Film Review: Seven Chances

"Seven Chances"
**** (out of ****)

The first time I saw Buster Keaton's "Seven Chances" (1925), as a teenager, I believed it was a somewhat entertaining comedy, with some good visual gags, that ultimately was a second tier "Buster Keaton comedy". It didn't neatly fit into the cannon of Buster Keaton comedies, accentuating the strengths of Mr. Keaton's "Great Stone Face" character. Watching "Seven Chances" again recently my opinion has completely changed.

To be honest, I don't know how well "Seven Chances" utilizes the "Great Stone Face" character but I have never seen a comedic premise executed as perfectly. "Seven Chances", at 56 minutes, doesn't waste one moment of screen time. The story is told in a straight forward manner. Its beauty is in its simplicity.

In comedic terms "Seven Chances" has an ingenious plot. Based on a stage play of the same name, Keaton plays James Shannon, a broker who due to a questionable financial deal faces disgrace and ruin. The Gods smile at James when an attorney (Snitz Edwards) informs him his grandfather has died and in his will has left a fortune of seven million dollars (remember this is 1925) to James, provided he is married by his twenty-seventh birthday. On this very day James turns 27. He now has until 7pm to find a bride.

The movie begins by stating James is in love with Mary (Ruth Dwyer) but has been unable to utter the words "I love you" to her. For what is about to follow, the movie needed this to establish the fact James loves Mary and is a likeable character. When James discovers his deadline he rushes over to Mary's home to propose. She accepts until James explains why they must marry that same day. Feeling insulted Mary decides she no longer wants to marry James. Now James needs to find a woman, any woman, willing to marry him.

This entire premise plays itself out within the first half hour of the picture. The remaining 25 minutes (give or take) becomes a "chase comedy", with James running away from a mob of women, all willing to marry him after it is revealed he is set to inherit a fortune. It is one of the most famous chase sequences in a Buster Keaton comedy and may be one of the greatest chase sequences in any silent comedy, perhaps only matched by one from another Keaton comedy, "Sherlock, Jr." (1924). The chase culminates to a situation with James ducking from an avalanche of giant boulders rolling towards him and eventually the would-be brides.

As iconic as the image of rolling boulders may be, it is what leads us to that point that cracks me up as Keaton and his gag writers, including Clyde Bruckman (who worked on "The General" (1926) and Harold Lloyd comedies) create a cavalcade of sight gags with James encountering a female impersonator, nearly engaging an underage girl, mistaking a mannequin for a woman and running into a Turkish bath on ladies day. The writers have imagined every possible awkward scenario to place James in, building momentum towards the comedic climax.

Compared to other Buster Keaton comedies however "Seven Chances" may feel slight. The material could have been made into a two-reeler comedy. If you take out the chase sequence, it might have made a good Charley Chase comedy (look him up if you don't know who he was). Plot-wise the chase adds nothing to the story. Although Keaton was known not to care about sentimentality in his movies, "Seven Chances" creates no character build up, which would provide the audience an emotional investment in the story and the fate of the character. Instinctively Keaton fans might get defensive and say that is true about all of his movies. They are short changing Keaton. I like his character in "The General". I want him to succeed.

The question becomes how well does the "Great Stone Face" character work in this movie? In demonstrating his athletic ability, "Seven Chances" is characteristic of a Buster Keaton comedy but Keaton's comedies were also known for their technical innovation and themes of man versus technology. "Seven Chances" is more situation comedy than some may be used to in a Keaton movie. It is not unlike "Battling Butler" (1926) in that sense, which was also based on pre-existing material.

The reason "Seven Chances" succeeds is because of the humor. "Seven Chances" is essentially a one-joke movie but there is an onslaught of sight gags that make us laugh. The movie is consistently funny, always going for a big laugh and hitting its target. In terms of laughs "Seven Chances" ranks with "The General" and "Sherlock, Jr.".

Some of Keaton's best moments in the movie may be the subtle touches he gives the character. Take the scene where James proposes to Mary. James is sitting outside of Mary's home on a bench. He is rehearsing his proposal. Unknown to James, Mary sees him and sits next to him. James, still rehearsing, pops the question. Unable to contain her excitement, Mary says yes. James turns his head and faces Mary. He doesn't do a double take. Naturally he doesn't change his facial expression to one of surprise, he simply flows with the situation, as if nothing has happened. That is typical Keaton.

In the same scene, after accepting James' proposal, Mary sits closer to James. James moves his hat towards the edge of the bench to give him more room. As Mary shows him affection, James moves the hat closer to him. The actions don't bring attention to themselves and some may not notice the movements but this is what made the stone face character so funny.

Keaton originally did not like "Seven Chances" even though it did well at the box-office. The movie often gets lost in the shuffle of Keaton's comedies as much praise is thrown at "The General", "Sherlock, Jr." and "Steamboat Bill, Jr." (1928) but "Seven Chances" is just as good. Over the years the movie's reputation has grown. It may not always be characteristic Keaton but it is one of his best movies.

This movie (perhaps moreso than the stage play) served as inspiration for the Three Stooges comedy, "The Brideless Groom" (1947), one of Shemp's most famous outings with the team and the romantic comedy "The Bachelor" (1999) starring Chris O' Donnell.

Top Ten Films Of 2016!

More than half way through 2017 and only now am I making a list of the best films of 2016. All I can tell you is, the absence of this list was not due to forgetfulness. The movies of 2016 did not impress me. Having seen more than 120 movies released in the calendar year of 2016, I struggled to compile a list of 10 meaningful ones. I waited to catch up with titles I missed in theatres, and I am still not completely satisfied with this list. I will disclose that there are some titles I am still waiting to be released on DVD that may change this list. These titles include "Certain Women" and "Krisha".

I saw all the critically acclaimed movies released in December and the Oscar nominated movies; "Moonlight", "La La Land", "Silence", "Star Wars: Rogue One", "A Monster Calls", "Hidden Figures", "Lion", "Manchester By the Sea" and "Noctural Animals" to name a few. The majority of them I found "decent". Not great but not bad either. In most cases, I believe the sheep (movie critics) and general public over-hyped these movies, as they usually do. I do not purposely try to be "different" but from time to time I scratch my head in bewilderment over their taste.

Some of my choices were nominated for Oscars and did receive critical acclaim. Most were ignored and some even slammed by the public.

The world in 2016 was, to put it mildly, interesting. Americans followed a presidential election between two of the most distrusted candidates in modern history. One had absolutely no qualifications whatsoever and was a reality TV host. In our age of celebrity, "wise" voters chose this person. America has been reaping the benefits ever since (that's sarcasm).

I mention the election because when I compiled my list of the best films of 2015 I pointed out how angry movies had become. Revolt was in the air. Liberal Hollywood was sending a message with movies advancing a liberal agenda. Oddly though, 2016 seemed tame by comparison. Yes, there was "Miss Sloane" (unfairly damned by the public) which caused conservatives to go bananas, but few other mainstream titles really stirred the pot and left much of an impression.

Suffering a backlash from the previous year's Academy Awards ceremony, which saw some black actors and actresses call for a boycott of the show, some of the best movies released this year saw life through the eyes of black characters. These movies were the saving grace of 2016.

Outside of that point, I'm not sure there is a connection, a common theme, between my choices for the best films of the year other than I simply liked them.

1. ALLIED (Dir. Robert Zemeckis; U.S.)

A movie that received a mixed reaction. It reminded me of an Alfred Hitchcock movie from the 1940s. It was honestly never my intention to place this at the top of my list, though I did intend for it to be placed somewhere in the top ten. Eventually, after being disappointed title after title, "Allied" seemed better and better by comparison than most.

Here is a piece of classic, old-fashion Hollywood entertainment featuring two mega-star performances by Brad Pitt and Marion Cotillard with Cotillard stealing the show. I was very disappointed that the movie received only one Oscar nomination (costume design) but was shut out of all the major categories. If Hollywood was in a nostalgic mood (La La Land), "Allied" was a movie it should have paid more attention to.

2. FENCES (Dir. Denzel Washington; U.S.)

3. HIDDEN FIGURES (Dir. Theodore Melfi; U.S.)

4. LOVING (Dir. Jeff Nichols; U.S.)

5. SING STREET (Dir. John Carney; UK)

6. MISS HOKUSAI (Dir. Keiichi Hara; Japan)

One of the most beautiful animated movies released in 2016. It does not have a linear plot but is wonderful to look at.

7. ELLE (Dir. Paul Verhoeven; France)

8. MISS SLOANE (Dir. John Madden; U.S.)

9. LIGHTS OUT (Dir. David F. Sandberg; U.S.)

The horror movie of the year!

10. WE MONSTERS (Dir. Sebastian Ko; Germany)

Film Review: The Kid Brother

"The Kid Brother"
**** (out of ****)

It may not have the fame of "The Freshman" (1925) or an iconic comedy sequence like the one in "Safety Last!" (1923) but the comedy "The Kid Brother" (1927) is one of Harold Lloyd's best.

Re-watching many of Harold Lloyd's comedies, I have come to the conclusion he may have been at the forefront of creating the situation romantic-comedy as we know it. How else do you explain "Girl Shy" (1924)? This, more than anything, separates Mr. Lloyd from his two more famous (?) contemporaries. I cannot recall a Buster Keaton comedy I would describe as romantic. In "The General" (1926) for example, Mr. Keaton spends as much time with trains than he does with a girl. Charlie Chaplin, in movies like "City Lights" (1931) could display a romantic sentiment, but Mr. Chaplin's movies generally had dramatic undertones rather than romantic.

In various Harold Lloyd comedies I've noticed a struggle trying to find a way to combine comedy with a credible romantic sub-plot. Some have a very good plot structure, "Girl Shy" and "Grandma's Boy"(1922), while others limit Mr.  Lloyd's interaction with the leading female character in order to focus more on comedy sequences, "Safety Last!" and "The Freshman".

In truth some of the same statements could be made about "The Kid Brother" but watching it again, it is the only comedy with Mr. Lloyd that I have seen that I have enjoyed as much as when I first saw it. The movie does balance romance with comedy with the comedy slightly edging ahead. The female character is used as a plot device, around at just the right moment to motivate our hero and provide him with the inspiration he needs. For instance, she does not participate in any of the comedy sequences, though some are built around her presence.

However, "The Kid Brother" is a successful movie simply because it is well told. The movie has an excellent plot structure, that tries to go beyond a laugh-a-minute plot, attempting to provide more character development for the Harold Lloyd character to create more of an emotional connection with the audience. That may mean fewer laughs as a result but it doesn't prevent "The Kid Brother" from being a rewarding experience. I am also aware some will say I am contradicting myself because I rated "Grandma's Boy" three-and-a-half stars while making the same comments about it as I am "The Kid Brother". Why am I not giving them both four stars? Because I like "The Kid Brother" more.

"The Kid Brother" is a kind of "Cinderella" story with Mr. Lloyd playing Harold Hickory, a shy, under confident young man who feels lost in shadow of his father, Jim (Walter James), the small town's sheriff, and his two older brothers; Leo (Leo Willis) and Olin (Olin Francis). Harold wishes he was an strong as his father and brothers. This scenario is familiar for Mr. Lloyd as it is reminiscent of "Grandma's Boy".

One day Harold sees Mary (Jobyna Ralston, in her last role co-starring with Mr. Lloyd), the daughter of a traveling medicine man, who has since passed away. Wanting to "prove" himself in her eyes. Harold pretends to be just as strong as his brothers, ordering them around when he knows Mary is nearby.

Outside of these sequences, there isn't much of a courtship between Harold and Mary. It appears Mary is instantly attracted to Harold, with no other male rivals in sight, fighting for Mary's hand. This dispenses with the usual romantic entanglements that proceed instead allowing more time for visual gags and character set-up.

A lot of the visual gags are clever with Harold using his surroundings to his advantage to avoid physical conflict. Without giving away too much, a gag involving a monkey and a pair of shoes is funny and a sequence with Harold trying to embarrass his brothers, while also trying to avoid a beating from them, when he brings Mary to their home late at night, after being caught in the rain. The brothers are embarrassed to be seen in their pajamas.

One sequence seems a little out of place, as Harold is fighting off a bad guy that he learns cannot swim. Harold gets bloody minded and tries to drown the man. It is all meant to be played for comedy but the impulse of the character contradicts the sweet, innocent nature the movie had been establishing, which I guess it meant to make it funny when it does happen.

The movie was co-directed by Ted Wilde, who received his first (of two) screen credit for directing a Harold Lloyd comedy. The first second directing effort was for "Speedy" (1928). Wilde worked with Mr. Lloyd on a few comedies, including "Why Worry?"(1923), "Girl Shy" and "The Freshman". Jay A. Howe (credited at J.A. Howe) only received screen credit for this Harold Lloyd comedy, despite his long career in comedy during the silent era and working for Hal Roach at one time.

The main theme of the movie however is a standard one found in far too numerous comedies of the time period; masculinity. A man proving his worth in the eyes of the woman he loves. In these movies a man's worth is equated to strength. A woman, these movies tell us, needs to fall in love with a "strong man". There is also the father / son dynamic that addresses the same theme. Jim believes Harold is frail and treats him as such, making comments like "You might get hurt Harold. This is a man's work."

"The Kid Brother" may lack some of the big laughs and thrills of "The Freshman" or "Safety Last!" but it is easily one of Harold Lloyd's best comedies due to its well constructed plot, character development, combination of comedy and romance, fine visual gags and Mr. Lloyd's acting (pay attention to his body language!). This would be a fine place to start to introduce yourself to the comedy of Harold Lloyd.

Film Review: Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse

"Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse"
*** (out of ****)

Francis Ford Coppola experiences "the horror" of filmmaking in the documentary, "Hearts of Darkness" (1991).

I would imagine to the general public the idea of filmmaking might be a simple one. How difficult can it be to direct a movie? You basically tell everyone what to do and follow a script. To an outsider it may sound like fun. Movies are glamorous, right? You get to socialize with beautiful actors and actresses. You'll make a lot of money. You can become famous. People will ask for your autograph. You can even win an Academy Award. It all sounds like a pretty sweet deal, doesn't it?

Of course, anyone that has ever shot a movie will tell you, you are wrong. That is not what filmmaking is. The great French director, Francois Truffaut, won an Academy Award for "Day For Night" (1974), a movie about working on a movie set with Mr. Truffaut playing a director as he deals with major casting decisions to minor problems like a cat not properly drinking milk from a saucer. It created a romanticized view of filmmaking. Fax Bahr's documentary sets the record straight.

"Hearts of Darkness" documents the making of Francis Ford Coppola's "Apocalypse Now" (1979), a movie generally regarded as one of the greatest movies of all-time but one noted for its notorious production shoot, which lasted more than 200 days and went millions of dollars over budget. During production Mr. Coppola fired and re-cast his lead actor, a monsoon destroyed sets, his new lead actor suffered a heart attack, other actors failed to learn their lines and issues with the Philippine government, which was engaged in a civil war, delayed shooting. All of which lead Mr. Coppola to doubt whether the film would ever be completed.

We suspect this is what it is truly like to make a movie. It is hard work. A constant struggle. An endless day of decision making and compromise with moments when it feels as if you are flying by the seat of your pants. Within those circumstances it is not difficult to believe a director would begin to question their talent. How and when will the movie end?

Great directors, like Francis Ford Coppola, often blend their personal life into their work. There is a element of autobiography in their films, directors like Mr. Coppola, Martin Scorsese, Woody Allen and Ingmar Bergman, usually draw on experiences from their childhood as inspiration. Watching "Hearts of Darkness" however, I have never seen a more perfect example of art imitating life. Has a filmmaker ever mirrored so closely the experiences of the lead character in a movie? It is a reality that does not escape Mr. Coppola.

If you have never seen "Apocalypse Now", it is loosely based on Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness", written in 1899, exploring themes of imperialism and racism. In Mr. Coppola's film we follow Captain Willard (Martin Sheen), a special operations officer ordered to find Colonel Kurtz (Marlon Brando), a highly decorated officer who has gone rogue in Cambodia and leads his own military, and "terminate" him. Willard travels upriver, through the jungle of Vietnam searching for Kurtz. The movie is about a journey. The physical journey of find Kurtz and deeper ones involving the journey into one's mind, self discovery. To Coppola, the journey was a metaphor for the Vietnam War.

In order to make the film, Mr. Coppola and his crew, travel to the Philippines and face the harsh elements. Coppola begins to go slightly mad out in the wilderness. He openly speaks of shooting himself, after his has put his own money up to produce the movie, and is afraid the film will turn out to be a disaster. Mr. Coppola goes on his own journey to self discovery. He is a different man by the time the film is completed.

"Hearts of Darkness" uses footage shot by Mr. Coppola's wife, Eleanor, during the production shoot of "Apocalypse Now", originally intended for PR purposes, and video recordings between herself and Mr. Coppola. Eleanor also narrates the movie, reading from her diary, giving audiences an insider look at what goes on during the making of a film.

That is the strong suite of "Hearts of Darkness". We really learn a lot about what it takes to make a movie and hear to utmost personal thoughts of Mr. Coppola as he tries to deal with the situation at hand. Through the course of events Mr. Coppola comes across as a risk taker and a highly intelligent filmmaker. A man who always had a strategy, trying to work around all of the obstacles thrown in his direction.

These moments are countered with modern footage of the cast and crew (Mr. Sheen, Denise Hopper, Robert Duvall and Mr. Coppola himself) sharing their experiences on set, looking back on the film. Through the contemporary interviews, we learn quite a bit, such as George Lucas (who is also interviewed) was originally set to direct the movie. We learn Martin Sheen, at 36 years old, felt he was not in good shape to withstand the shooting schedule of the movie. We learn some of the actors were on drugs during shooting and many scenes were improvised.

Yet for all of these interesting moments and details learned about "Apocalypse Now", I'm still reluctant to call "Hearts of Darkness" a masterpiece. It feels too academic. Too much like a PBS special. It provides a lot of facts but lacks emotion. I wasn't involved, sitting as an activate participant, as I am when watching other documentaries by Michael Moore or Errol Morris.

"Hearts of Darkness" naturally makes a perfect companion piece to "Apocalypse Now". After watching "Hearts of Darkness", you truly come to appreciate "Apocalypse Now" a bit more and respect Mr. Coppola. You sit and watch a movie and never realize what goes into making it. "Hearts of Darkness" was filled with as much drama as "Apocalypse Now".

The documentary went on to win two Primetime Emmys, for directing and editing, and a National Board of Review award for best documentary. The late film critic, Gene Siskel, of the Chicago Tribune and the television show "Siskel & Ebert", called it the best movie of 1991.

You can also read my review published on the The Big Picture website here.

Film Review: Erin Brockovich

"Erin Brockovich"
**** (out of ****)

The Trump administration moved Tuesday to roll back an Obama administration policy that protected more than half the nation's streams from pollution.
Associated Press - June 27, 2017

The State of Michigan sued Flint Wednesday, alleging that the City Council's refusal to approve a broadly backed deal to buy water over the long term from a Detriot-area system is endangering public health.
Associated Press - printed in the Boston Globe June 28, 2017

Reading about these two news stories, I immediately thought of Steven Soderbergh's "Erin Brockovich" (2000), a movie I originally called one of the best films of 2000, and one that unfortunately proves relevant today.

The movie was based on the true story of the legal case against Pacific Gas and Electric Company in 1993 California. The company was accused of contaminating the drinking water of the town Hinkley with hexavalent chromium, which studies showed was linked to cancer in humans. PG&E used this chromium in their cooling tower system to fight corrosion.

Pacific Gas and Electric however was fully aware of the harmful nature of their actions. In their attempt to cover their tracks the company made proposals to buy homes within a radius of the plant. What was initially a pro-bono real estate case morphed into a larger issue, thanks to the keen eye of Erin Brockovich (Julia Roberts), a filing clerk at the law office of Masry & Vititoe, who had no degree in law.

Essentially what you have in "Erin Brockovich" is a Frank Capra-esque story of the little guy (or girl) taking on the mighty large corporation, seeking justice, offering the message that against all the odds good will always prevail when the truth is on your side. Of course, it helps if you look like Julia Roberts as well.

"Erin Brockovich" isn't so much about the court case as it is about people. The viewer understands the basis of the case but we don't see a lot of lawyers talking about strategy or court room scenes. The majority of the movie focuses on Erin and her interaction with people. "Erin Brockovich" wants the audience to like Erin. To relate to her and cheer her on. We are meant to admire her.

In this respect Julia Roberts succeeds in her interpretation of the character. Ms. Roberts' charm saves the day as she delivers, what seems to be, an effortless performance. Where does Erin Brockovich begin and Julia Roberts end? In some ways Ms. Roberts is not doing much different than she has done in other roles. Her public persona, with her winning smile, are on-screen here. She is light and bubbly. That makes "Erin Brockovich" light and bubbly. You could have taken this movie and material in a more dramatic direction, imagine Meryl Streep in the role. But how many people would have seen the movie? Ms. Roberts makes "Erin Brockovich" mainstream and is directly linked to why the movie was a box-office success. It is great Hollywood entertainment. Minus a few short skirts and four letter words this is a movie Hollywood of the past would have made.

However there were many that criticized "Erin Brockovich" and Julia Roberts' wardrobe as distracting. These "movie critics" wrote a lot of words commenting on how Ms. Roberts' breast were far too often on display and seemed to be the focal point of many scenes. That is not fair and completely dismissing what the movie is trying to accomplish. I am a male and enjoyed the story presented in "Erin Brockovich". If other men watching the movie find Ms. Roberts' appearance a distraction, that says more about them then the movie.

If there is to be criticism aimed at the movie it would be the way an unnecessary love interest character, George (Aaron Eckhart) a next door neighbor biker, is portrayed. Whether or not the real Erin Brockovich knew this man is immaterial to me. Story-wise the character adds nothing to the plot. What starts off as a good character, fizzles out. If the purpose of the George character was to show Erin's determination in her noble pursuit, a perfectly good character was wasted. As a result the character becomes an after thought used as a baby sitter allowing Erin to focus on the legal case. The George character could have been used to reveal personality traits in Erin's character while still turning George into a person instead of a plot device.

Some of the better scenes in the movie involve Erin with Ed Masry (Albert Finney), the attorney she works for. They have a good chemistry between them and are able to exchange witty remarks at one another. Development wise, the Ed character doesn't fare much better than the George character, however being the actor Mr. Finney is, with his own charm and screen presence, he makes the character memorable. He was nominated for an Academy Award in the best supporting actor category.

Also, in true Capra form, it would have been nice if there was a screen villain, someone from PG&E fighting back against Erin and Ed. Instead it is a faceless company. Was that within itself a social comment? Companies prefer to remain faceless as they cause suffering to the general public. Is that how they get away with it? It might be a good idea but in the movies it is always good to have a villain.

But, we have to come back to Ms. Roberts, who won an Academy Award in the best actress category for her performance. It cannot be overstated. Ms. Roberts is the central force in the movie. The entire movie is built around her. The great critic, Michael Wilmington, then of the Chicago Tribune, wrote of Ms. Roberts, she "may never find another part as perfect for her". Sadly this has turned out to be true as Ms. Roberts, with the possible exception of Mike Nichols' "Closer" (2004), has not starred in a movie worthy of her acting skill. Winning the Academy Award turned out to be one of the worst things for her a career. A similar fate shared by Halle Berry and Mira Sorvino.

Director Steven Soderbergh, who prior to this movie had a reputation as an American indie filmmaker with title such as "Sex, Lies and Videotape" (1989) a Palme d'Or winner and "Kafka" (1991) came into the mainstream with this movie. The year 2000 proved to be his year as he released another critically acclaimed drama, "Traffic" (2000), for which he won the best director Academy Award (while also being nominated for "Erin Brockovich"). Since this time Mr. Soderbergh has switched between Hollywood movies (the Ocean series) and personal projects.

As the news of the day reminds us, the events in "Erin Brockovich" were not a "one time" scenario. In fact PG&E, as late as 2011, was still addressing contamination concerns. Lead contamination has been discovered in Ohio and Illinois not to mention the horrific situation in Flint. The news media doesn't give these issues enough attention. That remains one of the great things about movies however. "Erin Brockovich" gives us names and faces. Movies, sometimes, bring important issues to the mainstream. They create awareness. We need more movies like "Erin Brockovich". All these years later the movie has lost none of its bite and Ms. Roberts' still shines.

Film Review: Rookies in Burma

"Rookies in Burma"  ** 1\2 (out of ****)

"Rookies" prove to still be amateurs in "Rookies in Burma" (1943)

"Rookies in Burma" is a sequel to the Wally Brown / Alan Carney comedy, "Adventures Of A Rookie" (1943), a World War II comedy about two American dopes (Brown & Carney) that are drafted in the army. It was RKO's response to the popularity of the Abbott & Costello comedy "Buck Privates" (1941) and the continued success Abbott & Costello were having at Universal Pictures with their war themed service comedies; "In the Navy" (1941) and "Keep 'Em Flying" (1941).

Of the eight "official" movies Brown & Carney were teamed together in, between 1943 - 1946, "Adventures Of A Rookie" and "Rookies in Burma" may be their two best known comedies. Both are available on DVD as part of Warner Brothers Archive Collection - "The RKO Brown & Carney Comedy Collection", which features four titles in total.

Movies lovers do not have to be told, Brown & Carney never achieved the success of Abbott & Costello. Their comedies together are largely forgotten by the mainstream. The comedies are mainly of interest as curiosity pieces. Some movies fans, like myself, may take pleasure in "discovering" forgotten comedy teams and / or comedians. Over the years I have found not all of them deserved their "forgotten" status.

"Rookies in Burma" however may prove to be a different matter entirely. I actually enjoyed "Adventures Of A Rookie", to an extent. I may be the only person in the history of the world to prefer it over "Buck Privates". "Privates" I felt was too sentimental and patriotic whereas "Rookies" knew its limitations and was strictly a comedy with no greater ambition. "Rookies in Burma" however is essentially a "B" movie made on a small budget featuring less than distinguished actors and poorly chosen locations. It wants to be a cross between an action / adventure story and comedy. The problem is neither aspect of the story is well executed.

Young, modern, liberal viewers will also be off put by the movie and will claim the movie is offensive and filled with racial stereotypes. The dialogue in the movie is filled with references to "Japs" and implications that all Japanese people have slanted eyes and buck teeth. While that language would definitely not find its way in movies today, one has to remember the time period. The movie was made during World War II. America was at war with the Japanese. I see no difference in this compared to American movies today and the depiction of Middle-Easterners in cinema as terrorist. Both share the objective of belittling your opponent.

At the start of the movie we meet Jerry Miles (Brown) and Mike Strager (Carney). They have not made anything of themselves since we last saw them in "Adventures". The first image of them is they are both peeling potatoes. Jerry, the "leader" of the team, is upset. Jerry believes he should be fighting in the front lines against the Japanese. His country needs him. Mike, on the other hand, is not so brave. When an opportunity presents itself for Jerry to become a hero and capture several Japanese soldiers, his plan backfires and he and Mike are taken to a Japanese camp as prisoners of war.

But Jerry is not ready to admit defeat. He is an American and Americans always fight back. Jerry and Mike will escape from the camp. Each man is surprised to find out their Sergeant (Erford Gage, reprising his role from "Adventures Of A Rookie") has also been capture. The three men manage to escape the camp and spend the rest of the movie hiding from the Japanese soldiers in an attempt to find their way back to the American lines.

Much of the humor in "Rookies in Burma" revolves around verbal dialogue between Jerry and Mike, much like the wordplay between Abbott and Costello. One routine is built around the word "cinch". Jerry wants Mike to strap a cinch for a saddle on an elephant (never mind how the elephant makes its way in the movie!). Jerry tells Mike it will be a hard job but when he keeps using the word "cinch", Mike takes it to mean it is an easy job. Do you find that funny? Well, how about this one. Mike says he never sneezes, which Jerry finds amazing and begins to tell Mike the effects his actions have on the economy and all the jobs that will be lost due to Mike not sneezing. It is incredibly similar to a routine Abbott & Costello did about not putting mustard on a hot dog.

"Rookies in Burma" feels like a one-note comedy that keeps going back to making fun of the Japanese for laughs. The action scenes are never thrilling. There isn't any suspense created where the viewer wonders will Jerry and Mike find their way back to safety. The screenplay doesn't develop Jerry and Mike as two "loveable losers" that become endearing characters. The comedy feels "dated" and stale. The movie doesn't even give us a sense of patriotic pride as we see the American soldiers outwit the Japanese.

The movie also throws in two female characters played by Joan Barclay and Claire Carleton. Their appearance, one can assume, was meant to give the movie some sex appeal. Neither women is given much material to work with. There is no romantic development between the women and Jerry and Mike or between one of the women and the Sergeant. The movie doesn't even go to any lengths to suggest the women are beautiful by photographing them in any particular way with special lighting. The whole movie is shot rather bland.

Despite all of this, I don't believe Brown & Carney should be entirely avoided. They did appear in some watchable comedies, "Girl Rush" (1944) and "Step Lively" (1944) starring a young Frank Sinatra. I also question the need to make a sequel for "Adventures Of A Rookie" in the first place. What does this movie accomplish?

Part of me likes the stale jokes in "Rookies in Burma". I have always admitted a weakness for dumb jokes and a soft spot for harmless comedies of the 1930s and 40s. But, my better judgement tells me this isn't a very good movie worthy of a wide audiences' attention. You have to draw a dividing line somewhere and "Rookies in Burma" is on the wrong side. Only watch this if you are a devoted fan of Brown & Carney. For the rest of you, check out "Adventures Of A Rookie" as a starting place to become familiar with Brown & Carney.