Tag Archives: movies

REVIEW: “House on Haunted Hill” (1959)

by

6

I’ve recently spent a lot of time concentrating my movie watching on the horror and science fiction movies of the 1950s. This has proven to be a wonderfully entertaining project that’s allowed me to revisit movies I haven’t seen since I was a child as well as see new films that have been a joy to discover. Such was the case with William Castle’s “House on Haunted Hill”, a movie that I had heard of but never had the opportunity to catch up with. Now after finally seeing it, I can honestly say that I was thoroughly entertained. It’s a solid mixture of eerie tension and classic camp presented through a simple yet effective story.

The great Vincent Price stars as a mysterious millionaire named Frederick Loren. Imagine that, Price playing a mysterious character. Loren has rented a house with a very violent history and has invited five individuals to spend the night there. He bribes each with the possibility of making $10,000 each. All they have to do is live through the night. The entire thing is painted to be some type of twisted party for his wife Annabelle (Carol Ohmart). But soon the guests are terrorized by several unexplained occurrences and they begin to question whether or not the house is haunted or if they are in the middle of something much more sinister.

Of course we ask ourselves why these people would ever agree to come to such a creepy place to begin with. But in the opening of the movie, as the five are each brought to the house in their own hearse, we learn that each has their own important need for the money. As the story unfolds, I found myself being suspicious of several of the people while never being able to finger any of them. That’s a mark of good, suspenseful storytelling. Now I have to admit, as with many of these movies I kept thinking of better methods the group could use to ensure their survival. But that’s nitpicking. Afterall, wouldn’t things be really boring if they all used their brains?

The movie has several creepy effects that I must admit were quite gruesome considering the time the movie was released. Admittedly there were also some dated special effects that I couldn’t help smile at, but that were also part of the charm of watching these classic horror pictures. Castle’s inventive techniques were quite clever despite the small budget he had to work with. The atmosphere is pitch perfect and I found it easy to get lost in the spooky old house where the entire movie takes place.

Castle was known for his affection for horror and his numerous low-budget B-movies became a fixture in 1950s cinema. One thing that audiences often times experienced when watching one of Castle’s pictures was some type of theater gimmick. When “House on Haunted Hill” was released, moviegoers were treated to a floating skeleton that floated across the theater during a certain moment in the film. While we don’t get to experience that type of old-school fun when we watch the film, it’s still a highly entertaining piece of classic horror filmmaking wrapped up in a tight, compact 75 minute package.

“House on Haunted Hill” is a great example of how much fun the horror films of that period could be. Sure there’s some cheesy, stilted dialogue, the story is simple, and the effects aren’t going to satisfy someone expecting the best. But it’s a lesson in classic horror led by the master himself, Vincent Price. And considering much of the so-called “horror” that we get today, this was even more refreshing.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

THE THROWDOWN: Han Solo vs. Indiana Jones

by

24

Wednesday is throwdown day at Keith & the Movies. It’s when we take two movie subjects and pit them against each other and see who’s left standing. Each Wednesday we’ll look at actors, actresses, movies, genres, scenes, and much more and see how they stand up one-on-one. And it’s not just my opinion that counts. I’ll share my take and then open up the polls to you. Visit each week for a new throwdown. Vote each week to decide the true winner!

Harrison Ford has the honor of being the centerpiece of the very first Keith & the Movies Throwdown. This week it’s Ford’s two most iconic roles putting on the gloves and duking it out. It’s the scoundrel turned hero of the Star Wars universe Han Solo taking on everyone’s favorite whip-weilding archeologist Indiana Jones.

HAN SOLO vs INDIANA JONES

Harrison Ford really took off in the 8o’s mainly thanks to two fantastic roles that were a part of two fantastic franchises. Han Solo was and is my favorite Star Wars character. Ford’s cocky and wisecracking smuggler was compelling from the first moment you see him onscreen. He has many memorable moments with his furry best friend Chewbacca and his relationship with Princess Leia provides some romance as well as some of the series’ funniest scenes. But Han doesn’t just talk the tough talk, he walks it too and a case could be made that his story of redemption is one of the most intriguing of the franchise.

Then you have the great Indiana Jones, an archeologist with a snapping whip and a knack for ticking off Nazis and cultists. Indy crosses the globe in search of some of the biggest treasures all while finding himself in some of the stickiest situations. But like a true action hero, he gets out of his predicaments through some of the wildest means. With the exception of the most recent Indiana Jones picture, these moves were filled with cool action and some great humor and I still get giddy whenever I see Indy in a pit full of snakes, holding on to a collapsing swinging bridge, or running from a giant boulder.

There are your choices. Now it’s time for you to vote. Both are characters that I have affection for going all the way back to my youth. So now I place them in your hands. Cast your vote and share your thoughts. Han Solo or Indiana Jones?

5 PHENOMENAL JIMMY STEWART FILMS

by

14

One of my favorite movie actors of all time is the great Jimmy Stewart. Throughout his career which spanned almost 60 years, Stewart compiled an incredible resume full of some truly classic movies. Known as an everyday man, Stewart had a great charisma and a wonderful likability on-screen. But his greatness wasn’t just restricted to the movies. He had an impressive military career serving his country during World War 2 and the Vietnam War. But keeping with his movies, I thought I would show this great actor some love by looking at five phenomenal movies of his. Now it’s hard to call this the definitive list. But I have no problems saying that these five Jimmy Stewart films are simple phenomenal.

#5 – “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”

This is the movie that made Jimmy Stewart into a big time movie star. “Mr Smith Goes to Washington” is the story of a simple but honest man who is sent to Washington to fill the position of a recently deceased Senator. Supposedly Stewart’s character would be easy to control and corrupt but that doesn’t turn out to be the case. This gem from Frank Capra caused a huge stir in Washington with several Senators and other government officials slamming it for daring to address possible corruption in our system. Regardless, Stewart is fantastic and his performance earned him a much deserved Oscar nomination.

#4 – “Vertigo”

Heralded by many (including the new Sight and Sound Magazine’s Greatest Movies list) as the best film of all time, this Hitchcock and Stewart collaboration has reached an iconic status. Personally, I don’t see it as the best movie of all time or even the best Hitchcock film but there’s no denying how wonderful Stewart is in the picture. The story is intriguing and suspenseful although at times slow and with a unfullfilling conclusion. But watching Stewart handle the material is a joy and I still say that his performance is the best thing about the film.

#3 – “The Philadelphia Story”

In 1940, Jimmy Stewart played in one of my favorite romantic comedies of all time – “The Philadelphia Story”. Teaming up with greats Cary Grant and Katharine Hepburn, Stewart still shines as a reporter who ends up in a tangled and sometimes hilarious web of love with Hepburn in the center. Grant and Hepburn are just as good as you would expect but I love Stewart’s performance. This is a great film and Stewart won his only Best Actor Academy Award for this role.

#2 – “It’s a Wonderful Life”

By now everyone knows “It’s a Wonderful Life” because of its status as a Christmas classic and I certainly wouldn’t take anything away from that. But it’s also a brilliant movie that’s driven by Jimmy Stewart’s fantastic work as George Bailey. From his onscreen chemistry with the gorgeous Donna Reed to his believable fall and eventual rise, Stewart owns every scene. He’s surrounded by a superb supporting cast and Capra’s direction is spot-on. But “It’s a Wonderful Life” wouldn’t be the classic it is without Jimmy Stewart.

#1 – “Rear Window”

While “Vertigo” gets most of the love between Stewart’s collaborations with Alfred Hitchcock, “Rear Window” is my personal favorite movie from Stewart as well as my favorite Hitchcock film. Elaborately staged and at times incredibly tense, “Rear Window” confines Stewart to one room where he becomes a voyeur, peeping into the lives of his numerous neighbors. He soon suspects one neighbor of foul play and as the story unfolds we wonder if he’s right or if he’s allowed his snooping to manufacture something that’s really not there. Stewart has a tricky role but he nails it and this is one of those movies that I can sit down and watch at any time. Stewart and Hitchcock at their best.

There ya go folks. My 5 phenomenal Jimmy Stewart movies. So what are your thoughts on this tremendous actor? Are you a fan or is he not your cup of tea? Please share your thoughts.

“LAWLESS” – 4 STARS

by

15

Just seeing the list of great names attached to “Lawless” easily made it one of my most anticipated films of 2012. I’m a huge fan of Tom Hardy, Guy Pearce, Jessica Chastain, and Gary Oldman. The thoughts of them in a Prohibition-era action flick had me giddy with excitement. But I also had one serious concern about the movie and that was Shia LaBeouf in the lead role. I’ve never been impressed with his acting and I couldn’t help but wonder if he could hold his own in the company of such great talent. While LaBeouf was certainly better than I expected, he was swallowed up by some really strong performances around him. But thankfully that wasn’t enough to keep “Lawless” from being a highly entertaining piece of American pulp.

Australian John Hillcoat, also known for “The Road” and “The Proposition”, directs the film with fellow Aussie Nick Cave handling the screenplay. Their story is set in the hills of Franklin County, Virginia and follows the Bondurant boys – three brothers who make their living bootlegging moonshine during the Prohibition years. Forrest (Hardy) is the tough, hard-nosed leader of the bunch. Howard (Jason Clarke) works alongside Forrest. Then there’s Jack (LaBeouf) who at one time is described as “the runt of the litter”. The brothers get by alright with their own system of running moonshine, at least until a vicious Special Agent Rakes (Pearce) is sent in to clean up the hills. Rakes immediately clashes with Forrest and before long the hills erupt into violence.

Of the brothers’ stories, its Forrest’s that’s considerably more entertaining even though Jack’s takes up more of the movie. Forrest is a tough-as-nails brute but he also knows how to handle their business. Hardy chews up every scene he’s in with his grunts and mutterings as well as his intimidating stares and low-key dialogue. He’s also not afraid to use brutality with his brass knuckles or razors. But even he is tamed a bit by Maggie (Chastain), a former dancer who moves to the community to escape the troubles of the big city. Boy did she pick the wrong place. I enjoyed the romance that developed between the two. Chastain gives a great performance and she matches Hardy scene for scene and line for line.

The same can’t be said for LaBeouf and his Jack character. As I alluded to, LaBeouf is better than I expected and, to be fair, he’s at times quite good. But he just can’t hold his own especially when alongside Hardy. He is helped by the story which doesn’t build his toughness beyond the bounds of believability. It fact it’s his weakness and desire to prove himself to his brothers that turns out to be the most compelling part of his character. He’s attracted to a local minister’s daughter (Mia Wasikowska) and the two eventually fall for each other. But overall their romance feels inconsequential and adds little to the story. On the other hand, I did enjoy his scenes with his friend Cricket (wonderfully played by Dane DeHaan of “Chronicle” from earlier this year). And he also encounters a powerful mobster named Floyd Banner played by Gary Oldman. Oldman is really good even though he’s given almost nothing to do.

But the biggest delight is Guy Pearce. He’s sensational as the creepy and psychotic special agent who abuses his power and who will stop at nothing to take out those who cross him. Pearce’s high hairline with its accentuated part down the middle, shaved eye brows, and prim and proper wardrobe gives him a distinct eccentric look. But it’s also Pearce’s mannerisms, unhinged chuckles, and the way he carries himself the gives the character a sinister presence. He has some of the film’s best scenes, none better than the tension-filled first meeting between Rakes and Forrest. Pearce is simply fantastic and this is an Oscar worthy supporting performance.

Another huge plus for “Lawless” is the incredible production design. The movie features such a realistic and atmospheric recreation of the hilly, poverty-stricken, 1930’s moonshine territory. Every scene is soaked with period details and the lush, vibrant locations make everything feel authentic. Hillcoat’s unfiltered Franklin County is rusty, dirty, and dangerous. From the opening credits I found myself completely drawn in by the period look. The wardrobes, the automobiles, the rundown shacks – everything contributes to the pitch-perfect aesthetic.

“Lawless” is a tough, bloody, and violent action picture that’s very honest in what it’s trying to be. The story is simple and nothing will catch you by surprise. But it’s also compelling and the characters are easy to invest in. The movie does hit a little lull in the middle and we actually get a skip ahead montage to set up the simply ok ending. But the film still packs plenty of pop and there are some tremendous performances that will stick with you, particularly from Tom Hardy and Guy Pearce who may have given us the best villain in the movies this year. “Lawless” is both poetic and visceral and even though it just misses being a real classic, it’s still a true Southern Gothic treat.

“THE 3 STOOGES” – 2 STARS

by

8

I have to admit, I avoided the Farrelly brothers new movie “The 3 Stooges” for a while. It was a prime example of a film that seemed utterly unnecessary and I had no confidence, knowing the state of modern comedy, that any director would be able to capture what made the original Stooges so beloved. After finally catching up with the film, I have to admit that I was pretty surprised at just how well the Farrelly brothers channelled the Stooges unique brand of humor. This is actually a comedy with some pretty good laughs. But it also feels like an imitation and a little of these Stooges goes a long, long way.

“The 3 Stooges” is unabashed slapstick silliness that covers everything from the Stooges’ trademark belly punches, eye pokes, and face slaps to their knuckleheaded way with words. It’s relentlessly rambunctious and completely juvenile, yet this lighthearted story has some success and it’s mainly due to some incredibly committed performances from its three leads. The transformation of Chris Diamantopoulos (Moe), Sean Hayes (Larry), and Will Sasso (Curly) into these three classic comedy characters is nothing short of amazing. And it’s not just their impeccable physical resemblances. Their voices, mannerisms, and of course their slapstick antics are unmistakably Stooge-like. But perhaps what’s best about their performances is that they never stop and wink at the audience. They each play their roles straight and it really helps the film.

The movie is broken into three clever “episodes”. The story itself is about as simple as it gets. The orphanage the Stooges were raised in has fallen on tough economic times and is being forced to shut their doors. That is unless they can get $830,000. Our lovable buffoons, who still live at the orphanage and have been completely sheltered from social interaction and any modernities, take it on themselves to head out into the world and get the money to save their home. Of course their sheltered lives and natural idiocy lead to a series of wacky ‘fish out of water’ scenes and several off-the-wall encounters. Some of the moments work really well and generate some genuine laughs. But as the movie progresses it seems to lose more and more of its energy and interest.

I mentioned above that a little of these Stooges goes a long way and that’s one of the real problems with the movie. Yes, the three leads do an amazing job of portraying the 3 Stooges. But over time their shtick runs headfirst into a wall of repetition. The gags become increasingly generic and less and less funny. And even worse, there were times when it seemed either the movie was running short on material or the Farrelly’s just felt the need to include it, but it resorts to your standard modern-day urine and fart jokes. I just couldn’t help but feel that the movie was running out of gas and that did make it harder to overlook the other more obvious faults with the story.

Even with its faults, “The 3 Stooges” did surprise me. It has some really weak spots in the writing and it may have a hard time holding the attention of anyone over 12 years old. But it certainly has it’s funny moments particularly in the first half of the film. And there’s no way you can discount the really good performances from Diamantopoulos, Hayes, and Sasso. But even with their tremendous efforts this still felt like a really good Elvis impersonator. They look like Elvis. They sound like Elvis. They shake like Elvis. But they aren’t Elvis. But you know, a lot of people like Elvis impersonators and enough is done right in “The 3 Stooges” to earn it an audience. Personally, I just needed a little bit more.

REVIEW: “THE EAGLE” (2011)

by

4

There have been several movies about Rome’s powerful Ninth Legion and their annihilation in the British territories in the 2nd century. The newest addition is “The Eagle”, adapted from the novel “The Eagle of the Ninth” by Rosemary Sutcliff. Channing Tatum plays Marcus Aquila, a young Roman centurion taking his first command in a dangerous and isolated part of Britain. Aquila seeks to restore the honor of his father who was leader of the powerful Ninth Legion when they mysteriously disappeared along with the sacred golden Eagle of Rome. After their fort is attacked, Aquila gains the trust and admiration of his legion by leading them to victory but is injured in the battle resulting in his honorable discharge. But with his father’s name still held in contempt and the Eagle still missing, he sets out on a quest past the Northern Wall, accompanied only by his newly acquired slave Esca (Jaime Bell), to find the Eagle and redeem his father’s reputation .

While “The Eagle” does start off promising, it’s an inconsistent and uneven film that falls into mediocrity. The first act is encouraging. The attack on the fort features the film’s best action sequences. They are furiously shot and edited and bring reminders of films like “Gladiator”. Later, as we’re introduced to Esca, the relationship between wounded Roman hero and Rome-hating slave offers up potential even though it’s built upon pretty familiar grounds. But it never goes very far. Nonetheless the movie still has some pretty decent moments early on.

But then the picture bogs down in numerous scenes of tedious exposition and a quest that lacks any real sense of urgency or peril. These problems can be traced back to a very lackluster script. Other than a few bits of text in the opening, there’s no real effort to develop the film’s historical setting. There is no real explanation of the importance of the Eagle other than “The Eagle is Rome”. The relationship between Aquila and Esca is underdeveloped and hard to buy into. The ending is flat and lacks any real punch or emotion. These are all issues that could be resolved with better writing.

Channing Tatum does a better acting job than in many of his previous films but the verdict is still out for me. He gives a good effort but he just can’t carry a picture like this. His scenes involving interaction with his soldiers early on are his best but he struggles elsewhere. Then you have Donald Sutherland who is laughably bad and terribly miscast as Marcus’ uncle. He appears to be just going through the motions and he’s impossible to take seriously. Jamie Bell gives the better performance of any but even he is handcuffed by the weak screenplay.

“The Eagle” is a very “ok” movie. It’s best parts are experienced early then the movie falls off considerably. It starts off as a poor man’s “Gladiator” which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. But then it loses it’s identity and heads off into a different direction becoming a very mediocre action picture. The characters and the story are underdeveloped and in a movie like this you have to buy into the quest and the stakes must be high. The stakes weren’t that high and I was never sold enough on the story to really invest in it.

VERDICT – 2 STARS