Before soap operas could be broadcast daily on television, there had to be movies that gave viewers the same impact of a melodrama about eccentric people getting into life-and-death situations. One such film is "Dark Victory," a 1939 film staring Bette Davis, George Bent, Humphrey Bogart, Ronald Reagan and Henry Travers and its utterly manipulative and forced story, which follows a young selfish socialite (Davis) being diagnosed with a rare brain tumor and that she has only months left to live.
Her doctor (Brent) slowly starts to fall in love with her and believes he shouldn't have the power to say who lives and who dies, and so he doesn't tell her that she's dying, instead letting her lead her hedonistic lifestyle like she always has, without any knowledge that her end is coming very soon.
While this type of story can be quite an emotional rollercoaster, "Dark Victory"'s execution of this story is more eye-rolling and manipulative than it needed to be. The film is filled to the brim with clichés - her doctor was ten minutes away from retiring from brain surgery before she walked in, she has no regard for human life but loves her horses and dogs to death, and of course the classic doctor falling in love with his patient cliché, even though Davis and Brent's characters have next to nothing in common. But what really drives it all home is how forced it feels that the doctor has to hide her own faith from her for reasons that don't even begin to make sense.
The only reason he doesn't tell her that she's dying from the start is because the plot says so. Because they need half an hour of the doctor and her best friend (Geraldine Fitzgerald) hiding the truth from her while pretending like nothing is wrong, and then another half hour of Davis reacting to the truth. The movie would be so simple if she knew what was going to happen, and the last thing this film wants to be is simple.
If there is one positive out of "Dark Victory" it is the acting from everyone in the cast. I was surprised to learn that George Brent, Humphrey Bogart, Ronald Reagan and Henry Travers were all in the same film, but I was even more surprised to see that all of them turned out stellar performances. All of them felt like they were moments away from emotional breakdowns, or in Henry Travers case, breaking into tears.
But the real star of the show was Bette Davis, who sold this entire character and her wide range of character quirks, both subtle and over-the-top. She undergoes one of the most melodramatic metamorphosis' I've ever seen, and she never comes across as anything more than authentic and genuine, all while remaining strong and fiercely independent. She makes the big emotional scenes feel bigger and the sad moments stick in the back of your mind long after you've watched the film. Davis owns this role and she makes this a movie worth seeing.
Although, other than a great cast of actors, "Dark Victory" doesn't have much else going for it. The film feels dated and is more than a little manipulative. There were many times that the film tried to force an emotional response, and it often did not work. If you like cheesy and cliché melodramas that feel like something out of "General Hospital" or "Days of Our Lives," then you'll enjoy this one just fine. But besides that, the only reason I'd want to check out "Dark Victory" is because of its surprising amount of great performances.
Final Grade: C
Now that I have watched five Ingmar Bergman films, I think I can safely say that none of his films resonate with me and that they are more irritating than enjoyable. Sitting through "Fanny and Alexander" was a chore - over three hours of people running through castles and houses with little rhyme or reason, while still having that excruciatingly slow and unforgiving Ingmar Bergman pace that makes the whole movie feel like its on the strongest sleep aids known to man.
There comes a point in filmmaking when a director becomes too self-indulgent, thinking that his art and style outweighs everything else, and Bergman takes that to its most extreme, to the point that I cannot get into his movies. I find all of Bergman's films, including "Fanny and Alexander" to be devoid of energy and passion to the point that I want to scream at the film to do something interesting or entertaining.
But let me take a moment to address anyone out there that are interested in film exploration or wishes to expand their pallet to foreign cinema - Just because I've never been entertained or enraptured by an Ingmar Bergman film doesn't mean you shouldn't watch his movies. I believe I understand why people enjoy his movies, because they are the most artistic example of filmmaking.
They feel like paintings that could be hung in museums for everyone to see, and we all have different reactions to those pieces of art. For some people, Bergman's art has a lot to say about our inner fears and how they change over time, and they believe he says it in the most melancholy and natural way possible. Others, like myself, get nothing out of it and I just feel like I'm staring at a blank canvas. But that's the power of subjectivity in art - your perspective and point of view changes everything, to the point that you get an entirely different outcome from it than anyone else.
Honestly, I nearly fell asleep multiple times during "Fanny and Alexander," due to its monotonous and dull tone with a lack of anything interesting happening for a excruciatingly long periods of time. But then again, if Bergman's films have taught me anything, it is that they are an acquired taste. I can't say that I had a good time watching this film, but I understand why others would enjoy this tale of two children learning their place in the world after a tragic event.
At least this one didn't make me pull my hair out like "Persona" did.
Final Grade: D+
If some films age like wine, while others age like wet bread, then William A. Wellman's "Wings" is just about the finest vintage a movie can get. Released in 1927, "Wings" was the first film to ever win the Academy Award for Best Picture (technically, it wasn't called the "Best Picture" Oscar yet, and they had a similar award that same year that went to "Sunrise: A Tale of Two Lovers, but this film still won the award) and I feel in many ways it is just as historically significant as other films from that era like "The Birth of a Nation" and "The Jazz Singer," except with far less insulting racism. Watching this film over 90 years after its release, I can say this film not only holds up, but is just as engrossing as many action films made today.
"Wings" tells the tale of two young men, Jack (Charles "Buddy" Rogers) and David (Richard Arlen), from a small American town who immediately enlist in World War I when they get the chance to fight for their country. Both are assigned to the air force, where they learn to become pilots and very quickly become two of the best pilots fighting for their side. Meanwhile, Mary (Clara Bow) is madly in love with Jack, who barely even gives her the time of day, and eventually decides to join to the war in her own way, by being an ambulance driver.
"Wings" was the only silent film to win Best Picture (until "The Artist" bucked that trend in 2011), but the film still has a very effective use of sound, as well as color. The only noises we hear throughout the film are the sounds of engines, mostly those of a biplane, and the sound of gun fire. It works in the opposite way of the comedic sound effects of a late Charlie Chaplin film - it draws your attention, making the spectacle of war feel far more real than it ever felt before. While the film uses lots of colored tints and lenses, the color that sticks out is the burning yellow flames of a crashing biplane, making that carnage stand out even more.
But what's truly impressive about "Wings" is its camera work and how it perfected filming airplanes in motion. We might take shots of multiple airplanes flying in formation for granted these days, but in 1927 when cameras weighed hundreds of pounds and were mostly never in motion during a shot, that makes the cinematography of this film even more impressive. There were no miniatures or fake explosions in this film - if a plane rams into the ground with the pilot still inside, that really happened.
Multiple aerial dog fights are shown throughout this film, all with beautifully crisp camera movement, always using the vast emptiness of the sky to its advantage. On top of that, there are loads of shots within the cockpit of Jack and David's planes, which Charles Rogers and Richard Arlen had to film themselves, since the camera was so heavy they couldn't carry another person. So while they were flying the plane and acting at the same time, they also had to be the camera men too.
"Wings" is the most impressive and awe-inspiring movie of its time, mastering techniques in the 1920s that are still dangerous today. Everything about this film feels authentic, helped by William A. Wellman's superb direction and experience in aviation. It has the utmost respect for those who served and the hardships they went through, no matter what they did during the war. I strongly recommend this, not just to film or aviation buffs, but to those who want to see an example of how you don't need talking or much of a story to have a wonderful movie.
Final Grade: A-
Believe it or not, James Cameron's "Titanic" was not the first time the tragic tale of the unsinkable luxury ship was adapted to film - and many would argue it is not the best adaptation of this well-known story. And after seeing Roy Ward Baker's "A Night to Remember," I agree with those people.
While Cameron's film changed some of the historical aspects for the sake of dramatic storytelling, "A Night to Remember" prides itself on being as accurate, almost documentary-like, as possible. Rather than playing with our emotions at the cost of changing what actually happened, we get sucked into the authentic tale of a situation that could have easily been prevented and how it quickly turns into a hopeless one for thousands of people, all because of ego and pride getting in the way.
On top of that, for a non-Hollywood film made in 1958, this black-and-white film looks stunning, with amazing detail from the lavish halls to the submerging engine room. Even the models of the sinking ship and its interiors filling up with water are so authentic that seeing them slowly submerge into the depths is just as effective as Cameron's film, if not more so here due to the realistic tone of the movie.
But of course, the main focus of "A Night to Remember" is on the 2,200 people stuck aboard the sinking ship with only enough lifeboats for 1,200 people, and how these people cope with death creeping up on them.
The film mostly follows Second Officer Charles Lightoller (Kenneth More), the highest ranking officer to survive, as he prepares to board the RMS Titanic on her maiden voyage. The mood is electric, as everyone is excited to be apart of history being passengers on not only the largest ship every built, but also one that has been touted as being unsinkable. It even gets to the point where the captain and the senior staff feel like they can relax, since they have nothing to fear. As a result, the crew of the Titanic miss a lot of obvious warnings and hazards until they're right on top of a giant iceberg.
As the ship begins to sink, we watch that same electricity turn from shocking to deadly. The gravity of the situation is first handled with calm and sorrow, only for it to escalate to full blown panic and chaos as the front of the ship starts to go under. At which point, the focus switches to the brave men doing their best to save as many lives as possible, and how the passengers react to the icy water slowly surrounding them. Some are dumbfounded and unaccepting, while others realize there is no escape and hand on to the little life they have left. It's like watching something beautiful slowly be destroyed from on-high and being unable to do anything about the desperate pleas and cries for help.
The tale of the Titanic is one of the most tragic and heartbreaking stories in modern times, and "A Night to Remember" captures the tragedy in the most brilliant, accurate and moving way possible. If you only ever watch one movie about this story, forget about Jack and Rose, and see one of the most wonderfully human movies ever made.
Final Grade: A
Pop culture references: The Movie!
To be fair, "Ready Player One" is the type of movie I always imagined that could serve as a crossover between every type of franchise imaginable, including television, movies, video games, books, and so much more. The fact that Steven Spielberg is at the helm for it and he adds his charming whimsical style to everything does make most of this film a delight to sit through, if only to see Spielberg turn a below-average book into an enjoyable movie.
Though to be more specific, Spielberg gives us three amazing sequences and an otherwise forgettable average film. These three scenes are all worth the price of admission, enjoyable in their own rights while being more than just a field of references and Easter eggs. Each of them reminds us why we loved things like King Kong, "Back to the Future" and "The Shining" in the first place, all while this movie creates its own identity and plays with these unique situations.
Set in the year 2045, most of the world is made up of slums and inescapable gloom. But then again, most people don't live in the real world anymore - they live in a virtual world where you can do anything or be anything, known as the OASIS. Outside of eating, sleeping and having to go to the bathroom, everyone spends all their time in this world, created by a mix of an 80s nerd and Steve Jobs, James Halliday (Mark Rylance). But when Halliday passes away, he sends out a message saying that he put in one final Easter egg that, when found by bringing all three keys to his in-game character, would give this person total control over the OASIS and all of his shares and stocks in his company, which effectively means control of the world.
The film follows Wade Watts (Tye Sheridan), a teenager that worships Halliday and his creation, who tries everything to find all three keys and the Easter egg. But as he slowly gets closer to the truth, the corporation known as IOI threatens him and his friend so they can be the first to obtain ultimate power and control.
The strength of "Ready Player One" lies in its ability to connect with so many different people and what they care about. No matter what you liked growing up, there will be at least one moment anywhere in the movie that you'll be able to point to and smile because of a pop culture reference about something you love. Not just a reference you get or understand, but something you truly care about. Spielberg takes the time and effort to make each moment like that really sink in and let you soak in all of its glory. Whether that's watching King Kong and the T-Rex from "Jurassic Park" tear up race cars, seeing people interact with many of the scenes from "The Shining" in different ways, or a plethora of video game characters fighting to Twisted Sister's "We're Not Gonna Take It," there will be something for everybody.
Though, if I'm being perfectly honest, that moment for me came near the end of the film when the villain cheats in the video game world and pilots a giant robot that may or may not resemble one of my favorite fictional characters of all time. It gets even sweeter when said giant robot starts beating the stuffing out of the Iron Giant and a Gundam. Let's just say I had a perpetual smile on my face during that entire final battle.
The film never takes itself too seriously, which helps when it transitions back into the real world to keep the same care-free, fun-loving tone throughout the film. This is helped with a scary-looking bounty hunter, voiced by T.J. Miller from "Silicon Valley" and "Deadpool," that calls himself i-Rock. He is quick to poke fun at the video game logic while working well off the villain (Ben Mendelsohn) and his lack of pop culture knowledge.
Outside of that and the three exciting and inventive sequences throughout the film, there isn't a whole lot going for "Ready Player One." The rest of the film is a serviceable popcorn flick that follows the traditional Spielberg-style, though without really diving into the characters or the quotable lines. Anytime they go back to the real world, it only makes me wish they spent more time in the virtual one just to see what they'll do next. This makes some parts of the film drag, but never to the point that it feels boring.
Overall though, "Ready Player One" is Steven Spielberg's best film since "Catch Me If You Can," if only because of his love and passion for all things nerdy and geeky and how that translates on screen. Not only does this film look amazing, but it is fun to see so many different characters from all sorts of franchises interacting with one another. While not always entertaining, it is never bad or disappointing. This is a worthwhile popcorn flick and one that anyone born after 1975 will appreciate one way or another.
Final Grade: B
There's a conflict inside me on Vincente Minnelli's "Lust for Life." This is a very passionate, raw portrayal of Vincent van Gogh, displaying his entire life's work, his flaws, desires and personal mistakes for the world to see, yet in the reminding us the impact van Gogh left on the world. And yet, like van Gogh himself, it honestly feels like that same passion and energy has no direction or reason to stick with the audience, like we're just watching a documentary about Vincent Van Gogh and not a dramatic reenactment of his life.
So on the one hand, there's a lot of great work being put into this film, especially from Kirk Douglas and his nuance performance that shows how conflicted and worried van Gogh can be, but also his drive to share the way he sees the world with everyone else, as well as Vincente Minnelli's love of von Gogh's paintings and how they're scattered throughout the entire picture.
But, on the other hand, none of it is given any meaning. As great as Douglas' performance was, I didn't find any reason to care about his struggles or problems because of how standoffish and rude he was, making him a rather unlikable character that does little to redeem himself. It would be like watching someone insult his closest friends just to find out that he's great at playing the piano - he might be an amazing musician, but that isn't enough to make a worthwhile main character, let alone an entire movie.
"Lust for Life" certainly isn't a terrible movie. It is visually pleasing, especially at capturing what brought about Vincent van Gogh's inspirations for painting, and Kirk Douglas does a masterful job at walking the tight rope between crazy and passionate that he's always been stunning at. It's just that the film never really draws you in and makes you care about van Gogh's character and his struggles, leaving most of this painting as a blank slate.
Final Grade: C-
Films starring insanely popular bands, musicians or singers have always had varying success depending on how you personally feel about that performer. "Hard Day's Night" could be one of the greatest pieces of cinema you'll ever see or just a look at a day in the life of the Beatles, all depending on how you feel about the boys from Liverpool, while the same can be said for nearly every film with Bob Dylan.
But the biggest example of this in Hollywood has always been Elvis Presley and the wide range of films he made during his long and varied career, from tongue-in-cheek comedies to exploring Seattle's world fair. Though none of his 31 movies were quite as personal and heartfelt as "Jailhouse Rock," a stark contrast to his other film appearances. Shot in black-and-white, the story is said to have drawn inspiration from many of Elvis' real life experiences, namely finding fame and fortune from an early age and how that shaped him as he became an adult.
Even then, this type of story has been told many times before and with greater gravitas. It feels like "Jailhouse Rock" doesn't quite go all the way with its darker, more personal premise about how fame corrupts and changes people, and pulls back to remind the audience that they're watching an Elvis Presley movie. So, in that respect, how you feel about this film depends on how you feel about Elvis as both a musician and a person.
Elvis plays Vince Everett, a young construction worker who accidentally kills a stranger in a bar fight and is sentenced to two years in prison. While there, his cellmate, washed-up country singer Hunk Houghton (Mickey Shaughnessy) teaches Vince how to sing and play the guitar, and finds out that he has a natural talent for it. Once Vince gets out of prison, he sets out to make a new name for himself in the music business despite his standoffish and fiery attitude.
I feel the only reason parts of "Jailhouse Rock" works is because the journey Vince undergoes once he's released from prison so closely parallels Elvis' own journey. It is a case of art imitating life and life imitating art, watching Elvis struggle with the lives he's stepped on to get where he is, as well as the raw talent and charisma that made him a star in the first place. To see Elvis be put in a position like this, and with a camera pointed at him the entire time, makes "Jailhouse Rock" worth watching.
That being said, the film moves slowly, has a rather unpleasant and uncomfortable tone throughout most of it, and ultimately left a bad taste in my mouth with its half-baked climax and resolution. It feels like they couldn't make up their mind if they wanted this to be a serious dark drama with someone who has experienced how dark it can be, or a happy musical about a misguided talent with a heart of gold, and that hurts the tone and atmosphere of this movie.
Still, if you like Elvis, "Jailhouse Rock" is worth checking out, if only to see Elvis basically playing himself. But if that doesn't interest you, nothing else about this one will either.
Final Grade: C
