anghmho Reviews

The Good Fight: The Abraham Lincoln Brigade in the Spanish Civil War (1984)

There were many reasons to be in this war, but...

[19 January 2014]

An earlier reviewer gave this film three stars and noted that it was "terribly one-side." Another reviewer, from Spain, gave it one star and pretty much damned it as leftist propaganda.

I, on the other hand, thought it was pretty even-handed. I can't find anything in this film that's inaccurate. Facts: Franco and his mob WERE fascists. They rose against the legally elected government. They were supported by Hitler and Mussolini, who sent their troops, tanks, and their air forces to help Franco win the war. The western governments cut off all supplies to the legally elected government. The government was supported by the people, who were tired of their feudal existence. The government established universal education for the very first time and lessened the power of he church, the aristocracy, and the land owners. I don't think the negative reviewers can dispute these claims. It is true, however, that there was much barbarity committed by both sides.

f you research the Spanish Civil War, you will find that people had many reasons for getting into it, whichever side they chose. This film covers only the experience of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, American volunteers who fought on the side of the government, and the experiences of people who served with the Lincolns.

Interesting footnote: Franco was supported big-time by Hitler and Mussolini, both of whom sent troops, tanks, and parts of their air forces to help him win the war. The legally elected government had no support whatsoever from the U.S., Britain, or France (in fact, they hindered the government) and only piddly support from the USSR. Apart from the USSR, the only other foreign support came from individual people from all over the world who came to Spain under their own individual power to stand up to fascism.

That's what this film is about.

Arbitrage (2012)

A sad waste

[5/10 · 16 October 2013]

This is pretty much unwatchable and a terrific waste of some very good talent. It appears to be a combination of poor writing, definitely poor direction, and maybe poor editing. It's difficult to tell who contributed how much to the failure of this production. Maybe it's an inevitable consequence of the bean counters trying to figure out what makes box office. The most painful part is watching Tim Roth (an English actor), doing a painfully bad imitation of Columbo.

IMDb tells me that a 10-line review i s a minimum, so I have to spew idiotic blah about this IMDb since won't allow me me to use the repetitive form form of blah-blah.

Enough for your IMBDs requirements?

The Day of the Trumpet (1958)

Historical hogwash as well as a bad film

[1/10 · 13 September 2012]

I am an American born and bred from immigrants, and I love my country, not for its mistakes, which sometimes seem to build on themselves, but for the fabulous promise it holds.

So I am surprised that Eddie Romero, a Filipino who should know his own country's history, is the director of this film, a prime example of inaccurate history and bad film making as well.

This film is in no way an accurate depiction of the interaction between Americans and Filipinos at the time shown. And I would hate to believe that it would be received as such.

Before anyone is offended by my review, let me state first that it is historically inaccurate.

Unlike the conditions depicted in this film, the United States was a far worse occupier of the Philippines at this time than the Spanish before them The Spanish at least came to recognize the national aspirations of the Filipinos to some degree. The U.S. Army, however, considered the Filipinos subhuman and raped the women and killed the men without remorse. Ask me to verify this. I can.

No surprise, then, that there was a popular insurrection against the American occupation. The racist attitude of the Americans never completely went away, but eventually a peace of sorts came to be and improved dramatically over time. By World War II, the Filipinos were with us against the Japanese, who were the most brutal occupiers in modern history.

But 40 years earlier, in 1902, the American Army was still indiscriminately slaughtering people who wanted their freedom and their own nation. To help rule the Philippines, the Americans set up an elite class of quislings as the ruling class, a pragmatic mistake that haunts the Philippines to this day and is responsible for their systemic inability to rule themselves effectively.

Before this seems like a condemnation of the United States, let me note the following: The United States had promised before World War 2 to grant the Phillipines their independence in 1946 and, unlike other Western powers, who were interested in holding on to their colonies, the United States did exactly that on July 4, 1946--less than a year after the end of the war-- much to their everlasting credit.

This review was deleted once before because someone was offended by it, which is not the best of reasons. If IMDb has a problem with this review, I ask them to contact me before deleting my review. I am not speaking out of the wrong end, and I can prove it.

Sharpe: Sharpe's Challenge (2006) Season 6, Episode 1

Every cliché you can think of

[4 September 2012]

Sharpe goes to India to save a friend, the purpose of which, in addition to saving the friend, is to provide information that will thwart a rebellion. Once he gets there, he meets the friend, still alive, and they join forces. Here, you have to forget that his friend has the knowledge to prevent the rebellion. While they join up, the General's daughter has been abducted while the column she was traveling with is massacred (sounds suspiciously like Last of the Mohicans) And guess what, Hawkeye--eh, Sharpe--sets off to rescue her. Of course, there is a villain along the way, a British turncoat worthy of Basil Rathbone. But unlike Hawkeye, who defends the settler's fort, Sharpe infiltrates the enemy's fort to both rescue the damsel in distress and to turn the tide of battle when the British attack the rebels. He does both, and dispatches the villain as well. It in turns incorporates every cliché you can find in Gunga Din, Lives of a Bengal Lancer, Robin Hood, and, eh, Sharpe's Whatever.

But it's good fun as long as you realize it doesn't contain a shred of historical accuracy.

They Were Expendable (1945)

Fire in the Paint Locker

[9/10 · 21 August 2012]

Every time I read IMDb reviews or message boards, I am appalled at how much misinformation and ignorance I encounter. I am mystified about where some reviewers get their information and by what deficient process they form their opinions of a film's worth.

If you want to know what reviewers thought back when a vintage film was first released, go to the online archives of newspapers such as The New York Times. In retrospect, the old-time reviewers were usually right on the money.

To those reviewers who think They Were Expendable is sentimental, you're right. It's a John Ford film, after all. By all reports, John Ford was a dictatorial SOB who was a horror to work with, but he made great films. This is one of his best, if not THE best.

To those reviewers who think this film is a fine portrayal of men's loyalty to their country and to each other in a truly tough time, you're right, too. And so are the reviewers who can crawl into the skin of the men who are portrayed here--in an impossible situation, without the ghost of a chance of relief, scared to death, and knowing that they are doomed.

To those reviewers who find this film boring, I can only assume you don't know much about your own country's history. We almost lost that one. It was a scary time, with no good news anywhere.

We are now at a stage in our country's history where there are no massive engagements such as World War 2, in which every family knew others in military service. When I was a little kid, almost every family on my street had a blue star service flag displayed in the window, and often a gold star flag indicating the death of someone in service. The war was emotionally close for a lot of people.

The country hasn't been that way for a long, long time. I therefore assume that the bored reviewers are (1) young and have not experienced a time of genuine national emergency in which everyone was expected to sacrifice, and did; (2) are too conditioned by the way most recent films (which I see as boring) are presented; and (3) don't see that the story is everything. Luckily, these guys are in the minority. I just hope they don't reproduce.

The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit (1956)

How are we going to live on ten thousand a year?

[7/10 · 21 July 2012]

I remember watching this on TV at my father's place in the 60's. I was in my 20's and recently returned from Vietnam. Consider my review in that context.

What struck me then, and still does, is Betsy Rath's question, "How are we going to live on $10,000 a year?" and how that question contrasted with the way they were living. Ten thousand 1956 dollars is equivalent to about $84,000 a year in 2012 dollars. They were clearly living WAY beyond that limit. But that was Hollywood at the time. Movies at that time showed secretaries living in comparative luxury. In fairness, though, 1956 living took a much smaller chunk of the paycheck than it is does now.

My father, who never made $10,000 a year laughed at the $10,000 line. I went on to make considerably more than $84,000 a year, and I couldn't have afforded the lifestyle of the Raths.

Then there was Betsy Rath's reaction to Tom's fathering a child out of wedlock. That was, quite frankly, not believable, even considering the 1956 time frame. Here was this poor bastard expecting to die any day, who found a little much-needed genuine warmth, and his bitch of a wife can't accept that? Sorry, can't buy that.

But, hey, films always have believability problems. Except for the two problems noted above, this was a good film experience for me.

Nobody's Fool (1994)

There's only one thing about this movie...

[21 July 2012]

Well, maybe two. Or maybe three.

Everything was perfect, except for the cinematography. Maybe that was the cinematographer's fault or maybe it was the director's fault. Or maybe it was the editor's.

There is a quote from John Ford about why he didn't like to use close-ups. His response: I use them when I think they're necessary, but generally they're all that necessary. Or something to that effect.

And he was right. I dare you to name a John Ford film with a lot of unnecessary close-ups.

There are are very, very few long shots in this movie. Consequently, you don't get get to see the characters interacting with each other simultaneously. My impression of this film is that is mostly an interminable series of jarring close-ups of 1-2 seconds: close-up of one character saying something, followed by the recipient's reaction, and back and forth ad nauseum. Almost enough to make you sea-sick.

Consider the feeling that long shots would have imparted when you watch this otherwise great film, when you could see two or more characters interacting simultaneously. You never get to see that in this film. You get the impression that each actor was hauled before the camera alone to recite their lines and react appropriately, all for a second or two or three, then the camera switches back faster than stink to the character they're supposed to be talking to. Not a long shot to be seen.

John Ford aside, consider the way Frank Capra shot films. A Capra-esque feeing about this film has been noted before. Same philosophy as John Ford. When you see James Stewart saying something, you see Donna Reed's reaction at the same time. Long shot.

That's what's missing from missing from this movie. Bad framing throughout. It's hard to place the blame: Was it Robert Benton (director), James Bailey (cinematographer), or John Bloom (editor)? Hard to pinpoint.

Otherwise a wonderful, if flawed film (reasons noted above).

Odd Man Out (1947)

Interesting that the nitpickers are British

[15 August 2011]

I have always loved this film. I discovered it in my teens, and to me me it has always represented exactly what the film makers said: the unpredictability of the human heart when people meet other people, whether in distress or otherwise.

Both my parents emigrated to the United States, one from Scotland and the other from Ireland, both Protestants, and both regarded this film as a masterpiece. Both were pro-British. Which makes me wonder why so many British commenters find fault with this film, particularly with such details as the authenticity of accent and validity of the Republican cause, while neglecting the human aspect of the story, i.e., the remorse and the slow death of the James Mason character.

It seems that the British have a deep-seated prejudice against the Irish that gets in the way of seeing any situation from anything other that that prejudiced viewpoint.

Comments?

The Miracle of the Bells (1948)

One of my childhood favorites, except for two things

[15 August 2011]

The two things are, first, Alida Valli's whistling S's whenever she spoke. It wasn't what you sometimes used to hear in Texas speech (no idea what that was about; you don't hear it anymore. Even LBJ used to do it) or the whistling that used to be associated with false teeth. I don't know what it was, but it was certainly distracting. Second, I don't understand why everybody thinks she was so good looking; she was certainly no Garbo and not nearly as good an actress.

I have seen The Paradine Case and The Third Man (another of my favorites), and I still don't understand why she was considered so hot at the time. Not all that great looking, not much presence, and not a really outstanding actress. Maybe my impression is not unique, and maybe that's the reason she had such a short career in American films.

Am I wrong?

Corregidor (1943)

Possibly the worst film I've ever seen

[22 May 2011]

Good subject (Corregidor under siege) crapped up by an apparently nonexistent script, a ridiculous story, cartoon-like fighting scenes, and monkey-ugly villains.

Every scene has something wrong with it. The defenders are running out of water, but everybody is clean shaven and they all have clean uniforms--with neckties! They are on emergency rations, but everybody looks very well fed. And near the end, the nurses make a getaway on the last plane out of Corregidor (pretty good trick when there weren't any planes left on Corregidor). This plane is a flying boat, which is what is sounds like--a big, floating target extremely unlikely to have survived the siege. This was a commercial plane that didn't have any guns, except this one did--a water-cooled machine gun in the tail--without water. And of course, this is where the tail gunner, one of our heroes, is killed successfully defending the getaway plane against an attacking Japanese plane piloted by a monkey look-alike.

Production values are nonexistent. Good films have been made on limited budgets, but this isn't one of them.

13 Rue Madeleine (1947)

Excellent film, with 2 quibbles

[8/10 · 16 May 2011]

I enjoyed this film from beginning to end. Terrific performances all around. Just a couple of things, though.

Cagney is supposed to be, among other things, a former world-class athlete and World War 1 hero. World War 1? OK, he was the right age, but by the time this film was released (1947), Cagney was 47-48, which would have been all right if he hadn't been short and fat and looking about 10 years older. Although he was athletic and light on his feet. his portliness and apparent age were a distraction throughout this film. So was his early 20th century Irish Yorkville accent (NYC), which he never lost (You dirty rat!!!). And he was supposed to be from Minnesota!

And although Richard Conte also turned in a superb performance (in my opinion, superior to Cagney's), he never lost his Jersey City way of speaking (which, believe me, is far more attractive than today's Jersey City accent).

Other than that, no complaints. Excellent film.

Saving Grace (1986)

Just one criticism

[8/10 · 15 May 2011]

I don't know if this really qualifies as a spoiler. I loved this movie from beginning to end. BUT I found the overuse of music to underscore so many scenes more than unnecessary--annoying, in fact-- particularly when Tom Conti was doing something "saintly" or what you would hope a pope would do in his circumstances. It was the musical equivalent of canned laughter. If the editors had just relied on the viewers' intelligence to determine for themselves what was moving (OK, maybe with a more subtle application of musical score), the final film would have been even more effective. Kudos all around, though, for the cast, the writers, and director. I do hope, though, that whoever appended the music to the film has matured enough to know that audiences are intelligent enough to interpret a film without being prodded by overbearing music.

The American (2010)

No redeeming value, whatsoever.

[2/10 · 19 April 2011]

You keep on waiting for something to happen in this film to propel the story forward, but you wait in vain. Unmitigated manure from the what-the-hell beginning to the well-so-what ending.

Whoa. Wait a minute. IMDb tells me that the foregoing paragraph is not sufficient for posting. I need a maximum of 1,000 words or 10 lines to post. More manure. IMDb won't allow me to give a succinct opinion, so I'll blab on to tell you stuff, not manure, that only amplifies the first paragraph. Why in the world did anyone want to make this movie (who knows)? How did it do at the box office (miserably)? What was the point (again, who knows)?

So you want more? How many better movies were done on the assassin theme? The best was "The Day of the Jackal" (1973) (not that monstrosity "the Jackal" with Bruce Willis). And try "Suddenly," a 1954 thriller with Frank Sinatra. Both are well worth the viewing.

So, IMDb, are those enough words?