldo Ray is by turns menacing and charming and sometimes both at once. Contemporary viewers watching Ray in this picture will immediately think: Hey! That's where Michael Madsen got his shtick! Leo G. Carroll is serviceable in his trademark role as a benign and lovable fuddy-duddy, Basil Rathbone isn't given much of a stretch playing the bad guy, while Gloria Talbott, while adequate, is easily the weak link in the supporting cast. And we know that any time a deadly snake is introduced early in the movie, that serpent is going to pop up sooner or later as a key plot point. (SE, FML)
My judgement: **1/2 out f 4 stars
Movie Review: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs
Year of Release: 1937
Country of Origin: USA
Director: David Hand
Cast: Roy Atwell, Stuart Buchanan, Adriana Caselotti
Plot outline: From the old fairy tale, a jealous queen attempts to get rid of her beautiful step-daughter, Snow White, who takes refuge with seven dwarfs in their forest home (IMDb).
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs was the first feature length animated movie. It cost the studio $1.5 million to make, which was six times the cost of an average feature. More than five hundred animators contributed to the movie, which used a multiplane camera to create an effect of depth. It made $8.5 million during its first run alone, with many more millions made during subsequent re-releases. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs was not merely the first, but remains the best of all animated movies. Cynics may have more room for complaint than exists in later, more 'sophisticated' movies. But it is the lack of self-consciousness that adds to the charm of Snow White. The story may be simple, and the characters may be stereotyped. But the execution is flawless. Snow White is so sweet and innocent that the forest animals assist her at every turn, even helping her to clean house. The dwarfs work in a mine strewn with gigantic diamonds that are already cut and polished, none of which seems to have increased their standard of living. No one thinks to leave a dwarf at home to help protect the hopelessly gullible Snow White from the wiles of the evil Queen. Snow White and Prince Charming are not only perfect in appearance, but are blessed with incredible voices. Complain all you want to about how unlikely the story is. All criticism of the story elements is made meaningless by the overpowering quality of the presentation. The drawings are magnificent, with their multicoloured backgrounds and shadows. The characters are strongly defined, and their motions are perfectly animated. The voices are perfect as well. Today, actor celebrities typically provide cartoon voices in Disney movies. But with Snow White, the voice talent was cast via a perfect match with the character, which is just as it should be. Some scenes are justly famous. The dwarfs return home from work singing, with each of their walks having a different cadence. Dopey dances with Snow White while atop the shoulders of another dwarf. But my favorite scenes feature the evil Queen. It is gloriously frightening when she transforms herself into an 'old hag', and her last stand is also great cinema. The suspense of the poisoned apple is extended, with the cavalry riding to the rescue as in the climax of an old D.W. Griffith silent feature. Despite all the comic relief dwarfs and friendly forest animals, Snow White is to some degree a horror movie. And not just due to the Queen's presence, as Snow White has a terrifying flight into the forest. Walt Disney was awarded a special Oscar for "significant screen achievement" by the Academy. The presenter was Shirley Temple, who also gave Disney seven little Oscars, one for each dwarf. The film was also nominated for Best Score. (BK)
My judgement: **** out of 4 stars
Movie Review: The Wizard of Oz
Year of Release: 1939
Country of Origin: USA
Director: Victor Fleming
Cast: Judy Garland, Frank Morgan, Ray Bolger, Bert Lahr, Jack Haley, Billie Burke
Plot outline: A Kansas farm girl dreams herself into a magical land where she must fight a wicked witch to escape (IMDb).
The Wizard of Oz is a lavish, beautiful movie. The painted backdrops are stunning. The sets are vibrant and colourful. The Emerald City is a marvelous Art Deco wonder, and the castle of the Wicked Witch of the West is a dark, forbidding place guarded by green faced, chanting halberdiers and colourfully uniformed flying monkeys. While the narrative is engaging in its own right, its appeal is greatly enhanced by the movie's visual beauty, which so captivates the viewers that they are drawn into the movie's unique world and are readily excited and fascinated by the events depicted. The movie does, however, have a number of faults. Both the script and the acting are annoyingly smarmy and falsely adorable. From the cute turns of phrase frequently employed to the affected, syrupy mannerisms adopted by the actors, the movie wallows in its own mawkishness. The Munchkins, in particular, are grating. They speak in excruciating, artificially high pitched voices and ooze saccharine from every pore on their waddling frames. Dorothy's companions are only marginally less irritating. While they are visually well conceived, their forced cuteness quickly grows tiresome. Although the movie's constant adorableness is certainly its most severe problem, the movie is further weakened by its distracting conceit that the events depicted as occurring in Oz were a dream. Even for a child, this particular element is forced, silly, and trite. To make matters worse, the director has used this device to imbue the movie's concluding scene with a false sentimentality that can leave the viewers with a foul, sugary aftertaste. Visually enthralling and narratively engaging, The Wizard of Oz could easily have been a truly great movie, but it is so self consciously sweet that it is frequently unpalatable. (KA)
My judgement: *** out of 4 stars
Year of Release: 1943
