Still Waiting

“Heaven Can Wait” (1943) – movie review
Today’s review is for Ernst Lubitsch’s Technicolor supernatural comedy “Heaven Can Wait” (1943), starring Don Ameche as Henry Van Cleve — a self-proclaimed rake who recounts his life to the Devil in hopes of proving he belongs in Hell.  Gene Tierney plays Martha, Henry’s devoted wife whose grace and loyalty anchor the narrative, while Charles Coburn appears as Henry’s indulgent grandfather Hugo Van Cleve, a figure of warmth and wit.  Laird Cregar embodies “His Excellency,” the urbane Devil who listens with bemused detachment.  The ensemble family members add texture:  Spring Byington as Henry’s mother, Mrs. Van Cleve, Marjorie Main as Martha’s outspoken mother, Mrs. Strabel, and Louis Calhern as Henry’s stern father, Randolph Van Cleve.  Together, they interweave the film’s domestic tapestry, shaping Henry’s journey from spoiled youth to aging roué.  With Lubitsch’s trademark “touch,” the film blends comedy, romance, and metaphysical reflection into a story that is both lighthearted and layered.
Background:  I approached this film as the “original” to two movies which combine the rom-com and the guardian angel (fantasy) genres:  “Here Comes Mr. Jordan” (1941) and “Heaven Can Wait“ (1978) (reviews of both here) .  Obviously, I didn’t remember / realize “HCMJ” pre-dated this film by two years.  LoL.  Anyway, the blurb for this film said it involved the death of the lead character and I misinterpreted that as the original to a remake / reboot of the other two films.  However, other than that death, the films have very little in common with this one, even though this film shares the exact same title as the 1978 film.  I was also interested in seeing an early Don Ameche film as my only recollections of him are in “Trading Places” and “Cocoon“, both of which I enjoyed, but in neither of which did Ameche overly impress me.
Released in 1943 by 20th Century-Fox, “Heaven Can Wait” was directed and produced by Ernst Lubitsch, with a screenplay by Samson Raphaelson based on Ladislaus Bus-Fekete’s play “Birthday“.  The film was shot in Technicolor with cinematography by Edward Cronjager and scored by Alfred Newman.  It was nominated for three Academy Awards:  Best Picture, Best Director (Lubitsch), and Best Cinematography, though it did not win any.  Historically, it stands as Lubitsch’s only film in Technicolor and one of his most celebrated late-career works, exemplifying the sophistication and wit that defined his style (a form of German subtle humor).
Plot:  The story opens with Henry Van Cleve arriving in Hell, convinced his life of indulgence and romantic escapades has earned him eternal damnation.  “His Excellency” listens as Henry recounts his life:  from his privileged childhood, through youthful indiscretions, to his marriage with Martha, whom he wins away from another suitor.  Over the decades, Henry’s charm and weakness for flirtation test Martha’s patience, yet her devotion endures.  The narrative unfolds as a series of vignettes (flashbacks) — family squabbles, romantic entanglements, and moments of self-reflection — with Hugo Van Cleve offering indulgent counsel, Randolph Van Cleve embodying stern patriarchal authority, Mrs. Van Cleve providing maternal warmth, and Mrs. Strabel injecting comic bluntness.  These family dynamics frame Henry’s choices and highlight the tension between indulgence and responsibility.  The story culminates in Henry’s death and his final plea for acceptance in Hell.  The Devil, however, questions whether Henry’s sins truly outweigh his humanity, leaving the audience to ponder the balance of virtue, dalliance, vice and evil intent.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  So-so;  witty and “old fashioned” elegant;  lush Technicolor;  minor pacing issues;  so-so.
Any Good?  So-so.  “Heaven Can Wait” is a sophisticated comedy of manners that uses the concept of an afterlife interview to frame a meditation on love, loyalty, and human folly.  Lubitsch’s light touch ensures the film never feels heavy-handed, even as it grapples with mortality and morality.
Acting:  Don Ameche delivers a fine performance, embodying Henry with charm, vanity, and vulnerability.  As mentioned previously, I have a limited recollection of him and none from his early years, so this film was interesting from that perspective alone.  Gene Tierney radiates warmth and poise, grounding the film’s emotional core.  I have / had heard Tierney’s name before, but I have no recollection of her work.  Charles Coburn steals scenes as Hugo Van Cleve, genial and indulgent.  Laird Cregar’s Devil is urbane and understated, a perfect foil to Henry’s confessions.  Spring Byington adds maternal gentleness as Mrs. Van Cleve, Louis Calhern provides gravitas as Randolph Van Cleve, and Marjorie Main injects comic energy as Mrs. Strabel.  Together, the ensemble balances comedy with sincerity, enriching the film’s domestic and moral themes.  I felt Coburn and Cregar were the two most interesting portrayals in this film.  LoL.
Filming / FX:  The Technicolor cinematography by Edward Cronjager is full, bathing the film in rich hues that enhance its romance and create a nostalgic tone.  Lubitsch’s direction emphasizes elegance and restraint, with his trademark use of suggestion and implication.  Alfred Newman’s score complements the film’s mood, while Dorothy Spencer’s editing maintains narrative flow.
Problems:  A few.  The episodic / flashback structure occasionally slows momentum, and Henry’s repeated indiscretions (mostly implied) may feel offensive to modern viewers.  The film’s light treatment of infidelity, while consistent with Lubitsch’s style, may strike some as dated.  The family is fabulously wealthy, but we never see (of find out) what they do to create / maintain wealth.  There is an intentional use of dollar amounts to “prove” this wealth, but this comes across poorly as the “amounts” seem trivial by today’s standards.  Still, these are minor quibbles in a work of enduring charm.
Did I Enjoy the Film?  So-so.  “Heaven Can Wait” is both entertaining and thoughtful, a film with wit, elegance, and emotional resonance.  If you don’t take it seriously, it’s pretty entertaining.  Watching Henry’s journey, framed by Lubitsch’s deft hand and enriched by family interplay, is a reminder of cinema’s ability to blend humor with humanity.
Final Recommendation:  High Moderate Recommendation.  “Heaven Can Wait” (1943) is a quintessential Lubitsch comedy, notable as his only Technicolor film and as an Academy Award nominee for Best Picture.  It is historically significant for its blend of supernatural framing and romantic comedy, offering audiences a witty meditation on life, love, and mortality.  Watch it for Ameche’s charm, Tierney’s grace, Coburn’s geniality, and Lubitsch’s inimitable touch — hopeful proof that even in Hell, laughter and humanity endure.
.
Click here (1 January) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

There’s Always Next Time: Faust In The Big Apple

“The Devil’s Advocate”   (1997)   —   movie review
Today’s review is for the 1997 supernatural horror / legal thriller:  “The Devil’s Advocate” starring Keanu Reeves as Kevin Lomax (a young, ambitious Florida defense attorney recruited by a powerful NYC law firm), Al Pacino as John Milton (charismatic head of the law firm), Charlize Theron as Mary Ann Lomax (Kevin’s wife), Judith Ivey as Mrs. Alice Lomax ( Kevin’s devoutly religious mother), Connie Nielsen as Christabella Andreoli (a seductive colleague), and Craig T. Nelson as Alexander Cullen (a billionaire client accused of triple homicide).
Note:  This review contains spoilers (duh).  If you haven’t seen the film but intend to (it’s almost 30 years old), stop here…  Come back after you’ve viewed it.  You’ve been warned…
Background:  I do not generally like horror or “supernatural” movies and I rarely watch them anymore.  I did enjoy them in the past, but I guess I just kind of outgrew them as I now find them mostly pretty boring.  However, since I like Keanu Reeves and Al Pacino, I picked this film up based on the strength of these two actors without knowing much about the film.
Basic Plot:  Kevin Lomax is undefeated in Florida courts and he’s proud of it.  Kevin’s recruited for a temporary consultancy by a prestigious New York firm, where he is offered a dream job and then quickly made a junior partner (even though he hasn’t passed the State Bar).  His wife Mary Ann struggles with the transition from small town Florida to Big City New York.  She becomes haunted by visions and is increasingly isolated as Kevin works longer and longer hours.  As Kevin defends increasingly disturbing clients, he begins to suspect that something is deeply wrong at the firm.  Milton, his boss, is charming, omniscient, and manipulative.  Eventually, Kevin learns the truth:  Milton is Satan, he (Kevin) is his son — bred for legal brilliance and moral ambiguity, and Christabella is Satan’s daughter (Kevin’s half sister).  The climax is Faustian operatic:  Kevin must choose between power and conscience, desires or integrity.
So, is this film any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I like the film?  Short answers:  So-so;  pretty good by the leads and the supporting cast;  good (probably very good for its day);  lots, but they don’t really spoil the film;  “like” is too strong a work – it’s okay.
Acting:  Keanu Reeves delivers a okay performance, but I didn’t find his actions or his Southern accent believable.  He plays Kevin as ambitious, but a fair representative of justice – until he isn’t.  Al Pacino is gleefully wicked, seductive, and theatrical.  His performance is typically Pacino – shouting and long-winded monologues – unadulterated ham and relishing the chance to play the Prince of Darkness.  Charlize Theron was a surprise for me.  She goes from being the trophy wife to a plain looking, vulnerable, tragic Mary Ann.  And she does it well!  Craig Nelson makes for a believable billionaire murderer;  Connie Nielsen is the perfectly evil mirror image of Theron;  and Judith Ivey is a pretty decent Bible-beater Southern mother figure.
Filming / FX:  The film uses a sunny Florida and a dark New York City as metaphors for the descent into evil.  The law firm building and offices are modern, cold, and cavernous — like a dark cathedral of greed.  The special effects elements are mostly restrained (a few demon faces) until the final act, when Milton’s real identity (Satan) is announced / proclaimed (mostly by Pacino).  Up to then, they (the FX) are used to show Mary Ann’s mental / emotional descent and Kevin’s temptations.
Problems:  My main problem with the film is the two non-demon characters (Kevin and Mary Ann) are supposed to be madly in love, but there just isn’t any chemistry (IMHO).  Yes, they are two beautiful, young adults deep in lust – but that’s not the same as “LOVE“.  I just didn’t feel it between them.  Second, it’s not clear (or explained) if “normal” people are demons or if they’ve become demons by accepting Satan in their lives.  And third, Pacino’s performance is great (in context), but it walks right up to the edge of campy parody.  And finally, the ending offers a twist that undermines Kevin’s final decision.  It’s NOT final…
Final Recommendation:  Moderate (at best).  This movie does raise questions about ambition, ego, moral compromise, and the seductive nature of power.  Pacino’s enthusiastic performance reminds me of his equally loud / vocal role in “The Merchant of Venice”, but in the end, I’m still just not that interested in supernatural horror movies.  If you like this genre – stylish / wealthy supernatural horror, I think you’ll find it a better than “moderate” film.
Milton’s climactic line is pure Pacino:  “Vanity…  definitely my favorite sin.”
That line, and the film itself, is a cautionary tale about the seduction of success and the cost of losing one’s soul in pursuit of victory.  It poses the Faustian question:  “What would you trade for everything?“
Final Note:  This film contains smoking and considerable strong language, nudity, and violence.  It explores mature themes of adultery, suicide, and satanic imagery.  This film is appropriately rated “R“.
.
Click here (10 August) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Having Fun?

The angel inside of me may have all the right answers, but it’s the devil inside of me who has all the fun.
—     Anthony T. Hincks
.
Click here (20 May) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »