Godzilla (1954) Buy 12+

How come Godzilla has a Criterion release? Oh well.

             Monster movies from the 1950s onward feel the same to me every time I watch one. They're a) too frightening, b) very annoying, c) too stupid, or d) really, really badly made films. The worst part to me is that they were mainly made to entertain the masses who wanted to have a good scare. Now, I'm not a sourpuss, and sometimes I can be enjoyed by an entertaining low-budget stupid horror film. It would be much better if a monster movie or any kind of film had a message to go along with that wasn't slapped onto it. That theme also has to have a point to be in the story. So, that's why I was surprised by Gojira or Godzilla, a 1954 Japanese monster film that deserves to be in the canon of great complex horror classics such as The Bride Of Frankenstein,  The Haunting,  Misery, and Cat People. The film's not only fun to look at for plain pleasure, but it also has a serious melancholy message of nuclear catastrophe to go along with it. 
           When Ishiro Honda directed it, Japan had just barely survived from the trauma of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which devastated the country with its horrifying loss of human life and its unprecedented side-effects. What's even more worse was that other countries were still testing their nuclear weapons on island near Japan. As a result, Godzilla became an allegory of Japan's suffering. The film constantly refers to nuclear disaster such as having "atomic tuna" or having ill health effects following the radiation.
            The film follows Japan after a series of disasters rock the stability of the nation. To explain what the cause of all this is, the government sends a group of investigators to the site where a monster was supposed to be seen. They are able to locate the monster, called Gojira/Godzilla, and they discover that he's an ancient dinosaur that's been contaminated by nuclear radiation. From here on, it becomes an allegorical drama about the consequences of nuclear testing as well as human emotions following a disaster. As Godzilla terrorizes Tokyo, some of  the experts  experience strong emotions about whether or not they should use a breaking new discovery of destroying oxygen to kill the monster.

Is Godzilla flossing his teeth with the model train set?

      Of course, the monster is the scariest thing in the movie. Its big bug-like eyes, breath of death, and menacing roar just send shivers down my spine whenever I think about it. What's even more amazing is that you can tell that it was a guy in a suit and you still are convinced that the monster really is there . (Apparently, that guy didn't like the suit too much. It got really hot in the suit and he often suffocated in it. Furthermore, the suit was really hard for the actor to move around in. I'd always be amazed at how the guy was able to press through that experience.)
    When the film got released in America, the producers decided to cut the atomic references from the original and have Raymond Burr play an American reporter describe the action rather than showing it. In other words, they reduce the complex philosophy into something so stupid that I don't want to talk about it! Let's move onto what I think about the film.
      To me, this film feels more like a complex disaster drama than a campy horror B-movie. Yes, there is absurd acting, and yes, there are frightening scenes. However, the film focuses more of its attention to the victims rather than on the monster. People are seen crushed, and dying in the hospitals because of Godzilla's destruction. In a heartbreaking scene, several schoolgirls are shown singing a hymn of peace to soothe the fears of the nation. Scientists and politicians fight over what is the right thing to do in this situation. The music and cinematography present a very gritty situation, and the ending is more of a pessimistic warning suggesting that there will be more disasters or Godzillas up ahead. No, it wasn't referring to the massive amount of sequels or the two awful American revisions that appeared after this. 

        

Happy Halloween, everyone! I know I haven't written a post since August, but I was getting overwhelmed by schoolwork, the moving into a new condo, and the sheer terror of the hurricane. Sorry. To make up for it, I've decided to do a post of a classic monster movie for Halloween! :) Thank you for being patient with me. And please do not send me hate mail for hating the Americanized version. It's just my opinion- I just think Gojira (1954) is superior to Godzilla, King Of The Monsters! (1956). 

Night Train To Munich (1940) Buy 12+

Where is his face?

    This post is part of an awesome blog-a-thon honoring films that honor one of the greatest directors of all time. Thank you, Tales of the Easily Distracted and ClassicBecky's Brain Food for letting  Classic Cinema Reviews For Kids take part in such a diabolical great adventure as this one proved to be. I'm just so sorry that I haven't had any time to do the review until now, but I had to move to another house. So thank you for being patient with me. Now onto the review.....
      Alfred Hitchcock may have been best known for his Hollywood nightmare fantasies, but before he made Rebecca in 1940, he made some magnificent thrillers in Britain during the 1920s and 1930s. One of these films is a little picture known as The Lady Vanishes in 1938. Boy was that film fun! It had all of the ingredients of a modern good Hollywood blockbuster. It had romance, thrills, comedy, and a smuggled political message. One year later after that classic was released, Hitchcock left for Hollywood. Around at the same time, World War Two started. So what would be the most Hitchcockian thing to do in England without any help from Hitchcock? Well, that would be make a lot of generic espionage thrillers that could also be propaganda that would lift up people's spirits at the same time. Brilliant, lads.
        To be honest, some of those films would become unmemorable dull cheesy crap. But since this is a blog-a-thon honoring the "best" Hitchcockian films, I've decided to write about the 1940 film called Night Train To Munich. The director of the film was Carol Reed who would later direct other classics such as The Third Man, The Fallen Idol, and Oliver!. He later claimed that this film was an unofficial sequel to The Lady Vanishes. Let's see if that is true or not and whether it's better than the Hitchcock thriller.
       Our movie begins in 1939 when the Nazis march into Prague. There, a super important scientist a.k.a the MacGuffin that has nothing to do with the emotional conflict is flown to the safe country of England where the Blitz hasn't happened yet. Unfortunately, his daughter named Anna (Margaret Lockwood after she divorced Micheal Redgrave and realized that she's a daughter of a Czech scientist) is arrested and put into the miserable concentration camps. There, she meets and is befriended by fellow abused prisoner who goes by the name of Karl Mansen ( Paul Henreid ). One night, they escape from the camp in the probably most easiest way to escape prison, which is to turn off the lights so the guards can't see you. Wow. At least, it can't be insulting for the thousands of people who died trying to escape the camps during the war. And for that matter, why doesn't the prison scene feature the horrific torture/killing of many innocent people. But at least, Carol Reed had an excuse for no one knew what was really happening inside the camps until later.

             Anyway, the couple runs/hop on a boat to England where it's always happy and free. There, Anna manages to find her father who now is working for Britain. How? She writes a cryptic ad in the newspaper at her fellow escapee's suggestion. That way, no enemy spy could ever read it. Since her father is working for Britain and is in possible danger form the Nazis, he's guarded by Dickie Randall, a British officer disguised as the charming Gus Bennett played by Rex Harrison. Did I forget to mention that Gus Bennett is a really bad singer? Well, he is. Unless you're a fan of My Fair Lady, grab some earmuffs during those singing parts. Even Anna can't stand it for she says to him;"Pity nature didn't give you a voice". Yikes.


        Well pity the fool for he can't keep a close eye on Anna for she and her father gets kidnapped by some Nazi agents. Among them is Karl Mansen who was actually a Nazi spy to begin with. Surprise. At least Dickie is smart for he volunteers to get them back from Germany. He disguises himself as a German army engineer major. In other words, Rex Harrison plays a Nazi and according to a Criterion essay, he loved it. Let's move on before I'm scarred for life. He tells the Germans that he and Anna used to be lovers, and he might get her to be on their side so she will persuade her dad to cooperate. Clever idea. After a night of literally no sex, he persuades the pair to get on a train to Munich accompanied by Mansen and two guards. Once they get to Munich, they would leave on a plane where they would pass over the ice cream mountains- yes the sets are that bad- to the land of freedom . You're a clever spy, Dickie.
            Who should also be on the train at the exact same time? It's my favorite characters, Charters and Caldicott, of course. Now if only they could get Dame May Whitty to be the Czech scientist. Anyway, they spot Dickie because he used to go to college with them. This arouses Mansen's suspicions and to make a long story short, he realizes that the Army Major is just Dickie Randall in disguise, and he has orders to arrest him when they get to Munich. So much of your plan now, Dickie.
         However, Charters and Caldicott happened to a) miss their valued golf clubs, b) listen to the conversation and c) be British at the exact same time that Britain declares war on Germany. They decide to help Dickie, Anna, and her father escape but not before a big chase. How? Since this is a thriller, I'm not going to spoil anything. Sorry. It wouldn't be fair to let the tension loose.
          Overall, this film is surprisingly good fun. The acting's great, the thrills are genuine, and the smart writing reminded me of its predecessor, which was The Lady Vanishes. In fact, it reminded me too much of that film. It has a clever damsel in distress,  a charming eccentric Englishman, ordinary people getting into extraordinary adventures, an elderly MacGuffin, a villain thought to be a hero, a sort-of generic plot, a train, a climax involving guns, Charters and Caldicot, and a trip around Europe. However, this movie has special things to stand on its own. One is that Charters and Caldicot are much funnier and heroic in here, and they aren't useless to the narrative like they did in the first one. The heroes have much more of a reasonable relationship here than in the other film, and Paul Henreid plays such a stark contrast as a villain rather than in his famous role in Now, Voyager  that I didn't recognize him at all. The major reason why it works is that it has a death-defying stunt among the Alps that has a great deal. All of those ingredients make this a fun, thrilling adventure.

Our heroes.......

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?

Some Like It Hot (1959) BUY 11 and up ( Read notes, first)

            Every human being here on Earth has their flaws. But at least, we are much better at our mistakes than the people in Some  Like It Hot, a 1959 comedy starring Tony Curtis, Jack Lemmon, and the "sex goddess" herself, Marilyn Monroe. Along with its strong cast, and brilliant direction by the wonderful Billy Wilder, this movie has since become one of my favorite comedies of all time. But is it okay for kids? Let's take a look at one of the films condemned by the Catholic Church when first released.
              The story begins in 1929's Chicago, where gangsters ruled the streets with their whiskey and sadly before Roger Ebert was dueling with Gene Siskel. We find ourselves two struggling musicians, Joe and Jerry, (Tony Curtis and Jack Lemmon), who accidentally saw the St. Valentine's Day Massacre,(major/minor off-screen violence and historically inaccurate). Since they're witnesses who have to escape the mobsters in change, they get the first out-of -town job. Is it selling bananas or is it shoveling coal? Nah, for otherwise this wouldn't have been interesting as a comedy. Their new job is to be in an all-girl band. Wa-wa. It's also major wa-wa when Joe falls in love with the lead singer, Sugar. (You can't blame him, for she's played by Marilyn Monroe.) 
                 While they're on the job in sunny Florida, they turn out to be better women than men, since a millionaire gets engaged to Jerry, and they amazingly don't get fired. (Watch this movie, Adam Sandler!)  Joe decides to woo Marilyn by pretending to be a millionaire, but before wedding bells can ring, the gangsters arrive, leading to some high jinx.
                Now, you know why I love this movie! This has great performances by everyone. Tony proved that he could do cynical comedy well, and do a pitch-perfect Cary Grant imitation. Jack is a hoot as his comical self. My favorite scene is when he launches a party on board the ... wait, I'm not going to tell you. :)  The gangsters are spoofed wonderfully by the likes of George Raft, and others. Joe E. Brown is perhaps one of the greatest comical characters ever in a movie . But, Marilyn is so tragic and yet so full of grace that you care about her deeply. As she explains early in the film, she always seems to get "the fuzzy end of the lollipop". In real life, she got that, which makes it more heartbreaking, and more real than anything she has done. In my opinion, this is her best work ever.
          The scenes are just so humorous that I constantly laughed more than during the average comedy! And unlike Jack And Jill, everything in this movie works! Even the cross dressing scenes work in the subtext of laughter, which made me realize how luckily I am to be a male. Billy Wilder must have thought so too, for he constantly toys with sex and cynical wit. This is the reason why Some Like It Hot  was shocking for its time. It broke a lot of the rules at the time, because it keeps making comments about sex.  TCM host Robert Osborne once said that if the performances weren't great or if Billy Wilder was like Adam Sandler, then this movie would have been bad and it would be a really embarrassing movie just because of those issues that it addressed. Thank God that everything worked for the good of all.
           As mentioned in here, it has a lot of sexuality, which is somewhat tamed by today's standards. Yet, it may shock kids and some adults, because it also is wild for classics back then. You see, this really has a lot of sexual references in it. A lot. There's also two brutal, yet toned down gangster violence, with dead bodies visible, and since this is Prohibition, there's a lot of drinking! (Naughty America.) The gangsters are sadly stereotypically Italian, and there's a constant joke about Shell Oil in here that may be one of the first cases of product-placement. Despite all of these major concerns, (mostly about sex), this is actually the first Billy Wilder film that you should let them see, (along with Sabrina (1954) and possibly Witness For The Prosecution (1957). )

I look fabulous, don't I?

             The reason why is because just as Billy Wilder was perhaps cruel with his cynicism, he also offered great life lessons. Joe learns what it's like to be a woman from Sugar, and he realizes that what he has been doing is wrong, and that he should make it up to her. Sugar learns that true love can override marrying for money. Jerry learns that he can take control for himself as he gets engaged to a man, and all of the heroes are lovable and good-hearted.  But, my favorite character is Osgood played by Joe E. Brown. The reason why I love him is that he recognizes all of Jack's failures and yet, he still cares about him. This is just like what I said earlier about every one's flaws, and that even though we do major failures, we still have people who love us. Joe will still be loved by Sugar, and Jerry will still be loved by Osgood. "After all, nobody's perfect!"