Reviews

This fine example of Film Noir differs from many in that the film is rather more plot-driven than character-driven. This is not to say that the characters are flat, but simply that the mechanics of the film focus first on telling the story. As such, you don't get unforgettable personas common to many top-tier noir films (like The Big Heat or Double Indemnity for instance). However, what you do get is an intriguing picture that keeps your interest throughout its 99 minute runtime.

The cinematography is classic noir, full of deep shadows and interesting compositions. Another fairly uncommon aspect of a movie with these elements is that it continually alternates between very seedy, grimy locations and high society venues, providing an interesting contrast in social spheres, but maintaining the same dark, foreboding mood in both.

Although the cast is not full of top-billing names, the principle characters are solid and fit well within the story. Of course it is fascinating to see Lucille Ball in a pre-Lucy role, playing a straight part to good effect (for another good early role, see "Lured"). Stevens, while occupying the part of the leading man, gives an appropriate if still forgettable performance. Bendix and Webb combine with very different roles to make good antagonists, while the little-known Cathy Downs glows with a classic femme-fatale beauty.

All-in-all a good movie that sparkles with noir lighting in addition to a good plot which should hold your interest throughout. Recommended.

This is another example of a fine 50's B western -- one which in many respects outranks a number of it's "big brother" cousins.

The action begins with Larson (McMurray) escaping from a deputy transporting him to prison for a bank robbery. Larson's kid brother shows up unannounced in the midst of the action and gets fatally wounded in an exchange of gunfire with the deputy as they are escaping. They manage to stow away on a train, where we find out some of the history of these men and their motivations. Along the way the brother dies and Larson takes the alias of Kincaid while plotting how to evade the law, which is now seeking him for murder (of the deputy, which his brother shot). Kincaid ends up in a small town and in short order gets involved in various ways with the locals while needing to escape the roadblocks before the wanted poster with his picture arrives!

On the surface, this is pretty standard fare for a western. It stands apart from the typical film of its genre, however, because of the thoughtful way the characters in the story are handled. One gets a sense of realism, not so much from the clothing or set designs, etc., but from the way the characters in the story respond to circumstances and each other. The people in this story are real, genuine, believable people -- unlike the stereotypical "invincible, tough as nails" western heroes that dominated the genre in this period, or the mysterious, aloof personas found in the spaghetti westerns that followed. For example, there is a barroom fight in the film with the clichéd "one man vs. the group of bad guys". However, instead of the whole group mobbing the protagonist and beating him to a pulp, they allow the fight to be one-on-one between the two who are truly in conflict, preserving their own dignity and that of the ones actually fighting. That is not to say that they have no involvement or investment, but what part they do play is sensible and believable.

It is this interaction and sincere character development along with an engaging plot which makes this a movie that is not only a decent way to pass time, but a true pleasure to watch. Oh, and it has a fun early part by James Coburn and a thrilling climax, too. And if you watch this and enjoy it, I would also highly recommend another similarly forgotten B-western of this era: "Gun the Man Down" with James Arness. I give both this and the aforementioned title a solid 7.5. Easily recommended.

This little B-Western with James Arness in one of his last non-Gunsmoke starring roles seems to have been heretofore almost forgotten, judging by the lack of ratings and reviews here. I recently happened upon it on Netflix and decided to give it a try. While perhaps not deserving of a spot among the great westerns, it surprised me because it was truly quite good and deserves more attention than it's received.

The plot, in short, involves Arness as one of three men who decide to hold up a bank. Arness is injured in the robbery, and subsequently left behind by his compatriots and, reluctantly, by his girl as well (Angie Dickinson, looking radiant in her first billable role). After being caught, convicted, and serving time for his part in the hold-up, he goes seeking his "friends" and his girl, bent on revenge.

The biggest thing that struck me about this little "BATJAC" western was the steady, deliberate pacing of the story and the focus on characters more so than on shoot-em-up, chase-em-down action. There's more tension than action (in fact, one could legitimately call it a suspense film), and I appreciated the refreshing change of pace from most B westerns (or westerns in general, for that matter). Besides, at a slim 74 minutes, it simply can't drag on forever.

This is a very thoughtful western in many respects. Characters are given much more life than you might expect. In particular, we see some interesting interaction between Sheriff Morton (Emile Meyer) and his deputy (Harry Carey, Jr.). The sheriff, who obviously is well past his gunslinging years, handles violence in his town sagely, keeping a close watch on events, while not putting himself in a position where his age would certainly compromise his life or his ability to do his job.

Again, it's not a perfect movie, but I was quite pleasantly surprised, and it's probably one of the best b-westerns I've seen. I recommend it.

This movie is tough to categorize. The plot of the film itself is pretty dull and pointless (at least it was to me). In short: Group of nuns gets sent to castle in secluded Himalayan mountains; high altitude and hairy-legged British government agent drives nuns batty with forbidden desires; meanwhile local boy royalty is seduced by naughty teen hussy.

I think that about covers it -- it's really a bit odd. However, this offbeat plot really seems to mesh well with the really good things about the film: the cinematography, sets & art direction.

All I can say about those elements is that there were some remarkably genius talents responsible for the look and feel of the film. As others have said, the fact that this film was shot on a set is really remarkable. To pull that off is genius in and of itself. Besides that, the artistry with which the shots in the film are handled is simply a pleasure to watch. Numerous rooms and places jump out at you with incredible beauty, including the "blue room", the "chapel" and the bell on the cliff's edge. The sets are gorgeous. Perhaps you could say that Black Narcissus is to Technicolor as The Night of the Hunter is to black and white. The visuals of both are unique and memorable in their own right.

The other remarkable imagery occurs late in the film as Sister Ruth grows increasingly unstable. The "lipstick scene" is remarkable, but is quickly outdone by the amazingly Gothic scene as she stands in the door of the palace. Now that scene will haunt you! With a stronger, more sensible and engaging story, this could have been an amazing film. However, you should watch it for what it is: a prime example of cinema as a visual art form.

This old, wartime, mostly-forgotten-about little film is a real gem. In a genre that tends to rely on clichés and overused story lines, "The More the Merrier" clearly stands out. The acting, directing, and cinematography are all excellent. Arthur, McCrea and Coburn are all in top form and have a lot of meat to chew in this zany comedy-romance.

The country is at war, and the nation's capitol is short on living space and long on eligible young ladies. Jean Arthur plays one such girl who wants to do her patriotic duty and lease half of her spacious apartment to some other young lady in need of a place to stay.

That's great in theory, but when a jolly, resourceful, don't-blink-twice retired millionaire (played by Coburn) finds himself unable to secure a hotel room a couple days in advance of his reservation, Miss Milligan (Arthur) finds that he is a tough customer to dissuade. And when Dingle (Coburn) runs into a patriotic young man (McCrea) working on a secret wartime assignment and in need of a room...

What follows is great comedy and an engaging romance. Arthur is absolutely radiant and spot on with her expressions and lines in what may be her best film (with many other notables including Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Easy Living, and Shane to name a few). Coburn gets a wonderful part and makes the most of it, making him a joy to watch. McCrea fills in any remaining gap with another solid performance and good material to work with.

Aside from the story and the actors, the cinematography, direction and a carefully planned set combines to form a couple unforgettable scenes between Arthur and McCrea. In the apartment, the two bedrooms face the outside wall and are separated by a thin, uninsulated wall. In the first remarkable scene, we experience the intimacy of these two characters as they converse through this wall, with the cleverly designed shot making it almost appear as if the two are in the same bed (quite remarkable for its time with the Production Code solidly in place).

The second scene is one I will not describe, but is cleverly executed and makes for the perfect ending to this slick little film. The memory of this movie sticks in your mind, and it is a pleasant memory indeed. Seldom if ever have romantic comedies been this funny, well acted, and sweet. The More the Merrier stands on the very top rung of its genre. Highly recommended.

The first things that stand out to me in the positive about this film (as the title indicates) are the music and cinematography.

The theme by Henry Mancini really does carry the film, and you'll find it playing back (pleasantly) in your head. This made a (for me personally) rather plodding plot more viewable. The music is excellent.

The cinematography also is very good. This, combined with the music make for good art. Many shots linger and linger... in a day when watching a film may send a normal being into fits of convulsions from rapid cuts.. the shots here are deliberate and rich. The opening shot slowly and seamlessly takes you from the beauty of the morning sunrise into the gritty, dingy underground world of the coal mines.

As for the plot -- what can I say? Can one argue the validity of historical drama? I suppose not. Rather than do that, I'll just say that the story itself suffered from the lack of a person with truly redeeming qualities. The characters seem to embody the environment in which they live -- grungy, filthy and tainted.

I spent much of the film a bit confused about the environment, time, and place in which I had been thrust. The film supposes that you understand at least generally the dynamics between the mine management and its workers in the 19th century. I didn't, and it made it difficult to fully understand the motives of the characters involved.

The story moves slowly, yet steadily towards its climax. Unfortunately, this is one of those films that leaves a big empty blank in my mind and heart after I've watched it. What am I to take away from this? It's not trying to "entertain" the audience... it's a drama with a message... but this is a film without a hero, a story without an end. Some people like a film that leaves you "hanging" at the end. I can't say as it worked for me this time.

In summary, I enjoyed the music and cinematography, the acting was very good... but the story leaves you with a very empty feeling in your gut.

I've officially had it with Roger Corman... he always directed films which you think would be entertaining if not exceptional. Without fail, he's disappointed every time. It's not just the low budgets, it's the scripts, the way the story lines are handled, the acting....

This film was so bad, I couldn't make it past about 45 minutes. I can only imagine how much more bad acting, terrible direction, boring action, and stupid dialog ensue after I turned it off. Why this idiot has been so successful in his own way I'll never know.

I had to stop watching when one of the convicts holds his hands over a baby's nose and mouth and (I guess accidentally) smothers a baby while the mother stands right beside him, seemingly in another world. Somehow Corman seems to bring out the worst in the talent he works with. Please avoid this boring, stupid piece of junk.

Being a fan of Glenn Ford, I sought out this unknown little film on DVD. I was hoping for at least a mediocre wrapping around which to view Ford. The comments here seem to be mostly lackluster and quick to point out detracting qualities of the film.

However, after viewing, I am happy to say that I was pleasantly surprised. It's not an Oscar winner, but it is good entertainment. I enjoyed the scenario in which we see the end of the story playing out at the beginning, and then jump back in time to discover how we arrived at this end, and indeed, the truth of what we have witnessed.

Early in the morning at a little mountain village in France, a priest is startled by the toll of bells coming from the church tower. The bells have not rung for centuries, since the gauntlet (the green glove) of a war hero to whom the church is dedicated had been stolen. They must only ring again when the gauntlet is returned. The priest runs into the church to find the gauntlet still missing. Wondering of the reason for the tolling, he runs up the tower, where he finds the body of a dead man. Proceeding up to the bells themselves, he finds them tolling vigorously but the tower empty. Puzzled and disturbed, the priest proceeds back down the tower, only to find the gauntlet safely in its place! What has happened here... why and how did the bells toll and the gauntlet reappear? Who is the dead man, and why is he dead? Is there a plausible explanation, or was it a mystical occurrence? As we watch the rest of the film, we will find out.

While some have thought that the characters were shallow and uninvolved, I thought that the interaction between Ford and Brooks was entertaining, if not philosophically deep. This is a smart little suspense flick, and the plot provides enough curves and dips that my interest was easily held. I for one enjoyed the character of Geraldine Brooks -- the bubbly, energetic young lady who is attracted to Ford but unaware of the reasons for the events surrounding her. I also enjoyed the little hiatus at the secluded inn, where our protagonists play the parts of newlyweds.

The things that I enjoyed the least while viewing were the print of the film on the DVD itself, and the rather intrusive and cheap score. Of course, the film is not to be blamed for the print (Alpha Video), but the viewing does suffer somewhat, as it is not a studio release. It is watchable, but both video and audio are rather murky. The score, however, I felt was overbearing at times and reminded me of a the dramatic score of a cheap 30's B western.

All-in-all, however, very worth viewing. Particularly if you are a fan of suspense or Glenn Ford, and can bear a less-than-perfect print. Recommended.

I chose to see this film because of the always excellent work of Gregory Peck -- however, this being a relatively unknown film, I wasn't expecting so very much in the way of ingenuity, storyline or overall entertainment.

I'm very happy to say that I was very surprised. This is a very very good western. I've seen a lot of westerns and know pretty much what to expect out of your average fare. This is well above average. A couple facets in particular help it excel.

One of the things I really enjoyed was the understated mood of the characters and the film as a whole. The plot and the characters don't slap you in the face with standard western conventions saying "HERE I AM!" The characters and storyline unveil themselves slowly, deliberately, and I think, beautifully.

Some of the other negative comments site lack of character development and slow-moving story as major drawbacks. While each viewer may see the same thing from a number of different perspectives, I believe that these reviewers failed to recognize the subtleties which make this film stand out above others. True, there is not a lot of dialog. But consider how chatty most of the personalities out in the vast western frontier were likely to be. If you were a lover of social engagements and polite small-talk, this was not exactly your home sweet home. The main characters are an army scout and his half-breed friend who he trained; a captured, abused woman living among Indian tribes for the better part of a decade, and a little Indian boy put in circumstances where he is a fish out of water. The dialog of this film is seen the most by the characters' actions and expressions. Not many films dare to do this, and even then, not many succeed at it. It is a credit to this film that they pulled it off beautifully. In essence, the way the characters in this movie were handled came as a surprise and added a genuine sense of realism to the picture.

Also, the cinematography and choice of shooting locations are to be commended. The laconic characters blend seamlessly with the vast landscapes of barren Arizona and the rugged, striking New Mexico ranch. This also added to the realism of the film.

While this film does protrude ahead of many others, it is not perfect. I did find the utter, vast destruction supposedly wreaked by the one-man Apache army more than a little unlikely. Also, some of the cat and mouse between the "Stalking" warrior and our protagonists seemed stretched and a bit beneath the supposed cleverness of the characters. However, these things do not condemn the film, nor do they cancel out it's effectiveness. It's a great western, which lived up to much, if not quite all, of its potential.

It's a shame this film is not more well known. It is wonderful, however, to have an excellent print available on DVD (albeit an absolute bare bones disc). Give it a try -- you might just be surprised too!

A WWII film made during the war years with a runtime of almost 2 1/2 hours could be quite a drag if it wasn't unusually good. Fortunately, this one was! Several things elevate it above some of the more run-of-the-mill war films of its era.

First, the story is somewhat unique. The setting in which it takes place (Burma) is unusual in film. Beyond that, however, the plot is not so much about accomplishing the military objective (although the film does not minimize the importance of it) as it is about getting home from the mission. This plot line naturally focuses less on the "rah, rah, rah" permeating most war films of the period and more on the duties, hardships and sacrifices of the soldiers engaged in the battle on foreign soil. This view was refreshing and engaging.

Secondly, the film evokes an aura of realism seldom found in 40's war films. This is not due to graphic violence, but rather (at least in part) to attention to detail in film-making, a lack of melodramatic scripting and avoiding indoor sets. The movie takes the time to show many things (such as the soldiers carefully burying parachutes & supply boxes) that add to the feeling of "being there" as opposed to simply telling a story for dramatic effect. The script does not go overboard, but allows the characters to act and react in a realistic way for soldiers placed in the situation presented. The dress and equipment used for the film also makes you feel like this is soldier's gear, not something pulled from a Hollywood dressing room.

Third, the movie is remarkably lacking the stereotypes found in so many wartime movies. The film is unmistakably patriotic, yes (as were the soldiers and the nation in that generation), but not so much so as to be unrealistic flag-waving, feel-good, propaganda. Yes, the Japanese are the undisputed bad guys and the Americans are the undisputed good guys... however, the reality of the Japanese torture of American prisoners during the war compared to the much more merciful and humane American treatment is a vignette of a larger picture which should undoubtedly justify and vindicate such a position. I worried when the "reporter" character entered the picture, because of the expected stereotyping and melodramatic influences, but I was pleasantly surprised. His character did not become unrealistic nor was it inserted merely for flag-waving purposes.

All-in-all a very enjoyable war film with excellent performances and interesting events. Very much recommended!

Let me start off by saying that very very few movies can actually make me laugh till I'm teary eyed. Most of the time when I watch a comedy it's a chuckle here and there, and maybe one or two good laughs. Often I don't find a (supposed) comedy funny at all. Even most good comedies are funny in parts and fade off noticeably (especially after the first half).

So for me it's saying something when I tell you I can watch this time and again and bust up constantly nearly all the way through the film. I can't think of a film that I've found funnier. Martin and Candy are absolutely hilarious as the mismatched buddies trying to make it home for Thanksgiving.

Both Martin and Candy play their parts to absolute perfection. What you have here is a genuinely funny script made twice as funny by two very very good comedians at the absolute top of their game. The facial expressions alone are good for scores of laughs throughout the film.

Add to this that the film blends in a poignant and touching storyline that may take you by surprise and you have a truly rare film. It will make you laugh and it will make you cry. The screenplay works beautifully.

As a final note, I couldn't quite give the film a 10, merely because I am a bit disappointed in the language in the film. Although played for comedic effect, it would have been nice to have the movie a bit cleaner. However, that's the only thing negative I have to say about it. An absolute Thanksgiving and comedy classic.

For those of you expecting an edge-of-your-seat nail-biter with great vehicles for two big Hollywood stars -- I'm sorry, you won't find it in this movie.

This has to be one of the oddest films I've ever seen. The biggest reason is because of the language(s) of the film. I spent quite some time trying to figure out if this film was supposed to be an English, French or even German speaking film. I finally turned on the English subtitles about 20 minutes through after it became clear that I needed to understand what the frenchies were saying to follow the film at all.

Activities take place in France, Germany, Britan and the U.S., and wherever we go pretty much everyone just speaks their native language. I'd say about half the film is French, half English, with a few misc. languages probably thrown in there somewhere. Understanding that the film itself has no subtitles (just included on DVD) makes this rather weird, unless of course, you're fluent in both languages. To make it even weirder, there are some places where English (instead of French) was obviously dubbed in on the film! I don't have a clue what they were thinking... even if it was not the original print. It really made no sense whatsoever.

The film's direction is definitely not in the traditional Hollywood style, but beyond that, I found it pretty difficult to follow. We follow a certain group of individuals for a while, then jump to a different group, then a different group, some in France, some in the US, etc. None of the characters are really developed very well. Sometimes you feel like you're watching a thriller, sometimes a docu-drama.

This is a spy film, yet there is nothing mentioned about the kind of spies they are, what secrets they might be stealing, what the dangers are, etc. -- just that they are Russian spies. I guess this is all we're supposed to care about. Also, this has to be the slowest-moving spy movie I've ever seen. The action and excitement is very, very minimal. This might have been all right had the plot and characters been engaging and fascinating, but unfortunately they just weren't.

It's not the worst movie ever, but it definitely is pretty strange language wise, and just not very interesting.

Suburban housewife Cathy Palmer lives a mundane, frustrating life but allows herself one pleasure -- she absorbs herself in the Rebecca Ryan fiction novel series (almost a woman version of James Bond). She is so fascinated with the character that she enters a contest to write a short story in the style of the Rebecca Ryan novels for a chance to win an expense paid trip for 2 to Paris (the city of her dreams and the setting for the novels).

When she wins, her unappreciative and manipulating husband refuses to go with her, and won't even let her go -- however she's had enough and decides to go anyway! While touring in Paris, she suffers a head injury and wakes up believing that she is in fact Rebecca Ryan! What follows from there on is simply great, funny entertainment. The interaction between Williams and Conti is constantly amusing and downright funny. The hour in the middle of the film where the fantasy is on is wonderful.

Unfortunately, the film wasn't quite as good at the first, and really trailed off in the last half hour as she has to come to grips with reality again. The direction the story took and the way everything was resolved seemed unsatisfying and very average after the wonderful section that preceded it.

One other note: Several others have commented about how this is a wonderful family film, very clean, etc. This really is not in fact the case, unfortunately (it would have been wonderful if this were the case). Palmer's young boys talk crudely about sexual matters and use sexual terms at the first of the film, Cathy ends up sleeping with another man while she's married, etc.

I'd probably rate the middle hour about a 9, and the rest of the film about a 5. But it's worth seeing for the very funny "Rebecca Ryan fantasy hour."

I had hopes for a decent outing with this film, but I must confess it was pretty disappointing. The basic idea of the film is that a surgeon has somehow concocted an eye drop formula that enables your eyes to see through things -- ya' know, like x-rays (how a regular doc was engaged in such successful scientific experimentation is a complete mystery).

That's pretty much it for plot. Oh yeah, there's some campy stuff where good ol' doc realizes he sees everyone naked, etc. etc... pretty routine sixties stuff there. The film really flounders because of the stupidity of the writing. Our good doc (Ray Milland) stubbornly refuses to test his concoction on anyone but himself because, evidently, Joe Blow wouldn't be able to describe X-ray vision to him (I guess the ol' "Hey -- everybody's naked!!" wouldn't be of much use)??? The doc is evidently pretty stupid, or else these eye drops act like a narcotic, because he keeps on and keeps on taking the stuff even after he says he'd just like to be able to open his eyes again and he's going nuts because everything is so bright, weird, etc. And then there's the odd transition from the point where he has to take drops because "it's wearing off" (even though he kept saying the effect was "cumulative"), and then next thing you know he's seeing to the middle of the universe or something.

The ending also was pretty weird, completely unrealistic and done for cheap shock value. Even with all that, this low-budget might have worked as a morality play or something of the like, but that avenue isn't even on the map, much less explored. The whole thing was marginally watchable once, but I definitely wouldn't want to suffer through it again. I'd like to give it a little higher rating, but there's really not a reason I can think to do so.

A true story about Nazi spy rings in the U.S. during the pre-war and WWII years, the FBI's pursuit of their agents and organizations, and the particular involvement of a certain double agent.

While some will be disgusted and turned off by this film's blatant patriotism and pro-FBI propaganda, I for one thought it to be a fascinating re-telling of a very good story. One should keep in mind that although the FBI may be in somewhat disarray and have serious issues today, this is a story that took place over 60 years ago. The culture was different, the world was different, technology was different, and the government agencies were different.

Patriotism was something taken for granted at this time in history in America, and the FBI was a well-respected and useful organization. Yes, the scope of the story was "dramatized" if you would (really had nothing to do with the atom bomb), however the characters and many of the other details were genuine.

The story itself drew me in all the more because it was a (somewhat) true story, and the filming took place at many of the actual locations. The suspense involved in the cat and mouse game became accentuated because it actually happened. This film also receives credit for being the very 1st of its genre ("semi-documentary", and filmed on location).

One of the more fascinating things about this movie for me was the glimpse into the way the world and it's top powers operated in the 40's. It's funny to think that it would have taken weeks if not months to send and receive a simple message between New York and Hamburg (if you weren't using short-wave radio!), which now would be done in a matter of seconds via e-mail, IM, or any other myriad of ways.

Fascinating film if you can accept that this is the way the world and the FBI was (or at least wanted to be) 60+ years ago. Recommended.

This well-acted war film focuses on the events taking place within a company of the Army National Guard during the closing months of the war in Europe, 1944. The story revolves around the relationship of the company's commanding officers (in particular one Captain Cooney played by Eddie Albert, but also his commander Lee Marvin playing the character of Col. Bartlett) with the men under their command (esp. two lieutenants played by Jack Palance and Willy Smithers).

Cpt. Cooney quickly becomes distrusted and despised by the officers and infantry men under his command due to his unreliable and cowardly behavior which puts his men in grave danger. Cooney is laying low but comfortable in his command due to his relationship with hometown local Col. Bartlett, who fancies a political career in the States after the war, and wants to portray Cooney in a good light in order to please Cooney's father, a prominent judge from back home.

The events in the film are laid out for the most part in several vignettes including the beginning establishing scene, the meeting with the Col. in Cooley's quarters, the men hold-up in a small, deserted German house, etc. However, the movie does a good job of establishing and then building both tension and detest for Cpt. Cooley.

Most all the players turn in good performances, although Palance and Cooley may have overacted in some scenes. It's an entertaining film that kept my attention all the way throughout.

I did have some reservation however, because of the plausibility of the plot. Although such a dramatic situation possibly may have or could have transpired, the likelihood of such detestable, selfish characters as Cooley and Bartlett being put in (or rising to) such a position of leadership in the U.S. Army during the WWII period is, in my opinion, extremely slim.To its credit, the film does acknowledge this in one instance where one of the main characters remarks that "the U.S. Army isn't so bad, just this one lousy little part of it!".

There were also a few instances where the actions of the soldiers simply were not realistic -- including the incompetence of the watchman in the house (if I was in that situation, I'd be watching closely!), and the violent act that each infantry man performed in the cellar. These things aside, it was still a well-acted, riveting film.

Taken as a telling of a single, isolated incident where soldiers heroically rose above the incompetence and cowardice of their commanding officers to accomplish their mission, it works. To view this as a typical occurrence or mindset of C.O.'s in the US Military, or a realistic anti-war statement would be a serious error.

In this offbeat comedy/drama, a young Hollywood director decides to take to the road as a tramp in order to get some "real-life" experience about human suffering. Why? So he can more effectively direct his next film about the tragic human condition.

Lots of crazy, zany things happen along the way -- most of which prohibits Sullivan (McCrea) from truly gaining any insight into the life of the less fortunate. Finally, however, something unexpected occurs which truly gives him a new perspective on the poor class and as his role as an entertainer.

While many (if not most) consider this film to be a comedy classic, I'm afraid I must disagree. Although there are some humorous parts, the film (in my perspective) fails in it's most lofty ambition -- that is to poignantly express the condition of the less fortunate while wrapping a screwball comedy around it which would be just the kind of entertainment those same unfortunate soles would enjoy -- an ironic movie about movies.

Charlie Chaplin was much more effective in expressing both the sadness of the poor class while mixing in effective and genuinely funny humor. Perhaps his films (and others with similar themes) succeeded where this one failed because we were drawn into the life of someone in the poor class and routed for the underdog as our protagonist in the midst of the humorous circumstances.

In this case, I found the protagonist to be shallow, selfish and ultimately hypocritical. Here we have a rich, well-to-do Hollywood type pretending to be a tramp and being at a disconnect with their way of life for almost the entire film. As such, we never develop a fondness for his character, even though the circumstances he finds himself in may be interesting. In addition, the whole character of Veronica Lake was entirely out of place in this film. The love interest distracted from the message the film tried to convey, and she couldn't come across as looking even remotely the part of a poor, disadvantaged young girl. She looked much more out of place in the tramp suit than did McCrea.

In the final vignette where Sullivan supposedly sees the real plight of the "less fortunate", it is via rubbing shoulders with hardened criminals (!), not just the poor, unemployed, trampled-upon, everyday man. And then he uses his position of status to its fullest (unethical) extent in order to weasel his way out of his undesired condition. Then we're asked to turn around and cheer for our liberated hero and his supposed "enlightened viewpoint". I don't find such a plot that funny or poignant.

Not a classic by any means in my eyes.

It's hard to think of how you'd put together a more enjoyable screwball comedy than this... I've seen most of the classic screwballs (including Bringing Up Baby, His Girl Friday, You Can't Take it With You, & Libeled Lady) and this one equals or exceeds them in my book.

First off, you have the screen's most engaging and witty couple working their magic. Anything you've not seen with Powell and Loy together is worth the watch -- period. In addition, you have a large group of excellent character actors in top form which only adds to the fun. Then you have a sharp script which builds in the early moments of film and then doesn't let up. This movie doesn't throw in a bunch of tender melodramatic moments (although it's sweet in it's own zany way), it's pure screwball throughout!

One of the things I thoroughly enjoyed from this film was the marvelous vehicle it was for William Powell. He's given the majority of the strong scenes (although Myrna Loy has a wonderful, hilarious vignette with Jack Carson), and he eats them up and spits them out brilliantly with us laughing all the way. Everything from his famous witty retorts to physical comedy, to dressing up as his own (hideous!) sister, he does it all here, and its great fun to watch.

Unequivocally recommended!

I'll have to say that I wasn't expecting a lot when I sat down to view this little film, and fortunately, I was surprised! Weighing in at just 81 minutes, this charming movie doesn't skip a beat.

I don't have a special soft spot for British films like many, but in this instance it has a lot going for it -- Sharp dialogue (although you may have to listen closely to understand the heavy accents and British colloquialisms), tension which slowly builds, witty and clever humor scattered throughout, a clever ending, and even a very early bit appearance by the impeccably elegant Audrey Hepburn!

My favorite parts? The witty, unforced double entendre humor between the bank clerk and Guinness when he's making his deliveries, the charming Eiffel tower stairway scene where Guinness and Holloway begin giggling like schoolboys, and the slick, unexpected ending.

Having read this book as a kid and never having seen the movie, I recently rented this with high expectations for a wholesome family film with beautiful characters and scenery.

After seeing the film, I find it rather difficult to judge. It begs a balancing of the good and the bad.

THE GOOD: The on-location scenery-- Beautiful shots of true Alpine mountains.

The acting by the children, while not perfect, is above average. The kids act as kids would, not like Hollywood fantasy "little grown ups".

The faithfulness to the story's main elements is commendable. The film also gets better near the end which helps save it somewhat.

THE BAD: The terrible, distracting, synthesized music. A score should seamlessly blend with a film and add to the mood, whatever that may be. This film would be better suited without a soundtrack at all! The music is often intrusive, conveys moods opposite those of the story, and is terribly synthetic -- not the type of music you want for a traditional religious story that takes place in the majestic beauty of the Alps!

The small families up in the Alps all seem to be living in gigantic, expansive, lodge-like cabins! This really cut the realism of the story for me and took away from the intimate setting of the circumstances.

The acting, script, and character development of the elders in the film, especially the woodcarver and the grandmother is lacking.

VERDICT: The thing that really holds this movie together is the underlying story by Patricia St. John. It is a powerful one with valuable lessons to children -- and adults as well. Without it, this film wouldn't have been watchable. With it, it holds interest despite numerous shortcomings. I give it a 7 out of 10 because of the unusual, powerful lessons it offers. Without the excellent basis from St. John, this could easily be a 4.

This critically acclaimed film follows the life of fictional oil tycoon Daniel Plainview (Day-Lewis) from 1898 to 1927 as he first discovers oil, seeks to expand his business (along the way hearing about an oil rich farming area and striking it big), works to establish a pipeline to circumvent railroad shipping fees, and finally we see the state of his life when he's finally achieved his ambitions.

On the surface this may seem to be a good backdrop for a fascinating character study and period adventure. And perhaps it is. However, I for one walked away from the film very disappointed and empty.

Here is yet another example of what the "critics" seem to love in a movie these days. A movie is now a monumental achievement and great art if:

1). The production values are high 2). The running time is over 2 1/2 hours 3). The film gives the aura of being an introspective morality play 4). Christianity/Christians are shown to be stupid/eccentric/hateful/abusive, etc. 5). We see someone slowly descend into madness or evil 6). There is no clear-cut protagonist and no redeeming values presented

Now if this is your idea of a great movie, then by all means watch this one (and a million other hyped films with the same elements). However, I fail to see the point of watching a movie where we are drug down into a pit of darkness and made to waller in the filth up to and through the very end. That is all this film offers.

While Day-Lewis does a decent job in his role, it is one that is never makes sense to the viewer. For such a long film, the character development is poor, and it consistently sends a mixed message about greed, corruption, loyalty, family, religion, capitalism, etc. This film with it's dissonant score, dramatic cinematography, method acting and slow, slow pacing tries REALLY hard to convince the viewer that he is watching some very important events happen in the heart of our little oil tycoon. When a film has to try so hard, it's NOT a good sign. But then I guess it was good enough to fool the critics.

In the end, although there were good elements such as the whole scene in and around where the oil derrick catches fire (this was a wonderful technical achievement which blended well into the story in an unobtrusive way), and Day-Lewis' solid performance, it was not anywhere close to enough to carry the overlong non-sensical film that leads to nowhere.

It's not even worth watching once. Avoid it!

Once a year, the biggest money men in the territory get together and put their year's savings on the table at the biggest poker game no one from outside the region knows about. This game is an exclusive event that takes place behind closed doors. However when Fonda stops in town to get his wagon fixed along with wife and young son, his wife catches the eye of one of the players. This fact, along with the fact that Fonda is carrying enough cash to buy a small spread near San Antonio, results in the poker-starved Fonda being allowed to sit in on the game. What transpires from there is humorous, entertaining, and surprising.

This film benefits from its humorous and none-too-serious demeanor, it's fine cast, and a clever storyline. Although the story may drag along for a while, it never comes to a complete stop, and the actors are engaging. There are no big gunfights or lots of action, but the way the story resolves itself is well worth the investment in your time to watch the movie. If you're looking for an entertaining time with a western-comedy, this should fit the bill nicely!

Ten people are invited to a large house on a small and deserted island by someone they've never met. On their first night in the house, a record is played which accuses each guest of a particular murder or murders. Before long, guests start dying and their deaths are seemingly tied to a mysterious poem and a statuette of "10 Little Indians". The question is, in this small, isolated place, who is responsible for these deaths, and who will be next???

This unique plot device by Agatha Christie along with an ensemble cast of character actors and sharp directing make for a viewing experience that will hold your attention throughout as you try to solve the mystery along with the guests.

Most everyone in the film gives fine performances, particularly Fitzgerald, Huston, Young, and Anderson. I will say however, that I'm glad that the 1st guest to go was indeed the 1st to go -- he was already annoying. :-)

This film does something which not many mysteries have done -- it presents the character's reaction to the circumstances in a realistic manner. That is, if you were put in a situation like this, you'd likely do a lot of the same reasoning as the characters in the film. One appreciates that the characters are not able to be killed simply because they behave so stupidly. Each forms his or her own opinion about who the killer is and how to deal with the situation. The characters engage in logical discussions with each other about who might be killing them and how to avoid death, all the while suspecting each other. In the end, if you think about it, the answer is really the only way it could make sense.

I suspect that multiple viewings of this film would reveal new and interesting details that slipped by unnoticed upon the first viewing. If you like a mystery, and can appreciate the old-fashioned style -- that is, real mystery, tension and suspense without the blood and guts, then you'll enjoy this movie!