Change Your Image
SAMTHEBESTEST
Not interested to become a Critic, just want to become a Smart Viewer.
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
The China Syndrome (1979)
A nuclear catastrophe and a journalism thriller for people with stomachs and nerves.
The China Syndrome (1979) :
Brief Review -
A nuclear catastrophe and a journalism thriller for people with stomachs and nerves. If you ever have to see just one film in James Bridges' filmography, then make sure you watch this. But before that, make sure you have the stomach and nerves to control the thrill factor and have enough brains to understand the basics of nuclear power. The China Syndrome is based on a possible nuclear threat that hasn't been taken seriously but can affect many lives. There is a journalism angle to it, providing the people's point of view on the same story, and they both make a solid combo. What makes this film special is the intensity of the scenes. We don't see many explosions or such stuff that really defines nuclear power or its danger, but instead, we see several tensed and chocked moments. Those conversations get on your nerves, and they test your nerves to see how much you can take. The background score fills the void between ordinary cinematography and a lack of disturbing graphics. Jack Lemmon plays the scientist and supervisor, who walks away with most of the best scenes in the film. The atmosphere around him and his expression do make you feel the insights and tension of those moments. The talented Jane Fonda gets to play the honest and wannabe investigative journalist, and she has done tremendously well. Only a few films have shown journalism in a bright light, and this happens to be one of them. If you remember Alan Pakula's "All The President's Men" (1976) and liked it, then I guess The China Syndrome is your kind of film. The Neo-Noir touch in the end only boosts the narrative and takes it to a new level. James Bridges makes sure that you are thrilled for two hours and don't feel bored. Not entirely, but a few scenes in the film really pump you up for a moment. I did the same to me, and I ain't an easy man to be pumped up by a movie.
RATING - 7.5/10*
By - #samthebestest.
Monkey Man (2024)
To hell with those who hailed it.
Monkey Man (2024) :
Brief Review -
To hell with those who hailed it. Dev Patel's action thriller, Monkey Man, jumps like a dead monkey on the tree. It strikes decently as a dated revenge action drama but has nothing thrilling or special about it. Just a few weeks back, I saw foreign critics raving about it and was excited to watch it. But all I got was disappointment. The film is about an orphan whose mother was killed by a cop. He can't get over that childhood trauma in adulthood and is unable to make any success out of himself. He is burning inside in rage for revenge and has been planning for it for a long time. For his livelihood, he works as a dead monkey boxer who gets money for getting beaten up. He joins the kitchen staff at an expensive hotel owned by the wife of the cop who killed his mother. A few attempts to get even with the villain fail, and he is left injured. As expected, as we all know, the hero first gets the beating and then rises to victory. Monkey Man follows the same old formula, advanced by some dark atmosphere, obscenity, and vulgarity. The spiritual touch of Lord Hanuman was totally unnecessary here. MM is wild and vulgar, and that's definitely not the way to tell the story of Lord Hanuman. This match doesn't fit well, and it might hurt the sentiments of many people too. The screenplay lacks grip, as nothing holds you on the edge of your seat since everything has been seen before in many movies. Some action-set pieces are entertaining, though. Dev Patel as the underdog was more convincing than the action hero. Sobhita plays a sex doll, Makrand is a cheap villain, and Sikander Kher is still the same old villain from any OTT masala flick. MM's dialogues are suited for OTT audiences, not family audiences. Too many abusive words don't help in providing the context because, after all, it was just a regular revenge drama, not a film noir or hard-hitting realistic drama. Overall, a strictly average that's been hailed for no valid reasons.
RATING - 5/10*
By - #samthebestest.
Abigail (2024)
Too Much Blood, Radicalism & Mess
Abigail (2024) :
Movie Review -
Abigail Review: Horror movies nowadays are either a total mess or a fine outing. Abigail's first half is what I call a fine outing, despite no horror material, as it only runs as a thriller till then, but then there is a messy second half, which I can slam for being too ridiculous at moments. It's an attempt at a new kind of horror cinema where comedy and radicalism try to mend themselves with devilish moments, but it successfully fails to get the expected results. It was almost a fine take on a horror thriller until we ran across the last 30 minutes filled with back-to-back twists and ridiculously entertaining moments that I feel will hardly get appreciated. That's where the entire show was spoiled, and so unexpectedly.
Lambert hires a group of six people (played by Melissa Barrera, Dan Stevens, Kathryn Newton, Will Catlett, Kevin Durand, and the late Angus Cloud) to kidnap a little girl, Abigail (Alisha Weir). The group is expecting $50 million as ransom money from her father and takes the girl to a deserted mansion at a remote location. The group learns who the girl's father is and gets scared of work, but can't be helped since they are left locked inside the mansion for the next 24 hours. Unaware of the fact that the girl is a vampire, the group members are pitted against each other and soon start getting killed. What happens when the remaining group members learn about the girl's true personality? Will they be able to stop her?
Abigail hasn't got anything to do with "Dracula's Daughter" (1936), except that it's a completely new re-imagination of the main character, who is "Dracula's Daughter." The film looks like a fine and gripping thriller until the moment group members are exposed to the fact that the girl is a vampire. After that, it becomes a mess. The film suffers from basic mistakes in the writing, and the writers should be held responsible for them. Dracula is scared of light; we all know that, and this film uses that notion to make us believe that again. But we have some scenes where the light is visible, yet it leaves no effect on the Dracula girl. Sammy's scene of turning into "one of them" will make you understand what I am saying. From here, a long boredom begins, and it becomes a terrible mess by the end. We can't figure out how some kidnappers are turned into vampires, are pitted against each other, and then form a sudden friendship with that girl vampire, and all that is totally rubbish. This is how a radical screenplay harms a basic, simple, and good-looking script.
Melissa Barrera looks hot in some scenes and mostly clueless in other scenes. She has become quite a horror-girl nowadays with the Scream franchise and this, while a significant work like "In the Heights" (2021) is rarely seen from here. Dan Stevens does well, and Kathryn Newton is your sexy girl from the next classroom. Will Catlett and Kevin Durand pass the time somehow, and the late Angus Cloud disappears after a few, oops.. many drinks. The head-cutting scene was left incomplete; I don't know why. Alisha Weir will frighten you for sure, and it's a great achievement for any teenage girl to make the audience scare a bit. And those dance moves were killer. This ballerina vampire will keep you on your toes. A couple of cameo roles by Giancarlo Esposito and Matthew Goode don't help much but are decent.
Abigail is a well-made film on the technical front. The cinematography is fine, as we get some horrifying close-ups-just what the horror genre needs. The sound effects are pretty effective. Some of them do give you jump scares. Coming to visual effects, there is too much blood and red-bath, which seems considerably well in terms of context, but the outline doesn't provide much to your cinematic experience. Those organ/body bursting into flour-like blood look childish sometimes. Directed by Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett, Abigail makes a new-age attempt that works only on half measures. The directors duo totally seemed rattlebrained while accepting Stephen Shields and Guy Busick's storyline. This has so many things going wrong in those last 30 minutes that I'll need to write another separate review just to mention the flaws in those scenes. I can't do that here, though. No spoilers because it has that spoiler-filled experience. But even twists need to be handled with care and intelligence. Abigail lacks both.
RATING - 4/10*
Ruslaan (2024)
No Jaan In Ruslaan
Ruslaan (2024) :
Movie Review -
After Antim, Aayush Sharma again gets into the mass zone to show some improvements, but gets a messy flick instead. This mass avatar of Aayush deserved a better script, a better screenplay, and a better film. Antim was saved due to the remake factor, which had something new for the Hindi audiences since they had not seen a masala flick made on farmers or their sons' issues. Ruslaan is way behind in time in that section. The same outdated ideas of patriotic movies from the terrorist's son prove his loyalty to the country. And if they think that the twist in the climax was really new, then they should have made this film in the 1990s, not 2024. It's startling to know that Hindi, or, for that matter, Indian cinema, is still holding onto those ancient theories when Adivi Sesh has already made a spy thriller like "Goodachari." Watch it and learn instead of wasting time, money, and talent on films like Ruslaan.
Little Ruslaan (Aayush Sharma) is adopted by ATS officer Sameer Singh (Jagapathi Babu) and his wife after he killed Ruslaan's terrorist father in an encounter. Ruslaan grows up to be a spy, trying to get a place in RA&W, but his madam, Mantra (Vidya Malvade), believes that he is not ready for it yet. He was given a mission to collect information from the college group of activists and provide it to other agencies. "Do not engage" is the only mantra he gets from Mantra. But his impulsive and aggressive behaviour always blows his cover. Therefore, Mantra sends a senior agent, Vaani (Sushrii Mishraa), to look after him. During one of the missions, Ruslaan finds himself in trouble as he is declared a terrorist by his own father and should be shot dead. There begins a new and personal mission for innocent Ruslaan to prove that he is loyal to his country.
What Ruslaan lacks is a good story, first of all, and then a screenplay that can hold on to that good story. It lacks both, and that's why I have to say that "there is no Jaan in Ruslaan." Exactly; there is no soul. You don't have a good story or engaging screenplay, and then you have over-the-top and low-grade action set pieces. How should one spend 130 minutes watching it? What are you giving us anyway? Seriously, they needed to look through the story before taking it to the floor. Paper work is cheap; filmmaking is expensive, you know. But did they know it before making the film? It might have suited decently in some low-grade cinema industries, but in Bollywood, you definitely need a production design of higher scale and quality. Ruslaan doesn't look like one, not from a distance. The same goddam chase sequences, the boring conversations between the hero and the villain, then the same old action sequences in slow mo and then there is that irritating twist. Please stop it, says the public with joined hands.
Aayush Sharma's performance is nothing special, but his mass image is definitely something. The presentation should have been better. In the first scene, you see his side angle in slow mo, then after 2 minutes, another slow motion from the backside, and then again another slow mo from the front, followed by slow mo action sequences. How many slow Mos were there, by the way? Somebody tell them one is enough. Sushrii again has nothing to do but be useful to make a good female pair. One bikini scene was mandatory, as per the 1960s rulebook, but sadly, they read it in 2024. A hot-looking intelligence officer like Vidya Malvade is the need of the time, but it can only exist in movies. The south dose of Jagapathi doesn't suit here in any way, but they had to have it to make a pan-India thing nowadays. Sal Yusuf, Beena Banerjee, Richard Bhakti Klein, and Manish Gaharwar get something to do and are grateful for it.
Ruslaan is about 2 hours long and still makes it look like a 3-hour ride. The editing by Rajendra Bhaat is at fault here. What are those songs anyway? Did I even look up at the screen once while they were playing? No, I didn't. Then why didn't he remove them? G. Srinivas Reddy takes you through his blink-and-miss frames in free time, while in busy time, he was looking for some free time, I guess. The production design of the film is bad. It never looks like a moderate-budget film that can be viewed as a decent entertainer. It's below what you call a "low level." Karan Butani is studying old books of masala flicks that don't help in today's time. The syllabus has changed, and he needs to buy new books now. Ruslaan is his mistake. He must admit it and move on to better projects in the future, because there can't be any explanation for making such a bad film. Better luck next time to Aayush and Karan both, and best of luck to those who are going to watch it.
RATING - 3/10*
Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire (2024)
Nostalgia, Ice and Fire, Still Not Enough
Ghostbusters Frozen Empire (2024) :
Movie Review -
Ghostbusters Frozen Empire Review: The team of Ghostbusters Afterlife reunites for the sequel, Ghostbusters Frozen Empire, adding ice and fire to it but lacking soul. Even though it is the story of soul-stealing, it still doesn't find its own soul. God knows from where the idea of recreating some of the locational scenes came, but it worked on the positive side. This sequel has a few surprises that are pleasant, but it's hurt by its overanalysing gesture. As expected, the finale comes to the rescue, which was anyway supposed to provide a visual treat. It does that part very well, though. Well, there is less freezing and less use of fire, which is an underwhelming thing to experience. On the soft side, it did manage to leave us with a slight touch of nostalgia.
Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire is set three years after the events of Ghostbusters: Afterlife, as the old gang is joined by a couple of new members. Sadly, Callie (Carrie Coon) benches underage but her best Spangler, Phoebe (Mckenna Grace), to appease the opponent, and the rest of the gang continues to bust ghosts. During her boredom, Phoebe befriends a girl ghost, Melody (Emily Alyn Lind), who beats her at chess. However, Phoebe isn't aware of Melody's actual plan, which is to help Garraka in exchange for her free pass to the afterlife. Phoebe is fooled, and Garraka overpowers them all and arrives in style to take over the entire world. Therefore, the veteran ghostbusters must join forces with their new recruits to save the world.
The idea is generally predictable, as we have the same old methods of catching ghosts, and then someone's coming to destroy the world. Not just that, but even a practical presentation is dated too. The same car, the same Spangler, the same weapons, and the same locations too. We do have brass coming in as a new thing, but you'll see in the climax that it did not really help. "What's the worst part about being a ghost?" asks Phoebe, to which Melody replies, "I'll forever be 16." Well, that's typically girlish. But wait, the next moment is all that ghostly stuff when Phoebe asks, "And what's the best part?" and Melody just says, "Doing this." And disappears. Bang on humour, I must say. I wish they had added some more funny lines like this and intrigued us. Frozen Empire's villain is one such improvement that beats many previous films, but sadly, it appears in the last quarter of the narrative, giving us very little chance of becoming acquainted with it. The Firemaster comes with the same old theories you have seen in MCU and DCU movies for more than a decade.
Frozen Empire has a big cast, but teenager Mckenna Grace walks away with the maximum screen space and best screen presence. Emily Alyn Lind, aka Melody, wasn't there for a long time but has left a solid impact-i.e., more than many leading cast members. Paul Rudd and Carrie Coon could hardly find any scenes to stand out. Finn Wolfhard attempts to catch eyeballs, but it is Kumail Nanjiani who gets the eyeballs. No director wastes Bill Murray like this. That's a terrible injustice to his persona and the character we know from the beginning of the Ghostbusters franchise. Dan Aykroyd still had that one shot left, while Ernie Hudson suited up in old jam alright.
Eric Steelberg's cinematography takes you back to those frames of Ivan Reitman's 1984 blockbuster. The ending sequence is pretty similar to Reitman's evergreen flick. However, the unenthusiastic screenplay and dull dialogue fail to match the "Who you gonna call?" magic here. The visual effects are good in the finale episode and pretty decent otherwise. Nathan Orloff and Shane Reid cut a close to 2-hour film that lags in the middle and doesn't move forward. They could have trimmed 15 minutes here and there to make it gripping. The sound design, production value, and sets seemed okay for the time, in case you were expecting something mind-blowing. Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire is pretty much in the same zone as Gil Kenan's last Christmas comedy as far as entertainment for different age groups is concerned. Here he had to do a little fan service, and he did that fine. It's modern storytelling and new ideas that seemed missing. Nevertheless, Kenan doesn't bore you to death like others do. Frozen Empire is fairly entertaining in that sense, but a little lower considering the burden of reviving the franchise.
RATING - 5/10*
Dracula's Daughter (1936)
A more of a mystical human-horror done right than devilish horror
Dracula's Daughter (1936) :
Brief Review -
A more of a mystical human-horror done right than devilish horror. Dracula's Daughter starts from nowhere but gets you right back to the dead body of Dracula in the second minute to have you seated. It does feel like a sequel to Dracula (1931), but it also does not. Somehow, we get off to a fresh start with dead Dracula and then professor Van Helsing surrendering to his crime (if you can call it a crime). Basically, we have the story of Countess Marya Zaleska, the daughter of Count Dracula and herself a vampire. She is cursed by Dracula and wants to live a normal life now. She takes Dracula's body and burns it to ashes, believing that it will free her from the dark magic and that she can be a normal woman. However, she is left disheartened to know that the curse is still alive. Zaleska then seeks help from Dr. Garth, who believes that psychiatric treatment can save a person from obsessions that sometimes take over their lives due to habit. We then see her trying to speak her heart out to Garth, who, anyway, learns the truth, but will she be able to remain calm in the meantime? Like I said, it's more like a human-horror drama than a devilish horror flick. You don't get to see those brutal biting scenes, tormenting scenes, or blood baths, but only dark swipes. It's all so not frightening. Gloria Holden's face has that fearsome image of Dracula's daughter, and she does well in some scenes with her desperate expressions. I would have loved to see her as a female monster, some spiky teeth and blood on her lips, but alas, it wasn't just that movie. I can understand the movie codes of the 30s but Dracula and Frankenstein have done so well with their monster characters in the pre-code era. Otto Kruger meant more Sherlock Holmes than Dr. Garth, and Marguerite Churchill was gorgeous. Irving Pichel was perfect in his role and, most probably, the best-suited personality amongst the entire cast. Overall, good fun by Hillyer, but not great.
RATING - 6/10*
By - #samthebestest.
Hondo (1953)
Yet another charismatic western for the Duke, and this one had a smart female touch too
Hondo (1953) :
Brief Review -
Yet another charismatic western for the Duke, and this one had a smart female touch too. John Wayne, aka The Duke, has been a part of numerous Western flicks, and many of them have been great ones. It's difficult to choose which one's better sometimes since many of his movies are equally good, while some of them are underestimated. Hondo can be called one of those underestimated flicks. It has fantastic content, which derives its context to a full extent despite its short runtime. Those 80 minutes passed like a breeze in the air. Wayne plays another charismatic character here, and thankfully, a damn honest one. The truth is man's pleasure, he says, and our chest fills up by 2 inches extra. The woman speaks about truth and lies and how they differ from man to woman so elegantly and intellectually that you can't stop clapping at her at that moment. The boy stands tall against an Indian of his double height, and you surely get a hell of a kick from it. The film sees gunman Hondo stopping at a single mother's ranch, who has been waiting for her husband for a long time now. She starts liking Hondo for his manly qualities, and Hondo also finds her attractive. A platonic romance is formed, but extra-sensible Hondo has plans to leave it that way. Their fate brings them back together, but this time with Hondo at fault and the woman totally in love with him. Will they see a light through it? Wayne's dialogues are super entertaining here. "I let people do what they want to do." "A man oughta do what he thinks is best." (Maybe I have heard it somewhere before.) Even the gorgeous Geraldine Page has a couple of singular dialogues, especially that "woman only has a man she married." John Farrow has done extremely well, despite production and 3D issues, and thanks to Ford for that brilliant Circled Wagon battle sequence in the end.
RATING - 7/10*
By - #samthebestest.
The Horse Soldiers (1959)
Years later, it still leaves many of us modern cinephiles confused with its contemporary inferior take on Civil War, which feels much better than modern films.
The Horse Soldiers (1959) :
Brief Review -
Years later, it still leaves many of us modern cinephiles confused with its contemporary inferior take on Civil War, which feels much better than modern films. Legendary John Ford's "The Horse Soldiers" was panned by a critic at the time of its release and was also a commercial failure due to the high salaries of two superstars it brought together. However, if you can look at it as a simple civil war movie with no spicy romance or heroic action, then it looks underrated. Yes, there are reasons to call it a slow film and almost a film with no context. But think of the era it is set in and how an unconventional plot keeps you glued for two hours. You certainly can't believe it actually happened. The film is about a Union cavalry leader, Marlowe, who is sent on a raid behind Confederate lines to destroy a railroad and supply depot at Newton Station. He is joined by an army doctor, whom he despises for no reason. It is later revealed that he hates all the doctors since his wife died of medical malpractice. A beautiful lady named Hannah Hunter is taken by Marlowe as she was spying on them and could provide information to others that could destroy his plans. As expected, Hannah and Marlowe fall in love, but we don't see any hugging, kissing, or romantic ballades. Moreover, the action scenes during the war aren't two-sided. The other side goes all out, while Marlowe and his soldiers do not get into much action. That's one of the major shortcomings of the film, besides the overlong runtime. The film could have been trimmed by half an hour or 20 minutes, and I guess it would have been a much better experience. Wayne and Holden have done decent jobs, while Constance Towers does nothing else but look beautiful. Ford's tiresome flick emerges as a winner with a solid climax that leaves things unofficially complete, yet complete, be it a love story (Hannah), social work (by Dr.), or national duties (Marlowe heads forward with an injured leg). Half a star extra for Ford's belief in the story.
RATING - 7/10*
By - #samthebestest.
Moonstruck (1987)
Defines love with the "Moon" and "Get in My Bed" theories.
Moonstruck (1987) :
Brief Review -
Defines love with the "Moon" and "Get in My Bed" theories. You must be familiar with the story line of Billy Wilder's well-known romantic drama, Sabrina (1954). The girl falls in love with the brother of the man with whom she is supposed to get engaged/married. George Cukor's classic rom-com, "Holiday" (1938), also had a similar storyline. There you have a man falling in love with the sister of the girl he is engaged to. When the idea was sold and brought years ago and had become old, Norman Jewison thought of an Italian-English romantic comedy on the same lines. A man proposes to a widow, and they become engaged to be married. He asks her to call his brother and invite him to a wedding since he hasn't spoken to him for 5 years. In the very first meeting, the girl has wild sex with the man's brother, over-consciously kicking it away by calling it revenge. The next day, she comes to her senses and asks him to leave her alone. She still wants to be married to his brother. However, inside, she knows that she has fallen in love with him but just can't accept it. The new boy seduces her again with some carefree-life theories with the "get in my bed" tagline, and they are in bed again. But this time, she is stuck with him and is ready to break the marriage. In the meantime, we see a cosmic moon whenever these new romances take place. There are a couple of more hookups with the adult characters that speak about dying love after marriage, but they don't get immersed in the storyline by any means. That's all. That's all there is to it. Nothing great, but it's still called great. I just couldn't understand why. Maybe the new generation isn't aware of the old classics. Anyway, there is some fun involved in this romantic drama, so it makes for a decent one-time watch if you really believe so much in sex-before-love theories. Besides, the performances are good, and the comedy is pretty decent. The film and its characters were moonstruck, but I am not awestruck.
RATING - 6/10*
By - #samthebestest.
3 Godfathers (1948)
A sentimental western flick about adopted fatherhood
3 Godfathers (1948) :
Brief Review -
A sentimental western flick about adopted fatherhood. John Ford's 3 Godfathers starts off as a regular Western with 3 cowboys and a sheriff. The three rustlers enter a village to rob the bank and have a sweet introduction session with the sheriff before getting into the act. These three loot the bank and run away, while the Sheriff gathers a gang of Winchesters to find them and catch them. Until here, we have a regular Western flick, but things take a 180-degree shift from here. The film turns into a human drama, and a very emotional one. The three rustlers, Robert, William, and Pedro, save a pregnant lady and deliver her baby boy safely. The dying lady takes a promise from these three that they will take care of the boy, but how will they live in this deserted land with no water or food? You'll find out all that in the film. There is a sentimental touch to the ending, which makes all of us a little teary eyed, just like all the characters. Before that, we and all the characters genuinely hated them rustlers. As an audience, when you look back at the beginning of the film, we realise that we have come a long way from where we started to where we end. John Wayne looked damn handsome. Some good romance would have suited his dashing personality, but there was no room for it. However, Ford did try it in the last scene-only one scene, to be more precise. Pedro Armendáriz was funny, Harry Carey Jr. Won it with his innocence (not to forget the memorial text in the beginning on Harry Carey), and Ward Bond was a perfect sheriff. You'd love that change-of-heart motion in the climax. The film has some senti moments that move you a bit. One of them is that judge's sentence scene when he tests Robert's honesty, and I don't know why many people overlooked this powerful scene. Maybe because it was rushed. Besides, it has all those John Ford and John Wayne moments, but it's the emotional quotient that eventually wins you over.
RATING - 7/10*
By - #samthebestest.
Hatari! (1962)
An adventurous wildlife Safari that you should enjoy thoroughly!
Hatari (1962) :
Brief Review -
An adventurous wildlife Safari that you should enjoy thoroughly! Howard Hawks, who has done remarkable work in several genres, finally gets to an adventure of a different kind. Hatari takes you into game catchers' lives filled with wildlife chases, animal catching, romance, comedy, adventure, and drama. The film is about a group of game catchers who catch wild animals and send them to the city zoos. Sean Mercer heads the crew and does the main catching, while he is supported by others who do gun shooting, driving, putting animals in cages, and other things. An Italian photographer named Anna joins the gang and learns that it is not an easy job at all. She starts liking Sean, who treats her a little badly, but that's his way of liking her. Sean had a bad experience with a woman and marriage in the past, so as Pockets tells Anna Dallas, "You have to do it. He won't do it.". A sweet romance unfolds between Anna and Sean, and they both really like each other. Meanwhile, Pockets falls in love with Brandy, a girl surrounded by two romeos, and we have another sweet romance to enjoy. The comedy is healthy and genuine; there are no forced PJs or gags. Anna asking Sean "How he like to Kiss?" had to be the best romantic scene in the film. Brandy's being overly concerned about Pockets' small injury was the second best. How manly jealous it made those two Romeos! I was expecting Anna's see-off scene to be emotional and dramatic, and I was expecting some fine lines from Sean, but all I got was disappointment. This smooth rom-com ride lost its flow in the climax with that scene of Anna's search operation with elephants. Wayne is charismatic as always, while Anna is a good-looking, sweetheart blonde. The supporting cast was good, the cinematography was excellent, the sound design was terrific, and the screenplay was engaging. Hawks has made a fantastic film, but I still feel he could have pushed it into an even better position in the climax. He had done it in the past, so.. I don't think I was expecting too much then.
RATING - 7/10*
By - #samthebestest.
The Heartbreak Kid (1972)
Marriage: a gift or a curse? This sweet little film will force you to think about youth-time mindsets of the same.
The Heartbreak Kid (1972) :
Brief Review -
Marriage: a gift or a curse? This sweet little film will force you to think about youth-time mindsets of the same. Elaine May's The Heartbreak Kid is one of the most popular comedies of 70s, but I'd like to make it clear in the beginning that it's "overrated." Why, what, and how? I don't want to get into those useless discussions. But I'd rather discuss what good things this film has. I don't know why people like it so much as a comedy; I did not find any hilarious gags here. Instead, I found some light-hearted moments and desperate proportions that brought a sweet little smile to my face. I was grinning, not giggling. The film is about a young boy who has a second thought about his marriage on his honeymoon. He meets a young and beautiful college girl and falls in love with her. That's just not an infatuation, but a serious thing for him now. He decides to quit the marriage and get married to the new girl. As you can see, it's a very thin and simple plot. There is nothing to excite or entertain you. The comedy isn't great either. But I must say that its goodness lies in its simplicity. Moreover, the last 10 minutes of climax teach you a lot about life and your decisions. We have seen Clark Gable deny "dishonest money" to the girl's father in "It Happened One Night" (1934), which actually turned out to be a test. The same goes here, and the hero has the same principles. The very next moment, he is married, but what has that brought him? Emptiness. I was 10 once, he says, recalling his childhood dreams. That one scene is enough to define the entire context of the film. If you can understand that, you have a scene to remember, if not a film. The actors have done their jobs well, and the director has tried his best with the lukewarm script. I just think it shouldn't be called a good "comedy" because the film doesn't fulfill the requirements of this genre. Better call it a good drama or a youth drama.
RATING - 6.5/10*
By - #samthebestest.
Mr. & Mrs. Smith (1941)
An Alfred Hitchcock comedy, and a poor one.
Mr. And Mrs. Smith (1941) :
Brief Review -
An Alfred Hitchcock comedy, and a poor one. The king of suspense, Hitchcock, has often tried his hands in different genres, and sometimes he has been successful too. He attempted a screwball comedy with Mr. & Mrs. Smith, and literally screwed my brain. On that one rare occasion when I'd say, "I have wasted one and a half hours of my life on a Hitchcock film," then it has to be for this one. I have never been so dissatisfied with a Hitchcock movie, but as they say, you experience many things for the first time in your life. This was my turn to experience crap from Hitchcock. He might have many others that I haven't seen yet. This romantic comedy is about a married couple, David and Ann, who have the peculiar bond of not living together until they have made up with each other. On one fine day, they learn that their marriage is legally invalid; hence, they have to get married again. On the same morning, Ann had asked David a hypothetical question about whether he had to do it all over again, to which David replied that he'd marry no one. Now, the girl wants to get rid of him and starts seeing other men, including one of her husband's colleagues. And this cuckold and brainless husband, who is supposed to have some brain and personality since he is a lawyer, leaves everything and chases her everywhere like a spineless and desperate fella. As a man, I hated seeing all these things. I thought he'd get even with her sooner or later, but he just didn't. What the heck was that? And where was the comedy? I kept looking at my watch when this terrible show was about to end, and it got even worse in the last quarter. He didn't have any shame telling her that he had been thrown out of his own house, chased out of caps, left his job, and even had encounters with cops, just to win the girl back, who clearly told him that she was not interested. Hell. He was a fool not to understand this simple thing, and we'd have supposed to have a healthy screwball comedy with this trash script? An absolute waste of time and talent.
RATING - 4/10*
By - #samthebestest.
The Big House (1930)
Amongst the early prison noir that came out successful.
The Big House (1930) :
Brief Review -
Amongst the early prison noir that came out successful. George Hill directs one of the earliest prison dramas in the history of talkie cinema. To get it right was difficult because the sound sync was finally going to be displayed to the audience. Those early talkie-era days were the times when they didn't have long dialogues, and even scenes were short. The pauses were longer because people were coming out of the silent movie era. The Big House is a fine film for its time, with realistic drama from prison life. The escape plans, the stool pigeon, betrayal, and some sort of outside life that encourages even bad people to go straight-this film has it all. The film is about a man who is sent to prison for 10 years for crushing someone with his car. He was a decent guy, but this accident has made his life hell now. He is given a cell with two of the most crooked guys in the prison. One of them is planning a difficult escape, while the other is trying to start a new life outside prison, abandoning his parole segments. He is caught and brought back again, but during that period he falls in love with the sister of the new guy in prison, who changes his mind, and he decides to live a straight life. The finale sees the escape sequence filled with gunshots and a lot of killing, and then there is a big revelation about who has turned them in. I recall watching James Cagney's "Each Dawn I Die" (1939), which had a similar climax. It might happen inspired by this film; who knows. Chester Morris, Wallace Beery, and Robert Montgomery gave solid performances, especially Robert, who was terrific in that last nervous breakdown scene. The writing and dialogues won Oscars, so it's needless to say that they were good. The cinematography was nice, and George Hill's direction provided a smooth watch. Overall, a well-attempted and well-executed prison drama from the early Talkies era that has left footprints for many prison flicks made in the future.
RATING - 7/10*
By - #samthebestest.
Do Aur Do Pyaar (2024)
Sadly, Two and Two Make A Two-Star Film
Do Aur Do Pyaar (2024) :
Movie Review -
Shirsha Guha Thakurta brings an official Hindi adaptation of the Hollywood flick "The Lovers" (2017). This isn't actually an unknown story. To be more precise, Hollywood has made many extramarital affairs stories back in the 1940s-sometimes with a love triangle and once in a while with a quartet. The same was done by Bengali cinema and Bollywood in the 1970s, but on a very comic note. Do Aur Do Pyaar rehashes the same story again to bore us with its predictable content, but more than that, it's a boring film in itself. The conflict between a married couple who are cheating on each other could have been crispier and more emotional than this, I believe. When I thought that this two and two could make a four-star movie, they only ended up making a two-star movie. It went wrong theoretically, practically, and mathematically too.
Kavya (Vidya Balan) has been married to Ani (Pratik Gandhi) for more than a decade, but their marriage has no value and there has been no bonding since the last 5 years. They hardly speak like husband and wife; they hardly have sex; they only share the bed, not feelings; and they only talk about medicines and other regular stuff. In the last couple of years, both have found new lovers. Ani is having an affair with Nora (Ileana D'Cruz), while Kavya is in a relationship with a photographer named Vikram (Sendhil Ramamurthy). The basic thought is to get divorced and live with their new partners, but it all becomes complicated for Ani and Kavya when they come close to each other during a funeral trip to Ooty. After returning home, they have intimate sex, and things change for them. They both begin to like each other again and are now having problems talking to their new lovers, who are expecting some kind of commitment. What happens when these two learn about each other's affairs? Find out all the answers in the film.
Written by Suprotim Sengupta, Amrita Bagchi, and Eisha Chopra, Do Aur Do Pyaar seems like a messy script. I don't understand how a sudden sexual encounter can change everything for two people who hardly have any feelings left for each other. As if they were only lacking that thing. Really? Let it be.. But how can these two continue seeing their lovers when things are finally looking to be settling? Two people, who are so distant and somewhat disturbed too, are falling for the awkwardness of the situation rather than contemplating what's happened, which is totally out of logic. While doing so, they have to make the funeral scene funny. Why? Kavya and Ani land in Ooty, and the cab driver says, "Welcome," with a big smile on his face. Bro, they were in for a funeral, not a party. Come on, humour can't be so dumb, even by mistake. The differences between the couple aren't explored well either. We don't really know the reason behind their arguments or why they fell in love with their extramarital partners. After that long, boring drama, we finally come to the reconciliation part. I mean, seriously? It's too predictable for a film made in 2024. They were trailing behind by two decades, I guess.
Pratik Gandhi and Vidya Balan do not suit each other as a couple. Individually, they try their best and look fairly decent too, but the chemistry between a couple is missing. Not just chemistry, but even imagining them as a couple wasn't making any practical sense at those moments. Rather, the extramarital couples looked better. Pratik and Ileana look like lovebirds, and so do Vidya and Senthil. Ileana's character suffers from maturity, while Senthil lacks an accent. Pratik and Vidya share some spicy moments together that can be enjoyed for a while, but not afterwards. The taste fades away too quickly. The supporting cast is hardly noticeable since the screen space does not allow them to leave any mark on us.
On the technical front, we have Kartik Vijay handling the camera, and he was good at it. Maybe there are just too many close-ups that are like pain in the eye sometimes. The makeup department has made every character look gorgeous, especially Vidya Balan. You can notice a change in her physical appearance, even though her husband fails to notice the same (as she asks him in one scene). The editing is surely at fault here, as the narrative doesn't have a grip. The first half was still okay, but the second half was terribly slow. And why did they need those songs to make it even more tedious? Shirsha Guha Thakurta has tried a modern story that is too old for smart movie buffs. This idea of an extramarital affair actually doesn't have any issues left to showcase, yet some people think it is new. Karan Johar made Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna in 2006 and learned that these ideas are too bold for Indian society. 2024 isn't that changed to accept such ideas, and here, you have more problematic characters and more infidelity. Just imagine this metaphor: "cheating someone who is already cheating you." Who's at fault? The one who's cheating, or the one who's also cheating, or both? And how can one not be sensible enough to see itself in the mirror before or while pointing a finger at someone? See, this conflict is tough to crack, and one needs a lot of brainstorming to make a go at it. Do Aur Do Pyaar isn't that. No, not by far.
RATING - 4/10*
City Slickers (1991)
Three best friends facing a mid-life crisis go on a western trip to find the meaning of life. Underrated!
City Slickers (1991) :
Brief Review -
Three best friends facing a mid-life crisis go on a western trip to find the meaning of life. Underrated! We all can relate to this film. Because for some, it will be their past; for others, it will be their present; and for others, it will be their future. There comes a time in your life when you think you have achieved everything you have dreamed of, you have lived the best day of your life, you are satisfied, and then you look back at yourself and realise that you'd never wanted to do this. City Slickers about that. Three best friends start suffering from a mid-life crisis at around 40. On Mitch's 39th birthday, Phil and Ed give Mitch a trip for all three to go on a two-week cattle drive from New Mexico to Colorado. Mitch is feeling low in life, and his wife can see it. She forces him to go and enjoy these two weeks so that he can come back as a happy person like he was years ago. These three friends have some amazing time on this cattle trip, and find themselves changed and useful. There is one hell of a cowboy, Curly (played by Jack Palance, but he gave me those Clint Eastwood Vibes for sure), who teaches Mitch to find that only "one" thing that matters. The plot follows the dramatic and mental change these three friends go through, and they return as much happier people than they were. While the drama part keeps you hooked, you also get some hilarious, out-and-out laughs in the film. "If hate were people, I'd be China." "Women need a reason to have sex. Men only need a place." Lines like these are sure to leave you bursting into laughter, and there are plenty of them, including some vulgar jokes. Mitch's no-flirting behaviour isn't regular for American comedies, but it impressed me a lot personally. Ron Underwood's film has everything you need, from drama, emotions, comedy, life lessons, and blockbuster entertainment. So, please don't miss it.
RATING - 7/10*
By - #samthebestest.
The Longest Day (1962)
Hollywood's "BORDER" minus jingoism, plus scale. One of those war flicks you must see before you die.
The Longest Day (1962) :
Brief Review -
Hollywood's "BORDER" minus jingoism, plus scale. One of those war flicks you must see before you die. The Longest Day presents the D-day in grand manners on the big screen. The film has a big cast, including many legendary actors, and some of them have actually seen the incidents happening in their wartime duties. It is directed by three people: Ken Annakin (British and French exteriors), Andrew Marton (American exteriors), and Bernhard Wicki (German scenes), which makes it an engrossing and powerful cinematic experience. You get to see absolutely amazing execution of every event that took place in those 2 days in June 1994, right from seaborne invasions on different beaches to paratrooper attacks in the night to entering the city to retake France and eventually taking over the Germans (the last part is not shown in the film, though). In the beginning, one of the officers comments on "The Longest Day" as the day that will be historical. Somehow, the runtime of the film gives you an idea of how long it is. Nevertheless, it does not make you feel bored. The scale is too big to overlook. You can see soldiers fighting, shooting, getting killed, running, entering German dens, and flying on a large scale, and what great camerawork it is. Some of them are one-take and long shots, starting from the ground and then widening the frame from the air, taking a top view. Imagine missing one of the shots and then having to retake the entire scene. How difficult it must have been. No wonder the film won the best cinematography award at the Oscars. The screenplay is engaging, the performances are good, even though you have those legends playing only cameo roles, the dialogues sound real (far from jingoism), and the direction is top-notch. I wonder why this film hasn't been on many of those critics' lists. If I were to make a list or give it a tag, I'd say it's one of those war flicks you must see before you die. Don't just watch it; experience it.
RATING - 8/10*
By - #samthebestest.
Treasure Island (1934)
The iconic tale of treasure, Jim Hawkins and one-legged captain John Silver.
Treasure Island (1934) :
Brief Review -
The iconic tale of treasure, Jim Hawkins and one-legged captain John Silver. Many of us have been aware of Robert Louis Stevenson's novel Treasure Island, which is famous as a coming-of-age pirate flick. There have been numerous adaptations of the story from cinema, on-stage, foreign cinema, and television, and it's hard to say which one's best. But I think this cinematic adaptation is both popular and honest. As we know, a kid named Jim Hawkins finds a map that will lead them to a treasure on a remote island. He and his companions are joined by a one-legged cook/captain, John Silver, and a few more pirates, who plan a mutiny. Despite warning, Jim befriends Silver, and then he is taken. On a ride filled with adventure, betrayals, and conspiracies. This is Jim's story of learning new ways of life and even teaching others some of his honest ways, such as word of honour, courage, friendship, and kindness. It's really fascinating to see someone exploring a pirate theme exactly 7 decades before the world met Johnny Depp's iconic Jack Sparrow. The 1940s were full of pirate/swashbuckler films, so one can't say this was the only good film back in time. Victor Fleming himself made a classic film from Kipling's writing, "Captains Courageous" (1935). This one is mostly similar to it if we have to consider the main character being a child and learning the ways of life during that trip. Jackie Cooper's performance is very commendable. Whenever he said, "Bless my soul," I couldn't stop grinning. Wallace Beery does magic with his accent and certainly makes you sentimental by the end. The other big cast has done considerably well in their roles. Fleming could have made it more funny and entertaining, but that's just to say, because we didn't have many films in the genre by 1934, except Douglas Fairbanks' silent stuff. Overall, it can be called a steady trip of nostalgia.
RATING - 7/10*
By - #samthebestest.
June Bride (1948)
Some sweet romance, some intellectual arguments about man vs. woman.
June Bride (1948) :
Brief Review -
Some sweet romance, some intellectual arguments about man vs. Woman. Bretaigne Windust's romantic comedy brings Robert Montgomery and the legendary Bette Davis together. The film begins with Carey (Montgomery) returning to the town and being assigned to work under his ex-lover, Linda (Davis), whom he left a couple of years ago. The reason for this breakup was very common to say, but not quite common for regular couples. He can't see himself being tied to one job, one place, and one family, and the woman wants him to commit something. He leaves without any notice and suddenly returns and gets romantic with her. Linda, who is now more successful than him, tries to boss him a little but eventually falls for him. The two travel to Indiana to cover a simple wedding story in which Carey sees an angle. That angle is nothing but their own story, as we have a boy who left the girl a year ago, and now she is marrying his brother. They two rekindle the romance and get married secretly, leaving Linda with a burden of conscience of why didn't she do something like this with Carey? Carey then asks her about their relationship, and Linda ditches him. How these two reconcile is a fun plot that comes with several other characters, so watch that in the movie. Robert is funny throughout the film, and he is charming too. Bette plays a woman with pride, only to lose pride and become a woman. This conflict and this transformation are quite interesting to watch, and many men and women would relate to them. The film lacks outright gags. It becomes very predictable after a while, so it doesn't really hold much for repeat viewing. Nevertheless, it can be watched once without any high expectations, as Windust makes sure you don't get bored. Overall, a so-so good rom-com, but it could have been better. We have had many better rom-coms from those days anyway.
RATING - 6/10*
By - #samthebestest.
The Last Hurrah (1958)
Why public the main culprit behind politics.. Yes, political films can be pretty clean and emotional, too.
The Last Hurrah (1958) :
Brief Review -
Why public the main culprit behind politics.. Yes, political films can be pretty clean and emotional, too. Having seen almost all major films based on politics from the 50s and 60s decade, I think I am in a position to say that this one was perhaps the cleanest show of them all. No dirty tricks, no fooling, just a regular campaign, and unexpectedly, the expected upset. We always blame politicians for making politics a dirty game, but it's actually us, the public, who make it so. Let's say some politician is really doing good work and doesn't need any cheap tricks to win the election because he believes in goodwill rather than fake PR. And then he loses it. Aren't we the ones that should be blamed for that? We know how he is and how his opponent is, and yet if we end up making him a loser, then we are dirtier than those politicians. If some fella is fooling us with his fake campaign and we are making ourselves fools, then we don't really have anything to say against politicians. It is our duty to choose the right candidate. The Last Hurrah comes up with this solid thought, as we have a protagonist running for mayor's election for his fifth and last term. Despite being the best candidate and having no maligned record, he is made a loser against an incompetent candidate. The film Hits you hard there, because we all know that the best man does not always win. Sometimes, people want a change, even if it's a bad one. After that, the film makes you emotional as the hero bids goodbye with kindness. The Last Hurrah doesn't go well for him, but that's nature's trick. You get outdated sometimes, despite being good. Spencer Tracy is amazing in the film. I'll remember him for playing that "honest and kind politician" on screen. I hardly imagined John Ford making a film like this, and I'm so glad to see it. "If he had to do it over again, he would do it very differently." "Like hell, I would."
RATING - 7/10*
By - #samthebestest.
They Were Expendable (1945)
Salutes the never-ending spirit of US Navy soldiers who were highly expendable after the Pearl Harbour attack
They Were Expendable (1945) :
Brief Review -
Salutes the never-ending spirit of US Navy soldiers who were highly expendable after the Pearl Harbour attack. This navy war flick begins with the scene of the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbour, and commendably, one of the senior officers openly calls it a disaster. Brickley and Ryan are two PT-Boat Squadrons who want to participate in war and destroy enemy boats, but are unfortunately kept on messenger's duty. When they get their chance to fight, they successfully destroy Japanese boats, despite damaged boats and fewer torpedoes. The rest of the film showcases their and their units' struggle and the constant duties the nation demands from them. The officers are not hesitant to carry out the orders; they say goodbye to each other many times, despite knowing that they may not return, and then in the ending, we see some of them being left to die/capture because there is not enough room for them. Rusty Ryan begins a sweet affair with a nurse called Sandy, only to see a bleak ending. That was a good thing, though. It added a dark noir touch to the film. I would have hated it if they were to be reunited all of a sudden. The effects of war became more visible because of that incomplete romance and their last conversation. The film has many touching moments like these that will force you to salute the soldiers and their patriotism. Every time they said goodbye, I was moved. Robert Montgomery was good, but I was actually shocked to see Wayne in such a dashing avatar. He looked so handsome there, and that too in a film where machoism is far from visible. Donna Reed is sweet eye candy, and the supporting cast lends fine support. The legendary John Ford spreads his magic again. Which genre hasn't he touched and turned into gold? How can he miss the Navy War theme then? Experience it, feel it, and salute the undying spirit of the navy officers.
RATING - 7/10*
By - #samthebestest.
Civil War (2024)
Journalism & Humanity Stuck Amidst War
Civil War (2024) :
Movie Review:
Alex Garland writes and directs Civil War, a dystopian war flick focused on civil war and war journalism. Garland's Civil War is unnecessarily slow, but necessarily brutal and sometimes inhuman. Wartime journalism is too difficult, as it not only requires guts but also nerves. What's more, the film is led by two female photographers, providing a perfect contradictory conflict to the "guts" thing. While doing so, it does not shy away from showing mass murders, explosions, gunfire, and even a mass grave. Adding to that, the film also gets into the mindset of secessionist forces, militant forces, and western forces. Basically, it's more audience friendly for American viewers because they know American issues better than anybody else, mainly the differences between western Central and South Americans. But there are some scenes in the film that will leave you disturbed. Garland succeeds in making you feel the distress and tension, despite a slow-paced narrative.
A civil war has erupted between the United States government and several secessionist organisations, leaving the state silent, dead, and almost annihilated. Lee Smith (Kirsten Dunst), a renowned photojournalist from Colorado, saves an aspiring photojournalist, Jessie (Cailee Spaeny), from a suicide bombing. Unbeknownst to Lee, Jessie joins her team on a trip to Washington, D. C., to interview and photograph the president before secessionist forces take the city and kill him. During this trip, Jessies is taught to stay calm and tough while capturing insensitive events. A few of them are killed, but they are taught to walk over them as the unrest is too high to be emotional at the time. Jessie is a fan of Lee already, and she learns to be like her in quick time. But will they end up being alive after all this? Find out in the film.
Alex Garland's script is full of anxiety, nervousness, distress, tension, and fear. But when a 110-minute film starts giving you nap breaks, you know something is wrong with the screenplay. Civil War suffers from the same problem, as it looks flat in the middle. There is an emptiness in the screenplay that allows you to take a drink break during the screening. A few dramatic pauses came right after a killing and spoiled the entire mood. I mean, who the hell wants to listen to your sunrise music after watching someone's murder? Get over that cheap trick used for so-called artistic cinema. No human can bear it, I am telling you. The overexposure to photojournalism also causes some problems. Come on, you don't go and stand in the middle of the battlefield when two sides are raining gun shots, and for what? To take a picture. Get lost. Despite several unenthusiastic and unreliable sequences, Garland's script wins you over with its tactical understanding of inhumanity during tough times. When your 2-cent job takes over humanity, I say you have learned the lesson of a lifetime. Jessie learns it by the end, doesn't matter if we have to wait longer than expected and tolerate a few logical theories.
Kirsten Dunst plays a responsible journalist, and you'd feel for her character. A lot of "F" words don't harm her personality much since the character has to be unstable in those situations. Wagner Moura, as her colleague, gives an honest performance, while Stephen McKinley Henderson is perfect in the role of their mentor. The cute-looking Cailee Spaeny goes away with the best and most challenging scenes. You can't get over her expressions and reactions in the mass grave sequence and the climax sequence at White House. Evan Lai and Nelson Lee pass by with impressive cameos, and those two scenes are two of the most heartbreaking scenes in the entire film. The supporting cast does a decent job, but nothing is to be mentioned separately.
Civil War was expected to have a lot of explosive scenes and war scenes, but they hardly appear in the 15 minutes of the film. The rest of the narrative is more like a drama than a war film. Rob Hardy's cinematography is excellent at places, and Jake Roberts' editing has its highs and lows. The first half could have been a little faster, and the middle portion could have been removed easily. The background score goes too loud sometimes, giving your chairs a shake to feel the intensity of the scene. Was that a smart trick? Yes, I guess so. Ears won't mind much if the brain is pleased, right? Finally coming to Alex Garland's direction, Civil War can be argued to be his best work yet. As a writer, he has messed up a few things here and there, but not as a director. Firstly, it was a challenging subject, and secondly, it could damage people's mindsets about war. He handled both things beautifully, providing us with a more than watchable flick, with the fictional dystopian setup coming close to reality. No inhuman creatures or superheroes either. Do watch it if you don't mind slow-paced dramas with a slightly overrated artistic touch.
RATING - 6/10*
McLintock! (1963)
The blockbuster pair of The Quiet Man (1952) gets even better with an even better genre and an even more entertaining film!
McLintock! (1963) :
Brief Review -
The blockbuster pair of The Quiet Man (1952) gets even better with an even better genre and an even more entertaining film! Many of you must have seen John Wayne and Maureen O'Hara in "The Quiet Man"-a fantastic rom-com with amazing chemistry and some rural cultures that are insane but funny. Now, imagine McLintock as a sequel to that film, even though it isn't, but would have suited perfectly, with an even better storyline, more comedy, and a superb mix of western and romantic-comedy genres. That's what Mclintock is. It's an absolutely fun ride, right from the first minute until the last. There is a nice touch of social value between white people and Indians too. Kate, who left her husband two years ago over a misunderstood suspicion, returns to the town to see her daughter. McLintock owns almost all of the town and is the best man in the town, always helping everyone, including Indians. We all seem to have caught the idea that this would turn out to be a reconciliation, and Katy is just pretending. Mrs. Wareen, whom she is jealous of, spills the beans too early during "the women's talk." Rest, we have Mrs. Warren's son getting mingled with McLintock's daughter and some fun games of the town, along with the migration issue of Indians. I laughed a lot, I enjoyed it a lot, and I was also moved by McKintock's speech about "man and woman" to his daughter. A character like this becomes an instant favourite of the viewers, and it took me hardly 15 minutes to start liking McLintock. I wasn't expecting it to be so funny, but God, was I surprised? Hell yes, I was. It's a non-stop entertainer of what we call a classic rom-com from the golden days. Moreover, those public and private humiliation scenes of spanking take this fun ride a level up. I wish we'd have more films like this from this beautiful pair. Wayne and O'Hara, thank you for the grand show. I'd always remember it as one of the best 60s rom-coms with a golden touch.
RATING - 7.5/10*
By - #samthebestest.
The Best Man (1964)
Take a BTS look at the presidential election from the convention era and thank God that the "Best Man" won.
The Best Man (1964) :
Brief Review -
Take a BTS look at the presidential election from the convention era and thank God that the "Best Man" won. This is undoubtedly the first ever remarkable film in director Franklin J. Schaffner's filmography before he went on to make classics like "The Planet of The Apes" (1968) and "Patton" (1970). Well, it shows his versatility too. The Best Man may be a known story to you now since we have seen many political dramas since the 1950s. Yet, this one leaves a mark with its comments on "political mud." The film is about two men trying to win the nomination for the US president. The former president first meets William, who is sort of an intellectual. He had already decided to go against him and support his opponent, Cantwell. But his decision takes a U-turn after his meeting with him and learning that this young boy is too aggressive and irresponsible to become the president of the US. He then decides to be neutral and make an open convention, with his internal support being with William. The dirty game of exposing each other's private lives begins. Joe Cantwell is all for it since he knows how politics is played, while William is a little hesitant about the same due to his principles. Both have got a thing on each other, but William is against this mud game, giving Joe an edge over him. How these two opposite forces try to battle on convention day is all that forms the crux of the rest of the story. Henry Fonda is great as always, and there is nothing more I can say about his acting skills. But let's hail the legendary actor for his great choices in films and roles. 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s, he has had great movies in all four decades. Cliff Robertson and Lee Tracy have surprised me enough to take their names here. Yes, they are that good. Schaffner's direction is gripping and flawless, and don't miss the powerful ending it holds for you. Two people's fight is the third person's gain, as rightly said. But what if the first person decides to do so.
RATING - 7.5/10*
By - #samthebestest.
Mister Roberts (1955)
A beautiful, heartwarming, and emotional tale of Mr. Roberts and his 62 brave officers
Mister Roberts (1955) :
Brief Review -
A beautiful, heartwarming, and emotional tale of Mr. Roberts and his 62 brave officers. A big thumbs up to the original source material of this heartfelt film, i.e., Thomas Heggen's novel "Mister Roberts" (1946). I guess I have used enough adjectives in the headline, so there is nothing else to describe this film. The only thing I'd like to add is that this film will leave you in tears. I am just swapping mine while writing this. I thought it would end on that emotional note when the crew is through reading Mr. Roberts' letter. Then there was heartbreak. Something that turned those tears of sentiment into tears of pain, followed by an inspiring scene of Doc taking over the command of the ship like a "man," just like Mr. Roberts wanted. Set in the waning days of World War II, the film tells the story of a cargo officer, Mr. Roberts, his 62 soldiers on the ship, and their tyrannic captain. The captain wants to win some "honour" and denies Mr. Robert's applications for transfers. While the crew is tortured by the captain, Mr. Roberts stands between the captain and the crew. One of his biggest sacrifices is the secret deal with the captain when he allows liberty to the crew in exchange for Mr. Robert's freedom of speech and writing. Now this entire thing turns out to be very emotional, so I wouldn't want to reveal it right here. The screenplay is highly entertaining, with a lot of comedy, music, and funny scenes. Never for a moment you feel bored. The performances are top-notch, the cinematography is great, and the score is simply heart-touching. The directors' duo has done a great job, excelling with the navy flick that goes against usual war conflicts and goes on to touch emotional chords. It's close to a classic human drama and definitely leaves you emotionally disturbed for a while. I'll always remember Mr. Roberts, his 62 men, and that hideous captain. Thank you, team, for this lovely film.
RATING - 7.5/10*
By - #samthebestest.