Reviews

Okay, but overrated, unevenly paced, and very slow at times. I enjoy musicals (both staged and filmed versions) and I'm usually in awe of old Hollywood musicals--especially those spectacular MGM productions, but I'm very surprised that West Side Story was ranked by the AFI as the second greatest movie musical of all time, right after Singing in the Rain.

I realize that West Side Story was made in 1961, after the golden age of Hollywood musicals and also at time when racial tensions were running high. I also realize that some people today might object to the ethnically-incorrect casting of the main characters and that Rita Moreno was the only Puerto Rican actor/actress in the movie, but I still appreciate the fact that this film tackled issues of race and immigration, which are still relevant today. I also thought that Natalie Wood, Rita Moreno, and Russ Tamblyn were all great in the film.

My main problem with West Side Story is that it's interminable at 2.5 hours (they even have an "intermission") and would have been much more exciting and compelling if they had cut 30 minutes out. The dance numbers are enjoyable and very modern and edgy for 1961, but some of the slow scenes drag and don't add much to the storyline. Also, the well-known songs are good, but some of the music is forgettable, cacophonous, and downright annoying. I realize that that music was supposed to be modern and challenging, but I was underwhelmed.

If you're a fan of Gary Cooper, Ernest Hemingway, or both men (or just want to learn more about modern American literature and/or American film history), you'll enjoy this documentary about their unlikely yet fascinating friendship. These two iconic men were total opposites in appearance, personality, temperament, and political views, but were able to forge an enduring friendship based on mutual respect and admiration (though Cooper seemed less starstruck by Hemingway than Hemingway was by Cooper, who exemplified the ideal American male and ideal American hero at the time and was the inspiration for the Robert Jordan character in For Whom the Bell Tolls). Imagine such a friendship between two luminaries in today's polarized and cynical society. This documentary does a great job of exploring the parallels in the two men's lives, and how their respective careers peaked and declined around the same time, and how both also made huge comebacks around the same time that redeemed their careers and sealed their legacies.

Both Cooper and Hemingway are shown as complex, multi-dimensional, and thinking men who were both rugged and sophisticated, outdoorsy and cosmopolitan, and masculine and sensitive, but the differences between the two are also explored. Cooper was calm and friendly, had grace under pressure, grew up on a ranch in Montana but went to boarding school in England, was handsome and well-liked, and was the biggest movie star at the time, but didn't act like a star. Hemingway, on the other hand, was boisterous, liked to tell stories that weren't even true, drank too much, didn't like people, wasn't always nice, and was often jealous of other writers and feuded with them. Honestly, each of these guys could qualify as "the Most Interesting Man in the World." Equally impressive as the men and their achievements were the strong women they were married to (yes, both men had affairs, but I give them credit for being men who were not afraid of strong women).

I enjoyed the interviews with both Cooper's and Hemingway's contemporaries, most of whom are now gone, as well as with their children and the children of their peers. The only reason why I didn't give this documentary 10 stars is that it's a bit long (slightly over 2 hours) and I didn't care for some of the modern special effects, but I still highly recommend it.

Interesting, but also disappointing. Fails to live up to its potential. Needs subtitles/closed captioning because it's very hard to understand most of the actors, who speak fast and with accents. I wanted to see Blonde Venus because it's a pre-Code film and features a very young Dickie Moore (from Our Gang and many films from the 1930s and 1940s). I can't say that I'm a big fan of either Marlene Dietrich or Cary Grant, and neither of them impressed me in this film.

I've never understood Dietrich's appeal, but after seeing Blonde Venus, I'm convinced that she was the least attractive female star in Hollywood during the 1930s and that she absolutely needed Josef von Sternberg's famous "butterfly lighting" to look halfway decent on screen. Frankly, it was painful to see how the men in the film were often shadowy figures in the dark, while Dietrich was bathed in glamour lighting in a conspicuous effort by von Sternberg to mask Dietrich's notoriously round face and bulbous nose. In addition, I was shocked by how horrible her singing was (extremely low and often pitchy voice) and felt that her three musical numbers in the film were an excessive vanity project for her.

As for Cary Grant, this was one of his earliest roles, but he was completely unconvincing in his role as a wealthy man who falls in love with Dietrich's character and helps her. Sure, this was before he developed his screen persona as the debonair and comedic leading man, but I couldn't believe how stiff, detached, and utterly unemotional he was in the scenes where he was supposed to be enamored of Dietrich's character. He sounded like he was more upset with her than in love with her.

The story about motherly devotion had the potential to be more interesting, so I give this film 5 stars.

When I first saw For Whom the Bell Tolls, I thought it was overlong and overrated. Since then, I've decided to re-evaluate the film and have decided that the film can be summed up as follows.

PROS:

(1) Hemingway and Cooper were friends, and Hemingway wrote the Robert Jordan character with Cooper in mind and handpicked Cooper for the role. Sure, it would have been nicer if this film had gotten made when he was younger, but it's hard to imagine anyone other than Cooper playing Jordan.

(2) This was only Cooper's second color film in a long and illustrious film career that began in the silent era, and Bergman's first color film. It's a treat to see both stars in Technicolor, and both of them are utterly luminous in their close-ups (I'd say Cooper actually has a slight edge here since, unlike Bergman, he didn't benefit from a soft focus effect, and it's hard to imagine another leading man of this era who was better suited for close-ups than Cooper was, even though he was in his 40s here and a little past his prime).

(3) Some reviewers felt that Cooper and Bergman had no chemistry, but I strongly disagree. The two were having an affair while working on this film. If Bergman seems like she's gushing over Cooper, she probably wasn't merely acting.

(4) If Cooper seems wooden to some people, he's supposed to be playing a stoic character who exemplifies grace under pressure, but is also sensitive, idealistic, and quietly romantic at the same time.

(5) It's hard not to notice that Cooper's look in the film must have been the inspiration for Indiana Jones, which makes me think that this film was much more influential than I had previously thought it was.

CONS:

(1) This didn't need to be a nearly 3-hour movie, and I wish it were 30 minutes shorter.

(2) I appreciated the supporting actors and initially liked their performances, but when I re-evaluated the film, I felt that they were over-acting and seemed like caricatures (and no, I'm not referring to their make-up; I'm referring to their acting).

(3) I wish there would be a properly restored version of this film.

For Whom the Bell Tolls is not without its faults, but I give credit to Old Hollywood and Sam Wood for even making a film that is this faithful to a novel--so faithful that it moves at a glacial pace at times, but I also think that people had longer attention spans back then and did not need instant gratification like people do now.

Sweet. Slow. Okay. I appreciated the film as a time capsule, a slice of Americana, and a glimpse into Quaker life during the Civil War. I liked the idyllic and colorful cinematography and set design, as well as the acting. Gary Cooper is perfect in the role of a Quaker father who is nice, gentle, and restrained, but also slightly mischievous and badass for a Quaker. I also liked Dorothy McGuire in the role of the mother and pre-Psycho Anthony Perkins in the role of the son. I even liked the character development, but unfortunately, it took way too long for anything exciting to happen in the movie. When it does, it's over before you know it and the movie ends rather abruptly. It's a sweet film, but would have benefited from better editing.

I enjoyed Pride of the Yankees and thought both Gary Cooper and Teresa Wright were very believable as Lou Gehrig and his wife. Cooper was 41 years old when this film was made and too old to play a professional baseball player, and he apparently knew it and wasn't particularly interested in the role at first, but the director didn't want anyone else but Cooper to play Gehrig. I can see why. Even though Cooper had visibly started to show his age after 40 (like most other leading men of that era), at least he was still slim (slimmer than Gehrig was actually) and had that handsome yet honest face that was perfect for likable "everyman hero" type characters. It's unfortunate that this film couldn't have been made when Cooper was younger and more athletic, but then again, there probably was no need to turn Gehrig's life story into a movie until after his tragic death in 1941.

Fortunately, the movie is less about Gehrig's athletic skills and more about his relationship with his German immigrant parents, especially his overbearing mother, and his wife. It also deals with his illness, but doesn't spend that much time on it and feels very rushed toward the end, which is the main reason why I can't give this movie 9 or 10 stars. Considering that Gehrig died young from ALS and that his name has become synonymous with the disease, I expected this film to spend a little more time showing how the illness affected him. It does show him getting his diagnosis and struggling with simple activities, but that's about it and then ends with the famous farewell speech. While the speech scene is well done and very moving, I wanted to see more afterwards and felt that the movie ended too abruptly.

Still, Pride of the Yankees is one of the greatest sports biopics ever made and one of director Sam Wood's best movies.

Okay, but overlong and overrated. Lovely cinematography. Great score. I liked Joan Fontaine as Mrs. De Winter and Judith Anderson as Mrs. Danvers, but did not care for Laurence Oliver's performance as Maxim de Winter at all. I never realized how horribly he mumbled until I saw Rebecca and, after seeing it, couldn't believe he was considered one of the most acclaimed actors of the 20th century. You really need subtitles/closed captioning to understand him in this film. I found Olivier nearly impossible to understand without subtitles--and not necessarily because of his accent, but because he constantly mumbles, merges words together, and is basically incoherent except when he's angry and shouting. Plus, he's totally detached and unemotional and speaks too fast in a cold tone even in the scenes where he's supposed to be falling in love with Joan Fontaine's character. Olivier's performance was very disappointing, and I think just about any other major leading man of that era could have played the role of Maxim de Winter better than he did. At least they would have been more coherent.

I give this film 5 stars for the cinematography and gothic atmosphere, but it's not one of Hitchcock's best.

Poignant. Bittersweet. Emotional without being overly melodramatic. I enjoyed The Best Years of Our Lives and thought the cast (especially Teresa Wright) and William Wyler's directing were excellent, but the film didn't need to be three hours long. I think it could have been 20 minutes shorter and still had the same emotional impact and gravitas.

Also, I appreciated the fact that the movie was tackling some very serious and difficult issues that World War II veterans faced as they returned home and re-entered society, but while it handled issues like disability, PTSD, employment challenges, and relationships with women and family with great emotional sensitivity and honesty, it didn't do the same for the issue of alcoholism. I couldn't help but notice that alcoholism was always lurking in the background, but it was shown as a mildly funny or potentially embarrassing problem, rather than a serious, destructive addiction. I think the movie meant to show it as a serious problem, but that's not how it came across. Still, I enjoyed the film and highly recommend it, so I give it 8 stars.

Boring, interminable, and more talk than action. I remember enjoying this film when I first saw it as a teenager, but it has not aged well. The beginning is too slow, and it takes too long for anything exciting to get started. Whenever there is any action, there are too many interruptions that were probably meant to be funny, but are just annoying, unnecessary, and interrupt the flow of the action. The action is mostly guns, explosions, and destruction--typical of big-budget Hollywood action movies of that era. As someone who had gotten used to the faster-paced Hong Kong action films of the '90s, which had silly plots, but at least had non-stop action and incredible fight choreography and stunts that you didn't see in Hollywood movies at the time, this one was simply somniferous for me. Not even Alan Rickman could save this movie for me, but at least he made a good villain, so I give this 1 star.

I thought I was very familiar with Gary Cooper's filmography, but I had never heard of The Wedding Night until I came across it on Amazon Prime. I watched it out of curiosity, expecting it to be nothing more than a typical screwball comedy or melodrama from the 1930s, but ended up thoroughly enjoying it and wondering why this film had fallen off the radar--even for most Cooper fans.

I won't summarize the plot here since many other reviewers have already done that, but I was pleasantly surprised by how sensitive and nuanced this film was toward male-female relationships and impossible love considering that it was made in 1935. I give credit to King Vidor for his direction and also to Cooper, whose looks, facial expressions, and demeanor were perfect for the role of the sophisticated married writer from the city who falls for the simple Polish country girl who is engaged to a Polish man she doesn't love (and the Polish man is simply marrying her for her dowry and land). The Polish gal falls for Cooper's character as well, and you can totally understand why when you see his charm and sensitivity in this film. Most other leading men of this era were very gruff and brusque toward women in their demeanor and the way they talked, but Cooper was one of the few (or maybe one of the first) of his era who could be sweet, chivalrous, and vulnerable toward women in his roles.

Most people associate Cooper with westerns and/or films from much later in his career, such as High Noon, and think of him as the "strong, silent type," but he was much more than that and was far more versatile than many of his contemporaries were. He had plenty of roles in the 1930s in which he was chatty, charming, funny, romantic, and sensitive. His role in The Wedding Night is one of those roles. If you want a change of pace from his laconic acting style in westerns or just want to see what he was like when he was younger (before he established his heroic screen persona), I highly recommend this one.

If I'm not mistaken, I thought I read somewhere that this was Henry Hathaway's favorite film of his. If that's true, I can totally see why. It's stunning and highly innovative for a film that came out in 1935 (same year as The Lives of a Bengal Lancer, another Henry Hathaway film starring Gary Cooper). It's haunting, ethereal, metaphysical, melodramatic, escapist, surrealistic, and simply beautiful to look at with exquisite cinematography and lighting. The scene of Cooper in a tuxedo walking down that beautiful, grand hallway with all those paintings is stunning with its striking vertical lines complemented by his long and lean body.

Peter Ibbetson is an unusual film that may seem maudlin or melancholy to some people, but it's a must-see movie if you appreciate cinematography, metaphysical storylines, and blurred lines between reality and dreams. As for the actors, Ann Harding was okay, although I thought she was too washed-out looking even for an actress from the 1930s and not attractive enough to star with Gary Cooper, who looks dashing in period costumes here and makes his co-star look, well, even more washed-out and less attractive. Some people might say Cooper is stiff in this film, but he plays a Victorian-era architect, so I thought his acting was actually spot-on.

Painfully slow. Not much of a plot. Very little action for an "adventure" film. I normally love classic films (including films from the 1930s, Gary Cooper films, and Henry Hathaway films), but I think The Lives of a Bengal Lancer is one of the weakest films in Cooper's strong filmography. It's not his fault because he was fine in it (as were the other two male stars, Franchot Tone and Richard Cromwell). Although the story has all the makings of a good adventure film (exotic location, conflict among military personnel, and three male leads--just like the vastly superior Beau Geste from 1939), the plot simply wasn't strong enough for a two-hour movie, and nothing happens until the last 10-15 minutes of the film. When the three men break out of prison and Cooper jumps from rooftop to rooftop (in an early version of a Tom Cruise-type stunt) and then commandeers a machine gun, that's when things get interesting and exciting.

Unfortunately, it's too little, too late. The action is short-lived and takes place near the end of the film. Also, Cooper's excellent and well-known riding skills were way underutilized in this film. You see him riding, but only for a few seconds here and there. If you want to see a better adventure film from the 1930s starring Cooper, I recommend the Beau Geste and The Real Glory, both of which were released in 1939. Even The Plainsman, which came out in 1936 (only a year after The Lives of a Bengal Lancer) is far more entertaining, despite its slow start and historical inaccuracies.

Cooper starred in five other Henry Hathaway films besides The Lives of a Bengal Lancer: Now and Forever, Peter Ibbetson, Souls at Sea, The Real Glory, and Garden of Evil. I would say that all of them are far more enjoyable than The Lives of a Bengal Lancer.

At least the ending was good. For that reason, I give it 5 stars.

Unfortunately, I have to agree with the other reviewers who were not impressed with this movie. I remember thinking it was enjoyable enough when I saw it in the movie theater in 2016. It's colorful, it's a ride, and it's a love letter to L. A. But after seeing it again recently, I realized just how utterly mediocre and overrated it is. Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling are likable actors, but neither one of them can sing or dance well enough to be starring in a musical (and it doesn't really matter if Ryan Gosling sang and danced when he was a kid because that was a long, long time ago). Frankly, it was painful for me to listen to their thin, breathy, and barely audible (and in Emma Stone's case, very raspy) singing voices. As for the dancing, their dancing wasn't anything special or difficult. I wasn't expecting to see dancing on the level of Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers or Gene Kelly and Cyd Charisse, but I was underwhelmed and fell asleep. It appears that most of the rabid fans of this movie are fans of Ryan Gosling and/or Emma Stone and/or people who have not seen proper musicals with better singing or dancing.

I admire Hollywood's attempt to revive the big, colorful musicals of Hollywood's Golden Age. For that reason, I give it 1 star.

1939 is known as the greatest year in the history of Hollywood--and for good reason. The Wizard of Oz, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Gone With the Wind, Ninotchka, Stagecoach, and dozens of other great and influential films were all released in 1939. In addition to those films, two adventure films starring Gary Cooper came out that year. While they're not as well-known as the top-grossing films listed above, they're still very entertaining and worth checking out. Those films are Beau Geste and The Real Glory. Both are set in exotic locations, involve military conflict with natives, and feature Cooper as part of a trio of men (in Beau Geste, he plays one of three brothers).

I enjoyed both films and thought Beau Geste had a more compelling story, but was more impressed by the action sequence in The Real Glory. Cooper is very likeable and perfectly cast here as an Army doctor who does it all: he gives cholera vaccine shots, carries sick and injured people, rafts down a river, fights the bad guys in a jungle, and throws dynamites. His character seems like an early, more polished version of Indiana Jones, and Cooper is great at playing heroes who are smart, caring, earnest, rugged, and badass all at once. David Niven and Broderick Crawford also star in the film, but Cooper has such a strong screen presence that I felt bad for the other actors, as well as the actress who plays the love interest. The only reason why I give this film 9 stars (instead of 10) is that it ends very abruptly, but that's not unusual for older films.

Although Beau Geste is not as well known as Gone with the Wind or The Wizard of Oz, you can see why 1939 is widely considered the greatest year in the history of Hollywood.

I haven't seen any of the other Beau Geste films, so I can't make any comparisons, but I thoroughly enjoyed this version. For a movie made in 1939, the action sequences and cinematography were impressive, especially during the scenes where the Arabs attack the fort and you can see the beautiful texture of the sand dunes in what was supposed to be the Sahara (but the film was actually shot in the Mojave Desert in California). Plus, the film had a little bit of everything--mystery, adventure, action, male-bonding, romance, etc. Ultimately, it's a story about the bond between brothers, loyalty, gallantry, and honor, but it's not just about how brave the men are--it also shows their vulnerability. Gary Cooper and Ray Milland looked very convincing as brothers (most of the action involves them), and it was a treat to see a very young Donald O'Connor playing Gary Cooper's character as a boy, as well as a young Susan Hayward playing Ray Milland's love interest.

I appreciate that Design for Living was a pre-Code movie that was ahead of its time in showing a menage-a-trois, but it was not as light, breezy, or funny as I had expected it to be. Instead, I found it clunky, disjointed, and unevenly paced. It skips over way too many things (i.e., the three main characters meet on a train and, the next thing you know, they enter into their "gentlemen's agreement; I couldn't tell what the two guys saw in Miriam Hopkins' character; or why she couldn't decide between the two guys, played by Gary Cooper and Frederic March). Meanwhile, certain scenes were needlessly long and not very interesting. On top of everything else, there was no music to help the pace or set the mood.

Even though Gary Cooper didn't have much experience with comedies at this stage of his career, he had star quality and a screen presence that neither Frederic March nor Miriam Hopkins could match. Plus, it's always a treat to watch the young Cooper in his more loquacious roles from the 1930s--before he became the "strong, silent type." For that reason, I give the film 5 stars.

Confusing, meandering plot. Uneven pace. Too many slow scenes with supporting characters that don't move the story along. The General Died at Dawn is famous for the line "We could have made wonderful music together." Well, the film could have been wonderful. It could have been a great vehicle for Gary Cooper. It could have been a great adventure film from the 1930s similar to Beau Geste or The Real Glory--two films starring Cooper that came out in 1939.

Unfortunately, it's not any of those things and falls flat. It has a promising beginning: an exotic setting, warlords, an oppressed population, and Cooper looking like a dashing precursor to Indiana Jones with his fedora hat, pet monkey, and panache. There's also an interesting train sequence that is vaguely reminiscent of something you would see in a Hitchcock film, like The Lady Vanishes. I would say the first third, or even the first half, of the movie is enjoyable. In general, there's always the potential for danger or excitement, but it doesn't quite materialize or peters out very quickly. Overall, it's very disappointing and easily one of the weakest films in Cooper's impressive and varied filmography.