Tag: Maxwell Anderson

Quick Thoughts – July Round-Up, Part 1 of 2

‘All Quiet on the Western Front’ (1930)

Of all the armed conflicts in human history, perhaps none was more senselessly brutal than World War I.  Early 20th Century Europe was a powder keg waiting for one good spark, and when it came, the continent (and beyond) was plunged into darkness for four long years.  Worse yet, the battlefields and high seas were the most violent Petri dishes imaginable, as aging military tactics met groundbreaking new technology: airplanes, submarines, tanks, chemical gas; pretty much anything that could be weaponized was put to such use.

Based on the seminal novel by Erich Maria Remarque, ‘All Quiet on the Western Front’ is an equally important motion picture, as it captures the madness of “The Great War” from the level of the common soldier; from enlistment, to training, to combat, to back home, and, ultimately, to death.

It doesn’t seem logical that a film made four score and six years ago about a war that happened a century ago would feel at all contemporary, yet ‘All Quiet’ somehow manages to do just that.  The battle scenes, though not filled with the blood and gore we’re accustomed to now, are as harrowing as can be.  What I find even more striking, however, are the characters and their conversations, trying to simultaneously hold onto their humanity while also numbing themselves in order to be effective.  If you’ve seen ‘Fury‘ or ‘American Sniper‘ in recent years, you can draw lines back to ‘All Quiet’.

If I have one major criticism, it’s that you feel the movie’s length (it runs over two hours) and sometimes scenes don’t quite flow together, but given how long ago it was produced, that can be forgiven.

There’s little doubt that this is an all-time great film that everyone should see at least once.

Rating: ★★★★½

 

‘Top Gun’ (1986)

When people ask me what my favorite arthouse film is, I always say it’s the first few minutes of ‘Top Gun’, before “Highway to the Danger Zone” comes in, because it’s nothing but a bunch of long, gorgeous “magic hour” shots of flight deck operations aboard the USS Enterprise, set to that beautifully ambient Harold Faltermeyer score.  Really, until Mr. Loggins comes storming in, my brain tells me this is going to be one of the best movies I’ve ever seen, but then reality eventually sets in, and I retreat to a place of disappointment.

That’s right.  ‘Top Gun’, that awesome movie you loved when you were a kid, is actually terrible.  In fact, by and large, if there aren’t airplanes, Tom Skerritt, or Michael Ironside on the screen, the movie’s a hot mess: the script is bad, the story is dumbed-down, and the romantic sub-plot is horrendous and needlessly log-jammed into the middle of the film.  It’s bad.  It’s a bad movie.

Now, that’s not to say it’s totally irredeemable, because F-14s are awesome, and F-14s taking on other fighter jets are even more awesome, but all that action doesn’t quite make up for the fact that almost every other element is cringe-worthy.

Basically, ‘Top Gun’ is the kind of movie you put on and fast forward through all the boring parts.  There’s absolutely no need to spend all 110 minutes watching the whole thing.

Rating: ★★½

 

‘Risky Business’ (1983)

‘Risky Business’ is another movie I throw in the Overrated bin.  Not unlike ‘Beverly Hills Cop‘, this film lives in the muddled middle: not funny enough to be an effective comedy, and not intense enough to be a cool high school crime drama.

Frankly, the movie is sophomoric, and I get that as a high school story maybe it should be that, but what I really mean is at certain points it feels like it was made by an actual 10th grader.  Perhaps the ultimate example of this is when Joel and Lana (Tom Cruise and Rebecca De Mornay) are attempting to get intimate on a Chicago “L” train and the soundtrack is blasting Phil Collins’ “In the Air Tonight”; it’s just such a poor creative choice that made me hate the movie in that moment.

However, there is some good work here, especially the Tangerine Dream score, but not enough for me to recommend the movie outright.  Stick to ‘Ferris Bueller’ if you’re looking for a Chicago-area high schooler wish fulfillment movie.

Rating: ★★½

Classic Movie Shandy: ‘Ben-Hur’ (1959) & ‘Spartacus’ (1960) – Swords and Sandals and Stanley Kubrick

 

Hey everybody!

It’s been so long since I wrote anything, I almost forgot my password.  But, we’re here now, so let’s go!

I’m calling this dual review a “Shandy” because I’ll basically be reviewing both movies at the same time, as opposed to writing individual reviews.

Now, naturally, I saw both of these films on a big screen at the Alamo Drafthouse Theater [Yonkers].  Alamo is awesome; you should totally go if there’s one near you (I swear they’re not paying me to say this).

I had seen bits and pieces of both movies on television while in my youth, but I have to admit I was too young to appreciate them at such a young age.  These days, I’m in a much better position to identify their strengths and weaknesses.

But why review these movies together at all?  Well, other than taking place in pretty much the same era of history, and having the Romans as the bad guys, and being released theatrically within a year of each other, and both being over three hours long (Intermission!), there’d likely be no Spartacus had Kirk Douglas not been turned down for the role that Charlton Heston ultimately occupied as Ben-Hur (he didn’t get to be in one epic, so he just went and made his own; that’s pretty epic).  So, yeah, I think it makes some sense.

Just to quickly sum up the plots of these films, Ben-Hur stars Charlton Heston as a Jewish prince who is at odds with his Roman occupiers, and because of this ends up in all sorts of shenanigans until Jesus comes and and makes everything better and is also crucified.  Spartacus stars Kirk Douglas as a slave who is at odds with his Roman occupiers, and because of this ends up in all sorts of shenanigans, but is unfortunately unable to make everything better and is also crucified (SPOILERS!  Oh, wait, I should have put that before.  Whatever).

If I only had one sentence to compare Ben-Hur and Spartacus, it would be this: Ben-Hur is a better film, but Spartacus is a better movie.

What I mean by that is that Ben-Hur, from an artistic standpoint, is more complete in the execution of its vision.  The writing, acting, direction, and visuals work in near-perfect concert (it didn’t win 11 Academy Awards for nothing).  But, it’s largely slow-paced, which means you do feel it’s massive length.  Spartacus, on the other hand, hardly ever lingers, its plot almost constantly in motion, which makes for terrific viewing, but it does suffer at times from strange creative decisions, mostly casting-related (I’m so sorry, John Gavin, but I don’t buy you as Julius Caesar one bit).

This contrast largely has to do with the men who directed these films (and produced, in the case of Spartacus).  William Wyler, director of Ben-Hur, began directing shorts and some features in the Silent Era, so his overall style is highly reflective of “Old Hollywood” (other than Ben-Hur, perhaps his most famous film is ‘The Best Years of Our Lives’, another epic-length Oscar-grabber).  Although it wasn’t his last hit, Ben-Hur essentially is the beginning of Wyler’s twilight, as he would direct only five more movies afterward (out of roughly seventy career credits).

Stanley Kubrick, on the other hand, has roughly one-fifth the career credits of William Wyler (he would only direct eight more films after Spartacus), but with Kubrick it truly is about quality over quantity.  Kubrick is a quintessential “New Hollywood” director, having started his career in the 1950s and pretty much directing two or three highly influential films in each of the following three decades. However, Spartacus is something of an asterisk film for him, as it was not his project from the outset, but rather he was brought on by Kirk Douglas (the executive producer as well as lead actor) after his firing of the original director.  The lack of complete creative control (which Kubrick would maintain for the rest of his career) is evident; there are scenes which feel as if they could be perfectly inter-cut with Ben-Hur.  Because of Kubrick’s involvement, Spartacus is a movie which often but not always feels ahead of its time, but for him it feels like a overall step back compared with his previous film, ‘Paths of Glory‘ (also starring and produced by Kirk Douglas).

Overall, I have to rather strongly recommend both epic movies, particularly if you’ve never seen them before.  And if you’re into the history of film, then you definitely need to see them.  Although Ben-Hur is slow-paced overall, the Chariot Race is a wonderful centerpiece; quite frankly it’s one of the most visually stunning action sequences ever put to film.  I don’t know if I can say much more about it that hasn’t been said already, but I have to give William Wyler credit for making a rather progressive creative decision by not adding any music to the scene, giving it an even greater sense of realism (he could have easily asked composer Miklós Rózsa to “Mickey Mouse” it, but he made the right choice).  And Spartacus, well, it’s quite a lot of fun, and although there are some questionable casting choices, overall the performances are quality.  Kirk Douglas’s natural screen presence and likability do a lot for the film, and having an old pro like Laurence Olivier as your main villain is never a bad thing.

Go watch ’em!

Ben-Hur:
★★★★½

Spartacus:
★★★★★