rupie Reviews

Zulu (1964)

hard to beat for its genre

[8/10 · 31 January 2000]

I found it most interesting to read the comments of British viewers more conversant with the history of the battle of Rorke's Drift, on which this wonderful movie is based. I learned a few things, but my admiration for the flick is undiminished by the few historical liberties I learned the movie takes (although evidently Hook's descendants should sue for slander).

The stunning sweep of the cinematography makes the letterbox version (which is available) essential in order to sense the vastness of the African countryside and the turmoil of the battle scenes.

A wonderful script is brought to life by some great acting, the greatest of which is by Nigel Green as Colour Sgt. Bourne. His portrayal of Bourne as a seemingly impossible combination of stern disciplinarian yet gentle paterfamilias to his men, some of whom are barely past boyhood, is powerful and downright moving in places; it ranks as one of the finest screen performances I have seen, and makes the movie worth seeing for it alone. If his work here is indicative of his ability, I am at a loss as to why we never saw more of this fine actor. Also notable are Patrick Magee as Surgeon Reynolds, and Michael Caine in his first screen appearance. Richard Davies and Denys Graham provide understated comic relief as a sort of Welsh Laurel & Hardy. And Jack Hawkins scenery-chewing job as the sodden Witt - "You're all going to die!" - is worth the price of having no basis in the historical record (his presence here as a sort of prophetic voice is well-justified dramatically).

In short, in the genre of historical battle flicks, "Zulu" is in the top ranks.

Has Leonard Maltin actually seen all the movies listed under his comments??? His reference to Richard Burton's "narration" gives one pause. Burton's brief voiceovers at the beginning end amount to no more than a total of five minutes of speaking, and can hardly be called a narration (which would have killed the movie anyway).

Youth (I) (2015)

only the scenery is worth watching

[3/10 · 21 April 2018]

I wonder if either Michael Caine or Harvey Keitel regrets having made this movie? One wonders what they thought of the project when proposed, and what they thought after seeing the result. I don't know about Keitel, but Caine certainly doesn't need the money, so one wonders why he signed on to such a pretentious, artsy-fartsy piece of balderdash. Unless, as I say, the project sounded different when presented. First of all, there is no coherent story line. Oh there' s plenty of family acrimony between father and daughter, and some conflict between a pair of lovers splitting up, and a scenery-chewing scene between two elderly, separated show business types reaching the ends of their lives and careers. And of course the reference to homosexuality that is de rigeur nowadays. But they are presented as isolated threads with no unifying theme to draw them together. Then we have the pretentiousness. A plethora of cryptic and obscure scenes with weird stagings oddly shot, reminiscent of Fellini, are scattered throughout the film, like trash over a landscape, and make the viewer wonder just what the hell is going on at that particular moment. It wasn't quite bad enough to make me stop the film in the middle, but that is only because of the gorgeous cinematography of the Swiss landscape. Still, I wish, as they say, that I could have my two hours back.

Young and Innocent (1937)

well worth catching

[7/10 · 22 March 2001]

I hold with what seems to be the majority opinion here, i.e. that this early Hitchcock effort is a neglected gem. Though certainly not as well-done as some of his more noteworthy movies, I found it to be thoroughly captivating and entertaining, with the blend of suspense and humor that one finds in, say, "To Catch a Thief" or "Family Plot". Derrick deMarney as the romantic lead does a particularly fine job; sort of a foreshadowing of the kind of thing Cary Grant later did so well.

One thought is that the title is perhaps a bit of a double entendre; we always associate the phrase "Young and Innocent" with a female, but the story is really about the attempt of the lead character - a young man - to prove his innocence. Then again, is he really the lead, or is the story about the girl after all? I'm sure Hitch intended this touch of ambiguity.

Once again I have to thank American Movie Classics for bringing us another worthy movie from the past. Hitchcock fans should not miss this one (come to think of it, the only dog that I have seen from Hitch is "The Paradine Case").

Young Frankenstein (1974)

sure to become a classic

[7/10 · 20 May 1999]

The conventional wisdom for once is correct. This is one of the greatest comedies ever made, by one of the greatest comedians, Mel Brooks. Wilder, Boyle, Leachman, Feldman and Kahn are at the top of their form here. Hackman's cameo as the blind man has got to be one the funniest five minutes in film ("now don't inhale until the tip glows!"). The parody of the Frankenstein genre is perfect. Anyone who has not seen this gem is living a deprived life.

Frau Blucher!!!!

You Kill Me (2007)

you care about the characters

[7/10 · 18 June 2021]

Somebody once said that the mark of a good movie is when you care about what happens to the characters. In that regard this movie hits it big. But first I have to object to word "comedy" in the description. The comic element is pretty distant here. This is a seriously involving movie about alcoholism and recovery, and in that regard it grabs you throughout. We have here a superb cast - Ben Kingsley, Tea Leoni (one of the most gorgeous women to grace the screen), and Dennis Farina, all at top form. I learned also, from this flick, that Bill Pullman is a seriously good actor. The movie kept me involved from beginning to end, and there were very few dead spots. Highly recommended.

You Can't Take It with You (1938)

contrived, forced, unsatisfying

[4/10 · 18 January 2000]

"Mr. Smith Goes to Washington", though replete with exaggeratedly patriotic idealism and sharing the white hat/black hat dualism of contemporary westerns, worked perfectly well because at its core it painted a true picture of government's susceptibility to corruption, a picture that rings even truer today than when the picture was made. It also boasted a script that had some real dramatic tension, beautifully carried out by Jimmy Stewart.

However, this effort, released just a year earlier, tries to hang the same ideals - faceless, heartless, and greedy corporate (as opposed to governmental in "Mr. Smith") anonymity versus the charming goodness of "little folks" - on much shakier plot devices. The quirkiness of the Vanderhof/Sycamore household is totally contrived, and the aristocratic snottiness of the Kirbys is drawn with an absurdly broad brush. Jimmy Stewart, who carried "Mr. Smith", has much less to do here and does it much less effectively. The whole thing just doesn't ring true enough to give us any sense of sympathy at the final resolution.

As an aside, note how the Judge, wonderfully played by Harry Davenport, foreshadows the role of the Senate President in "Mr. Smith", even to the odd way he rests his head against his right hand as he surveys the chaotic chamber before him with resigned bemusement. Too similar to be done other than intentionally.

Yellow Sky (1948)

little-known gem

[7/10 · 22 October 2015]

I had never heard of this Western until I saw its description under TCM on my cable guide. I go for cast, and when I saw Gregory Peck, Richard Widmark and Anne Baxter listed I went for it. It's an excellent western. The characters are all well delineated. The acting and cinematography are excellent. The script is pretty good and devoid of the clichés that so often plague this genre. The thing that I found interesting was that I constantly found myself asking what's going to happen next. Too often, especially in westerns, every next development is easily predictable. I have to quibble with the viewer who found Anne Baxter "hot." I've seen her hotter in other movies. My main argument is with the ending, which is a little too happy for my taste. On the whole though, this is a well-written, well-acted, beautifully photographed western.

Wrestling Ernest Hemingway (1993)

an unnoticed sleeper

[9/10 · 29 April 1999]

Why is it that all the best movies never seem to make it big? Not enough explosions, car chases, exploding heads, sex scenes? Sometimes it seems that way. Wrestling Ernest Hemingway got barely a moment in the theaters despite the presence of two heavy hitters like Robert Duvall and Richard Harris. It's a real sleeper.

Harris plays Frank, a down-at-the-heels wreck of a dissolute old sea captain and Duvall plays Walter, a retired Cuban barber, very fastidious and introverted and a bachelor. These two polar opposites, alone in their old age, develop a devoted but rocky friendship wherein they learn a lot from each other. The movie has a whole lot to say about loneliness, friendship, old age, living life, and caring and it says it in a strong, yet understated and beautiful way.

It is worth comparing with the glitzy and ineffective "Grumpy Old Men", which tried to be both serious and a comedy and failed at both. This is the `serious' half of that movie done right, even brilliantly.

The odd title comes from Frank's story - repeated ad nauseum to anyone whose ear he can grab - about how he once wrestled Ernest Hemingway in 1936. The screenplay is touching in a restrained way that is all the more effective for its restraint. No tear-jerker scenes to wring the emotion from the audience, and yet it is more emotionally powerful than a lot of run-of-the-mill hankie-twisters. The plot moves to a predictably sad ending, but then moves beyond that to a quiet reaffirmation of life.

The acting is top-notch, as one would expect, although Duvall's Spanish accent is better than Harris' American one. In particular I cannot speak too highly of Duvall in this role. This is the direct opposite of the "Great Santini"-type roles that he does so well, and he is astonishingly effective in playing this fastidious, gentle, shy, repressed, soft-spoken old man. It is a joy to watch him make this character real.

I once heard some critic remark that one mark of a good movie is if you find yourself caring about the characters. On that scale this movie is 12 out of a possible 10.

Shirley MacLaine and Piper Laurie put in well-turned performances, as well as Sandra Bullock in an early appearance.

Witness (1985)

topnotch

[9/10 · 13 September 2002]

This is one of those movies whose virtues and subtleties become more and more apparent with subsequent viewings. The crime story is nothing more than a pretense - a "MacGuffin", in Hitchcock's phrase - on which to hang this sensitive and insightful story of the conflict between modernity and the culture of the Amish, which is portrayed here with admiring respect and not a hint of condescension.

Harrison Ford's portrayal of John Book is perhaps his finest work on screen so far. In particular, Book's struggle to suppress his rising attraction for Rachel, and his tormented realization that a relationship between them is not possible, is achingly portrayed. Ford's effort is well-matched by Kelly McGillis, whose beauty here is almost breathtaking. The erotic interplay between them, because it is unconsummated, radiates an almost painful tension, and the easily lampooned "running through the field" scene - because it has been led up to so convincingly - is almost heartbreaking. The character of Eli Lapp, wonderfully played by Jan Rubes, is richly multifaceted. His suspicion of the "English" outsider and his anger at Rachel's attraction to him, is surmounted by an underlying humanity. His parting words to Book, "You be careful out there among them English," are moving testimony to his acceptance of him. His stern yet loving dialogue to his grandson about renouncing hatred and violence is a treasured moment.

Both direction and cinematography are splendid. The simplicity of Amish interiors is shot in a way that makes its austerity almost beautiful, and the barnraising scene is an exercise in cinematic lyricism.

It would be easy to fault the movie for the facile scene in which the punks taunting of Book's newfound friends and protectors drives him over the edge (Eli: "It's not our way, Book" / Book: "No, but it's MY way."), but his gift to the young thug of a bloody nose is mighty satisfying to behold.

My one criticism is with the music; certainly not with the venerable Maurice Jarre's score itself, but with its paltry synthesized realization. They should have found the money to spring for a full orchestra.

In short, a highly satisfying, richly themed, and multifaceted film which is well worth watching.

Win Win (2011)

better than expected

[7/10 · 8 June 2023]

I chose to watch this because of the high ratings here and because of the presence of Paul Giamatti, an interesting actor. The movie exceeded my expectations. This is a very good story with many subplots and intriguing human inter-relationships that the viewer finds interesting to watch as they develop. There is an undercurrent of wry humor here which helps to propel things. And after all the complicated developments we have a feel-good ending as well, which is a pleasant change from so much of the depressing stuff around nowadays. It was either Siskel or Ebert that said one mark of a good movie is that it makes you care about the characters and what happens to them. This movie is Exhibit A.

Wild Rovers (1971)

pretty good

[6/10 · 3 December 2002]

I found this western to a cut above the run-of-the-mill for a few reasons. 1) The acting, particularly by William Holden and, in a lesser role, Karl Malden, is good. Even Ryan O'Neill is better than one might expect. 2) The dialogue - aside from a couple of rather worn "cowboy philosophy" cliches - is on the whole tersely realistic and often witty. 3) The western scenery, photographed with a sense that might have been David Lean's, is simply gorgeous (a good reason to catch it in letterbox). In the end the movie instills in the viewer a kind of sadness for the two central characters, who typify the rootless, lonely, live-for-today life of the cowboy. One mild criticism is that the first half of the movie seems to be played almost for local color and comedy, looking like a western version of 'The Sundowners.' The tone changes a bit abruptly as our two leads go into the bank robbing business. On the whole, though, the movie - though a tad long - is a good popcorn-burner.

Wild River (1960)

more great work from a great director

[7/10 · 16 April 2020]

Did Elia Kazan ever make a bad movie? Having seen Network (my #1 favorite of his), Hospital, Splendor in the Grass, Baby Doll, A Face in the Crowd, On the Waterfront, and Man on a Tightrope, I had become accustomed to his magic hand with film. What a joy to see now Wild River, another gem from the master (and what would we all do without Turner Classic Movies?). A great story, a great script, great acting. I particularly appreciate the movie's complexity and ambiguity. Unlike so many "here-comes-the-evil-developer" flicks, this movie takes a balanced view between respect for the old ways and the need for progress. A rich cinematic experience all around.

Wild Horses (2015)

a flop

[2/10 · 27 November 2015]

What a disappointment this movie is, on so many levels. Even though the story line carries through from beginning to end, the transitions between scenes are so disjointed that we are never sure of just what is happening at any moment. As far as Luciana Pedraza, I'm sure that, as his wife, Duvall loves her very much. However this does not change the fact that she cannot act worth a damn, and forget what viewers have said about her flat and colorless performance being "in character." As far as Duvall himself, the glory days of Godfather, Wrestling Ernest Hemingway (his finest effort), True Confessions and so many others appear to be over. He seems to have become content settling into playing the same crotchety old redneck with the same mannerisms over and over, as in Get Low, Jayne Mansfield's Car, A Night in Old Mexico and The Judge (though the latter is rather a good flick). The story itself is clearly supposed to be a moving one about tragic self-awareness, but the emotionless execution left me very dry-eyed. There is some beautiful cinematography of the midwestern vistas, but that's not enough to redeem the movie. Don't waste your time.

Who Is Killing the Great Chefs of Europe? (1978)

sheer comic delight from beginning to end

[8/10 · 4 January 2000]

This one is going to make it to the roster of all-time great comedies. Its sheer classiness and the elegant level of its wit on both the verbal and visual level - so different from the crassness and vulgarity of much American comedy (the more so in recent years) - made me suspect an English touch, and sure enough, the Canadian-born director, Ted Kotcheff, made his career in the UK. Jacqueline Bissett is a delight to the eye and George Segal makes a charmingly roguish screen presence; they work wonderfully off each other. But Robert Morley - perfectly cast - runs away with the whole movie with his acerbically comic portrayal of the gourmet-cum-gourmand Max. The wonderfully funny food references throughout, and the gorgeous cinematography of European locales put the icing on this comic eclair. And, just for good measure, first-time viewers will have a devil of a time trying to decide just who is killing the great chefs of Europe. This ranks right up there with the best of the Ealing Studios work. A must-see for connoisseurs of literate comedy.

White Lightning (1973)

tries hard but doesn't quite make it

[5/10 · 29 July 2023]

Burt Reynolds was a better actor than generally given credit for (although, in whatever role he was playing, he overused that distinctive laugh-giggle). The production values are better here than in a lot of 70's movies, and the casting and acting are fine. However, there is an ambiguity in the tone of the movie. It opens with a chilling portrayal of a cold-blooded murder committed by redneck police. Gator quite logically pursues vengeance with.single-mindedness, but his quest is, at the end, resolved in a semi-humorous way that to me somewhat makes light of the horror of the opening scene. It's still a good popcorn burner though.

White Hunter Black Heart (1990)

good idea, poorly done

[5/10 · 29 June 1999]

This film is billed as being 'loosely based' on an episode in the life of John Huston. 'Loosely based' is a misnomer as this film couldn't be about anything BUT John Huston, right down to Clint's attempt to imitate Huston's arch quasi-British-accented drawl. The episode is Huston's sojourn in Africa to direct a movie whose title is never mentioned in the film (the closest is when Clint-cum-Huston, asked the title, replies, "I don't know. The African something-or-other." A bit too coy). This pretense of not knowing the film wears thinner and thinner as we see the spitting image of the boat that was used in "The African Queen", and as two stars arrive who look and sound just like Kate Hepburn and Humphrey Bogart (but are not so named in the film). The 'Bogart' character, on the first day of filming, even wears a costume exactly like that H.B. wore in the movie. This is a docudrama about the making of "The African Queen" that is pretending not to be a docudrama about the making of "The African Queen." What is it pretending to be? I don't really know, as it is just a disjointed series of episodes that show us - I guess - what a wild and crazy guy John Huston was. But he is not, at least in this movie, wild and crazy enough to sustain a whole movie. It has what appears to be intended as a 'tragic' ending, but it falls flat. There doesn't seem to be any point to the whole thing. Skip it. See "The African Queen" again instead.

Where Eagles Dare (1968)

eagle droppings

[3/10 · 22 February 2000]

OK, I confess - I used to like this movie. I first saw it in an army movie theater, and the projector bulb blew out just as the bus drove onto the runway. (The projectionist was out for coffee and was damn near hanged when he returned) At the time it provided an enjoyable three-hour respite from duty, but the movie sure doesn't stand up to repeated viewings. A commando team penetrates a mountaintop Gestapo HQ accessible only by tramway, kidnaps a prisoner, and escapes intact after practically blowing it up??? Puh-leeeez. Richard Burton, who I suspect was in his soused period here, sleepwalks through the movie. Clint Eastwood is horribly miscast. Derrin Nesbitt's SS officer is right out of a comic book. The showdown scene in the interrogation room has more twists and turns - all ridiculous - than a bowl of linguine. I admit I still have a soft spot in my heart for this adventure flick, but I can't see myself getting through it again. For fictional WWII yarns, Maclean's "Guns of Navarone" is far superior.

When in Rome (1952)

charming, delightful, touching

[8/10 · 30 March 2017]

I was drawn to the film by TCM's summary and by the presence of two estimable actors. Van Johnson and Paul Douglas never quite made Hollywood's A-list but for my money they are two very accomplished practitioners of the thespian art.

Johnson, as Father Halloran, shares a ship cabin with Joe Brewster (Douglas) who, unbeknownst to Halloran, is on the lam from San Quentin. Halloran is on his way to Rome for Holy Year, and his and Brewster's paths become intertwined.

The movie seems to want to be a lighthearted comedy but in the end becomes quite touching, as Halloran becomes Brewster's confessor. The script is excellent and the action moves along well.

In addition the movie is a wonderful travelogue of pre-Vatican II Rome, in stunning black and white. And to a dinosaur like myself it is bittersweet to watch a movie from a time when religious devotion was respected and taken seriously. Today anti-Catholicism is, as some wag commented, "the last respectable bigotry of the intelligentsia."

Be sure not to miss this overlooked little gem.

We're Not Married! (1952)

pretty entertaining

[7/10 · 9 August 2000]

This is a thoroughly entertaining little piece of fluff with a great comic premise and good performances from a fine cast. Ginger Rogers and Fred Allen, in particular, work wonderfully together as the bickering radio stars who must play a lovey-dovey couple on their morning show. It is too bad that Allen - who has such a wonderfully dry and cynical comic persona (sort of a Walter Matthau prototype) - didn't make more movies. This is a fun way to while away an hour and a half.

Warning Shot (1966)

misses by a mile

[5/10 · 24 February 2000]

Maltin is completely off the wall in giving this one 3 1/2 stars. The incredible cast (Lillian Gish, for Pete's sake!!!) led me to watch it on AMC, but it turned out to be nothing more than an overblown made-for-tv movie. The plot is a completely conventional crime drama with no character development whatsoever; it just falls flat.

War on Everyone (2016)

worse than you can possibly believe

[1/10 · 30 May 2021]

I am pretty proficient in the English language, and please believe me when I say that I had difficulty in finding words adequate to describe what an atrocious, repellent, disgusting, abhorrent, detestable, stinking pile of ordure this is. I made it further into the movie (7 min.) than Med-Jasta did (5min.) but I thoroughly regret that extra two minutes. I cannot testify to the lack of plot that others speak of because I didn't last that long. What I saw was an utterly humorless exercise in outrageously offensive bad taste by thoroughly obnoxious, not to say loathsome, characters, and that includes the children. I simply cannot imagine what dwells inside of the crania of those who give this 8's, 9's and - heaven help them! - 10's. To them I can only say, please seek immediate psychological help. To IMDB I say, this movie is Exhibit A for revising the rating system to include negative numbers.

Waitress (2007)

de mortuis nil nisi bonum

[3/10 · 16 January 2008]

That is, for non-Latin speakers, "speak not ill of the dead."

The circumstances of Adrienne Shelly's death are horrific, but one cannot let one's human sympathy for the departed impede an honest evaluation of her movie.

I rented "Waitress" expecting much after reading so many adulatory reviews. I came away disappointed. I think I can see Shelly's intentions here, i.e. to make an intelligent comedy with a feminist message. Unfortunately, despite some good efforts by the actors and actresses, and a few sporadic flashes of good writing, in the end the whole effort collapses.

Even in a comedy, characters have to be, at some level, believable. Not here. Earl is a cartoon drawing of a rotten husband, and Jenna's easy manipulation of him defies credibility, which you have to have, even in a comedy. Pity poor Andy Griffith (God bless him) playing here the archetypal curmudgeon-with-a-heart-of-gold (didn't you just know it, from the first encounter in the diner?). When Dawn (played by Shelly) meets El Dorko Grando Ogie for her "five minute date', didn't you just know that despite the obvious ickiness they would wind up together? Everything is so predictable, except for the unbelievable ending when the miraculous "empowerment" provided by her newborn child "enables" her to somehow miraculously give her rotten husband the heave-ho. In what world - either real or comedic - does this happen?

And please spare us the "post-resolution" clips at the end when, after all the plot niceties have been supposedly cleaned up, we are treated to film clip scenarios of the la-la happiness that supposedly was to ensue after what we just watched.

The most enjoyable and creative part of the movie was the various pie recipes Jenna dreamed up, and their very descriptive titles. But that's not enough to relieve the tedium of 108 minutes.

A critic I once read talked about films that can't make up their minds what they want to be. If this is supposed to be a comedy, it's not funny enough. If it's supposed to be feminist drama, it's not believable.

Viva Las Nowhere (2001)

pretty good black comedy

[7/10 · 7 November 2001]

I was attracted to this movie on the theory that certain good actors have a knack for avoiding dreck and choosing good material. This has been true, in my book, for James Caan, an excellent and underrated performer. The movie - in my video store under the title 'Dead Simple' - proved to be an above average black comedy that draws the viewer into a web of more and more complicated deceit, murder, manslaughter and treachery. Also practically worth the price of the rental alone is the delicious Lacey Kohl in the bimbo role, a most alluring piece of eye candy. And Caan's Willy-Nelson-style tonsorial garb is a sight to behold. This overlooked movie is well worth renting.

Violent Saturday (1955)

thumbs down

[5/10 · 16 November 2001]

Seeing the wide diversity of opinion on this flick, I feel compelled to weigh in with my own opinion, which sides with the naysayers. "Maltin" is way off base in giving this one 3 stars. The cast is excellent, no doubt, and the direction is good. But the thing that sinks the effort is, as has been stated, the lumbering, talky, wandering, unfocused script, which creates too many soap opera style subplots, from the failing marriage of the mining tycoon's son, to the financial difficulties of the librarian, to Victor Mature's son's disappointment with his father's lack of war experience, to the voyeuristic impulses of the bank teller, and on and on and on. The movie can't decide whether it wants to be "Peyton Place" or "Kiss of Death". And yes, it IS hard to see Ernest Borgnine as an Amish farmer, but that is probably only because of the subsequent "McHale's Navy"; doubtless viewers at the time had no trouble with it.

An example of the excessive talkiness of the movie is the hotel room scene the night before the heist, in which Lee Marvin talks with his compatriot about his ex-wife. The scene fails both as character development and plot propulsion; it only bogs down action.

The one thing I did learn in looking up this flick was what a prolific actor the redoubtable J. Carrol Naish (Chapman, the crook with the brown suit) was; IMDB lists him as having made almost two hundred movies in a 41-year career. In 1933 alone, he made nineteen movies !!! Talk about a work ethic !

Vigil in the Night (1940)

Thoroughly absorbing

[7/10 · 20 October 1999]

It is indeed surprising to see Carol Lombard in a serious dramatic role, and it shows us the range of her talents. We thus mourn her early demise all the more deeply.

Maltin is correct in that good acting and direction here save a potentially sentimental script from descending into bathos. In fact, the explosively dramatic start undergirds the whole story and gives it an impetus that keeps us involved throughout. The movie wears its age well, and is well worth seeing.