Film Review: The Chaser

"The Chaser" *** (out of ****)

With all the talk going on in the news lately by liberals, concerning a "war on women" being waged by conservatives, I thought it would be fun to discuss "The Chaser" (1928) a silent slapstick battle of the sexes comedy starring "the forgotten clown", Harry Langdon.

"The Chaser" was comedian Harry Langdon's second directorial film coming after the unsuccessful (though wrongly condemned in the my opinion) movie "Three's A Crowd" (1927, I've written a review for it).

"Three's A Crowd" was Langdon's attempt at a Charlie Chaplin picture. A movie which wanted to combine comedy and pathos. It had a pretty good set-up though it didn't quite hit the level of pathos found in Chaplin's "The Kid" (1921) for example. In "The Chaser" Langdon must have felt he learned his lesson and this time stuck to pure comedy.

Langdon stars as "the boy". He is married to "the girl" (Gladys McConnell, who also appeared in "Three's A Crowd). She complains Harry is spending too much time at his lodge club. For the past week he has been out as late as 8:30(!). She feels neglected and suspects Harry is fooling around with other women.

The first shot in "The Chaser" is of a close-up of the wife as she relentlessly gives Harry a verbal thrashing over the phone. Poor Harry sits quietly, defenselessly, listening to his wife complain about his behavior. Then Harry's mother-in-law (Helen Hayward) takes the phone and gives Harry her two cents.

Immediately stereotypes are put in place. Women, especially wives, are nothing more than nags, constantly complaining to their husbands. Meanwhile, husbands are defenseless creatures (this part is actually true) who put up with their wives temperament.

Since Harry is our hero, naturally our sympathy must be with him. In fact, Harry is not at a lodge meeting. He is out at a club and merely uses the lodge as an excuse to get out of the house. But, on this particular night "the girl" and her "mother" are not going to put up with Harry's behavior. First the mother tries to shoot Harry when he comes home. Then the girl files for divorce when the murder doesn't happen.

The judge decides divorce is pointless and doesn't grant it. He feels a man like Harry needs to learn responsibility. It is his decision that Harry and his wife switch roles. She will go out and earn a living while Harry must stay home and do the housework. Thus establishing another stereotype, though probably a reality of the times, that all women were housewives and had their place in the kitchen.

The humor of the film now stems from Harry trying to adjust to domestic life. Being able to cook and clean. If that isn't enough, Harry wears an apron in a gesture to completely take away all of his masculinity.

The movie also tries to establish, whoever sees Harry assumes he is a woman. This is despite the fact outside of the apron, nothing in Harry's appearance has changed. The milkman and all other visiting men make passes at Harry. Giving him a peck on the cheek. First of all, this is all extremely strange to watch. Why can't these men tell Harry isn't a woman? Secondly, is this a reflection of the times? Did housewives have to put up with advances being made by the milkman or the postman (is that why he always rings twice?)? Did men feel entitled to make advances at women?

Hitting the depths of despair Harry decides to kill himself. He simply cannot live his life as a housewife. Luckily his friend (Bud Jamison, who will be very well known to Three Stooges fans) sneaks Harry out of the house so they can go play a game of golf.

I suppose this was done so Harry could feel like a "man" again. Though today they would probably watch football or hockey and drink a beer.

At this point the film shifts its attention and abandons the battle of the sexes idea as we get a golf routine by Harry and Jamison. Harry Langdon comedies would usually do this. They would divert their attention from the original premise and side step it for a comedy routine which had nothing at all to do with the rest of the picture.

When I first saw "The Chaser" I didn't like. I didn't like that Harry abandons his original premise for the golf scenes and I simply didn't find the second half as funny as the first half. But, after watching the film again recently I've changed my mind. Now I think of "The Chaser" as nothing more than a silly, irrelevant comedy which was nothing more than a showcase for Langdon. Plus, one has to remember Langdon was a bit of an odd-ball to begin with and "The Chaser" is a decent enough example of what Harry Langdon was up to.

As a director Langdon shoots this film in a much more conventional style than "Three's A Crowd". When I reviewed "Three's A Crowd" I mentioned how some of Langdon's camera angles made little sense to me. Over head shoots and long shoots didn't compliment jokes. Here Langdon doesn't get as fancy. Which is a good thing. But the movie has nothing visually impressive which might hurt it which some viewers.

I've written about Harry Langdon a few times on this site. I've reviewed "The Strong Man" (1926) directed by Frank Capra, "Long Pants" (1927), "Tramp, Tramp, Tramp" (1927) and "Three's A Crowd". I like Harry Langdon. I don't feel he deserves the nickname "the forgotten clown". A majority of his silent film work is now on DVD. Kino and Facets have done a wonderful job restoring his films for all of us to see. Is Langdon as good as Chaplin, Lloyd or Keaton? I really can't say, but, he does belong in their league.

"The Chaser" has a story by Arthur Ripley, a long time collaborator of Langdon's. Ripley worked on some of Langdon's best known films and two-reelers including "Saturday Afternoon" (1926), cited by some of Langdon's best short and "His First Flame" (1927).

If you want to see the battle of the sexes played for melo-drama watch the Greta Garbo movie "The Single Standard" (1929) which I have also reviewed.

Oscar Predictions!

Tomorrow is the big night. The 84th annual Academy Awards. And, as I have done in the past, I will offer my predictions for the show.

As most readers know, I haven't watched the show in a little more than a decade. I'm not a fan of award shows, particularily the Academy Awards. I feel the show has become too political and image conscience. Plus, there is the old argument most viewers have. The feeling the wrong person or movie always wins. But, this year I may actually watch.

Now then, my predictions.

BEST PICTURE: "The Artist", "The Descendants", "Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close", "The Help", "Hugo", "Midnight in Paris", "Moneyball", "The Tree of Life" and "War Horse".

Of the nine nominees, I have seen seven of them. I have not seen "Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close" or "Moneyball". With the exception of "The Help" and "War Horse", I pretty much like all of the nominated films. Some more than others. "Midnight in Paris" was my choice for the best film of the year on my "top ten" list followed by "The Artist". Also "The Descendants" made my list and "Hugo" was on my runner's up list.

Still, all the momentum seems to be in favor of "The Artist". And I'm all for it! It will become only the second silent film to win the "Best Picture" Oscar since the first Academy Award winner "Wings" (1928) back in 1928.

My Prediction: The Artist

BEST DIRECTOR: Woody Allen (Midnight in Paris), Michel Hazanavicius (The Artist), Terrence Malik (The Tree of Life), Alexander Payne (The Descendants) and Martin Scorsese (Hugo).

Nothing would give me greater pleasure than seeing Woody Allen win the award. He is my favorite filmmaker working today. It would be nice if Scorsese were to win, but, the Academy already gave him an award for "The Departed" (2006), so, they are pretty much done with him. Same with Allen. Both are great filmmakers but, the Academy likes to honor new talent and give the masters a "lifetime achievement" award instead. So, both men are immediately out. Terrence Malik should consider his nomination and the "Best Picture" nomination a win in itself.

Now we are down to two; Hazanavicius and Payne. If "The Artist" wins "Best Picture" more times than not the director of the same film wins.

My Prediction: Michel Hazanavicius

BEST ACTOR: Demian Bichir (A Better Life), George Clooney (The Descendants), Jean Dujardin (The Artist), Gary Oldman (Tinker, Tailor, Soldier Spy), Brad Pitt (Moneyball)

Right off the bat lets knock off two names; Bichir and Oldman. This is nothing against them or their performance, but, once again we have a case of the nomination being a win in itself. They were recognized by the academy for their work. Bravo gentlemen!

The race is really down to Clooney and Dujardin. The Artist has the second most nominations with 10. If The Artist sweeps the awards Dujardin will benefit. But Clooney is an active liberal. And Hollywood likes liberals. Plus he wrote, directed and acted in another film this year, "Ides of March", a political film with Clooney playing a Democrat running for president. Plus a lot of people liked "The Descendants". But Clooney has won an Oscar already for "Best Supporting Actor".

My Prediction: Jean Dujardin

BEST ACTRESS: Glenn Close (Albert Nobbs), Viola Davis (The Help), Rooney Mara (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo), Meryl Streep (Iron Lady) and Michelle Williams (My Week with Marilyn)

This is a tough category for me because of haven't seen some of the nominated films. Many people are guessing Viola Davis will win the award. I surely hope not. As I said, I didn't like that movie and I sure don't want to see it win any awards. So, instead, I'm going to pick what I want to see win instead of what I think will win.

My Prediction: Meryl Streep

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR: Kenneth Branagh (My Week with Marilyn), Jonah Hill (Moneyball), Nick Nolte (The Warrior), Christopher Plummer (Beginners) and Max von Sydow (Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close)

The favorite going into this is Plummer as a dying gay man. It is the kind of role the academy likes to nominate and let win. A person dying and a gay man. Think Greg Kinnear in "As Good As It Gets (1997). Plus Plummer has been around for a while.

But if the academy is in a nostaligic mood maybe the great Swedish actor Max von Sydow would benefit. But I doubt it, though I see a lifetime achievement award in Sydow's future.

My prediction: Christopher Plummer

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS: Berenice Bejo (The Artist), Jessica Chastain (The Help), Melissa McCarthy (Bridesmaids), Janet McTeer (Albert Nobbs) and Octavia Spencer (The Help)

A lot of people think one of the actresses from "The Help" should win. I've already expressed my opinion of this. My hope is, the two nominees cancel each other out. The race is usually a wild card anyway. It never goes as the film critics predict.

Why Melissa McCarthy is nominated is beyond me. I didn't like "Bridesmaids" as much as the public did. I felt it was somewhat over-hyped.

My Prediction: Berenice Bejo

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY: Woody Allen (Midnight in Paris), J.C. Chandor (Margin Call), Asghar Farhadi (A Separation), Michel Hazanavicius (The Artist) and Kristen Wiig & Annie Mumolo (Bridesmaids)

The "upset" in this category could be Asghar Farhadi. A lot of people liked "A Separation". I thought it was a good movie too. But, it is not often a foreign language film wins a "Best Screenplay" award.

My Prediction: Woody Allen

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY: Alexander Payne/ Nat Faxon/ Jim Rush (The Descendants), John Logan (Hugo), George Clooney/ Grant Heslov/ Beau Willimon (Ides of March), Steven Zaillian/ Aaron Sorkin/ Stan Chervin (Moneyball) and Bridget O' Connor/ Peter Straughan (Tinker, Tailor, Soldier Spy)

Because the academy likes Payne and his movie so much, this is the academy's only option to celebrate the film. I really don't think "The Descendants" will win "Best Picture" and the academy is going to want to award the movie in some way.

My Prediction: Alexander Payne/ Nat Faxon/ Jim Rush

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE FILM: A Cat in Paris, Chico & Rita, Kung Fu Panda 2, Puss in Boots and Rango

I have not seen "A Cat in Paris" or "Chico & Rita", though I have heard great things about "Chico" and I'm very much interested to see it, as I have developed an interest in Cuban culture and I'm a devoted jazz lover.

One of my favorite animated films of the year was "Rango", which made my "top ten" list (as well as Pixar's "Cars 2" which shamefully wasn't nominated). I wasn't much of a fan of either "Kung Fu Panda 2" (though I loved the first one) or "Puss in Boots". This, if this award is a popularity contest (and most usually award shows are) either one of these Dreamworks films could win.

My Prediction: Rango

BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM: Bullhead (Belgium), Footnote (Israel), In Darkness (Poland), Monsieur Lazhar (Canada) and A Separation (Iran)

In the past voters were not required to see all of the nominated films, so, the most popular of the nominees would win. But, the rules have changed. Now voters must see all of the nominated films. These films aren't always distributed here.

As far as popularity goes "A Separation" is in the lead. And it has another Oscar nomination for its screenplay, so clearly the academy likes it. But there is also "In Darkness" a Polish film about WW2. The academy loves to nominate films about WW2 and give them awards. It could be the biggest challenge to "A Separation". But, who knows, these other nominated films could be powerful masterpieces.

My Prediction: In Darkness

Film Review: Down to Earth

"Down to Earth" *** (out of ****)

In 1933 Hollywood decided to make a musical out of "The Great Depression" in "The Gold Diggers of 1933" (1933). Remember the musical finale, "Remember My Forgotten Man"? Well, philosopher extraordinaire Will Rogers beat them by a year making a comedy about the stock market crash in Down to Earth (1932).

"Down to Earth" is a sequel of sorts to another Will Rogers comedy, "They Had to See Paris" (1929). Of the two of them, I actually prefer "Down to Earth". Rogers is a bit of an acquired taste in my opinion. He isn't as side-splittingly funny as the Marx Brothers, Laurel & Hardy or that other comedy philosopher W.C. Fields. Rogers had a much more gentle, delicate sense of humor. A kind of mid-western, aw-shucks personality.

The humor in both films stems from a fish-out-of-water situation. In "They Had to See Paris" we follow the old cliche of the ignorant American clashing with the sophisticated European. There is an element of that in "Down to Earth" but the humor mostly comes from Rogers not being comfortable with his wealth. A man can have all the money in the world, but, if he can't be comfortable in his own home, what's the good of it (see, I told you Rogers was a philosopher). Rogers feels his butler looks down on him when he tries to dunk his toast in his coffee or put bread in his soup.

The story is told against the backdrop of the beginning of "The Great Depression". Direct reference to the crash is made. Rogers, who plays Pike Peters, keeps warning his family about the out-of-control spending and how society is burrowing too much money. People, especially the rich, need to relearn the value of work and having a real job, not playing the stock market, looking for "easy money".

I disagree with this theme. The film and Pike, make it seem all people have to do is go back to work and the depression will be over. The problem was, as I understand it, people couldn't find work during the depression. People weren't waiting in soup lines because it was a Sunday afternoon and the grocery stores were closed. They were doing it because they didn't have food and no job.

Of course, I don't know what society was like leading up to the depression. Perhaps there was too much burrowing and spending going on. Here in Illinois we know something about that (thanks Gov. Quinn!). But Pike's simple words aren't realistic in my view. The movie is simplifying the problem.

But, lets not watch movies like "Down to Earth" in the hopes that they will solve our economic and political problems. Their objective was to entertain a depression era audience. And the movie does something most movies from the period did. It brings the rich man down to the same level as the working man. Establishing the message, we are all in this together and together we will get out of it. I suppose that was something audiences wanted to hear.

The movie was directed by David Butler. Probably best known for directing Bob Hope and Doris Day vehicles such as "Caught in the Draft" (1941), "Road to Morocco" (1942), The Princess & the Pirate" (1944), "Tea for Two" (1950), "Lullaby of Broadway" (1951) and "By the Light of the Silvery Moon" (1953).

He may be a big reason why I prefer this movie over "Paris". Butler knew comedy. He worked with Will Rogers on another picture, perhaps one of Rogers best known comedies, "A Connecticut Yankee" (1931). So the two men string things along nicely together. This is a pretty fast moving picture.

Irene Rich returns playing the role of Idy Peters, Pike's wife. She loves high society, it was her idea they go to Paris. She wants to impress everyone with her cocktail parties and become the social belle of the town. Meanwhile, their son, Ross (Matty Kemp) is as oppose to work as before. He has taking up gambling. He is in love with Julia Pearson (Dorothy Jordan) a girl from a rich family who now faces bankruptcy. But another girl, Jackie Harper (Mary Carlisle) has her eye on Ross. And her money seems unlimited.

I'm honestly not sure how today's audience will react to Will Rogers' humor. It might be a little slow moving for them. Rogers was a wit, he didn't depend on physical humor. Also, his persona might bother some. Again it is very gentle and delicate. He is not as "loud" and dominate on-screen the way way Groucho Marx or Bob Hope would be. He's more subtle.

Still, if this sounds like your type of comedy, many of his comedies have been placed on DVD. At one time Will Rogers was considered a national treasure.

Film Reviews: Bluebeard's Eighth Wife & I Met Him In Paris

"Bluebeard's Eighth Wife" *** (out of ****)

Claudette Colbert and Gary Cooper prove money can buy you love in "Bluebeard's Eighth Wife" (1938), a charming Ernst Lubitsch comedy.

Today we going to discuss two Claudette Colbert comedies from the late 1930s. In both movies Colbert plays a similar character; a good natured, down to earth, girl-next-door type. A kind of all-American girl with morals which reflect society's standards.

The earliest screen works of Colbert, which I have seen, are another Ernst Lubitsch comedy, "The Smiling Lieutenant" (1931) and the Cecil B. DeMille epic "The Sign of the Cross" (1932). I would suggest Colbert really gained "star" status after appearing in Frank Capra's Oscar winning romantic comedy, "It Happened One Night" (1934). After that film she began to appear in some of her best known films and a few lesser known, but, equally charming comedies such as "It's A Wonderful World" (1939) with Jimmy Stewart, a sort of knock-off version of "It Happened One Night". She was also in "Midnight" (1939) and the "I Met Him In Paris" (1937, more on this below). And she was in one of Preston Sturges' best comedies "The Palm Beach Story" (1942). Like "Bluebeard", that was also a comedy about marriage and love.

In "Bluebeard's Eighth Wife" Gary Cooper plays Michael Brandon, a millionaire visiting the French Riviera on business. He walks into a department store looking to buy pajamas, but, he only wants the top. He doesn't wear the bottom and sees no reason why he should have to pay for it. The store simply will not allow this. Whether or not a customer wears the pajamas as whole is not important to the store. It is a set and must be bought as such. Enter Nicole De Loiselle (Colbert). It just so happens she is only interested in buying the bottom half of the pajamas. Problem solved. He'll pay for the top and she'll pay for the bottom.

The two instantly fall for each other at first sight. And I must admit it is a clever way for the future lovers to meet. I don't believe I've ever seen a set-up like this one before. She doesn't realize he is rich and he's not sure if she is married. Why would a woman need to buy men's pajamas in the first place?

It just so happens Nicole's father is Marquis De Loiselle (Edward Everett Horton) who is down on his luck, meaning he is broke and is simply living off his title. But even that is running out. It was for him Nicole bought the pajamas. The Marquis thinks of himself as a business man and has been trying to get into contact with Michael. When Michael finds out who he is, a business proposal is made. Michael wants to marry Nicole. The problem is Michael has been married seven times before (hence the film's title). This is a deal-breaker for Nicole. Michael doesn't seem to take marriage serious. He makes haste decisions, loses interest and thinks the problem can be solved with money. Nicole agrees to marry Michael but only if he will pay her $100,000 a year, for the rest of her life, if they divorce. Michael agrees and Nicole looks forward to the divorce.

A lot of viewers feel "Bluebeard's Eighth Wife" is a lesser Lubitsch attempt. That it should be avoided. I wouldn't go that far. I don't think it ranks among Lubitsch's best films but I would never suggest someone should avoid watching an Ernst Lubitsch film, unless of course, watching good movies isn't your cup of tea.

I have to admit there were plenty of times I found myself laughing out loud. The script, which was written by the comedy team of Charles Brackett and Billy Wilder (which explains a lot) is peppered with some great zingers and one-liners. Wilder was a great admirer of Lubitsch and greatly looked forward to the day when he could write a script for Lubitsch.

But the movie lacks that famous "Lubitsch touch" as it became to be called. Lubitsch, early in his Hollywood career, was making sophisticated musical comedies. Movies which were playful about sex and marriage. They were pre-code films but weren't explicit. They danced around issues, never being direct, but, the implications were made clear. Some examples are "Monte Carlo" (1930), my personal favorite of his musicals, "The Smiling Lieutenant" and "One Hour With You" (1932). Next there was my all-time favorite Lubitsch film, "Trouble in Paradise" (1932) a non-musical, but a film which played with the same ideas as his musicals. It was playful and adult. "Bluebeard's Eighth Wife" just doesn't seem to be on par with these titles. I'd put the film in the same class with other, later Lubitsch efforts like "That Lady in Ermine" (1948, which I have reviewed) and "Cluny Brown" (1946).

One issue may have been because Wilder and Lubitsch have a different type of humor. Wilder's humor isn't, normally, as playful as Lubitsch. It can sometimes be in a similar vein, "The Major & The Minor" (1942) or "Some Like It Hot" (1952) but more often than not Wilder can be a bit more direct and at times vulgar. Wilder and Lubitsch would have much greater success on their next effort, "Ninotchka" (1939), often regarded as one of Lubitsch's best comedies. That one, without question, has that famous "Lubitsch touch".

By the time this film was made Gary Cooper had already proven himself as an accomplish actor. One of his best early roles is in the film "Morocco" (1930) a suggestive, powerful pre-code gem. There was also "A Farewell to Arms" (1932) and the Capra comedy "Mr. Deeds Goes To Town" (1936). Though it was probably after this film Cooper appeared in some of his best known films; "Sergeant York" (1941), "The Pride of the Yankees" (1942), "Ball Of Fire" (1941, also written by Wilder), "For Whom The Bell Tolls" and the great western "High Noon" (1952).

In this film Cooper isn't a great lover type, a role Wilder would give him on a later collaboration, "Love in the Afternoon" (1957), but I don't really think he plays the same kind of character he plays in "Mr. Deeds" or "Ball of Fire", the sort of good-natured, Earnest young man.

The film has a good supporting cast besides Edward Everett Horton there is David Niven, as a close friend of Colbert, Frank Pangborn, as a hotel manager, and Warren Hymer as a boxer. The name may not mean anything to you, but, trust me, you've seen his face before.

Overall, while not a great comedy "Bluebeard's Eighth Wife" is enjoyable. It is the kind of good, old-fashion comedy I grew up watching. While I greatly admire the work of Ingmar Bergman or Luchino Visconti, this is really more my style.

"I Met Him In Paris" *** (out of ****)

Can a man and woman really be friends without romance getting in the way? It's the age old question that is asked in the goofy comedy "I Met Him In Paris" starring Claudette Colbert, Melvyn Douglas and Robert Young.

As I said about "Bluebeard's Eighth Wife", these type of comedies are more my style. I grew up watching classic Hollywood movies and comedies from these era. I get the humor and relate to the moral code presented in these movies. They reflect my own moral code. I understand them better then today's movies. Most of us old-timers are the same way.

Claudette Colbert plays Kay Deham, a woman who is loved by a man (Lee Bowman) whom she finds boring. They live in New York and Kay decides she wants to travel to Paris before making any decision about marrying.

While in Paris, Kay meets two Americans; George Potter (Douglas) and Gene Anders (Young). Both seem to take an immediate liking to Kay but Gene makes the greater effort and Kay responds more to him. But Gene can't ultimately commit himself. Not because he's a man and all men are afraid of commitment ladies. He has a secret that only George knows.

In an attempt to romance Kay, Gene suggest they leave Paris and head to Switzerland. Where they can have some good, clean fun. And in order to make sure they do exactly that George follows them and assumes the role of chaperon. But can a man and woman bet together without feeling an attraction? And who are Kay and Gene fooling? We can tell they like each other.

I don't think it is a spoiler but Gene is married. George cannot allow Gene to compromise himself and get involved with another woman. Most of today's viewers may not believe this, but, at one time such things were frowned upon.

So most of the comedy comes from George preventing Gene and Kay from spending time together. And we can tell George has fallen for Kay. So, each man tries to spend as much time alone with her as possible. It is an old story of two male friends fighting over the same girl. Example of this set-up can even be found today, look at the new movie "This Means War" (2012). But "I Met Him In Paris" isn't vulgar. It is actually a smarter film.

A lot of scenes involve skiing and snow time sport activities. Which made me think Sonja Henie should have been casted in this movie instead of Colbert. Henie was a famous skater who appeared in a few movies over at Fox.

The movie was directed by Wesley Ruggles who directed another movie where two men fight over the same woman, "Too Many Husbands" (1940) which was a remake of "My Favorite Wife" (1940). Ruggles also directed "True Confession" (1937, which I have reviewed), "I'm No Angel" (1932), my favorite Mae West comedy and "No Man of Her Own" (1932).

"I Met Him In Paris" is funny, though I think I laughed more at "Bluebeard". Still, the film is playful and has some good acting by Douglas and Colbert. I've never been a huge fan of Robert Young, best known for his role in the TV show "Father Knows Best". He was in some good movies like "Sitting Pretty" (1948, which is the first film to feature the character Mr. Belvedere), "Crossfire" (1947) and the Alfred Hitchcock film "Secret Agent" (1936). But I think another Robert would have been better in "I Met Him In Paris", Robert Montgomery.

Oscar Nominations!

At this year's Academy Awards Hollywood decides to celebrate itself.

That is actually a bit of a redundant statement considering the Academy Awards is in itself a celebration of Hollywood but, what I mean is, this year's nominees are a look back on Hollywood's history.

The two leading nominees at this year's 84th annual Academy Awards are Martin Scorsese's "Hugo", with 11 nominations and the French silent film, "The Artist" with 10 nominations.

Those movies look at the early days of Hollywood. In the case of "Hugo", the film looks back on the career of Georges Melies, an important filmmaker in the early 1900s. "The Artist" takes place in 1927 and is about Hollywood's transition from silent films to "talkies", sound pictures. And how this move affected certain silent movie stars.

When I made my "top ten" list last year (which "The Artist" placed number two on) I made a subtle argument that 2011 was about a yearning for the past. Films like "Hugo", "The Artist" and even Woody Allen's "Midnight in Paris" (which is up for four Oscar nominations and was at the top of my "top ten" list) prove this point. But socially there is also a desire to go back in time. Politically look at the "tea party" movement. They repeatedly say they want their country back. Some liberal commentators believe there is a racial component to these comments but, I think what they mean is, they want to go back to a time when America had a balanced budget, when this country had a surplus. Unfortunately, for the "tea party", a Democrat (Bill Clinton) was in office the last time that happened.

But when you add these things up they all lead to a hope that we can go back in time. Almost all nine of the "Best Picture" nominees take place in the past. Steven Spielberg's "War Horse" takes place during WW1, Terrence Malick's "Tree of Life" even goes back to the big bang theory, and "The Help" takes place in the 1960s.

Of the nine nominees, I have seen seven of them. The two I haven't seen are "Moneyball" and "Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close" (which only recently opened in Chicago). Of the seven I have seen, I only really disliked "War Horse" and "The Help". Three of the nominees even made my "top ten" list; "The Artist", "The Descendants" and "Midnight in Paris".

With every year there are surprise nominations and surprise snubs. This year they include "Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close" which most film critics did not like. Ben Kingsley wasn't nominated for "Hugo" A real shame! "Cars 2" wasn't nominated in the "Animated Feature Film" category. Neither was Spielberg's "The Adventures of Tin-tin". Two big mistakes. A lot of people are unhappy Michael Fassbinder wasn't nominated for "Shame" or that the film or its director, Steve McQueen, wasn't nominated (I am not among those, as I really didn't like that movie). Personally I can't figure out why Melissa McCarthy was nominated for "Bridesmaids", which wasn't a bad movie, just incredibly over-hyped in my opinion.

Overall I'm not upset about this year's nominations. I might even watch the show this year, which is being hosted by Billy Crystal. Something I haven't done in a decade. The Oscar telecast will air February 26 on ABC.

For a full list of this year's nominees click here:
http://www.imdb.com/oscars/nominations/

Film Review: The Cheat

"The Cheat" *** (out of ****)

It has always bothered me that I have never reviewed a movie directed by Cecil B. DeMille. I may have name dropped him a couple of times but never devoted myself to writing about his work. Those that read my reviews should be aware I have a great appreciation for not only classic Hollywood films but silent cinema as well. I grew up watching these movies. That is what makes it so strange that this is the first time DeMille's work will be written about.

However, I want to point out don't take it upon yourself to interpret my lack of DeMille film reviews as a way of my saying, in a subtle way, I don't like him or his films. Nonsense! His omission here was purely accidental.

To today's film goers and fans of film history DeMille can be seen, at times, as a larger than life presence. A showman. A director who made big, splashy, expensive films which showed a lot of sex and disguised it behind a biblical setting. That is and isn't true. Some also feel DeMille really wasn't a great filmmaker. That he didn't advance the medium in any artistic way compared to D.W. Griffith for example. That's not fair in my opinion. DeMille is just as important to the early history of cinema as Griffith. Movie fans should expose themselves to the work of both of these men. Their films deserve to be seen. No serious movie buff should go without watching one of their movies.

Watching "The Cheat" (1915) DeMille in fact seems to be in Griffith territory. The film could be read as a moral chamber piece with religious undertones.

Fannie Ward stars as Edith Hardy, a simple-minded socialite. He world revolves around, money, having a good, cocktail parties, dancing, socializing. She has no time for the "real world". No concern about finding a job, doing housework, taking care of a family, or even paying her rent. She has a husband for that, Richard Hardy (Jack Dean). He is a stock broker who is waiting for a big payoff after investing some money into a new company.

Richard has asked Edith to cut back on her spending, at least until his investment shows a profit. but, Edith will not hear of this. How can a woman of her standing go with spending money on new dresses and socializing? What would people say? They may even begin to think Edith was on a budget. This is simply unacceptable.

Edith is treasurer of a women's fund, where she has been put in charge of the club's $10,000. In a moment of desperation, Edith takes the money and gives it to one of her husband's investor friends to put into a stock of his choosing. The friend does and Edith loses all her money.

In yet another moment of desperation Edith arranges to have her friend, a Burmese Ivory Trader, Haka Arakau (Sessue Hayakawa) loan her the money. In return he seeks a night of lust.

There are so many things going on underneath this film it can be difficult to keep track. Lets start with the Haka character and his relationship to Edith. First, many film historians believe Griffith's "Broken Blossoms" (1919) was the first film to deal with an interracial romance. In that film a white woman (Lillian Gish) falls in love with a Chinese man (played by the non-oriental actor Richard Barthelmess). But, we can see interracial undercurrents here, in a film made four years prior. Of course, this time the Burmese man is a villain. He is heartless, feeding into a nasty stereotype that all foreigners are evil and should not be trusted with white women.

But, we should acknowledge one thing. At least this time around a Japanese actor is playing the part. It was not common during this time period to actually have Asian actors playing Asian characters along side white people, especially when kissing scenes were involved. Mixing of the races was forbidden after all.

As I watched "The Cheat" a thought occurred to me. The negative treatment of female characters in cinema. Think about it. Yes, Haka is the villain, but, Edith doesn't have clean hands either. The actor falls into female cliches about woman who are greedy, gold diggers, tramps, untrustworthy and easily susceptible to temptation. These ideas all really go back to the Bible and the story of Adam and Eve, where Eve was the one to first eat an apple from a forbidden tree, because the devil was able to easily tempt her. And then she tempts Adam.

In the 1940s movies started to have femme fatale characters. Cold-hearted female characters who lured men into acts of crime and murder. In both cases they stem from Eve.

"The Cheat" shows a woman who has a love of money. And anyone who has read the bible can tell you, the love of money is the root of all evil.

One scene in this film has Haka brand Edith with an iron. Haka brands everything in a sign of it being his property. But once he brands Edith she now, literally, becomes a "marked woman". A woman of ill-repute. That is another message of the film. Yield yourself from temptation. Women though, according to the film, have a tougher struggle then men.

While such messages and themes may turn off modern audiences I must say the film is somewhat entertaining. We must remember the context in which this movie was made. It was 1915 after all. A different society. Different morals. We don't have to accept these ideas today but we cannot divorce the film from its time. It is a reflection of the era.

Viewed in that context "The Cheat" works. The performances do what they are suppose to do. The film actually feels a bit more "modern" than 1915. I was surprised to find out the year of release. It feels at least like a 1920s picture. The acting is decent and the story moves along nicely at a decent pace. The moral preaching isn't really pushy. It gently weaves itself into the story.

Technically speaking there really wasn't anything which truly dazzled me. There are some scenes, dealing with Haka, which have nice lighting. And some shadow scenes are interesting. The cinematography didn't impress me the same way it does in a Griffith film. Thinking back, I don't recall many close-ups or fade in or outs.

When I think of Cecil B. DeMille I don't associate him with these morality plays. He did make religious epics during the silent era such as "The Ten Commandments" (1923) and "King of Kings" (1927) but then again he did make "The Godless Girl" (1929) about an atheist cult. He was also known for historical epics; a "talky" remake of "The Ten Commandments" (1956, his final film), "Samson & Delilah" (1949), "Cleopatra" (1934) and "Sign of the Cross" (1932) and he even managed to make one film which won the "Best Picture" Oscar, his circus themed "The Greatest Show On Earth" (1952), cited by some as the "weakest" "Best Picture" Oscar winner of all time.

Any of those would be worth watching if interested in DeMille's work. I promise to write more about him in the future.

Top Ten Films Of 2011!

Well as 2011 comes to an end we look back to celebrate the best films of the year.

Movies, in my opinion, are a reflection of society. Movies can comfort us, scare us, show us other countries and bring into focus the world around us. This year though the movies did this for me more so than other years.

This year has been a tough one for me on a personal level. The two biggest events of the year for me centered on a romantic relationship ending, with a person I thought would be the one and the death of my grandmother, the woman who shared her love of movies with me and turned me into a devoted film buff.

So for me 2011 was a year filled with death, loss, longing for the past and the hope of second chances. And so, in my despair I turned to the movies and wouldn't you know it, that's exactly what the films of 2011 were all about! All of the films which touched me on a personal level, which struck an emotional cord with me dealt with the very issues I was going through.

Death reared its ugly head in films such as "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Pt.2", where either Harry or Lord Voldemort was going to die. The French film "Sarah's Key" dealt with the Vel d' Hiv round-up in 1942. Another French film "The Princess of Montpensier" centered on the Catholic/ Protestant wars of the 16th Century. The indie film "Another Earth" not only dealt with death but second chances. Martin Scorsese's "Hugo", another look back at the past had a young boy who loses his father. The charming Mexican film "Nora's Will" focuses on death and memories of the past. And I could go on and on with films such as "Beginners","13 Assassins","Dream House","Contagion", "50/50", "Midnight In Paris", "The Artist" and "Cave of Forgotten Dreams". All of these movies were about death and the past, characters which hoped for second chances.

I wouldn't call 2011 a bad year for movies, it wasn't. I don't think it was as good as last year but certainly it was better than 2008 or 2009. Absolute low-points for cinema. Years which I was barely able to make a list of ten films I liked. This year I saw roughly 90 movies and 12 of them I gave four stars. I still have some catch up to do so that number could go higher or remain the same. Either way, 2011 gave us a lot of good movies even if our personal lives didn't always leave us with the best memories.

Here now is my list of the ten best films of 2011 and a runner's up list.

1. MIDNIGHT IN PARIS (Dir. Woody Allen; U.S.) - In a year where nostalgia ruled at the box-office with movies like "Hugo", "The Artist" and "The Adventures of Tintin" to name a few, here is a movie which I feel best represents the year.

In many ways I am like the main character in Woody Allen's charming, insightful comedy. Owen Wilson plays a man with a great affection for the past. A man who wishes he could live in Paris in the 1920s, where he could chat with his heroes; Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Dali and Cole Porter. Through the magic of movies, he gets his chance or does he really?

I too have a great fondness for the past. I grew up with the films of the 1920s, 30s and 40s. I wish I was around then instead of now.

But one of the real reasons "Midnight in Paris" is so special for me, is because it was the last movie I saw with my ex. And how fitting. Here is a movie about longing for the past. A time when things made sense. A time when we feel we had it better. Such a theme resonates with me. It's not so much that "Midnight in Paris" was as emotionally hard-hitting as some of my past choices for "best film of the year" like "The Passion of the Christ" (2004), "United 93" (2006) or "Hunger" (2009) but it was what the movie represents, it's ideas which touched me.

2. THE ARTIST (Dir. Michel Hazanavicius; France) - Since 2011 was a year for celebrating the past, I'd have to include this brilliant film directed by Michel Hazanavicius and starring Jean Dujardin. It is a modern day silent film about the early days of talking pictures and what that meant to silent movie stars.

Last year, at the top of my best of the year list, I placed the restored version of Fritz Lang's "Metropolis"(1927). Here is a movie which could have also been made in 1927. "The Artist" has the look and feel of most classic silent films. It is not a gimmick picture to me. It presents itself in a straightforward way. This is a lovely tribute to the early days of cinema. I hope the film wins a lot of Oscar nominations.

3. THE PRINCESS OF MONTPENSIER (Dir. Bertrand Tavernier; France) - Here is a movie which might have went under the radar for most movie goers but this Bertrand Tavernier (director of such films as "Life and Nothing But" (1990) which I also placed on my top ten list and "Daddy Nostalgia" (1991) is one of the best of his career.

4. SARAH'S KEY (Dir. Gilles Paquet-Brenner; France) - One of the more emotionally draining films of the year. Kristin Scott Thomas stars as a reporter trying to uncover unpleasant truths about the Vel d' Hiv round-up in France. She hopes her actions will bring some clarity to the past and give a family a second chance to move on.

5. CERTIFIED COPY (Dir. Abbas Kiarostami; France/ Italy) - I saw this film back at last year's Chicago International Film Festival where it quickly became my favorite at the fest. I've long been a fan of Iranian filmmaker Kiarostami. This is one of his best films.

6. POINT BLANK (Dir. Fred Cavaye; France) - A roller coaster of a movie. I haven't been on the end of my seat watching a movie this much since I saw "Just Another Love Story" (2009). This is a fast-paced exciting action/thriller movie.

7. THE DESCENDANTS (Dir. Alexander Payne; U.S.) - Here we have a movie about family honor, loyalty and yes, death and second chances. George Clooney has rarely been better. The entire cast shines. Alexander Payne, one of my favorite modern filmmakers, has given us a rich movie. A movie filled with smart characters with distinct personalities. We believe in these people and their problems.

8. 50/50 (Dir. Jonathan Levine; U.S.) - A young boy is told he has cancer and is given a 50/50 chance of living. What to do?

A movie such as this could have go wrong. It could have become a predictable, trite, sentimental weeper. But instead the movie is alive. It deals with its topic with respect. Like "The Descendants" we believe in what we see on-screen. The movie has a wonderful way of balancing comedy and drama.

9. HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS PART 2 (Dir. David Yates; UK/U.S.) - I haven't enjoyed a "Harry Potter" movie this much since the first one. Here is a movie which takes us to another world. It is endlessly creative and magical. I was delighted the entire time watching this movie. Taking every step with Harry.

10. (TIE) CARS 2 (Dir. John Lasseter; U.S.) / RANGO (Dir. Gore Verbinski; U.S.) - Two of the best animated movies of the year. I'm deeply shocked critics are not placing this wonderful Pixar film on their top ten list. Many critics liked "Cars" (2006) also directed by Lasseter, but they were pretty harsh on this one. In all fairness a sequel wasn't really needed. And this story could have been told with different characters, allowing Pixar the chance to create something entirely new. Still I had a great time watching this.

"Rango" on the other hand, is a funny, creative spoof on western which just left me giddy watching it. I love all the movie references and the edge it has. Much different kind of entertainment when compared to "Cars 2" but still entertaining all the way.

RUNNER'S UP!

1. HUGO (Dir. Martin Scorsese; U.S.)

2. TUESDAY, AFTER CHRISTMAS (Marti, Dupa Craciun, Dir. Radu Muntean; Romania)

3. CHILDREN OF GLORY (Szabadsag, Szerelem, Dir. Krisztina Goda; Hungary)

4. EVEN THE RAIN (Dir. Iciar Bollain; Mexico)

5. MARGIN CALL (Dir. J.C. Chandor; U.S.)

6. THE CONSPIRATOR (Dir. Robert Redford; U.S.)

7. MYSTERIES OF LISBON (Dir. Raoul Ruiz; Portugal)

Film Reviews: The Artist & The Adventures of Tintin

"The Artist" **** (out of ****)

First of all, my apologizes to my dear readers. I have neglected writing for a while. To make up for lost time, I'm going to write about two movies I've recently seen. The wonderful, silent French film "The Artist" (2011) and Steven Spielberg's animated adventure "The Adventures of Tintin" (2011).

Lets be honest, there are people who, after hearing "The Artist" is a silent film will simply not want to see it. And, who can blame modern audiences for not wanting to? This is, unfortunately, the modern age and people like movies where people talk. But, I would imagine there are those who will see this movie precisely because it is silent. This is after all 2011. How often will audiences get to see a silent film in theatres?

The problem I think with the second group is they might expect a gimmick movie. "The Artist" is not a gimmick movie. It is a straight forward silent film. It could have been made in 1927 (the year the movie takes place) and outside of a few minor changes, it is no different then any other film of that time.

The movie has the look and feel of silent cinema. The music is perfect, the cinematography beautiful, and the acting, impeccable. And let us not forget the production and costume design. All of these elements added together give the film the immense amount of charm which it has.

The story is really no different than any other silent film where a young nobody wants to become a celebrity, think of "The Extra Girl" (1923) or "Exit Smiling" (1926) or even "Kiki" (1926). Some audience members may even draw comparisons to the musical "Singin' in the Rain" (1952).

"The Artist" tells duel stories. One is of a young woman, Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo, an unknown actress to me, who managed to steal my heart). She wants to become a famous actress and after a chance encounter, she accidentally bumps into major motion picture star George Valentin (a name I suppose is might to remind us of Rudolph Valentino. Played by Jean Dujardin). He is kind of a ham actor, whom, as posing for photographers, meets Peppy and is taken by her beauty, despite being a married man.

The newspapers start buzzing about who is this young woman who bumped into Valentin. She photo is even on the front page of Variety.

Now, as any film lover or film student will tell you, 1927 is the year the first film with sound, "The Jazz Singer", was released (some people, whom have never seen the movie, mistakenly believe the film is a complete "talkie", it isn't. It is largely a silent film but with musical numbers.) Valentin soon discovers that the head producer at Kinograph Studios (I guess a reference to Biograph Studios, where D.W. Griffith worked) wants to make only sound pictures (he is played by John Goodman). Valentin, like many people at the time, thought sound pictures would be a fade. Talking would turn films into a gimmick. It would de-legitimize cinema as an art form. Valentin laughs at the producer and as a result, is released from his contract. Ironically though, Peppy Miller is signed and becomes a big star.

The film was directed by Michel Hazanavicius and is the third film he has worked on with Dujardin, which I know of. Their previous collaborations were for the spy spoof, OSS 117 films; "Cairo, Nest of Spies" (2006) and "Lost in Rio" (2009) which had a 1960s, "Pink Panther" feel to them. Hazanavicius seems to draw on the past for inspiration. Not a bad idea.

I am however a bit surprised to find him as the director and Dujardin as the star. When I first heard about this film I thought it was going to be a drama. It has serious moments, but there are tongue-in-cheek moments as well. Dujardin has a lot of fun with the character, which is suppose to be an Errol Flynn, Douglas Fairbanks sort but with an ego problem.

Dujardin is perfect in the role. He managed to express all the emotions required for the role. After seeing him in this I cannot think of anyone else doing it. There are elements of pathos here in the character contrasted with a bit of coolness. Dujardin balances things quite well. He won the "Best Actor" award at Cannes for his performance and there is talk he may win an Oscar as well. At the very least, he will be nominated.

I can't kid myself or readers. A movie like "The Artist" is made for people like myself. Old timers who actually watch silent cinema. Someone who yearns for the past. Has a growing interest in the history of cinema. Someone who has actually seen movies with actors like Clara Bow, Greta Garbo, Conrad Nagel, Valentino, Louise Brooks and John Barrymore.

"The Artist" is one of the year's best films. It should not be missed!

"The Adventures of Tintin" *** (out of ****)

For some reason the idea of Steven Spielberg directing an animated film seemed a bit odd to me. Better to leave this sort of thing to Pixar or Dreamworks. But then as I watched the opening minutes of "Tintin" a thought occured to me. Why the heck shouldn't Spielberg direct an animated film?! He's a filmmaker who has never lost touch with his inner child. He should have made an animated film a long time ago. Remember, this is the man who made films such as "E.T." (1982), "Raiders of the Lost Arc" (1981) and "Hook" (1991).

Much like other films released this year, "The Artist" or Martin Scorsese's "Hugo" (2011), "The Adventures of Tintin" is a nostalgic throw-back to an earlier time. The film, based on a comic book series by Herge, recalls 1930s serials. Much like "Indiana Jones".

Tintin (voices by Jamie Bell) is a famous reporter who stumbles upon a great mystery after buying a miniature boat. The actual boat which the model was based on, has a long history Tintin discovers. A great secret is hidden somewhere in the model and only one man can help Tintin solve the mystery, Capt. Haddock (Andy Serkis) a descendant of the original captain of the boat in question.

Tintin and Haddock find themselves on the run from Rackham (Daniel Craig) who knows all about the boat's history and has his own sinister motives.

The film was written by Steven Moffat, whom I know as the creator of one of my favorite TV shows, the BBC comedy "Coupling". And was co-written by Edgar Wright, director of the endlessly creative "Scott Pilgrim vs the World" (2010) and Joe Cornish.

The most amazing thing about "The Adventures of Tintin" was how involved I was. I was actually caught up in the adventure. I found a lot of it suspenseful. I could see how this could have been made into a live-action film (Spielberg's original intention). The film has moments of action, comedy and lite-seriousness.

I really enjoyed the look of the film as well. It is much different, to my eye at least, than what Pixar releases. This looked more "real". I found the animation quite impressive. Still I preferred animated films like "Cars 2" (2011) and "Rango" (2011) over this one. Those movies had a bit more heart. Which is normally something a Spielberg film doesn't lack.

Still, Spielberg puts on a good show for us. I think this makes for a pretty good family film. Most audiences should enjoy it.

Film Review: Creature From The Black Lagoon

"Creature From The Black Lagoon" ** 1\2 (out of ****)

"Creature From The Black Lagoon" (1954) was a science-fiction/horror film made at Universal Studios. At one time Universal Studios was known as a successful studio which produced some of the most memorable horror films of all time. It was at this studio "Dracula" (1931), "Frankenstein" (1931), "The Mummy" (1932) and "The Wolf Man" (1941) was made.

Those movies were quite ambitious. "Dracula" and "Frankenstein" borrowed a visual style from German Expressionism and the work of Fritz Lang and F.W. Murneau. "The Wolf Man" borrowed from noir films, which were quite popular at the time. But with "Creature From The Black Lagoon" Universal Studios seems to have lost its ambition. "Creature From The Black Lagoon" seems to be borrowing from Ed Wood. This is an almost campy "B" film. Their is great potential here but the film's execution is slightly off.

It is largely believed "Creature From The Black Lagoon" signaled the end of Universal's monster reign. "The Gill Man", as he is known, was the last successful horror film character the studio created.

The film takes place along the Amazon river. A marine biologist, Carl Maia (Antonio Moreno) finds the hand of what appears to be a prehistoric creature among some rocks. He takes the hand to some fellow colleagues; Dr. David Reed (Richard Carlson), Kay Lawrence (Julie Adams) and Dr. Mark Williams (Richard Denning) all of whom are intrigue by the hand and what he may represent for their studies. Dr. Williams is also interested in the fame and financial rewards such scientific find may bring. So, they all agree to head at to the site where the hand was found and explore.

"Creature From The Black Lagoon" is a relatively short film but it makes a lot of mistakes. The biggest mistake is the way the villain, The Gill Man, is treated. I feel the character is seen too soon into the picture, roughly 24 minutes into the movie. This takes away a lot of suspense which could have been created as an audience prepares itself for what this creature may look like. But Universal Studios went all out pushing the character out on the public through its advertising. The creature was the main selling point to the studio and they were going to exploit the look of the monster at all cost in their attempt to generate excitement over the movie.

What also hurts "Creature From The Black Lagoon" is the "B" quality of the film. The acting is under-par. The performers are rather stiff, the dialogue somewhat clumsy. The film lacks suspense not just because of the way the creature is presented but because we are never fully engaged in the story. We don't come to fear for these characters.

I wasn't born in 1950s America. In fact I wasn't in the 1950s but, I suspect, from what I know about other films from the period, "Creature From The Black Lagoon" is a good representation of the times. The 1950s saw a time of great interest in science-fiction. Particularly "B" pictures. Think of Ed Wood titles such as "Night of the Ghouls" (1959), "Plan 9 From Outer Space" (1959) and Roger Corman's "The Beast With A Million Eyes" (1955).

The movie also has an interesting message. Yes readers, a movie called "Creature From The Black Lagoon" has a message. The way I interpret it "Creature From The Black Lagoon" tells us, mind your own damn business. The 1950s, as I said, were a time of great interest in exploration. Going into outer space and alien invasions, discovering the world around us. In "Creature From The Black Lagoon" the characters feel by understanding the past we can understand the future but, like it says in the bible, "seek and ye shall find". And that is the point of the movie. If you go looking for something, you just might find it, and that may not be a good thing. Better to leave nature alone. Better to mind your own business and let things remain as they are. Trouble may be on the horizon.

Some also say the film has that old "King Kong" (1933) element going for it. That of a beast falling in love with a beautiful woman. The Gill Man (played on land by Ben Chapman and in water by Ricou Browning) actually falls in love with Kay. That is why he begins to attack the group so he can get his hands on Kay. This is of course an old theme in movies and literature. Presenting the beautiful woman as an object of affection for a deformed being whether it is in "The Hunchback of Notre Dame", "Beauty & The Beast" or "King Kong". Look at what Peter Jackson did in his 2005 remake. He made the woman (played by Naomi Watts) actually feel for Kong.

"Creature From The Black Lagoon" could actually benefit from a remake (God, I can't believe I just said that). It has been something which has been rumored from time to time in Hollywood but the project keeps falling through. But a good movie is lurking here if someone would give it another shot. Put in a little more money, better acting and better dialogue. Also, take that old "Jaws" (1974) approach of delaying the on-screen appearance of the creature.

Will "Creature From The Black Lagoon" work on today's younger audience? I doubt it. Should you watch it anyway? Sure, why not. "Creature From The Black Lagoon" has some qualities worth recommending and it has clearly left an influence on horror films and inspired many films. Just don't expect a masterpiece something on par with Universal Studios earlier horror films.

Film Review: The Raven

"The Raven" *** (out of ****)

To some people "campy" is a dirty word when describing a movie. I believe when people think of a movie as being campy the films of Ed Wood or something similar comes to mind. They think of movies that are amateurish and unintentionally funny. But Roger Corman's "The Raven" (1963) while campy is a different example.

Every Halloween I review at least one movie directed by Roger Corman and every Halloween I complain that I only review his movies in October. Corman deserves more attention especially from moviebuffs. I don't think Corman is one of cinema's great filmmakers, in a class with Ingmar Bergman, Federico Fellini or Orson Welles, but I do admire his spirit and what he represents. That indie, non-Hollywood, non-conformist style.

Roger Corman, while often thought of as a "B" filmmaker, has directed a few worthwhile films. The movies which I enjoy watching the films and the ones which I review are his Edgar Allan Poe adaptations. These films I believe show Corman at his highest artistic merit. The films have his best production designs, his best plots and his best acting. In the past I have reviewed "The Pit & the Pendulum" (1961), "The Masque of the Red Death" (1964) and "The House of Usher" (1960). Now comes "The Raven".

"The Raven" is a bit different compared to the other Poe adaptations. "The Raven" is more of a campy comedy. Not a comedy in a laugh-out-loud kind of way (at least I never laughed-out-loud) but in an amusing, lighthearted sort of way. The reason I think the movie works, to the extent it does, is because it knows it is campy. The cast, consisting of all horror movie pros; Vincent Price (a Corman regular), Peter Lorre and Boris Karloff, give the audience a wink and a nod. They know what sort of movie this is and the best way to approach this material.

For an adaptation "The Raven" is pretty loose. Outside of naming the film the same as Poe's most famous story, having a raven in the movie and a female character named Lenore, very little is the same. This movie deals with magicians and magic and a power struggle between two of them. It is also a simple story of good vs evil.

Vincent Price stars as Dr. Erasmus Craven. A sometimes absent minded magician. His wife, Lenore (Hazel Court) has passed away two years ago. With her death his world has come to an end. Nevermore, to quote the raven, will he see or hear her voice.

One day a raven (voiced by Peter Lorre) flies into his window. It explains that he is really a man who has had a curse put on him by Dr. Scarabus (Boris Karloff). The raven requires Dr. Craven to make a potion which will convert the raven back to his human form, Dr. Bedlo.

Once Dr. Craven helps Dr. Bedlo, Bedlo explains that he has seen Lenore at Dr. Scarabus' castle. Bedlo suggest Craven follow him to Scarabus' castle, where Bedlo hopes to get revenge on Scarabus for turning him into a raven.

As you can tell little resembles the Poe story and there isn't much here that is scary. The film never goes for a creepy, mystic tone. The interplay between Price and Lorre is comical. They bicker like a married couple. Each throwing insults at the other. Lorre tries to get a lot of laughs presenting his character as a drunk.

For a Roger Corman film, the movie actually has a very talented cast. Price, Lorre and Karloff are experienced actors. You'll also see a young Jack Nicholson play Rexford Bedlo (Lorre's son). This might surprise some viewers who are use to seeing Nicholson act in higher caliber films. But Nicholson actually was given a big opportunity by Corman. He would act in other Corman films including "Little Shop of Horrors" (1960) and "The Terror" (1963). In Nicholson's performance you'll see him play the wannabe hero whom no one will listen to.

Will "The Raven" be a suitable film to watch on Halloween night? Probably not, depending on what you're looking for. If you are looking for a lot of scares, blood and guts, then no. If you are looking for a silly, playful story dealing with magic and Edgar Allan Poe, "The Raven" will work for you. The question is, how many people are looking for that?