Stinkin’ Badges

“The Treasure of the Sierra Madre” (1948) — movie review
Today’s review is for the classic moral parable “The Treasure of the Sierra Madre” (1948), starring Humphrey Bogart as Fred C. Dobbs (a down-and-out American drifter in Mexico, increasingly consumed by paranoia), Walter Huston as Howard (a grizzled prospector with wisdom, energy, and a toothless grin), Tim Holt as Bob Curtin (a fellow drifter, younger and steadier than Dobbs), and Bruce Bennett as Cody (a late-arriving outsider whose fate tests the trio’s fragile alliance).  Directed by John Huston (who also wrote the screenplay and won two Oscars for it), the film explores the corrosive effects of greed, isolation, and mistrust against the backdrop of Mexico’s rugged Sierra Madre mountains.  It’s a story that begins with hope and ends with dust — both literal and metaphorical.
Background:  This was my second viewing of the film in its entirety — the first was decades ago, likely on a Turner Classic Movies binge.  I didn’t remember Bogart’s descent into madness, but I did remember the famous “badges” line, but not the full arc or emotional weight.  This time, I came to it with fresh eyes and a deeper appreciation for character-driven storytelling.  I’ve seen Bogart in many roles — noir, romance, war — but this one feels like a departure:  not suave, not noble, just unraveling.  Walter Huston, the director’s father, won Best Supporting Actor for his performance, and the film itself won three Academy Awards:  Best Director, Best Screenplay, and Best Supporting Actor. It was also nominated for Best Picture but lost to “Hamlet.”
Plot:  Dobbs and Curtin are American drifters in 1920s Tampico, scraping by on odd jobs and handouts.  After a brief stint in construction, they meet Howard, an old prospector who regales them with tales of gold and the madness it breeds.  The three pool their meager resources and head into the Sierra Madre mountains to search for a hidden vein.  They find it — and for a while, things go well.  But as the gold piles up, so does suspicion.  Dobbs begins to unravel, convinced the others are plotting against him.  When Cody arrives, seeking to join the group, the trio faces a moral test.  Violence follows.  The film builds toward betrayal, murder, and a final twist that renders all their toil meaningless.  The gold — painstakingly mined and guarded — is lost to the wind.  Howard survives, Curtin limps away, and Dobbs…  well, Dobbs doesn’t.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  excellent;  rugged and immersive;  a few dated moments;  yes — deeply thoughtful.
Any Good?  Yes.  “The Treasure of the Sierra Madre” is a morality tale disguised as an slow developing adventure film.  It’s not about gold — it’s about what gold does to men.  The pacing is deliberate, the tension slow-burning, and the payoff philosophical rather than action-driven.  It’s a film you remember — not because of spectacle, but because of character and consequence.
Acting:  Bogart is riveting.  His Dobbs starts as a relatable “everyman” and ends as a twitching, delusional wreck.  It’s one of his most unglamorous roles — and one of his best.  Walter Huston is phenomenal — his Howard is earthy, eccentric, and oddly joyful.  He dances, cackles, and delivers wisdom without preaching.  Tim Holt’s Curtin is the moral center — steady, loyal, and increasingly horrified by Dobbs’s descent.  Bruce Bennett’s Cody is likable and tragic.  The ensemble works because each character feels distinct, flawed, and human.
Filming / FX:  The cinematography is rugged and immersive.  Shot partially on location in Mexico — rare for the time — the film captures dust, heat, and isolation with tactile realism.  The Sierra Madre feels vast and unforgiving.  There are no flashy effects, but the visual storytelling is strong:  shadows, sweat, and the slow erosion of trust.
Problems:  Minor.  The pacing in the first act may feel slow to modern viewers.  Some of the dialogue is dated, and the portrayal of Mexican villagers (and bandits) leans into 1940s stereotypes (if you ignore the last ten years of Trump’s racism).  The violence is mostly implied, which works thematically but may feel muted.  Still, these are minor quibbles in a film that’s more interested in psychology than special effects.  LoL.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes — and I respected it.  “The Treasure of the Sierra Madre” is a film that doesn’t flinch from showing humanity.  It shows how easily trust erodes, how greed isolates, and how nature — indifferent and vast — swallows human ambition.  It’s by no means a feel-good movie, but it’s a feel-something about human nature movie.  And that’s a treasure rarer than gold.
Final Recommendation:  Highly Recommended.  “The Treasure of the Sierra Madre” is a classic for a reason.  If you’re interested in character studies, moral dilemmas, or the slow unraveling of human decency, this film delivers.  It’s rated PG for thematic content and mild violence, but its real intensity is psychological.  Watch it not for the true price of treasure and for the toll taken seeking it.  And remember:  “We don’t need no stinkin’ badges.”
.
Click here (29 October) 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 »

It Was A Dark And Stormy Night…

“The Northman” (2022) — movie review*
Today’s review is for the historical-action / revenge-drama film: “The Northman” (2022), starring Alexander Skarsgård as Amleth (a Viking prince turned berserker), Nicole Kidman as Queen Gudrún (his mother), Claes Bang as Fjölnir (his uncle), Anya Taylor-Joy as Olga (a Slavic sorceress), and Ethan Hawke as King Aurvandill (Amleth’s father).
Background:  This was my first viewing of “The Northman“.  I picked it up because I liked Skarsgård in his recent “Tarzan” role, I very much liked Taylor-Joy in her “Queen’s Gambit” role and I’ve seen Kidman in a few roles lately and I’m still examining her career.  This film adapts for movie goers the Scandinavian legend of Amleth (supposedly the same tale that inspired “Hamlet“), which I was not familiar with.
Plot:  A young Viking prince witnesses the murder of his father and abduction of his mother.  He flees his home, chanting an oath:  “I will avenge you, Father.  I will save you, Mother.  I will kill you, Fjölnir.”  Years later, he’s a raging berserker — raiding villages under trance, wearing wolf pelts, crawling into spiritual oblivion.  On learning Fjölnir lives in Iceland, Amleth disguises himself as a slave and infiltrates the farmstead.  On the way, he meets Olga and on arrival, a mystic ally, confronts family truths that shatter his childhood narrative, and he decides to face his destiny with grim resolve.  The final battle, staged near the mouth of a volcano, is less spectacle than spiritual imagery.  It’s not a fight for life — it’s a ritual sacrifice for legacy.
So, is this movie any good?  How about the acting?  Filming / effects?  Any problems?  And, did I like it?  The short answers:  so-so;  pretty good – mainly Skarsgård;  visually gray to dark , but sometimes beautifully scenic;  yes, loads;  and, no I didn’t find the film enjoyable or even likeable.
Acting:  Skarsgård has the size and physical intensity for this role.  Like “Tarzan“, he plays the “animal” well – hunched, snarling, howling, beastly.  Nicole Kidman delivers an older, thin queen, who didn’t quite fit the part for me.  Claes Bang plays Fjölnir as a wizened tribal leader rather than as a “king”.  He is brutal, but not particularly villainous.  Taylor-Joy is icy to start out, playing Olga with a calm and hidden strength.  She evolves into Amleth’s queen-lover and dedicated mother to their children.  Hawke’s appearance is mercifully brief at the start of the film in helping his son (Amleth) in his rite of passage to manhood.  (I’m not sure when, but I stopped liking Hawke quite some time ago.)
Filming / FX:  The film uses long takes, stark landscapes and generally gray / dark settings to create a dreary feel.  The “main” special effects are quick camera cuts to make “mystics” and “seers” appear and disappear.  The volcano-fight finale, is primal combat — two naked men circling death, surrounded by ash and fire.
Problems:  The film never explains itself.  It never even attempts to…  There are large, unexplained gaps in the story.  Some of the “kills” are more fantasy than real.  Most of the beatings / injuries are more fantasy than real.  I’m not a fan of mixed languages:  foreign (I assume it’s Nordic), olde English and normal English – and all of it with barely understandable accents and no sub-titles.  The only sub-titles were under “runes” used as scene / location changes.
Final Recommendation:  Poor to Low Moderate recommendation.  If you are a fan of mythic storytelling, historical fantasy, and fatalist philosophy MAYBE this film will work for you.  I usually am;  it didn’t.  If you like revenge films where a lot of people get hacked to pieces, this film is right in your wheelhouse.  I sometimes am;  this missed.  If you like dramatic films (a la Shakespeare) where most of the main characters die, this is it.  I’ve never cared for Beowulf and I don’t think much of the “everyone dies in the end” drama.  I didn’t like / care for my viewing of “Hamlet” (“moderate recommendation – at best”) and this legend didn’t move me either.  Skarsgård and Taylor-Joy give very good performances, but it wasn’t enough to save this film for me.  I “own” streaming rights to view this film again.  I doubt I ever will…
.
Click here (16 July) 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 »

The Rest Is Silence

Today’s review is for the 1996 (ultra-marathon) period-piece drama / tragedy film:  “Hamlet” staring Kenneth Branagh as Hamlet, Kate Winslet as Ophelia (Hamlet’s girlfriend), Derek Jacobi as Claudius (Hamlet’s uncle / step-father / King), and Julie Christie as Gertrude (Hamlet’s mother / Queen) – along with about thirty other, mostly British, BIG stars.  According to Wikipedia, the movie is the only unabridged film version of the classic play and is updated to the 19th century (from the original written about 1599-1601AD).
Background:  This is (yet) another of my steps to experience / obtain a little English literature / culture.  I have viewed multiple Shakespeare films (plays) and so far reviewed:  “The Merchant of Venice“, “A Midsummer’s Night Dream“, “Romeo & Juliet” and “Shakespeare In Love“.  The last being a fictional portrayal of Shakespeare’s actual writing of “Romeo & Juliet“ and not a “work” of Shakespeare.
Plot:  In this movie, Prince Hamlet is traumatized by the ghost of his father (the former King) who reveals that he was murdered by the present king, Claudius (Hamlet’s uncle and current King). Hamlet’s mother, Gertrude marries her husband’s brother (Claudius) after only two months of grieving.  Hamlet plots revenge against his uncle and mistakenly kills Polonius (Richard Briers), an advisor to King Claudius and the father of his love, Ophelia.  After a dramatic sword fight, everybody dies in a climactic and tragic ending.  (I guess…)
Is the movie any good?  The movie was critically well received, but a box-office failure “supposedly” due to a very limited release.  I don’t think it helped that the film was just over four hours long.
Okay, but did I think it was “good”?  So-so.  I still have problems with the “Olde English” language and social references.  I bought this version because of the “Branagh” name (he was the lead and the film’s director) and because it’s advertised as the “only version with all the lines” from the original play.  That’s fair enough, but what isn’t advertised is that it is NOT the original play which would have been seen in Shakespeare’s time.  The film has multiple flashbacks which extend the length of the film.  I guess the intent is to provide better narrative explanation to what is happening.  As this was my first viewing of the play / movie, I didn’t know this and thought the film was actually as written (the play).  As I watched, I wondered how the folks in the cheap seats (the standing only area) reacted to having to stand for four hours.  It turned out they never did.  LoL!!  Obviously, I didn’t know any of this during the viewing.  I read about it on Wikipedia while preparing for this review.
Is this a good romance / drama / tragedy movie?  No, for me anyway.  Romance:  The relationship between Branagh and Winslet seemed forced.  I didn’t feel much chemistry.  Further, her descent into madness when her lover (Hamlet) kills her father just never moved me.  I guess I won’t know if it’s Winslet’s acting or the play until I see another version.  (Which at this point I’m not looking forward to…)  Drama:  None.  There was a lot of emoting and exaggerated speech making, but even not really knowing what was going to happen – I never cared.  Tragedy:  I guess I just don’t get “tragedy“.  Nothing in this movie seemed regrettable to me, which I thought was a big piece of tragedy.  I thought we were supposed to see a noble / good person experience something shocking / moving which causes a loss of nobility / goodness due to a personal failure or character flaw.  Okay…  Hamlet is a “noble” Prince.  Big deal.  To me, being born noble is not the same as being noble.  Hamlet goes crazy with a desire for revenge because he believes he has seen a ghost of his father and Hamlet believes his uncle (Claudius) has murdered his (Hamlet’s) father and seduced his mother.  Uh, was there any proof or physical evidence of murder?  There is no mention of this.  Just a “ghost” in the dark of night…  As for the Queen “moving on” after just two months of grief?  I’m sorry, but that’s what a Queen would do if the King died and the heir wasn’t ready to assume the throne.  She has to protect the “reign” – particularly in a time of war.  In any case, Hamlet’s going “crazy” was not presented as a character flaw.  If it was, it didn’t come across that way to me.
As a period piece, this movie is very well shot for grand atmosphere / scale and elaborate costume.  If anything, it was TOO well shot and the costumes were too perfect.  Basically, what the film gains in scope and beauty, it sacrifices in realism.
Is the movie entertaining?  No.  I found it excessively long and boring.  I enjoyed being able to identify some of the “BIG” lines and hearing the multiple soliloquies, but other than the sword fight at the end, the movie just did not entertain me.  [“Alas, poor Yorick…”]  The thing is, if you are a peasant in 1600 London and you’re seeing this play for the first time, NONE of these famous lines will mean anything to you!!  They aren’t yet well known, let alone famous…
Final recommendation:  moderate (at best).  If you want to “see” this play in a movie setting with every line – but with added bits, so it’s not really the same as the actual play, this seems an okay option.  I (personally) no longer think of this play as “top tier” Shakespeare, although it DOES contain a ton of his most famous lines.  It’s not even the best of the few works I’ve seen to date – unless you’re criteria is color and spectacle.  Two final notes:  Yes…  This movie is the proof of the saying:  “you know it’s Shakespeare if everybody dies at the end”.  And, the title for this post is the last line Hamlet says as he dies.  I understand it’s meant to imply to the audience that Hamlet is (in death) relieved of insanity of revenge.
I’m hoping when I see a stage version, it is more interesting than this film version.
.
Click here (22 March) 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 »

I Suppose I Will Settle

Today’s review is for the 1999 “comedy” film: “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” staring Christian Bale as Demetrius, Dominic West as Lysander, Anna Friel as Hermia, Calista Flockhart as Helena, Michelle Pfeiffer as Titania, Rupert Everett as Oberon, David Strathairn as Theseus, Sophie Marceau as Hippolyta, Kevin Kline as Nick Bottom and Stanley Tucci as Puck.  Yeah, a pretty big name cast.
This version of the “renowned” Shakespeare comedic play finds the world of humans crossing over with the realm of magic, fairies, and love potions.  The lovely Hermia is being forced to marry Demetrius, but she truly cares for Lysander.  Her best friend, Helena, is in love with Demetrius.  Both Lysander and Demetrius are in love with Hermia.  Meanwhile, Duke Theseus is supposed to marry Hippolyta in a few days and Oberon and Titania are having a spat over something (I never figured out what).  Last, but not least, there are a group of common workers (men) from the town who are developing a play to perform at the marriage of Theseus and Hippolyta.  Bottom is one of the workers and Puck is an impish servant of Oberon.  Puck and Oberon are involved in some magic which leads to the comic misunderstandings in the play.
Background:  Every now and then, I get this urge to become more “cultured”.  This results in me learning a little about “Art” (painting, drawing, poetry, literature or music).  When I recently re-watched (and reviewed) “Renaissance Man“, I was struck I was very much like the “dummies” who had no appreciation for literature – specifically Shakespeare.  Of course, I’m familiar with some of the general outlines of some of the famous plays:  “Romeo and Juliet”, “Hamlet”, etc.  But, I can’t honestly say I’ve ever watched one of the plays all the way through.  The closest I’ve come is having seen “West Side Story” – which is an adaptation of “Romeo & Juliet”.  So, I’ve decided to try to correct this…  And now, it’s chicken or egg time.  Do you read a play and watch a movie or movie and then read.  Normally, I’d go the read then movie route, but I’d heard before the admonition that Shakespeare wrote to be heard (seen), not read.  After all, the play’s the thing…  (“Hamlet“)
Basically, the movie starts off with Theseus being asked to force the marriage of Hermia to Demetrius, but she refuses because she’s in love with Lysander.  A duel is threatened, but Theseus says she has the night to decide between the father’s wishes, joining a convent or death (as per the “old” laws of Athens).  Hermia and Lysander choose to flee into the woods to escape the decision.  Demetrius and Helena follow.  Oberon tasks Puck with using magic to make Demetrius fall in love with Helena, but Puck mis-identifies Lysander as Demetrius.  Meanwhile, Oberon seeks to punish Titania for their spat and he uses magic to have her fall in love with Bottom, who has been turned into a donkey (an “ass”).  Blah, blah, blah…  Everything gets sorted out and all live happily ever after.
So, is this movie any good?  Is it good comedy?  Are the special effects good?  Is it entertaining?  So-so, not really, yes, somewhat.
Is the movie any good?  In fairness to Shakespeare, not really.  It is slightly updated from the 1500s, but not shot as a modern day movie.  It retains the “old English” speaking and there is very little exposition to get you into the “play” before it starts.  In my younger days, I would have looked up the play’s background so I would know what’s going on before viewing.  I didn’t do that this time around.  As per the admonition above, I wanted to “experience” the play as someone coming to it in the original.  It didn’t “work” for me.  I felt like the first time I read “Lord of the Rings” and I had to learn and remember all these strange names for characters and locations.  I’d say it took 10-15 minutes before I felt like I knew who was talking about who.
Is this a good comedy movie?  No, at least not as I understand the genre.  There are some unusual situations in the movie which might have been / supposed to have been funny.  But they weren’t…  Not a laugh.  Not a chuckle.  Not even an amused smile.  I have since gone to Wikipedia to find out what was going on and my reaction was:  “Okay.  I guess I can kind of see where it was supposed to be “funny”.  But it still wasn’t.  Not to me anyway.“
This movie is beautifully shot and the special effects are pretty good considering it’s NOT a F/X movie.  So, that’s a big plus…
Is the movie entertaining?  Yes, but with reservations.  I was mostly entertained.  For me, the entertainment value came from the special effects and seeing well-known actors in “stage” roles – as opposed to the “movie” roles I’ve seen them in.  If you judge “entertaining” by “I have NO idea what’s going to happen”, then it was a definite yes.”  Would I ever pay money to see this as a real, live stage performance?  No.  Would I ever watch the film again?  Probably not.  …Maybe if it was recast and in a different time (either today or back in the 1500 / 1600s).  The movie was $5 to own or $3 to rent.  If I ever do watch it again, I’m ahead.  Otherwise, a slight loss.
Final recommendation:  moderate.  If you want to see any of these actors in an unusual role – maybe higher.  If you want to be able to say you’ve seen this work (it’s a movie, not a play) – just moderate.
Final comment:  I’m reminded of the dialogue in “Pretty Woman” when Richard Gere is describing opera and he says:  “People’s reactions to opera the first time they see it is very dramatic;  they either love it or they hate it.  If they love it, they will always love it.  If they don’t, they may learn to appreciate it, but it will never become part of their soul.”  I guess for this play, I’ll have to settle for appreciation.
.
Click here (26 February) 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 »