No, It Wasn’t The Airplanes…

“King Kong”  (1933)  —  movie review
Today’s review is for the legendary adventure-fantasy “King Kong” (1933), directed by Merian C. Cooper and Ernest B. Schoedsack, and starring Fay Wray as Ann Darrow — the struggling actress whose scream and spirit become the emotional center of the film;  Robert Armstrong as Carl Denham — the bombastic, risk-hungry filmmaker whose ambition drives the entire expedition;  and Bruce Cabot as Jack Driscoll — the rugged first mate whose skepticism softens into loyalty and love.  Supporting roles include Frank Reicher as Captain Englehorn and Sam Hardy as Charles Weston.  With groundbreaking stop-motion animation by Willis O’Brien and a thunderous score by Max Steiner, the film stands as one of the most influential works in cinema history.
Background:  Released in 1933 during the depths of the Great Depression, “King Kong” was a commercial sensation and a technical marvel.  Produced by RKO Radio Pictures, the film combined live-action, stop-motion animation, matte paintings, miniatures, and rear projection in ways never before attempted.  Max Steiner’s score — often cited as the first major Hollywood “thematic” soundtrack — helped define the language of film music.  Although the Academy Awards did not yet have categories for visual effects or original score, “King Kong” is widely regarded as a foundational work that shaped the future of special-effects filmmaking and blockbuster storytelling.  Its cultural footprint is enormous:  countless remakes, sequels, homages, and references trace their lineage back to this film.
Plot:  Carl Denham, a daring filmmaker known for exotic adventure pictures, recruits Ann Darrow off the streets of New York to star in his latest project.  He refuses to reveal their destination, but the crew soon learns they are bound for the mysterious Skull Island, a place rumored to harbor strange creatures and an indigenous tribe with a fearsome ritual.  Upon arrival, Ann is kidnapped by the island’s inhabitants and offered as a sacrifice to Kong, a colossal ape who rules the island’s prehistoric wilderness.   Jack Driscoll and the crew mount a rescue mission, battling dinosaurs, giant insects, and treacherous terrain.  Kong, smitten with Ann, protects her fiercely until he is ultimately subdued and transported back to New York as Denham’s “Eighth Wonder of the World.”   The film culminates in the iconic sequence atop the Empire State Building, where Kong, besieged by biplanes, falls to his death — prompting Denham’s famous final line:   “It was beauty killed the beast.”
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  earnest and era-appropriate;  revolutionary;  a few;  absolutely.
Any Good?  Yes.  “King Kong” remains a thrilling, imaginative, and emotionally resonant film.  Its blend of adventure, romance, horror, and spectacle still works remarkably well.  While some elements feel dated, the film’s ambition and artistry continue to impress.
Acting:  Fay Wray delivers an iconic performance as Ann Darrow, balancing vulnerability, terror, and charm.  Her “scream queen” legacy is well-earned, but she also brings warmth and humanity to the role.  Robert Armstrong’s Carl Denham is charismatic, reckless, and larger-than-life — a perfect embodiment of early Hollywood showmanship.  Bruce Cabot, in one of his earliest roles, provides a solid heroic presence as Jack Driscoll.  The supporting cast is serviceable, though the film’s emotional weight rests squarely on Wray and the animated Kong, whose expressive movements give him surprising personality and pathos.
Filming / FX:  This is where the film truly shines.  Willis O’Brien’s stop-motion animation is astonishing for its time and remains impressive today.  The integration of miniatures, matte paintings, and live-action footage was groundbreaking, creating a vivid and dangerous world on Skull Island.  Max Steiner’s score elevates the film’s tension and emotion, pioneering the use of leitmotifs and orchestral intensity in Hollywood cinema.  The Empire State Building climax is still one of the most iconic sequences ever filmed.  While modern viewers may notice the seams — visible matte lines, variable frame rates, and occasional jerky motion — these artifacts are part of the film’s charm and historical significance.
Problems:  A few.  The pacing in the early New York scenes is slow by modern standards.  Some performances lean toward melodrama, reflecting the acting style of the era.  The portrayal of Skull Island’s indigenous people is dated and “problematic” (racist), rooted in colonial stereotypes common in 1930s adventure films.  The effects, while groundbreaking, frequently show their age.  Still, these issues do little to diminish the film’s overall impact.
Did I Enjoy the Film?  Absolutely.  “King Kong” is a landmark of cinematic imagination — a film that helped define what movies could be.  Its blend of spectacle, emotion, and mythic storytelling remains compelling.  Even after ninety years, Kong’s final fall still evokes sympathy, awe, and a sense of tragic grandeur.  Long live the King!
Final Recommendation:  Very Highly Recommended.  “King Kong” (1933) is essential viewing for anyone interested in film history, special effects, or classic adventure storytelling.  Its influence on Hollywood blockbusters cannot be overstated, and its iconic imagery — from Skull Island’s monsters to the Empire State Building finale — remains embedded in popular culture.  Though some elements reflect the limitations and attitudes of its time, the film endures as a masterpiece of early cinema and a testament to the power of imagination.
.
Click here (27 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 »

Frankly My Dear, I Don’t Give A Damn

“Gone With The Wind”  (1939) — movie review
Today’s review is for the sweeping historical romance “Gone With The Wind” (1939), directed by Victor Fleming (with uncredited contributions by George Cukor and Sam Wood).  The film stars Vivien Leigh as Scarlett O’Hara — the indomitable, manipulative, and endlessly compelling Southern belle whose willpower outlasts empires;  Clark Gable as Rhett Butler — the rakish blockade runner whose charm masks a bruised idealism;  Olivia de Havilland as Melanie Hamilton — the moral center of the story, all grace and quiet strength;  and Leslie Howard as Ashley Wilkes — the gentleman dreamer forever caught between honor and desire.  Rounding out the ensemble are Hattie McDaniel as Mammy (whose performance earned her the first Academy Award ever won by an African American actor), Butterfly McQueen as Prissy, and Thomas Mitchell as Gerald O’Hara.  With its Technicolor grandeur, iconic score by Max Steiner, and monumental production scale, the film remains one of the most famous — and controversial — epics in cinema history.
Background:  I came to “Gone With The Wind” with a very mixed attitude.  This was a film which I had avoided for much of my life.  The film (DVD) was a combined gift (with “Citizen Kane“) from my daughter who I fell into a conversation with about famous movies I’d never seen.  She watched “GWTW” in one of her high school history or social studies classes.  I’d never watched it for a number of reasons – the two main reasons were I wasn’t much interested in films “before my time”, particularly pre-1900 settings, and I’d heard it was a “Southern” viewpoint of the Civil War.  Although born in Missouri, I was raised almost exclusively in San Francisco, California and I considered (was taught) “Southerners” to be traitors to the Constitution and to the country.  Needless to say, I was not predisposed to entertain a positive “Southern” representation of either slavery or of the “Lost Cause”.  Anyway, I watched (sat through) the film years ago and was not particularly impressed – but I was looking at it through different eyes…
Released in 1939, which is sometimes cited as Hollywood’s greatest single year, “Gone With The Wind” was a colossal production for Selznick International Pictures.  Adapted from Margaret Mitchell’s Pulitzer Prize–winning novel, the film cost nearly $4 million — astronomical for its time — and became one of the highest-grossing films in history when adjusted for inflation.  At the 12th Academy Awards, it won eight competitive Oscars, including Best Picture, Best Director (Fleming), Best Actress (Leigh), Best Supporting Actress (McDaniel), Best Screenplay, Best Cinematography (Color), Best Art Direction, and Best Editing, plus two honorary awards.  Its historical significance is undeniable:  it marked a turning point in Technicolor film-making, set new standards for epic storytelling, and remains a cultural touchstone — albeit one whose romanticized depiction of the (racist) antebellum South continues to spark debate.
Plot:  Set against the backdrop of the American Civil War and Reconstruction, the film follows Scarlett O’Hara, the headstrong daughter of a wealthy plantation owner.  Obsessed with Ashley Wilkes — who marries the gentle Melanie Hamilton — Scarlett’s jealousy and ambition drive her into a series of marriages, manipulations, and desperate survival strategies.  As war ravages the South, Scarlett claws her way through starvation, loss, and ruin, determined to preserve her family’s plantation, Tara.  Meanwhile, Rhett Butler enters her life as both foil and partner, matching her wit for wit and flaw for flaw.  Their tempestuous relationship becomes the film’s emotional core, culminating in heartbreak, disillusionment, and the famous final line that has echoed through cinematic history.  The narrative spans years, weaving personal drama with national catastrophe, and ultimately leaves Scarlett alone — but unbroken.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  exceptional;  visually stunning;  several;  yes.
Any Good?  Yes.  “Gone With The Wind” is a monumental achievement in classical Hollywood film-making.  It balances intimate character drama with sweeping historical spectacle, and despite its length (nearly four hours), the narrative rarely drags.  The film’s emotional beats — love, loss, pride, survival — still resonate.  Yet it is also a film that must be viewed with historical awareness:  its overly romanticized portrayal of the Old South and its depiction of enslaved characters reflect the prejudices of its era (the 1860s AND the 1930s).  As cinema, it is extraordinary;   as history, it is complicated.
Acting:  Vivien Leigh delivers one of the most iconic performances in film history.  Her Scarlett is fierce, flawed, magnetic, and utterly alive — a character who dominates every frame.  Clark Gable’s Rhett Butler is equally compelling, blending swagger with vulnerability.  Their chemistry is electric, even when the characters are at their most destructive.  Olivia de Havilland brings warmth and dignity to Melanie, grounding the film’s moral axis. Leslie Howard, though miscast by his own admission, still conveys Ashley’s gentility and inner conflict.  Hattie McDaniel’s Mammy is a standout — sharp, commanding, and emotionally rich — and her Oscar win remains a landmark moment in Hollywood history.
Filming / FX:  The film is visually breathtaking.  Shot in three-strip Technicolor, it remains one of the most beautiful color films ever made.  The burning of Atlanta sequence is legendary — a massive practical set piece that still impresses.  The production design captures both the opulence of plantation life and the devastation of war.  Max Steiner’s score is lush and unforgettable, particularly the “Tara’s Theme” motif.  The editing and pacing are remarkably controlled for such a sprawling narrative.  While some matte paintings and rear-projection shots show their age, the overall craftsmanship is astonishing for 1939.
Problems:  Several.  The film’s portrayal of slavery and the antebellum South is deeply sanitized, perpetuating Lost Cause mythology and minimizing the brutality of the institution.  The enslaved characters are written within the stereotypes of the era, which can be uncomfortable or offensive to modern viewers.  The romanticization of plantation life is historically inaccurate and ideologically fraught.  Additionally, the film’s length may challenge contemporary audiences, and some melodramatic elements feel dated.  Still, these issues are part of the film’s legacy and must be acknowledged when evaluating its place in cinematic history.
Did I Enjoy the Film?  Yes.  As with many epics, “Gone With The Wind” demands reflection.  Its emotional arcs, performances, and visual splendor remain powerful.  The film is both a product of its time (late 1930s) and a towering achievement of classical Hollywood.  Watching it today requires a dual lens — appreciating its artistry while recognizing its historical blind spots (mainly the overt racism of slavery).  But as a cinematic experience, it remains compelling, immersive, and memorable.
Final Recommendation:  Very High to MUST See recommendation — with context.  “Gone With The Wind” is essential viewing for anyone interested in film history, epic storytelling, or the evolution of Hollywood craftsmanship.  Its eight Academy Awards, groundbreaking Technicolor cinematography, and iconic performances secure its place among the most influential films ever made.  At the same time, its overly romanticized depiction of the Old South demands critical engagement / comment.  Approach it as both art and artifact — a masterpiece of film-making and a reminder of the narratives America once embraced.  It is well worth your viewing time.
.
Click here (12 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 »

Strawberries And A Yellow Die Marker

“The Caine Mutiny” (1954) — movie review
Today’s review is for the naval courtroom drama “The Caine Mutiny” (1954), starring Humphrey Bogart as Captain Queeg, a paranoid and increasingly unstable commander whose obsession with discipline and minutiae (notably, missing strawberries) threatens the safety of his ship;  Van Johnson as Lt. Steve Maryk, the loyal but conflicted executive officer who must decide whether to relieve Queeg of command;  José Ferrer as Lt. Barney Greenwald, the sharp defense attorney whose closing arguments cut deeper than any cross-examination;  Fred MacMurray as Lt. Tom Keefer, the cynical intellectual who plants seeds of doubt but shirks responsibility;  and Robert Francis as Ensign Willis Keith, the young officer whose perspective frames the mutiny and its aftermath.  With music by Max Steiner and cinematography by Franz Planer, the film adapts Herman Wouk’s Pulitzer Prize-winning novel into a tense meditation on authority, loyalty, and moral ambiguity.
Background:  I saw five GREAT court room dramas / films when I was (a youth and teen) growing up:  “The Court Martial of Billy Mitchell” (review here), “Inherit the Wind” (review here), “To Kill A Mockingbird” (review here), “12 Angry Men” (review here), and this film.  All of them are excellent films which I can still watch to this day and I can honestly say they each influenced how I’ve felt (and feel) about the “LAW“.  This film was released in 1954, and “The Caine Mutiny” was both a box office success and a critical landmark.  It was nominated for seven Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Actor (Bogart), and Best Supporting Actor (Ferrrer), though it did not win in those categories.  Its legacy lies in Bogart’s performance — one of his last and most acclaimed — and in its exploration of military command under psychological strain.  The film remains historically significant as one of the earliest mainstream depictions of mental instability in leadership during wartime.
Plot:  Set during World War II, the story follows Ensign Keith’s assignment to the USS Caine, a dilapidated minesweeper.  Captain Queeg’s rigid and erratic leadership soon alienates his officers.  When Queeg freezes during a typhoon, Lt. Maryk assumes command, supported reluctantly by Keefer and Keith.  The act is deemed mutiny, and the officers face court-martial.  The trial culminates in Greenwald’s blistering defense, which illustrates Queeg’s instability and subtly shifts blame from Maryk to Keefer as it also forces the audience to reconsider the true meaning of loyalty and betrayal.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  exceptional;  restrained but effective;  a few dated elements;  yes.
Any Good?  Yes.  “The Caine Mutiny” is a taut, layered drama that balances naval action with courtroom intensity.  It’s not just about mutiny — it’s about the fragility of command authority, the burden of conscience, and the moral cost of survival.
Acting:  Humphrey Bogart delivers one of his finest performances, portraying Queeg with paranoia, insecurity, and flashes of menace.  His courtroom breakdown is iconic, cementing his place in cinematic history.  Van Johnson anchors the film with quiet integrity, while José Ferrer’s Greenwald provides the moral fulcrum in the final act.  Fred MacMurray plays Keefer with oily cynicism, and Robert Francis brings youthful earnestness to Keith.  The ensemble is uniformly strong, but Bogart dominates.
Filming / FX:  Edward Dmytryk’s direction is deliberate, emphasizing claustrophobic shipboard tension and stark courtroom drama.  Franz Planer’s cinematography captures both the chaos of the typhoon and the sterile intensity of the trial.  Max Steiner’s score underscores the psychological unease.  There are no flashy effects, but the storm sequence is staged with convincing realism for its era.   All of the typhoon scenes look “fake” to modern eyes – but this is 70 years of FX later.  The ship looks like a model / toy and the surging waves are badly done.
Problems:  A few.  The pacing drags slightly in the middle, and some supporting roles are underdeveloped.  The film’s portrayal of Queeg’s instability, while powerful, leans toward caricature at times.  Modern viewers may find the dialogue occasionally stiff.  Still, these are minor quibbles in a film that thrives on atmosphere and moral tension.  My main problem with the film is the order of problems in the typhoon are never addressed in the trial and there is an assumption that just because Queeg has more ship and sea time that he has better experience than his XO (Maryk), which may or may not be accurate.  In any case, while following the fleet orders, the Caine loses one of it’s engine stacks and it’s mast.  It is in danger of floundering and once relieved, the XO takes action which appeared to directly safeguard the ship and prevent floundering.  Also, no mention is made of the actions taken by the other ships.  Did they follow their last orders or did they break formation during the storm.  All we are told is that three of 198 ships were lost in the storm.
Did I Enjoy the Film?  Yes.  “The Caine Mutiny” is gripping, thought-provoking, and emotionally resonant.  Bogart’s unraveling, Ferrer’s moral reckoning, and the film’s layered themes of duty and betrayal make it moving if not unforgettable.
Final Recommendation:  Very Highly to Essential recommendation.  “The Caine Mutiny” is essential viewing for fans of courtroom dramas, naval history, or Bogart’s filmography.  Its historical significance, Academy Award recognition, and thematic depth secure its place as a classic.  Rated PG for thematic elements and wartime intensity, it remains a film that asks hard questions about leadership, loyalty, and the human cost of command.
.
Click here (12 December) 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 »