Kungfu Panda 2

 Finally, finally, finally Kungfu Panda 2 has hit our shores! So it was with pleasure and anticipation that my hot little feet whipped me off to my local theatre! I have been looking forward to this since it was announced a sequel was in the offering as I just loved the first feature. Believe it or not opening night was only yesterday and yet I was alone in the theatre with only one other person!! I couldn't believe it as it was really eerie as my laughter bounced off of the walls.

 I may have been looking forward to this sequel but I was also worried somewhat. I really wondered how the first movie could be topped or if this second outing would even come close to the first quality wise. Well first off it in no way topped the first....not even close as it just didn't capture the the one thing the first had in abundance.........charm. The charm was missing and what I got was a rushed action heavy animated blitzkrieg instead. Sure it is a Kungfu movie but to me at times it looked no more than an animated version of last weeks Transformers movie...destruction and mayhem at the expense of the characters themselves. The building collapse of Transformers 3 is all but replicated here as well!

 The plot was fine but the script rushed head long into the fray which saw the moral inherent to all animated features become lost in the mayhem that followed. It was all rush rush rush and what was so wonderful about the first movie was sadly missing. I thought it might have been over familiarity with the characters, but I don't think so because whilst there is a story of self discovery for Po, the movie really is just an actioner with plenty of fights and explosions.

 But it isn't without its place because it still retained plenty of humour and I laughed out loud from start to finish! The animation was spot on and visually satisfying with plenty of sight gags to keep all happy. Problem is the one I keep coming back too..it was too rushed and it felt as if the producers were trying to fit just far to much into its running time. It just left out too much of what made the first such a success and is little more than a wreck 'em, bash 'em, blow 'em up, slug fest. Bangs for bucks entertainment yes but at too much expense of what Kungfu Panda should be about. ( I was surprised that Del Toro was executive producer for this as I had heard nothing about his involvement and I didn't see his influence ).

 Overall I felt almost let down by this sequel. Sure it had plenty of laughs and was visually appealing but it gave up the wonderful feel of the first movie in becoming an animated action movie. The charm of the first was severely lacking and for me this is the key element of Kungfu Panda and its success.  A lot of fun yes, full of humour yes, full of plenty of great animated fights yes.....but missing that 'certain' spark of the first.  I enjoyed it and had a great time....but I didn't love it and believe me I LOVED the first one big time!

  Still worth seeing as you will get your moneys worth. But if like me you want to re-capture the charm and wonderful vibe of the first I think you will be very disappointed. If I had to give it a grade I would go 7/10, whereas the first was an unequivocal 10/10 for me. Unfortunately the producers have fallen into the trap of making a big loud movie that misses the 'awesomeness' of the first.

 Click on the month of February if you wish to read my review on the first Kungfu Panda as a comparison.

Click here for a synopsis and more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kungfu_Panda_2

Here for more:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1302011/

And here for the official site:

http://www.kungfupanda.com/

The Graduate

'Elaine!'

'Ben!'

'Elaine!'

'Ben!'

Ben to Elaine!!

'It's too late.'

'Not for me it isn't!'

Elaine to her mother, Mrs. Robinson.

You know the scene!!!!!!!

 ' And here's to you Mrs. Robinson....', how on earth can you go wrong with a film that starts with that song??! I have never been interested in watching The Graduate because I was never overly fussed on Dustin Hoffman. But after some recent films of his  I took the opportunity of renting this DVD from my local library and watching it last night.

 The AFI has the graduate at number 7 on its greatest films list. Straight away I will say that is far too high for it. When a true masterpiece such as Dr. Strangelove is down in the 20's, ( and for me the far superior film ) , it shows the flaws in the AFI's rankings. The Graduate is certainly a great film but I don't think it can rank as near one of the greatest ever made. In saying that I do still think it is top 100 material but more down between 50-100 ranking.

 The first thing that hit me about The Graduate is how it didn't feel or look like a 1967 film. The French Connection looked like an early 1970's film where as The Graduate, being three year older, looks far newer. I honestly thought it was a late 1970's film as it has dated extremely well compared to many other late 1960's films. Secondly it is a comedy drama and here it has dated as the laughs are there but haven't the impact in our modern world as they did 44 years ago. I still had a few chuckles but the riot it was in 1967 is no more.

The morality is also out of date as far as sex and marriage goes. Notice the scene where Hoffman, as Benjamin Braddock, is buying the wedding ring. As he is inside a young couple walk out of the store with a very young baby in the father's arms. The message is loud and clear and yet it has dated as I seriously doubt the younger generation of today would see the symbolism and message in it. It shows how much attitudes to sex, love, and marriage have changed.

 In its day the scenes where Mrs. Robinson has first undressed herself in front of Hoffman were explicit with the very blink your eyes and miss it flashes of her breasts. Today we get to see it all and that scene has an almost quaintness about it to our jaded eyes. It is amazing though when you watch the likes of this and then The French Connection which was made in 1971, because in The French Connection we see a very clear shot of a woman's bum, which shows how far along in the space of four years the level of acceptable nudity had traveled. Think also that Dirty Harry came out several months after The French Connection and had a very clear shot of a woman's breasts. So even within the space of a few years after its release The Graduate was somewhat dated.

 As a film The Graduate is possibly the one that really brought to the fore young sexual angst in a more realistic and probable way. Of course with loosening morality restrictions for film it was able to do so. But what is truly funny about The Graduate is the ages of the actors/actresses compared against the ages of their respective characters! For instance Hoffman was 30 and yet plays a 21 year old!! I actually thought he was in his early twenties as he doesn't look any where near thirty!!  Ann Bancroft as Mrs. Robinson is supposed to be 42 and is actually only 35, and yet looks far older than Hoffman. Fortunately the youthfulness of Hoffman's appearance works because if he didn't look 21 then the film wouldn't have worked. Also the very attractive Katherine Ross was actually 27 playing 19!

 All three of these actors were nominated for Oscars for their performances. The film was also nominated for four other Oscars with Mike Nichols winning Best Director. Like all films it is always interesting to look at who was initially wanted for the cast. Doris Day, Ava Gardner, Joan Crawford, and Patricia Neal all wanted, or were considered for the role of Mrs. Robinson. Robert Redford was wanted for Benjamin Bradford, and Gene Hackman for Mr. Robinson. Even without these names it still is a fine film though!

 Obviously Dustin Hoffman as Benjamin Braddock is the main protagonist and I must say a few words about him. His is a stellar performance and even though I had heard good things about it I was sceptical as I started watching last night. I'm now convinced!! Benjamin is a painful geek who I constantly felt like grabbing by the scruff of the neck and administering a good hard kick in the pants!! His initially reticence is painful and Hoffman plays it well. Kudos where deserved Dustin, because even at 30 you played a very convincing shy, sexually naive 21 year old!!

 One last thing and that must be about the church scene! It is certainly an iconic scene if not one of the MOST iconic ever filmed. I think it ranks up there with the cliff jump in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, and Reagan's head turning 360 in The Exorcist as one of the best and most recognisable scenes ever. It was of course famously parodied in Wayne's World which shows the impact it has had on the world of cinema.

 The Graduate is I believe a truly great film, but not top ten material. When you look at the films it is ranked with I'm afraid it isn't in quite that league. But it has its place as it is a piece of cinematic history for its quite explicit message for the times. The script is first class and the acting faultless, especially that of Hoffman as the shy reserved Benjamin Braddock. The score is fantastic and Simon and Garfield's song Mrs. Robinson must rank as one of the best ever put to a film. Dated yes, very much so, not visually as it has stood the test of time well, but in its treatment of our attitudes towards sex. This is where its historical value comes to the fore as it is a valuable look back at the changing attitudes towards sex, not only on the big screen, but in the world at large.

 Certainly recommended, and still a great film even with its dated sexual quaintness! I thoroughly enjoyed it and the church scene is a definite must see for any film aficionado.

Click here for a synopsis and more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Graduate

And here for more:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061722/

And it even has an official website!

http://www.mgm.com/view/movie/772/The-Graduate/

Death Of A Salesman

The DVD cover.

 This version is not the 1951 film adaptation of Arthur Miller's play but a 1966 made for television film. I watched it last night and it was one of the most intense and satisfying watches I have had in quite some time. It is considered the greatest American play of the 20th Century and it won a Pulitzer in 1949 the year of its publication. It was staged that year with both John Lee Cobb and Mildred Dunnard and had a run of 742 performances.

 In this made for television film both Cobb and Dunnard reprise their stage roles as Willy and Linda Lohman. It is unique and interestingly made because it is filmed as if the viewer is watching a play and not a film. The sets are very much play sets and yet it is filmed in a classic film manner which uses all the usual camera angles etc. I remember this type play cum film from the late 1970's early 80's as my old man use to watch them on a Friday night. I was always enrapt by the play sets even though I couldn't understand the narratives! They always appeared boring and I used to run when a Shakespeare play turned up! ( I remember Laurence Olivier very well! ). I wish I had access to them all now as they have left an indelible mark in my mind.

 But times have changed as I really like this type of play/film, and I still have an affinity with the sets. Unfortunately this type of thing has died out and they are very hard to find so it was with relish that I watched this. I'm not sure of the plays original length but this has been abridged from its television length. At 99 minutes it is like a full length film and I would liked to have seen it in its entirety even though what I saw was outstanding.

 If you have never seen this type of film/play then what you get is a set like you would see on a stage and the actors act it out like a play whilst being filmed. Stage acting is a totally different skill to camera acting and the skill level on display here is phenomenal. John lee Cobb is sublime as Willy Loman, a man who is enduring a breakdown and has attempted several suicide attempts. For me he is the highlight and a good example of stage acting. His voice projection is wonderful and I loved how the sets are laid out for filming purposes so that the actors can move to each one seamlessly without a cut in the film.

 There are cuts in the film as some sets are not central to the story and happen outside of the Loman house. You get the idea when you see an actor move from one narrative to another as they move past prop walls and windows that have another set in shadows behind them. I loved it visually and it brought back the wonder I had at this type of production as a boy. A good example is in one scene Willy goes into a bathroom and the viewer sees the back of the washbasin as if looking into the room instead of a conventional film where you are in there with him. It is wonderful stuff and the production value is extremely high which saw it win a very well deserved Emmy.

 The cast is just superb and I was very, very surprised when a very young Gene Wilder walked on!! I couldn't believe my eyes! He doesn't have a big part but he was an actor I never took to and I was startled by how accomplished he was as a stage actor where he, like so many others, started his career. John Lee Cobb cannot be praised enough as Willy Lohman. He is a stage actor of real note and this is his role absolutely. Mildred Dunnard is superb to as Linda Lohman. She is a mousy woman who has suffered her husbands decline into depression for a long time and yet won't turn her back on him. The two sons are well played as well and I couldn't fault the cast at all.

 It is an emotionally shattering play and the actors really engage the viewer and make them feel the pain of the story. I felt my self squirm at times as things got to close and real for comfort, but this is its strength as it is something that we can can all recognise. The film/play adaptation works well because Lohman talks to himself non stop and with television techniques the viewer gets to see through walls as his family listen to him. This same technique is used well to as Lohman looks back on his life through a series of flashbacks.  Certain camera angles are used so as not to interrupt the actors movements and the skill of it all is just beyond mention. What television has done is give a continuity that the play couldn't as the curtain would have to closed so sets and clothes could be changed.

Cover of the play's first edition.

 If you are a film aficionado then this is compulsory viewing. It is a type of film making that has now gone and it is a real shame because there is an incredible amount of skill involved in producing film/plays for the screen. I like them very much and wish I could get my hands on more of them. The difference between stage and screen acting is huge and this is a good example and well worth watching to see why.

 Well worth your time as Death of a Salesman is a truly great play that will shatter your emotions. This made for television film/play, if you can find a copy, is a more than satisfying watch. I'm sure anyone with any modicum of intelligence will be in awe of the high production values and the performances, especially that of John Lee Cobb who is just on another level!

Highly, highly recommended.

Click here for a synopsis and more on this very famous American play:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_a_Salesman

And here for a look at the DVD version of this fine television production:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0187806/

The French Connection

Doyle is bad news - but he is a good cop. 

 The French Connection and its its sequel used to be standard fare on NZ television in the early 1980's . I can remember my old man watching them but I found them boring and they went over my head. Thirty years later I couldn't even conjure a vague image of either film so I was really looking forward to watching this last night because in all essence it was a new film to me.

 I was really surprised to find that the AFI has this in its top 100 films of all time list. As with A Place in the Sun I'm not sure it warrants being there even though it is a fine film. It was released in 1971 and was nominated for eight Oscars, winning five, of which Gene Hackman won for Best Actor. I never knew he had actually won an Oscar before last night! It was with surprise also that I found out Roy Schneider was nominated for Best Actor in a Supporting Role.

 The film is a fictionalised adaptation of a non-fiction work. In the 1960's and the early 1970's most of the heroin coming into the Eastern Seaboard came from France, hence the title. The script itself was also nominated and won an Oscar, and when you watch Connection it is apparent that it is a fine film and the nominations well deserved. Interestingly it was also the first R-rated film in the States to win an Oscar for Best Picture after the introduction of the MPAA system. In its day it was certainly violent and graphic, but now the gunshot wounds do look dated. This is the era when Hollywood was able to leave behind the puritanical system in which it worked under and have swearing, graphic violence and nudity appear on screen. Connection has all three but by today's standards in relatively small doses which I liked because it didn't go over the top and kept an air of realism by not doing so.

 As a cop film The french Connection is regarded to have set the standard. Sure Dirty Harry came out a month later but Harry lacked the credibility 'Popeye' Doyle achieved. This saw the Harry series became more a source of anti-hero entertainment than a cop film per se. Connection was the first real attempt at showing the gritty, unpleasant side of police work, but all the while it provided plenty of thrills along the way. The car chase scene is regarded as one of the greatest ever filmed. Hackman actually did a lot of the driving himself and it still stands up well today.

 Gene Hackman as 'Popeye' Doyle is superb and it is hard to credit after such a performance he wasn't initially considered for the role. Paul Newman and Steve McQueen were wanted but well out of budget. Lee Marvin refused because he hated cops! Jackie Gleason was considered bad luck, and even Charles Bronson was considered before Hackman got the part. Doyle is in my opinion the best part Hackman played in the 1970's ( next to The Conversation ). He has the intensity and dis-regard for the rules needed for the role. He is ably supported by a very good Roy Schneider who after this never really scaled such acting heights again even after the his iconic role in Jaws.

 As a 1970's film this is an amazing watch and not only for the performances. Brooklyn as a city is an incredible backdrop and I couldn't get over the amount of rubbish in the streets! It was like a dump!! But it all adds to the certain timelessness that Connection has achieved as a film. It is a brilliant snapshot into 1970's Brooklyn and an inadvertent one. It is a film and meant for entertainment, yet in the process a period of a cities life has been preserved which I found fascinating. Any car buff out there to will enjoy the 70's buzz as the streets are chocked full of late 60's and early 70's cars and it was fun identifying them and seeing them as 'new' models!! As a film it is a piece of visual history on an era that is long gone. I suppose because of this, as well as the fact it is a fine film, it has been preserved in the U.S National Film Registry.

 I really enjoyed watching the French Connection. It is a very fine example of an early 1970's film. It has that 70's patina about it and Brooklyn is fascinating. I was enrapt with what was happening behind the action as much as by the film itself. It reminds me very much of Collateral with Tom Cruise where the lights of L.A are very much a character in themselves. The French Connection can I believe be accredited with starting the American cop movie/television series that took away the gloss and showed the gritty, boring, morale sapping, seedy side of police work. The sort of places they went into and the types of punks, crims, scum, they dealt with isn't pleasant at all, and yet all too real. Sure it has its dramatic moments but it is the 'air' and 'feel' of the film that is its key. As a cop movie The French Connection set a standard that has rarely been bettered.

 One other thing struck me as it added to the 'cop' feel, and that was the inadvertent humour. I found myself chuckling at certain parts, not because they were funny as such, but because they represented the frustrations of the job. Watch the subway scene and you'll know what I mean. It is black humour at its best! At times the situations almost became farce as three cops tried to follow three different suspects through the teeming streets. I really did feel for the cops as they lost them, and the swearing and cursing under the breath started. Not humour in the sense of the word but humour because it is so recognisable. It just adds that certain realism to the whole film.

 Highly recommended, both as a fine cop film, but as an inadvertant look back at the 1970's as most of the film is actually out on the streets of Brooklyn. A truly great piece of 1970's cinema. I'm just not sure it is top 100 material even though I do regard it as a fine film and a great cop/thriller in the process.

Click here for a synopsis and more:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067116/

Transformers : Dark Of The Moon

 Well off to flicks did cynical old me go today!! And out come cynical old me even more cynical than ever!!!! It really is difficult at times in reviewing a movie like this as I feel as if I'm writing the same thing week in week out. Suffice to say if you have seen the first two movies then you have seen this the third instalment.

 One thing that is different and which I am eternally grateful for is the fact the worst 'actress' of all time Megan Fox wasn't in this. She dropped out just as production started and here Shia LeBeouf gets English model Rosie Huntington-Whitely in Fox's place. Not in the same role thankfully as we learn that she has subsequently dumbed LeBeouf's character. So whew no appalling Megan Fox to agonise over! But we get someone just as bad I'm afraid! Whitely is the cliqued dumb blonde who is there as eye candy, and boy can she just NOT act!! It was embarrasing and I'm afraid a shot up her arse on a stairway with skimpy knickers on at the start is never going to make her an actress! Tight dresses want do it either I'm afraid Miss Whitely!! So straight off we are on the wrong foot with things sticking to the formula.

 It is somewhat unfortunate that Transformers 3 also has a plot from the 1960's. I instantly had visions of the recent X-Men. Again we have JFK footage, and even some from the very naughty Mr. Nixon. The shot of JFK is lifted straight from Forrest Gump, and if you watch carefully right throughout there are many nods towards other movies. In one scene there is a neon sign with Tron, and one of the Decepticons is a robot version of Predator. You will catch them if you are quick enough and somewhat tounge in cheek. But by doing this I think Michael Bay has seriuosly shot himself in the foot because when the scene where the building is cut in half and topples is virtually lifted straight out of the awful Cloverfield.

 And here we come to the crux of the problem. There is too much other movie stuff going on and all we get is a Transformers meets Cloverfield meets Battle : L.A meets Skyline hash/mash/spit out the end result. Sure the effects are great, and I will give credit where credit is due, but really it has been done before and I couldn't escape the feeling of deja vu. I was also feeling somewhat annoyed as there are several scenes of straight out wonten vandalisism. In one scene several Autobots beat up a Decepticon, throw him on a classic car ( nooooooooooo!! ), crushing it,  and then boot it into a nearby diner. I mean it was just out and out vandalism and I just couldn't buy into that as entertainment. Sure the franchise is about big bangs entertainment but by this third outing I was sick of OUR cities being trashed by two warring alien races. Here it is Chicago's turn and it laid to waste. Sure, spectacular, but somehow it annoyed me that it was our planet being destroyed. God damn it robot alien thingies, if you want to fight go back home and do it!

 Overall then this is like so many modern movies, it is just one too far. The first I will acknowledge, but its success lead to the inevitable sequel which made squillions which breed the yet again inevitable sequel. Unfortunately three is one too many and I think only serious Tranfsformer fans will gain anything from this. It is cliqued with some absolute clanger dialogue, and a really poor atempt at humour as LeBeouf goes through numerous job interviews. Honestly they are so bad as to be ridiculous. Does Bay seriously believe people act like than in job interviews???

 I find this a hard one to gauge. I liked the graphics, but the acting was a joke and some of the human scenerios just stupid. Bay has tried to add in some nods to other movies but they mis-fire as they just remind us of the fact that Transformers 3 is little more than a re-run. Taking shots from Forrest Gump and Cloverfield was not a smart move and I think Bay made a terrible mistake by doing so. The action sequences are spectacular yes, but are virtual replays of the last two movies. And very much like Battle : L.A the in between scenes are poor with some terrible, terrible dialogue. ( Frances McDormand ran rings around the rest of the cast and showed them what real acting was in the process. If it wasn't for her then there would have been no credible acting at all! ). Bay makes the whole thing worse with a sentimental soundtrack that can't cover the fact he is trying to add a serious and credible tone to the movie. Unfortunately he makes a poor movie even worse by trying to do so.

 In all honesty I think this is one for the fans alone. One too many that has nothing new and it is almost as if Michael Bay went out of his way to sabotage his own movie with some foolish lifting from other movies. I'm neutral on this one. It is a Transfomers movie and that is about it and probably one for fans alone. Luckily Bay has annouced this is his last Transformers movie. Lets hope the franchise goes away with him!!

Click here for a synopsis and more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformers_3

And here for more:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1399103/

And here for the official site:

http://www.transformersmovie.com/

A Place In The Sun

 Well for my 150th post I have a real classic in Elizabeth Taylor/ Montgomery Clift outing A Place in the Sun. The AfI has this at 92 on its list of greatest movies, and yet while I really liked this film, and appreciated the performances, I struggle to call it great. Solid and very commendable yes, but not great.

 I rented this film in a three box set called Screen Sirens. It also included Roman Holiday and To Catch a Thief. I seriously doubt if Audrey Hepburn would have considerrd herself a 'siren'. I myself don't consider her one. She was an attractive actress to be sure but 'siren' isn't quite what she was. Elizabeth Taylor and the simply devine Grace Kelly were definitely 'sirens' though. I rented the box set more for the Hepburn and Kelly films as I have never been a Taylor fan. Let me tell you why.

 Until several nights ago I had only ever seen one Elizabeth Taylor movie, and that was in the mid-1970's!! It was National Velvet and since then I have almost religiously avoided her. It was more due to her many sham marriages than anything else as she began to represent for me the falsenesss of Hollywood. She just became a living joke and I felt quite repugnant whenever a new marriage was announced. It was just stupid that Elizabeth Taylor could be headline news round the world with another mariage when there was more important things to be aware of.

 So to say I wasn't a fan is an understatement. It really is quite stupid when I think about it. We all have actors/actresses we have  hate affairs with don't we? Whether we judge them on their screen portrayals or their lives offscreen we all have one or two we just come to loath. Taylor for me was one of several I have dis-liked over the years. The mantle has been passed to Vince Vaughn now. He makes me want to puke everytime I see him and I will never see another movie of his after the disgrace of The Dilemma.

 Taylor even though she lead a sham life did do alot for charity, especially AIDS wise, and I will give her credit for that. But for me I can't shake the marriage angle and the more I think of it the more I realise how silly it all is. So it was with some trepidation that I slipped A Place in the Sun into the DVD player the other night. I wasn't fussed on the thought of it and yet by the end I was actually very pleased I took the time to watch only my second Liz Taylor film in my lifetime!

 The film is an adaptation of Theodre Dreiser's novel, An American Tragedy. I think both film and novel titles very apt as the plot is a sad indictment of the American dream and its corrupting influences. The storyline revolves around George Eastman ( Montgomery Clift ), a poor working class boy employed by his rich uncle. He foolishly breaks a company rule of not becoming involved with the companies female employees, and gets a young naive Alice Tripp ( Shelly Winters ) in the family way. Meanwhile he meets beautiful, seductive, and innocent socialite Angela Vickers ( Liz Taylor ). The two fall in love and Eastman's troubles begin and lead to his demise.

 George stevens the director cast Liz Taylor for her looks as he felt 'the audience would understand why George Eastman would kill for a place in the sun with her'. Taylor was 17 at the time and I must admit she was simply stunning!! It was a brilliant bit of casting and fit the whole moral of the story. In essence it is the story of class climbing and its pitfalls. Eastman is in a dilemma and dreams of killing off Tripp so he can safely marry Winters. Tripp fails in her bid for an abortion and forces Eastman to agreeing to do the honorable thing of marrying her. If he doesn't she would expose him to his uncle for the wrongful relationship. He is trapped and takes her out on a boating trip as he knows she can't swim. He battles his conscience which wins, but inadvertantly the boat tips over and she drowns. Eastman could have saved her but didn't as he saw it as the cure to his problems. Of course it all unravels and he ends up in court and found guilty of her murder. It is ironic because he had actually given up on the murder plan and yet fate seemed to fall his way when the boat tipped. The film ends with him confessing that he deserved the electric chair because he could have saved Trip and didn't.

 Montgomery Clift as George Eastman is excellent and well deserving of his Oscar win. I have never seen a film of his before so it was nice to get one under my belt. He must have been a fine actor because his role in From Here to Eternity is legendary as is the film and novel it is based on. Shelly Winters is excellent as well as the naive Shelly Winters. She is easily lead astray by the good looking Eastman and the viewer can sympathise with her position. Hers is also another worthy Oscar winning performance. Liz Taylr is a knock out and perfect for her role. She is a pampered, spoiled, beautiful socialite that any male would be hard pressed to resist. She and Clift have a real on screen chemistry that makes it all work. This was Taylor's pivotal role and saw her come out from under the cover of child actress into the adult world. It is a fine performance and I doubt anyone else had the age and looks for the role except her.

 A Place in the Sun when released was both a critical and commercial success. I think with both Taylor and Clift being young hearthrobs helped as audiences must have brought into the whole tragedy. It is a great story even though not original as such because three way love tryts have been done before. But it is a subtle look at the class system and how those without envy those who have, and how those with have nothing but scorn for those without. It reminds me very much of The Great Gatsby and parts of Les Miserables.

 So why don't I regard this as a great film? It is certainly very good and the three leads are excellent, but the premise isn't original, and whilst beautifully filmed in black and white there is nothing spectacular or notable in it ( even though it won an Oscar for best B&W cinematography!! ). It is basically a very solid, classically made film, that relies on its star power's youthful good looks, and sentimentality to achieve its popularity. There is nothing wrong with this and it achieves it very well , but it doesn't lead it into the great realm for me personally. I can't escape the feeling of my heart strings being pulled but without anything else but looks and a sad ending to endure itself.

Elizabeth Taylor onset between takes as beautiful socialite Angela Vickers

 A Place in the Sun is a very fine film, absolutely no question, and I do recommend it. Elizabeth Taylor is the obvious draw card and I must confess to have been impressed with her performance. She is perfectly cast for the role and fortunately had the talent to back up her extraordinary knock-out looks. If she didn't bring that talent to the role then the whole film would not have worked as her role is central to the socialite world she lives in and Eastmans desire to enter it through her. If you like classic movies then this will more than satisfy. For those of you, who like me were dismissive of Liz Taylor, I recommend you take a look at this as she did actually have real talent and this film proves it.

 A really good example of 1950's film making which exploits the looks of both Clift and Taylor in a film that deals with the pitfalls of social climbing. Well worth a look and believe me Elizabeth Taylor was a genuine beauty in her day and I was just in awe of her! A genuine classic, and a film that has me re-appraising Liz Taylor! Enjoy!!

Click here for a synopsis and more:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0043924/

The Flight Of The Phoenix

' ...you behave if stupidity were a virtue.'

 Dorfmann to Towns.

  Even though The Flight of the Phoenix was nominated for two Oscars it has somewhat faded away into obscurity. When released in 1965 it was a commercial success but critics weren't as impressed. This is shame because it has a stella cast which provide some very fine  performances in a quite entertaining movie.  I knew of this movie but didn't realise it was based on a 1964 Ellison Trevor novel of the same name. Unfortunately I believe there is to be a re-make in Holywood's mania to re-make everything because it is easier to do so than find some originality.

 One critic at the time called this movie ' grim and implausible'. Grim I absolutely agree with but that is the whole point!! A plane load of men crash landing in the Sahara with little water and nothing but pressed dates to eat is a grim situation. Which leads to the critics so called ' implausible' situation of the rapidly dwindling survivors building an aircraft from the wreckage in which to save themselves. To me this critic has got it wrong as the movie is no different from any other Hollywood movie. They are entertaining and 9 times out of 10 based on implausible, unrealistic situations, which inthemselves provide an escape from reality for a few hours. I don't see anything wrong with that.

 The problem arises if the plot and implausibility aren't backed up with a good script and acting. In this case we get both. This is where it is somewhat unfortunate that Phoenix has somewat disappeared as the acting in particular is extremely good. We all know James Stewart ( my favorite actor bar none ), was one of the very greatest actors ever, and that Richard Attenborough was a fine one too. But here it is Hardy Kruger who is the standout. Like many of the movies he starred in he again plays a German named Heinrich Dorfmann. As a character he isn't exactly a nice guy and unhesitatingly calls those around him 'ignorant' and 'stupid'. He is extremely arrogant and yet Stewarts character, pilot Frank Towns sees in him the future and the death of is own type.

 The survivors are put on a strict water ration as they believe they will be found, but as it dawns on them they won't Dorfmann, who states he is an aircraft engineer, advises building an aircraft from the wreckage. Towns is dis-believing and laughs at him asking ' are you joking with me'! This reaction brings to the fore Attenborough in a very fine performance as Lew Moran who mediates between the two. As Dorfmann convinces them his plan will work the survivors set to work as it is deemed better than waiting to die from lack of water. Also the numbers are dwindling due to murder from a few rouge Arabs, and several members trying to walk out to an oasis 106 miles away.

 Stewart, Attenborough, and Kruger are the three protagonists here but both Ernest Borgnine and George Kennedy star as well. Borgnine plays a man who is somewhat slow and off his rocker, and he dies off early in the movie. Kennedy at the time was a realitive new comer with a minor role, and yet is one of those who reach safety. The rest of the cast is virtually unknowns and I didn't know any of them. But really they are there to make up the numbers because the movie is more about the battle of wills between the old world of Stewart and the new of Kruger.

 A battle of wills it is to. Stewart is pragmatic and can't believe a cobbled together aircraft will fly and is horrified the survivors will be flown out lying on the wings!! As things tense up Attenborough finally turns him around suggesting it is betteer to die in a ball of flame if the craft crashes than to die of thirst. Things really reach a head when Stewart and Attenborough find out Kruger was a model airplane designer!! They are literally speechless but realise it is too late to tell the others and wreck their morale. They both have serious doubts as to whether the craft will fly.

 One interesting by plot is the slow decay of the men mentally. Some hold up well where as some fall to pieces. Stewart at one stage asks himself,  'what is happening to us'. I think this was a good part of the plot as it added to the desperate situation and was a fair reflection of humanity when faced with a very real slow death. 'Grim' the critic stated, well of course it is!

The building of the plane proceeds with various deaths and power struggles along the way until it is finished. The last part of the movie sees the attempt to get the aircraft flying and Kruger having one final fit as he loses it completely with Stewart. Of course we get a happy ending with them all arriving safely at a near by oasis and many of them diving into it. The movie ends with Stewart and Kruger begrudgingly acknowledging each other. They realise they needed each other and without the one or other they would all be dead.

The DVD cover.

 The Flight of the phoenix  is a fine movie. It is not a masterpiece or in the great realm but it is far above the average. The performances of the three big stars are impressive but especially that of Hardy Kruger who probably never played anything as good again. It has the usual 1960's effects and the difference between the indoor/outdoor sets are very obvious. But I can ignore that as this is a movie about the battle of wills between two strong willed men, and how they come to appreciate one another through the cool head of Richard Attenborough's character. It certainly is a fine movie and well worth a watch, because I believe it is a somewhat forgotten gem.

 Well worth your time to see. Sadly neglected but the performances must be seen as they lift The Flight of the Phoenix up well above the average movie it could well have been. Take a look as I think you will surprised at its overall quality.

Click here for a synopsis and more:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059183/