The Fabulous Dorseys (1947)

Due to an increase need of sleep and an old discovered interest in a childhood book, these next several reviews will be short, yet brief.

Mediocre rags to riches story isn't improved with horrid acting or lacking script. There is no question that the Dorseys were phenomenal with their music, but they were not destined to be film actors. This distracted from the overall themes of the film coupled with a bad side story about a childhood friend that could only come between them.

Good music, bad acting give this film a barely passable score.

Found in my "Seen that Now What" film book, I ended up going with a yellow highlight with a black mark. I would never like to see this film again, nor could I suggest it to the next person that walked in the door. Watch this film without the screen and only sound, it makes for an overall better "Fabulous Dorseys" experience.

Fahrenheit 451 (1966)

Before any discussion of this film, there must be a line drawn between the politics of the film versus the way this film was created. Being a Truffaut fan, I didn’t want to miss his idiosyncrasies within a scene merely because the politics of book burning were overwhelming. Yes, one understands that this is a film adaptation of “Fahrenheit 451”, a beloved classic that gives booksellers inspiration every time it is read, but also this is a Truffaut film. Several reviews state that Truffaut did an excellent job with the direction, and then spend four paragraphs discussing our society and its apathetic ways toward literature. In this discussion of this film, there will be a solid line between Truffaut’s direction and Bradbury’s themes. Was one stronger than the other? Did Truffaut’s adaptation muddy Bradbury’s final thoughts? While you may agree or disagree with my discoveries, one needs to realize that this was a film watched, not a book read. Did Truffaut satisfy the main discourses of film enjoyment? Was it entertaining? Did it spark debate? Did it decorate strong characters? For this reviewer, Truffaut’s “Fahrenheit 451” was a mixed bag of cinematic delight. The characters, albeit well fit within the realm of Bradbury, just felt mediocre. Their direction seemed wooden, while the camera focus seemed misplaced for a majority of the film. Again, like most Truffaut, it was colorful, but he just didn’t seem himself until the final act – where Bradbury’s ideas and Truffaut’s direction finally congealed together. “Fahrenheit 451” was an adaption, but not one that stands among the infamous.

Our troubles begin in this film with our lead, Guy Montag (played by “Jules and Jim” lead, Oskar Werner), who obviously hated working for Truffaut and this project. Despite the rumor that the two clashed at every opportunity, Werner gave one of the worst performances seen for a long time. When Truffaut couldn’t get Terrance Stamp for his first choice, the lackluster Werner stepped in, and the downfall of this film began. Werner gave nothing for audiences to attach themselves to. There was no emotion, no big moment of empathy, no excitement. Werner went from one scene to the next, allowing his sleepy eyes to provide us with just enough to cope with the hour and a half running time. He was horrible as a “Fireman”, and even less convincing as a man with a sudden passion for the written word. There were moments when laughter was more suitable than viable emotion. This is supposed to be a tense film, a confusing film, a film where the emotion surrounding books becomes a greater asset than the material objects that Montag possessed. Alas, this wasn’t the case. With the supposed anger surrounding our lead and director, only the lessons of Styrofoam and cardboard were used. Thankfully, there was Julie Christie mixed within the story to heighten the side bits. Feeling a bit Brunel-ian, Christie was used as two characters in this film, providing an opportunity for Truffaut to demonstrate a particular emotion with books and without them. While Christie wasn’t Oscar-worthy, she did allow for an appealing appetizer to the dismal main course (Werner). She and Cyril Cusack (The Captain), anointed with the task of keeping the film together, managed to save this film from utter disappointment to sheer mediocrity.

What makes “Fahrenheit 451” an interesting film to self-explode, is not only the odd direction by Truffaut, but the powerful camera work by one Nicolas Roeg (the man who later gave us “The Man Who Fell To Earth”). All of the colors, the shots as they were filmed, and the choices of camera placement were, possibly, the second only greatest moment of this film. I credit Roeg for giving us the unsettling feel of this film. The contrast from the bold colors of red in the community with the bland colors of inside Montag’s home (and elsewhere) forced the setting upon us in a good way. As Truffaut and Werner were arguing with each other, Roeg was creating a film – and it is obvious as the visuals of this film looked creative, but everything else came nowhere close.

Finally, without giving away the ending, one has to admit that the ending to this film was Truffaut finally finding his way again. Suddenly, when Montag found his real “home”, it became obvious that Truffaut found his comfort zone. He understood this film, and the ending wrapped up brilliantly. The direction, the voice, the visuals – they all seemed to come together in a way that shocked even myself. If only the rest of the film had been this way … what a surprising film this would have been.

VIDEO: Watched this film via streaming, and it was beautiful in colors and sets. The remaining part of the film, especially the acting, allowed this film to bob between mediocrity and horrid.

VISUALS: Again, Roeg is credited for allowing this film to remain what it is today. It is due to his visuals that I was able to watch this film in its entirety. Without Roeg, who knows what would have happened.

SOUND: Decent. The roar of fire was load. The crackle of books was present. The sound of the siren was intense. The little points were good – don’t remember any music that stood out to engulf the theme of the film, but perhaps it was merely Montag’s horrid acting that kept it at bay.

EXTRAS: As I streamed it, alas, nothing to report.

Overall, I believe this film, if done correctly, could be the first science fiction film ever to win an Oscar for best film. The themes are universal and the looming future is closer than we think. Yet, Truffaut could not handle this. He and Werner’s arguing created a difficult mess of mixed emotions and sub-par casting. Roeg’s scenes were brilliant, but couldn’t save this sinking ship. “Fahrenheit 451” had potential, but failed on nearly every level. If you choose to view this film, check out the final scene in which Truffaut finally understands Bradbury’s work. Why did it take so long to discover the true meaning of the written page? Urg.

Found in my “Seen That Now What” film guide, I am in the middle of the “F” section with only two more to go and it has been a wild ride. Science Fiction, Fantasy, excellent drama, poorly made-for-TV films have stretched the entire world. Impressive, I only wish this one would have been stronger. I am giving it a yellow highlight with black mark. I will not be watching this film again.

The Fabulous Baker Boys (1989)

When a film lacks originality, everything else just feels bored. This is the case with the Oscar-nominated film (for best Actress) “The Fabulous Baker Boys”, and why it remains merely a speck in cinematic history. In this tired tale, two brothers – semi-content with playing a lounge or two here or there – living in the past, consider the option of bringing a female singer into the act. One is the organizer, one is the chain-smoking wild-card that continually impresses the ladies, yet has a stronger passion for the keys. It won’t take a rocket scientist to realize which is which based on mere talent alone. Throw into the mix a husky female singer, a mistaken love, and chaos between a seemingly stable piano act. As our film winds down, cliché over recycled cliché is used to tear these brothers apart, and slowly bring them back together – in an awkward way. While the film boasts collaboration between two of Hollywood’s biggest brothers (one a recent Oscar winner), great piano music, and the quintessential red-dress-on-piano scene, what this film actually delivers is merely a tired script, an overused plot devise, and lines that could have been promoted by anyone with an Acting 101 degree. While the concept seems dramatic, the final result of this feature (despite the numerous awards) felt disappointing. Brotherly love destroyed by inevitable change? Guess what? Seen it all before – and better!

Despite the negative introduction, there were a couple of small elements to this film that worked, ensuring that “The Fabulous Baker Boys” was more than just a one-star movie. Bridges, muscled down by the day-to-day life of being a piano player, is watchable. His apathy towards all situations coupled with his “Joe Cool” smoking-attitude, creates the correct amount of tension with unknown to keep the plot slowly moving in the right direction. Beau, the weaker big-screen actor (better able to manage the television roles), tries to keep up, but what tries to be anger ends up just being a man with big eyes and anger-spit. But, on with the positives…the Bridges’ music was, for lack of a better word, fabulous. Without making the guess if it was them playing, the tone of each of the songs respectively worked in their scenes. Along with the music, the visions of LA worked to show that in a city that never sleeps, these two brothers will always have work. Keep the drinks flowing, and you are sure to be a crowd pleaser.

With some slight parts to make you enjoy the hour and a half of a band’s destruction, the rest just crumbled quickly. To begin, while the pairing of Beau and Jeff seemed powerful on paper, the screen told otherwise. Absolutely, the two were able to play their respective roles well – Jeff the darkened, smoking, looming brother – while Beau played the optimist, looking to keep his dream (or business) alive. The issue with the Bridges’ is that they are too far apart. There is never a scene to show their chemistry together as amazing pianists. Instead, we see through posters that at once they were happy, but those days are long gone. We begin our film on a downtrodden note, and it never quite picks itself up from that even when the brothers seem to be back on top again. Director Steve Kloves never gives us, the audience, an opportunity to cheer for Jeff and Beau’s happiness. Instead, we are forced to suffer right along with them, picking ourselves up after each depressing hour. The same can be said for Pfeiffer, and while Oscar-nomination, Golden Globe-winning, still means something – her portrayal of Susie Diamond just wasn’t breakthrough enough to be remembered after 1990. The prostitute-turned-singer routine has been done in Hollywood, over and over and over; and not to sound repetitive, better. Pfeiffer’s husky voice (at times in tune, at times not), and butch demeanor, did create a sex-symbol, but instead another tragic character. While I agree, the story isn’t conducive to happiness; somebody should have considered it as an opportunity to see these characters differently. It would have added a new layer to their characters, allowing for a stronger emotional punch at the end.

As our characters floundered through their roles, playing piano and off-beat singing, the story was another part that just fell short – forcing our characters to have mixed material to work with and missed character opportunity. “The Fabulous Baker Boys” as a film doesn’t work, as a television mini-series perhaps it would have been better. There is too much left on the table from writer-director Kloves that nothing evolves. Scenes like upstairs neighbor of Jeff’s that is like his mother, busting the dog out of the vet, smelling bathroom equipment, and destroying memorabilia, look good on paper, but without the correct backing just doesn’t feel finished. That is the overall feel with “Baker Boys”, a sense that scenes, moments, and plot-points went unfinished. Kloves isn’t the best in handling the talent he has hired. From leaving cameramen in shots to overusing the piano music, Kloves believes in his work (there is no argument there), but his execution is fallible. Why would you use piano music as your theme music when the Bridges are playing piano music as well? This was horrible. With strong keys being played by the brothers, the cheesy background music just diluted the overall feel. It is the perfect example of having authentic reality and a cheap knock-off. With lacking characters, it would be up to Kloves to cover the differences, but he can’t control what is happening. His camera direction, musical focus, and story have too many flawed plot holes that instead of a creative story, we are left with a sad overused cliché. I would agree that these boys are “Fabulous”, but Kloves couldn’t prove it. His scientific directional equation remains a hypothesis.

VIDEO: With cheap VHS quality of DVD, a lackluster story, and mixed characters. “The Fabulous Baker Boys” failed in its attempts to prove to me that at this moment, the band had to be destroyed. Perhaps they should have been on a “Mission from God”.

VISUAL: For being an Oscar-nominated film, the transfer was horrid. The quality is similar to finding this film on VHS (probably where it is most comfortable), and while you can scratch the surface and see the talent – our actors just don’t bring it. The graininess of their decisions corrupts the story even further, making the final output unmemorable.

SOUND: The key element to this film actually sounds pretty good with the Bridges brothers are playing, but it is Kloves disappointing use of similar piano music in the background which becomes tiresome to the ears. Creating tension to here the Bridges play would mean little to no background music, but the diluted extra music fails to make this a film about pianos and for pianos. Instead, it is like going to Chuck-E-Cheese and having too much pizza.

EXTRA: Nothing. Languages, if you consider those extras is all we are given for this award-winning film. Bummer.

Overall, I wasn’t a fan of this film. Bridges is like a modern Gene Hackman, while the film may not be good, he continually shows that he can be good in anything, alas, not everyone could keep up (even our director). Our mood, music, and plot points were all misused and poorly developed. Our story, cliché after cliché, didn’t feel original or exciting. There needed to be some brightness at the end of our tunnel, but nobody could demonstrate this. “The Fabulous Baker Boys” could have been a shifting film for everyone, but it just wasn’t able to contain the solid nature of the work. It was corrosive and disappointing.

Found in my “Seen That Now What” film book – it was sad to go from a great cinematic experience like “A Face in the Crowd” to this. Nothing worked in this movie, and I don’t think I will ever watch it again. For that, it gets a black mark with a yellow highlight. Never to be watched again nor suggested to friends. This was a massive, miscalculated film that I wanted to enjoy due to Bridges’ win this year, but alas, just couldn’t.

A Face in the Crowd (1957)

Like the roar of a lion or the maniacal laugh of thousands, Andy Griffith burst on the screen with a performance unmatched in the past 53 years. Using the direction of the infamous Elia Kazan, and words by Budd Schulberg, “A Face in the Crowd” transformed from a personal struggle with fame into a political statement of power. Since the birth of radio and television, or even before, the concept of celebrity followed side by side. This select 1% of the population was used to sell ads, promote products, and lastly, entertain the populous. Not much has changed as Hollywood has evolved; the wealthy still control and the audience still depend on their favorite voice to tell them what to get at the grocery store. The interesting point about this, explored deeply in Schulberg’s script, is how quickly the mass audiences can casual drop one figure and follow anew. As one reads this review, the teens may have forgotten the Jonas Brothers and found a new follower, our Late Night hosts may all have new faces, and our “Avatar” may not be barreling through the theaters. Even as I write this, it feels stale. Surprisingly, watching “A Face in the Crowd” for the first time, there was a lack of preparedness for these points. One doesn’t expect such a modern film found in 1957 (much less lead by the sheriff of Mayberry), but within the first twenty minutes, the average viewer will be surprised by what the screen allows. With bold direction, amazing acting, and valid, detailed points about our entertainment industry, “A Face in the Crowd” makes its mark in 1957 and remains valuable today in 2010 – one could even argue MORE valuable today.

While watching this film, there is one person that steals the screen in the opening minutes and never releases for a solid two hours. His name is Andy Griffith, and while he will always be known as the quintessential small town hero, his film debut proved his range went further. With a diabolical laugh, a country-boy appeal, and a voice that could swoon anyone within an earshot, he takes what should have been a role for a seasoned veteran, and creates this iconic role that, after watching the film, could only be done by Mayberry himself. From his introduction in a cell recovering from a drunken disorderly charge, he finds his escape in the form of Patricial Neal, who in turn, introduces Griffith to the world of radio; aka mass audiences. Using a form of trickery, Neal demonstrates Griffith’s power and the world welcomes him (unsuspectingly) with open arms. The small town of Arkansas does anything he wants, but he doesn’t stop there. By becoming our very first Howard Stern, he does what he wants and says anything at all – and becomes the infamous “Demigod in Denim”. The shift in Griffith’s character is subtle, yet somewhat planned. He portrays Lonesome Rhodes as a man inheriting luck, but the calculated look on his face indicates otherwise. That is the perplexity of Griffith, one believes that it is just him being himself, but he peppers within his lines these moments of unknown – where perhaps this was Rhodes’ plan all along. Bridled next to both Neal, who adds a strong level of support, sexuality, and madness, and a youthful Walter Matthau who brings the final worded-axe down at the finale; it doesn’t surprised the ability and range that Griffith had to accomplish. The acting in this film will not only surprise, but also impress. This is the type of quality that Hollywood could produce, yet rarely do we see.

Having just finished “Cabin in the Cotton”, a film that used politics as a miscalculation to cinema, it was impressive to see Elia Kazan handle this issue with artistic talent as well as solid direction. Despite his dismay in Hollywood, his talent behind the camera glimmered in this feature as colors (blacks and whites) were bold, the symbolism was apparent, and the emotions were captured perfectly. He guided Neal through her tragic turn, while keeping Matthau solid as a rock throughout. He controlled Griffith, while allowing him to run throughout the scenes with ease. “Face in the Crowd” is a difficult film to direct, as there is both emotion and intent running rampant, but Kazan proves the he can handle Schulberg’s words. There are scenes that just feel, and look, more modern than 1957. The one that immediately pops into mind is the montage surrounding Rhodes’ introduction into Vitajex. The blend of animation, perverse snippets, and that disturbing laugh didn’t feel old – it felt like a moment taken from 2010 (just in black and white). There are others like that scene throughout. The baton competition was one of the most intensely awkward scenes, as we knew what was happening, but didn’t want to believe it. Again, modern ideas strewn throughout 1957, where the average ’57 film felt didn’t push the envelope – Kazan didn’t care about the envelope.

Finally, Schulberg’s script has to be one of the best Hollywood stories to come out of that town. The images of Griffith laughing stapled behind several TV antennae, just barely scares the average viewer. Schulberg, like Kazan, isn’t afraid of his idea. He pushes from radio to television, an audience of one to millions upon millions, and finally guiding politicians into office. Does this feel like an old idea? The modern implications are outstanding. The language as well, coming from Griffith (who had to ad-lib some) is wildly entertaining, but subtly symbolic, and those final thoughts by Matthau require another viewing just to hear again. Everyone, from writing to direction to acting, gave “Face in the Crowd” more than 100% of their talent, and this critic believes that Griffith may have fallen into the Mayberry sinkhole too soon. If this was his ability, he was surely wasted in Hollywood.

VIDEO: Impressive throughout. The scenes were well focused, detailed and developed. Characters became iconic, giving some of the best lines from a motion picture. Flawless.

VISUAL: Watched on regular DVD, this film would benefit from a Blu-upgrade. Even without, the visuals were stark, clear, and vibrant. The use of multi-media to tell this story seemed futuristic of sorts. This was an amazing film to experience, but a bold film to watch.

SOUND: This had to be top-notch for the film to work. When Griffith yelled, we heard him; when he played his music, we heard him; whenever he spoke – yep, we heard him. That is the staple of this film, hearing Griffith’s words – and we did – so the sound was perfect.

EXTRAS: The only area lacking. A short documentary that talks to the cast about the film, but that was it. Why isn’t there a Criterion release of this film – it seems like one of the best films in the last 50 years from America. It beats “Network” by a long shot. I would have liked to see more, experience this film more with stronger features – but it allows me to upgrade my disc down the road.

Overall, wildly impressive. This has to be one of my favorite films watched this year and easily in my life-long Top Ten. Performances were immaculate, the direction was charged, and the words sparked controversy within the group as we discussed after our viewing. The use of media, sex, and power to create a man known only as Mr. Mayberry demonstrated a talent that went unused in Hollywood. Griffith demonstrated amazing talent, and I don’t know if I could ever see him in anything else the same again. Bravo across the board, BRAVO!

Found in my “Seen that, Now What?” film book, this begins my “F” reign. If they are all going to be like this, then we are going to have a fresh new listing for Cinema Underground. I cannot wait to see what happens next, but for this feature – without a doubt, a green highlight with blue stars. I may give this film as gifts this year for Christmas – that is how much I loved “A Face in the Crowd”.

The Cabin in the Cotton (1932)

Analogy Alert! Analogy Alert! By reading further into this review, one needs to be aware that, for reasons unspecified, analogies will be used to describe, destroy, and decipher this film. With strong personal reactions fortified by on-screen facts, analogies will be in ample supply as “The Cabin in the Cotton” falls a couple of notches in the cinematic handbook. Described as a political film, coupled with love, betrayal, and valor “The Cabin in the
Cotton” successfully touches on everything that it promises. There is no denying that fact. Bette Davis plays the sultry love interest. Richard Barthelmess plays the hokey, dumbfounded man caught in the middle. The stage is set, angry plantation owners, angry growers, but (…and here comes the first analogy…) it feels as if “The Cabin in the Cotton” is a house, and while our players and writer may be doing the best they can, the foundation of it all was rushed, crafted by items found at a refuse lot, not new material. This film represents the idea of quantity over quality. Warner, head of the studio at the time, knew that he could use these raw goods and create a political mafioso about the current American economic standard. The problem, which became apparent 15 minutes into the film, is that this film has no direction. The cloud of romance is in one corner, the air of politics is in another, and then we have this deep lacking history of the south that seems to loom all around like a fog - yet none blend together. None built together a strong enough foundation, or subsequent walls, to make “The Cabin in the Cotton” anything more than just an opportunity to see Bette Davis use good lines.

Watched within a group, this reviewer was the only one to question the “Cabin in the Cotton” point. What was the focus of this film? When did poor construction pass for great filmmaking? From the opening definition of the obscure family to the over-hyped courtroom scene in which the point that two wrongs obviously make a right – nothing is defined or developed. But, let’s begin at the start. Our actors. Bette Davis, playing a New York Southerner was worth the 78-minutes alone. She was handed some of the greatest lines, some of the sauciest scenes, and completely went perpendicular to her co-star, Barthelmess, who – honestly, didn’t feel comfortable going from silent to sound. He was a classic example of a star that may have been big during the silent era, but couldn’t translate well beyond that. As he lurched around everything in this film, he successfully was able to demonstrate that no chemistry was needed to act with Bette Davis. Then, with no emotion for nearly ¾ of the film, he is asked to inspire at the end. He is asked to raise his voice, demonstrate his chops, and ultimately fail miserably. If we couldn’t believe that he could “woo” Bette Davis, why would I believe that he could inspire a group of angry men? I couldn’t. The remaining actors fell into two categories; either angry or angrier. There was little sympathy coming from anyone, much less our main actors. Again, I ask, why would I then feel emotion for this film?

With our actors causing problems over problems (the excuse, “It was made in 1932” doesn’t cut it), you are left with the story. Does “Cabin in the Cotton” work with just the story, as our characters (again, outside of Bette Davis) flounder throughout – does this political film work? To me, it did not. The lacking construction of developing the poor characters makes this film fail, on every level. Director Michael Curtiz, obviously working for the Hollywood factory, didn’t even bother finishing scenes. He provided us with Point-A (the boy), Point B (the crime), Point C (the courtroom) and nothing else. There was a random lynching which was used to heighten an already depressed emotion, but it failed. When our only reaction between Barthelmess and his crew was anger, why would he be upset by a lynching? The consistency just wasn’t there. Rumor had it that Mr. Norwood provided an education for Barthelmess’ character – but again, my argument, there wasn’t any connection between anyone. No connection between Barthelmess and his ladies, none between Barthelmess and the cotton pickers, none between him and the plantation owners – nothing. The glue to the film isn’t even strong enough to keep our central guys together, why would it care about the background? Questions plague this review, but they plagued me while watching this film. I understood the political nature of the film, I loved Bette Davis’ line, but everything else was atrocious. There was no redeeming value to this film, perhaps political, perhaps love story – who knows!?

As this review wraps, I continue to think perhaps I have misjudged what this film represents. Maybe it was only supposed to be a political film, an allegory to the truth of what conditions were like in the south, or in the USA, but then I think about other films, like “My Man Godfrey” made four years later – and how well developed that film was. Why couldn’t “Cabin in the Cotton” be more like that? Why did our lead actor have to be so horrid at his job? Questions that will remain unanswered through the cinematic time vault. For anyone new to “Cabin in the Cotton” beware, it is worthy of only seeing a young Bette Davis … nothing else.

VIDEO: Decent VHS transfer allowed for still horrible watching. A film about the south in which slavery wasn’t even optioned, but merely used to travel a scene, just didn’t work. Nothing, from the acting to the story, was well constructed and ultimately failed.

VISUAL: The VHS transfer is good, not great. There were points where the darkness overcame a scene and the question of what was happening took shape. The editing was decent for the time, though the opportunity to flow between moments just wasn’t there. I have to say that my eyes were entertained, while my mind was elsewhere.

SOUND: The use of Jazz, “Willie the Weeper” and traditional southern melodies were good, but I think our director thought there would be more of a correlation between our themes and the music. With horrid editing and acting, it just felt awkward instead of creative.

EXTRAS: Only found on VHS, thankfully I didn’t need to look deeper into this film. No special features.

Overall, in case it wasn’t obvious, “Cabin in the Cotton” was a failure. Davis, and her lines, allow for one star, but that is it. Nothing worked, from the acting to the direction to the construction of the film, it just didn’t work from one scene to the next. The value of this film was missing. What was this film? Political. Love story. Random family? Nothing made sense, and while I will remain in the minority, I ask you to revisit this film and see what makes it spark. In the end it was a wasted 78 minutes.

Found in my “Time Out Film Guide 2005”, this wraps the “C” section for me. I hate that it ended on such a sad note, but “Cabin in the Cotton” could have been something, but instead it just couldn’t find its tongue. A yellow highlight with black mark means never to be watched again. This was a tough film.