The Personal Website of Mark W. Dawson
His Articles, Observations, Thoughts, Meanderings,
some would say Wisdom (and some would say not).
These are my comments and critiques of individual movies that I believe have been overlooked or underrated by the public and movie critics. When I watch a movie, I first watch it for its entertainment value, including the acting and supporting cast, the direction, the cinematography, and the music score. Afterward, I think about the underlying meaning of a movie. I prefer movies that have a very human element in them. Movies that deal with human passions or human conflicts. As such, the scripts for the movies I prefer are essential. Without a good script, it cannot be a good movie. If it does not have a good dialogue, or the dialogue doesn't ring true, then it cannot make my list. For more Movies and Television that I believe meets this criteria I would direct you to my article “That's Entertainment”. I make no claims that all these movies are great movies (although many of them are great), but I do claim that they are enjoyable movies.
Clicking on the Move Title and Year will direct you the the IMDB web page for the movie.
Not a typical John Ford Western, as he examines the plight of the Indians in a sympathetic manner. First, a brief overview from IMDB of this movie, and then my commentary on this movie.
When the government agency fails to deliver even the meager supplies due by treaty to the proud Cheyenne tribe in their barren desert reserve, the starving Indians have taken more abuse than it's worth and break it too by embarking on a 1,500 miles journey back to their ancestral hunting grounds. US Cavalry Capt. Thomas Archer is charged with their retrieval, but during the hunt grows to respect their noble courage, and decides to help them. Written by KGF Vissers
- John Ford
- Mari Sandoz("Cheyenne Autumn" book)
- James R. Webb(screenplay)
- Richard Widmark as Capt. Thomas Archer
- Carroll Baker as Deborah Wright
- Karl Malden as Capt. Wessels
- Sal Mineo as Red Shirt
- Dolores del Rio as Spanish Woman (as Dolores Del Rio)
- Ricardo Montalban as Little Wolf
- Gilbert Roland as Dull Knife
- Edward G. Robinson as Secretary of the Interior Carl Schurz
This movie received rather average critical reviews and audience acceptance. As this movie was made when America’s consciousness of racism and bigotry had not been elevated by the Civil Rights movement, this is no surprise. But viewing this movie from an elevated perspective, the true greatness of this movie is apparent. Director John Ford proclaimed it an elegy for the Native Americans who had been abused by the U.S. government and misrepresented by many of the director's own films.
This movie adds context to the historical mistreatment of the American Indians, and the morality and ethics of those involved in this mistreatment. However, you should not use our current morality and ethics as a basis of the judgment of what happened in a historical period or location, but you should use it as a lesson to be learned for the present and the future. If you get to know what the moral and ethics of a historical period and location, you can better judge the actions and events of the people of that period or location. You can then utilize our current morals and ethics for comparison to their morals and ethics, to reach a fuller understanding of the people or events that occurred. You will often discover hidden truths about history if you utilize this technique. It will also help you to make better moral and ethical decisions on our current issues and concerns.
This movie presents not only the conflicts between the Indian and American cultures but also the conflicts within the American culture on how to deal with the Indians. There are also conflicts within the Indians as to how to best respond to the injustices they endure. The human cost of tragedy is often the result of these conflicts, and tragedy occurs on all sides of this movie. But there are also brief moments of nobility within this tragedy, brief moments that are hopeful for the betterment of all sides.
Viewing this movie will leave you with a sense of sadness as one of the injustices of American history. A sadness that may guide you to understand and correct the current plight of the American Indians. For this is one of the lasts Civil Rights injustices, we need to address. In addressing this plight, we need to remember my article on Reparations to assure that the proper remedies are instituted to correct this plight.
Rather than focus on an individual movie, this commentary focuses on a body of works of Christopher Guest. Christopher Guest is a writer, director, and actor best known for his role as Count Rugen in the movie The Princess Bride (1987), although he has had many other notable acting roles. It is not his acting that I would comment upon, but his writing and directing that I wish to illuminate. He is a worthy successor to Mel Brooks, albeit his efforts are less goofball comedies and more deadpan comedies. He always surrounds himself with excellent character actors that are perfect for the roles for which they are cast.
He satirizes modern American life without being negatively antagonistic or antipathetical about American life. He instead focuses on some of the absurdities of American life in a straight-faced manner. All this makes for very funny situations and humorous movies.
I would highly recommend that you view the following Christopher Guest movies that are representative of his talents.
God knows, in this time of the Coronavirus Pandemic, we could all use a good laugh to relieve the stress.
Many Biblical movies were produced in the middle of the 20th century. Most of them were pretentious and preachy, and often overacted and badly directed. Some of these movies, however, were very good movies. These good movies include “The Ten Commandments” and Ben-Hur”. One of them, I believe, is a good movie but often overlooked is “David and Bathsheba”. First, a brief overview from IMDB of this movie, and then my commentary on this movie.
Though David has all the wealth, power, wives & children inherent for the King of Israel he does not have what he craves most: the true love of a woman who loves him as a man instead of as King. He is attracted to Bathsheba, the wife of one of his soldiers who is more devoted to army duty than to his wife. David & Bathsheba succumb to their feelings. Their affair, her resulting pregnancy, & David's resolve to have her husband killed so Bathsheba will be free to marry, bring the wrath of God upon the kingdom. David must rediscover his faith in God in order to save Bathsheba from death by stoning, his kingdom from drought & famine, & himself from his many sins. Written by E.W. DesMarais.
- Henry King
- Philip Dunne
- Gregory Peck as King David
- Susan Hayward as Bathsheba
This movie spotlights the aphorism “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely”. From humble beginnings to the rise to power, and to the accumulation of power, David is corrupted by power. A corruption that eventually results in the murder of an innocent man by David to achieve his goal. It is only when David is forced by the wrath of God against his people does he resort to introspection and self-reflection, then repentance, and finds his way back to the purpose of his life.
It is also a story of lust and love. Not only for David but also for Bathsheba. Both of them are married, but neither of them is happy in their marriage. Their lust for each other turns very quickly to love for each other. But their unfaithfulness is no excuse for their deeds, and they pay a personal price as they are tormented by their deeds.
Finally, it is also a story of faith, a loss of faith, the regaining of faith, and redemption.
It is also a cautionary tale of a people who would allow this corruption of power in their leaders. For such corruption does not stop at the top, but always finds its way down the hierarchical structure of a society to the detriment of the society.
There is much to be learned about the corruption of power, lust and love, and faith in this movie. The corruption of power is a lesson that is very applicable to politicians. Most politicians become involved in politics to serve the people, but over the course of their political career, many politicians accumulate power and temporize or compromise their goals to maintain or expand their power. In doing so, they have lost their way. More introspection and self-reflection by politicians would alleviate this problem, but this character trait does not seem to be a common occurrence within politicians.
Two movies in the same review, as each movie touches of the same subject I wish to comment upon. The subject of how big events change your perspective on the events of your life. First, a brief overview from IMDB of these movies, and then my commentary on this movie.
From Here to Eternity
It's 1941. Robert E. Lee Prewitt has requested Army transfer and has ended up at Schofield in Hawaii. His new captain, Dana Holmes, has heard of his boxing prowess and is keen to get him to represent the company. However, 'Prew' is adamant that he doesn't box anymore, so Captain Holmes gets his subordinates to make his life a living hell. Meanwhile Sergeant Warden starts seeing the captain's wife, who has a history of seeking external relief from a troubled marriage. Prew's friend Maggio has a few altercations with the sadistic stockade Sergeant 'Fatso' Judson, and Prew begins falling in love with social club employee Lorene. Unbeknownst to anyone, the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor looms in the distance. Written by Ed Sutton
- Fred Zinnemann
- Daniel Taradash (screen play)
- James Jones (based upon the novel by)
- Burt Lancaster as Sgt. Milton Warden
- Montgomery Clift as Robert E. Lee Prewitt
- Deborah Kerr as Karen Holmes
- Donna Reed as Alma
- Frank Sinatra as Angelo Maggio
- Ernest Borgnine as Sgt. 'Fatso' Judson
- Jack Warden as Cpl. Buckley
In Harm’s Way
Captain Rockwell Torrey and Commander Paul Eddington are part of the Navy's effort to recuperate from, and retaliate for, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Torrey is romantically involved with nurse Maggie Haynes, and also tries to restore his relationship with his estranged son, Jeremiah, a young Naval officer. — Jim Beaver
- Otto Preminger
- Wendell Mayes (screenplay)
- James Bassett (novel)
- John Wayne as Rock
- Kirk Douglas as Eddington
- Patricia Neal as Maggie
- Tom Tryon as Mac
- Paula Prentiss as Bev
- Brandon De Wilde as Jere
- Jill Haworth as Annalee
- Dana Andrews as Admiral Broderick
- Burgess Meredith as Commander Egan Powell
Commentary on both movies:
Two movies that were a dozen years apart, two movies that were well received at the time of their release, and two movies that are mostly forgotten today but are as meaningful today as when they were released. These two movies illuminate the personal impacts of the big event of the coming of war and the impacts on personal lives as a result of the coming of war. From Here to Eternity deals almost entirely on personal events immediately before the attack on Pearl Harbor and how everything changed as a result of the attack, while In Harm’s Way deals with personal events during and shortly thereafter the attack on Peral Harbor and how everything changed for the persons involved as a result of the attack. They are both a reminder that despite the difficulties of your life, in the grand scheme of life, your difficulties may not be as important as you believe. A reminder that you need to keep a perspective on your life and to not go overboard when life throws you curveballs.
Both movies are wonderfully produced, directed, and acted by all involved. Both movies that are enjoyable to watch, and both movies well worth your time to watch. As such, I would highly recommend that you view these movies.
The clash of God and Science has never been more illuminated than in this movie. Both sides are treated fairly and respectfully, although many would say the characters on the God side are harsher than that of the characters on the Science side. However, it should be remembered that this movie reflects the prevailing attitudes of early 20th century America, and as such, I believe that this criticism is unwarranted. First, a brief overview from IMDB of this movie, and then my commentary of this movie.
Teacher B.T. Cates is arrested for teaching Darwin's theories. Famous lawyer Henry Drummond defends him; fundamentalist politician Matthew Brady prosecutes. This is a very thinly disguised rendition of the 1925 "Scopes monkey trial" with debates between Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan taken largely from the transcripts. Written by Ed Stephan
- Stanley Kramer
- Nedrick Young (screenplay) (originally as Nathan E. Douglas)
- Harold Jacob Smith (screenplay)
- Jerome Lawrence (play)
- Robert E. Lee (play)
- Spencer Tracy as Henry Drummond
- Fredric March as Matthew Harrison Brady
- Gene Kelly as E. K. Hornbeck
- Dick York as Bertram T. Cates
- Donna Anderson as Rachel Brown
- Harry Morgan as Judge Mel Coffey
- Florence Eldridge as Sarah Brady
- Claude Akins as Rev. Jeremiah Brown
For those who have read my other writings, you may have noticed that I often utilize snippets of dialogue from Inherit the Wind. Although the acting is superb, the directing is excellent, and the cinematography is very good, the dialogue of this movie is crucial to the meaning of this movie. You must hear, retain, and think upon the dialogue to understand this movie. Fortunately, this is not a difficult task as the outstanding scripting lends itself to this task.
The interactions of the main cast, and the responses of the supporting cast, are illuminative of the questions that this movie raises. The questions of religion in the classroom, freedom of thought and the expression of your thoughts, the tensions between beliefs in God and the purpose of Science, the role of government at all levels of this debate, the passions invoked by this topic, and hero-worshiping and its mob actions are starkly contrasted in this movie. This movie also touches on the substance of the love and commitment between a man and a woman.
If you approach this movie with an unprejudiced mind and think about the topics espoused in this film, there is much that can be learned from this movie.
Judgment at Nuremberg (1961)
This movie needs no commentary, but it does need to be viewed and pondered by all people, of all ages, and all times. For it illuminates and espouses a core truth of humanity – the individual natural rights of a person and the responsibility of society to protect these rights. It also discusses the requirement for ‘Justice’ for those people whose rights have been violated, and punishment for those who violated their rights. First, a brief overview from IMDB of this movie, and then my comments on this movie.
It has been three years since the most important Nazi leaders had already been tried. This trial is about 4 judges who used their offices to conduct Nazi sterilization and cleansing policies. Retired American judge, Dan Haywood, has a daunting task ahead of him. The Cold War is heating up and no one wants any more trials as Germany, and Allied governments, want to forget the past. But is that the right thing to do is the question that the tribunal must decide. Written by Tony Fontana.
- Stanley Kramer
- Abby Mann, Abby Mann (based on his original story by)
- Spencer Tracy as Chief Judge Dan Haywood
- Burt Lancaster as Dr. Ernst Janning
- Richard Widmark as Col. Tad Lawson
- Marlene Dietrich as Mrs. Bertholt
- Maximilian Schell as Hans Rolfe
- Judy Garland as Irene Hoffman
- Montgomery Clift as Rudolph Petersen
This move is about more than the NAZI anti-Semitism that took over six million Jewish lives, but also about the NAZI intolerance for other peoples that took as many or more lives in its wake. It is also a warning that all individuals must stand for human rights or find themselves in the following conundrum:
First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me
This movie is about Shakespeare’s play, Richard III, as it is not a movie of the play. Instead, it is an insightful look into what it takes to perform this play from the perspective of American rather than English actors. First, a brief overview from IMDB of this movie, and then my commentary on this movie.
Director Al Pacino juxtaposes scenes from Richard III, scenes of rehearsals for Richard III, and sessions where parties involved discuss the play, the times that shaped the play, and the events that happened at the time the play is set. Interviews with mostly British actors are also included, attempting to explain why American actors have more problems performing Shakespearean plays than they do —written by Ron Kerrigan.
- Al Pacino
- William Shakespeare (play)
- Al Pacino (narration)
- Frederic Kimball (narration)
- Al Pacino as Richard III
- Alec Baldwin ad Duke of Clarence
- Kevin Spacey as the Earl of Buckingham
- Many other great actors too numerous to be listed, but the full list can be viewed here.
This movie may be my only commentary involving Shakespeare's works, as what could I possibly add to the already voluminous commentary about Shakespeare and his plays and the movies of his plays. This movie is Al Pacino's deeply-felt rumination on Shakespeare's significance and relevance to the modern world through interviews and an in-depth analysis of "Richard III".
Pay particular attention to Kevin Spacey as the Earl of Buckingham. His performance of this role is outstanding, and his non-verbal acting shows how an actor can communicate so much more than the dialogue conveys. And who would have thought that an Italian from New York City could play Richard the 3rd so well?
This movie is a penetrating look into the souls of the characters in Richard III that reveals their souls' full depth. A look into their souls that is not apparent from the dialogue of the play. In viewing this movie, you will gain a fuller appreciation of the greatness of Shakespeare, an appreciation that is well worth the time and effort to view this film.
Rather than focus on an individual movie, this commentary focuses on a body of work of Mel Brooks. Mel Brooks films are goofball comedies, full of slapstick and physical humor, as well as corny dialogue and double entries. But it is all fun and laugh out loud comedy. However, his movies are all filled with satire and intellectual references. They can be enjoyed for the surface comedy, but they are even more enjoyable for the satire and intellectual references. I would suggest that you view these movies twice. The first time enjoy them for the surface comedy, and the second time focus on the satire and intellectual references.
I would highly recommend that you view the following Mel Brooks movies that are representative of his talents.
God knows, in this time of the Coronavirus Pandemic, we could all use a good laugh to relieve the stress.
The first significant film by the great Stanley Kubrick, shot in black and white, demonstrates his brilliance and the sometimes arrogance of command during wartime. First, a brief overview from IMDB of this movie, and then my commentary on this movie.
The futility and irony of the war in the trenches in WWI is shown as a unit commander in the French army must deal with the mutiny of his men and a glory-seeking general after part of his force falls back under fire in an impossible attack. Written by Keith Loh
- Stanley Kubrick
- Stanley Kubrick (screenplay)
- Calder Willingham (screenplay)
- Jim Thompson (screenplay)
- Humphrey Cobb (based on his novel "Paths of Glory")
- Kirk Douglas as Col. Dax
- Ralph Meeker as Cpl. Philippe Paris
- Adolphe Menjou as Gen. George Broulard
- George Macready as Gen. Paul Mireau
An arrogant French general orders his men on a suicide attack and then has the gall to try to court-martial and execute three of them for cowardice in the face of the enemy after the attack fails and the soldiers retreated without orders. Their Colonel, a former lawyer, attempts first to exonerate them and then defends them against the false charges.
French authorities considered the film an offense to their army's honor and prohibited its exhibition in France until 1975. Germany would not allow it to be shown for a couple of years after its release to avoid straining French relations. Banned in Spain under Gen. Francisco Franco's dictatorship for its anti-military message, it wasn't released until 1986, 11 years after Franco's death.
This movie has a surprising depth of its philosophical and psychological overtones, and it will give the viewer much to reflect upon. Although a box office failure, this excellently staged and wonderfully acted production is a directorial masterstroke by a young Stanley Kubrick and an acting showcase for Kirk Douglas.
A first-rate satire on war, excellently written, directed, and acted, this movie is thoroughly enjoyable and funny. A World War II movie that is unlike other war movies of this era, as it takes a dark but witty look at the military establishment. First, a brief overview from IMDB of this movie, and then my commentary of this movie.
During the build-up to D-Day in 1944, the British found their island hosting many thousands of American soldiers who were "oversexed, overpaid, and over here". That's Lieutenant Commander Charles Edward Madison (James Garner) exactly; he knows all of the angles to make life as smooth and risk-free as possible for himself. But things become complicated when he falls for English woman Emily Barham (Dame Julie Andrews), and his commanding officer's nervous breakdown leads to Charles being sent on a senseless and dangerous mission.
- Arthur Hiller
- Paddy Chayefsky (screenplay)
- William Bradford Huie (novel)
- James Garner as Lt. Commander Charles Edward Madison
- Julie Andrews as Emily Barham
- Melvyn Douglas as Admiral William Jessup
- James Coburn as Lt. Commander Paul 'Bus' Cummings
In researching this move, I became aware of a commentary that is better than anything that I could write. Therefore, instead of commenting myself, I will quote this commentary:
Excellent, funny, sad, sexy by funkyfry on 24 September 2002
This excellent film combines humor and drama in ways I've never seen before. Far from heavy handed in either department, its notable trait is a kind of circular irony that runs through the film, becoming even more profound in the film's final scenes. Garner plays a man whose ideal is cowardice and self-service. Faced finally with having to become an official "hero" and wanting no part of it, he has to realize that to be true to himself he has to play this role -- the nobility of any grand gesture of honesty in his cowardice would be too outside of his character! Andrews is magnificent and more sexy than usual as Emily, a girl afraid to have any man who's not a coward! No sentimentality, just good old dark irony. Very well written. Good film!
The Big Country, an epic western movie, has been panned by many critics as good but not great. However, I believe that this film is great for its hidden meanings. Hidden meanings that are often overlooked by its critics. First, a brief overview from IMDB of this movie, and then my commentary on its hidden meanings.
Retired, wealthy sea Captain James McKay arrives in the vast expanse of the West to marry fiancée Pat Terrill. McKay is a man whose values and approach to life are a mystery to the ranchers and ranch foreman Steve Leech takes an immediate dislike to him. Pat is spoiled, selfish and controlled by her wealthy father, Major Henry Terrill. The Major is involved in a ruthless land war, over watering rights for cattle, with a rough hewn clan led by Rufus Hannassey. The land in question is owned by Julie Maragon and both Terrill and Hannassey want it. Written by E.W. DesMarais.
- William Wyler
- James R. Webb, Sy Bartlett, & Robert Wilder (screenplay)
- Jessamyn West & Robert Wyler (adaptation)
- Donald Hamilton (novel)
- Gregory Peck as James McKay
- Jean Simmons as Julie Maragon
- Carroll Baker as Patricia Terrill
- Charlton Heston as Steve Leech
- Burl Ives as Rufus Hannassey
- Charles Bickford as Maj. Henry Terrill
- Chuck Connors as Buck Hannassey
I shall not reveal any more of the plot than I already have, and there will be no spoilers in this review. My objective is for the viewer to recognize the development of the hidden meanings through the words and deeds of the characters. Rather than utilize the character names, I will instead utilize the actors' names, as to make it easier for the viewer to follow the hidden meanings. There are three hidden meanings that are interplayed throughout this movie and resolved at the end of the film. They are:
- The meaning of the character of being a man.
- The meaning of true love between a man and a woman.
- The meaning of the hidden motivations of the protagonists.
Three different character types of men (as portrayed by Gregory Peck, Charlton Heston, & Chuck Connors) are a gentle but strong man, an abiding and assiduous man, and a bullying man. All three are counterpointed against each other, and the character of each type of man is exposed. Through various scenes throughout this movie, we get to observe how the three different men react to a situation and to each other, which reveals the true character of the men.
Two different women (portrayed by Jean Simmons & Carroll Baker), are a strong and independent woman and a strong-willed but superficial woman, who also reveal their true character throughout the movie. Their viewpoints on friendship and the love for a man by a woman, and the changing dynamics of a relationship, highlight the true meaning of love between a man and a woman. The interactions between themselves and the other men in the movie are illuminative of their differences and their character.
The hidden motivations of two men (portrayed by Burl Ives & Charles Bickford) are of a gruff leader of his clan and a magisterial leader of his ranch, which is revealed at the end of the movie. The consequences to themselves, their family, and their associates of their leadership style and decision-making point out the impacts of leadership without introspection or self-deception of your intentions.
Very few people have the character of Gregory Peck and Jean Simmons, as most of us exhibit the character of the other cast members' roles. However, we should all aspire to achieve this character, as it will not only make us a better person but will make all those around us better. We would all do better if we elected leaders who exhibited the character of Gregory Peck and Jean Simmons, as well as listen to leaders that are of this character.
The fine acting and supporting cast, the direction, the cinematography, and the music score make for a very enjoyable and entertaining movie to watch. However, the unveiling of these hidden meanings makes for a thoughtful movie that reveals very human motivations.
Therefore, as this movie is billed as a western, it is more of a character study set in the historic west. It is the difference of being an action/adventure western appealing to the senses and being an adult western that appeals to the mind. Many such westerns have this difference, and they are some of the most satisfying westerns ever filmed.
Desperate people in a desperate situation, making desperate decisions, combined with an excellent script and cast that explores their conundrum, makes for a first-rate movie. First, a brief overview from IMDB of this movie, and then my commentary of this movie.
A cargo plane goes down in a sandstorm in the Sahara with less than a dozen men on board. One of the passengers is an airplane designer who comes up with the idea of ripping off the undamaged wing and using it as the basis for an airplane they will build to escape before their food and water run out. Written by John Vogel.
- Robert Aldrich
- Lukas Heller (screenplay)
- Trevor Dudley Smith (novel) (as Elleston Trevor)
- James Stewart as Frank Towns
- Richard Attenborough as Lew Moran
- Peter Finch as Captain Harris
- Hardy Krüger as Heinrich Dorfmann (as Hardy Kruger)
- Ernest Borgnine as Trucker Cobb
- Ian Bannen as Crow
- Ronald Fraser as Sergeant Watson
- Christian Marquand as Dr. Renaud
- Dan Duryea as Standish
- George Kennedy as Bellamy
Jimmy Stewart, in an un-Jimmy Stewart role (he hardly stammers in this movie, and he is not heroic), surrounded by an excellent supporting cast, makes this a riveting and more exciting movie than you would think. Their conflicting human emotions, desires, frailties, masculinity, and decision making, and the consequences of their individual decisions, makes for a tense and satisfying movie. The diverse backgrounds, intellect, nationalities, and social standings of the characters widen the scope and impact of this movie. Every scene and all the dialogue are essential to the story, and all the characters remain true unto themselves.
Alas, the 2004 remake of this movie pales in comparison to the original. Skip the remake and enjoy the original.
This movie is best expressed by the aphorism “The horror of it all”, as this movie is all horror. Not a horror movie of physical violence or grisliness, but of the horror that is in your mind. The horror in the mind that is more terrifying and lasting than all other horrors. First, a brief overview from IMDB of this movie, and then my commentary on this movie.
Dr. Markway, doing research to prove the existence of ghosts, investigates Hill House, a large, eerie mansion with a lurid history of violent death and insanity. With him are the skeptical young Luke, who stands to inherit the house, the mysterious and clairvoyant Theodora and the insecure Eleanor, whose psychic abilities make her feel somehow attuned to whatever spirits inhabit the old mansion. As time goes by it becomes obvious that they have gotten more than they bargained for as the ghostly presence in the house manifests itself in horrific and deadly ways. Written by Doug Sederberg
- Robert Wise
- Nelson Gidding (screenplay)
- Shirley Jackson (based on the novel: “The Haunting of Hill House”)
- Julie Harris as Eleanor Lance
- Claire Bloom as Theodora
- Richard Johnson as Dr. John Markway
- Russ Tamblyn as Luke Sanderson
Dr. John Markway is a paranormal researcher that would like to prove the existence of spirits. Eleanor and Theodora are troubled people who believe they can contact spirits. Luke is a disbeliever and cynic, who is only interested in making money from the sale of Hill House. As Hill House has a reputation as being haunted, Sanderson would like Markway to disprove this haunting so that he may sell Hill House. Dr. Markway, Luke, Eleanor, and Theodora spend several days and nights investigating Hill House. Several days and nights in which they confront the mysteries and horrors of Hill House and the horror that resides within themselves.
The direction, camera work, sets and props, music, and acting are reminiscence of the great movies Citizen Kane and The Magnificent Ambersons, for which Robert Wise was an editor, as well as The Curse of the Cat People which Robert Wise directed. The Haunting was filmed in black and white, of which the shadows and dark spaces of the cinematography add to the eeriness of the movie.
In my opinion, The Haunting is the most utterly horrifying movie ever filmed. Horrifying because most of the horror is psychological. In most horror movies, the fright is primarily in the visual horror, with some psychological frights. Although this movie has some visual horrors of a modest nature, it is the psychological horrors of this movie that are the most frightening.
If you should decide to watch this movie, you should be prepared to be frightened and frightened every time you think of this movie, which will happen throughout your life. The Haunting is a movie that will haunt you for the rest of your life.
A flawed movie that still has greatness. A flawed movie that is still worthwhile viewing. Flaws that will be examined in my commentary on this movie. First, a brief overview from IMDB of this movie, and then my commentary.
The young, handsome, but somewhat wild Eugene Morgan wants to marry Isabel Amberson, daughter of a rich upper-class family, but she instead marries dull and steady Wilbur Minafer. Their only child, George, grows up a spoiled brat. Years later, Eugene comes back, now a mature widower and a successful automobile maker. After Wilbur dies, Eugene again asks Isabel to marry him, and she is receptive. But George resents the attentions paid to his mother, and he and his whacko aunt Fanny manage to sabotage the romance. A series of disasters befall the Ambersons and George, and he gets his come-uppance in the end. Written by John Oswalt
- Orson Welles
- Fred Fleck (additional sequences) (uncredited)
- Robert Wise (additional sequences) (uncredited)
- Booth Tarkington (from the novel by)
- Orson Welles (script writer)
- Joseph Cotton (additional scenes) (uncredited)
- Jack Moss (additional scenes) (uncredited)
- Joseph Cotten as Eugene Morgan
- Dolores Costello as Isabel Amberson Minafer
- Anne Baxter as Lucy Morgan
- Tim Holt as George Minafer
- Agnes Moorehead as Fanny Minafer
- Ray Collins as Jack Amberson
- Erskine Sanford as Roger Bronson
- Richard Bennett as Major Amberson
- Orson Welles as Narrator (voice)
The Magnificent Ambersons is a great but flawed movie. It was flawed because Director Orson Welles left before the final editing of the film to pursue another project. The studio assigned Robert Wise to finish the editing but placed many constraints upon him on the released movie. Over forty minutes of the film was cut, and this footage has been lost forever. The responsibility for these flaws must be borne by Orson Welles, as it was his responsibility to finish what he started. A remake “The Magnificent Ambersons (2002)” was done based on script and product notes of the original film. Unfortunately, this remake does not have the vision that Orson Welles would have applied. Consequently, the remake shows what a great movie the original would have been Orson Welles had completed this movie. However, the original movie has much to recommend it for viewing.
Society evolves, not only in its social structures but in its economic and scientific/technological structures. If you act as if it will not happen, then you will be left behind and maybe even forgotten. Fortunes rise and fall when society evolves, and you can never tell who will be negatively or positively impacted by these changes. People often make emotional decisions based on superficial reasons that often have long term adverse effects upon their life. They also make short term intelligent decisions that may have long term adverse effects. This movie examines these issues based on the interactions of a family of social prominence and one less prominent person who aspires and achieves both success and wealth in the late 19th and early 20th century. The decisions that they make over three decades is illuminative of the long-term consequences of their decisions.
All should still view the Magnificent Ambersons despite its flaws. Not only to be viewed but to be thought about. The thoughts it provokes are what make this movie great and worthy of being viewed.
War often brings out the best and worst of a person. War also reflects the purpose and meaning of society. The Train is a movie that examines these issues in both the individual and society. First, a brief overview from IMDB of this movie, and then my commentary of this movie.
As the Allied forces approach Paris in August 1944, German Colonel Von Waldheim is desperate to take all of France's greatest paintings to Germany. He manages to secure a train to transport the valuable art works even as the chaos of retreat descends upon them. The French resistance however wants to stop them from stealing their national treasures but have received orders from London that they are not to be destroyed. The station master, Labiche, is tasked with scheduling the train and making it all happen smoothly but he is also part of a dwindling group of resistance fighters tasked with preventing the theft. He and others stage an elaborate ruse to keep the train from ever leaving French territory. Written by garykmcd.
- John Frankenheimer
- Arthur Penn (uncredited)
- Franklin Coen (screen story) and
- Frank Davis (screen story)
- Franklin Coen (screenplay) and
- Frank Davis (screenplay)
- Rose Valland (based upon her book "Le Front De L'Art")
- Burt Lancaster as Paul Labiche
- Paul Scofield as Colonel Franz Von Waldheim
- Jeanne Moreau as Christine
Labiche, at the start of the movie, wants to blow up the train, but he soon learns the value of the preservation of his culture through the commitment and sacrifice of his friends and his fellow French Resistance fighters to simply stop the train.
A tense, quiet thriller, with some quality action scenes, shot in black and white as appropriate for the subject, this movie starkly contrasts those that would preserve their culture and those who would appropriate another culture. In war, there is much more than the survival of a society, but also for the preservation of the culture of a society. Otherwise, what is to be gained by survival if you have lost your culture. As has been said in another great movie, “Judgment at Nuremberg”:
“There are those in our country today, too, who speak of the "protection" of the country. Of "survival". The answer to that is: ‘survival as what’? A country isn't a rock. And it isn't an extension of one's self. ‘It's what it stands for, when standing for something is the most difficult!’ Before the people of the world - let it now be noted in our decision here that this is what ‘we’ stand for: ‘justice, truth... and the value of a single human being!”’.
In “The Train”, they stood for the protection of their culture and for the sacrifices of those who would protect their culture. May we all remember that in both war and peace, the preservation of our culture is more important than protection or survival. In America, our culture is of "Freedom, Liberty, Equality, and Justice for All" , and we must protect and preserve our culture for our society to survive.
What is our reality, and what are our illusions? Who is to judge if we are sane or demented? Whether to live a life of sanity and unhappiness or to live a life of illusion and happiness? These are the questions that the movie They Might Be Giants addresses. First, a brief overview from IMDB of this movie, and then my commentary on this movie.
They Might be Giants chronicles the adventures of Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson in modern-day New York City. The fact that Sherlock Holmes is a psychotic paranoid and Dr. Watson is a female psychiatrist fascinated by his case is almost beside the point. Dr. Watson follows Holmes across Manhattan and is, against her better judgment, drawn into the master detective's world of intrigue and danger. This is a sweet, goofy and fairly romantic film that asks the questions "Whose reality is right...and does it really matter?" Written by John Gerrath
- Anthony Harvey
- James Goldman (screenplay)
- James Goldman (play)
- George C. Scott as Justin / Sherlock
- Joanne Woodward as Watson
This short (98 minutes), charming, witty, and sometimes humorous movie is excellently acted and directed, and enjoyable to view. The sane and unhappy Watson is pulled in the delusional world of Sherlock, where she finds happiness. Along the way, we meet a cast of characters that have their own illusions but their own happiness. The answers to the above questions are difficult and are never answered by this movie. This movie, however, leaves it for the viewer to resolve these questions for themselves.