cereal_11 Reviews

Mr. Deeds Goes to Town (1936)

An uplifting, though wildly unrealistic Capra gem

[17 July 2002]

One of Capra's most uplifting and exciting films, and also one of his most morally ambiguous. Similar in many ways to his 1939 feature, "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington". Both films deal with a hokey, innocent, childlike loner who ends up fighting for his ideas, opposing the cynical, greedy, and corrupt legion of people who are out to get him, trying to keep himself from looking goofy in newspaper headlines, and falling in love with Jean Arthur, who undergoes a change in morality and decides to aid the naive protagonist in his battle.

A major difference between these two films, however, is the protagonists. Longfellow Deeds is quite a flawed human being; a simpleton who feels it necessary to attack anyone who makes him angry. Although Jefferson Smith had a similar problem, it wasn't quite as serious as that of Deeds, who literally punches someone in the middle of a courtroom session.

The courtroom scene towards the end of the film, in which the government questions Deeds' sanity, is undeniably entertaining and humorous, but also completely unrealistic. It's quite obvious that a judge wouldn't grant Deeds time to deliver a preachy sermon to the people in attendance (as well as repeatedly insulting a doctor's doodling), much less become enlightened by it. And, of course, the scene with Mr. Deeds punching a man in court, claiming that "there's just one more thing I wanted to get off my chest" is simply laughable.

It's a film full of stereotypes and goofy plot twists, but it does have some great acting. Until seeing this film, I didn't realize that Gary Cooper could truly act. I'd seen him in more stoic, deadpan roles in such movies as "Morocco" and "High Noon", but never as a loony, conflicted victim like Mr. Deeds. Jean Arthur is outstanding as usual. There is an impressive supporting cast as well.

What ultimately makes "Mr. Deeds Goes to Town" a great film rather than a good one is Capra's morality battle, which doesn't seem to include the physically aggressive actions and short tempers of his protagonists. Longfellow's total lack of desire for money is quite inspiring, and his willingness to give it away to those who truly need it is even more so. We could use more people like Longfellow Deeds, Jefferson Smith, and George Bailey in our corrupt, greedy world.

Park Row (1952)

An overlooked classic

[15 July 2002]

One of my favorites from Samuel Fuller; a frenzied, kinetic melodrama about journalism in the late 1800's. Although the film is laughably unrealistic at times in it's portrayal of two major newspapers competing for more readers, this is no hindrance to one's enjoyment of the film.

Never did Fuller create a film of such sheer energy and nostalgia. The film's tracking shots and frenetically-edited montages seem to get the most attention, but there are also some great monologues and magnificent performances, particularly from Mary Welch as the head of the "evil" newspaper, The Star, and Gene Evans as the leader of their opposing newspaper, The Globe.

The film has it's moments of campiness, but overall it's one of cinema's overlooked classics.

Christmas in July (1940)

Enjoyable Sturges flick...

[15 July 2002]

This may be my favorite Preston Sturges film. It's as well written and well crafted as anything he made after it. Sturges had a knack for creating unique characters and throwing them into even more unique situations.

Jimmy MacDonald is absolutely determined to make money the easy way; by winning a contest. A few of his coworkers, aware of his desperation to win an upcoming contest, decide to send him a telegram in order to make him believe he's won the recent contest, along with the enormous cash reward. What begins as a cruel little joke (to find out how Jimmy would react to winning) becomes something much bigger. It wouldn't make sense for me to explain the plot any further; much of the enjoyment in watching the film comes from how it unpredictably unfolds.

"Christmas in July" is rather unusual in comparison to some of Sturges other movies, namely his two most famous films, "The Lady Eve" and "The Palm Beach Story". It contains more pathos and less sexual innuendos, but it never becomes cheap, manipulative melodrama. It's also quite short in comparison to his other movies, but it's all the better for it.

Animal Crackers (1930)

Becomes better as it progresses

[8 July 2002]

It seems that the film career of the Marx Brothers started off great and gradually got worse. Their later films suffered from increasing length, mostly due to long, pointless musical numbers and more romantic subplots. While "Animal Crackers" does have two pointless musical numbers and a useless romantic plot line, they are kept to a minimum.

The first 20-30 minutes of "Animal Crackers" are quite awkward and poorly done, but, fortunately, the film gets better and better as it progresses. The gags, the one-liners, the acting, the "storyline", and the overall amount of fun reach a level of pure enjoyment which their films rarely equaled again. "Duck Soup" and "A Night at the Opera" are the films they will be most remembered for, but "Animal Crackers" has a leisurely pace that sets it apart from them. It may be the best Marx Brothers film of all time.

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

In defense of my favorite film

[10/10 · 17 June 2002]

Few films in cinematic history have been as frequently dissected and analyzed as this Stanley Kubrick masterwork, so there is little one can say about the film hasn't already been said. "2001" will reward it's patient, open-minded viewers with a truly mind-blowing philosophical experience filled with breathtaking visuals and unforgettable moments. "2001" will bore those who are unprepared for it as well as those who are unwilling to approach it with a sense of wonder and imagination. The film has already received an enormous amount of praise here on IMDB, with many people repeating what others have already said. Since there aren't words to express how deeply I feel towards this movie, I will focus on trying to defend "2001" from it's countless enemies.

Obviously, the most common criticism is that the film is "boring" or "too slow." True, "2001" does have very slow pacing, and there are certain moments in which are downright tedious. However, such exhausting moments are totally necessary to establish the mood and to immerse the viewer into the film by its sheer realism. "2001" isn't like other movies. It doesn't try to build suspense or thrill its viewer in the conventional style. Personally, I wouldn't edit out a single millisecond of the space flight scenes, dull as they are.

Another complaint with the film is that the story is non-existent, therefore, there is no substance. This isn't an easy movie to understand, even with repeated viewings, but it does have a storyline to decipher. Some have read Arthur C. Clarke's "The Sentinel" in order to figure it out. If one is really confused as to what's going on, search the web for a 1969 Stanley Kubrick interview conducted by Joseph Gelmis. Kubrick gives a straightforward explanation of the plot without going too deeply into the more subjective ideas and meanings behind the action. If you're unwilling to come up with your own interpretation of the film, or if you're just curious to find out what the creator's intention was, I would definitely checking it out.

About 30% of the "2001" comments on IMDB are made up of people who absolutely loathe this film. Some of them, I'm sure, really did try to like this movie, but they don't know how to approach it. Others might have figured that the film isn't "hip" or "thrilling" enough for them, so they refuse to appreciate it. Others still may just lack the attention span or the patience to view a movie of this sort. But for those who are unable to decipher the reasons as to why people love this film should definitely take a look at the positive comments on this movie. After that, try watching the movie again, and approach it not with the mind of a cynical film buff, but with a sort of childlike wonder.