168 posts tagged “movies”
Below is my review of the new movie, "STAR TREK", directed by J.J. Abrams:
”STAR TREK” Review
Many fans of the ”STAR TREK” franchise seemed to be in agreement that its last television series - ”ENTERPRISE” (2001-2005) - had more or less killed the franchise. That opinion proved to be false with the release of its latest film – ”STAR TREK”, directed by J.J. Abrams.
Not to be confused with Robert Wise’s 1979 movie, ”STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE”, this latest installment in the franchise is about the early years of the U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701 from ”THE ORIGINAL SERIES” (1966-1969). In other words, the movie is about how James T. Kirk became captain of the Enterprise and Spock, its first officer. What made this particular story unique is that the film’s opening sequence – an attack upon the Federation starship, U.S.S. Kelvin in 2233 led to an alternate timeline for the rest of the film.
When a supernova threatened the galaxy in 2387 (nine years after the U.S.S. Voyager’s return to Earth), Ambassador Spock piloted a ship carrying "red matter" that can create a gravitational singularity, drawing the supernova into a black hole. Before Spock completed his mission, the supernova destroyed the planet Romulus. Captain Nero (Eric Bana) of the Romulan mining ship Narada blamed Spock and the Federation for his planet’s destruction and its inhabitants, which included his wife and unborn child; and attempted to exact revenge on Spock. But both ships are caught in the black hole's event horizon and travel to different points in the past. The Narada arrived first in 2233 and attacked the Kelvin. The attack resulted in the death of the Kelvin’s commander, Richard Robau (Faran Tahir) and first officer Lieutenant George Kirk (Chris Hemsworth); and James T. Kirk’s (Chris Pine) birth aboard a shuttle fleeing from the damaged starship. The rest of the movie featured both Kirk and Spock’s (Zachary Quinto) early years, their subsequent first meeting at Starfleet Academy and their clashes aboard the U.S.S. Enterprise, commanded by Captain Christopher Pike (Bruce Greenwood). Meanwhile, Nero has survived and 25 years following Kirk’s birth, is still seeking to exact revenge upon Spock.
Screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman managed to pen a solid adventure filled with time travel, plenty of action and strong characterization. Which is not surprising, considering that the story strongly reminded me of the Season Four episode from ”STAR TREK: VOYAGER” (1995-2001), (4.08-4.09) “Year of Hell”. But there were differences. Whereas ”Year of Hell” dealt with the moral ramifications of time travel, ”STAR TREK” merely revealed what happened after the timeline was changed. After all, it is more action oriented than the majority of ”TREK” episodes. I had no problems with that. Somewhat. But this slight difference deprived the movie of the depth found in ”Year of Hell”. And I did have problems with other aspects of Orci and Kurtzman’s script.
First of all, James Kirk’s rapid ascent from senior year Starfleet Academy cadet to the captain of the Enterprise within such a short space of time seemed ridiculously unrealistic. Even for a work of fiction. I realized that Pike saw great potential in Kirk’s future with Starfleet. But to promote a cadet so high in the ranks . . . and so fast bordered on the ridiculous. I also had a problem with Nero’s desire to exact revenge upon Spock. Instead of taking the opportunity to kill the Human/Vulcan hybrid in order to save his homeworld and family (which were the motivations of the villain in ”Year of Hell”), the Romulan wanted Spock to remain alive and witness the destruction of both Vulcan and Earth. Again, logic seemed to quickly disappear in what I believe to be an irrelevant plot twist.
Now, due to Nero’s presence in the 23rd century, the following happened:
*George Kirk died on the very day of his son’s birth and did not witness the latter’s graduation from Starfleet Academy.
*Kirk joined Starfleet Academy at the age of 22, instead of 17.
*Kirk became part of the same Starfleet Academy class as Nyota Uhura (Zoe Saldaña) and Leonard “Bones” McCoy (Karl Urban).
*Spock and Uhura became romantically involved during her years at Starfleet Academy.
*Both Hikaru Sulu (John Cho) and 17 year-old Pavel Chekov (Anton Yelchin) were already Academy graduates and Starfleet officers serving under Christopher Pike during Kirk, Uhura and McCoy’s last year at the Academy.
*Nero managed to destroy Vulcan and its inhabitants, using the same ”red matter” that the older Spock used in an attempt to destroy that supernova in the year 2258.
*Spock’s mother, Amanda Grayson (Winona Ryder), was killed during the destruction of Vulcan.
Ironically, the movie ended with these changes in the ”TREK” universe still in place. Most fans might not have a problem with this. When it comes to time travel stories, they seemed to have a problem with the plot device known as ”the reset button”. Many fans certainly bitched a lot when this plot device was used at the end of ”Year of Hell”. Not only have I never had a problem with ”the reset button” plot device, I was not particularly happy that Abrams and the screenwriters failed to use it at the end of ”STAR TREK”. I do wonder if he or the next director plan to finally use it in the much ballyhooed sequel. I hope so. Because I do not exactly find this altered timeline particularly appealing. Especially since it featured the too rapid ascent of Kirk’s Starfleet career and Amanda Grayson’s premature death. I had feared that the movie would also affect another ”TREK” character – namely Lieutenant-Commander Tuvok (portrayed by Tim Russ) from ”VOYAGER”. Fortunately, Tuvok had been born on a Vulcan colony and not the planet, itself.
One last problem I had with the script’s altered timeline was the Spock/Uhura romance. Abrams and the screenwriters had decided to include this little romance, due to their discovery that Uhura once had a romantic interest in Spock in the early episodes of ”THE ORIGINAL SERIES”. If I must be frank, this new Spock/Uhura pairing lacked chemistry. Period. Neither Quinto or Saldaña are to blame. Both had the bad luck to attempt to create romantic chemistry between two characters that are basically introverted. They simply lacked balance as a couple. On the other hand, Saldaña and Pine were like a basket on fire in the scene that featured Kirk’s attempt to seduce Uhura upon their first meeting at a bar in Iowa.
The movie’s true strength seemed to be the characters originally created by Gene Roddenberry, and the new cast of actors hired to portray them. Both Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto did excellent jobs in creating the genesis of the Kirk/Spock friendship. They also managed to re-capture the essence of both characters without parodying William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy’s past performance. Zoe Saldaña’s Nyota Uhura seemed a little more fiery than Nichelle Nichols’ interpretation, but I thought she was great as the Communications officer. Her only misstep was that she had been forced to attempt some kind of romantic chemistry with Quinto. And as I had stated earlier, both were doomed to fail, due to the characters they were portraying. And so was Karl Urban as Leonard McCoy. Granted there were moments when he seemed to be aping DeForrest Kelly, but I had enjoyed his performances so much that I tolerated those moments. John Cho was deliciously cool and slightly sardonic as Sulu. And I thought it was a great touch that the screenwriters remembered Sulu’s penchant for fencing . . . and used it in a great fight scene. Anton Yelchin made a charming and energetic Chekov with probably a more authentic Russian accent than Walter Koenig. However, I found his role as a 17 year-old commissioned Starfleet officer rather questionable, considering that Chekov has never been portrayed as some kind of ”boy genius” like Wesley Crusher. I hate to say this, but I found Simon Pegg’s interpretation of Montgomery “Scotty” Scott disappointing and rather annoying. Pegg tried to infuse the character with a lot of broad humor. Unfortunately, it turned out to be too broad. His Scotty was so over-the-top that I found myself longing for another character to shoot him with a phaser.
I had seen ”THE ORIGINAL SERIES” first pilot, ”The Cage” only once in my life. Which means I have vague memories of the late Jeffrey Hunter’s portrayal of Christopher Pike, Kirk’s predecessor aboard the Enterprise. However, I thought that Bruce Greenwood’s portrayal of Pike in the movie to be definitely memorable. Clifton Collins Jr. gave admirable support as Nero’s henchman, Ayel. Both Winona Ryder and especially Ben Cross were believable as Spock’s parents – Amanda Grayson and Ambassador Sarek. I would not exactly call Nero one of the best villains in the TREK franchise. But I must admit that Eric Bana had given it his all with a performance that infused the character with a great deal of passion, malice and complexity without going over-the-top. Last, but not least, there was Leonard Nimoy portraying the late 24th century Spock. There were times when Nimoy seemed to be struggling with the role due to his age (he was at least 77 years old when the movie was filmed). Fortunately, these moments were very few and his Spock was a warm and more matured character who finally seemed to be a peace with his mixed heritage.
Daniel Mindel’s cinematography, along with the visual and special effects featured in the movie seemed pretty solid. However, I found nothing memorable or exciting about them. If the movie does manage to earn Oscar nominations, I will be very surprised. On the other hand, I rather liked Dawn Brown and Kevin Cross’ set designs – especially their work on the Enterprise. A good number of fans have complained that they were not an exact replica of the Enterprise’s interiors from the series. Frankly, I prefer these new interiors. As for Michael Giacchino’s original score . . . I have no memories of it. I found it that forgettable.
In the end, ”STAR TREK” is a pretty solid action film that is sure to provide a great deal of entertainment for moviegoers, this summer. It is not the best ”TREK” film I have seen. I believe that "STAR TREK III: THE SEARCH FOR SPOCK", "STAR TREK IV: THE VOYAGE HOME” and ”STAR TREK: FIRST CONTACT” are better. And as much as I liked Orci and Kurtzman’s script, I had a few problems with their handling of the time travel aspect of the story, along with the backgrounds of characters like Kirk and Chekov, along with the Spock/Uhura romance. And the story seemed like a slightly inferior remake of the ”STAR TREK VOYAGER” episode, ”Year of Hell”. But the cast, led by Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto, was first-rate, aside from Simon Pegg’s hammy performance. And in the end, I would say that J.J. Abrams . . . did a pretty good job.
Below is my review of the new political thriller, "STATE OF PLAY", starring Russell Crowe and Ben Affleck:
”STATE OF PLAY” Review
Aside from the Liam Neeson thriller, ”TAKEN”, I must admit that I have not found the movies released during the past three months that impressive. They have not been terrible. But I have harbored this feeling that I have been wallowing in a sea of mediocrity lately. Thankfully, this ended when I finally the new political thriller directed by Kevin Macdonald called, ”STATE OF PLAY”.
Based upon the critically acclaimed 2003 British miniseries of the same name, ”STATE OF PLAY” is about a Washington D.C. newspaper's investigation into the death of a young congressional aide named Sonia Baker (Maria Thayer) and centers around the relationship between leading journalist Cal McAffrey (Russell Crowe) and his old friend Robert Collins (Ben Affleck), a U.S. congressman on the fast track and Baker’s employer. When Congressman Collins learns of his aide’s death, he asks his old friend, McAffrey to investigate her death when it is labeled as a suicide. McAffrey and a blogger with his newspaper named Della Frye (Rachel McAdams) not only learn that Baker was Congressman Collins’ mistress, but there might be a connection between her death and the private military company that the congressman was investigating.
I have heard a few proclaim that the original British miniseries is superior to this version. If so, then it must have been one hell of a production. I have never seen the miniseries, but I must admit that I found this version of ”STATE OF PLAY” to be very impressive. Kevin Macdonald’s solid direction screenwriters Matthew Michael Carnahan, Tony Gilroy, Peter Morgan, and Billy Ray created a tight thriller filled with interesting glimpses into the press and Washington politics. I doubt that this film will ever be critically acclaimed like the British miniseries or earn any award nominations, but it was a solid, well-acted movie filled with first-rate performances. And its story – unlike previous movies I have recently watched – did not end on a disappointing note. The movie ended with an unexpected twist that surprised me.
Russell Crowe led the cast, portraying Washington Globe journalist, Cal McAffrey. I would not consider his role as interesting as the Ed Hoffman character from ”BODY OF LIES”, Bud White in ”L.A. CONFIDENTIAL”, Jeffrey Wigand in ”THE INSIDER” or his Oscar winning role in ”GLADIATOR” - Maximus Decimus Meridius. His Cal McAffrey is on the surface, an affable, yet slightly jaded reporter who becomes a relentless truth-seeker when pursuing a special story. In the case of Sonia Baker, McAffrey’s relentless investigation seemed rooted in his desire to extract his friend Collins from the gossip slingers over the latter’s affair with the aide and focus upon bringing down the private military company being investigated by Collins. Crowe is at turns relaxed and at the same time, intense and single-minded in his pursuit of journalistic truth.
Several years ago, I had found myself thinking that if there was ever a remake of the 1950 classic, ”SUNSET BOULEVARD”, who could portray the doomed Hollywood screenwriter, Joe Gillis. The first person that immediately came to my mind was Ben Affleck. Actress Nancy Olson once described William Holden at the time that particular movie was filmed as the typical handsome Hollywood leading actor . . . but with a touch of corruption that made his Joe Gillis so memorable. Frankly, I could say the same about Affleck. I saw him display this same trait in movies like ”BOUNCE” and ”HOLLYWOODLAND”. And I could see it in his performance as Congressman Robert Collins. Affleck managed to skillfully project Collins not only as a dedicated crusader who is determined to bring down the private military company with a congressional investigation, but also a flawed man who became sexually attracted to his beautiful aide, while struggling to control his anger at the knowledge of his wife Anne’s (Robin Wright Penn) past affair with McAffrey.
The rest of the cast included Rachel McAdams’ solid portrayal of a popular blogger turned junior political reporter named Della Frye, who finds herself in the midst of the career-making story and mentored by McAffrey. Helen Mirren’s Washington Globe editor Cameron Lynne is wonderfully splashy and strong, without being over-the-top. I could say the same for Jason Bateman’s performance as a bisexual fetish club promoter named Dominic Foy, who has the information that McAffrey and Frye need. Michael Berresse portrayed a mysterious hitman named Robert Bingham and he does a pretty good job. However, I must admit that I found his performance as a sociopath a little over-the-top . . . especially in his last scene. Although not as memorable as some of the other supporting cast, both Harry Lennix as a Washington D.C. cop and Jeff Daniels as Affleck’s congressional mentor gave solid support to the movie. And there is Robin Wright Penn, who portrayed the congressman’s wife, Anne Collins. Penn gave a complex performance as the politician’s wife who is not only hurt and betrayed by her husband’s infidelity, but wracked with guilt over her own past indiscretion with McAffrey, along with desire for him.
If you are expecting ”STATE OF PLAY” to be the next ”ALL THE PRESIDENT’S MEN” or ”SEVEN DAYS IN MAY”, you are going to be slightly disappointed. I have seen better quality political films than this movie. But I can honestly say that I still found ”STATE OF PLAY” to be a solid and entertaining movie filled with intelligence, humor and a strong and steady cast.
Since the 70th anniversary of original release of the 1939 version of "THE FOUR FEATHERS" is coming up this month, I decided to write a review of the film:
”THE FOUR FEATHERS” (1939) Review
There have been seven versions of A.E.W. Mason’s 1902 novel, ”The Four Feathers”. At least three of them were silent films. In 1939, British producer Alexander Korda released the first sound adaptation of the novel. This version was also the first one to be filmed in color. Directed by Korda’s brother, Zoltan Korda, ”THE FOUR FEATHERS” starred John Clements, June Duprez, Ralph Richardson and C. Aubrey Smith.
Not only was this version of ”THE FOUR FEATHERS” the first to feature both sound and color, it is regarded by many as the best adaptation of Mason’s novel. Fifteen years has passed since I last saw this movie. When I first saw it back in the mid-1990s, I was very impressed by this film. After seeing it fifteen years later (or more), I am still impressed. Somewhat. Granted, my admiration for the movie has dimmed slightly, but I still believe that it is a first-class movie.
Unlike Mason’s novel or the recent 2002 version, this version of ”THE FOUR FEATHERS” is not set right after General Charles Gordon’s death in 1885. Instead, the movie is set in 1895. Harry Faversham is an officer in the British Army and his regiment has been ordered to the Sudan to avenge the death of “Chinese” Gordon from ten years ago. On the eve of its departure, British officer Harry Faversham (Clements) resigns his commission. As a result, his three friends and fellow officers, Captain John Durrance (Richardson) and Lieutenants Burroughs (Donald Grey) and Willoughby (Jack Allen), express their contempt of his supposed cowardice by each sending him a white feather attached to a calling card. When his fiancée, Ethne Burroughs (Duprez), says nothing in his defense, he bitterly demands one more from her. She refuses, but he plucks one from her fan and leaves. While the officers go off to war, he admits to his old acquaintance Dr. Sutton (Frederick Culley) that he is a coward and must make amends. He departs for Egypt. There, he adopts the disguise of a native with the help of Dr. Harraz (Henry Oscar), choosing to play a despised mute Sangali to hide his lack of knowledge of the language.
What can I saw about ”THE FOUR FEATHERS”? For one, it is a beautiful looking film. I understand that it had been filmed in both Great Britain and in Sudan. And photographers Georges Périnal and Osmond Borradaile did a beautiful job in capturing the scope and color (via Technicolor) of both countries. It was not surprising for me to learn that the film had received an Academy Award nomination for Best Cinematography. I also found Miklos Rozsa’s score, Vincent Korda’s uncredited production design, W. Percy Day’s matte paintings, along with Godfrey Brennan and René Hubert’s costume designs impressive, as well.
But I am merely procrastinating. I have not discussed the meat of the movie – namely the story and the acting. Well, I might as well start with the first. R.C. Sherriff, Lajos Biro and Arthur Wimperis created a solid adaptation of Mason’s novel. They made a few changes. As I had stated before, they set the movie in the 1890s, enabling them to incorporate the British victory at the Battle of Omdurman in September 1898 into the plot. The novel was set around the mid 1880s. The character of Abou Fatma (featured in both the novel and in other versions, including the 2002 movie) is not this film. But these changes did not hurt the plot. ”THE FOUR FEATHERS” still turned out to be a rousing action-adventure film. When I first saw the movie back in the early 1990s, the patriotic jingoism surrounding the British Empire did not bother me at all. Fifteen years later, it did. Somewhat. I have seen plenty of old films from the 1930s and 1940s that painted the British Empire in a positive light. Unfortunately, this version of ”THE FOUR FEATHERS” did so at a level that sometimes came off as a little too heavy-handed for my taste. I suspect that the reason behind the three screenwriters’ decision to set the movie in the mid-to-late 1890s in order to allow the movie to feature an actual British imperialist victory – Omdurman - and a chance to wave the flag. The movie did question the idea of what constituted bravery or cowardice. But once Harry arrived in the Sudan, the topic never reared its ugly head again. Hmmm. Too bad.
The movie featured a solid, first-rate cast. John Clements gave an excellent performance as Harry Faversham, who is emotionally torn between his aversion to the idea of serving as a British officer and continuing his family’s military tradition. My only quibble with his performance was that I found his . . . ’portrayal’ of a mute Sangali exaggerated. The other first-rate performance featured in this movie came from Ralph Richardson, who portrayed Faversham’s best friend and romantic rival, Jack Durrance. I was especially impressed by how Richardson conveyed Jack’s desperation to hide his blindness from his command and his hopeless infatuation with Harry’s fiancée, Ethne Burroughs. Who, by the way, was portrayed by June Duprez. Ms. Duprez gave a charming performance. But aside from two scenes – one that featured her discovery of Harry’s resignation from the Army and her regret for pushing him away – Miss Duprez’s Ethne seemed to lack depth. Well known British character actor, C. Aubrey Smith gave a sprightly and funny performance as Ethne’s father, the irascible General Burroughs who continues to live in the past glories of his service during the Crimean War. In fact, the movie’s running joke turned out to be the General’s embellishments of his favorite war story – the Battle of Balaclava.
When one comes down to it, the 1939 version of ”THE FOUR FEATHERS” is a rousing and entertaining tale about a disgraced British Army officer who finds redemption through his private heroic acts to protect his former colleagues and friends during the last year of the Mahdist War. My main quibble with the movie centered around the script written by R.C. Sherriff, Lajos Biro and Arthur Wimperis. Granted, they did a first-rate job of adapting Mason’s novel. But aside from the first third of the movie in which the script briefly questioned society’s idea of bravery, the story seemed lack depth and in the end, came off as a propaganda film for the British Empire. However, Georges Périnal and Osmond Borradaile’s Technicolor photography of both England and the Sudan are absolutely breathtaking and deserving of an Oscar nomination. The movie featured a solid cast that included excellent performances by John Clements and Ralph Richardson. And Zoltan Korda kept it all together with his skillful direction that featured some excellent dramatic moments and great action.
I realize that many consider Korda’s version of ”THE FOUR FEATHERS” to be the best of the seven already made. This is an opinion that I cannot honestly share. It is also an opinion I have not harbored in the past decade. It is a little too jingoistic for my taste. And aside from the Harry Faversham and Jack Durrance characters, most of the other characters do not strike me as possessing enough depth. But it is a first-rate action-adventure film. And it is easy to see why so many fans still love it after seventy years.
Below is a list of my favorite movies set during the Victorian Age:
FAVORITE MOVIES SET DURING THE VICTORIAN AGE (1837-1901)
"The Four Feathers" (2002) - Shekhar Kapur directed this seventh and latest version of A.E.W. Mason's novel about disgraced British officer Harry Faversham's efforts to redeem himself for leaving the Army at the start of a war in the Sudan. Heath Ledger, Kate Hudson and Wes Bentley star.
"Wuthering Heights" (1939) - William Wyler directed this only version of Emily Bronte's brooding tale of a star-crossed romance on the Yorkshire moors to be set during the mid-19th century. Laurence Olivier, Merle Oberon and David Niven starred.
"The Great Train Robbery" (1979) - Michael Crighton directed and wrote this loose adaptation of an actual robbery of a train filled with gold headed for the Crimea in 1855. Sean Connery, Lesley Anne Down, and Donald Sutherland starred.
"Without a Clue" (1988) - Michael Caine and Ben Kingsley starred in this humorous spoof of the Sherlock Holmes legend, in which Holmes is a fictional character created by Dr. John Watson.
"An Ideal Husband" (1999) - Based upon Oscar Wilde's 1895 play about political corrpution and blackmail in high society, this movie starred Rupert Everett, Cate Blanchett, Minnie Driver, Jeremy Northam and Julianne Moore.
"Angels and Insects" (1995) - Philip Haas directed this drama based upon A.S. Byatt's novella about a British naturalist who marries into an aristocratic . . . with surprising results. Mark Rylance, Kristin Scott-Thomas and Patsy Kensit star.
"Stardust" (2007) - Based upon Neil Gaiman's fantasy novel set during 19th century England, this movie starred Charlie Cox, Claire Danes, Michelle Pfieffer and Robert DeNiro.
"Mrs. Brown" (1997) - Judi Dench and Billy Connolly star in this historical drama about a widowed Queen Victoria's relationship with her Scottish servant, John Brown. John Madden directed.
"Gaslight" (1944) - Ingrid Bergman won her first Oscar, while starring in this second version of Patrick Hamilton's play, "Angel Street". Charles Boyer is the sinister husband who attempts to drive her insane and Joseph Cotten portrays a suspicious Scotland Yard inspector. George Cukor directed.
"The Mudlark" (1950) - Jean Negulesco directed this version of Theodore Bonnet's novel about how Queen Victoria was brought out of her mourning for Prince Albert with the help of a homeless boy who managed to sneak into Windsor Castle. Irene Dunne, Andrew Ray, Finlay Currie and Alec Guinness starred.
”MIDNIGHT” (1939) Review
I believe that I can say in all honesty that I have been a major fan of some of Billy Wilder’s work for years. Movies like ”SUNSET BOULEVARD”, ”SOME LIKE IT HOT” and ”DOUBLE INDEMNITY” have been amongst my top favorite movies of all time. But all of these movies have not only been written or co-written by Wilder, but also directed by him. It is rare for me to say the same about any of the movies he had written before he had become a director. Rare, but not completely impossible. One such movie is the 1939 comedy classic, ”MIDNIGHT”.
Directed by Mitchell Leisen (whom Wilder detested), ”MIDNIGHT” told the story of an American showgirl named Eve Peabody, who finds herself stranded in Paris during a rainstorm. Tibor Czerny, a Hungarian taxi driver, takes pity on her and drives her around Paris in a fruitless attempt to help her find a new job. When Tibor offers Eve refuge at his apartment, she decides to reject his offer – despite being attracted to him – and gives him the slip. Eve manages to crash a Parisian socialite’s late night party, where she meets Georges Flammarion, a wealthy industrialist who is desperate to end his wife Helene’s affair with a wealthy playboy named Jacques Picot. Georges hires Eve to pose as Baroness Czerny, an American married to a wealthy Hungarian aristocrat, in order for her to seduce and lure Jacques away from Helene’s arms. Unfortunately for Eve, one of Tibor’s taxi colleagues discover her whereabouts and appears at the Flammarions’ estate as Eve’s husband, the Baron Czerny.
Thanks to Billy Wilder and Preston Surges, Mitchell Leisen had undeservedly earned a reputation as a hack director with a penchant for set décor, due to his homosexuality. In other words, they saw him as nothing more than a window dresser. This opinion of Leisen remained fixed by film critics for years, until recent years. Perhaps these same critics had finally remembered that Leisen had directed movies such as ”EASY LIVING”, ”HOLD BACK THE DAWN” and especially ”MIDNIGHT”, which I believe is one of the funniest screwball comedies from the 1930s. How could film critics ignore this elegant and hilarious tale of love, adultery and deception in pre-World War II France? Did they believe that someone other than Leisen had directed it? I do have to give kudos to Wilder and partner Charles Brackett for concocting this sharply funny tale of love and deception.
The cast of ”MIDNIGHT” is first-rate. Claudette Colbert brought great wit and charm to the role of the stranded Eve Peabody. As her performances in both ”MIDNIGHT” and 1942’s ”THE PALM BEACH STORY” attested, Colbert seemed to have a talent for portraying witty and charming golddiggers. Don Ameche portrayed Hungarian Tibor Czerny, Eve’s would-be suitor with an earnest aggressiveness that I found charming and occasionally disturbing. Ameche gave Tibor a tenacious air that struck me as slightly intense. Portraying Eve’s wealthy benefactor was the legendary John Barrymore in what was probably his last good role on film. He was very witty and effective as the manipulative, yet unhappy Georges Flammarion, who recruits Eve into a deception to win back his wife’s affections from her playboy lover. Mary Astor, who would reunite with Colbert in ”THE PALM BEACH STORY”, did a fabulous job as the jealous and acid-minded Helene Flammarion. Francis Lederer did a charming, yet competent job as Helene’s lover, but I did not find him particularly impressive. Also included in the cast was Rex O’Malley, who portrayed Helene’s faithful and witty companion, Marcel Renaud. O’Malley’s character struck me as a more comic version of a similar character he had portrayed in 1936’s ”CAMILLE”, starring Greta Garbo. Last but not least, the cast included famous columnist Hedda Hopper portraying a French socialite, whose late night party that Eve crashes.
”MIDNIGHT” has a lot to offer – even for today’s viewers. It had a competent director in Mitchell Leisen (despite his past reputation with critics), a first-rate cast led by Claudette Colbert and Don Ameche and a sharp and funny screenplay written by Billy Wilder and Charles Brackett. But what I really love about this movie is its setting – Parisian high society in the late 1930s. Thanks to certain contract directors like Josef von Sternberg and Ernst Lubitsch, Paramount Studios had developed a reputation for possessing an European infliction in its house style by the 1930s. And ”MIDNIGHT” possessed this infliction in droves, thanks to scenes that featured Eve crashing Madame Stephanie’s late night party, Tibor and his fellow taxi drivers’ search for Eve through the streets of Paris, Eve waking up in her new hotel suite in the nude, her meeting with Helene at a Parisian couture house and the dazzling party held by the Flammarions’ country estate, which included an entertaining Latin band. All of these scenes would strike any viewer as examples of the Lubitsch ”touch”. Yet these scenes and many others were photographed by the Utah-born Charles Lang and directed by Leisen, who was born in Michigan.
For a movie that is seventy years old, ”MIDNIGHT” has not really aged one bit. It is still a very entertaining film filled with superb comic acting and razor sharp wit. I certainly had fun watching it and I suspect that many others would feel the same.
Below is a gallery of photos from Peter Jackson's adaptation of the first novel of J.R. Tolkien's classic fantasy saga, "LORD OF THE RINGS" - "Fellowship of the Ring", which was released in 2001. The movie starred Elijah Woods, Viggo Mortensen, Sean Astin and Sir Ian McKellan:
"LORD OF THE RING - Fellowship of the Ring" (2001) Photo Gallery
”FREQUENCY” (2000) Review
Directed by Gregory Hoblit and written by Toby Emmerich, ”FREQUENCY” is an entertaining and intriguing time travel story about a New York City firefighter in 1969, who is able to communicate with his adult son in 1999, via a short wave radio. The movie starred Dennis Quaid, Jim Cavielzel, Elizabeth Mitchell, Andre Braugher, screenwriter Emmerich and Shawn Doyle.
A rare atmospheric phenomenon – the Aurora Borealis - allows a New York City firefighter named Frank Sullivan (Quaid) to communicate with his police detective son, John Sullivan (Cavielzel) 30 years in the future via short-wave radio. John uses this opportunity to warn Frank of his impending death in a warehouse fire, and manages to save the latter’s life. However, what he does not realize is that changing history has triggered a new set of tragic events, including the murder of his mother, Julia Sullivan (Mitchell). Father and son must now work together, 30 years apart, to find the murderer (Doyle) before he strikes so that they can change history - again.
Many have compared the plotlines of ”FREQUENCY” to the 1985 classic, ”BACK TO THE FUTURE”. I never understood why, since many time travel stories have dealt with different generations within a family interacting with each other – including two episodes of the television fantasy, ”CHARMED”. What made ”FREQUENCY” unique . . . at least for me is that neither of the two major characters actually travel through time – whether through the use of magic or a time machine. In fact, not one character does. The two major characters communicate with each other via a short wave radio and the atmospheric phenomenon, the Aurora Borealis. Frank and John Sullivan manage to change time . . . without leaving their respective time period. I have to admit that this was very clever of screenwriter Emmerich.
Another reason why I find the comparisons between ”FREQUENCY” and ”BACK TO THE FUTURE” hard to buy is the fact that ”FREQUENCY” is not only a time travel story, but also a thriller. In another clever plot twist, there is a serial killer loose called "the Nightingale” murdering nurses in 1969. The case is re-opened by John and his partner/mentor, an old friend of his father named Satch DeLeon (Braugher), when an old corpse is discovered. As it turned out, the Nightingale killings had stopped after three victims, following Frank’s death in a warehouse fire. But when John warns his father of his impending death, Frank manages to save his life and that of a teenage girl. And his wife Julia, who is a nurse, is at the hospital to save the life of the killer, a cop named Jack Shephard. An act that leads to her violent death at his hands – and the deaths of six other nurses. Realizing the consequences of their actions, Frank and John race to save Julia’s life and the lives of Shephard’s other victims – and expose the cop as a serial murderer.
I must say that I ended up being very impressed by Emmerich’s script. He wrote an emotional and suspenseful story filled with family drama, fantasy and suspense. He took an original approach to time travel by having the two main characters travel through time via an object – namely a shorthand radio – without actually leaving their respective periods in time. The only misstep in Emmerich’s script occurred near the end in which featured Shepard’s attempt to kill members of the Sullivan family in both 1969 and 1999 – two incidents that cut back and forth within one sequence. I understood the killer’s attempt to commit murder in 1969. After all, he probably wanted to get even with Frank for exposing him as a serial killer, by murdering Julia. That episode ended with Frank blowing away Shephard’s hand with a shotgun before the latter escaped. But he came back to the Sullivan house, thirty years later to kill John. That simply did not make any sense to me . . . and it almost ruined the sequence for me. Not even Gregory Hoblit’s first-class direction or the competent editing of David Rosenbloom could elevate the scene.
When Hoblit took on the job as director of ”FREQUENCY”, he had difficulty in casting the two leads. Sylvester Stallone was originally considered for the role of Frank Sullivan. But Stallone pulled out over a dispute regarding his paycheck. In the end, Dennis Quaid won the role. And he turned out to be the perfect Frank – the boisterous and charming firefighter who loved his family and baseball. He managed to create a strong chemistry with the talented and surprisingly dark-haired Elizabeth Mitchell, who gave a charming performance as his wife, Julia. And despite the fact that both actors came from Texas (although Mitchell was born in Los Angeles), Quaid and Mitchell managed to create a convincing Queens accent. Well . . . almost. Andre Braugher gave solid support as Satch, Frank’s close friend and John’s mentor. He also had a delicious moment on screen when he discovered that Frank had been telling the truth about communicating with John through time. Screenwriter Toby Emmerich gave a funny performance as John’s best friend, Gordo Hersch. I also have to give kudos to Shawn Doyle for portraying a convincingly scary killer without any signs of acting histrionics. And of course, there is James Cavielzel, who did an excellent job of portraying Frank and Julia’s brooding and slightly obsessive adult son, John Sullivan. And although Cavielzel comes from the Pacific Northwest, his Queens accent turned out to be slightly better than Quaid and Mitchell’s. Hoblit managed to gather quite a cast and he did an excellent job with them.
Despite my misgivings over the film’s climatic action sequence featuring Shephard’s two attacks upon the Sullivan family, I must admit that I enjoyed ”FREQUENCY” very much. Screenwriter Toby Emmerich created a first-class and original screenplay. And director Gregory Hoblit did an excellent job of conveying Emmerich’s story with a group of talented actors led by Dennis Quaid and James Cavielzel, and a competent crew that included film editor David Rosenbloom. Not only is ”FREQUENCY” is a compelling science-fiction story about time travel and the consequences; it is also a suspenseful thriller and heartwarming family drama. I highly recommend it.