Everything That Dies, Some Day Comes Back

I hadn’t got around to watching this before now because I had the idea that it wasn’t very good. Plus I also thought (based on the title) that it was a mere dramatization of the “Munich Massacre” at the 1972 Olympic Games, in which eleven Israeli athletes died, which didn’t appeal to me. Wrong on both counts! It’s a very good (albeit highly fictionalised) account of “Operation Wrath of God” in which a team of Mossad agents track down and try to assassinate various Arabs implicated in the 1972 kidnapping. It’s an atypical Spielberg film, both in style and content -  so much so that I would never have guessed the director.  It has a low-key, almost documentary, feel to it, which is emphasised by the absence of any big-name Hollywood stars. Instead the film is underpinned by a quiet but commanding performance by Eric Bana, as the leader of the Mossad team, who gradually becomes disillusioned and paranoid. Spielberg also skilfully weaves in sequences showing what did happen during...

This is a high-quality political thriller from 1964. The basic set-up is that General Scott, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (the ever-watchable Burt Lancaster) is planning a military coup because he disagrees with the peace treaty US President Lyman (Fredric March) has signed with Russia.  The seven days of the film cover the period from the Monday when Colonel Casey (Kirk Douglas) begins to uncover the plot to the Sunday when the coup is due to take place. Everything in this film is top notch but highlights for me were the intelligent dialogue (courtesy of Rod Serling of Twilight Zone fame, adapting the source novel) and March's performance as a US President of integrity.  There are several stand-out scenes, such as the climactic confrontation between Lyman and Scott, and pretty much all those involving Edmond O'Brien as a Senator who is a close friend of the President and who likes his drink a little too much. But probably my favourite scene is one between Casey and a...

Do I know who killed JFK? No. Do I care who killed JFK? Not really. Did this 3-hour potential snooze fest hold my attention?  Hell, yeah! Specifically I was intrigued by the extraordinary story of Jim Garrison, the New Orleans DA, who takes it upon himself and his team to try to get to the bottom of what really happened in Dallas on 22 November 1963. On the way we meet an array of curious characters brought to life by the likes of Tommy Lee Jones, Joe Pesci (crazy guy, crazy hairpiece), Kevin Bacon, Donald Sutherland, Walter Matthau, Jack Lemmon, and Gary Oldman as Lee Harvey Oswald. Holding it all together is Kevin Costner in a towering performance as Garrison. Not sure how he didn’t get an Oscar nomination whilst Tommy Lee Jones (sporting the most ridiculous hair) did. His lengthy summing up to the jury at the conclusion of the film is a tour-de-force which I would like to believe is close to the actual summing-up. Which does raise the nagging question throughout, how far can we ...

I’m totally in agreement with the critics’ consensus on Rotten Tomatoes which describes this John Grisham adaptation as ‘overlong and superficial’. 149 minutes! Where to begin on what to cut? A whole load of the KKK stuff to start with. We don’t need the attack on the husband of Matthew McConaughey’s assistant, or the ludicrous scene where Kiefer Sutherland becomes a sniper. And the kidnapping of Sandra Bullock makes for some very uncomfortable viewing. She does of course bring her usual perkiness and charm to the role but she’s clearly been shoehorned into the film for commercial reasons.  I found her character totally unbelievable, especially in her early scenes with McConaughey which wouldn’t have been out of place in a romcom. Apparently Grisham vetoed the director’s first choice of Woody Harrelson for the lead role, which is a shame since I didn't much enjoy McConaughey’s performance.  The film deals with some weighty issues regarding race and justice, but it does all see...

This is a superior John Ford Western, part of his cavalry trilogy. But I do have some minor gripes.  Firstly, given the title, I was disappointed by the lacklustre nature of the obligatory romance, which Joanne Dru is unable to bring to life. Secondly, despite the constant threat from Native Americans alluded to throughout, the action is rather thin on the ground and, especially towards the end of the film, confusingly presented. At one point Brittles (John Wayne) leaves part of his troop to carry out a rear-guard action which seems certain to result in high casualties. Yet later we learn that these men have been rescued with no loss of life. More seriously, the military climax of the film is a bit of a let-down, being the capture of the amassed Native American tribes (again without any casualties!) through the simple tactic of stampeding their horses. Really! Thirdly, I felt that the elegiac tone that had been developed was thrown away somewhat by the feel-good ending that comes o...

This is the final film in John Ford’s ‘cavalry trilogy’, but I prefer to think of it as the second, if they are ordered chronologically by the stage John Wayne has reached in his cavalry career in each one. In this film Wayne plays Kirby Yorke, a world-weary soldier whose lonely existence is shaken up by the arrival of both his son and his estranged wife, neither of whom he has seen for many years. John Ford only made this film because the studio ordered him to do so and maybe that explains why the action scenes, such as they are, are routine bordering on desultory. The climactic rescue of a group of children from a Native American camp should be way more exciting than it is. In the absence of thrills we have to fall back on the unusual interrelationships within the Yorke family. Whilst I struggled to care much about the father-son relationship, John Wayne and Maureen O’Hara can always be relied upon to deliver, and together they pretty much carry this sub-standard Ford Western. RATING...

This is a cross between a Western and a political drama, with rather more talking than action. The bulk of the story relates how an idealistic lawyer, Rance Stoddart (played by James Stewart) defeats Liberty Valance (a rather cartoonish character who Lee Marvin does his best to make menacing) who terrorises the town of Shinbone at the behest of local ranchers, and somewhat for his own perverted entertainment. It is told in flashback by Stoddart, now a Senator, who is visiting Shinbone to pay his respects upon the death of Tom Doniphon (played by John Wayne). In some ways Stewart’s role here has echoes of two roles from films released in  1939:  ‘Mr. Smith Goes To Washington’, in which he plays a naïve Senator, and ‘Destry Rides Again’, in which he plays a pacifist lawman. The central conflict presented is between the idea that justice should be delivered through the rule of law (espoused by Stoddart) and the idea that it can only be achieved through violence (Doniphon’s view)....

On paper, the story presented here might seem a bit thin but all those involved manage to make this an entertaining and involving film, even if I had the nagging feeling throughout that right from the get-go young Mark Sway would be far safer telling the authorities what he knows rather than keeping it a secret. The emotional heart of the story is the spiky but ultimately moving relationship between Mark and his lawyer Reggie Love, and their  parting at the end did have me tearing up a little. The former is played remarkably well by Brad Renfrew.  Apparently his real life prior to this film was not that far removed from that of Mark. Sadly he died of an overdose at the age of 25. Susan Sarandon is totally believable as Reggie, a woman trying to make her way in a man’s world whilst having to cope with the loss of custody of her children some time in the past. Elsewhere both the villains and the representatives of the law are a bit cartoonish at times but Tommy Lee Jones as the ...

With a stellar cast and a decent story, courtesy of John Grisham, this film should have entertained me a lot more than it did. It’s hard not to blame the director, Gary Fleder. This was his fifth feature film and according to my research team (i.e. Wikipedia) all of his previous efforts met with the thumbs down from the critics, and so maybe it’s not surprising that I can’t think of a single memorable scene or even moment. It would also be interesting to read the source novel so as to work out what the four (!) screenwriters added or removed.  Did they for example add the unnecessary (and poorly directed) scene where Rachel Weisz's character i s attacked?  Or what about the character of Lawrence Greene? Early on, time is spent establishing him as an assistant to the lead prosecution lawyer, but he then disappears, not that anyone notices or cares. The main problem for me is that I wasn't emotionally invested in the outcome of the trial.  Maybe that’s because we spend virt...

That this courtroom drama based on a play by Agatha Christie is directed by Billy Wilder is perhaps more of a surprise than is the denouement itself. The main pleasures are Charles Laughton’s performance as the self-regarding QC Sir Wilfrid Robarts and that of Elsa Lanchester (Laughton’s wife in real life) as his private nurse Miss Plimsoll (great name) who has the unenviable task of looking after Sir Wilfrid.   Wilder of course can be relied upon to bring out the comedic elements of their relationship. Where the director struggles perhaps is to make an effective drama out of a story which is more interested in plot than character.  The fact that Marlene Dietrich at one point shows up in some unconvincing makeup only serves to emphasise the stagey nature of the material.  That scene aside Dietrich does a good job of bringing her character to life.  Her relationship with Leonard Vole (another great name) provides what little emotional depth there is on view. Unfortuna...

I wasn’t keen to see this film because I hate the thought of someone being ridiculed or mistreated simply because of their appearance (so no, I have no intention of ever seeing ‘The Elephant Man’). I also feared that this 1939 adaptation of a classic novel of Gothic romanticism might be rather heavy going and sentimental, especially given the pathos inherent in the relationship between Quasimodo and Esmeralda (or so I assumed). So I was pleasantly surprised by how entertaining and dynamic this film is, and by how little running time is taken up by Quasimodo and Esmeralda.  However when they are together there is  one moment that genuinely moved me, when Esmeralda gives him water after he has been flogged in the market square. The source novel runs to over 900 pages, so there is no shortage of characters and plot machinations to keep the viewer intrigued and entertained, including a murder which quite took me by surprise. In order to bring medieval Paris to life no expense seem...

This is the first of John Ford's 'cavalry trilogy' and I can't wait to see if 'She Wore A Yellow Ribbon' and 'Rio Grande' maintain the same very high standard. Although John Wayne (as Captain York) effortlessly dominates every scene he is in, the central character is the fascinating one of Lieutenant Colonel Thursday.  Expertly portrayed by Henry Fonda, he is an arrogant and snobbish stickler for military regulations who resents being posted to a backwater (as he sees it) and therefore yearns to make his mark. I could have done with spending rather less time with the non-commissioned officers and rather more time exploring Thursday's history.  His past relationship with Captain Collingwood could have been fleshed out more, for example. Why the animosity between them? The observant viewer will notice during the opening credits that the film is based on a short story entitled 'Massacre' and so need not worry that for the first 45 minutes nothin...

Rotten Tomatoes has this film at 70%, which I would say is rather generous of the critics. Leaving aside the film's attitudes to women, and to gays, which I guess were par for the course at the time, the film suffers from a weak plot which fails to establish any meaningful stakes. Dr Hemlock's mission, which brings him out of retirement, is to kill an assassin for no especially good reason, his motivation being a combination of greed and a desire to avenge the death of a friend.  Unfortunately neither the screenplay nor Clint Eastwood's acting is able to inject any life into his character, so it's hard to care. The only reason to watch this film is for the spectacular mountaineering photography, with Clint performing some of the stunts himself.  There is a training camp in the US which provides some breath-taking views, but the best visuals come at the film's climax when Hemlock is part of a team attempting the Eiger. One of the team (but who?)  is Hemlock's tar...

OK, any attempt at objectivity on this blog is going out the window right now, given that this is probably my all-time favourite film. Although I can quite see why someone might not care for it  - it’s slow, lacking in humour, and the murder plot is off-the-chart bonkers.  And there’s no getting away from the fact that the main protagonist Scottie is hard to empathise with as his mental health spirals out of control - or would be if he wasn’t played (superlatively as always) by James Stewart, the definitive Everyman, Tom Hanks notwithstanding.  None of this matters if you allow yourself to be mesmerised by the combination of music, editing, cinematography and atmosphere created by Hitchcock firing on all cylinders. And his casting of Kim Novak is crucial - it is her beauty and sensuality that  allows us to believe in Scottie’s fixation. But it is probably best to ignore the age difference between the two stars (25 years, since you ask).  It's most difficult to d...

We can all agree that this is a great film (one of four masterpieces directed by Billy Wilder) but if it was made now how on earth would it be marketed? Is it for example a romcom?  For sure, the plot does have a feel good romantic ending, and features two protagonists having to overcome obstacles before they can be together.  In this case the main obstacle is Fran’s relationship with the married Mr Sheldrake. Although the  latter is played marvellously by Fred MacMurray I’ve never really bought the idea that Fran (an early role for Shirley MacLaine) would be that into him, but then again many romcoms have featured far more contrived impediments to happiness. But the feel good ending relies heavily on the last few minutes of the film, from when Fran leaves Sheldrake at the restaurant.  Because up to that point the film is a pretty bleak depiction of loneliness and alienation in the big city. The scene where CC Baxter looks at a broken image of himself in Fran’s compa...