Film 27: Brief Encounter (1945)

Netflix Summary: In this film based on a Noel Coward play, director David Lean explores the thrill and pain of an illicit romance in 1945 Britain. From a chance meeting on a train platform, a middle-aged doctor and a suburban housewife enter into a quiet yet passionate love affair, knowing there's no possibility for a lasting relationship. The two meet every Thursday at a small café at the station to play out their doomed romance.
From wikipedia: In 1999 Brief Encounter came second in a British Film Institute poll of the top 100 British films.


Film Viewing Due Date: 12/30

Double Indemnity (1944) Review

Juror #3 says: A few years ago I attended a Film Noir festival at the Film Forum in NYC.  I had a film-fanatic-friend that was a huge film noir fan, and I had seen few. I left the festival after having viewed titles like "Laura" and "Touch of Evil", and I had fallen in love with film noir; The gritty style, the smooth (and/or cocky) leading man, the femme fatale, the cutting dialogue.  And "Double Indemnity" has it all. Fred MacMurray (with aid from Billy Wilder) delivers a complex lead character who finds himself smitten with Barbara Stanwyck, a temptress with an angel's face. The two characters begin a dangerous game of insurance fraud that ends wildly, with no winners. The acting is brilliant in its subtle ease, and Billy Wilder uses the camera to add the complexities to the story and the characters themselves. Just as in all good movies, there is a supporting character that carries his scenes so well you wish they were on camera twice as much. Edward G Robinson plays the character "Keyes", the man who would break this insurance scam wide-open...and he is phenomenal.
Even more impressive is the fact that the two main characters are quite unlikable in their motives and yet you remain engaged without really caring if they fail. And I imagine the content of the movie was rather shocking to a 1940's audience.
But check this out about the ending of the movie (from wikipedia): The original ending (from the book) called for the characters to commit double suicide. Suicide, however, was strictly forbidden at the time by the Hays Production Code as a way to resolve a plot, so Wilder wrote and filmed a different ending in which Neff (MacMurray) goes to the gas chamber while Keyes watches. This scene was shot before the scenes that eventually became the film's familiar ending, and once that final intimate exchange between Neff and Keyes revealed its power to Wilder, he began to wonder if the gas chamber ending was needed at all. "You couldn't have a more meaningful scene between two men", Wilder said. As he would later recount, "The story was between the two guys. I knew it, even though I had already filmed the gas chamber scene... So we just took out the scene in the gas chamber." The footage and sound elements are lost, but production stills of the gas chamber scene still exist.
 
Overall I rate the movie 4/5 stars on Netflix.

girl by locker says: As soon as I finished watching Double Indemnity I texted Juror #3 and said “Wow.” To me, this is the best movie we have seen in the 1940’s and probably my favorite since we watched “M” back in 1931. It was flawless. I was instantly drawn into the film as we see Walter Neff struggle into his office building, obviously hurt, and sits down at his desk to narrate. You wonder what is happening when Neff begins the story, a classic one, “I killed him for money - and a woman - and I didn't get the money and I didn't get the woman.” Like I said, “Wow.”

I was further pulled into the movie, completely sold, when Phyllis makes her entrance. Neff wants her husband to renew his insurance and Phyllis comes to the landing on the stairs to see who is at the door, stunning and scantily clad in a towel. (We have come a LONG way since Way Down East, 1920, when Lennox Sanderson seduces little Anna Moore after he can’t control himself upon seeing her ankles). Here is one of my favorite dialogues in the movie between Neff and Phyllis. Have I mentioned how great the writing is as well?


Phyllis: Mr. Neff, why don't you drop by tomorrow evening about eight-thirty. He'll be in then.
Neff: Who?
Phyllis: My husband. You were anxious to talk to him weren't you?
Neff: Yeah, I was, but I'm sort of getting over the idea, if you know what I mean.
Phyllis: There's a speed limit in this state, Mr. Neff. Forty-five miles an hour.
Neff: How fast was I going, officer?
Phyllis: I'd say around ninety.
Neff: Suppose you get down off your motorcycle and give me a ticket.
Phyllis: Suppose I let you off with a warning this time.
Neff: Suppose it doesn't take.
Phyllis: Suppose I have to whack you over the knuckles.
Neff: Suppose I bust out crying and put my head on your shoulder.
Phyllis: Suppose you try putting it on my husband's shoulder.
Neff: That tears it.
Basically, I think this movie is a must see for anyone, film fanatic or casual watcher alike. It is beautiful, artistic, edgy, well acted, incredibly directed, fantastically written, and I whole-heartedly give this movie 5 out of 5 stars on Netflix.

Film 26: Double Indemnity (1944)

Netflix Summary: Smitten insurance man Walter Neff (Fred MacMurray) plots the perfect murder with femme fatale client Phyllis Dietrichson (Barbara Stanwyck): staging her husband's "accidental" death to collect double indemnity on his life insurance and absconding with the loot. But before their scheme can pay off, the lethal duo must first get past a crafty claims investigator (Edward G. Robinson) who senses something isn't kosher


From wikipedia: Reviews from the critics were largely positive, though the content of the story made some uncomfortable. While some reviewers found the story implausible and disturbing, others praised it as an original thriller. 
SOUNDS GOOD TO ME! - Juror #3





Film Viewing Due Date: 12/17

The Ox-Bow Incident (1943) Reviews

girl by locker says: While The Oxbow Incident is a solid movie with solid performers, it is another movie about mob psychology. Since we began Cinema Cram, this is our 3rd movie dealing with the subject with Fury even including trumped up charges against newcomers to town. While I can certainly appreciate the movie, I just really wasn't interested in watching it. It is a powerful topic, and one that obviously impacted early American culture. I assume that is why the subject keeps infiltrating movie themes. 


I did love the scene early in the movie when the two drifters roll into town and go to the bar for a whiskey. They observe a painting in which a man is reaching toward and scantily clad woman. One observes how he seems to be moving so slow and the bartender says he feels sorry for the guy - always reaching but never getting what he's after.

I give this movie 3 out of 5 stars on Netflix. The only reason I'm not giving it a 2 is because I would have liked it better if I hadn't watched the other movies. 

Juror #3 says: I would be interested in finding out the real-world events/policies that led to the flood of mob vengeance movies in the 1930's and 40's.  It was clearly a topic on the psyche (which makes me guess that racial inequality and/or class warfare was the subconscious parasite in this case).  The Ox Bow Incident is another example of citizens taking the law into their own hands, only to gain vengeance on the wrong men.  Of course it's always a compelling topic but in this case the twist is seen from a mile away.  

The Ox Bow is dialogue-heavy and I can't imagine it would have been considered a "classic" if it hadn't been for a young Henry Fonda.  The overall movie may have felt a little blah to me but, from a film study perspective, I always enjoy seeing actors and actresses that have "screen presence."  Henry Fonda proves worthy of that definition.  He becomes the focal point of every scene whether it's intentional or not.  How does that happen?  

Overall though the movie was a bit flat to me, too much passive dialogue and an obvious twist.  If you're searching for a mob vengeance movie I'd recommend sticking to "M" or "The Informer."  But good ol' Henry added enough flavor all by himself to compel me to rate The Ox Bow Incident 3/5 stars on Netflix.  

Film 25: The Ox-Bow Incident (1943)

Netflix Summary: Director William A. Wellman's Western digs into the mob-led lynching of three innocent men. The film centers on cowboys Carter (Henry Fonda) and Croft (Harry Morgan), who reluctantly join a hunt for murderous cattle rustlers. Led by ex-soldier Tetley, the posse captures three transients (Dana Andrews, Anthony Quinn and Francis Ford). When Tetley calls for their execution without proof of their guilt, Carter faces a moral dilemma.





Film Viewing Due Date: 11/3

Kings Row (1942) Reviews

Juror #3 says: Kings Row feels out of place within our film study lineup.  Immediately after watching the movie I googled "Kings Row soap opera" as I was curious to find if there were any comparisons out there - turns out that it's often cited as the precursor to the 1950's soap opera Peyton Place.  It's an extremely melodramatic film which got on my nerves.  In Kings Row, like a soap opera, characters change rapidly and it feels unnatural.  An audience can be forgiving when it's within an expected environment but I wasn't prepared for it here.  I thought Ronald Reagan was excellent...but I thought he was good because he was the only one who didn't seem to be playing a soap opera-esque character, so maybe he was the worst actor in a way as I'm assuming he shouldn't have come across as a classically-trained actor in this particular film.  

It's worth noting that if we stopped our film study here and had to name a "most influential filmmaker" it would clearly be Hitchcock.  A piece of Hitchcock seems to appear in every film now and the early creepiness of Kings Row is no exception.  My recommendation would be to read the book.  Rated 2/5.

girl by locker says: It is safe to say that I hated this movie though I really wanted to like it. I actually want to like all the movies we pick for Cinema Cram but this is the first one that I wanted to end and kept thinking “Please make it stop.” Essentially, I never connected with the story and never cared deeply about the characters. I felt disjointed and disconnected from what was happening. It never made sense to me why Dr. Tower took his daughter out of school and ultimately killed her, giving mental illness as an explanation. I find it much more plausible that they were having some sort of incestuous affair and thus ended her life. Robert Cummings as Parris Mitchell irritated me to no end. I understand that all the characters are stereotypes of some sort and Cummings’ stereotype is that of the good grandson who will save everyone. He was too one-sided and didn’t have the depth of the other actors. I wanted him to stay in Vienna. The ending wrapped up too neatly for me, and I completely disagree with other reviews that say, “Even after 60 years, the ending still packs a wallop.” A big speech about the truth will rarely snap someone out of depression that easily. 

The good parts of the movie: Ann Sheridan, Ronald Reagan and the cinematography.  The first two gave stellar performances and I especially loved Reagan after he lost his legs. "Where's the rest of me?"  The film was beautifully shot and helped redeem the story.  I give this 2 out of 5 stars on Neftlix.  

Film 24: Kings Row (1942)

Netflix Summary: This powerful drama nominated for three Academy Awards takes you beneath the sleepy facade of a picturesque American small town, where painful secrets and bitter grudges threaten the dreams and aspirations of several childhood friends. Boasting an all-star cast, the film features Ronald Reagan in a breakthrough performance as Drake McHugh, a dashing yet conflicted young man. It's often considered Reagan's career best.


There are a lot of rumors online about the theme of Star Wars being "influenced" by the theme to Kings Row.  Check it out below.



Film viewing due date: 11/18

Citizen Kane (1941) Reviews

girl by lockers says: Knowing that Citizen Kane has been rated the number 1 movie of all time on various lists and also knowing it is Juror #3’s favorite movie, I had very high expectations. Fortunately, I was not disappointed and was, in fact, wowed. I’m sure if I did in-depth research and was more familiar with film technique, I could quote the ways in which this film was ahead of its time. However, I will just say that it was beautiful, simply beautiful. The lighting, the camera-work and the way the image helped shape the story knocked my socks off. I was impressed with the solid acting and a script that captured my attention. I can’t say that it is the number 1 movie of all time, but I can say that it is a must-see for any movie buff and I might possibly put it in my top 10. I gave it 4 out of 5 stars on Netflix.


Juror #3 says: Occasionally a movie comes along where you are amazed at the attention to detail and the subtle creativity imposed.  Citizen Kane is legendary for exactly that.  But the technical achievements applied weren't used by the 26-year-old Orson Welles to be different or dictate a "style" for himself.  No, they were used to help tell the story better visually...in all aspects, and for no other reason.  I could talk for days about the success of the production of Citizen Kane but instead I'll direct you to watch the commentary by Roger Ebert on the special features of the disc.  Citizen Kane is my favorite movie of all-time for several reasons - 1) it's nearly flawless in its production, 2) it's an engaging story with a life lesson, and 3) the background for the movie is as dramatic as the production itself.  Orson Welles was granted complete control of a Hollywood studio at the age of 26 and created a masterpiece which ended up blackballing him from Hollywood for the majority of his professional career.  Again, I'll direct you to watch the documentary "The Making of Citizen Kane."  It was this documentary that catapult Citizen Kane to #1 on my all-time list and added Orson Welles as one of my answers to everyone's favorite dinner question, "what 3 people alive or dead would you like to dine with?"  Need I say that I rate Citizen Kane 5/5?


The White Stripes, one of my favorite bands made the song "Union Forever" using lines from Citizen Kane.  There are a bunch of these mashups on youtube, here are two of my favorites:

Film 23: Citizen Kane (1941)

*

Netflix Summary: Orson Welles reinvented movies at the age of 26 with this audacious biography of newspaper baron Charles Foster Kane, which, in essence, was a thinly veiled portrait of publishing magnate William Randolph Hearst. Welles's complex and technically stunning film chronicles Kane's rise from poverty to become one of America's most influential men -- and it's considered one of the best movies ever made.


A few fun facts from IMDB.com:
*The camera looks up at Charles Foster Kane and his best friend Jedediah Leland and down at weaker characters like Susan Alexander Kane. This was a technique that Orson Welles borrowed from John Ford who had used it two years previously onStagecoach (1939). Welles privately watched Stagecoach (1939) about 40 times while making this film. 
*William Randolph Hearst was so angered by the film that he accused Orson Welles of being a Communist in order to keep the film from being released. 
*During filming Orson Welles received a warning that William Randolph Hearst had arranged for a naked woman to jump into his arms when he entered his hotel room, and there was also a photographer in the room to take a picture that would be used to discredit him. Welles spent the night elsewhere, and it is unknown if the warning was true. 


Note from Juror #3:  This is my all-time favorite movie.  I greatly urge you to watch the documentary about the making of the movie within the special features.  The story behind the story makes the film that much more legendary.





Viewing Due Date: 11/3

Rebecca (1940) Reviews

Juror #3 says: I went through a Hitchcock phase a few years back but had never seen Rebecca.  I find it odd that this picture net him his only Best Picture Oscar when, in my humble opinion, this may not even crack his top 5.  Rebecca seemed more like a play than a film, with long stretches of dialogue.  The positives however included the acting - Lawrence Olivier was sublime as were the entire cast - and the directing was perfect, big surprise.  Hitchcock did a fantastic job creating creepy and suspense-filled scenes through techniques still used today. But no one has ever done a better job of using shadows to help elicit suspense, all lighting professionals should make this a mandatory viewing.  In the end though, having just watched Gone With the Wind, I was slightly disappointed in Rebecca.  I rate it 3/5 


girl by locker says: I wasn’t sure what to expect from Rebecca. I had heard Hitchcock fans think there are better movies made by him and that this shouldn’t have been the only movie of his to win an Oscar. As someone who hasn’t seen much by him, I was prepared to love it, and I did. I hadn’t read the book by Daphne du Maurier, but I am a fan of the Emily Bronte’s Wuthering Heights. It wasn’t that the love story reminded me of Heathcliff and Cathy but rather I got a similar feeling. The dark foreboding, the creepiness of Mrs. Danvers, the tension and apprehension I felt as I watched the second Mrs. de Winter fight to overcome the powerful memory left by Rebecca. The cast was stellar, and I was particularly impressed by Judith Anderson as Mrs. Danvers who, in my opinion, embodied everything great about the movie. She was subtle and sinister and kept me on the edge of my seat. I give this 5/5 on my Netflix ratings.

Film 22: Rebecca (1940)

Netflix Summary: The only Alfred Hitchcock film to win an Oscar for Best Picture, this mystery stars Laurence Olivier as Maxim de Winter, a widower whose hapless second wife (Joan Fontaine) moves into his mansion only to find the memory of his first wife still governs the household. Intimidated by the home's hostile staff, the living Mrs. de Winter begins to go mad in Hitchcock's eerie adaptation of Daphne Du Maurier's Gothic classic.


Wikipedia fact: The theatrical release of Rebecca was delayed in order to give it a shot at the 1940 Academy Awards - the 1939 Awards would (obviously) be dominated by Gone with the Wind, another Selznick production.

From Hitchcock's Rebecca (1940)
Uploaded by Dwiggy. - Check out other Film & TV videos.


Viewing Due Date: 10/12

1939 Film Reviews

Often considered the best year in film history, girl by locker and I decided to watch two films for 1939.  I had already seen Mr Smith Goes to Washington (two thumbs up), and girl by locker had already seen Gone with the Wind.  So here are our reviews.

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington

girl by locker says: Mr. Smith Goes to Washington is one of the movies you’ve heard about all your life. You know who is in it and you even know the general plot outline. Despite all this, you are still completely sucked into the story, along for the ride and cheering for Jefferson Smith (James Stewart, who is amazing) to root out political corruption and get his boys camp built. It is a classic story of good versus evil and though I was initially worried that the characters would either be too evil or too good, it was an unfounded fear.

I loved certain aspects of the camera work as well. There is a scene in which Stewart talks with Senator Paine’s daughter, whom he finds very attractive, and though we hear the conversation all we actually see is Stewart fumbling with his hat, nervously dropping it.

This movie gets 5 out of 5 stars on Netflix, two thumbs up and even a back flip. I liked it that much. My only negative comment is that I thought it wrapped up a little too quickly and neatly…but it is a minor observation on what is obviously a masterpiece.

Gone with the Wind

Juror #3 says: So I had obviously heard a lot about Gone with the Wind and had even quoted the movie - "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn" - about a million times.  But I was extremely unaware of the depth of the film.  Forget the fact that while we are choosing movies year-by-year in witness of the advancements in filmmaking, and Gone with the Wind could, technically, be made today without question, the real impact made upon me was the depth of the theme.  Here we played out the civil war in all its intricate detail side-by-side with a tale of human nature.  The tale's main characters were chasing love, sometimes mixed with entitlement, during a time where the nation was at war, it could be said, over those very two ideas.  The acting was so good that at times I wanted to forward through Scarlett O'Hara's scenes because I despised her.  And I love that in the end I'm not sure whether to believe in her attempt at reconciliation.  There haven't been many movies in my life that I felt really examined human nature in a unbiased way.  And then you weave in the Civil War with similar scenes and I've just witnessed an enduring masterpiece for all the right reasons.  I've, naturally, rated it a 5/5 on Netflix.  

Film 21: Mr. Smith Goes to Washington...and is Gone with the Wind

1939 is widely regarded as the best year in film history.  To commemorate this spectacular year we have decided to watch 2 films.  girl by locker has never seen Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, so that's her movie to review.  I've never seen Gone with the Wind (I know, I know) so that's my movie.  Here are the Netflix summaries:

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington: When idealistic junior senator Jefferson Smith (James Stewart) arrives in Washington, D.C., he's full of plans and dazzled by his surroundings - qualities he retains despite widespread corruption among his cynical colleagues. Jean Arthur puts in a sharp performance as Smith's streetwise secretary, who helps him navigate his way through Congress, in this Academy Award-winning classic from director Frank Capra.

Gone with the Wind: Margaret Mitchell's sweeping Civil War saga remains one of the greatest examples of cinematic storytelling. Vivien Leigh's tempestuous Scarlett O'Hara and Clark Gable's handsome rogue Rhett Butler bicker and battle from antebellum plantations to the streets of postwar Atlanta.

Film Viewing Due Date: 9/21

Angels with Dirty Faces (1938) Review

Juror #3 says:  This was the 1930's movie I was most excited to watch when we assembled our list.  I absolutely love the premise - two boyhood friends take separate paths in life with one becoming a priest and the other a criminal.  The criminal is revered by the same children in the neighborhood that the priest is trying to mentor.  In the end, with the criminal sentenced to the electric chair, the priest asks his longtime friend to give up the only thing he has left, his reputation as a tough guy, and die a coward...for the children.  As much as I loved the premise (and the ending didn't disappoint), I felt the overall production value was lacking.  The directing was poor and the story ended up more fragmented than it should have been.  I would absolutely love if this movie was remade, as the motif is timeless.  I rate it 3/5.


girl by locker says: I'm not sure what it is, but I have had a lot of high expectations this era, perhaps because it is the golden age of Hollywood. We recently watched "Angels with Dirty Faces" and though I definitely liked the movie, I thought I was going to fall in love. It had all the makings to have my socks blown off - gangsters, Cagney, Bogart. And while every aspect was solid, I just wanted more. In the end, there is a battle between good and evil - between the city corruption run by gangsters and the town priest who wants to start a boys club to help keep the kids away from the life of crime - and I felt it was all tied up in a neat, little bow. Life isn't that tidy.

There were 2 high points of the movie. 1. Bogart. I had never seen him in a villainous role before. He completely rocked. 2. The final scene in which Rocky Sullivan, played by Cagney, walks to the electric chair. His childhood friend, who is a priest, asks him to die in a way in which the town children will not look up to him. He says he won't do it but ultimately, he cries and begs for his life. As the viewer, we are left to wonder if he was actually scared or if he pulled off the final wishes of the priest. I choose to believe he did it for the priest. In other parts of the movie when his friend's life was threatened, he protected him. I think he did the same here.

Overall, entertaining movie. Solid. Well done. I give it 3 out of 5 stars on Netflix.

Film 20: Angels with Dirty Faces (1938)

Netflix Summary: Tough guy Rocky Sullivan (James Cagney) plays Pied Piper to a gang of teenage hoods (the Dead End Kids) while boyhood pal turned priest Jerry Connelly (Pat O'Brien) tries to save their souls in this gangster classic from director Michael Curtiz. The two vie for control of the neighborhood, but when Connelly is almost killed by Rocky's duplicitous associates (Humphrey Bogart and George Bancroft), Rocky guns them down and finds himself sentenced to death.


Fun Fact: The famous Irish bar "Rocky Sullivan's Pub" in New York City was named after Cagney's character.





Film Viewing Due Date: 9/4/10

A Star is Born (1937) Review

girl by locker says: Being that this movie has been remade twice since the original 1937 production, I really wanted to like it and had high hopes. It is a classic Hollywood story in which a young girl, Esther Blodgett, reaches for her dreams and sets her ambitions on becoming a movie star. When she reaches Los Angeles she eventually meets and falls in love with Norman Maine, a celebrity actor and alcoholic who is on his way down the stardom scale. He is still high enough in his career and can use his clout to get Esther her first foot in the door though, eventually, her star eclipses his.

 

While it is a solid movie, extremely well-written and posing interesting questions on what we will give up in order to obtain our ambitions, it overall left me lacking something. Frederic March is stellar in his role of Norman Maine and has a perfect balance between stardom, ego, fragility, and I was moved with how he played his spiral down into a has-been. Janet Gaynor also played an excellent part and was, in fact, a great choice to play the innocent girl not yet tainted with the trials of life. However, I just never bought into the fact that her character was able to outshine that of March's. He always seemed to be the bigger star to me, even when he turned into a nobody. 

 

I give this movie 3 out of 5 stars on Netflix. It is definitely an interesting movie to watch, in particular for anyone who seeks a career in the entertainment industry or even a highly ambitious one. It will make you stop and think about what is important in life.  

Juror #3 says: I believe I know why this movie was remade a few times - it didn't fulfill its potential.  The other reason being that Hollywood has always been in love with Hollywood, so this tale of an actresses rise from humble beginnings to a movie star while a popular actor's star fades clearly struck a chord.  In the end I couldn't help but think that the script needed about three more rewrites, but what I suspect is that this movie fell victim to producer edits.  The story and character development was way too cautious for the plot line, as if the movie was created by focus groups.  I felt everything in this movie fell short with one exception - the use of technicolor film.  After watching so many black and white films up to this point, A Star is Born looked as if you could take each shot from the film, frame it and hang it on your wall.  But that isn't nearly enough for me to recommend this movie.  I rate it a 2/5

Film 19: A Star is Born (1937)

Netflix Summary: The original version of the thrice-lensed, behind-the-scenes tale about celebrity's double-edged saber. Starry-eyed Esther Blodgett yearns to make it big in Hollywood, and when she captures the attention, and heart, of matinee idol Norman Maine at an A-list party, she's on her way. But while Esther's star soars, tosspot Norman's career nose-dives. Will Tinseltown's vagaries destroy their love?

Academy Awards: The film was nominated for seven Academy Awards, winning the award for Best Screenplay. It was also nominated for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor (March), Best Actress (Gaynor), Best Assistant Director, and Academy Award for Best Writing, Screenplay.


Film Viewing Due Date: 8/25

Fury (1936) Reviews

juror #3 says:

The films in the thirties appear to be somewhat fascinated by mob justice.  We referenced this in our review for The Informer, comparing it to the fabulous ending in the movie M.  In Fury, Fritz Lang returns to the popular theme albeit with a twist.  Unlike M where Lang questions our right to judgment, in Fury he makes the decision to confront the viewer head-on with the dreaded “what if”…what if you’re wrong?  Spencer Tracy does a fantastic job playing the moral bond holding his family together, but after he is wrongly imprisoned while on the way to reunite with the love of his life he is “crucified” by the townspeople’s assumptions.  Well, we THOUGHT he was crucified, but Tracy returns from a miraculous escape with a bitter and angry demeanor.  He’s prepared for revenge and doesn’t care the cost.  No mercy will be shown to those who took the law into their own hands. 

I enjoyed Fury for it’s character arc even if I found the end a bit quick and not particularly well developed.  And it’s worth noting that I fell in love with Sylvia Sidney and have since looked up her film resume.  Lang knew what he was doing with his stories and I appreciate the small touches he adds to his films to help round out a scene.  The ending disappointed slightly but overall I was entertained.  I’ll rate it a 4/5.

girl by locker says:

Fury is the second Fritz Lang movie we have watched during our 1930's cinema study. His first movie of our curriculum, M, has so far been my favorite we have seen of the decade and Fury isn’t too far behind. Lang is obviously interested in the study of mob violence and the destructive forces it can unleash in people, as it is a theme we saw in both movies. I wonder if Lang’s escape from Nazi Germany and the mass violence that he presumably witnessed first hand had a lot of influence on the topic. I assume yes.

In the US during the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, I generally associate lynching and mob violence with race relations and this movie makes no mention that the majority of this violence was geared toward African Americans. I don’t see that as a huge problem as I think the point of the movie was to look at how humans react to hysteria and not to comment on race. To be honest, I think the movie would have been too controversial to get made had it also dealt with race as well.

I liked how the movie jumped from a bland love story, to an action flick with the mob hysteria and ultimately a courtroom drama. It was an interesting juxtaposition of scenes. I give this a 4/5 stars on Netflix.

Film 18: Fury (1936)

Netflix Summary: Director Fritz Lang dishes up an unflinching indictment of mob justice in this potent drama. Passing through a small town en route to see his fiancée, upright Joe Wilson (Spencer Tracy) ends up charged with kidnapping based on flimsy circumstantial evidence. When news of his arrest spreads, an irate mob storms the jail, burning it to the ground -- with Joe ostensibly inside. Little do they know that he escaped and is hell-bent on retribution.

Filmsite.org: German director Fritz Lang's first Hollywood film (after exiling himself from his homeland due to Nazi persecution), MGM's thought-provoking, socially-aware Fury treated the psychology of a lynch mob and its impact on an innocent victim (Spencer Tracy).

Here is a video discussing Fritz Lang's directing style:


Film Viewing Due Date: 8/2/10

The Informer (1935) Reviews

girl by locker says: This movie is brilliant and beautiful, but it was also incredibly difficult for me to watch. It starts out with Gypo Nolan (Victor McLaglen) living in the 1920's during Ireland's Sinn Fein Rebellion. Gypo has just been kicked out of the underground movement for not carrying out orders and is completely penniless. His closest friend, Frankie McPhillip, is wanted for murder by the English and comes back to their hometown in order to see his mother and sister. Gypo ultimately turns him in when the £20 reward proves too tempting. In that brief synopsis, the stage is set for a movie about remorse and revenge...and we get both. 

From the beginning, I was caught up in the story, the atmosphere, the cinematography. It really is beautiful and for this I give the movie 4 out of 5 stars on my Netflix ratings. But it was difficult for me to watch Gypo wander around drunk, piddling away his money on drinks and food obviously filled with remorse at what he had done to one of his closest friends. It was painful to see and evoked emotions in me that made me want to scream at the television, "Stop drinking and go buy your ticket to America." I don't think I've ever had that kind of reaction to a movie.

On another note, it was also interesting to me that this is the second public court scene we have seen in which the underground movement judges one of its own. We saw it for the first time with M.  

Overall, this movie is definitely worth seeing though don't expect to feel happy when it is all said and done.   

Juror #3 says: I love Hitchcock, I truly do.  But I am so glad we decided to watch The Informer over 39 steps as our 1935 selection, mostly because I'm more familiar with Hitchcock than John Ford.  After watching The Informer I can confidently say that John Ford is one of my favorite directors.  I don't know where I would rank him necessarily but he'd be up there with Hitchcock, Griffith, Kubrick, Scorsese and Lean.  I mean, Ford was already one of my favorites but there is something about seeing his early work and the inventive processes he utilized that really impresses.  This film is beautifully shot, wonderfully acted, and completely engaging.  

girl by locker has given a nice breakdown of the plot.  Yes, it's dark. Yes, it tugs at your soul.  The emotions it invokes is directly equated to the determined focus Ford gives every detail to every scene.  For instance, the wanted poster blowing off the street onto our main character's leg.  He tries to shake it off, but can't.  Eventually it falls to the ground and blows away in an ironic moment of foreshadowing.  I could go on and on with the examples of detail but instead I'll just recommend you watch the movie.  Towards the end of the film there is a scene that, in my opinion, HAD to be influenced by the movie M - chilling silence and hard, cold stares.  The only thing I could complain about is that my own personal convictions didn't really allow me to enjoy the end of the film, meaning the final message.  It made me a bit angry actually.  But, again, what more can you expect from great filmmaking than the types of emotions that The Informer stirred up.  I rate it 5/5 stars.

Film 17: The Informer (1935)

Netflix Summary: Director John Ford nabbed an Oscar, as did star Victor McLaglen, for this atmospheric drama set during Ireland's 1922 Sinn Fein uprising. McLaglen delivers a harrowing performance as Gypo Nolan, a roistering brute who fingers best friend Frankie McPhillip (Wallace Ford) to collect a reward, then promptly fritters away the money on one night of revelry. After British troops kill Frankie, the Sinn Fein proceeds to even the score with Nolan.





Film Viewing Due Date: 7/18

It Happened One Night (1934) Reviews

girl by locker says: It Happened One Night did not disappoint. Well, maybe a little bit – just an eensy, weensy tiny bit – but I think that is because my expectations were gargantuan and no movie could possibly have met them. In the end, I still rate it a 4/5 and that is only because we can’t rate half stars on Netflix.
I knew the movie took place on a bus, and I assumed because of the title that it obviously was something that happened over the course of one night. Logical, no? However, the plot is carried out over the course of several nights and I wonder if they did that because the title would not have been as catchy. It Happened Over Several Nights just doesn’t have the same panache.
Clark Gable and Claudette Colbert have an undeniable chemistry, and I read that though this movie swept the Oscars (Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Screenplay) neither one of them actually wanted to be in it. They were forced into the parts as punishment by their respective studios. Colbert only agreed to take on the part if they could finish filming in 4 weeks so she could go on vacation. Whether those are just urban legends, the result is spectacular – witty, crisp, stunning cinematography, wonderful character arc, and a must see for any classic film buff out there.

Juror #3 says:  It Happened One Night was extremely well done.  The dialogue, the acting, the cinematography.  As we progress through our curriculum it's clear that the filmmaking evolves substantially from film to film.  I find myself wondering when along our film study journey that this may cease to be the case.  This was another giant leap forward in filmmaking.  Having said that, there were moments in It Happened One Night where I really just wanted to fast forward.  Maybe I started the movie too late.  I felt like I knew the ending and neither character was all that redeeming...at least not enough for me to really care.  The arc of the movie was all about love, which is fine, but I didn't really like either character all that much more.  I rate it a 3/5.

Film 16: It Happened One Night (1934)

Netflix Summary: Socialite Ellie Andrews (Claudette Colbert) is headed to New York to elope with a fortune-hunting flyboy. Along the way she meets a newspaperman (Clark Gable), who's just been sacked and, unbeknownst to Ellie, plans to sell her story to get his job back. But a string of misadventures leads them to realize they're madly, if reluctantly, in love. It swept every major Academy Award.

A homage (from wikipedia): In one scene, Gable undresses for bed, taking off his shirt to reveal that he is bare-chested. An urban legend claims that, as a result, sales of men's undershirts declined noticeably.
The unpublished memoirs of animator Friz Freleng mention that this was one of his favorite films. It has been claimed that it helped inspire the cartoon character Bugs Bunny. Three things in the film may have coalesced to create Bugs: the personality of a minor character, Oscar Shapely, an imaginary character named "Bugs Dooley" mentioned once to frighten Shapely, and most of all, a scene in which Clark Gable eats carrots while talking quickly with his mouth full, as Bugs does.
The 1937 Laurel and Hardy comedy Way out West parodied the famous hitch-hiking scene, with Stan Laurel managing to stop a stage coach using the same technique.
The 1956 Bollywood film Chori Chori, starring Raj Kapoor and Nargis Dutt, is a frame-by-frame copy of It Happened One Night.
Mel Brooks' 1987 film Spaceballs parodies the wedding scene. As she walks down the aisle to wed Prince Valium, Princess Vespa (Daphne Zuniga) is told by her father, King Roland, that Lone Starr forsook the reward for the princess's return and only asked to be reimbursed for the cost of the trip.
In the 2001 film Bandits, Joe Blake (Bruce Willis) erects a blanket partition between motel room beds out of respect for Kate Wheeler's (Cate Blanchett's) privacy. He remarks that he saw them do the same thing in an old movie.
On General Hospital in 1980, executive producer Gloria Monty used the film as a source for the Left-Handed Boy storyline for Luke and Laura (Anthony Geary and Genie Francis). "The Walls of Jericho" scene was specifically used.
In Sex and the City 2, Carrie and Mr. Big watch the film on a flat-screen TV in a hotel. Later in the film, in an attempt to get a taxi in Abu Dhabi, Carrie uses her leg as a way to flag down a taxi.


Film Viewing Due Date: 7/4 (Happy Birthday America)

I'm No Angel (1933) Reviews

girl by locker says: Mae West is the queen of great one-liners. Here are a couple of my favorites from I'm No Angel:
* I see a man in your future. What? Only one?
* How are you mixed up in this? Like an olive in a dry martini.
* Don't worry. I ain't gonna hurt him. I'm just gonna feel his muscles.
* When I'm good, I'm very good. When I'm bad, I'm better.
* Beulah, peel me a grape.
The movie revolves around Mae West and her character as Tira, a woman with a plethora of gentleman suitors. Mae West is fabulous and Cary Grant is completely dashing when he finally makes his screen appearance around the middle of the film. 77 years later and Cary Grant can still make my heart go pitter-patter!
Considering the evolution of film that we have seen since 1915, I'm amazed at how risque this movie is. In Way Down East, the main villain, Lennox Sanderson, couldn't control himself around Anna when he saw her ankles. In just a relative few short years, we have Mae West completely flaunting her sexuality and shimmying around onscreen as a complete tigress...or lion tamer as is her role in the movie. She rocks hard!
I was also amazed at how funny I found the film and thought it was cool how the humor could still translate. I definitely recommend the movie and give it 4 out of 5 stars on Netflix.

Juror #3 says: I'm going back and forth in my head about this film. Mae West is clearly a character we haven't seen thus far in cinema; a woman proud and unafraid of her sexuality. I found myself excited to see her next move, and hear what sultry line would ensue. At first I wondered if Mae West was playing a character "out of her league" but she quickly won me over with her unabashed personality. The downside of the film was its plot. It was weak. I just didn't find myself caring much about the resolution. I wanted to believe Mae West was enormously hurt and would have difficulty moving on with her life after Cary Grant leaves her. But we are never let into that side of the character. Even though the script could have used a re-write or two, I give the film 3/5 stars - but only because I can't rate it a 2.5.

Film 15: I'm No Angel (1933)

Netflix Summary: Hollywood icon Mae West stars in this 1933 comedy -- which she also wrote -- as Tira, a resourceful circus performer and swindler who, despite her natural distrust of men, falls head over heels for a handsome businessman (Cary Grant). One of the few Mae West films to elude heavy censorship, this entertaining tale is notable for featuring one of the bombshell's most famous quotes: "When I'm good, I'm very good. But when I'm bad, I'm better."



Film Viewing Due Date: 6/21/10

Freaks (1932) Review

Juror #3 says: The 1930's are quickly shaping up to be a formative decade for film.  First we watched the movie M which brought a type of sophistication to filmmaking, and then there is the movie Freaks which takes everything we've previously seen in film and turns it upside down in an "up yours" kind of way.  I loved it.  No, love isn't a strong enough word, I LURVED it.  There are real circus freaks (many from Coney Island) and scenes created to make the audience as uncomfortable as possible - which also complements the entire point of the movie - a dark statement on humankind and how we perceive anything deemed abnormal.  
Even in today's torture-porn culture audiences would be shocked.  I was so enthralled with this film that I watched every minute of the special features on the DVD.  The background is as interesting as the film itself - the whole process seems so bizarre and improbable, but that's the amazing thing - there is an air of normality to it which is precisely what makes it so disturbing.  The movie was based on a short story called Spurs which I found online and read.  I have to say, Tod Browning took the short story to another level.  The only disappointment in Freaks is that it was censored by the studio and over 30 minutes were removed from the final cut, including a much harsher ending which included a castration scene as well as the mauling of the female antagonist.  I wish someone would piece the movie back together in Tod Browning's original vision.  Still, if you find this world of oursas bizarre, and fascinatingly so, as I do, then Freaks is a MUST see.  I rate it 5/5 stars.


girl by locker says: Freaks definitely shocks the viewers of the film, and I can only imagine how much more shocking it was back in the 1930's. I read that one woman actually attributes her miscarriage to watching the movie. The performers are actual circus freaks with various abnormalities - midgets, hermaphrodites, a man with only a torso to name a few. The first scene in which we see the "freaks" all together they are playing and frolicking about a field. I must say I that I was more than shocked during this scene and to me, that is what the movie was about - making the audience uncomfortable with "freaks", putting them in your face. I'm glad I watched the movie, and I definitely consider it an advancement to what we have seen in the 1920's, but overall I didn't enjoy the actual story. I enjoyed the spectacle. I rate it 3/5 stars.

Film 14: Freaks (1932)

Netflix Summary: Director Tod Browning cast authentic circus folk, not actors, in this Greek tragedy about sideshow "freaks." Normal-sized trapeze artist Cleopatra marries diminutive Hans with plans to poison him, take his inheritance and marry the brute Hercules. When the freaks uncover Cleopatra's scheme and Hercules forces himself on an innocent girl, they gang up on the two miscreants. 


From Wikipedia: Freaks began filming in October 1931 and was completed in December. Following disastrous test screenings in January 1932 (one woman threatened to sue MGM, claiming the film had caused her to suffer a miscarriage), the studio cut the picture down from its original 90-minute running time to just over an hour. Much of the sequence of the freaks attacking Cleopatra as she lay under a tree was removed, as well as a gruesome sequence showing Hercules being castrated, a number of comedy sequences, and most of the film's original epilogue. A new prologue featuring a carnival barker was added, as was the new epilogue featuring the reconciliation of the tiny lovers. This shortened version - now only 64 minutes long - had its premiere at the Fox Criterion in Los Angeles on February 20, 1932.

Film Viewing Due Date: 6/9/10