Category Archives: Movie Reviews – M

REVIEW: “My Favorite Wife”

by

11

FAVORITE WIFE POSTER

How can any true movie fan not love the screwball comedies of the 1930s and 1940s? The once popular genre was recognized for its witty rapid-fire dialogue, wacky situations, bold and brash female leads, occasional slapstick humor, and a feverish battle of the sexes. During this wonderful time for comedies many actors and actresses saw their careers flourish including Cary Grant. In “My Favorite Wife” Grant matches wits with Irene Dunne in what is a shining portrait of this great genre.

The movie starts with arguably the funniest courtroom scene ever filmed. Nick Arden (Grant) is before a judge seeking to have his wife Ellen (Dunne) declared legally dead after being missing at sea for seven years. He’s there with Bianca (Gail Patrick) who he plans to marry after the judge’s ruling. Everything goes as planned but as with all screwball comedies the harmony doesn’t last long. You see, Ellen isn’t dead and she shows up after being rescued from a deserted island.

FAVORITE WIFE1

When Ellen reveals herself to Nick things get pretty complicated. He’s crazy about her yet he doesn’t know how to end it with Bianca. It also doesn’t help that he’s a bit spineless and cowardly. He drags things out leading to one comedic complication after another. And that’s what makes this movie so great. The nutty situations, the back-and-forth banter, and the hilarious head-butting between the two leads.

One of the biggest strengths of “My Favorite Wife” lies in its screenplay. It’s sharp, funny, and void of any of the trappings that befall many of today’s “comedies”. You’re always running across a great scene or hilarious line. For instance take the opening courtroom scene. Veteran character actor Granville Bates plays the grumpy and cantankerous Judge Bryson. He steals the scene with his growls and impatience. It’s a perfect tablesetter for the fun and playful tone that carries through the entire picture.

FAVORITE2

Of course a movie like this has to have good performances from capable talents who can pull it all off. I’ve already talked about Cary Grant and as expected he is fabulous. He has his usual charisma but he also shows off his impeccable comedic timing. But the real star just may be Irene Dunne. Dunne has been called the greatest actress to never bring home Oscar. Watch her here and you may understand why. She matches Grant line for line and gag for gag. She gives a great performance and steals one scene after another. Randolph Scott and Gail Patrick are also a lot of fun in solid supporting roles.

“My Favorite Wife” is a really good film. It features a sharp and sometimes corny wit and some really fun performances. Even though it was nominated for three Academy Awards, the film is rarely mentioned among the list of the great screwball comedies. And while I’ll admit that it may be missing that special ‘something’ which may hold it back, I still think it’s a great picture that any lover of comedy or movies should see.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

REVIEW: “The Monuments Men”

by

36

MONUMENTS poster

Inspired by an incredible true story and armed with a wonderful ensemble cast, “The Monuments Men” has all the ingredients to be a sure thing. The talent behind the film starts with George Clooney who co-writes, stars, and takes another turn at directing. Clooney has directed some fantastic movies but “Leatherheads” and “The Ides of March” showed us that he’s far from infallible. But I was excited once I saw “The Monuments Men” on the horizon and it quickly became one of my most eagerly anticipated films. Pretty high expectations, right?

I first heard the story of “The Monuments Men” from author Robert Edsel. He was doing an interview and talking about his new book which told the true story of Allied soldiers who sought out and saved important works of art from Hitler and the Nazis during World War 2. It’s incredible stuff and once I heard about a film adaptation I was hooked. Clooney’s picture is loosely based on the actual events which feeds the movie’s strengths but also its weaknesses. So far people have pounced on the film expecting more from it or wanting something entirely different. Personally I thought “The Monuments Men” was fantastic.

Monuments2While watching the film my very first feelings were nostalgic. “The Monuments Men” is a throwback to the old ensemble war pictures but with its own unique twist. I immediately began thinking of movies like “The Green Berets”, “The Guns of Navarone”, and “The Dirty Dozen”. Even the end credits hearken back to those older pictures. My father loved these films and growing up I was able to watch them and learn to appreciate them. I think Clooney gets that and he knows what he’s doing. I give him a ton of credit for recapturing the vibes and nuances of those past genre pieces.

But the big difference between this film and the older ones can be found in the characters. This team isn’t comprised of hardened frontline soldiers. These are common men who possess particular skills needed to complete this unique mission. They are museum curators, art historians, and architects. They are older men who are more comfortable with Picassos and Monets than machine guns and hand grenades. Their mission brings them in as the war in Europe is ending. But even though they slip around the battlefields and combat, eventually the elements of the war effects them. They are at times joking and playful – it’s what you could expect from these types of characters. But they are no longer curating museums, designing skyscrapers, or painting. They are in the war and they constantly come across sober reminders of that.

Monuments1

I love this entire dynamic which diverts the movie from a common action-oriented path. There really isn’t much action at all which hurts the film in some people’s estimation. Personally I don’t think the story calls for much action. Instead it focuses on the mother of all treasure hunts through an assortment of beautiful European locales. But their mission isn’t easy. There are still wartime tensions, a greedy Russian army, and the Nazis who are under direct orders from Hitler to destroy everything. The seven who make up The Monuments Men split up and spread out across Europe hunting clues, fleeing danger, and tracking down as much stolen art as they can.

Clooney’s film has plenty of shifts in tone. The movie sometimes feels easygoing and lighthearted only to be dark and somber a few scenes later. Some have taken issue with this saying the humor feels out of place. I completely disagree because I found the humor to be measured and conscientious. The humor was there but it felt light. There were never any attempts at big laugh-out-loud moments which would have really been jarring.

And then there is the cast. I love watching good actors act and we certainly get to do that. Clooney plays the team leader and he’s joined by Matt Damon, Bill Murray, Jean Dujardin, John Goodman, Bob Balaban, and Hugh Bonneville. Everyone of them gives fine performances and there is some unique chemistry that develops. Cate Blanchett is also excellent playing someone based on the fascinating real Rose Valland. All of these characters are given their moments to shine and we are given small bits of information about them along the way. Unfortunately it’s not enough to fully develop the characters – only to make us want to know more about them. That was a little disappointing although a movie like this could get bogged down with layers upon layers of backstory.

monuments3

Phedon Papamichael (who also did brilliant work in 2013’s “Nebraska”) offers up some fine cinematography and the war-torn set designs look amazing. Alexandre Desplat’s score adds to the film’s old-school flavor that Clooney is obviously shooting for. The performances, the nostalgia, the clever balance of the script, the uniqueness of the story. Everything I’ve mentioned comes together in a film that I found satisfying but many others clearly didn’t. What has caused the strong backlash to this film? Was it the lack of action, the deliberate pacing, the scattered storytelling? These things are certainly present but for me they made it a better film and they help steer it away from the conventional movie we could have gotten.

As a lover of art and World War II history, the story of “The Monuments Men” connected with me from the start. As a lover of the fun ensemble war pictures that were all but gone by the end of the 1960s, Clooney’s vision and approach hits the target. To say I’m bewildered by the negative reception to this film is an understatement. I don’t quite know what to make of it. But movies are a funny thing and they certainly effect people differently. For me this was a real treat – a movie that doesn’t pander to conventionalism, moves at its own pace, and treats its subject with respect. It’s not a masterpiece, but it’s certainly not a bad film either and I for one loved it.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

REVIEW: “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”

by

7

Classic Movie SpotlightSMITH POSTERSome say that 1939 was the greatest year for movies. It’s hard to argue with them. I mean listen to this list of films that came out that year: “Gone with the Wind”, “The Wizard of Oz”, “Ninotchka”, “Stagecoach”, “Wuthering Heights”, “Dark Victory”. Oh, and there was also a little movie called “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”. This Frank Capra classic was a bit controversial when first released due to its strong look at the American political system. Yet over time it has earned its status as a classic and continues to be remembered as a glorious showcase for the great Jimmy Stewart.

“Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” initially ruffled a few feathers among U.S. Senators and a select few among the Washington press. Numerous complaints were hurled its way including accusations that this film was pro-Communist and anti-American. It was said the film would damage our standing in Europe and in other countries. Others stated it was a shameful distortion of the United States Senate. But others felt the movie was a revelation. They viewed it as one of the first movies to expose a side of the political system never seen before.

The story itself centers around a simple and naive boy scout leader (called Boy Rangers in the film because the Scouts refused to lend their name) who is appointed by the governor to fill in a recently vacated Senate seat. The governor has a crooked political boss named Jim Taylor (Edward Arnold) pressuring him to appoint a controllable stooge while others seek someone who will bring meaningful change to Washington. The governor plays it down the middle and chooses Jefferson Smith (Stewart), an honest and good-hearted bumpkin with strong patriotic beliefs in American exceptionalism.

SMITH3

But the core of the movie deals with Smith’s principled ideals coming face-to-face with the political corruption of a powerful Washington machine. It’s pure ideals versus the thirst for prominence and power. Smith first seeks council from a respected Senator and family friend Joseph Paine (Claude Rains). He also looks for help from his secretary Clarissa Saunders (Jean Arthur). She served Smith’s predecessor and she’s well versed on how things work on Capitol Hill. But Smith quickly learns that trusting people in Washington, whether they are politicians or the press, is a hard thing to do.

Despite its detractors, “Mr. Smith” was nominated for 11 Academy Awards. But due to the crowded field of amazing movies it only took home one statue. Lewis Foster won for Best Original Story, an Oscar that is no longer awarded. Still the recognition of the film and its achievements was warranted. Foster’s story was great but so was Sydney Buchman’s brilliant screenplay. Buchman perfectly creates a political fish-out-of-water story that balances slight doses of humor with compelling and thought-provoking drama. He also gives us the right amount of political jargon and atmosphere that immerses us instead of drowning us. He takes a scalpel and opens up the system and asks us to see a side of the political landscape that at the time had never been seen. This made some squirm but others found it to be wonderful and powerful cinema.

And then there are the performances led by Jimmy Stewart. I swear he’s one of the best actors to ever grace a big screen. This role seems tailor-made for him. Smith is a humble, sincere, and down to earth – all qualities that Stewart has always been able to bring out of his characters with ease. This is called the role that made him a star and his performance earned him his first Academy Award nomination. The film also featured an impeccable supporting cast including Claude Rains and Harry Carey who played the head of the Senate. Both received supporting actor Oscar nominations. We also get Thomas Mitchell, Dick Elliott, Beulah Bondi, and H.B. Warner – all who Capra would later bring back to join Stewart in “It’s a Wonderful Life”.

SMITH2

But I also have to take time to praise Jean Arthur. I think she is fantastic and her performance is one of my favorite things about this film. Arthur began her career as a silent movie star but was able to make the transition to the talkies. Capra had used her prior to “Mr. Smith” so he knew her sharp and unshakable talents. Arthur defines her role by bringing charm, wit, sarcasm, and energy to the character. She has such a natural enthusiasm that bleeds over into the performance which in turn is a real strength of the film.

I could go on and on about the Oscar nominated art direction from Lionel Banks or Joseph Walker’s inspiring cinematography. There is just so much to love about this film. One of the only gripes I’ve had with the movie was with the ending. Capra abruptly pulls the plug and closes up shop leaving several loose ends untied. It’s not a frustrating or unsatisfying ending at all. I just really would have liked to see a bit more considering what has taken place. Aside from that “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” is a true classic and a testament to the smart and capable filmmaking that we so often lack today. If you haven’t taken time to see this gem, you owe it to yourself. It’s that good.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

REVIEW: “Mildred Pierce” (1945)

by

25

Classic Movie SpotlightMildred PierceJoan Crawford had an interesting career to say the least. In 1937 she was called “The Queen of the Movies” by Life magazine but she would be called “Box Office Poison” only one year later. A few moderate successes would follow before her 18 year run with MGM studios was ended. Hungry for a new start, Crawford signed with Warner Brothers. One of her first pictures with her new studio was “Mildred Pierce”. The film was a huge success and Crawford would go on to win the Best Actress Oscar. Her performance was rightly recognized and her career was revived.

“Mildred Pierce” was directed by Michael Curtiz. The acclaimed director didn’t want Crawford as his lead but after his first choices bowed out (Bette Davis, Barabara Stanwyck, Olivia de Havilland), she got the job. The film was adapted from James Cain’s edgy 1941 hardboiled novel. Several plot lines from the book couldn’t be included in the picture due to the movie content code restrictions of the time. This allowed for the film’s introduction of the murder angle and several other creative differences.

Speaking of that, the movie opens with a murder. In a wonderful opening scene dripping with noir flavor, a man is shot several times by an unseen assailant who then flees the scene. The police bring in a successful restauranteur named Mildred Pierce (Crawford) for questioning. The murder victim turns out to be Mildred’s second husband Monte Beragon (Zachary Scott) and the cops believe they know who did it. The main plot structure is built around her interrogation. Through flashbacks we are introduced to the main players and we follow Mildred’s rise from a hard working single mother to an owner of multiple restaurants in the Southern California area.

But we are also introduced to a darker side of Mildred’s life. It’s a side featuring two failed marriages, an unthinkable tragedy, and a bitter, contentious relationship with her oldest daughter Veda. It’s Veda who may be Mildred’s biggest failing. We watch her become a selfish and materialistic young girl who is actually a product of Mildred’s own making. Her desire to shower upon her daughter the most lavish things creates a scheming young girl who looks down with great haughtiness on the ‘have-nots’. Ann Blyth plays Veda and she is sublime. Blyth was actually on loan from Universal Studios at the time. Her performance garnered well-deserved praise which culminated in a Best Supporting Actress Oscar nomination. Blyth would make several more films but none as memorable as “Mildred Pierce”. She was only 17 at the time but this performance showed an astuteness and attention usually associated with the greats.

Mildred Pierce1

There is an assortment of other great side characters that help tell Mildred’s story. Bruce Bennett plays her first husband Bert who subverts any good intentions he may have with his carousing and disrespect. Yet you end up wondering if he knows more about Mildred than we first do. Then there is Bert’s real estate partner Wally (Jack Carson) who is never beyond an occasional flirt or a shady business deal. He’s a rather slimy fellow who also has self-centered intentions. Eve Arden gets some wonderful lines as Mildred’s friend and restaurant manager. And Butterfly McQueen has some good moments as Mildred’s maid.

While the film revolves around the murder of Beragon, the life of Mildred Pierce is the centerpiece. Much of the movie’s brilliance is shown in its storytelling style and in the clever ways it depicts Mildred’s changes. She’s an entirely different person by the film’s end. She becomes a woman enslaved by the poisonous relationship she has with her daughter. Things become darker and more twisted as the film moves along which gives “Mildred Pierce” a unique sense. It slices up and mixes portions of film noir, mystery, and romance to form a sordid yet thoroughly compelling whole.

I’m a big fan of “Mildred Pierce” and it’s easily one of my favorite Joan Crawford pictures. She is exceptional here as is her supporting cast, particularly young Ann Blyth. Ranald MacDougall’s adaptation is smart and crafty and it works seamlessly with Michael Curtiz’s style of direction. The film takes a few unavoidable diversions from the novel but they nicely translate cinematically. It all resulted in a spirited film that showcased a still relevant Crawford. It’s also a true classic that still packs a hefty punch today.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

REVIEW: “Much Ado About Nothing”

by

13

MUCH ADO POSTER

I wouldn’t say I fall into the group of Joss Whedon super fans, but movies like “Much Ado About Nothing” can certainly do a lot to change that. Talk about an unexpected treat. Coming off the heels of his mega-blockbuster “The Avengers”, Whedon writes, produces, and directs this modest reimagining of William Shakespeare’s play. It’s stylish, creative, and energetic. It’s also a shining example of how a romantic comedy should be done.

Filming took place at Whedon’s Santa Monica, California home and took only twelve days to wrap up. Whedon put together a cast pulled straight from his personal universe of movies and television. He also made the unique decision to shoot in black-and-white. In yet another stylish choice, Whedon chose to use the actual language from Shakespeare’s pen. This may require an adjustment for some viewers but soon the classic vernacular will feel right at home in the film’s modern setting.

Much Ado1

Most impressive is the way these words fluidly flow from the ensemble cast. The lovely Amy Acker plays the spunky and cynical Beatrice. She’s such an interesting character – headstrong but also a bit klutzy. She has soured on love mainly because of a past relationship with Benedick (played wonderfully by Alexis Denisof). He too mocks the idea of love and marriage instead choosing to beat his chest and tout his standing as a successful bachelor. Acker and Denisof have a fantastic chemistry and both have a real knack for both comedy and drama. Acker was the real star for me. She gives what I believe to be one of the best performances of the year.

You also have Hero (Jillian Morgese) who is to marry Claudio (Fran Kranz). There is her father, Governor Leonato (Clark Gregg), and Claudio’s father Prince Don Pedro (Reed Diamond). There’s also Don Pedro’s scheming and deceitful son Don John (Sean Maher) who would love to see the entire happy occasion ruined. We also get a host of great smaller roles from Nathan Fillion, Ashley Johnson, and Spencer Treat Clark among others. It’s a fabulous cast of Whedon favorites.

la-et-joss-whedon

It’s hard to put my finger on what I like best about “Much Ado”. Its playful and energetic melodrama is a blast. The humor, which really kicks in around the middle of the film, had me laughing out loud and thinking back to the classic screwball comedies of old. The romance builds up and works beautifully. It does get a tad self-indulgent at times, but it’s also bold and original – two qualities I greatly appreciate in this movie age of cliché and formula. And of course there are the great performances especially from Amy Acker. I would love to see her name recognized come awards season.

I wouldn’t go as far as saying “Much Ado About Nothing” has saved the romantic comedy genre. But it absolutely shows just how much fun the genre can be. My expectations weren’t that high for this movie but Whedon really impressed me. This is his film from the direction down to the musical score and I give him all the credit in the world. This is a project that could have fallen flat on its face. Instead it’s a ton of fun and one of the better movies of 2013.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

REVIEW: “Man of Steel”

by

67

Man of Steel Poster

Perhaps no 2013 movie has been more hyped or more scrutinized prior to its release than “Man of Steel”. Maybe it’s the talent that’s been assembled both in front of and behind the camera. Maybe it’s the heartfelt desire of fanboys like me for a good quality Superman movie during this current age of superhero cinema. Whatever it is, “Man of Steel” seems destined to disappoint on some levels for some. Well it’s finally arrived and for me it didn’t disappoint even though its a film that I needed to digest first.

This is certainly a different Superman movie than any of the others that we’ve seen which means it will definitely have to dodge its share of criticisms. Some will surely have issues with the different tone of this film and others will struggle with the creative liberties that do strip the picture of some of the things that the other Superman movies leaned heavily on. But when looked at as a clearly distinct Superman picture I feel it holds up quite strongly on its on. I certainly don’t want to discount the problems others may have with the film, but I think it’s a movie that offers a unique vision laced with fun summer action while also showing a level of respect for the source material.

David Goyer and Christopher Nolan put together the story and the directing reigns were handed to Zack Snyder. Their Superman universe starts by placing us into a crumbling planet Krypton. It’s a vision of the planet unlike any we’ve seen before and we get some interesting doses of their society, political structure, and more importantly the danger they’re facing. Due to some ill-advised planetary resourcing, Krypton is on the verge of destruction. Understanding his planet’s fate, Jor-El (wonderfully played by Russell Crowe) and wife Lara (Ayelet Zurer) shoot their infant son Kal off the planet destined for Earth. With him is a codex which will ensure the survival of the Kryptonian race. We also meet the megalomaniacal rebel General Zod (Michael Shannon), an old friend of Jor-El’s whose more violent solutions for survival seriously clash with the society.

man of steel 3

From there the movie jumps ahead 30 Earth years or so. Kal-El (Henry Cavill) now named Clark, is a wanderer who works as everything from a crab fisherman to a truck stop waiter. Along the way he has left behind numerous stories of his superhuman heroism. Now the tale of his arrival on Earth is familiar enough and the film doesn’t waste a lot of time going back over it. As a baby he’s found by Ma and Pa Kent (Diane Lane and Kevin Costner) and raised on their farm in Kansas. We see glimpses of his childhood through a series of very effect flashbacks. I have to say I loved this approach and each jump back into Clark’s past offered an interesting look at the different struggles and hardships he faced. Costner and Lane both give fabulous performances and inject some real emotion into the story.

As you probably guessed Zod and his followers track Kal to Earth and seek him out hoping to regain the codex and restore Krypton in their own genocidal way. It’s here that Clark must either embrace the destiny set before him and protect his new home or watch the human race be destroyed at the hands of his fellow Kryptonians. Through this we get a lot of mulling and conversation about whether or not the human race is ready to accept a super alien species. That’s soon tested after Clark saves the life of the spunky Lois Lane (Amy Adams) who insists on finding out more about her hero.

This Lois Lane is quite different than the versions we’ve come to know and this leads to one issue that I know some will have with the film. There’s a wild inversion of events that takes place in “Man of Steel” than definitely effects the relationship between Lois and Clark. For me, their romance has always been a crucial function that makes his whole story work. Because of the chronological tinkering, I found their romance to be lacking. But it isn’t completely ineffective. Adams gives a nice performance. It’s just that her Lois feels so different than others. She’s also much more out of the element that we’re used to seeing her in. Overall it didn’t seriously bother me but it didn’t always feel right.

la_ca_0416_man_of_steel

While the Lois character may have raised questions, I had none when it came to Michael Shannon’s Zod. From his first moments on screen he comes across as unstable and menacing. Shannon goes after it and I never doubted him for a second. I also really liked Antje Traue as Faora, Zod’s loyal second in command. She’s dry and super serious and she perfectly compliments Shannon’s performance. In movies like this it’s crucial to have a strong villain and Shannon brings that. Many of my favorite scenes feature him and none are better than when he makes his first appearance on Earth.

I’ve mentioned many of the performances but the real question mark for me was Henry Cavill. Could he capture the man of steel in a convincing way? The answer is yes. I liked Cavill here. I do think he’s helped by the screenplay which rarely asks him to do too much. But during the small scenes where he’s needed to exhibit some range he succeeds. This was a big deal because a poor performance from him could have derailed the entire production. Cavill has the look, the physicality, and the commitment to sell the character.

There’s no denying that “Man of Steel” sports a much more serious tone and it lacks the lighthearted playfulness of the other movies. This has proven to be a hurdle that some just can’t get over. In many ways I welcome it. “Man of Steel” gives us a much more serious Superman story but it’s not without its share of funny moments. It just chooses to spend its time delving into some things we’ve rarely seen in the other films. I appreciated that and it’s one of the key things that keeps this from feeling exactly like every other Superman movie we’ve been given.

Man of Steel 1

And of course you can’t talk about “Man of Steel” without getting into the action sequences and special effects. This is where Zack Snyder’s fingerprints really show up. The film looks fantastic and it features some really fun science fiction. Everything including the space ships, Zod and his crew’s wicked armor and air mask apparatus, the destruction of buildings and vehicles, it all is beautifully crafted and realized by Snyder’s keen stylistic eye. And we see that eye at work a lot in this film. There is a ton of action here but most of it is pulled off to great effect. Snyder shows off his effects with skill except for in the big finale. It’s here that about 5 minutes of crumbling buildings alone could have been left on the cutting room floor and the movie would have been better for it.

So how do I summarize all of this? Amid “Man of Steel’s” booming action sequences and sky-high expectations lies a very good Superman reboot that I think shines in its uniqueness. Yes, a few of its directional choices don’t work as well as I would have liked and the final action sequence can be a bit numbing. But this has all the ingredients of being a franchise I can latch onto. I also appreciate that it steered the material away from cartoony and ventured to give us a more stern and grounded story. And I like that it brings the character back from the waste that Bryan Singer left him in. “Man of Steel” gives us someone bound by morals and committed to truth and justice. In other words, “Man of Steel” gives us Superman. All if this led to an experience that I found most satisfying and I’m anxious to see what lies ahead for this franchise.

VERDICT – 4 STARS