crashpoint1 Reviews

A Face in the Crowd (1957)

Historical perspective?

[10/10 · 22 October 2006]

The Arthur Godfrey analogy is quite correct and valid, especially in regards to the on-air firing of Julius LaRosa. But the Clinton/Stern reference is way, WAY off base as regards to this film. This movie is a brilliant indictment of the seedy underpinnings and the rot of conservatism. The "one of us" regular guys as played brilliantly by Andy Griffith was, at heart, only in it for himself, only in it for the money and laughed at those who believed in him, all the way to the bank. A better description of a political conservative could never be found. The Senator, who falls under Lonesome's guidance, is an arch conservative who whines about "big government" while complaining that nobody who's worth a damn ever needed an unemployment check. He even mentions that old bug-a-boo, "big government", of which he is the biggest beneficary. Obviously this isn't an indictment of somebody with liberal leanings like Clinton, and most certainly not of someone like Stern who is probably the most honest, if repellent, media figures of the last 20 years. Not a phony bone in Stern's body.

Elia Kazan's direction is nothing short of wonderful. He has such a mastery of the material that even a child could see the evil behind the facade of the down-home Lonesome Rhodes. Of course, Griffith is terrific in the role, and his singing with such wild abandon adds a nice touch. You know it's Andy doing the vocalizing and he's in fine form. But I think Patricia Neal and Walter Matthau get the short shrift whenever this film is mentioned. Neal is her typically wonderful and understated self. Matthau is fine as the writer who can see though the lies, and is cynically dejected when nobody else can.

The only thing that doesn't work is the rapid demise of Rhodes when Neal flips on the cameras during Rhodes' rant. It's awfully simplistic, but of course, was a necessary plot device.

The inclusion of real-life news people like Walter Winchell, Mike Wallace and John Cameron Swayze is a nice touch and shows just how seriously Kazan was taken as a director. It pays homage to Patricia Neal's 1951 classic "The Day The Earth Stood Still" and its use of newsfolk like Drew Pearson.

A great film and a great indictment of conservatism and it's inherent lie of the moral high ground and love for the common man.

A Sensitive, Passionate Man (1977 TV Movie)

Excellent.

[10 June 2006]

Perhaps this telefilm was so good because of David Janssen's own battles with alcohol that, within three years would play a role in taking his own life. Janssen was always an underrated actor, but this was the defining role of a highly successful television career.

In the picture, Janssen plays an unemployed aerospace engineer who has lost his zest for life and finds solace in the bottle. While the audience wants to scream at the character for giving up when he was so much to live for... a sexy wife (Angie Dickinson), a nice home and two great kids, the character simply cannot see what he has to live for. This, and Janssen's performance, are the primary reasons for the quality of this film.

Janssen, in particular, is dynamite in the tragic story. He looks older than the character is supposed to be and his boozy dialogue is delivered perfectly. One scene, in particular stands out. After a while on the wagon, Janssen convinces Dickinson that it's okay to have a little cooking wine. You know the rest.

A heartbreaking story of a man with everything to live for, but who is too blind to see it and simply cannot imagine his life without alcohol. Janssen is riveting.

Wolfman (1979)

So bad it's, well not really good, but...

[3/10 · 4 February 2006]

Look, give Earl Owensby some credit... the guy's a tool salesman, had a movie dream and is living it. Sure his pictures suck, but that's part of the charm. This mish mash has Earl (with his Elvis like accent) playing a Colin, a guy who comes back to his hometown in 1910 and becomes sort of a werewolf. There is something compelling about Owensby's movies because it looks like the kind of thing that you or I'd do if we had some rough film stock, a couple of cameras and a weekend to shoot a flick. Considering this, it's not quite as bad as it could have been. The female actresses are quite good, although our pudgy star is very hard to take as the hero. His wooden acting skills, monotone delivery and silly dialogue ruin any chance this film had. On the plus side though, the musical accents are quite effective and some of the shots are set up pretty well. There are far to many continuity mistakes, but Owensby does know a little bit about film making and sets up his shots pretty well. There is, at least, a genesis of what a film should be about here, and Earl clearly enjoys what he's doing. As far as EO Studios in North Carolina, it would appear that it is an adequate film making venture and has been used by some "A" list pictures, including "The Abyss", where the many of the underwater scenes were filmed. The highlights are ruined by bad acting and script problems however. There was just enough atmosphere to keep me watching to see how this train wreck would resolve itself. Owensby's films are unintentionally good in enough areas to keep it going along as a low-budget time filler. Go into this kind of thing with the right attitude and you won't be disappointed. Owensby does know his way around a camera.

Family Plot (1976)

Gets a bad rap

[9 September 2005]

This film gets a bad rap because it was not a suspenseful blockbuster in the vein of "Psycho" and "The Birds". The fact is, is that after Rod Taylor and Tippi Hedrin did battle with seagulls in 1963, Hitchcock never again approached the heights of a major director and he dramatically slowed down his film output.

Still, this movie, along with 1964's "Marnie" and '72's "Frenzy" represent a decent effort by Hitchcock to stay current and hip with modern audiences. That he was still directing films at all in the 1960s and 1970s is quite remarkable for a man whose film work began in the silent era.

"Family Plot" is a fun, neat little comedy-thriller much akin to the NBC Mystery Movies of that era... i.e., "Columbo", "McMillen and Wife". Blanche is a phony psychic who, along with her reluctant boyfriend Frank, played hilariously by the underrated Bruce Dern, run afoul of big time crooks Karen Black and William Devane.

The plot does get a bit convoluted, but Hitchcock was smart enough to lay off the heavy-handed dictatorial directorship that categorized his earlier work and let the actors and their characters move the plot along. Unlike Cary Grant's Thornhill in "North By Northwest", we care about Blanche and Frank because they really are like us, the viewer. As much as we all adored the women in Hitch's films... Grace Kelly, Tippi Hedren, Kim Novak, and wanted to be like the men,Cary Grant, Jimmy Stewert, Ray Milland, Rod Taylor, Farley Granger, etc., none of these characters were remotely like US, and in his dotage, Hitchcock was still keen enough to realize that Cary Grant in 1956 was an admirable figure walking down the street... in 1976 he was apt to be pointed at and laughed about. Hitch knew INSTINCTIVELY that the gray suit and slicked back hair era was gone forever. In this film, it doesn't even look like Dern showers.

That's part of the charm and why it was so refreshing, at this late date, to go into the movie theater and enjoy an Alfred Hitchcock film without having to sigh that it was all about nostalgia. This film, in his humorous approach has much in common with "The Trouble With Harry" than "Psycho" or "Shadow of a Doubt".

Hitch didn't go out with a classic, that's for sure, but he went out with a modern film that showed he could still produce an entertaining flick. That was all he was ever about anyway. No higher praise is needed.