The Razor's Edge (1946) Rent 15 and up

What is the meaning of life? Based on a 1944 novel by W. Somerset Maugham,The Razor's Edge is unusual for a Hollywood picture because it deals with a subject that Hollywood rarely ever did, and that was spiritualism and life's meaning. Despite my applauds for finding a film that was trying something different at the time, I'm still kind of puzzled by this film. To help clear my muddled thoughts, let me explain my opinion on this 1946 classic.
    In it, a well-to do Chicago veteran named Larry Darrell (Tyrone Power) is traumatized for his best friend sacrificed himself during a battle in World War One. To clear his muddled thoughts, he decides to go to Paris and India to find enlightenment on the meaning of life. After he learns about goodness, he decides to go visit his old friends in Paris who for the most part aren't doing really well in their lives. For instance, Sophie (Anne Baxter) used to be in a happy marriage until her husband and child gets killed in a car accident. Now, she's a washed-up drunk. Larry decides to save her from her sins. However, his ex-fiancee Isabel (Gene Tierney) is still in love with him. Let me rephrase that. She's obsessed with him. She wants to marry him, and she doesn't understand why he won't focus on society. So to make him realize that he should accept society over life, she decides to sabotage his work with Sophie which ends in tragedy for all of three of them.
       As usual with other golden age pictures, this one is a beautifully produced movie and the acting is really good. Tyrone Power is a genuine good actor with real charm, despite his character having to say awful lines as "The dead have never been deader." The other actors, like Clifton Webb is admirable. Anne Baxter's award winning role easily is the best of the performances for she's a devastating tragic heroine. The audience actually feels sympathy for her when things don't work out for her. She's a character that fate hasn't been kind to, and her performance as a person trying to see that but unable to prevent it is an unforgettable one.
           Gene Tierney's character, though well acted, seems more like a Shakespearean villain rather than a hero. She literally gets Sophie back on the path to doom through psychological warfare and the reason why she does this is she only wants Larry for herself not for anyone else. Did this film turn into a prequel to Leave Her To Heaven? Why would our main leading heroine commit second-degree murder and still be Larry's main affection throughout the entire picture? I know that she doesn't understand his philosophy but that's no excuse for doing despicable things. Ever.
        The main problem that I have with this movie isn't our heroine but the freaking story itself! I just found it boring and uninteresting for our hero is bland, and his quest for meaning didn't resonate with me. That's probably because I haven't experienced his feelings yet , but if you have questions about life, this might be a good choice for you if you don't mind the fact that it's a depressing story with no uplifting moments in it. I'm sorry to say this but I do not like this film at all. But, it's still a good movie but it's not really engaging or interesting to watch.

A tragic heroine who went on to harass Bette Davis.

Gentleman Jim (1942) RENT for ages 10 and up

Get ready to swoon, ClassicBecky! 

       Before he got himself involved with scandals, Errol Flynn was one of the most popular leading men in Hollywood. With box-office/critically acclaimed hits such as The Adventures Of Robin Hood and Captain Blood, he showed that he was more than an athletic swashbuckler and romantic lover. The real reason why Errol Flynn is still famous is that he had charisma. He was one of the first actors who showed that this trait can help an actor evaluate his acting skills even more than action or romance can. No movie can better show this than the 70-year-old drama, Gentleman Jim.
          It's loosely based on the true life story of "Gentleman"James J. Corbett, the boxer who redefined the sport forever. Before him, boxing was more rough and tumble bare knuckle brawls than the kind you might see on T.V. today. (Even though I probably will not be watching that for I do not like sports at all, but I digress.) His style followed the more civilized way of the Marquess of Queensberry Rules, which emphasized more on the fairness of the sport rather than on the illegal brawls. (Literally, boxing was banned in many states until the early 20th Century. Yeah!) Jim also used polished footwork and technique that of course bewildered most of his rough opponents. This and of course his gentleman like personality helped him defeat John L. Sullivan in 1892.

The Real James Corbett Who Looks Nothing Like Errol

    Like most Hollywood biopics of the time, it is more of a fanciful imagining of the life rather than what truly happened. A main part of the film involves with a romantic love interest,played by Alexis Smith, who doesn't like our hero at all. In fact, she wants him to be knocked out in all of his big fights. But of course, he manages to get the girl by the end.Major shock. Another subplot involves James' family who are very combative yet loving at the same time thanks to his parents. The movie also shows that James was an outgoing person and he had a great sense of natural charisma. From what I can get from this movie, it suggests he would have a boxing career for his main income. Yeah, those scenarios didn't happen in real life. By 1892, he was already married, and his parents apparently took their own lives in a murder-suicide. Ouch. He supposedly was a mostly reserved man, and since boxing was mostly illegal, he became an actor to support himself. So in other words, it's mostly Hollywood gloss covering good potential for an emotional study of a compelling character.Why Hollywood?!?
          The shooting for this movie was also harsh for the main actor. According to TCM's article on the film by Jay S. Steinberg, "The famously hard-partying Flynn had been wracked with assorted health problems in 1942, and it all culminated with his collapse during the filming of one of Gentleman Jim's fight sequences. While the studio had publicly chalked it up to fatigue, the doctors diagnosed a mild heart attack. Alexis Smith recounted in the biography, The Two Lives of Errol Flynn by Michael Freedland, how she took the star aside and told him, "'It's so silly, working all day and then playing all night and dissipating yourself. Don't you want to live a long life?' Errol was his usually apparently unconcerned self: 'I'm only interested in this half,' he told her. 'I don't care for the future.'" 
           Despite those major setbacks (and the fact that I don't find any of the comic scenes funny at all), it's a really decent movie with more strengths than flaws. It's riddled with terrific work from most of the supporting actors, including an awesome performance from Ward Bond who plays a bigger-than-life performance of John L. Sullivan. The directing by Raoul Walsh is just amazing especially with those magnificent boxing scenes that are still stuck in my head to my annoyance. The plot's okay with some really good moments (the family scenes) with some really boring scenes (any involving Alexis Smith except for the end). I'm sorry but I didn't find her captivating as Ingrid Bergman in Casablanca. She's just really an uninteresting character with nothing to offer than love/mock Errol. Boo you, Mr. Corbett. I hope you lose that Oscar for Best Actor That Was Beaten Up By Errol. Oh wait. I love you for no reason at all. At least, she's a great actor compared with another one named Jack Carson. Grr. I'm sorry but I just find his character to be really annoying and to have no purpose at all, except to drink heavily and to be funny. Rarely a good sign in movies.

   Thankfully, this movie has Errol Flynn to save it from Jack. The reason why this movie works is because of him. Case in point: the ending. As John L. Sullivan is giving him his belt as a sign of acceptance, notice Errol's underplaying. The reason why he's doing it is because he as an actor wants the audience to notice at what his character is showing rather than what is visible from the dialogue. In the scene, the audience can tell that Jim is respecting the man he had just beaten, and to show it without saying much is a grand accomplishment for anyone. Even though I'm only recommending this movie for those kids who would love Errol Flynn or boxing stories for the plot's really boring, this is one of Errol's greatest roles in film.

Holy Cow!: The Most Dangerous Game (1932) RENT 12+ (Depending on their capacity for scary stuff)

                Now, most of you guys are going to see The Hunger Games, and you're probably thinking that we aren't that obsessed and crazed with a bloody and devastating sport as the characters in that awesome movie do. You're wrong as we keep our eyes glued to televised sporting events like football, soccer, boxing, wrestling, car racing and of course hunting/fishing.  This makes our judgment seems weak, but at least we have rules for those types and it's much safer today than back then. Especially, when you consider that long ago, (and still today) many people thought that hunting was the greatest sport ever, despite the billions of animals, (and some random humans) that have died in it. (If a sport is deadly, don't say that it's the greatest thing ever. Otherwise, you'd be saying that Dick Cheney shot that guy in self-defense.)
       Maybe we like pain and torture when they,or we, hunted for food or for pointless trophies. But, whatever the case, be glad that you weren't playing with General Zaroff in Richard Connell's classic tale that makes us reconsider about what the hunted feels like. This tale is so well beloved that Hollywood seems to remake/spoof/remix this every single decade, and it all started with this 1932 chiller from the same guys that brought you the masterpiece, King Kong. That's right. M.C.Cooper produced, Fay Wray and Robert Armstrong starred,and Max Steiner composed this puppy just one year prior to that other masterpiece. Heck, even this was filmed on the same sound set and studio as Kong. Now, let's take a look at this one strange and crazy movie.
        On one dark and not-so-stormy night, Bob Rainsford (played by Joel McCrea) is traveling on board a cabin cruiser, and he's a famed hunter who believes that the hunted likes being hunted, and the hunters (like him) loves being the hunter. Yeah, right. However, before he can go on his merry little way, the ship sails through a channel near an island. This turns out to be a bad idea because it suddenly explodes and sinks. Yes! I'm a huge fan of shipwrecks, so I love this sequence even though there's no such thing in the story. :) Tragically, Rainsford is the only one left alive, and he washes upon the deserted island. Sadly, it's not populated by tourists and a hungry shark.
           However, he discovers that it is inhabited by a huge mansion with a strange door handle. I wished I had one. When he goes inside, he meets the owner, a charming yet cartoonish Russian hunter named General Zaroff, played by Lesile Banks. There, he learns that there have been other guests here as a result of numerous shipwrecks and there are some right now in the house. Later, he meets them-- a brother and sister which are played by the two main stars from King Kong. Does that mean that we will see the famed ape himself ? Sadly,not today. :(  Meanwhile, General Zaroff tells his guests that hunting has always been his number one thing in life, but after hunting every animal in existence, he got bored. So, he went to this forbidden island, and invented "the most dangerous game".

You look good-looking, Mr. Bob.

Even though he refuses to tell them what the beast is, Eve gets suspicious and whispers to Rainsford that several nights ago, the two sailors that saved them disappeared while with our nice host.
         Later that night, Eve's stupid drunk brother goes missing, and the couple decides to look for him in the secret trophy room. Much to their dismay/fright, they discover ....... okay, I'm not going to spoil it for you. Wait till you see it, because it's even more terrifying than the dogs in The Hunger Games! Oops, I've spoiled something. Well, skip the next paragraph if  you haven't seen this movie, or read the book.
         In there, they discover that Zaroff's game is to wreck ships, take the survivors in, hunt them on this creepy island, and once he has killed them, he brings them to be stuffed. Once they learn this, they demand that Zaroff to let them off. He agrees to do so, but only if they can survive his hunting expedition. Can they survive this psychopath's sport?
           This one is nothing like the story except for for some highlights. For instance, there was no woman accompanying Rainsford for the journey, there was no freaking shipwreck, and there's about a million of other details that I wished was in here/kicked out since I'm a fan of the story. Sadly, Hollywood in the 1930s had to publicize this story for release, since we were in the Great Depression. (Hollywood, I forgive you this time.)
             If the story's adaption bums me, why is it featured in The Criterion Collection of all places? It's because the mood and feel can give the viewers goosebumps, even nightmares. Come on, think about it. A man and his girlfriend are chased down by a crazed killer on a jungle-fested island with dogs on their tail has got to terrify everyone in some one's mind one time or another. This is also a great use of foreshadowing in the movies. All of the details in here point to something bad. A reoccurring "bad luck" card symbolizes a shipwreck, while a look on a man's face leads Eve to believe that General Zaroff had something to do with the men's demise. Even the music is foreshadowing doom as it plays like a twisted, devilish trumpet signaling the grand chase. The acting's great fun, and it always interested me how much King Kong and The Most Dangerous Game shared so much in common. Even the sailor's screams came straight from the former film.
            Parents, there are some concerns  here: there are severed heads in the trophy room, Robert Armstrong's character plays drinking as a comical matter, sharks are attacking sailors, the dogs are creepier than the Doberman in Hugo, the Russians are played stupidly, and the woman really is a damsel in distress. Since this is a Pre-Code film, there is violence, and minimal sexual references. The main concern is the entire mood as it's probably not for young kids at all. This can give them nightmares. Also, if your teen is a fan of the story, this is not for them for reasons above.

Do Not Run Into King Kong At All! 

           If you want to give your child a great introduction to foreshadowing and chills, show them this treat, as it has an anti-hunting message and asks us that infamous question that would bug us again in Planet Of The Apes; what is it like for the hunted animals? Do they enjoy it?