Love in the Afternoon: Love Audrey Any Time

I don't mean to sound hyperbolic, but you could show me a film with Audrey Hepburn spending two hours counting dimes and I'd probably still give it a six out of ten. For my part, she's just that mesmerizing to watch. Of course, it doesn't hurt that in this 1957 seductive romantic sex-comedy, Hepburn plays the shy, seductive french (? - well, they say she's french) girl, who lures in the strapping American, Gary Cooper as Gary Cooper, and begins a tantalizing affair.

So, that's about thirty minutes of the two+ hour long film taken care of. What for the rest? Well a lot of montages, waiting for the characters to get back together, and then more seductive talk as Hepburn's character grows into a full woman, and Cooper begins the slow transition process from Master of Debauchery to Love Sick Womanizer. Oh, and don't forget to throw in some Gypsies and Maurice Chevalier for a bit of flavor (not exactly a sentence you get to write every day - shame).

And it's lucky for Love in the Afternoon that it has such a strong cast. Because in all honesty, I love you Billy Wilder, but this one is a bit of a bore. The middle just doesn't end. Once the setup is gone, the movie's footing is swiped out from underneath it quicker than a foot on top of a banana peel in a '30s slapstick film. The scenes were Hepburn and Cooper are apart are just agonizing to watch. It's not that they're bad, but rather that they don't go anywhere. So much rush for the setup only to sit around and wait for the film to roll back around again.

But that's OK, because you get to pass the time staring at one of Hollywood's finest stars. Hepburn may not have to pull off a french accent, but she knows how to work a camera. And few have ever come close to her level. Maurice Chevalier is always a delight to behold. Gary Cooper oozes manliness, even if it does come with a bit too much of the grandpa smell. Then, you have the gypsies, who are a solid recurring gag throughout the whole affair.

Wilder's direction is tame, and lacks the oomph of so many of his efforts. The dark, cynical edged, comedy he so often interspliced throughout his rom-coms is visibly missing from this affair. If it weren't for the opening credits, this film would lack the markers of a Wilder installment. Which is fine in some respects, but I couldn't help but long for that exaggerated zany, anti-romantic sentiment. Yet, what the film lacks in laughs it makes up for in torrid passion. A highly sexualized blend, stirred together using some of Hollywood's finest, and thrown into an era where such talk was far from the social norm. Now that's the Wilder I know and love!

Overall Rating: 7.00/10

Public Service Announcement:

Warning - Films starring Audrey Hepburn have been officially labeled aphrodisiacs by the Food and Drug Administration. Those sensitive to such 'energetic expressions' may want to consult their doctor prior to seeing any of her films. Ah screw, it live a little!

His Kind of Woman: A Priceless Affair

Is it too great a pun to call His Kind of Woman, Priceless? If so, slap the cuffs on me and take me away to jail because His Kind of Woman is a film which lives and dies by the vocal wonder that is Vincent Price. A constant reminder that the greatest flaw our society will always face is that he failed to live long enough to do a GPS voice over.

When dealing with a movie of the flair of His Kind of Woman, it's important to categorize just what kind of film it is. Setup and packed with all the markings of a fly by night, run of the mill noir tale, His Kind of Woman injects a lovely dose of self-awareness, and light hearted adventure along the way. The interplay and romantic tinglings between our picture of masculinity (Mitchum) and the epitome of sex appeal (Russell), reaches a chemical overload, exploding off the screen. And it's a good thing to, because the story just isn't that great.

But His Kind of Woman has a good enough story to do what it wants to do: spin noir on its head. Vincent Price's overblown tour de force finale, matched with Mitchum's tough guy looking for answers setup, all at the background of a beautiful costal resort in South America, it's just too much to handle. In most other hands, this film would be inept, generic, or so cheesy even milk would pass. Yet, it never falters.

True to the course, and willing to take a chance, His Kind of Woman shines in the most nuanced, twilight lit light. Of course, it doesn't hurt that the film features Jim "the Thurston Howell III Mr. Magoo" Backus as a bumbling background loafer - obviously present to supply this film with the necessary street cred. Oh, this is just a joy to be had.

Every character just works. Not only on their own right, but with respect to the personas of those around them. Their conversations bounce off one other flawlessly. It's almost as if the cast was born to work together. From bit players to big stars, everyone pulls their own weight. And the film is all the better for it!

Overall Rating: 8.00/10

What Do We Know About 'Mendacity?'

Cat on a Hot Tin Roof

What do we know about 'mendacity?' More than we're ever likely to let on. And that's a truth you can bet the farm on.

Such is the case of Tennessee Williams' classic play, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, adapted for screen by Richard Brooks and . Fresh off the news that he is not dying of cancer, Big Daddy (Burl Irves) returns home to his multi-thousand acre farm, worth millions of dollars, and two children sitting on entirely opposite end of the spectrum. On the one hand you have Gooper, the loyal son who seeks for nothing but to appease his father... and if he's lucky get a large piece of the inheritance pie. Gooper is the archetypal child. Well mannered, well wed, and full family, with the business sense to see the farm into prosperity. Then, there's Brick (Paul Newman), the wild child, the star... the alcoholic. With his glory days behind him, Brick finds himself in a marriage he doesn't want, a life he can't stand, and remorse piled on so high he couldn't see daylight for miles. There's no denying something is eating away at Brick, but damned if he's going to let anyone in on it. That includes Maggie (Elizabeth Taylor), his wife.

Now, Maggie is by no means a saint. She knows time for inheritance talks are on the horizon and she'll be damned if she's going to let Brick lose out because of Gooper's trying ways. Only one problem: Brick doesn't want it. So caught up in trying to escape, Brick wouldn't care about the inheritance unless it was a ten feet tall bottle of Bourbon. Everyone can tell he's hurting, and the only one who cares enough to try and get in is the last person he's going to let anywhere near, Maggie.

Such is the world Big Daddy finds himself returning to. But even Big Daddy isn't the same. A brush with death has inspired a burning desire for life inside of him. He wants to do all the things he never did. Be the person everybody tries to tell him he isn't. Like Brick, he also wants to escape. He wants to escape his family, the pressures of death, the tales of inheritance, the conniving, the planning, the cunning and cheating. He wants peace, tranquility... and a beautiful girl with inviting arms for him to collapse into.

Yet as Tennessee Williams so masterly proves, for all their tales, complaining, and selfish ways, the one person each of them lies to most is thyself. It is in that spirit that throughout the next two hours, our characters do everything under the sun to convince those whom live in their tiny world that fault lay at the feet of everyone else.

However, there was one aspect of the film that struck me in a most unusual way: the submissive attitude of women. Perhaps it was the time it was written, or set, but despite some strong and commanding female presences, each woman feels beholden without question to the man. The man is the stronghold, the maker and breaker, and through his actions they define themselves more than anyone probably should. I do get that they are often the voice of reason in their respective relationships, but even still they seem to be voices of reason without conscience. What few actions they take on in absence of their other half, are often conniving, conceited, or just downright cruel. And while I won't argue that their male counterparts are any better, they at least show some sentiment of self-dependability. Something decisively lacking in the women.

Alas, that characterization seems limit minded and unfulfilled giving the overall greatness on display. From the lyrical styling to the volatile confrontations, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof is a classic to behold

Musings on Sweet Smell of Success

Condemnable, sycophantic, and pleonastic, J.J. Hunsecker (Burt Lancaster) is so cold ice melts within a five mile radius of him. To look at the man is to see a machine, calculating and uncaring. To know him doesn't mean to understand him - it merely means you're being used by him.

With a linguistic style all his own, Hunsecker is the country's number one columnist. Rash, quick-witted, and always on the lookout for the next real scoop, you'd be surprised by how little mind he really seems to pay the surrounding world. They don't matter in his eyes, and nor do their inhabitants. They're a means to an end. Part of a wide stretching game, only he knows and only he can really play. Which makes it surprising that such a magnanimous character is not the star of Sweet Smell of Success.

Told through the eyes of aspiring PR man Sidney Falco (Tony Curtis), with infinite charm and matching wit we see Hunsecker as he truly is. However, Falco is no saint. He bends his morals to the needs of those around him. Though the only need ever on his mind is numero uno. He wants the good life, the best life... he wants Hunsecker's life.

So, when Hunsecker calls upon Falco to do one last favor for him - remove his sister's boyfriend who is encroaching on his idealistic life - Falco will go the distance to carry it through. Still, while he may not be the most admirable, Falco knows right from wrong. He despises some of the actions he takes, even feels remorseful for them, but at the end of the day he won't stop just because of it.

The chemistry between Lancaster and Curtis is downright explosive. If this were a romance they'd be one of the most volatile in cinematic history. The manner in which they go at one another, and others, gives deft insight to the way they view the world - and just how far they are willing to go to maintain that view.

It's one of the things that helps make Sweet Smell of Success such a treat to watch. Where many films of similar ilk would try to find redemption, here we only get destruction. Their meddlesome, amoral ways are bound to catch up to them, and director Alexander Mackendrick is there to capture it.

The two of them use women, men, and each other as pawns more so than humans. It's a dog eat dog world out there, and they see themselves as masters overlooking the ring. They'll hop in if it suits their needs, but seldom by choice. However, as Sweet Smell of Success tells us - even the most distant masters of their own domain care about something. And when that something is challenged, the actions they take will forever define who they really are.


Thanks to Anna (Life of a Cinephile and Bibliophile) for recommending this film to me.

The Asphalt Jungle (1950)

THE ASPHALT JUNGLE

DIRECTED BY: JOHN HUSTON
WRITTEN BY: JOHN HUSTON & BEN MADDOW
RE-POSTED FOR: 1001 MOVIE CLUB
OVERALL SCORE: 7.00/10

Fresh out of prison, genius thief Doc (Sam Jaffe) recruits a small crew to pull off one big crime with which all of them can start a new life. Headlining this crew are small time hooligan, Dix Handley (Sterling Hayden), Dix's long time friend, Gus Minissi (James Whitmore), and family man Louis (Anthony Caruso). All of which are backed financially by a millionaire lawyer (Louis Calhern) who seeks a way out of his current financial trouble.

As narrative films go The Asphalt Jungle is a rather by the book experience. A bit darker than most 50's films you'll find, it's not a crime caper with a lot of twists and turns, of the sort you find in modern films. As well it's often more well known for the early part in played in shaping the career of a young Marilyn Monroe, whose role is about 8 minutes long. All in all though the quality of this movie is entirely in the hands of John Huston. His skill and desire to play with the camera some really creates a great combination of noir methodical movement, with quick paced action and strong camera jerks to create a sense of danger in instantaneous moments.

Unfortunately for Huston the rest of the film never quite lives up to his direction. Hayden is a mixed bag, often asked to stop mid scene to carry out long winded dialogue, of which he's never been the best. To counter this Jean Hagen is cast as the small time criminal, and only woman who truly loves Dix (despite his lack of ability to see it). Hagen is powerful and really provides a good emotional balance to Hayden. Of course it doesn't hurt that Jaffe delivered a career defining performance, Whitmore is always perfect, and Calhern is a scene stealer in a rather cliche character (the scenes with him and his wife are quite priceless).

In the end though Asphalt Jungle is one of those films that never manages to exceed its own bounds, and instead just achieves entertainment at each corner. It does manage to really bring about some great characters. And of course I always enjoy seeing the start, act, and aftermath of a group of people committing a crime, but this time around it just felt a little bit more fresh. Perhaps its the characters having depth, the knowledge bestowed on us that not all will end well, and an overarching sense of danger that brings the film to life. All too often crime capers are more comedy than realism, and Jungle manages to be a bit of both. Sticking to what Huston does best, it's a character film about a crime, not a crime film about characters. And in that respect each one jumps off the screen and into your home for a couple hours, while you wish the best, and fear for the worse, and that's cinema.

A captivating, directorial feat of a film, weak on narrative, Asphalt Jungle carries well in the gifted hands of Huston.

Seven Samurai (1954)

SEVEN SAMURAI

DIRECTED BY: AKIRA KUROSAWA
WRITTEN BY: AKIRA KUROSAWA, SHINOBU HASHIMOTO, & HIDEO OGUNI
TOP 100 FILMS: #1
OVERALL SCORE: 11/10 (oh yes, I went there)

After years of having their crops stolen, women abused, and lives thrown into misery, a group of peasant farmers, with nothing but rice to offer, hire 7 samurai to protect their village.

"So. Again we are defeated."

If I've said it here once, I've said it a thousand times, if a movie is in my top 10 it's there for a very important reason. One that can't be simply brushed aside for just any film. And out of all of them, Seven Samurai is the king. Epic in its dealing with action, characters, and morality, Seven Samurai is the very essence of everything I love about cinema. It's well built, structurally adept, and presents its audience with a wide range of emotions for them to feast upon. Each character, each moment, echoes throughout my mind like those beautiful lullabies you still remember from as a kid. Simply put, no film excites me more to see, or hear about than Seven Samurai.

And, much like, Ikiru I'll give you up front it's not "perfect." But I fully believe everything in it has a purpose, or if not I've got one for it. There's a certain beauty to the films we love. Seven Samurai grasps that very essence for me, in a way no other film does. No matter how hard I try, I can shake my sheer love for watching it. The opening shots, the notions of true suffering, and what is the point of a peasants miserable and poor experience. To the final still of a waving flag, highlighting the relationships gained, and lost, throughout the journey.

It's an epic of truly massive proportion. We see Kambei (Takashi Shimura) stand strong as the leader of this mis-match group of soldiers. We see Kikuchiyo (Toshiro Mifune) grow as a person, shedding his false wild exterior, and realizing what truly matters to him, accepting his past. Katsushiro's (Isao Kimura) growth from a boy to a man, and his realization of the true cost of war. And alongside them are many of the Kurosawa staples. The powerful Kyozo (Seiji Miyaguchi). The fun loving woodcutter, Heihachi (Minoru Chiaki). Shichiroji (Daisuke Kato), Kambei's seasoned friend and old ally. Gorobei (Yoshino Inaba), the second in command and loyal soldier.

Together they create a team so memorable I secretly wish I had the opportunity to meet them.

Yet, for all the fun, humor, and emotion, of the first hour and half buildup, Kurosawa's Seven Samurai throws in a stark reminder: war is not something to love. People die in war. Samurai, villagers, bandits. And it is here that I think Kurosawa executes a powerful sequence. The shift in tone as the first Samurai falls is felt from the strongest of the samurai to the viewer in the audience. It's quick, so quick you can't even believe it happened. Just a moment ago he was right there. And it's a notion echoed throughout the rest of the film.

Once the epic final confrontation occurs, Kurosawa reminds the audience in war, there's no time to sit down and mourn all those who lost. Perhaps that's why those of the Samurai that do die, always do so quickly. And just as they are the entire village is thrown immediately into another battle. Only those who survive must live with the loss. Which gives rise to the film's final lines. The stark question in the form of a never ending realization: who really wins a war? Is it the ones who fought, or the ones who benefit?

That's where Seven Samurai lays. Between the action, the humor, and the characters, is the moral principles it designs. The use of slow motion, romance, and epic fight sequences are merely a ploy. They're there to give you a great, and beautiful, while simple story. It's the morality that's meant to move you. Even in Kurosawa's most "Hollywood" films he never ignored those aching moral questions laying throughout humanity, and Seven Samurai is no different. It's gripping, thrilling tale, is so powerful, because it has the strength to back it up with something real underneath. It brings it to life, and allows it to stand on its own. And that's why, no matter how often I watch it, I always love every single moment of it.

To me, no matter what naysayers may go with, Seven Samurai is the perfect film.

While it may have a few nitpick flaws here and there, Kurosawa's epic tale of good men, war, and a village in need of help, is the greatest film I've ever scene, time and time again.

-------------------------------------------------
Alternate Perspectives:

"There is no denying the importance of this work, but the question remains: is it good because of all the good movies it inspired, or is it good strictly in its own right?" - The Flick Chick

"Kurosawa's genius is in giving you a little bit of everything at just the right moments" - This Time it Will be Different

"Seven Samurai offers us flawed protagonists, some of whom are not skilled fighters, and one of whom is often drunk, belligerent, and decidedly non-heroic in his approach." - Japan Cinema

"In some says it's a parallel underdog story and band of misfits story. For me, that is always a great start. There are so many wonderful characters and special moments with them." - Movie Moxie

"I definitely knew watching this film that it was going to be epic and it was. I however, was disappointed, as I find you can only be when finally watching a film as over-hyped as this." - GmanReviews

"Sure, the movie's over three hours long, but it goes by like that due to the strong story-telling by Kurosawa. The action is gripping and the movie is beautifully shot." - Life of a Cinephile and Bibliophile

"Kurosawa manages to make a film that at no time does the audience feel like they are sitting through a three and a half hour movie. He manages this by his use of great editing, beautiful cinematography, an engaging story, and intriguing characters." - Stop the Planet of the Apes... I want to get off

Throne of Blood (1957)

THRONE OF BLOOD

DIRECTED BY: AKIRA KUROSAWA
WRITTEN BY: AKIRA KUROSAWA, HIDEO OGUNI, RYUZO KIKUSHIMA, & SHINOBU HASHIMOTO
BASED ON THE PLAY 'MACBETH' BY: WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE
OVERALL SCORE: 7.75/10

Samurai Lord (Toshiro Mifune) and scheming wife (Isuzu Yamada) enact plan to remove the Emperor from power, and stake their own claim, following an oracle prophecy.

"...ambition is false fame and will fall, death will reign, man falls in vain"

Out of all of Kurosawa's films, Throne of Blood is inarguably the one I have the most difficulty reviewing. Among those theatrically inclined it is one, if not the, greatest of Kurosawa's film selection. While those who seek out a more calm, seductively smooth, flair, this movie tends to fall on hollow disinterest. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) I fall dead smack in the center.

The over the top performances add extreme emotion to the scenes, but can easily be misconstrued as comical, and not emotional. Mifune and Yamada are marvelous in the depth, and gusto they bring to each scene. Added to the solid supporting cast, and writing of Shakespeare, anyone can see why many consider this to be his true masterpiece. The writing, dialogue, and storytelling are premium, but even still I couldn't escape the off giggle at improper moments. It all seems just a tad too over the top for me. Such a strong story needs strong acting, and at times I wonder if Kurosawa's love for theatricality in acting doesn't make it a bit too off-putting, especially for those with my taste.

Even still, few handle direction as well as Kurosawa, and here he is at his A-game. It's strong, direct, touching on the mystical, but mostly concerned with the characters. There's a dark understand in the lighting, and an ever growing sense of claustrophobia in the rooms. It's great when all of these tie together, but I'm never certain it's as well tied together as it should have been. Kurosawa's minor changes (primarily towards the end) of Shakespeare's tale, leave me a bit befuddled. They're ok, but I think they take away from some of the story's natural irony, and dark comedic moments. Not the worst you can do, but still, I think it's no where near perfect.

Throne of Blood is the sort of Kurosawa film that truly divides its audiences. Yet I think it's well worth the chance, especially if you find it to be one of the grand masterpieces you've been searching for.

-------------------------------------------
Alternate Perspectives:

"I had issues with characters and certain plot points related to characters but all of the technical brilliance you would expect from a Kurosawa film starring Mifune is there." - GmanReviews

"Throne of Blood is one of the truly grand achievements in the history of cinema!" - Brian's Film Review Blog

The Curse of Frankenstein (1957)

THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN

DIRECTED BY: TERENCE FISHER
WRITTEN BY: JIMMY SANGSTER
NOVEL BY: MARY SHELLEY
OVERALL SCORE: 5.00/10

Victor Frankenstein (Peter Cushing) and his mentor, Paul (Robert Urquhart) butt heads over Victor's latest dream of creating his own human being. While Paul sees this act as truly unforgivable, he stays behind to protect Victor's life-long fiancee, Elizabeth (Hazel Court) from the certain misery that awaits them all.

After last week's split on Yojimbo and Hound of Baskervilles, me and CommonSense are back into our Hammer/Kurosawa exchange, this week with me watching: Curse of Frankenstein and him watching Sanjuro. Bot containing much importance to their respective fields in terms of cinematic history. Curse of Frankenstein being the dawn of the Hammer Horror films, and Sanjuro being the last time Kurosawa would touch the now infamous wondering ronin.

As movie reviewing goes, Curse of Frankenstein is an interesting piece of film to review. On one hand it's in many respects the corner point of Hammer Horror fans, while on the other it's new take on the classic Mary Shelley tale gives it new life and narrative freedom. Unfortunately that's about the end for where this movie's interest goes. Why it became such a hit and cult classic is beyond me, to be quite frank. I suppose going back to see the violence it displays (or hints at) for the 50's was quite a shocking event. Even still, the word most that can be most aptly associated with my feelings towards this is indifference.

Curse of Frankenstein relies on a very key piece of knowledge: you know the monster will exist and terrorize at some point in the film, but when? So the movie spends nearly the entire first hour of it's roughly hour and twenty minute film, building up to these events. Constant moments of forshadowing (what basically boil down to 3 events), surrounded by characters lacking enough depth for any of us to care. With every turn Victor becomes a less and less likable character, and more and more distant being. He alienates both his family/friends and the audience to the point of dragging out certain events. Paul, whom I found most intriguing, is so incredibly underused he spends the last hour of the film basically saying the same variation on 2 lines with varying levels of gusto. While Elizabeth is such an undeveloped character, her and the other main female, Justine (Valerie Gaunt), wonder from scene to scene, buying time before the inevitable finale.

Always walking the thin line between intrigue and boredom, it's no wonder for fans of the series Curse of Frankenstein is a pinnacle film. Upon repeat viewings I imagine fans would grow a strong fascination for it, while I fear it would get bland and dis-interesting upon a repeat view. Much of the plot points come as little shock to the modern viewer, and the makeup on Frankenstein's monster (a once again unused Christopher Lee) came off rather comical too me. Curse never does enough to earn unabashed praise, nor does it do anything so badly to earn negative remarks. It manages to just flop around between the two, carrying its audience on a simplistic, and predictable, journey until we can get to the grand finale, where it's certain we'll have nothing left in ourselves but sheer admiration. Unfortunately all I had left was the hour and 20+ minutes of non-existent care for those involved.

While it's classic stature can't be argued, Curse of Frankenstein is a muddled affair, trying too hard to make you fear the unknown while laying everything out so it's perfectly predictable.

The Hound of the Baskervilles (1959)

THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES

DIRECTED BY: TERENCE FISHER
WRITTEN BY: PETER BRYAN
NOVEL BY: ARTHUR CONAN DOYLE
OVERALL SCORE: 6.50/10

Sherlock Holmes (Peter Cushing) and Dr. Watson (Andre Morell) is called in to investigate the mysterious death of Charles Baskerville, while protecting the last sole heir to the Baskerville family, Sir Henry (Christopher Lee).

Last week me and TheAnswerMVP from Common Sense Movie Reviews agreed to a little film exchange. I would watch two of his Hammer films (of his choosing) and he would watch two of my Kurosawa films (of my choosing). A sort of opportunity for us to bridge the massive gap between our two film tastes. Judging by his review of Yojimbo (a major favorite of mine) we'll still be left a good distance apart by the end of this thing.

My first film for Hammer is the retelling of the classic Doyle story, Hound of the Baskervilles. Odds are you've read the story at some point in school, not real need for me to break it down for you piece by piece. Overall though my opinion of people's fascination for low-budget old monster and mystery movies still doesn't change. To me it feels like being an expert on Wal-Mart brand cheerios, or Sam's Club soda. Cheaply made, cheaply sold, and only really intended to be used by those who either can't afford or oddly enjoy them. So as you may imagine when I first popped this into my player I was expecting something between disaster, and terror.

To be honest the opening 5 minute sequence left the thought: "dear god what did I let MVP get me in to." The acting was somewhere between awful and laughable (I'm not sure if I should even swap it). Then Peter Cushing stepped onto the screen. MVP lucked out in many ways by picking a Peter Cushing movie (an actor I insanely enjoy), as Cushing's Bones-esque take on Sherlock Holmes as the ever intelligent, ever critical, and unwavering logical imperative man was quite fun. The tale is classic, and it offers the same suspense you'd expect. Lee is dreadfully underused (anyone with a voice could have done his role), but I enjoy his presence all the same. Morell even manages to carry the film nicely during the (unnecessary) absences of Holmes.

While watching this movie it's no real surprise to see why Hammer aficionados love and admire it. The acting, while over the top at times, is grounded based on their relative skills by director Terence Fisher. Fisher even manages to create a very theatrical take during some of the more intense scenes, giving it a nice more open flair. As well the movie's brisk 1 hour and 26minutes runtime glides by incredibly quickly (something I assume is important for Hammer fans). Even still the movie failed to make me really care. Sir Henry could have easily been just some obscure tall guy, the mystery is sort of obvious (only 2 possible suspects, we could all use a coin), and it felt more like a TV episode than feature film. Even still the movie is quite entertaining, and something I don't regret having seen.

Entertaining, quick, and with a nice performance from Cushing, this 1959 take on the classic Doyle tale is a solid, all be it uninspired, mystery film.

Paths of Glory (1957)

PATHS OF GLORY

DIRECTED BY: STANLEY KUBRICK
WRITTEN BY: STANLEY KUBRICK, CALDER WILLINGHAM, & JIM THOMPSON
OVERALL SCORE: 8.75/10

After failing to take over the "Anthill" during World War 1, Colonel Dax (Kirk Douglas) must defend several of his men from charges of cowardice at the hands of their selfish General Mireau (George Macready).

Kubrick has always been hit or miss for me. Sometimes brilliant camera and narrative artist, other times I get the feeling he tries to force what isn't there. With Paths of Glory Kubrick pulls off a work of directing genius, keeping this powerful novel adaptation simple, pure, and to the point. Never forcing intense scenes with sweeping camera shots, Kubrick keeps the film character bound, only showing what is absolutely necessary to get the message across: even heroes aren't always heroes in war.

Douglas and Mcready light up the screen, butting heads with great charisma and use of dialogue. While supporting cast members Ralph Meeker, Adolphe Menjou, Wayne Morris, and Richard Anderson each perform their jobs admirably. Never asked to dominate the screen, each actor is asked instead to embrace their character, wait for their character's defining moment, and then execute it. Some subtle, some with heavy handed emotion, each of the actors do exactly that, giving the viewer an intense viewing experience.

It's that experience that brings the film to life. At times comically depressing, harsh in its view at military precedent and politics, Kubrick and company spare nobody. It's that sense of single moral statement that allows Paths of Glory to be such a small, simple film, and yet maintain a powerful punch once the credits role. The use of black and white give a sense of realism and history to the film, elevating the events to that of a documentary status. It's in that sense of narrative strength that Paths of Glory's tale fully succeeds, and the audience is all the better for it.

Solid from start to finish, Kubrick's narrative skills behind the camera are on perfect display in this thrilling and emotional World War 1 tale.

Limelight (1952)

LIMELIGHT

WRITTEN AND DIRECTED BY: CHARLES CHAPLIN
OVERALL SCORE: 10/10
TOP 100 FILMS: #58

Calvero (Charlie Chaplin), a once legendary stage clown, now little more than a drunk, saves the life of Terry (Claire Bloom), a ballet dancer who is attempting to commit suicide. As the two battle harsh life circumstances together they manage to find the courage to live in the middle ground.

While many note this film for its legendary sequence in which Buster Keaton and Charlie Chaplin take the stage for one grand performance, I have to say that's well down on my list of why I love this movie. Beautiful, heartbreaking, and insightful, Limelight is Chaplin's realistic look at the struggles of entertainers. His taking the stage with Keaton represents such a powerful moment in this character to merely idolize for its historical comedic value is to undermined its shear power in the film. This tale of the two characters, one young and one old, one struggling to start the other struggling against an inevitable end, brings about such a beautiful set of characters and writing that I feel emotionally bonded each time I watch this movie.

While many will often note Chaplin's comedic talents, his acting in this film is utterly superb, full of heart, and depth that extends well beyond the screen. Newcomer Claire Bloom, despite her inexperience flaws, is elegant as the emotional spark Calvero needs to find meaning in life. These characters' ups and downs throughout the course of the film give so much heart to Limelight it's impossible to avoid a sense of attachment to them. The trials they must face seem real, unforced, never sacrificing in favor of a more Hollywood story, Chaplin created a character masterpiece. Filled with wonder and heartbreak, love and loss, these characters reach out to the audience in ways few films can accomplish.

Perhaps the most pressing aspect of Limelight is Chaplin's willingness to go deep into the story and really push the barrier on tough issues. Dealing with poverty, suicide, alcoholism, and psychological disorders of the such, Chaplin never shies away from the serious issues. Tackling each head on Chaplin carefully maneuvers through many life events, all the while maintaining a sense of fluid storytelling. It's Chaplin's skill behind the camera that really makes the entirety of Limelight work. His talent with writing and directing bring new life to this character drama, and while the laughs are there in typical Chaplin style this movie is by no means your typical Chaplin film. All of which culminate in a finale so perfect I can't help but be moved to tears each time I watch it.

Beautiful, poetic, and perfect, Chaplin's 1952 masterpiece Limelight is one of those film that sticks with you, regardless of how many times you view it.