Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
I Spit on Your Grave III: Vengeance Is Mine (2015)
This Movie is the Pits
I loved loved loved "I Spit on Your Grave" 2010. I loved it more than the 1978 original. And as far as "I Spit on Your Grave 2" (2013), it had its charm even if it wasn't as good as its predecessor. As for "I Spit on Your Grave: Vengeance is Mine," it was plain awful. It lacked all of the qualities that made the first two good.
Jennifer Hills (Sarah Butler) is back and she's killing more r*pists. It is absolutely uncanny how many r*pists she's come across--and that's one of the things that makes part three so bad. At one point every male she met was making sexual advances. Even a homeless guy she gave money to made a comment about her breasts and butt. It was too exaggerated. I don't know if the writer, Daniel Gilboy, was going for every-man-is-a-r*pist or if he was trying to depict Jennifer Hills as so irresistible that every man wanted her. Both assertions are ludicrous.
Jennifer was seeing a therapist regularly, which makes perfect sense for a woman who'd been sexually assaulted on two different occasions. On top of the therapy she joined a support group for women who'd been victims of r*pe. There is where she met Marla (Jen Landon), a SA survivor who was all about inflicting pain on the men who had sexually assaulted women.
OK. That's fine and totally understandable.
Jennifer befriended Marla and the two even beat up a guy who'd been r*ping his stepdaughter. When Marla was found dead, likely by the hands of her ex-boyfriend, Jennifer took matters into her own hands. And this is when the movie really went off the rails.
Jennifer killed Marla's boyfriend, she killed the guy who was allegedly r*ping his stepdaughter, and she attacked the man who allegedly r*ped another girl and got off.
The problem with it all is that Jennifer was no Dexter. She hadn't pieced it all together with hard evidence before making her move. She operated strictly off of the words of the victims and acted. In fact, we never ascertain the guilt or innocence of Jennifer's victims. We're just supposed to assume they were guilty because Jennifer marked them for death. It was very sloppy writing and it made Jennifer appear like a bloodthirsty maniac.
In the end that is what she was. She became real indiscriminate with her attacks and it didn't fit. Jennifer was supposed to be about vengeance not just wonton killing. And in the previous two episodes she knew exactly who to attack because she was the victim. In this one she's not the victim and she doesn't truly know if the men she's attacking are guilty.
ISOYG3 was simply too forced and ill-thought out. It's a far cry from the first two which made it virtually unwatchable.
Free on Tubi.
Den of Thieves: Pantera (2025)
Trusting Thieves
Parts two and what to do. So many sequels get lost in that space between staying connected to the prequel and being original, and most of them fail in the process. "Den of Thieves: Pantera" (DoT2) failed likewise. They overstretched themselves to give us a sequel with both Nicholas O'Brien (Gerard Butler) and Donnie Wilson (O'Shea Jackson Jr.).
Donnie Wilson aka Jean Jacques skated in part one and left the country. Nicholas, still butt hurt about being fooled in "Den of Thieves," decided he would pursue Donnie across the Atlantic. How does an L. A. County sheriff get the funds, go-ahead, and jurisdiction to do so? Weak plot devices, that's how.
Donnie was on to his next caper in Nice, France. He had a solid team and a solid plan, then Nicholas showed up in all of his brawn and bravado. He claimed that he wanted in on the heist. If Donnie said anything other than "kick rocks," I was going to be sorely disappointed.
Well, I was disappointed. Donnie and the rest of his team let Nicholas in on the job. In fact, they gave him a principal role in the heist. To go even further, Nicholas performed the heist with them and then turned them all in to French police.
Come on man. Gimme a break.
Not only would a group of thieves NOT trust Nicholas, they doubly wouldn't trust him if he was, or ever had been, involved in law enforcement. But because he got high with them and "cops never do drugs" that was enough for them to welcome him in.
Please.
And then to believe that a cop would be allowed to go through with a major burglary all as some type of deep cover.
GTFOH.
DoT2 is just another weak cash grab by another lazy studio that doesn't want to invest the time and effort into developing something new. It's a lot easier to rest on the good name of a halfway decent movie and churn out one lame sequel after another.
Netflix.
Selma (2014)
Important History
"Selma" is a movie that took me years to finally watch. It's one of those movies that is emotionally taxing on me. I don't begrudge it for that, I just have to be in the right frame of mind and head space to watch movies like "Selma."
Movies like "Selma" are necessary IMO. They tell an important story about American history. This one was told exceptionally well and used some stellar actors to do it. If I had an exception to this movie it would be that it was Martin Luther King Jr. Centric.
Allow me to explain.
When I was growing up our Civil Rights history was usually taught around MLK day and it largely consisted of his life culminating with his famous "I Have a Dream" speech. We'd watch a movie, read some paragraphs highlighting his achievements, and select students would recite his seminal speech. That was about all we knew about the Civil Rights era. It was like a quote I once heard someone say: "Rosa Parks sat down, MLK stood up, and then all was right with America."
It wasn't until I got to college that I got a more well-rounded education about the Civil Rights era and some of the instrumental figures who weren't Rosa Parks or MLK. As a result, I still have this feeling that I'm being cheated when I see Martin Luther King Jr. Featured in a movie about the Civil Rights era.
With that being said, I still applaud "Selma" as a movie and as a cinematic piece telling an important story about a pivotal point in American history.
$3.99 on Amazon.
Nosferatu (2024)
Yes-feratu
The first "Nosferatu" came out in 1922 in the silent film era. It's still regarded as one of the best scary movies ever. I never saw it, so I couldn't use it as a comparison for "Nosferatu" 2024. The only real reference I have is "Bram Stoker's Dracula" which was released in 1992.
"Nosferatu" was good, but it wasn't "Dracula" good. But "Dracula" was such a hit that it isn't an insult to say that "Nosferatu" wasn't as good as it. It largely followed the same plot with Bill Skarsgard playing Count Orlok (Nosferatu) and Lily-Rose Depp playing Ellen Hutter, the object of Nosferatu's obsession. Also playing significant roles were Nicholas Hoult as Thomas Hutter and Willem Dafoe as Prof. Albin Eberhart von Franz.
The Substance (2024)
That Was a Trip
"The Substance" is a different take on an old topic. Principally it's about an over-the-hill actress trying to remain in the limelight as long as she possibly can. How that takes shape is very interesting.
Elisabeth Sparkle (Demi Moore) is an aged star who does a daily workout show that is straight from the 80's. She wears the one-piece swimsuit with leg warmers folded over her sneakers and does a low impact routine. All she's missing are leotards or pantyhose.
At a hospital visit a handsome, young, male nurse gave her a thumb drive labelled "The Substance" accompanied with a phone number. This could potentially be the answer to her prayers. This "substance" could be what she needed to rejuvenate her looks and revive her career. And with no research and very little instructions she took the substance.
It's always the desperate ones. Those desperate for money, fame, looks, a cure, a second chance, etc.--they are always open to taking or doing whatever without considering the consequences or the negatives. Elisabeth was desperate for her lost stardom and as a result she took a substance that gave birth to Sue (Margaret Qualley), a separate version of herself. Sue was younger, prettier, and ready for success, except she would have to share her existence with Elisabeth, "the matrix" (i.e. The original).
"The Substance" was wild. Everything was hyperbolized to accentuate it, particularly sexuality. There wasn't a whole lot of dialogue. Writer/director Coralie Fargeat relied a lot on imagery, and the images were intense.
Longlegs (2024)
Chilling
I really liked "Longlegs." It was eerie, it was creepy, and it was a bit horrifying.
It starred Maika Monroe as Agent Lee Harker, a new FBI agent trying to track down a killer ala Clarice Darling in "Silence of the Lambs," except this killer seems to be supernatural. Nicolas Cage and Blair Underwood threw their weight behind this film as well. Their glory days are past them, but they clearly still have what it takes. Cage was particularly good as Longlegs.
These are the scary movies I like. It's not a slasher and the death count isn't extremely high. It's more of a plodding movie that relies on atmosphere and mood.
Unhinged (2020)
Be Careful Who You Honk at
"Unhinged" is "Falling Down" but less idealistic and more psychotic. It's a bit of a throwback even, when a singular nut case relentlessly pursues a target and the only way it can end is with the psycho being killed.
In this case the psycho was a nameless guy played by Russell Crowe. This isn't "Gladiator" Russell Crowe or "Virtuosity" Russell Crowe. This is the Russell Crowe who ate the other two Russell Crowes. Yeah, he's that big. He looks like he's about three bills.
The movie began with him going into a home with a hammer, clubbing the occupants to death, then burning the house down. The next time we see him he's in an altercation with the lead character, Rachel (Caren Pistorius). She had the temerity to honk at him for not moving at a green light. For that sin he marked her for all of his pinned up rage and aggression.
It was an OK movie that wasted little time. It got into the action rather quickly and stayed there until the end. Movies about unhinged individuals can be good ala "Misery," "Falling Down," "Psycho" and others, but it takes a bit of tact. This movie was entertaining but lacked the necessary touches to make it truly good.
Netflix.
Presumed Innocent (2024)
Great Remake
I watched "Presumed Innocent" because I was trying to get my money's worth out of my AppleTV subscription. I hoped I'd like it and I LOVED it.
What's funny is that I was having deja vu vibes when watching it. It didn't take long for me to realize that I had seen it in movie form many years prior. The title didn't ring a bell so I forgot that I'd seen the Harrison Ford movie of the same title.
Jake Gyllenhaal plays the lead character, Rusty Sabich, a prosecutor who has been accused of killing his colleague and mistress, Carolyn Polhemus (Renate Reinsve). All signs point towards him though he emphatically proclaims his innocence. It is a whirlwind of a plot as the truth remains cloudy and hidden until the very end.
I'm very impressed how they were able to stretch a two-hour movie into a seven episode mini-series. "Presumed Innocent" was very well written and equally well acted.
The Samaritan (2012)
"The Sting" this is not
Foley (SLJ) was a recently released convict who was almost immediately met by a guy named Ethan (Luke Kirby), the son of his deceased partner. Foley killed Ethan's father to save his own skin, now Ethan wanted Foley to help him do a complicated grift and Foley was not interested.
"The Samaritan" was light on good dialogue, good action, and a good plot. It was pretty much an empty movie that went for shock value instead of quality.
I'm going to play spoiler here.
Foley started a relationship with a drug addict named Iris (Ruth Negga) he saved from being sexually assaulted. She repaid him with sexual favors for his kindness and they went on to play house from there.
Eventually Ethan revealed to Foley that Iris was his daughter. It was just one more tactic Ethan used to try to force Foley to help him with a grift known as "the Samaritan."
The problem with this shocking reveal is that it made the movie worse. It was already bad due to the cheap, basic, and tawdry relationship between Foley and Iris. Finding out that they were father and daughter only made it revolting.
There was no saving it after that point.
Free on Tubi.
Reptile (2023)
Slow but not Boring
It's been a while since I've seen a truly engaging murder mystery movie. "Reptile" filled that void. It was a well paced mystery with enough plausible suspects to keep you guessing and keep you interested.
The main character was a Scarborough, PA detective named Tom Nichols (Benicio Del Toro). He was the lead detective on the gruesome murder of a real estate agent named Summer Elswick (Matilda Lutz). She was found in an empty property with multiple stab wounds consistent with a crime of passion or a psychosis. There was a short list of suspects, but not one of them was more apparent than the other.
"Reptile" had a runtime of 134 minutes, and even though it was slow at points, it was never boring. It was a dark, brooding movie with a cold seriousness to it. Every time Det. Nichols learned some new information you just wondered if he was on the right track. I loved every minute of it.
Trap (2024)
Just a Way for MNS to Showcase his Daughter
"Trap" was good until it wasn't. I was very into the concept and I thought that M. Night Shyamalan (MNS) did a great job setting it up. And that's about all that he did right.
The idea was that a concert was all an elaborate trap for a suspected serial killer. Very quickly you find out that Cooper (Josh Hartnett) was the serial killer, but no one knows what he looks like. Cooper accidentally finds out that the concert is a trap and then spends the next half of the movie devising a plan to escape the trap. During that time we got to listen to Saleka Shyamalan's demo tape (or perhaps someone else's demo with her lip syncing) as she played the part of the performer, Lady Raven, a singer that sounds like she could be Ariana Gaga Lipa. In other words, her sound is generic.
The movie fell off the rails for me when Lady Raven became the hero. She decided she would match wits and will with a serial killer, which had me audibly groaning. It was a position she didn't need to be in, nor would I even expect a pop singer to be in, but apparently she's one of the down-to-earth real ones who'd risk her life to save someone. You know, a pop star for the people.
Cooper escaped the concert trap and it just devolved from there.
I think this was an incomplete project from MNS. He should've taken a bit more time to make something more creative and intelligent. He was halfway there then mailed it in so what the movie really comes off as is a means for him to showcase his daughter.
Mission: Impossible - Fallout (2018)
The Hits Keep Coming
I just had the opportunity to watch "MI: Fallout" the other day on a long flight. It is as entertaining as the others and equally dire. A group is looking to detonate three nuclear bombs in three separate locations. The death toll and the aftermath would be unquantifiable, unless Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) and his team can prevent it.
This installment (the sixth I believe) brings back familiar faces: Ving Rames, Simon Pegg, Alec Baldwin, Rebecca Ferguson, and Sean Harris (as Solomon Lane). There are also a few new faces as well in Angela Bassett, Henry Cavill, and Vanessa Kirby.
You will have your recommended dose of car chases, fights, shootouts, and death defying stunts performed by Ethan Hunt. And we certainly can't forget an imitation or two. Mission: Impossible is still going strong in "Fallout" after 22 years.
Forrest Gump (1994)
Iconic and Quotable
The case can be made that Tom Hanks had the most successful 10 year stretch of movies of any actor in history. It started in 1993 with "Philadelphia" and ended in 2002 with "Catch Me if You Can." Of the movies in that span, "Forrest Gump" was arguably the best. In fact, "Forrest Gump" may be the best movie of Tom Hanks' entire illustrious career.
If you weren't impressed by Forrest Gump's life story then nothing will impress you. From the beginning Forrest Gump regaled us with stories of his life that had him doing all kinds of things from history we were never aware of, such as teaching Elvis his dance moves, mooning President Johnson, and coming up with various slogans--all this while having an IQ of 75.
He was a lovable human being who was easy to root for and of all of his accomplishments though, his main mission was to be with Jenny Curran (Robin Wright). If you learned anything about Forrest from the movie is that he loved him some Jenny.
"Forrest Gump" was both iconic and quotable. That type of combination makes it last forever.
Free on Amazon Prime.
Inception (2010)
Nolan Knows Directing Movies
Christopher Nolan is one of those few directors that is insanely talented. He just has a knack for making grade A movies and "Inception" was yet another one.
In a time and place where it is possible for individuals to enter other people's dreams (ala "Dreamscape" 1984), Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) and Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) do it in order to extract information from people. It's not exactly easy, but then it's better than using violence.
The two of them were hired by Saito (Ken Watanabe) to do an inception. That is: they were hired to plant an idea into the subconscious of a slumbering person. In this case the person was a business rival of Saito named Robert Fischer (Cillian Murphy).
If extracting information from a dreaming person was hard, planting an idea was exponentially more difficult.
"Inception" reeled me in with the concept. I was utterly fascinated by the idea. All that remained was to put together a captivating and cohesive movie around that concept, and Nolan did that. It was a beautiful blend of brilliant acting, awesome visual effects, and a solid story. It had to be the best movie of 2010 and a spectacular way to begin the 2010's.
The Godfather Part II (1974)
Coppola Hits Another Homerun
As I said about "The Godfather," there's nothing I can add to the discussion about "The Godfather II." What I can mention is my journey with both Godfathers.
Up until yesterday, when I finished watching "The Godfather" for only the third time in about a 35 year span, I thought that "The Godfather II" was hands down better than "The Godfather." Now I say that if--and there is a big emphasis on "if"--IF "The Godfather II" is better than "The Godfather," then it is only marginally better. That's not because my opinion of part two has changed, it's because my opinion and appreciation of part one has changed.
Before yesterday the difference between one and two was a difference between action and inaction. "The Godfather II" had more action. And by "action" I don't mean fighting, shooting, car chases, and explosions; I mean that Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) made more proactive moves than his father, Vito (Marlon Brando), did in "The Godfather." Couple Michael Corleone's activity with that of the younger Vito Corleone, played by Robert De Niro, and you had a lot more happening in "The Godfather II." The two timeline approach worked beautifully. As director Francis Ford Coppola played out the story of the Corleone family as now led by Michael, he showed an origin story of Vito Andolini aka Vito Corleone.
Because of the two interwoven stories and the overall drama of "The Godfather II" I have to give it the nod over "The Godfather." Part two is in the pantheon of sequels-that-were-better-than-the-first-installment along with "Terminator 2," "The Empire Strikes Back," "Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers," "Robocop 2" and a handful of others. I'm not saying that these movies were as good as "The Godfather II" (OK I am saying that regarding "The Empire Strikes Back"), I'm just mentioning the few sequels out of hundreds that were better than the first movie.
$3.99 on YouTube.
The Godfather (1972)
Seminal Masterpiece
Everyone knows that "The Godfather" is a classic. I'm not saying anything new or adding to the conversation by stating the obvious. Today marks the third time in my life that I've watched "The Godfather" and each time I glean more and more, and each time I appreciate it more and more. At just under three hours long it was a chore to watch when I was younger.
We used to have a smallish collection of movies on VHS when I was growing up. Of them, I distinctly remember "Gandhi," "Lion of the Desert," and "The Godfather" as being long movies. I loved "Lion of the Desert" as a kid simply because of the war aspect (I need to rewatch it), while "Gandhi" and "The Godfather" used to put me to sleep.
If you're wondering how I was even allowed to watch "The Godfather" as a kid, I wasn't, but I would sneak and watch whatever we had on VHS. Whenever I tired of the movies I'd seen a dozen times already I would pop in one of the adult titles (meaning "R" rating or any movie with a plot too boring for an elementary school child). So I tried my hand at "The Godfather," among other titles, and found myself struggling to follow all the dialogue and slow developing plot.
I watched "The Godfather" again as an early twenty-something and found a true appreciation of it, but I still didn't catch on to the depth of the story.
Watching it again at nearly fifty-years-old, I could truly appreciate the story as it chronicled the broad, as well as nuanced, operation of the Italian mafia with a focus on the Corleone family. The most standout characters and performances were that of Marlon Brando as Vito Corleone and Al Pacino as Michael Corleone.
Like I said, I'm sure every superlative has been used already to describe "The Godfather." I'll just add that Director Francis Ford Coppola outdid himself with this seminal masterpiece. It's a film that will live on in cinematic lore and deserves its place as one of the best movies of all time.
$3.99 on YouTube TV.
Ruggles of Red Gap (1935)
Englishman Prefers America
I haven't written a review on a movie in over six months, so I may be a little out of practice, but here it goes.
"Ruggles of Red Gap" was a feel good movie that touted the (espoused) core values of America while also taking some digs at her progenitor, England. Those core American values are that of all men being created equal and everyone being afforded the opportunity to make something of him/herself.
This is where I give the Chris Hemsworth Thor face and ask, "Is it though?"
Putting aside the obviously ignored injustices and inequalities that America was fully engaged in in 1935, the movie had a good message.
The movie started in France in the year of 1908. The role of Marmaduke Ruggles was played by Charles Laughton, a man who I'd gotten used to seeing playing slimy characters (see "Devil and the Deep," "Island of Lost Souls," and "The Private Life of Henry VIII"). In this movie he is the protagonist, an English butler in the service of the Flouds, an American couple.
He came into the service of Eggbert and Effie Floud (Charles Ruggles and Mary Boland) when his employer, George, the Earl of Burnstead (Roland Young), lost him in a poker game to the Flouds. Effie desperately wanted an English servant to give Eggbert some sophistication. As a result, the Flouds took Ruggles back to Red Gap, Washington, where he could serve them while also teaching them how to be proper.
There, in Red Gap, Ruggles would learn what it was to be equal and to be the master of one's own fate.
I like Charles Laughton, even when he plays the antagonist, and Charles Ruggles is a funny man. "Ruggles of Red Gap" was a decent enough movie even if I found myself rolling my eyes at the hypocrisy.
Free on Odnoklassniki.
Tiger Shark (1932)
Gratitude is not Love
"Tiger Shark" is a romance, so let me get the lame part out of the way first: there's a love triangle-the tried and true crutch of the lazy writer.
Mike Mascarenhas (Edward G. Robinson) was the skipper of a tuna boat based in San Diego. He was a braggart and a liar, but he was a good natured braggart and liar. In fact, he was a good guy all around. He lost his hand to a shark saving his friend and shipmate, Pipes (Richard Arlen), from said shark.
But Mike couldn't save his crewmate Manuel (William Ricciardi). Manuel fell in the shark infested waters and became shark food. He left behind a daughter named Quita (Zita Johann) that Mike began checking in on and taking care of.
Eventually he asked Quita to marry him. Quita told him she didn't love him, but that she'd still marry him out of gratitude. If I've learned anything from 1930's movies, it's that marrying out of gratitude is no bueno. She will find love later and then be in misery.
And that's what happened. When she laid eyes on Pipes, and he laid eyes on her, you could see the connection. You could see the predestined problems coming a mile away. In no time they were in love with each other which made Quita, like soooooo many women in love with someone other than their husband, a tortured woman. Oh the agony of being married to one man while loving another, especially when she doesn't want to hurt the man she's married to. No woman should have to suffer so, but it happens to millions of women worldwide every year. Women everywhere, with their soft hearts and susceptibility to falling in love, fall in love with multiple men and find themselves trapped. It's enough to make a grown man cry.
In Hollywood they have ways out of such situations. There's the yield. That's when one of the two persons yields to the other out of consideration of the one they both love. There's the exposure. If one of the two persons happens to be ignoble, then he/she is exposed. And then there's the removal. One of the two persons is removed from the triangle, usually by death, but sometimes by other things such as a prison sentence.
"Tiger Shark" was a two category solution of the love triangle. Mike was bitten by a shark when he fell into the water. When he was pulled onto the boat he was critically injured. He then yielded and conceded his wife Quita to Pipes (presumably because he was dying). He then died immediately after. In that sense there was a yield as well as a death. The yield was to allay the guilt of Quita and Pipes for falling in love with each other. The death was to ensure that Mike was completely out of the picture without the messy issue of divorce and all that. Quita and Pipes could then live happily ever after.
Free on YouTube.
The Night of June 13 (1932)
The 'Burbs
"The Night of June 13" was a bit different as a murder mystery because there was no murder. There was a suicide, however. It was a suicide that should've been an open and shut case, which is why the movie irked me so much.
John Curry's wife, Elna (Adrianne Allen), committed suicide because she thought her husband was cheating on her. She left a suicide note so there'd be no question as to her reasoning. When her husband, John (Clive Brook), found her lying on the kitchen floor with a gun by her hand, he grabbed the gun to--I suppose--verify she used the gun on herself (I'm both asking and making a statement).? The moment he grabbed the gun I thought, "Well you just made yourself the number one suspect."
He followed that up by burning her suicide note because... I guess because it mentioned the other woman, Trudie Morrow (Lila Lee), which he was NOT having an affair with. Once I saw the one-two combo of grabbing the gun and burning the note I knew it was assured that he'd be charged with his wife's murder.
His trial should've gone well because he wasn't even at home when Elna killed herself, but his trial happened to be the perfect storm of neighborly lying and deceit. The witnesses who could alibi him weren't at the trial to alibi him, and the witnesses who were at the trial all lied for one self-centered reason or another. It was truly frustrating to watch; not because the witnesses lied, but because of why they lied. They were such petty reasons AND their lies could've been easily doctored to mirror the truth without being 100% true.
"Are these adults?" is the thought that kept running through my head. I guess the movie was more of a critique of the average suburban neighborhood where everyone's got secrets but puts up a pretense of holier than thou. I could see that element, but it was so hackneyed and sophomoric that it was hard to like.
As far as the acting, it was fine. Clive Brook is always good IMO. Lila Lee brought her A game, as did Mary Boland and even Adrianne Allen. Frances Dee was serviceable, Charles Ruggles was OK, while Gene Raymond is always a stiff to me. I think he relied on his looks because I have yet to see a movie in which he impressed, and this is the tenth movie I've seen him in. All in all, acting wasn't the issue. The issue was the script. It failed to deliver.
Free on Odnoklassniki.
The Devil Is Driving (1932)
Forgettable
"The Devil is Driving" is one of those movies you forget the instant it's over. There was nothing special or unique about it.
A guy named Gabby Denton (Edmund Lowe) went to work for his brother-in-law, Beef Evans (James Gleason). Beef ran a garage and he was subletting part of it to a gangster named Jenkins (Alan Dinehart). Jenkins used the garage to strip down stolen vehicles. Gabby was firmly against the idea. Beef had his reservations, but the money was too good to pass up.
Things got tense in there when a pair of gangsters hit Beef's son, Buddy (Dickie Moore), as they were racing to get a vehicle into the garage. Why a four-year-old was crossing a busy New York street on a toy car is beyond me. Even if he did have the assistance of a crossing guard, a busy New York street is not a playplace for kids.
This is probably where I get the lecture from old heads talking about how my generation is soft.
The movie ran rather predictably, especially with the love story. Gabby swore he was done with dames because they only left him broke. That was a telltale sign that he was going to hook up with some standard screen-beauty.
A woman named Silver (Wynne Gibson) filled that part. She was thrown into the movie for no other reason than to be the romantic interest. The two of them were thrust together so haphazardly and awkwardly.
He met her at the scene of an accident. He was dispatched to go out and tow her car. They had an adversarial beginning, but that's also a typical first encounter for eventual lovebirds. As much as they were butting heads, and as much of an ass as Gabby was being, within ten minutes Silver liked him. There was no segue or pleasant words exchanged, she simply changed her mood.
Then, a few scenes later, she requested him to bring her keys up to her apartment when he dropped off her repaired vehicle. She practically threw herself at him in spite of his indifferent and childish behavior. Before he left her apartment the two were in love.
Of course, she played a significant role in helping him later, but God forbid she be in the movie to help the protagonist withOUT being his sweetheart as well. It's like the two things are wholly incongruous and incompatible.
Like I said, "The Devil Is Driving" is a forgettable movie. It's worth watching if you're a fan of Edmund Lowe, but not for anything more than that.
Free on Odnoklassniki.
Symphony of Six Million (1932)
Great Story, Bad Acting and Soundtrack
"Symphony of Six Million" would've been a good movie but for the stage acting and the overbearing musical score. It was essentially about staying true to your roots, which is always appreciated, but it wasn't executed well.
The main character was Dr. Felix Klauber (Ricardo Cortez), a New York doctor from Jewish immigrant parents. He was happy serving the people at the local clinic for peanuts until his brother, Magnus Klauber (Noel Madison), convinced their mom, Hannah (Anna Appel), that Felix needed to move out of the ghetto and serve the wealthy folks for a nice payday. It was strange how engrossed and concerned Magnus was about Felix. It was as if Felix's success was his own success.
Hannah convinced her son Felix to leave the ghetto and make a name for himself. Because of his love and deference towards his mother, he did just that--leaving behind the kids of the clinic and his sweetheart, Jessice (Irene Dunne).
I normally like Ricardo Cortez, but it was clear to me he was acting under some bad direction. Perhaps they all were. Their words and actions looked too deliberate and scripted, which is not what a movie should be going for.
Free on Odnoklassniki.
Silver Dollar (1932)
Horace A.W. Tabor
"Silver Dollar" seemed so close to a biopic I had to look it up to see if Yates Martin (played by Edward G. Robinson) was a real person. It turns out that "Silver Dollar" was based upon the life of H. A. W. Tabor, known to his Colorado associates as Haw Tabor.
Yates Martin was a foolish man who lucked into money in "Silver Dollar." He spent money wantonly in order to be popular, much to the chagrin of his smarter, more fiscally conservative wife, Sarah Martin (Aline MacMahon). Yates was so greedy for wealth and attention that it made him a sucker. He chased one mine after another based upon the spurious words of random prospectors. It was Sarah who convinced him to open a store to cater to the prospectors as opposed to him chasing mines himself, but he couldn't even do that right. He was extending credit to EVERYONE, which made him well-liked, but broke. There was one pair of prospectors whom he waived their tab entirely in exchange for a third of what they mined. It was a dumb deal that just so happened to pan out.
Yates went on chasing wealth and fame until he chased another dame named Lily Owens (Bebe Daniels). Truthfully, she was pursuing him and she knew just what to say to get him. She stroked his ego so expertly that he left his wife and married Lily. It was just one more moronic move of the many he'd made, but don't let anyone tell you that every rich person is smart. Even idiots make money sometimes.
As much as I like Edward G. Robinson, I hated his character. He was such a clout chaser that I couldn't respect him. Then, when he left his very good and faithful wife for a shinier object who found him on the mountain top after Sarah made the climb with him, I really disliked him. Having said that, because the movie so mirrored what can be found on historycolorado,org, I can't be too mad. They faithfully followed the available information on H. A. W. Tabor, too bad he wasn't more likable.
Free on Odnoklassniki.
Stage Mother (1933)
Spot On
Kitty Lorraine (Alice Brady) was one of those parents that drives their children to be something they may or may not want to be. Kitty was in the entertainment biz so she wanted her daughter, Shirley (Maureen O'Sullivan), to be in the entertainment biz. As a result, she dominated her life. She made every decision for her and had her whole life mapped out. She would live vicariously through her daughter, and she was indicative of millions of other parents out there.
We tend to hear about the sports parents, or the stage parents because their children become famous and let the world know about their upbringing. We don't hear about those sports parents or stage parents whose children never made it big. We also don't hear about the doctor parents, lawyer parents, or other career parents who drive their children just as hard.
Shirley didn't have a normal childhood, and what's worse is that when she became a young adult, she was just as attached to her mother as when she was a child. It's like once the parents get their hooks into their children they never let them go.
I thought "Stage Mother" was spot on. The movie focused on lost love due to mothering which was following with the sentiments of that era. If a (s)mother(er) was going to make her daughter miss out on anything back then it would be love, not another career or simply being happy. Shirley's happiness had to be directly attributable to the man she fell in love with and it would've been sacreligious to think her happiness came from some other source.
Free on Odnoklassniki.
Golden Harvest (1933)
Farmers v. Bankers
"Golden Harvest" is a movie that pits the farmers against the bankers, the growers against the speculators, Grove Street against Wall Street. It attempted to show how one man's losses could be another man's gains by showing how men in the market could get rich by farmers starving.
A man from a farm family named Chris Martin (Chester Morris) left the family business to become a city slicker. He didn't fancy farm life and he wanted out. He went to Chicago where he tried his hand at investing and became successful. His knowledge of wheat farming helped him in correctly speculating when to buy or sell stocks in wheat.
Meanwhile, his family and other farmers were back home losing their shirts. The price of wheat was coming down so low the farmers couldn't even afford their mortgages.
It was an interesting Cliff Notes version of how farms and the markets have a symbiotic relationship with the businessmen having an outsized amount of power. Chris's brother, Walt (Richard Arlen), seemed to think that he (Chris) could do a lot more for the price of wheat than what was realistic. I think Chris was more symbolic as one man playing the role of investor as though he was representative of many investors. One investor is not going to be able to move market prices unless his name is Warren Buffet.
The funny thing about "Golden Harvest" is that in a way it is anti-capitalism, which I think was a strong sentiment among the common man during the Depression. In a purely capitalistic society, every farmer without significant solvency would be eaten up by banks and creditors, but in the end the government stepped in to prevent small-time farmers from getting crushed by men in the markets who could keep the price of wheat sufficiently suppressed.
I thought the ending of "Golden Harvest" was a lot more realistic and in line with what would have to happen. Chris, almost like Arthur Rothschild did in "The House of Rothschild," tried to hold up the price of wheat by buying when everyone else was selling. It was akin to falling on his sword for the poor farmers. However, unlike Arthur Rothschild, Chris went belly up. He was one man versus the entire market.
I appreciated the realism with such a move. He was bound to go bankrupt trying to prop up the price of wheat, but it made the sacrifice all the greater. "Golden Harvest" captured just one aspect of the farmer's struggle, but it made so much sense. Sure, the movie could've been better, but I think Chester Morris made it worthwhile.
Free on Odnoklassniki.
Blood Money (1933)
Needs More Development
I think the term "blood money" takes on a different meaning depending upon the usage and the user. It could mean that the money literally has blood on it, in that someone was killed for it. It could be figurative blood money, in that people died for someone to earn it. Where I work we refer to blood money as money that someone worked extreme hours to earn when it wasn't necessary for them to do it. A person who works a lot of overtime to the degree he's never home because he's always at work.
Bill Bailey (George Bancroft) had the "blood money" in the movie "Blood Money." He was a bail bondsman who got his bonds in the form of deeds from poor old ladies, cash from crooks, and whatever other form of payment he could get. He had one foot in the criminal world and one foot in the straight world. He dealt with many criminals and kept their secrets which made him a valuable friend to the underworld, but also a dangerous loose end should he go straight.
He had a woman named Ruby Darling (Judith Anderson) who loved him completely, and whom he had a lot of respect for even if he didn't love her the same amount. His life would change when Elaine Talbart (Frances Dee), a spoiled rich girl looking for excitement, came into his place of business after being arrested for stealing. He was mesmerized by her and couldn't think of anyone else. As for Elaine, she was just looking for a thrill.
Elaine was strange and an enemy to all feminists. Her ideal man was one who was her "master." One who would give her a "good thrashing." As she said, "I'd follow him around like a dog on a leash."
Bill was hoping to be that man. And he was that man until someone more sinister than him came along. When she laid eyes on Ruby's brother, Drury Darling (Chick Chandler), a known bank robber, she practically wet herself with excitement. She dropped Bill like a bad habit and picked up with Drury.
Women were fickle creatures back then. They had no loyalty, and even if they did, they'd still hurt the man they love if he angered her enough.
Take Ruby for instance. Ruby was as loyal as they come, but she turned on Bill when he ticked her off. It could be said that she turned on Bill because he betrayed her, but it all started with him dumping her for Elaine. The last straw was when Bill gave Drury up to the cops. Ruby thought he did it because Drury took Elaine from him, but the truth was he thought Drury bilked him out of $50,000 and left him holding some useless bonds.
What really happened was that Drury gave Elaine a simple task and she didn't follow his instructions. She was supposed to give Bill the $50,000 in bonds and destroy the useless registered bonds. Instead she gave Bill the registered bonds and kept the $50,000 in bonds thinking that she was doing a good thing. Her reasoning?
"I knew dad would cut me off, and we can't live without money," she explained to Drury who was now in police custody.
SMACK!!!
Drury slapped the taste outta her mouth for being so stupid. They didn't show it, but I'm sure she liked it. It was right in line with what she wanted from her ideal man.
The information Elaine gave Drury was of the utmost importance. Drury had incorrectly told his sister that Bill double-crossed him after he gave him the usable bonds. Elaine's story proved that Bill didn't double-cross him, but that a dumb dame had disobeyed him which caused a real big mess.
Now, Ruby had to stop the ball she had set in motion. She thought Bill had betrayed her family and sicked the underworld on him, but she wound up a toy she couldn't stop. The fight between the crime syndicates and Bill had gotten too big, which showed, again, that women were fickle creatures given to their emotions.
She let the boys loose on Bill without considering the potential fallout of her actions. She claimed she didn't want Bill hurt, but had she taken a full minute to think about what she was doing, she could've come to the logical conclusion that Bill could very well get hurt. She was dealing with killers and cutthroats, and she wasn't their boss. They respected her, sure, but they didn't answer to her. So, to give them the greenlight to bury Bill, but not hurt Bill, was to create a war that was going to quickly get out of her hands.
One of the biggest problems with "Blood Money" is that it was rushed and underdeveloped. The characters were flat, which hurt the overall story. I think "Blood Money" is a good story that needs more development.
Viewable on Max.