You Eat Life Or Life Eats You

“Mutiny on the Bounty” (1962) — movie review
Today’s review is for the sweeping historical adventure “Mutiny on the Bounty” (1962), directed by Lewis Milestone and built around three central performances:  Marlon Brando as Fletcher Christian (the aristocratic first officer whose idealism and polished manners slowly give way to frustration and rebellion), Trevor Howard as Captain William Bligh (a rigid disciplinarian whose command style pushes his crew to the edge and then past the breaking point), and Richard Harris as Seaman John Mills (a voice of the lower deck caught between duty, survival and conscience).  Supporting roles include Hugh Griffith as the ship’s perpetually drunken ship’s doctor, Richard Haydn as the fussy Purcell, and Tarita Teriipaia as Maimiti, whose presence symbolizes the seductive pull of Tahitian life.  With its massive sets (a full-size Bounty replica), Ultra Panavision 70 photography, and Brando’s famously idiosyncratic performance, the film attempts to retell one of maritime history’s most mythologized uprisings.
Background:  Released in 1962 by MGM, this version of “Mutiny on the Bounty” was conceived as a prestige epic — lavish, expensive, and intended to rival the studio’s earlier 1935 adaptation (review here).  The production became notorious for delays, rewrites, and Brando’s on-set eccentricities, ultimately ballooning the budget to one of the largest of its era.  Despite a mixed reception, the film earned seven Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture, Best Cinematography, and Best Music Score, though it did not win in any category.  Over the years, it has settled into a reputation as a visually impressive but uneven retelling of the Bounty story, notable for its scale and for shifting the focus from simple tyranny to a broader clash of values.
Plot:  Set in the late 1700s, the story follows the HMS Bounty as it sails from England to Tahiti to collect breadfruit plants for transport to the West Indies.  Captain Bligh, obsessed with efficiency and discipline, imposes increasingly harsh measures on the crew.  Fletcher Christian, who starts out detached and aristocratic, becomes disillusioned with Bligh’s cruelty and increasingly sympathetic to the men under his command.  When the Bounty reaches Tahiti, the crew experiences a level of ease and freedom that stands in sharp contrast to life aboard the ship.  Christian’s loyalties shift, and when Bligh’s punishments escalate, Christian finally leads a mutiny.  The aftermath includes Bligh’s long open-boat journey, Christian’s attempt to build a new life with the mutineers, and the eventual collapse of their fragile settlement.  The film ends on a sober note:  rebellion solves one problem but creates others.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  committed but uneven;  spectacular;  several;  mostly.
Any Good?  Yes — mostly.  The film aims high and delivers a large-scale adventure with clear themes about authority, conscience, and the appeal of a simpler life.  It isn’t as tight or focused as the 1935 version, but it tries to give the mutiny more psychological weight.  The pacing can drag, especially in the middle, but the overall story still works.
Acting:  Brando delivers one of his most unusual performances — mannered, eccentric, and at times bordering on parody, yet undeniably compelling as the film progresses.  His Fletcher Christian is less a rugged seaman (than Clark Gable’s version) than a conflicted aristocrat, torn between privilege and principle he becomes a reluctant rebel.  Trevor Howard is excellent as Captain Bligh, portraying him not as a cartoon tyrant but as a man whose rigid worldview blinds him to the humanity of those he commands.  Richard Harris brings energy and frustration to his role, grounding the lower-deck perspective.  The Tahitian cast, particularly Tarita, adds warmth and authenticity, though their roles are shaped more by the film’s romanticism than by historical nuance.  Overall, the acting is strong, but Brando’s choices dominate the film and throw the tone off balance.
Filming / FX:  The film’s biggest strength is its look.  Shot in Ultra Panavision 70, the widescreen vistas of the Pacific are breathtaking — emerald islands, turquoise waters, and the imposing silhouette of the Bounty under full sail.  The ship itself, a full-scale reconstruction, is a marvel of production design.  The storm scenes, Tahitian sequences, and open-sea shots are staged with grandeur and precision.  Bronislau Kaper’s score supports the film well, mixing orchestral sweep with lighter island material.  There are no modern visual effects, but the practical scale and location shooting give the film a physical authenticity rarely matched today.
Problems:  Several.  The pacing is uneven, particularly in the second act, where the film lingers on Tahitian idylls which slows the story down;  Brando’s performance, while interesting, sometimes clashes with the rest of the cast;  the script softens some of the harsher historical realities and leans into a romantic view of both the mutiny and Tahitian life;  Bligh is written as more complex than the usual absolute villain, which is good, but it occasionally weakens the dramatic pressure leading up to the mutiny;  and, the final act feels rushed compared to the long middle stretch.
Did I Enjoy the Film?  Mostly.  “Mutiny on the Bounty” is long and occasionally slow, but it’s also impressive to look at and has enough character conflict to stay interesting.  The themes about leadership and responsibility still land.  Brando’s performance is uneven but memorable, and the production values alone make the film worth watching.
Final Recommendation:  Moderate to strong recommendation.  “Mutiny on the Bounty” (1962) is a large, ambitious, and sometimes frustrating epic, but it’s also a distinctive entry in Hollywood’s widescreen era.  It didn’t win any of its seven Oscar nominations, but its scale, its cast, and its place in the long line of Bounty adaptations give it lasting interest.  If you enjoy maritime history, character-driven conflict, or Brando’s experimental period, this version is worth your time.  It isn’t a definitive telling of the story, but it remains a striking and memorable one.
.
Click here (14 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 »

Mahoney Sisters Can’t Carry A Melody

“The Broadway Melody” (1929) – movie review
Today’s review is for the landmark musical drama “The Broadway Melody” (1929), directed by Harry Beaumont and starring Charles King as Eddie Kearns (a songwriter and performer whose ambition is matched only by his romantic entanglements), Anita Page as Queenie Mahoney (the younger sister whose beauty and vulnerability draw both admiration and exploitation), and Bessie Love as Hank Mahoney (the elder sister, pragmatic and fiercely loyal, whose dreams of stardom are tested by betrayal and sacrifice).  Supporting roles include Jed Prouty as Uncle Jed, Kenneth Thomson as Jock Warriner (a wealthy socialite with predatory intentions), and Mary Doran as fellow performer May.  This ensemble anchors MGM’s first all-talking musical, a film that not only defined the backstage musical genre but also became the first sound film to win the Academy Award for Best Picture.  Perhaps less significant due to its being only the second ever Best Picture winner, it was also the first film to double-up as the highest gross attendance for the year.
Background:  In my continuing effort to gain an appreciation for cinema, I’m trying to work my way through a number of lists of great movies.  This film was second to receive the Best Picture Oscar.  I watched this on YouTube for free with no commercial interruptions.  Released in 1929, “The Broadway Melody” arrived at the dawn of Hollywood’s transition from silent films to “talkies.”  MGM promoted it as its first all-sound motion picture, and audiences flocked to see the spectacle of synchronized music, dialogue, and dance.  With a modest budget of $379,000 and a box office return of $4.4 million, the film was both a commercial and cultural triumph.  Its success paved the way for sequels (“Broadway Melody of 1936“, 1940, 1947) and cemented the musical as a dominant Hollywood genre.
Plot:  The story follows sisters Hank and Queenie Mahoney, vaudeville performers who journey to New York City to break into Broadway. Eddie Kearns, a songwriter and Hank’s longtime friend, introduces them to producer Francis Zanfield.  While Hank struggles to secure their place in the show, Queenie’s beauty attracts attention, particularly from wealthy Jock Warriner.  Eddie, initially Hank’s romantic interest, finds himself drawn to Queenie, creating a painful love triangle.  As Queenie is tempted by Jock’s wealth and Hank realizes Eddie’s affections have shifted, tensions rise.  Ultimately, Queenie rejects Jock’s superficial advances, Eddie declares his love, and Hank sacrifices her own happiness for her sister’s future.
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 but uneven;  innovative but dated;  several;  frankly, no, but with historical appreciation.
Any good?  Historically, yes;  personally, no.  “The Broadway Melody” is a fascinating artifact of early sound cinema.  While its narrative feels melodramatic by modern standards, its cultural significance and pioneering use of sound make it essential viewing for film historians and enthusiasts.
Acting:  Bessie Love delivers the standout performance as Hank, balancing grit with vulnerability.  Her Oscar nomination for Best Actress was deserved.  Anita Page embodies Queenie’s innocence and allure, though her role leans heavily on archetype.  Charles King’s Eddie is energetic but occasionally stiff, reflecting the transitional acting style of early talkies.  The supporting cast provides texture, though most characters serve as foils rather than fully developed personalities.
Filming / FX:  The cinematography by John Arnold captures both the intimacy of backstage life and some of the spectacle of musical numbers from that period.  The film includes two brief Technicolor sequences — a novelty at the time — which underscores MGM’s ambition.  Musical highlights include “You Were Meant for Me” and the titular “Broadway Melody,” staged with choreography that, while static compared to later musicals, thrilled audiences in 1929.
Problems:  Multiple and some severe.  The pacing is uneven, with melodramatic dialogue that feels stilted today (IMHO).  Having said that, there are some expressions used and I don’t know whether they are New York, Broadway, or simply era based.  For example:  Hank accuses Eddie of not fighting for Queenie because the other guy has more “jack” (money) than he (Eddie) does.  The love triangle dominates the narrative at the expense of deeper exploration of Broadway’s competitive world – which IS explored in cinema at least once in every decade since.  Sound technology was still in its infancy, resulting in awkward pauses and limited camera movement.  Queenie’s characterization leans toward objectification, reflecting gender norms of the era.  The acting, dancing and singing is actually quite terrible from all three of the lead characters.  It’s difficult to tell if the fault is the sound recording available in those days, or if the actors were really just that bad.  LoL  The female leads asks the male lead to sing them a song in their hotel room and a full orchestration breaks out in the background.  At no point did I feel there was any chemistry (romantic or sisterly) between any of the three leads.  Credit to the two female leads, they held their own (acting) in their individual / solo scenes.  King tries to sing a “swing” based version of the title song, but it comes across as a poor man’s Al Jolson – and suffers in the comparison.  There were more problems, but I don’t want to proverbially “beat a dead horse.”
Did I enjoy the film?  No — with reservations.  What enjoyment I did have came less from the story itself and more from the film’s historical significance.  Watching “The Broadway Melody” is like stepping into cinema’s transitional moment, where silent-era theatricality meets the promise of synchronized sound and black and white has brief intersections with sepia-colorization.
Final Recommendation:   Strong recommendation — for historical significance;  Low recommendation otherwise.  “The Broadway Melody” may not dazzle modern audiences (to put it lightly) with its plot, pacing, dancing or musicality, but it remains a cornerstone of film history.  As the first sound film to win Best Picture, it represents both the excitement and limitations of early talkies.  If you are interested in the evolution of musicals, the Academy Awards, or Hollywood’s leap into sound, this film belongs on your list for reference viewing.  Watch it not for perfection, but for the moment when cinema found its continuous voice.
.
Click here (29 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 »

Happenings At The Grand

“Grand Hotel” (1932) – movie review
Today’s review is for the ensemble drama “Grand Hotel” (1932), directed by Edmund Goulding and produced by Irving Thalberg for MGM.  The film stars Greta Garbo as Grusinskaya (a fading Russian ballerina haunted by loneliness), John Barrymore as Baron Felix von Gaigern (a charming but impoverished nobleman turned thief), Joan Crawford as Flaemmchen (a stenographer with ambition and vulnerability), Wallace Beery as Preysing (a ruthless industrialist entangled in shady deals), and Lionel Barrymore as Otto Kringelein (a terminally ill clerk determined to live fully before death).  With cinematography by William H. Daniels and music by William Axt, the film weaves multiple lives together in the opulent setting of Berlin’s Grand Hotel.
Background:  This is another of the old, black and white films I’m committed to viewing to gain an appreciation for cinematic “art”.  Having said that, I’m finding out that ANY film which wins the Oscar for Best Picture generally has something to say and is worth viewing…   Released in 1932, “Grand Hotel” was adapted from Vicki Baum’s novel “Menschen im Hotel” and William A. Drake’s stage play.  It was a landmark production:  the first major “all-star” Hollywood film, showcasing MGM’s roster of talent in a single narrative.  The film won the Academy Award for Best Picture in 1932, notable as the only Oscar it received.  Its historic significance lies in pioneering the ensemble drama format, later echoed in films like “Airport” and “Crash“.  The famous line:  “Grand Hotel. People come, people go. Nothing ever happens” became emblematic of its theme:  the fleeting intersections of human lives.
Plot:  Within the luxurious Berlin hotel, disparate characters cross paths.  Grusinskaya contemplates suicide until she meets the Baron, whose charm rekindles her spirit.  The Baron, however, is secretly plotting theft to escape poverty.  Flaemmchen, caught between ambition and survival, becomes entangled with both the Baron and Preysing.  Kringelein, facing imminent death, seeks joy and dignity in his final days, while Preysing’s ruthless business dealings spiral into violence.  The narrative culminates in tragedy and renewal:  the Baron’s death, Grusinskaya’s departure, Kringelein’s bittersweet liberation, and Flaemmchen’s uncertain future.
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;  elegant and atmospheric;  a few dated elements;  so-so.
Any Good?  Yes.  “Grand Hotel” remains a masterclass in ensemble storytelling.  Its ambition — weaving multiple arcs into a single setting — was groundbreaking in its day.  The film’s themes of mortality, ambition, and fleeting connection resonate even today.
Acting:  Greta Garbo delivers one of her most iconic performances, balancing fragility with grandeur.  John Barrymore brings charm and pathos to the Baron, while Joan Crawford shines with wit and vulnerability.  Lionel Barrymore provides emotional depth as Kringelein, and Wallace Beery embodies ruthless capitalism with menace.  The ensemble’s chemistry is remarkable, each performance distinct yet interconnected.
Filming / FX:  The cinematography by William H. Daniels captures both intimacy and grandeur.  Long takes and fluid camera movements emphasize the hotel’s labyrinthine corridors, symbolizing the intertwining of lives.  The production design conveys opulence, while lighting underscores emotional contrasts.  Though lacking modern effects, the film’s visual style remains elegant.
Problems:  Some dialogue feels melodramatic by modern standards, and pacing occasionally drags.  The film’s depiction of women, while progressive in giving agency to Garbo and Crawford, still reflects 1930s gender norms.  Yet these issues are minor compared to its achievements.
Did I Enjoy the Film?  So-so.  “Grand Hotel” is captivating in an old fashioned way, both as cinema and as cultural artifact.  I admired its ambition and enjoyed both its performances and its thematic layering / interwoven story lines.  Watching it feels like stepping into a time capsule of Hollywood’s golden age.
Final Recommendation:  Moderate to Strong recommendation.  “Grand Hotel” is a historic ensemble drama that won the Academy Award for Best Picture and pioneered the “all-star” format.  Its themes of mortality, ambition, and fleeting human connection remain relevant.  If you appreciate classic cinema, landmark performances, or films that shaped Hollywood history, this one is essential viewing.  Trust me…  I never thought I’d say that during the first five minutes of this film, but it really grows on you.
.
Click here (22 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 »

She Was Yar

“The Philadelphia Story”  (1940) – movie review
Today’s review is for the sophisticated romantic comedy “The Philadelphia Story” (1940), directed by George Cukor and starring Katharine Hepburn as Tracy Lord (a wealthy Philadelphia socialite whose upcoming wedding is complicated by the return of her ex-husband), Cary Grant as C.K. Dexter Haven (the charming ex determined to win her back), James Stewart as Macaulay “Mike” Connor (a cynical reporter who unexpectedly falls for Tracy), and Ruth Hussey as Elizabeth Imbrie (Connor’s sharp and loyal photographer colleague).  Supporting roles include John Howard as Tracy’s fiancé George Kittredge and Roland Young as Uncle Willie.
Background:  Hepburn is one of my all-time favorite actors.  Stewart and Grant are both waaayyy up there, too.  LoL.  So, this was an easy choice to make for viewing a rom-com.  Based on Philip Barry’s 1939 Broadway play, written specifically for Hepburn, the film was produced by MGM and released in late 1940.  Hepburn had been labeled “box office poison” after several commercial failures.  This role revitalized her career.  The film was both a critical and commercial success, earning over $3 million at the box office against a modest budget.  It won two Academy Awards:  Best Actor (James Stewart) and Best Adapted Screenplay (Donald Ogden Stewart), and was nominated for Best Picture.  Today, it is considered a landmark in the romantic comedy genre and preserved in the U.S. National Film Registry for its cultural significance.
Plot:  Set among Philadelphia’s upper class, the story follows Tracy Lord on the eve of her second marriage.  Her ex-husband Dexter Haven arrives with a tabloid reporter and photographer, ostensibly to cover the society wedding but secretly to prevent scandal.  As the weekend unfolds, Tracy confronts her own perfectionism, her strained family relationships, and her conflicting feelings for Dexter and Mike.  The film builds toward a wedding day full of revelations, where Tracy must choose not only between men but between ideals of love, humility, and authenticity.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  superb;  elegant and restrained;  minor pacing issues;  absolutely.
Any Good?  Yes.  “The Philadelphia Story” is a witty, layered comedy of manners that balances screwball humor with genuine introspection.  It asks what marriage is for—status, perfection, or companionship—and whether love can survive pride.  The screenplay sparkles with repartee, while the thematic undercurrent explores class, vulnerability, and second chances.
Acting:  Katharine Hepburn delivers one of her defining performances, portraying Tracy as both imperious and fragile.  Cary Grant’s Dexter is suave yet wounded, a perfect foil.  James Stewart, in an Oscar-winning turn, brings warmth and humor to Mike, especially in his drunken late-night scene with Hepburn.  Ruth Hussey adds intelligence and subtlety as Liz, grounding the ensemble.  The chemistry among the leads is electric, and the ensemble elevates the film’s emotional stakes.
Filming / FX:  Joseph Ruttenberg’s cinematography frames Philadelphia’s elite world with elegance — manicured estates, polished interiors, and carefully staged gatherings.  George Cukor’s direction emphasizes dialogue and character interplay over spectacle, allowing the performances to breathe.  Franz Waxman’s score underscores the film’s shifts between comedy and romance.  There are no flashy effects, but the restraint is deliberate, highlighting wit and character rather than visual excess.
Problems:  Minor.  The pacing in the early acts can feel slow, as exposition builds toward the central conflicts.  Some supporting characters, particularly George Kittredge, are included for show not substance.  The film’s class critique is gentle, never fully interrogating privilege.  Yet these are quibbles in a film that prioritizes character and dialogue.
Did I Enjoy the Film?  Yes.  “The Philadelphia Story” is a reminder of how comedy can illuminate human flaws with affection rather than cruelty.  Watching Tracy’s transformation — from goddess-like perfection to a woman who admits her humanity — is both moving and entertaining.  The interplay of Hepburn, Grant, and Stewart is timeless, and the film’s final reconciliation feels earned.
Final Recommendation:  Very highly recommended.  “The Philadelphia Story” is a classic romantic comedy that revitalized Hepburn’s career, showcased Stewart’s versatility, and cemented Cukor’s reputation for ensemble direction.  It won two Academy Awards, remains preserved in the National Film Registry, and continues to resonate for its wit, performances, and thematic depth.  Rated “Approved” under the Production Code, it is suitable for all audiences.  Watch it for the laughs, and for the reminder that love requires humility — and that second chances can be sweeter than first ones.
.
Click here (20 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 »