The Ladykillers (1955)

Sir Alec Guinness. Young Peter Sellers. An Oscar-nominated screenplay by William Rose. An old British woman who foils them all. With all of these factors racing towards the finish line, one could imagine the hilarity that was to follow. Alas, after the first twenty minutes, it seemed to all come to a screeching halt. Yes, there were comic moments, genius creativity, and excitement in the air, but as a whole, “The Ladykillers” was more a hodgepodge of could-be-great ideas mixed together with poor execution and a misuse of the actors’ ability on-screen than a laugh-out-loud comedy. Yes, this was a “dark” comedy, and the ending solidifies that idea, but what was lacking within the story was the actual comedy itself. With such actors like Guinness, or Peter Sellers, or Danny Green; director Alexander MacKendrick had loads of opportunity to transform this film into a cult classic, to unleash the potential hidden within his players. Too bad he missed the opportunity. With a intriguing story, a fun old lady, and a misused cast, “The Ladykillers” may have been bold for the time, but today it just felt stale, slow, and misplaced. How could a film with so much potential fall so flat?

Our story begins promising; with a little old lady (Ms. Lopsided) talking to the police about how there weren’t aliens in her friend’s garden. As she travels home a looming figure follows her. MacKendrick does a great job of creating early tension, this unknown of who is going to arrive at the door or what the motives may be. As Guinness rings the bell, the shadow is revealed to have large fake teeth and a comb-over. This random act of costume design demonstrates the ability of comedy on both the part of the actor and the director. As Guinness swoops into his charming devilish self, the dynamic between him and the old lady becomes the crux of this film. MacKendrick must realize that the two have chemistry (or that the two were the obvious focus of the film) because he focuses his entire remainder of the film on these two alone, oddly leaving everyone else in the wake of unknown. As we are introduced to the rest of the string quartet, as audience members, we have hope that these actors will provide us with genuine laughs. Perhaps some comedic parody or defined character humor, but there is none. Sellers is left with a cardboard character worthy of mere facial expressions and overblown acting. He is wasted because MacKendrick is too focused on Guinness. The same can be said for everyone else in the background the focuses more on cliché than on actual substantial characters. Major Courtney, One Round, Harry, and Louis are lost within the scene, leaving the audience to care nothing for them, giving us a less-involved ending.

With our major actors in no position to lead, we are left with a story that remains the excitement of this film. The heist scene alone is worth watching this movie for 90ish minutes. To have early scenes (and scenes after) carry the same theme song throughout, but then have no music at all during the heist – only enhanced the experience. Again, MacKendrick had to have known that he had a great script, I just wish he could have managed his actors a bit more. The choreography for the heist, as well as the cinematography, was pure caper. It was executed as well as any Michael Mann film could have dreamed. Everything from the actual robbery all the way until Mrs. Lopsided’s role in the scheme was introduced was finely tuned. Even the escape, which kept me on my toes, seemed well developed and enjoyable – but then again, we seemed to come to another hodgepodge thematic and tone downfall. The introduction of the other old ladies was fun, but after that – when the group begins to implode, it just doesn’t feel right. I was ready for the dark comedy, but there are always two parts to this – both the darkness and the comedy – and “The Ladykillers” was lacking in the latter.

So, the mix of bad characters with substantial plot really made this should-have-been great film into just another decent 50s British film. If MacKendrick would have focused a bit more on the actors’ abilities than I think he would have had a solid film, but without it – it just felt disjoined, poorly edited, and a splattering of good points with bad. Overall, just a mediocre film.

VIDEO: Anchor Bay’s release of this film (which is not out of print) was pretty well developed. There wasn’t much in the way of special features, but the presentation was there. The sound, sight, and detail were captured well on DVD – I just wish the overall film would have felt the same way.

VISUAL: The colors made this film worth watching. The British in the 50s made very colorful film, and despite this being a dark comedy, the colors do play a substantial role. This DVD transfer demonstrates that by giving us darks and brightness when needed. Albeit that sometimes it does get too dark, but it heightens the experience.

SOUND: Another great transfer for this film. The trains sounded as crisp as the music that was being played in Mrs. Lopsided’s home. The inclusion of the music in some scenes and not the others made for intense viewing and a sense of familiarity.

EXTRAS: Your typical cast bios done via sheet method, some trailers and that is about it. There is a Blu version coming soon that I hope packs a bit more in it – perhaps some history on this film would help raise the score.

Overall, I just wasn’t as impressed as I wanted to be. It began with quite a bit of excitement and creativity, but by the end I just wanted it to be over. I wanted to get to know the other characters more; I wanted to see them evolve like I did the story. I had high hopes for Sellers, whom is merely a background character – demonstrating none of his ability. Guinness does shine, but he cannot carry this entire film. The old lady made me laugh, and while the reimagine is no better, I can see why the Cohen’s wanted to remake their version. That final scene with the old lady was phenomenal, but why couldn’t the rest of the film follow suit. Decent – but nothing worth keeping or watching again or again.

Found in my “Movie Mom’s Guide to Family Films”, this has been a great run with the “L”s. Everything has been fresh and new, enjoyable and fun. As I have one left, I look forward to my next letter “C” and what that may bring. Until then, I am giving “The Ladykillers” a pink mark. Worth a viewing, but nothing more. One more left – let’s see what Disney has to offer.

Lamb Chop in the Land of No Manners (1991)

Perhaps it was my age. In 1991, I was a mere 13 years old, and watching Lamb Chop on PBS (or Shari Lewis for that matter) wasn’t in the repertoire of “fun” programs to watch on television. There was action, there was sci-fi, there was Saturday Morning Cartoons, but there was no Lamb Chop. Was I deprived of greatness when I was young? Should I prepare my unborn children for VHS copies of Shari Lewis’ creation within our home? Watching my first episode (albeit a longer direct to video release), I was surprised by how well Lewis with her sock-puppet creations of Lamb Chop, Charlie Horse, and Hush Puppy kept my attention. The humor seemed sharp (or felt sophisticated), the theme – at least in this episode – was obvious, and the inclusion of a half puppet half human world was intriguing. This seemed to be a cheaper version of “Sesame Street”, without the genius of Jim Henson. There is no doubt in my mind the talent that Shari Lewis had, her positive mental attitude towards children, the simplistic approach to giving a strong moral, and those gosh-darn cute puppets were impressive on a low-budget level … BUT … has it remained as popular today as it was first introduced in 1957?

Not to disappoint, but the answer is a hesitant “yes”. The hesitancy is not from Lewis’ creation, but instead the format used to deliver her message. What she created, using ventriloquism instead of Henson puppetry, was genius. Her characters were, and still are, appealing to children and adults alike. Would this still hold a child’s attention today? Tough call with the special effects used in every venue, but for me – there was something genuine about the simplicity of Lewis’ work. All of this is a big introduction into the film that I watched recently entitled, “Lamb Chop in the Land of No Manners”. Found obscurely on VHS, this was my doorway into this unknown world. This is where the hesitancy comes into the mix. While the message that Lamb Chop learns about manners is universal – and incredibly important even today – the road to get to the finale was paved with rushed drawings, mixed media headaches, and Hush Puppy; a character I was not quite prepared for.

In the 1990s, one of America’s leading cartoonists was a man named Mort Gerberg. He is the headline for this film, portraying not only himself, but also a sort of sketch artist as Lamb Chop attempts to recreate her impression of the “Land of No Manners”. Transported there via a door wished for in her bedroom (after a difficult day of no manners), she and my arch nemesis Hush Puppy, get pulled into this world where children run free, but nobody is allowed free time to take a shower. The film is mixed between Hush Puppy telling her story, Lamb Chop trying to get some food, and Gerberg keeping up with everything. Tough? It was harder to watch than it was to explain. Gerberg’s images seem sloppy, while for a majority of the scenes he is just retracing a full image below his paper. I realize that he couldn’t create on scene, but it felt staged and cheap. Meanwhile, Lamb Chop kept popping up everywhere. In one scene she would be at the table, in another scene on his shoulder, in another scene next to Lewis. If there was ever a more spastic puppet, Lamb Chop would be it.

As if Lamb Chop was directing, our scenes cut between Gerber drawing, Charley Horse talking, and animation to fill in the gaps. The animation, not surprisingly was cheap and ill-represented Gerberg’s ability. It felt as if Shari Lewis had one good idea, and they needed to stretch it into 45-minutes. The scenes, animated or otherwise, just didn’t run smoothly – causing inconveniences and headaches. Again, Lewis’ message was sweet, delivery left much to be desired.

Which now leads me to my final conflict with this made-for-TV, capture-the-kiddies VHS release; a character I was unprepared for – Hush Puppy. Did this puppet have a dialect that would be unsuitable today? Was it stereotyping, or merely trying to add spice to a new Lewis creation? As I watched, I – fresh eyes and all – had trouble with this character. The dialect seemed off, pushing the envelope of humor and into derogatory. Again, I don’t want to dismiss Lewis’ contribution to the education of children, and Charley Horse even made sense, but Hush Puppy felt rough around the edges. Was this the intention?

VIDEO: This was a decent child’s film. Short enough to keep attention, and the mixed media would probably be appreciated by the young, but as an adult it just felt sloppy. The message was strong and successful, but overdrawn and repetitive. The dinoslobs, while creative, were not developed and due to budget, seemed a bit one-dimensional. There was no true fear; we spent a considerable amount of time getting to the Land, explaining the characters, and less time escaping. Overall, a bust of a story.

VISUAL: VHS people. It was grainy, noisy, but very vibrant. Lewis knew what colors would stand out – and used them to her advantage.

SOUND: There was a slight theme song, but it was lost in the shuffle. It was synthesizer based, and equally as cheap. For a show that ran for 7 years, they knew how to cut a budget.

EXTRAS: Surprisingly, there was an extra. One minute into the credits, Lewis gives us a clip of one of her 1950s show. The creativity was impressive. I liked this black and white juxtaposition with the puppetry. Also, Lewis was kinda hot at that time!

Overall, I wasn’t impressed. Yes, I liked what Lewis was attempting, but this “special” just felt extremely cheap. The idea of the dinoslobs was creative, but ill-conceived. What was said, and pushed for 45-minutes could have easily been done on one of her 25-minute segments with a stronger effect. Does this stop me from watching Lewis’ work? Nope, just stops me from suggesting this film.

…oh, and Hush Puppy still confuses me….

Found in my “Movie Mom’s Guide to Family Films”, I am slowly wrapping up the “L” category. Two more films, and this hasn’t been that bad of a ride. After the “Y” debacle, this feels like I am back to watching stronger cinema. So, what to give this – my first children’s made-for-TV short. Pink or Yellow? Despite my oddity towards Hush Puppy, I did find levels of this entertaining. I am going pink. Good, not great – definitely not re-watchable.

The Lady Vanishes (1938)

“The Lady Vanishes”, in my eyes, is the penultimate work of director Alfred Hitchcock. While most will argue “North by Northwest”, “Vertigo” or even “Rear Window”, this film – the last of his British – remains a stronger entry. The strength of the characters, the vast unknown as you travel on this train, the small (yet important) clues, the comedy of Caldicott and Charters; all of these merely scratch the surface of what “The Lady Vanishes” represents. It demonstrated that even with a small budget, a relative unknown cast, and a strong macguffin; that no special effects were needed. Money is not the solve-all for Hollywood. As films are released today, big effects and big budgets, nothing can compete with the power of a strong story. Hitchcock was aware of this, and thus, “The Lady Vanishes” was born. Criterion has included it, with a plethora of special features, in their growing collection, and for me – it stays as one of my favorite films of all time. Like a jigsaw puzzle, Hitch gives you only small piece by small piece, not even telling you which lady is going to “vanish”, and with each viewing – the suspense grows deeper and stronger. As with most Hitchcock, it is not just about what happens in front of the screen (the introduction of the characters, the scenery, the time), but also what happens behind. It is this discovery which allows future viewings of “The Lady Vanishes” and proves Hitch’s cinematic worth.

As I sat down to write this review, draft after draft was tossed out because I wasn’t sure what to discuss on a film that has been dissected by some of the biggest film critics (Geoffrey O’Brien, Charles Barr, Robin Barr) and discussed by another great film maestro, François Truffaut. What could I say that hadn’t been said before (also ranked #235 of the Internet Movie Database’s Top 250 Films), so why not pick three scenes and discuss why they impacted my decision to name this one of my top 10 favorites … a tough list to be on – especially today. So, here are the three moments in “The Lady Vanishes” that confirmed its honorarium in the Criterion collection as well as the accolades that Hitch has received for this body of work alone.

The first scene has to be the brief introduction of our characters in the small inn. Upon first viewing, there was no indication which of the multiple ladies would not be the one “vanishing”, nor was there any direct way of knowing how these groups of different individuals would eventually come together on one train. Just sitting there, waiting for the avalanche to be cleared, we see adulterers, comedians, cricketers, wealthy Americans, musicians, and a little old lady who would eventually be at the crux of all this madness. It is this unknown upon first viewing, the sweetness with the second viewing, and the complexity of the third viewing that makes this nearly opening scene one that cannot be shaken from the mind. Hitch presents you with the early “who” of the film, but without that sense of direction, the darkness allows your mind to discover all possibilities, no matter how many times you watch it. Exactly how many were involved with the plot? Who knows, and that my friends, is only half the fun.

The second scene that stood out in this film was the cult window scene. Without indulging in spoilers, early in the film the window dirt is used as merely a greeting, and later as a divergence from madness. It is during the scene where the name is revealed a second time that always sends tension through my veins. The word in question is just staring at you within the scene, it evokes the need to scream from your couch to look up, to see what we all see, like Hitch is toying with his audience – to say that the beautiful Margaret Lockwood’s sanity may not be in question. With merely one word, Hitch has created audience involvement, a level of excitement, and tension beyond belief. It is as if he is flaunting it. It is an iconic scene, but also one of those that speaks for itself. This dirty “word” proved that with a small budget (and no special effects) that you could pull your audiences in deeper. I would challenge any modern film to do the same, alas; I don’t think they would have the same result.

Finally, the remaining scene that makes this film more than just print through a projector is actually not a scene at all, but Hitch’s involvement of music into this entire film. Yep, it is a broad (and perhaps cheat) third scene, but from the beginning opening scenes a certain tune is flaunted in front of us as maybe just a mere theme music, but as the film continues we learn it is much, much more. Like the name on the window, the missing woman, the confused passengers, the music has a double meaning. It not only represents the mood of the film, but it also sends another message. What is that? Oh, I’m not telling, but Hitch smartly includes it whenever possible. Listen to the scenes, each one, there is a hint of this music throughout – almost including you within the overall story. “The Lady Vanishes” is not just a movie to watch, but also one that should be listened to. The score (if it can be called that) carries nearly more meaning than the characters. That, again, is the power of Alfred Hitchcock.

VIDEO: For everything mentioned above and more, this is a cinematic triumph. The actors are powerful, hilarious, and unique in their respective roles. What Hitch provides is small, yet powerful as he delicately gives us the whole of the story. He has created a film that can be enjoyed over and over despite knowing the ending. The macguffin stands out as not just a plot devise, but also a cult Hitchcock staple.

VISUAL: Criterion has done it again. Their transfer is immaculate. The released this film a while ago (as it is spine #3), but then re-released it about a year ago and this second release is by far the best. The cracks in the frames were cleared, the black and white seemed bolder, and the delivery of the small amount of special effects seemed clear and crisp. Watched on a DVD player that up-converted, this looked and sounded like I was in the theater (maybe even better).

SOUND: This was important in this film, Criterion realized that, and made it as clear as the visuals. The technical aspects of this film were vastly improved and restored to a quality Hitch would appreciate.

EXTRAS: Criterion, as always, has double-whammy-ed you with this double disc. It includes and audio commentary by film historian Bruce Eder, Crook’s Tour, a 1941 feature-length Charters and Caldicott adventure, available for the first time on home video, starring Basil Radford and Naunton Wayne reprising their beloved The Lady Vanishes roles. Not to mention excerpts from François Truffaut’s legendary 1962 audio interview with Alfred Hitchcock and Mystery Train, a new video essay about Hitchcock and The Lady Vanishes by Hitchcock scholar Leonard Leff. If you aren’t saying “WOW”, then something is wrong with you.

If you haven’t guessed, I love “The Lady Vanishes” not just because it is a great film, but because it best represents Hitchcock’s work. There is something for everyone, young audiences and mature cineophiles alike. The characters, the sound, the visuals all blend together to make a phenomenal cinematic journey. Every detail within “The Lady Vanishes” is important – and this is a film that should be watched – again, and again, and again. Impressive.

Found in my "Movie Mom's Guide to Family Films", these "L" entries have been life changing cinema watching. "Labrynth", "The Lady from Shanghai", and now this - bring it on film guide. If it isn't obvious, this film is getting a green mark with a blue star - to be watched - nay, cherished again and again. I am proud to own this film and cannot wait to pick up the laserdisc version for the collection. Impressive Mr. Hitchcock, I say it again - Impressive.

The Lady from Shanghai (1947)

Orson Welles has done it again. For $50,000 and a promise to Columbia to direct a book with a different title, he was able to save the costumes for his “Around the World in 80 Days” theater performance as well as give us another butchered masterpiece. Being a relative “newbie” to Welles, one always argues that “Citizen Kane” remains his magnum opus, but after watching “The Magnificent Ambersons” (a stronger, more genuine film) and now, “The Lady from Shanghai”, the argument seems a bit too one-sided. Welles is a powerful director, a decent actor, and a detailed storyteller; one doesn’t need to argue that all day. Yet, it is impressive that he is known only as a one-film man, when everything else watched has continued to get stronger and stronger. “Magnificent Ambersons” proved that he could tackle the family drama as well as a social commentary on the wealthy, and with “Shanghai” he proves that he can transform a movie star from pin-up girl to sadistic lover. Part noir, part travelogue, part confusion, “Shanghai” was an experience all within itself. Harry Cohen, head of Columbia, has stated that if anyone could tell him what this film was about, he would pay $1000. That speaks volumes about the ability that Welles had to construct an intelligent, gripping noir. “Shanghai” is about love, it is about revenge, is about mirrors, and it is about the law – all brought together in a way only Orson Welles could do it.

Originally two and a half hours, the version viewed was under 90-minutes, meaning quite a bit of Welles vision was lost in the editing room. One even hears stories that his original score was cut and replaced with cartoon music and constant repetition of the theme song. It would be hard to imagine what Welles’ original vision would have produced, but even with his missing elements – “Shanghai” proves thought-provoking, entertaining, and downright diabolical. It begins with two actors, Rita Hayworth and Orson Welles, together in a park, learning that even the most beautiful women come with baggage and history. From the very bizarre car park sequence, we soon get the impression that this isn’t going to be your normal film. Welles pulls you in with the unknown, and unique characters. His portrayal of Michael O’Hara is possibly the weakest element to this film, as his accent fades in and out of existence with each scene. Welles is good as an actor, but adding the Irish element to his voice diminished the ability to truly believe who he was meant to be. On the other hand, Rita Hayworth was phenomenal. Her transformation in this film could be likened to a modern day Theron’s “Monster” or Swank’s “Boys Don’t Cry”, shedding her long red hair for a short platinum look. She was not only impressive physically, but as mysterious as noir women come. From the opening scene, she is always someone she is not – and when Glenn Anders looks at her from his binoculars several scenes later – it is as if Welles is saying, we all need to be watching her. Up until the final moments, we don’t know where her loyalties remain, and that speaks value of both the director and the actor.

With Hayworth giving her best, Welles taking strides behind the camera (not quite in front of), the other one to watch is Everett Sloane, who plays the handicapped Arthur Bannister. Welles gives Sloane this meaty character who drinks, worries, plans, and is the best lawyer in town – yet has this crippling physical attribute which creates this darker, more diabolical character. Sloane was my favorite character in this film, because, like Hayworth, we were never quite sure what his next play was, or who he was doing this all for. With “Shanghai” Welles has crafted this amazing noir that keeps you guessing from beginning to end, impressively shot, and delivers an ending that remains a cult favorite – attempted to be recreated time and time again, but always lacks that panache only Welles could film.

VIDEO: The film was impressive. It takes you from a park, to the open sea (look for Errol Flynn), to a native island, back to San Francisco. The images are sharp to coincide with the power of Welles choice of actors and ability to carry a scene. The only downfall, this was originally filmed (like most Welles) around 2+ hours, and the version I watched was under 90 minutes. What did we miss? How amazing could this film have been?

VISUAL: Stunning black and white imagery. Welles is not afraid to give us the long shot or the intense close up. In hot places, everyone was sweating. Was it due to the heat, or their knowledge of what was to come?

SOUND: Gunshots were loud, the courtroom scene was intense, and the waves were present. Even though his original score wasn’t used, it worked. With his stark visuals, the sound only collaborates with Welles. He may not have liked it, but for this edited version, it worked.

EXTRAS: Surprisingly, not bare boned. There is an introduction by Peter Bogdanovich which gives us quite a bit of detail on this film, but he uses the same material again for his audio commentary. I liked what Bogdanovich had to say, but when he just starts reading from his book instead of giving us insight on the scene, it gets a bit dull to hear. The visuals and him rambling on saying “he said, then I said”, just didn’t pan out. Good, but not great. We wrap up with a couple of trailers and language options. Overall, pretty well rounded.

This is a character driven film, and despite my flimsy nature on Welles the actor, the other background characters have enough heart to carry what he lacks. The power of Hayworth, Sloane, and Anders alone is worth watching. Who are these guys? How did they choose O’Hara? Why be so elaborate? The twist and turns continue to come, and “Shanghai” has that repeatable feel that your DVD player will love. I cannot wait to rewatch this film and see what was missed. There had to be more clues, something in the background that the virgin eye would miss. This was noir at, well, maybe its best looking, but well represented.

Thank you Mr. Welles for continuing to impress me with each passing film.

Found in my "Movie Mom's Guide to Family Films", I am excited what the L-category will bring. After a disastrous last book, I think this is going to be a great run. The next three films already have me excited, and I cannot wait to see what they will bring. "The Lady From Shanghai" gets an obvious green highlight with blue star. I cannot wait to watch this again - and I can suggest it to everyone. Will be added to the collection!