Change Your Image
Dr_FIcta
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Land and Live in the Desert (1945)
US film industry -- doing its part in WWII
The First Motion Picture Unit of the US Army Air Force cranked out hundreds of instructional films in the 3-plus years of WW II. These movies were produced by Hollywood professionals who had joined up for the duration, and their average quality is quite high. This one, dated 1944, is a lot more than just didactic, however. It's pretty realistic, and even dramatic in a disciplined sort of way. Along with other such films depicting survival conditions in the arctic and the jungle, "Land & Live in the Desert" must have been meaningful to the thousands of flyers whose very lives might end up depending on what they learned here. Look out for some familiar Warner Brothers talent from the era: John Beal, Craig Stevens, Wally Cassell, Wm T. Orr. IMDB "Cast" says that Van Heflin is the narrator here. That's not true though (he does narrate the "Land and Live in the Jungle" short). The narrator's voice sounds a little like Wendell Corey. Effective little film score, too. Very watchable.
Life with Father (1947)
Life with -- don't bother
Having tried over the years three or four times to get into (or even get through) this film, I tried yet again when it showed on TCM today. And even though I was making a conscious effort this time, I STILL couldn't make it all the way through this snooze-fest. I'm basically in agreement with evanston_dad that it's "one of the dullest films" ever, even though I too am a fan of both its main stars.
One star for the period ambiance, one star for the color (albeit a little faded, it seems to me), and one star for what I suppose was an honest effort. It's not in contention for worst-film-ever, but it's sure not one of the "essentials."
The Black Rose (1950)
Tyrone Power in lesser-known medieval saga
As other reviewers have observed, this is a difficult movie to rate with a single number. In some ways it is quite effective in its atmospheric period depiction. Yet in other ways it suffers considerably, especially in its plotting, editing, and scriptwriting.
We'll start with the negatives, most particularly the spectacularly ineffective performance by Cecile Aubry (in the title role, no less!). Not only is her speech at times practically unintelligible, but she has absolutely no emotional chemistry with her supposed love-interest--Power. The utter failure of this relationship to develop convincingly is the film's single biggest weakness (although that is not entirely the fault of Aubry). With regard to cinematic verisimilitude, many previous reviewers have emphasized Tyrone Power's miscasting in terms of age, and to a lesser extent, his thoroughly anachronistic American accent. To me, however, those failings are less severe than the complete lack of credibility as to language in general. Amazing how many people along the silk roads of the Middle East (and even all the way to Cathay) spoke idiomatic English! Yes, it's true that such a problem is difficult to solve (indeed, even such an acknowledged master-epic as "Lawrence of Arabia" suffers from it), but some films (e.g., "The Third Man") confront this problem a lot more successfully than others. I suppose it's an aspect of cinematic suspension of disbelief that we'll just have to accept-but one doesn't have to like it. Another serious problem results from scripting and editing, which, among other things, cuts out the protagonists' entire trip from their departure out of England to somewhere around Arabia. Both continuity and opportunity for dramatic development are lost thereby.
On the other hand, certain aspects of this film render it a worthwhile viewing experience. First, the location scenery and Cardiff's color cinematography are first-rate, contributing to the film's overall atmosphere. Second, with the exception of Aubry, the characterizations are generally well drawn (e.g., Lom, Rennie, Welles). Power is his usual likable self, and Hawkins, as always, adds value to the film through his mere presence. Third--and notwithstanding the criticisms of a couple of previous reviewers--Addinsell's film score is actually pretty effective. I am especially struck by the plaintive, haunting scoring for double-reeds toward the beginning of the film, evoking (along with the accompanying visuals) a long-past time.
In sum: the first half of the movie is both engaging and entertaining (albeit a bit talky), but the plot becomes increasingly implausible and unarresting in its latter stages, such that long before the end one might be tempted to abandon it entirely.
Meet the Fleet (1940)
Interesting time capsule
As the other reviewers have noted, there's not a lot of dramatic value to be had here. But it is fun to see the four main stars (Armstrong, Reeves, Anderson, and Orr, all of whom were ubiquitous in films & TV during the '30s through the '60s) kicking around together. Even more significantly, this little propaganda quicky from 1940, in beautiful technicolor, shows San Diego naval base as it actually was at that time (so does "Dive Bomber," come to think of it, made just a little later by the same studio and with two of the same cast members in it).
The opening and closing scenes featuring the USS Pennsylvania are poignant, however, because that very ship was at Pearl Harbor (in drydock) on 12/7/41. And her only sister ship was the USS Arizona.
Elmer, the Great (1933)
Period Piece
Sure it's cornball, and in many respects it seems hopelessly naive, and Joe E. Brown's persona is in some respects pretty insufferable, but it's clear that the makers of this picture knew all that. For some reason, Joe really resonated with American society of the 1930s, and that's what the producers gave to the public. I doubt if folks back then could have related to Johnny Depp, either.
While "Elmer the Great" is certainly no masterwork, if you just take it on its own terms, the film is quite likable. It's particularly atmospheric in the earlier scenes set in Gentryville, Indiana. And there's some nice moments of pathos here, too.
I would rank all three of JEB's baseball trilogy as about equally good.
Battle Taxi (1955)
OK, so it's not the Korean-War equivalent of "Grand Illusion"
No doubt, the film contains more than its share of deficiencies, which have been amply pointed out in previous reviews of this title. But we have to remember that it was probably shot on a minuscule budget, and most likely in a heluva hurry, for the war had been over for at least a year before it got released.
For me, "Battle Taxi" rates 4-5 for cinematic quality, but as a document of aviation history it's at least an 8, and for sentimental value (for me), it's off the charts.
Along with Richard Widmark's "Hell and High Water," this was my favorite movie back around 1958, when I was four years old. My old man was an Air Force fighter jock at that time, having flown F-80s in Korea, now stationed at Hamilton Field north of San Francisco, flying F-86s. For whatever reason, I absolutely loved helicopters, especially the H-19, and a Chickasaw pilot lived on the same street as we did in Novato. One of my earliest memories is of being invited out to the base to see a real H-19, and actually getting to SIT IN THE COCKPIT, while my brother and cousins had to stand below in the cargo bay.
I hadn't seen this film in at least 30 years when it showed up on TCM around 2005. Yet I remembered it in almost every detail, especially the "truck gas" episode. Seeing it again was a priceless time-warp experience.
PS: for any H-19 fans out there, floating around YT is a 25-minute Army training film about pre-flight inspection of the Chickasaw. I would have given my last toy revolver back in 1958 to have seen that!
Kelly's Heroes (1970)
"Farms? In Berkeley? MOOOOO!"
First time I've contributed to the IMDb reviews. Guess I'll start by weighing in on some films that I consider to be vastly overrated. This is one of them. I've decidedly got to go with the lowballers on KH-a movie that has 1970 written all over it. Indeed, how could a "war" film made in that year have been anything else?
Along with M*A*S*H and The Dirty Dozen (and to a lesser extent Patton), all of which stem from the period c. 1968-70, KH suffers from the 25-year lag syndrome, meaning that the producers, director, and actors aren't very connected to the time period anymore (cf. Hogan's Heroes). Also like DD and MASH, especially, it's an insult to the spirit of the time portrayed. This is basically Ocean's 11 warped back to WWII itself and seen through a haze of pot smoke. Come to think of it, ultra-cool Donald Sutherland is in ALL THREE films. Tells you something right there....