mklmjdrake Reviews

The Gospel According to St. Matthew (1964)

Poor attempt

[4/10 · 17 November 2022]

The original Italian title did not include "Saint". Stark documentary style shot on location in the rocky Alps of Italy. Dedicated to Pope John XXIII who had recently passed away. Director Pier Paolo Pasolini was a Marxist and an atheist. The role of Jesus was played by a 19 year old (there's an historical inaccuracy right there) Spanish economics student with his voice dubbed. He later became a literature professor. So the first scenes are close-ups staring at pitiful looking people which may not be totally unrealistic. We're supposed to know or assume who the characters are. Then the angel that appeared was female in form which is another biblical in accuracy. The first words of dialogue were direct scripture quotes. The wisemen looked like homeless dudes. Maybe it was all more realistic? Certainly different from Hollywood depictions. I don't think actors that were ugly looking Italian people is any more realistic than the white British actors of the biblical films from the 50s and 60s. Almost 20 minutes in...Scene after scene of no dialogue and deadpan stares by the actors. John the Baptist did not sprinkle people over the head with water when he baptize them. Hello he was called John the Baptist! Matthew 3:16 "when Jesus came up out of the water". This movie would not make much sense to anyone under 50 in our biblically illiterate society today. Way too much is assumed of the viewer. It was not the same moving experience for me that it apparently was for Martin Scorsese. I stopped after about 30 minutes. Since I am biblically literate I probably rated it lower than some people might. I would've given it a 5.0 but from the little I watched there were already too many inaccuracies. I guess that perspective is similar with many movies that are based on books. This is just one person's opinion of course.

Macbeth (I) (2015)

Laborious and tiresome

[4/10 · 20 August 2022]

This is not Shakespeare. Yes, the words and plot resemble his play. But the heart, the spirit, the presentation were nothing like Shakespeare. It was laborious and tiresome. And directors in Hollywood, would you please stop the whispering, grunting, mumbling, breathy dialogue! I'm so tired of it. Speak in a normal voice or do a better job at processing the audio. I am done with that style of filmmaking!

No Time to Die (2021)

Daniel Craig has never been James Bond

[5/10 · 9 October 2021]

I have always felt that Daniel Craig is a good actor. He's just not a good Bond. Part of it is due to the terrible writing like Quantum of Solace and this movie. My wife and were bored about half way through. The plot was empty and almost from the beginning pointed to his death. But he never looked the part either. He's not good looking enough and he doesn't do the humor very well. Half way through he was bloodied and battered. That's not James Bond. Lashana Lynch was flat and uninteresting in every way. Pretty sad when the sequence with Paloma was one of the best parts of the movie. The music was Ok because it reminisced past Bond scores. Malek's character was not compelling or menacing enough. Again he felt flat on the screen. As one stunt director from previous Bonds said, Bond should never be too serious or too violent. This was both. C'mon Wilson and Broccoli, what are you thinking? Please give us back James Bond!

The Incident (1967)

Could have been better

[6/10 · 21 January 2021]

Rating: 6.0 Performances: 7.0 Remake of a TV movie "Ride with Terror" which starred (in his first listed credit) Tony Musante. The film credits printed his name with "introducing". However IMDb lists this as his second film. Several newcomers who would go on to be stars...Both the film credits and IMDb agree that this was Martin Sheen's film debut. Although they did not get an "introducing" this was the film debut of Ed McMahon and Donna Mills. They were 44 and 26 years old respectively. In contrast Beau Bridges was already a seasoned actor at 25. The remaining cast was an admirable ensemble. Sheen and Musante were convincing as a couple of crazed wack jobs. Victor Arnold sure know how to play a loser. He kissed like an animal! The story unfortunately is even more true today. Not because of what the perpetrators will do but because of what the media and all the spectators will do. It's a sad state of affairs. Intense performances but it went on too long and it took too long to develop in the beginning. Although the mugging scene did develop the characters that same affect could've been accomplished in the first 2 to 3 minutes on the subway train. It wasn't necessary for Joe and Artie to individually terrorize every rider on the train; we got the point after the first two or three. Sadly, after it was all done they all just sat there. The acting was top-notch. The weakness of the film fell on the directing and editing.

Escape from Fort Bravo (1953)

Decent Civil War period romantic drama

[6/10 · 4 November 2020]

Eleanor Parker could be alluring when she tried. She definitely had a unique look. She paired nicely with Holden who bared his genuine hairy chest in this one. Sometimes he tried a little too hard in his performance. Could've been the directing or just his own shortcoming. If I looked away from the screen and heard Forsythe's voice I couldn't help but think Charlie's Angels LOL. Michael Pate was probably as well known as a movie bad guy as he was a writer. The story was simple but balanced and engaging. This was the first feature to employ spherical Panavision lenses which you could see in the panoramic shots. It was also the biggest John Sturge's money maker to date to which the cinematography, cast and story all contributed. The cavalry and Indian fighting scenes we're not the best...almost as if they were from stock footage. Wagons and soldiers gathered, Indians circled said gathering on horseback, soldiers pick off Indians like a shooting gallery. One of the things I have always loved about classic films is the quality of the supporting cast. William Demarest was a welcome addition to any ensemble. His intensity and rough demeanor added depth. It fell a little short in overall appeal. But there are worse ways to spend 100 or so minutes. Plus a free viewing of beautiful Death Valley.

Repeat Performance (1947)

Nice little noir

[7/10 · 3 November 2020]

A noir with time travel... in a way. Sheila relived the last year of her life. You can find much of the following information elsewhere but I found it interesting. The voiceover narration was John Ireland. The opening scene was reminiscent of Mildred Pierce. The story unfolded differently but it began with that similar ominous feeling. Joan Leslie felt that she wasn't getting enough attention and prestige from Warner so they tore up her contract. She then signed a two picture deal with Eagle-Lion and replaced Silvia Sydney for this role. Unfortunately it backfired on her because it was a box office flop. Many of the theaters would not show the film as a warning not to interfere with the studio system. It was remade in 1989 with the title Turn Back the Clock in which Leslie had a cameo appearance. In the original novel, "Repeat Performance", written by William O'Farrell in 1942, the character (played by Richard Basehart in his film debut at 32) "William Williams" was named "William and Mary Williams" because the character was a transvestite. As a man, he went by "William", and as a woman, she went by "Mary". This characterization would not have been allowed by the Production Code in 1947. The decline has been going on since the garden of Eden. O'Farrell was quite comfortable writing in the genre... He also wrote for Alfred Hitchcock Presents and Perry Mason TV series. More than 16 years before Mrs. Lovey Howell, Natalie Schafer played the sous femme fatale Mrs. Shaw. Alfred Werker also directed He Walked By Night and Lost Boundaries. Nice atmospheric affect when Sheila opened the drapes in the living room with the fireplace going. Williams was in the room and it was snowing outside. As soon as she left his room and said "wish me luck", I said to myself if this were a modern noir he would have been faking it the whole time so he can cheat on her. I called that one! And it was ahead of its time :-). I thought they were calling him "Bonnie" LOL. But Barney got his in the end. He was seriously sick in the head. I didn't particularly care for the entire score but parts of it did add to the suspense. I felt that all the lead actors delivered excellent performances. If you are a fan of the genre I would recommend this film.

Gattaca (1997)

A cerebral journey in the life of a dreamer

[7/10 · 7 April 2020]

Oscar nominee for best art/set direction.I'm more of an old movie buff but the interesting story premise intrigued me to watch it. Ethan Hawke was a neutral factor but Jude Law was a plus in my decision to give it a try. They were both in their mid-20s and could have easily passed for college boys LOL. When I discovered Andrew Niccol also wrote the original story for both The Truman Show and In Time I was more pleased with the prospect of a good film. The journey is a cerebral one. For example the name Eugene means "well born" and the theme of the story is eugenics. The spiral staircase in Jerome's apartment had a helical structure like DNA. I appreciated the way in which director Niccol inserted these types of elements. The character of Vincent was a dreamer who believed he could be something which others told him he could not. I think many of us can relate to him. Part of what drew me in was his desire and ambition. Yes he went against the legal standards of the society. But just because something is legal does not mean it is right. I'm not suggesting anarchy or rebellion. I am suggesting that sometimes we have to break the mold and live outside the box. I did appreciate the Oscar nominated art and set direction. The stainless steel, the lack of color, the sterility and cleanliness of both work and living environment all aided the look of a futuristic society. The performances were convincing. I especially enjoyed Alan Arkin as the detective. The ending was predictable but hoped for. I'm not sure I would categorize it as a thriller. Part of the "thrill" of the story was finding out which characters would be sympathetic to Vincent. It was slow moving and there were not many surprises in the plot but nonetheless an enjoyable 107 minutes.

The Crimson Pirate (1952)

Exciting piece of entertainment

[7/10 · 19 March 2020]

Exciting and entertaining action comedy when Lancaster was fit and vigorous along with his sidekick Nick Cravat. They were partners in nine films and this was one of the most popular of them. They worked the circus together as acrobats prior to doing films. The early action scene in the town was a bit cheesy but it demonstrated both of their athletic abilities. Many scenes are done very tongue-in-cheek which to me added to the entertainment value. Cravat was often mute in their films because he had a thick New York City (Brooklyn to be exact) accent. But again it made his characters even more likable. And Christopher Lee! He was a young 29 years old. He had only been acting less than 5 years before he played the military attaché Joseph. Writer Roland Kibbee had a successful career in TV with series like Barney Miller and Columbo for which he won Emmy's. The stunt of tipping the boat and walking to shore was clever. If you want to know where Bruckheimer got the idea for Pirates of the Caribbean, here it is. In fact, the ride at Disneyland was inspired by this movie. The fast tempoed symphonic score lended itself to the comedy. Torin usually played a villain or dirty rotten character and he excelled at it. His character redeemed himself this time around by allowing himself to be destroyed with the ship. One of the things I enjoy about older pictures is the stunt work. They did not have CGI and camera tricks were limited. So it was up to the actors and stunt team to make it look convincing. They did a marvelous job to create a swashbuckling adventure. "A slam-bang, action-filled, Technicolored lampoon" as the New York Times described it.

Girl with Green Eyes (1964)

Lacked passion

[6/10 · 18 March 2020]

I'm drawn to B&W films of the 60s so i was anticipating an enjoyable film (although it made the title a bit ironic). They often have that crisp cinematography and high contrast lighting. The story is familiar: young girl falls in love with and older married man. Like that ever works haha. The music was a little strange at times. It lacked prosody and detracted from the film IMO. Neither of the lead actors were extremely attractive but they made the characters likable. Julian Glover was a pleasant surprise. He usually played refined villains and Malachi wasn't far from it. I understand this was a rom-dram but it lacked the passion of a classic like Wuthering Heights or Pride and Prejudice or even Jerry Maguire. The script was flat, the actors were talented but didn't really seem to care. Redgrave added a little of what was lacking but she couldn't compensate enough. I enjoyed Peter Finch in Flight of the Phoenix and Network but his performance as Malachi didn't seem to showcase his talent. It's a sad story that could have been produced with more panache than it was given.

Lucky Partners (1940)

Lighthearted fun

[7/10 · 16 March 2020]

Based upon Good Luck! (1935) in which playwright Sacha Guitry also starred and directed. The premise is basically the same although it was re-written I'm sure to suit Ginger Rogers and Ronald Colman. She was cute as ever and he was charming as ever. Following the depression era and just at the onset of WWII this was another slightly wilder and louder Romcom of the 40s. It was a more romantic era that we are not accustomed to today. It would be considered dated and corny by modern standards. Carson played his usual jilted clown self (he moonlighted as a clown for a real circus) and thinks he has the girl (Rogers). He was no match for the advances of Colman. The love triangle had to be decided by trial with another wonderful performance by Harry Davenport as the judge. "Don't mention it". Jean (Rogers) of course had to appear offended at David's (Colman) wooing. In the midst of the trial they both revealed their true love for each other. Director Lewis Milestone demonstrated his diversity at comedy as well drama. It was a very sweet, lighthearted, predictable, fun piece of entertainment. It's a movie not a dissertation.

Avengers: Endgame (2019)

Disappointing ending to an otherwise entertaining film series

[6/10 · 14 May 2019]

Too slow. Too boring. Way too long. Too much drama. Seriously did we have to delve into everyone's past? And every team that went back for the stones encountered universe shattering difficulty. Wow so original. What was Marvel thinking? I had high hopes for this finale but it definitely did not deliver. The actors delivered respectable performances. Unfortunately they were hampered by a 2nd rate script. And where was the humor of Ant-Man and Ragnarok that endeared us all to these famous characters? Dullsville. It was almost shameful the way Hulk was marginalized. Yeah I know all the legal garbage behind him not getting a solo film. But here was a chance to show us what he can do and you failed, Marvel. Speaking of Marvel, she was about as inspiring as Ben Stein. I did not care for Larson's rendendtion of the character anyway so her minimal impact was Ok by me. Sorry but this movie was very underwhelming. Too bad.

Spectre (I) (2015)

Best Craig Bond yet

[7/10 · 19 September 2018]

This is Craig's best portrayal of Bond IMO. He's finally getting the gist of the character. The glib one-liners, the sometimes cavalier attitude, playing the ladies from the beginning, always looking for a way out. And he was less gruff in this one. He relied more on wit and stamina rather than brawn and anger. The music was better too. The Bond theme is heard very early on. Waltz as Blofeld was a solid choice. Bellucci was a nice addition as a Bond girl too. Seydoux wasn't Oscar worthy but above average as a Bond girl relatively speaking. It was hard to rate and make it comparable to classic Bonds. Fiennes is a far superior M. Dench always played the character as a b**** with a chip on her shoulder in typical woman power fashion. She added a bitterness to the Bond films that I didn't care for. I agree with Pierce Brosnan this one was too long. If it had a better script and was condensed they could've had a classic on their hands. But I would say this one got closer than previous Daniel Craig outings. If the franchise keeps going in this direction they will not only win over new fans but they will retain classic fans too!

Jack Ryan (2018–2023)

Shame on you

[1/10 · 8 September 2018]

Jack Ryan is not a vulgar or indecent character. Have you read the books? Shame on you Amazon for showing this garbage. There is no explicit sexuality or foul language in Clancy's book. You ruined the character and the story. Boo!

The Big Sky (1952)

Big story for a big setting

[7/10 · 10 September 2013]

I enjoyed this movie. I would rate it a 7.5 if the rating scale allowed. Director Howard Hawks has quite a varied filmography: comedies like Bringing up baby, westerns like Rio Bravo, noirs like the Big Sleep. And add adventures like this one to his credit. I wish it was done in color! It would have been fitting for it's beautiful setting. I know many of the scenes were shot on a sound stage but the panoramic scenery shots would have sparkled in color.

Kirk Douglas rarely gave a bad performance and this is no exception. It might not be Oscar worthy but he is convincing with his natural virility and famous on screen magnetism. His sidekick Arthur Hunnicut adds his endearing quality to the film as he usually does. It's also fun to see Jim Davis before his Dallas days as well as Dewey Martin (The thing from another world, The longest day) and Paul Frees (countless movie voice overs).

Although not my favorite adventure film, the story is believable and without any serious gaps. It's simple but includes some humor and added character development. Just a bit on the long side, it's a pleasant 140 minute diversion.

Pitfall (1948)

Enjoyable noir

[7/10 · 2 September 2013]

It's still funny to think that Powell was originally a song and dance man. He does the hard boiled noir character fairly well. Straight laced, stiff but a sucker for a femme fatale. Burr is sufficiently creepy - not perhaps to the extreme of Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal but sufficient nonetheless. It's often interesting to see what kind of careers many actors played before they became famous or landed their most well known roles. This is one of those roles for him. I don't find Lizabeth Scott very believable as a model. She has a funny speech pattern and looks like a heavy smoker. Of course, smoking was considered glamorous in those days. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy her acting in the right roles. But a seductress she is not.

The story works as a basic noir plot. When I read that Jay Dratler was the author I understood why I liked it. He is the author of the original story of Call Northside 777 and Laura which are both well written.

It feels Jane Wyatt is still trying to play Margaret Anderson. Maybe that's what the director wanted but her acting seems out of place. She does well as the faithful, sweet wife. But it just doesn't fit.

Unfortunately the film quality of the version I watched was not too good. It was either washed out or overexposed. That\s not the fault of the film makers but it did effect my further enjoyment of the film. It would be worth restoring.

All film reviews are opinions and you know what they say about opinions...

Overall I liked the film and I'm glad I discovered it. Thank you again TCM!

Spitfire (1942)

Rousting tribute to Spitfire designer RJ Mitchell

[7/10 · 31 August 2011]

One of the good ones! Very simple biopic that inspires and entertains. Great cast with David Niven and Leslie Howard (who also produced and directed). It will probably never end up on a 100-best list of films of all time. But it does not fail to deliver heart, spirit and all around good feelings. It is a reminder of nationalism which seems to have disappeared in this country. It was made in the days when it was not offensive to be proud of your country and the men and women who helped make it great. It is a reminder of the evil men in our world history and those who fought against them.

The studio sets are almost comical... you can hear the echo in the sound recording! The special effects are not special at all. The dialogue is even corny in some scenes. But none of that matters because the story is more important. It's a story of a man and his love of country and his disdain for tyranny. His perseverance is inspirational. His example is uncommon. And the support of his wife is just as stirring. RJ Mitchell is the spit and fire!

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966)

A classic standard

[10/10 · 19 February 2011]

One of the great ones. It is a "dictionary movie" by which all subsequent films of its kind are measured or defined. The music, the scenes, the characterizations, the action sequences... they are what makes a classic western. The spaghetti western trilogy not only launched a modern icon, Clint Eastwood, into stardom but by doing so ushered in a whole new era of film making. Even with the dubbed dialog and dated effects, it manages to remain a favorite of so many fans. That defines classic. I remember when I first saw this film. I wanted to be the man with no name. I wanted to wear the cape, wear the hat and ride the horse. It has stuck in mind for over 40 yrs. Now legendary composer Ennio Morricone demonstrated why he became what he is today. The international theme has been used countless times in countless forms of art. The film has staying power. It's classic good verses evil. Themes of greed, lust, power all reflect the human condition. And it is every bit as relevant today as it was set during the civil war times the movie is set in. The faces of the supporting cast are indelible. Where did Sergio find these guys?! All in all I would recommend this film to anyone who is a film lover. It is a bit violent at times but it's not gratuitous. Parental guidance is definitely suggested.

Quantum of Solace (2008)

Not Bond

[5/10 · 29 March 2009]

The film is OK but it is NOT Bond. Where's the gun barrel opening? Where's the Monty Norman theme (rarely heard)? And Daniel Craig is not the looker that Bond is supposed to be. The character he creates on screen is too angry, the mood is too dark, and the music is all wrong. If I try and rate this movie as a stand alone film, I would rate it higher. But as a Bond film, it is way off. The director does not capture the spirit of the character that Ian Fleming created.

The Q branch does not exist in the film. And in this day of high-tech gadgetry? Moneypenny is gone. Bond is just as dark as the villain. It seems as though he's on a constant vendetta - but with a serious chip on his shoulder. He doesn't care about anything or anyone (remember, Bond did marry). And since when does Bond get all bloody? He's supposed to get the bad guy, get the girl, brush off his tux and save the world all over again. That's why I go to see Bond! It's a great recipe; why mess with it?