|
Post by AD on Aug 19, 2011 21:44:59 GMT -5
BLOOD AND SAND (Rouben Mamoulian, 1941) Netflix description: I guess after the success of The Mark of Zorro Twentieth Century Fox decided that director Rouben Mamoulian should immediately re-team with stars Tyrone Power and Linda Darnell in another remake of a silent-era hit with a Spanish flavor. What they actually got was not another swashbuckling yarn, but a decidedly more complex and thoughtful drama. Not necessarily better, but more ambitious, at least. Blood and Sand is basically the story of the rise and fall of a celebrity bullfighter, not unlike modern day celebrity biopics such as Walk the Line. But it also shines a light on the fickle and bloodthirsty nature of celebrity worshippers. The fact that bullfighting is basically just the systematic torture and eventual slaughter of an animal for the purposes of entertainment doesn’t seem to bother the filmmakers all that much, but I guess they were just concerned with other things. With this material Power got to display more range than he did in his star making turn as Zorro. He abandons his heroic image to play a man who is not particularly likable at all. He’s an arrogant, vein, selfish, illiterate philanderer, as a matter of fact. That Power chose this role as his follow up to Zorro speaks loudly about his desire to be taken seriously as an actor, and not just a star. I’d say he represented himself quite admirably in that respect. With the main character being such a butt hole it’s clear that the film’s sympathies lie with the women whom he wrongs. I think the reason Blood and Sand doesn’t quite pack the punch that it could have is precisely because those women, particularly his wife and mother, aren’t afforded the screen time to become fully three dimensional characters. We hear them describe the pain they feel when they’re forced to watch him fight a bull, but we don’t get to actually see it for ourselves. The director is more interested in showing the spectacle of the fight than the inner emotions of these women. (The only time Linda Darnell ever really has the spotlight to herself is in an inexplicable scene wherein she prays to a statue of the Virgin Mary, and the statue actually responds.) As a result I feel it’s lacking in a real emotional center. The film has a brain, but not enough heart. But it’s still good, just not as good as it could have been.
|
|
Deleted
I have made 0 posts
Location:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2011 0:56:26 GMT -5
Anyway... you should see Police Story 1 and 2. Jackie Chan at his best. Great stunt work, great chase scenes (including one the was ripped off practically shot-for-shot in your beloved Bad Boys 2), and great Buster Keaton style physical comedy (Jackie's greatest strength, in my opinion). I'm actually surprised you skipped over Police Story Harry. Those were the first movies I rented once I got into my Chan movie kick a couple of years ago. But at least you're going to watch them, some people only know him from Rush Hour, which is really sad. Other Jackie Chan films you should check out: - Project A + Project A: Part II. Some of his best stunt work. They usually play it from time to time on G4 & IFC so check your listings. - Armour of God (aka Operation Condor 2: The Armour of the Gods) - This is tied with the first Police Story as my favorite Jackie Chan movies ever. Unbelievable stunts, a story that is pretty much a rip off of Indiana Jones, what could be better! - Dragons Forever - The movie is ok, but the last fight is one of his best. Totally worth watching just for that alone. - Twin Dragons - Very funny movie. The stunts are pretty good, but the movie is hilarious. Last time I remember, it was Netflix Instant Streaming. I would like to add that Police Story is the greatest action movie of all time. At least in my book.
|
|
|
Post by AD on Aug 21, 2011 16:51:28 GMT -5
WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION (Billy Wilder, 1957) Netflix descrpiption: Witness for the Prosecution is a film that relies very heavily on an unexpected twist ending to win the audience’s approval. In my experience I find that such films - The Usual Suspects, and The Sixth Sense, to name the two most talked about modern examples - never hold up well to repeat viewings. After the shock wears off and you know what to expect it‘s too easy to pick apart the little details that don‘t add up or seemed too contrived. That being said, this particular film is so powerfully acted - particularly by the great Charles Laughton - that I suspect repeat viewings would still result in a certain amount of pleasure. But back to the twist for a moment: I don’t want to say too much for fear that I might reveal the wrong detail that will allow a future viewer to piece it together prematurely. What I will say is that I believe it works because the writers (Billy Wilder and Harry Kurnitz, adapting the original play by Agatha Christie) adhere strictly to the perspective of one character. When the big reveal comes we buy it because we have only been allowed to see what he has seen and learn what he knows about the case. Thus it is believable that another character, whose perspective we have been denied, might have been holding back certain information or hiding their true agenda. For an example of how poor use of perspective can ruin a twist ending see the recent Johnny Depp/Angelina Jolie shit-fest The Tourist. (Actually, don‘t waste your time on that movie, just take my word for it.) The situation in Witness is just as contrived, but the storytellers earn the suspension of disbelief. Now back to the acting: Tyrone Power receives top billing, and Marlene Dietrich plays the titular character, but this is Charles Laughton’s movie from beginning to end. He gets to demonstrate both his impeccable comic timing, and the authoritative and eloquent line reading for which he was acclaimed throughout his career on both stage and screen. If you believe that the history film acting can be broken into the categories of pre-Brando, and post-Brando, then Laughton’s theatrical style surely falls into the former category. I have no interest in getting into which style is inherently better, but I think most people would agree that Mr. Laughton was as fine a practitioner of his particular form of performing who ever lived.
|
|
|
Post by Her 69 Eyes on Aug 21, 2011 17:51:05 GMT -5
^
I've heard of the film because of Billy Wilder's involvement but I had no idea who starred in it. Dietrich & Laughton? Ohhh man, I'm there. How can one movie contain so much awesome?
I've been enjoying your reviews because I'm very unfamiliar with Tyrone Power. I recently discovered Rouben Mamoulian, though, and I really love his early sound films - he's credited with the first use of voice over, among other things. Historically they're fascinating to watch. Very stylish, too. An old teacher of mine taught a night class on his films over the summer.
|
|