Putting the spotlight on classics that deserve to be remembered!

(Please excuse the mess while I reupload my screenshots and photos to a different site, in the wake of Photobucket deciding to be stupid.)

Follow @INCspotlight on Twitter!
Color
Background color
Background image
Border Color
Font Type
Font Size
  1. [​IMG]

    A mad artist sets out to create his greatest masterpieces at a hideous cost in House of Wax, a classic horror flick starring Vincent Price.

    [​IMG]

    In the early 1950s, Hollywood had been dealt a serious blow by the advent of television, with box office attendance dropping by tens of millions between 1948 and 1951. Naturally, the studios went looking for new ways to lure back the crowds who could now enjoy entertainment from the comfort of their own home. One attempted gimmick was screening movies in 3-D, a fad which only lasted for the first half of the decade. 3-D movies had their first success with 1952's Bwana Devil, an independent production distributed by United Artists. In the wake of Bwana Devil's success, Warner Bros. decided to try their own 3-D project. , a remake of Mystery of the Wax Museum (1933), which had starred Lionel Atwill and Fay Wray. (Ironically, House of Wax's director, André De Toth, was blind in one eye, and couldn't actually see the 3-D effect.) The fad only lasted a few more years, but it's made a comeback these past few years. Personally, I'm indifferent to seeing something in 3-D, although for certain blockbusters such as How to Train Your Dragon and Doctor Strange, it works quite well.

    [​IMG]

    House of Wax is also significant for its impact on the career of legendary actor Vincent Price (1911-1993), who is no stranger to the INCspotlight, although I haven't had much of an opportunity to talk about his background until now. Born in St. Louis, Missouri, Price was the son of a candy-making company president and grandson of the guy who patented tartar-based baking powder, which established the Price family fortune. Price first became interested in acting while attending Yale, and performed on stage for the first time in England, where he'd attended the University of London's Courtald Institute. He had a prominent role in the Gate Theater's production of "Victoria Regina," a play so successful that it ended up on Broadway, and Price along with it. Like so many of his contemporaries, Broadway led to Hollywood, where Price made his screen debut in Universal's Service de Luxe (1938), a comedy directed by Rowland V. Lee. He worked steadily in film over the next decade or so in a variety of genres, as well as on the radio. One of his more notworthy pre-superstardom roles was Simon Templar, aka The Saint, on the radio series The Saint from 1947 through 1951, succeeding Edgar Barrier and Brian Aherne in the role of Leslie Charteris's "Robin Hood of modern crime." (This is the same Saint that Roger Moore and Val Kilmer would later depict, although Kilmer's version has nothing in common with Charterisis' character other than the name.) He even shared the screen with big box office draws such as Boris Karloff, Bette Davis, and Errol Flynn, although not becoming one himself until House of Wax came along.

    [​IMG]

    For all of Price's acclaim as an actor, his off-screen activities are also interesting to note. In addition to his acting talents, Price was also a connoisseur of wine, art (his Bachelor's degree from Yale was in art history, and he spent a year as an art teacher), and gourmet food (and he authored several cookbooks). Price was also politically active, speaking out against racial, religious, and anti-LGBTQ bigotry and labeling them as poisons that emboldened America's enemies, and he was an honorary board member of the organization Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG). In 1957, President Eisenhower's administration nominated him to the Indian Arts and Crafts Board (much to the surprise of Price, who was a registered Democrat), and Price used his position to champion Native American rights.

    [​IMG]

    WARNING: Here be spoilers! Read further at your own risk!

    Professor Henry Jarrod (Vincent Price) has a rare gift for artistry, particularly carving beautifully lifelike wax figures that he considers to be his friends. His museum is the toast of 1890s New York, but it's not enough for his greedy business partner, Matthew Burke (Roy Roberts). Burke wants more sensational, macabre waxworks to bring in even more audiences, which Jarrod refuses. In retaliation, Burke tries to burn down the museum to collect on the insurance, and although Jarrod tries to stop him, Burke succeeds in destroying the museum, leaving Jarrod to die among the flames with his creations. However, Jarrod survives, and years later turns up with a new wax museum, this time delivering the gruesome thrills Burke originally wanted. Despite having sustained serious injuries, Jarrod is able to once again create remarkably lifelike sculptures with the aid of his assistant Igor (Charles Bronson - yes, that Charles Bronson). However, a string of murders coincides with Jarrod's new museum, including Burke and his lady friend Cathy Gray (Carolyn Jones). When Cathy's body vanishes from the morgue and a wax sculpture that bears a remarkable resemblance to her shows up in Jarrod's gallery, her roommate Sue Allen (Phyllis Kirk) becomes suspicious. She naturally decides to investigate, leading her to a gruesome discovery.

    [​IMG]

    I've always had something of a soft spot for House of Wax. It was one of those films that kept popping up on classic movie stations when I was younger, and I'd watch it with my dad when it did. However, fond childhood nostalgia aside, House of Wax still holds up, even if it's predictable as hell and not the least bit scary. (I didn't even think so when I was a kid.) Vincent Price's performance is mostly what carries this movie, and it's no wonder he specialized in these types of roles of most of the rest of his career. His drawling, cultured tones and his low-key malevolence make him as much fun to watch as he's clearly having performing this role. However, for all his delightfully hammy malevolence, the opening scenes successfully establish him as a tragic figure, someone you can empathize and feel sorry for, even as he does terrible things. It helps that Roy Roberts plays Burke as utterly detestable, blind to Jerrod's artistry and consumed by greed, making it easier to sympathize with Jarrod. The rest of the cast is mostly forgettable - even Carolyn Jones, who would later play Morticia Addams on The Addams Family didn't leave much of an impression (other than annoying me with her high-pitched giggle). So it's a good thing Price has the talent to pick up the slack. Phyllis Kirk, however, does what she can with what is basically a throwaway role - and given her ambivalence to being in this film in the first place (she kept trying to get out of it, not wanting to be type-cast as a scream queen), I have to give her credit for putting some genuine effort into her performance. (She later admitted that once shooting actually started, she had a lot of fun making this movie.)

    [​IMG]

    House of Wax also holds up technically, even without the 3-D effect. The makeup effects are decent (to the point where Price lamented he was banned from the studio commisarry while wearing it), and the cinematography makes good use of shadows during the scenes that are supposed to be creepy. One of the scenes that still stands out for me is Burke's destruction of Jarrod's gallery. The way the camera lingers over every immaculately-crafted sculpture as it's consumed by fire, backed by David Buttolph's score, is heart-rending, and does as much to make you feed for Jarrod as Price's acting does. (You'd never even know that the spot fires on the set got out of control when shooting this scene. De Toth had the cinematographers keep filming to avoid the expense of recreating the set and wax sculptures from scratch.) Also, while House of Wax isn't scary, it does create some exciting tension during the big climax. The weakest moment in the film is the scene from before Jerrod reveals his new wax museum, consisting of a carnival barker aiming a paddle-ball at the audience, accompanied by some dancing girls - a scene that only exists to show off 3-D technology. If you're not watching this in this format, it does nothing but bring the narrative to a screeching halt for a few minutes. (I've never seen it in 3-D, so I don't know if I'd feel any differently if I saw it in that format.)

    [​IMG]

    I don't know whether it was on account of the 3-D or the film's own considerable merits, but either way, House of Wax was a blockbuster success at the box office, Warner Bros's biggest success in years. (Price attended a screening and freaked out the people sitting in front of him when the movie was over when he asked if they liked it.) Contemporary critics deem House of Wax to be among the best horror films of the 1950s, if not the genre as a whole, and I can see why. Even if it's not scary, it's enjoyable to watch, in no small part thanks to Vincent Price. Price, naturally, went on to play numerous villains in film and television over the next few decades, his favorite roles including Egghead on the Adam West Batman series, and Professor Ratigan in Disney's The Great Mouse Detective (1986). Director Tim Burton was a huge fan of Price, and not only did Price provide voice work for his short film Vincent (1982), but Burton wrote the role of The Inventor in Edward Scissorhands (1990) specifically for him. His last on-screen appearance before his death was the TV movie The Heart of Justice (1992). After his death, The Thief and the Cobbler (1993), for which he'd provided voice work, was released after a decades-long troubled production history.

    [​IMG]

    House of Wax will most likely be campy fun for modern audiences, rather than chill-inducing horror, but it's definitely worth seeing. Vincent Price's engaging performance will surely keep you entertained, even if nothing else does.

    [​IMG]

    * * *​

    My first novel, The Brotherhood of the Black Flag, is now available for pre-order in ebook from Amazon and Barnes & Noble! The official publication date is September 19th, but you can get it now for only 99 cents! I hope you enjoy reading it as much as I've enjoyed writing it!

    [​IMG]
  2. [​IMG]

    John Barrymore once again returns to the INCspotlight as one of the world's most infamous womanizers in Don Juan, a landmark of the soon-to-no-longer-be-silent cinema.

    [​IMG]

    Note: This review is part of Swashathon, a blogathon focusing on swashbuckling cinema, hosted by Movies Silently. Please be sure to check out the other reviewers participating in this - there are a lot of great films and film reviewers waiting to be discovered! I also want to thank Movies Silently for providing this opportunity (and to point out that a sizable number of the screencaps I'll be using in this review came from said website). And to those reading the INCspotlight for the first time thanks to Swashathon, I've previously reviewed a number of silent films and swashbucklers alike, and I hope you'll peruse some of my older reviews (and return for newer ones to come).

    Also, I'm taking the opportunity at the end of this blog to make a very special announcement I've been waiting a long time to make.

    [​IMG]

    The legend of Don Juan (aka Don Giovanni) goes back centuries, inspiring plays, operas, and poems by some of history's greatest artisans. Naturally, the original story differs quite strikingly from the several Hollywood versions. Don Juan is originally depicted as the embodiment of vice and wickedness, a wealthy womanizer and hedonist who kills the father of one of his conquests. Later, he invites a statue of the man he killed to a dinner party he's throwing, and in most versions of the story, said party ends quite badly for our lustful libertine. Famed Spanish playwright Tirso de Molina was the first to put Don Juan's story on paper in 1630 with the play El Burlador de Sevilla (The Trickster of Seville and the Stone Guest), and France's Jean-Baptiste Poquelin (better known by the pen name of Molière) followed suit with his own production of Dom Juan (no, that's not a typo) in 1655. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart put his own take on the legend with his opera Don Giovanni (1787), which is now an opera staple and considered to be one of his greatest works. However, it was Lord Byron's unfinished epic poem Don Juan (1821) that allegedly had the most impact on Hollywood, as it depicted the character in a more romantic, favorable light, while also critiquing sexual double standards. There have been other notable writers and composers who have also been inspired by the Don Juan story, including George Bernard Shaw, Richard Strauss, and Albert Camus, to name but a few. (Even famous fictional characters have gotten in on the Don Juan action - in Gaston Leroux's The Phantom of the Opera, the titular Phantom has written his own opera about him.) Barrymore's Don Juan, directed by Alan Crosland, isn't even the character's first foray into the big screen. There was a Mexican production as early as 1898 helmed by Salvador Toscano, Mexico's first filmmaker, and another from the Netherlands in 1913.

    [​IMG]
    Playbill from the 1788 Vienna premiere of Mozart's Don Giovanni

    Crosland's film, however, holds the distinction of being the first to use synchronized sound, including sound effects and a musical score, as opposed to live music. (In the silent era, live performers provided the musical soundtrack - this could range from one guy on a piano to a full orchestra.) Filmmakers had been attempting to combine sound and visuals since the very beginning of the medium, with limited success at best. Thomas Edison attempted using a gramophone that was synched to the film Nursery Favorites (1913), but the film ended up being projected at the wrong speed, throwing off the synch with the sound. D.W. Griffith had some success using it for the opening segment of Dream Street (1921), but abandoned the pursuit of sound pictures, fearing spoken dialogue would turn off international non-English speaking audiences. It was actually the invention of radio that spurred renewed attempts to integrate sound into movies. Warner Bros., only a minor studio at the time, was a major pioneer in the pursuit of sound pictures, although initially, it was only intended to be used for musical accompaniment, not spoken dialogue. At Don Juan's premiere, the movie was preceded by a number of screened musical performances designed to show off this technological innovation, as well as a filmed speech by MPPDA head Will Hays (and yes, you actually hear his voice). Some of the highlights of these musical performances include Wagner's overture to Tannhäuser, which should sound familiar to anyone who's seen the Bugs Bunny cartoon What's Opera, Doc? ("Wetuuurn my wooooove..."), and tenor Giovanni Martinelli performing the famed aria "Vesti la Giubba." (You'd recognize it from countless films and TV shows, trust me.)

    [​IMG]

    And speaking of Alan Crosland (1894 - 1936), his bio is also worth taking a look at. Born in New York City and educated as a child in England, Crosland started out as a journalist. He eventually got a gig at the New York Globe, writing articles for movie magazines on the side, as well as some stage acting. He later joined up with the Edison Company as an actor and stage manager, later transitioning to directing - Crosland would end up directing Edison's last movie, The Unbeliever (1918). After this, his filmmaking career was cut short by his getting drafted into World War I, during which he served with the Army Photo Service. He resumed his career after the war ended, working with the independent studio Select until 1922. Over the next several years, he bounced around between studios, including Goldwyn-Cosmopolitan, where he earned wide acclaim as a director for Under the Red Robe (1923), before joining up with Warner Bros. Crosland was on the front lines of Warner's make-or-break transition to sound, directing not only Don Juan, but the following year's The Jazz Singer (1927), the first movie to feature spoken dialogue. Dapper and quick-witted, Crosland's other claim to fame as a director was his ability to get along with just about anybody, even some of the most difficult people in Hollywood to work with - Erich von Stroheim, Al Jolson, and brothers Lionel and John Barrymore (the latter of whom Crosland would direct in three more movies after this one). Crosland kept directing movies throughout the talkies era he helped usher in, until his death in a car accident in 1936.

    [​IMG]

    WARNING: Here be spoilers! Read further at your own risk!

    We start off with a rather twisted origin story that does a lot to explain how Don Juan turned out the way he did. His father, Don José de Maraña (John Barrymore), was a Spanish nobleman and possessively devoted to his wife, Donna Isobel (Jane Winton). When he learned of her infidelity, he naturally didn't take it well. And by not taking it well, I mean he buried the lover alive, kicked Donna Isobel out of his castle, and vowed to never trust women again - all witnessed by a tearful Juan (Yvonne Day). As the years passed Don José devoted himself to all-out debauchery, romancing numerous women at once, and apparently teaching a pre-teen Juan (Philippe De Lacy) to do the same. Unfortunately for Don José, one of his mistresses was jealous over the lack of attention she was getting, and after snogging young Juan, she stabbed Don José. With his dying words, Don José instructed Juan to take love from women whenever he wanted to, but never love or trust women in return.

    [​IMG]

    The film time jumps to years later, after the now-adult Don Juan (now also played by Barrymore) has completed his studies and set himself up in Rome, dominated by the ruthless Borgia family. Our horndog protagonist has acquired quite the reputation as a lover, to the point where he has to depend on his servant Pedrillo (Willard Louis) to keep his affairs (often literally) in order. Said reputation earns him the attention of none other than Lucrezia Borgia (Estelle Taylor), sister to Cesare Borgia (Warner Oland), and she invites him to a party in the hopes of making him one of her conquests. However, Juan is more interested in Adriana della Varnesse (Mary Astor), infuriating the jealous Lucrezia. It doesn't help that Adriana's father, the Duke della Varnesse (Josef Swickard) is a supporter of the Orsinis, enemies of the Borgia family - and Juan thwarts an attempt on the duke's life. Not only that, but Count Giano Donati (Montagu Love), a Borgia loyalist and kinsman, has his eye on Adriana - and her family's fortune. However, such triflings aren't about to get in Don Juan's way, kickstarting his road to redemption and true love, as well as an inevitable clash with the Borgias.

    [​IMG]

    There's a lot to talk about with this particular film, particularly the problematic characterization of its protagonist. The film's depiction of Don Juan, mostly a creation of screenwriter Bess Meredyth (who also worked on the 1940 version of The Mark of Zorro), is not your typical Hollywood swashbuckling hero - anti-hero is probably a more appropriate label, and at times, he can be outright villainous. He certainly has his redeeming qualities, such as his saving the life of Adriana's father, and it's certainly entertaining to watch him talk his way out of death at the hands of Duke Margoni - whose wife, niece, and mistress have all enjoyed Don Juan's attention on the same morning. (Pedrillo had the unenviable task of keeping them separate from each other.) However, rather than coming off like a lovable rogue or bewitching romantic, there's something predatory about his womanzing. His pursuit of women is all about self-indulgence (and the influence of his father), rather than a romantic search for the ideal companion. While most of this seems to be consensual, when Adriana promises to reward him for saving her father, he takes as a license to - there's no way to sugar-coat this - attempt to rape her. It's a disturbing scene to watch, and he drives a desperate Adriana to attempt suicide rather than allow Don Juan to have his way with her. This ends up shocking him out of his behavior and leads to his reformation, but does said redemption let him off the hook? Opinions will most likely differ on this. Don Juan's characterization can also be viewed as a cautionary parenting tale - even before Don José's discovered his wife's affair, he frequently referred to her as a prized object, rather than someone he actually loved. (Not to mention the callous way Don José teaches Juan to regard women.)

    [​IMG]

    For the most part, it's John Barrymore's screen presence and charisma, not to mention his considerable acting talents (even if he does tend to ham it up), that make the character compelling, rather than the writing or characterization. I also have to give him props for how convincingly he plays both Don Juan and Don José as completely separate characters. As Don José, he's an imposing, devilish figure, who glowers and rages to such a degree that it's a wonder the sets don't have bite marks all over them. As our protagonist, however, he's much more languid, barely blinking in the face of threats from jealous husbands or the Borgias. (Also, his mustache has an odd tendency to change thickness across scenes and sometimes disappear altogether.) Not that he doesn't have his hammier moments, but for the most part, his portrayal of Don Juan comes over as more of as a dry, sardonic type. Barrymore's also capable of demonstrating remarkable subtleties in his performance at times, particularly in Don Juan's moments of introspection and self-loathing. For all his reputation as a hammy film actor, it's easy to forget how good and versatile he could actually be on screen. I just wish he had a more compelling character to work with in Don Juan. Nothing really seems to drive him except the pursuit of women until he decides to redeem himself, and like I said earlier, said pursuit is more predatory than romantic.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Don Juan also boasts a strong supporting cast giving entertaining (if not exactly restrained) performances. Willard Louis was already a veteran of stage and screen (including playing Friar Tuck in Douglas Fairbanks Sr.'s Robin Hood) by the time he was cast in Don Juan, and unfortunately, it turned out to be his last role. He passed away during production of this film, which he was making at the same time as The Honeymoon Express (also 1926). As a final role, Pedrillo provides some comic relief early on in the film as Juan's beleaguered servant. Mary Astor's performance is a complete 180 from the beguiling femme fatale she would later play in The Maltese Falcon (1941) opposite Humphrey Bogart. She's the very picture of youthful innocence and naïveté who recoils in horror at the debauchery she so frequently is forced to behold and smiles tenderly at what may be her first attraction to a man. Nigel de Brulier, who's been in numerous Douglas Fairbanks Sr. films (as well as the serial The Adventures of Captain Marvel, portraying the wizard Shazam) has a rather odd role as the Marquis Rinaldo, whose wife kills herself when he discovers her affair with Juan, driving him insane. (And to top it off, Juan callously frames him for his wife's murder. Dick.) His subplot doesn't really go anywhere, aside from a bit of dramatic irony later on, but de Brulier's manic energy keeps these scenes from dragging too badly. It's different from his more subdued, malevolent depiction of Cardinal Richelieu in Fairbanks's The Three Musketeers (1921). Come to think of it, most of the cast seems to be playing against type in this film, even the villains.

    [​IMG]

    And speaking of villains, they deserve a paragraph to themselves as well. Our evil trio is clearly enjoying themselves as hammy, over the top bad guys. Warner Oland, who would later appear in The Jazz Singer and star in a series of Charlie Chan movies, plays Cesare Borgia well enough, although he's somewhat overshadowed by the other two villains. Montagu Love is almost unrecognizable in this movie as Count Donati, and I did one hell of a double-take when I realized it was him. I've seen him various classic swashbucklers - The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938), The Mark of Zorro (1940), and The Sea Hawk (1940) - usually playing a rather stiff, austere character of cold dignity. Here he plays a classless, leering brute - and quite a formidable one when swords are drawn. (More on that in a bit.) However, it's Estelle Taylor (who previously played Miriam in Cecil B. DeMille's original Ten Commandments from 1923) that provides the bulk of the villainy, as its her jealousy and desire for Juan that most drives the plot. And fortunately, Taylor has the acting chops to make Lucrezia a vibrant, repulsive villain. As an extra bonus, we have future screen legend Myrna Loy as Lucrezia's crafty maid, and an uncredited Gustav von Seyffertitz (who played Professor Moriarty opposite Barrymore in 1922's Sherlock Holmes - which I reviewed a couple of years ago) as Neri, Cesare Borgia's astrologer and torturer.

    [​IMG]

    Like many silent epics, Don Juan is a lavish spectacle, stuffed to the gills with opulent sets and costumes, and cinematographer Byron Haskin uses plenty of wide-angle shots to show their scope and scale. (Barrymore's wardrobe - and more disturbingly, Philippe de Lacy's as the 10-year-old Juan - would make Jareth from Labyrinth jealous.) In addition to the visual appeal, Crosland and art director Ben Carré clearly understood how to use set design to establish characterization - compare the grotesque ostentation of the Borgia's palatial home to the simple elegance of Adriana's quarters. While the film has its issues when it comes to Don Juan's characterization, the title cards have some clever lines, and it's mostly well-paced, the subplot with the Marquis Rinaldo aside. One thing that may surprise today's audiences is how risqué it is - way the hell tame by modern standards, true, but far bawdier than perhaps most people realized films from the 1920s could get away with. Besides Juan's sleeping around, there's a lot of fanservice provided by numerous dancing girls (one of whom strokes 10-year-old Juan's leg, which is kinda creepy), and Lucrezia even has a line overtly mocking Adriana for being flat-chested. The musical score, performed by the New York Philharmonic Orchestra, is nothing special, although to be fair, music as part of storytelling in a film wasn't really a thing yet. The music was there to show that it could be done, and that's about it. The same applies to the few instances of sound effects within the film - a hand knocking heavily on a door or the click of blades during the climactic duel (not always perfectly synched).

    [​IMG]

    Now let's get to talking about the swordplay, which was choreographed by the legendary Fred Cavens. If you're looking for swashbuckling thrills, those don't come until the third act of the movie, and even those defy the typical swashbuckling tropes. When Don Juan crosses swords with Count Donati, it's not a heroic attempt to save Adriana from being married to Donati against her will. The wedding has already taken place, and Don Juan, driven mad by the ringing of the church bells, gate-crashes Donati's bawdy wedding celebration to murder his ass. The sword fight that follows, for all of its grace and flair, is a vicious one, with both Barrymore and Love selling that they're out for blood - and there's quite a bit of it, as both of their characters get cut up before the delivery of the coup de grace. The cinematography, which includes panning shots of the combatants circling each other as they slash and parry, adds to the frenetic energy of the duel. It's a great fight, one that made it onto my top 10 list of favorite movie sword fights back in the early days of the INCspotlight. There's some more swordplay at the end when Juan crosses blades with a number of Borgia henchmen on horseback, but it's the duel with Count Donati that's the swashbuckling highlight.

    [​IMG]

    Between the production values and the sound synchronization, Don Juan was the most expensive film Warner Bros. had ever produced at the time. While it was a huge box office hit, and the critical praise was favorable, it was only a moderate financial success in the end on account of how much it had cost to make. Don Juan's technical accomplishments were quickly upstaged by The Jazz Singer, and Errol Flynn's Adventures of Don Juan (1948) would also end up overshadowing Barrymore's, as would Johnny Depp's Don Juan deMarco. Fortunately, Don Juan was one of the first films made available by Warner Archives on DVD, and if you're into silent cinema, it's well worth snagging. In addition to the film itself, the DVD also includes all of the musical shorts and Hays's speech that preceded the film when it was theatrically released. (While the sound quality isn't anything spectacular, it's still good music, and it's fun to imagine people seeing and hearing this technical innovation for the first time in their lives.) As for me, while acknowledging its troublesome main character, I still enjoy this film, mostly on account of its witty script, entertaining performances, and the sheer spectacle of it.

    [​IMG]

    For all its faults, particularly by modern standards, Don Juan is an entertaining part of film history that has a lot to offer, particularly for classic swashbuckler fans.

    [​IMG]
    And while we're on the subject of swashbucklers...

    On September 19th, I will finally be making my literary debut with my novel The Brotherhood of the Black Flag, set during the Golden Age of Piracy. (And no, it's not a coincidence that September 19th is International Talk Like a Pirate Day.) It is currently available for pre-order as an ebook through Amazon.com, and I'm working on making it available in other formats (NOOK, etc.) as well as a paperback version. For updates as they come, please like and subscribe to my Facebook Author's Page, or follow me on Twitter.

    A lot of work has gone into making this book possible, and I'm truly grateful to the many, many people who have supported me in this effort - from my beta readers, editor, and cover artist to friends and family who have provided moral support - in the dozen years it's taken me to get this thing ready for publication.

    [​IMG]
    Tiffany Brannan likes this.
  3. [​IMG]

    Swashbuckling movies introduced me to historical fiction and the history behind it. The Lunar role-playing games inspired a stronger interest in epic fantasy. And the Adam West Batman series (1966-1968) introduced me not only to the Caped Crusader, but possibly superheroes altogether.

    [​IMG]

    A lot has been written about this show, about its origins, inception, and legacy, so there really isn't much left for me to say on that. Instead, I'll go into my long-standing history with the show. I remember seeing this series pop up on various stations at different points of my life, starting very early on in elementary school. I didn't know anything about superheroes other than seeing them on other kids' lunchboxes, t-shirts, etc. Still, when I originally saw the show, I liked it for the action, the villains, and the cliffhanger endings. (Trailers for the Batman movie left me confused as to why it was so different from the show.) When I got older, I still liked the action and the villains' performances, as well as finding the humor in how eye-rolling this show could be at times. (I did, however, go through a time when I resented the show for what it did to the image of superheroes for a time, but I got over myself.) Courtesy of syndication, I've literally seen all 120 episodes of this series multiple times, and I'm one of the legions of fans thrilled that this show finally got a DVD release. (I point-hoarded on my credit card for a loooong time in order to snag this, and I was ecstatic when I finally was able to.)

    [​IMG]

    So this show's intersected with my life on various occasions over the years, and naturally, it hit me pretty hard to hear of Adam West's passing over the weekend. (I'm especially sorry I missed the chance to see him at last year's Awesome Con, but the timing just didn't work out.) I wonder if I still would have been a comic book fan if not for this show, or if something else would have come along and made me one. Even if the latter is true, I still got a lot of enjoyment out of this show over the decades, and even if I don't owe it anything else, I at least owe it that. So for all its faults, I'm glad to see it still has its fans and its been getting new attention in recent years, between the show's release on DVD and even the Batman '66 comic book series, which I'm a big fan of. It'll be interesting to see how the show lives on and what future generations will think of it.

    [​IMG]

    Naturally, with this many episodes, there are some that stood out from the others, and some I've re-watched more than others. Given the cliffhanger nature of the series, each entry on this list is technically two episodes, but given that they're clearly meant to be watched together,

    So without further ado, here are my Top 10 Favorite Episodes of the Adam West Batman series!

    10) "Fine Feathered Finks" and "The Penguin's a Jinx"

    [​IMG]

    The second two-parter of the series, these episodes mark Burgess Meredith's beloved tenure as The Penguin on this show, and are adapted directly from Batman #169 (after years of hunting, I finally snagged this issue at a miraculously affordable price on eBay). Both the comic and the show involve a brilliant Penguin scheme - The Penguin's run out of ideas for crimes, so he plants a bunch of random clues in the hopes that Batman will "figure out" what he's planning and how - in other words, The Penguin tricks Batman into unwittingly planning the Pengun's entire crime and its execution. It's a creative storyline, and it was fun to see a story adapted directly from the comics (something that would only be done occasionally).

    9) "The Joker Goes to School" and "He Meets His Match, The Grisly Ghoul"

    [​IMG]

    The earlier episodes of this series had some weak spots when it came to writing and pacing, but they also had some stand-out moments, this two-parter in particular where the Joker sets out to corrupt Gotham City's high-schoolers. Also, the villains were a little less harmless at the beginning than how they were later depicted. The Joker (Cesar Romero) has devised a scheme to corrupt Gotham's youth into lives of crime, and he's more ruthless than he would later get, willing to poison a high school girl to get her out of the way. (In a later episode, he would express concern that gas from a death trap might kill innocent passersby.) Also, we get to see a bit of emphasis on Dick Grayson as a character in this show for what may be the only time in the series, and Burt Ward gets to flex his acting muscles a bit. And for all of Batman's square-jawed straight-edged personality, there's an endearing earnestness to him when he cautions a group of high schoolers against taking the easy way out in life.

    8) "The Minstrel's Shakedown" and "Barbecued Batman?"

    [​IMG]

    I was kinda "meh" on this one as a kid, but seeing it again, it's better than I remembered it being. Van Johnson is surprisingly menacing as The Minstrel (I'm actually sorry he didn't appear more often), and it's kinda refreshing to see the Caped Crusader to take on a villain they've never heard of before and don't know what to expect from. Chief O'hara's out of nowhere supposition that maybe Batman and The Minstrel are in cahoots, leading to an argument with Commissioner Gordon, gave both of these supporting characters a chance to shine performance-wise, and now that I think about it, that would have made for an interesting dynamic for the series as a whole.

    7) "Instant Freeze" and "Rats Like Cheese"
    (Man, talk about desparate for a rhyme...)

    [​IMG]

    Mr. Freeze was originally a one-shot comic book villain named Mr. Zero, but thanks to this show (and probably the name change), he's now one of the more noteworthy Batman villains. He made three appearances in this series, each time played by a different actor - George Sanders, Otto Preminger, and Eli Wallach. Of the three, while Preminger is the most iconic, Sanders was my personal favorite. He's an excellent actor, and while I didn't know who he was when I first saw these episodes as a little kid, I've become much more familiar with his work through discovering classic films. For all the requisite hamming it up the role required, Sanders could be both ice-cold sinister, but also express moments of genuine pathos, a hallmark of the better writing at the beginning of the series. (Also, this two-parter is a rare instance of an origin being given to a Batman villain.)

    6) "The Spell of Tut" and "Tut's Case is Shut"

    [​IMG]

    Any installment of a series or genre that gets me into said series/genre typically makes any Top 10 list, and the second half of this cliffhanger was the very first episode of Batman I ever saw. The King Tut episodes, with Victor Buono as Egyptologist turned supervillain King Tut, always drive the ham factor of this show up to the max, which makes them a heck of a lot of fun to watch. (Buono himself said that he loved playing King Tut because it allowed him to overact as much as he wanted to.) This time around, Tut is using extracts from ancient insects preserved in amber to develop a mind-control potion that will bend all of Gotham City to his will. I still remember seeing Robin standing on a receding plank above a crocodile pit (and having no idea who Robin was but still being drawn in by his impending doom), my very first memory of this show.

    5) "A Piece of the Action" and "Batman's Satisfaction"

    [​IMG]

    The very first time I saw this crossover with the Green Hornet TV series, I didn't know who Bruce Lee was, let alone who or what The Green Hornet was - I didn't even know there was a Green Hornet show. I did learn about Bruce Lee eventually, though, not to mention the Green Hornet show (which not only got me into the radio series, but may have been my gateway to martial arts cinema, and that's a whole 'nother chain reaction right there...) Once I had this context, I got really excited whenever these two episodes aired on reruns. It's fun to see Adam West and Van Willaims play off each other (and for Batman and The Green Hornet to fight each other). The idea of Robin standing up to Kato, though, is laughable under any circumstances - Burt Ward was a highly skilled martial artist, with a black belt in tae kwon do, but the original idea for Robin to beat Kato in a fight was too ridiculous even for this show. (It ended in a draw). The villain, Colonel Gumm, was pretty stupid, as was his stamp counterfeiting scheme, but the Batman/Green Hornet stuff more than makes up for this. (Like with Batman, I can't help wondering if I still would have been into martial arts films if I hadn't been introduced to The Green Hornet via the Batman series.)

    4) "Hizzonner the Penguin" and "Dizzonner the Penguin"

    [​IMG]

    Thanks to the last few presidential elections (the 2008 election in particular), these episodes have moved up a few notches on the favorites list. The Penguin has decided to run for mayor, and his charming con man personality give him a solid shot at the job. (Yeah...) To counter this, Batman is talked into running for mayor, but his focus on issues and substance leaves voters cold. (Do I really need to add any bitter snark here?) It's brilliant political parody, still relevant today, and The Penguin's troll logic during his debate with Batman is hysterical. Bonus points for Batman apparently sacrificing his life to save Robin's during the big cliffhanger resolution, which was a jaw-dropper when I was young.

    3) "Death in Slow Motion" and "The Riddler's False Notion"


    [​IMG]

    A lot of fans don't like these episodes for some reason, mostly because they felt The Riddler was the wrong choice of villain. In the comic book story these episodes were adapted from ("The Joker's Comedy Capers," Detective Comics #341), the villain was The Joker instead of The Riddler, and I've heard a lot of people say it should have stayed that way. Fair point, but I still enjoy these episodes just because I'm a silent film fan. It's not perfect - Robin catching a Batarang with his teeth as he falls of a building is right up there with Indiana Jones surviving a nuclear blast by hiding in a fridge, and there's not as much in the way of fisticuffs as I'd like. Still, it's a fun tribute to silent films, and you can't go wrong with a Frank Gorshin Riddler episode. (Fun fact: not only does famous silent film star Francis X. Bushman guest star in these episodes, but Neil Hamilton, who played Commissioner Gordon in the series, had a long and illustrious career in silent films.)

    2) "That Darn Catwoman" and "Scat! Darn Catwoman"

    [​IMG]

    I don't think I've enjoyed any other depiction of Catwoman more than Julie Newmar's performance in this series - not even the comic version. You could tell how much she relished her performance, and she had great chemistry with all of her co-stars, West in particular (obviously). This one, however, was the best of all her storylines throughout the series, thanks to her taking mental control of Robin and setting him against Batman. Even now, I still consider it to be one of the few episodes that actually managed to be exciting, thanks to Catwoman seemingly having all the cards in her favor. Combine that with a climactic final chase that ends rather shockingly (and Lesley Gorre performing "California Nights," which I rather like). and you have a near-perfect episode.

    And coming in at number one...

    1) "The Zodiac Crimes," "The Joker's Hard Times," and "The Penguin Declines"

    [​IMG]

    This was the first three-parter in the series, and it was fantastic. The Joker and The Penguin (missing from the middle episode) team up to commit one crime for every sign of the zodiac. Not only was this a more ambitious crime than usual, but Batman finds himself smitten with The Joker's henchwoman of the week, Venus (Terry Moore) - she and West played off each other quite well. The second death-trap's cliffhanger death trap is among the most infamous, with Robin being swallowed by a giant clam - hilarious now, but as a kid, it was quite a shock - I really did think Robin was a goner this time. Top it off with a climactic battle in the Bat-Cave with The Joker, The Penguin, and a small army of goons, and you'll see why these episodes stand above the rest.

    HONORABLE MENTION

    "Beware the Gray Ghost," Batman: The Animated Series (1992-1994)


    [​IMG]

    Yeah, I know, I'm cheating on this one, but come on - how is this episode not about the Adam West series? In this episode of the Emmy-winning animated series from the 1990s, Adam West guest-stars as Simon Trent, who played a superhero on a TV show called The Gray Ghost, which Bruce Wayne (Kevin Conroy) was a huge fan of as a kid - currently out of print. When a serial bomber re-enacts one of the episodes of the show, Batman turns to Trent for help. Trent actually ends up joining Batman in action, in full Gray Ghost regalia. Naturally, there are some parallels to how West's post-Batman career turned out, which gives emotional weight to West's own performance, which is stellar. Rather than being a mockery of the Batman show of the 1960s, this pays homage to it and to all the modern day fans who continue to enjoy it and be inspired by it in various ways.

    Everybody has their own take on who the definitive Batman was. Mine has changed over the years, but there's no denying who was the very first. Rest in peace, old chum...and thanks for everything.

    [​IMG]
    G1prime likes this.
  4. [​IMG]

    This July, the INCspotlight will be participating in Swashathon, a blogathon dedicated to swashbuckling cinema in all its glory. Hosted by the web blog Movies Silently, Swashathon will be a roundup of newly-written reviews of swashbuckling films, from the silent era to modern-day entries. Long-time INCspotlight readers and those following my Author page on Facebook undoubtedly know of my fondness for this genre, so my wanting to get in on this is probably no surprise. (My choice of film to review has been on my list to review for this blog since I first had the idea to write said blog in the first place - and no, it's not pictured here.)


    [​IMG]

    However, the purpose of this post is not to talk about me, but to call attention to the other bloggers that will be participating in Swashathon. I'm always looking for new swashbucklers to watch and read, and I'm hoping Swashathon will give me the opportunity to discover some new movies to track down. (As much as I love swashbucklers, I'm sure there's a ton of great ones out there I still haven't gotten to.) Not only that, but I'll be curious to see other people's takes on some of the ones I've seen, pick up new insights and see these films from different perspectives that will make me appreciate them even more. I hope that all my readers, old and new, will be equally curious to discover (or re-discover) a genre I've enjoyed for as long as I can remember. And if this sounds like something any of my fellow bloggers want in on this, now's the time! A lot of great movies have already been claimed, but if you put your own spin on them, take an approach nobody else is, your odds are pretty good. (They have to be new reviews, though.) If swashbucklers aren't your thing, I think they do other blogathons focused on various topics, so keep your eyes open so you don't miss your chance!

    [​IMG]

    So when Swashathon comes around (July 14 - 17), I hope you'll take the time to not only check out my own contribution, but also discover new films to watch and film bloggers to follow. Also, whether you're a longtime fan of silent movies or looking to get into them, make sure to check out Movies Silently - there's a ton of reviews and interesting articles on all sorts of aspects of silent cinema. They post pretty regularly on twitter too - numerous tidbits of silent film history, celebrations of birthdays of silent stars, debunking rumors, that sort of thing.

    [​IMG]
    Hopefully I'll get in another review before then. If not, I'll see you back here in July! 'Till next time!

    [​IMG]
  5. [​IMG]

    Two of martial arts lore's greatest heroes team up against the Qing Dynasty in Heroes Two, the first film in Chang Cheh's famed shaolin cycle.

    [​IMG]

    With millennia of legacy behind it, it's probably no surprise that many kung fu movie protagonists come directly from China's rich history and folklore. The titular protagonists of Heroes Two are no exceptions - Hung Hsi-kuan and Fang Shi-yu. (They're also known by their Cantonese names of Hung Hei-gun and Fong Sai-yuk. The subtitles and dubbing on the version I watched both use the Mandarin names, so I'll be following suit for this review). Hung (1745-1825) was a tea merchant who became a lay disciple of shaolin, which meant that he studied martial arts there, but wasn't training to become a monk - which was quite common in the shaolin sect. Under the tutelage of Abbott Jee-sin, Hung learned the hei hu quan (Black Tiger Fist) style, and would later create his own - hung gar. Details of the exact lineage are murky, but consensus appears to be that he taught hung gar to fellow student Luk Ah-choi, who would later train Wong Kei-ying in this style - and according to some sources, Wong Fei-hung himself. And then there were all the figures of early Chinese cinema that were students of Wong Fei-hung's disciples (including Lau Charn, father of legendary director Lau Kar-leung, who studied under Lam Sai-wing), and on it goes.

    [​IMG]

    Fang Shi-yu, on the other hand, may be a purely fictional character, created for wuxia (martial chivalry) stories. His father was a wealthy merchant, and he learned martial arts from his mother, a daughter of one of the famed Five Elders of Shaolin. When he was still an infant, legend has it that his mother subjected him to a harsh medical treatment that made his body as hard as metal, similar to the myth of Achilles's famed invulnerability. A highly skilled martial artist, Fang was also brash and quick-tempered, and provoked a feud between the shaolin and wudan sects. He was supposedly killed either during or after the Qings destroyed the shaolin temples (I had a whole section on that planned for this review, but I cut it for length - I'll have plenty of occasion to come back to the depiction of the Qing Dynasty in martial arts cinema).

    Filmmakers, by and large, seem to favor Fang Shi-yu as a protagonist, as opposed to Hung Hsi-kuan. I can't say for certain how far back Fang's cinematic history goes, between a lack of adequate information and the possibility of lost films we don't even know about. However, there were movies about him as early as 1938, starring Sun-ma Si-tsang. Sek Yen-tsi depicted him in a series of films that ran for several decades, beginning in 1948, and Hung Hsi-kuan was a supporting character in several of these, each time portrayed by a different actor. Meng Fei depicted Fang several times in low-budget Taiwanese movies, and famed Shaw Bros. star Alexander Fu Sheng - more on him in just a bit - would go on to portray him numerous times in later Shaw Bros. movies. Still, Hung Hsi-kuan's has had his time to shine here and there. In addition to being a supporting character in some of the previous Fang Shi-yu movies I mentioned, Hung had his own television series, The Kung Fu Master (1994), in which he was portrayed by Donnie Yen. Jet Li has not only played Fang in Fong Sai-yuk and its sequel (both in 1993), but also played Hung Hsi-kuan in Wong Jing's The New Legend of Shaolin (1994) - which seems more of a Lone Wolf & Cub ripoff than anything else.

    [​IMG]
    Jet Li as Fang Shi-yu/Fong Sai-yuk in...um...Fong Sai-yuk (1993)

    [​IMG]
    Jet Li as Hung Hsi-kuan/Hung Hei-gun in The New Legend of Shaolin (1994)

    Last but not least, before I get to talking about Heroes Two itself, I need to go into a little bit of detail about its cast - namely Chen Kuan-tai and Alexander Fu Sheng, two of Shaw Bros.'s biggest stars. Unlike most of Shaw's talent pool, who learned their fighting skills at the studio's acting academy, Chen had an extensive martial arts background, including tournament competitions, and had worked as a firefighter before going into the movies. In fact, one of Chen's first films was one of the last of the original Wong Fei-hung movies, a series that lasted for 99 films. Following that, he joined up with Shaw Bros., and made his mark while being loaned out to Ng See-yuen for Ng's directorial debut, The Bloody Fists (1972). (Shaw recalled Chen during production of The Bloody Fists, requiring the use of a masked stand-in for some scenes.) Chen starred or co-starred in a number of Shaw's most prestigious kung fu movies, working with all of their top directors, for as long as the studio was around. He's still making movies to this day, including supporting roles in Wilson Yip's Dragon Tiger Gate (2006), starring Donnie Yen and Nicholas Tse, and RZA's The Man with the Iron Fists (2012).

    [​IMG]

    On the other hand, Cheung Fu-sheng (1954-1983) - better known as Alexander Fu Sheng - was a relative newcomer by the time he starred in this film at the age of 19. Fang Shi-yu seemed to be a role he was destined for, as there are many ironic similarities between the two. His father was a businessman who moved his family to Hawaii for a few years, where Cheung began his martial arts training. He dropped out of school as a teenager and enrolled in Shaw Bros.'s Southern Drama School, intent on becoming an actor. Chang Cheh, one of Shaw's top directors, noticed him immediately and had him train with Lau Kar-leung for six months before casting him as the lead in Police Force (1973). Heroes Two was his next film, the first of many classic kung fu epics he would act in for Shaw Bros. Thanks to his natural agility and looks, he became of of Shaw Bros.'s most popular stars, with some saying he was the next Bruce Lee. Unfortunately, in another tragic parallel with Fang Shi-yu (not to mention Bruce Lee), he died young, killed in a car accident at the age of 28.

    [​IMG]

    Okay, that's more than enough exposition. (You should have seen the original draft - I cut a lot out, saving it for future reviews.) On to the review!

    WARNING: Here be spoilers! Read further at your own risk!


    The Ming Dynasty has fallen to the Manchus, and the Shaolin temples have fallen as well. However, Hung Hsi-kuan (Chen Kuan-tai), a famed rebel, manages to escape the Qing forces. General Che Kang (Zhu Mu) is determined to see him dead, as is his top henchman, the brutal Lord Teh Hsiang (Wong Ching). Fortunately for our hero, Hung is more than capable of returning the favor to any solider that gets in his way, leaving an impressive body count in his wake. Another shaolin loyalist, the impulsive Fang Shi-yu (Alexander Fu Sheng), is also on the run, and encounters one of Che's henchmen, Mai Hsin (Feng Yi). Mai plays it smart and tells Fang that there's a murderous bandit on the loose killing innocent people, and asks for his help in capturing him. Fang agrees, and Fang and Hung meet in battle, with Hung being captured thanks to some backstabbing. When Fang leans the truth, he must regain the trust of his fellow rebels and rescue Hung from Che Kang's clutches - and small army of goons.

    [​IMG]

    I'm not typically a big fan of Shaw Bros.'s martial arts films outside of a small handful, and Heroes Two definitely falls into that handful. As is typical of a Chang Cheh movie, the story is a simple one, revolving around the concept of camaraderie and brotherhood between patriotic heroes. (Chang directed more than 100 movies for Shaw Bros., specializing in "heroic bloodshed" movies such as this one, and he deemed it necessary to stick to formulas in order to have such a prolific output.) And thanks to the performances of Alexander Fu Sheng and Chen Kuan-tai, it works. Fu Sheng makes for a very engaging Fang Shi-yu, a light-hearted smart-aleck who is way too easily duped, but whose earnest efforts to make things right make him sympathetic. Chen Kuan-tai doesn't really get to do all that much in this movie aside from fight and be a prisoner, but his strong screen presence and solid chemistry with Fu Sheng make what we see of him all the more enjoyable. As for our villains, Zhu Mu and Wong Ching certainly look and act menacing, and we get to see Fung Hak-on and Feng Yi, veteran henchmen of many a kung fu movie, among the movie's mini-boss squad. Fong Sam makes the most of what little she gets to do as the one female character in the movie, a rarity for this genre. Hers is the most down-to-earth performance - as is typical of the genre, the rest of the cast, even the best performers, have a tendency to ham things up.

    [​IMG]

    Although the film makes plenty of time for character establishment and to establish the relationships between them, there's still a ton of fight scenes in this movie, choreographed by Lau Kar-leung, who frequently collaborated with Chang Cheh. For the most part, they're pretty good when our leads are taking on a bunch of Qing henchmen - or each other. Alexander Fu Sheng's grace and flexibility contrasts well with Chen Kuan-tai's raw power and ferocity. Unlike Hollywood fight scenes, the takes are long and shot with wide-angle framing so as to capture the fighters' movements. (In an interview, Chen Kuan-tai stated that action shots could contain anywhere between 15 - 60 specific moves. One such 60-move shot required nine takes to get right.) It's only when they go up against the main villains that the action falters. Zhu Mu and Wong Ching look formidable, but their moves are painfully stiff and slow, and they don't come off as impressive fighters as a result. (Maybe I'm just spoiled by the likes of later villain actors.) I'm also disappointed that Fung Hak-on, who plays one of the main underlings, doesn't get to show what he can do in this film as a fighter - he's just a punching bag. I've seen this guy credibly go up against Sammo Hung, Jackie Chan, and Donnie Yen, so I was hoping he would have picked up some of the slack from the other bad guy actors, but nope. If the villains had been better screen fighters, Heroes Two might have knocked Heroes of the East (1979) from it's "favorite Shaw Bros. movie" spot.

    [​IMG]

    Heroes Two has its technical merits as well, as do most Shaw Bros. films. It's a grand spectacle to look at, thanks to detailed sets, lavish costumes, and dozens of extras, all vividly shot by cinematographer Kung Mu-to. A student of Japanese jidai geki and chanbara cinema, Chang Cheh borrows one of their techniques during the final battle, using a red filter to de-emphasize the blood and gore when a redshirt gets killed by an enemy mook. Wang Fu-ling's musical score is catchy (almost too catchy - I've had it stuck in my head ever since I watched this), reminiscent of an old Hollywood Western. Long-time readers know I'm quite picky about pacing, and Heroes Two strikes the kind of balance that I like. The action scenes are exciting enough that they don't drag, and the ones with the villains who can't screen fight that well are thankfully short, and the character building scenes keep me invested without feeling like filler in between people getting beaten up.

    [​IMG]

    Hitting theaters in January 1974, Heroes Two made decent money at the Hong Kong box office, and as I said before, it launched a whole series of Chang Cheh films about the survivors of the shaolin temple continuing their fight for freedom. Among kung fu movie fans, particularly of Shaw Bros. movies, Heroes Two is well regarded, and even though it won't go on my favorites list, I'll probably want to see it again at least a couple of times at some point. If you're interested, it's been released on DVD with both English dubbing and a Chinese language track with English subtitles, whatever you prefer. It's also available for viewing for free if you have an Amazon Prime account, although there's only an English dubbed option.

    [​IMG]

    Hardcore kung fu movie fans will surely enjoy Heroes Two on account of its plentiful action and the chance to see Shaw's top talent at work. If you're a newbie, it makes for a decent introduction to the genre. Either way, it's worth a watch.

    [​IMG]
  6. [​IMG]

    Jimmy Stewart is at his most charming in Harvey, a delightful little comedy about a man whose best friend is an invisible six-foot-tall rabbit.

    [​IMG]

    Of all the stars the Golden Age of Hollywood produced, James Stewart (1908-1997) is among the most beloved and renowned. Born in Indiana, Stewart got his start as an actor while attending a boarding school in Pennsylvania. joining a drama club and choir among other extra-curricular activities. Although he spent his first summer break back home working construction, he would spend the following two summers on stage with his friend, a stage magician - not as an actor, but musician, as he'd learned to play the accordion and piano as a child. At his father's insistence, Stewart attended Princeton instead of the United States Naval Academy, becoming the only freshman allowed to perform in Princeton's Triangle Club. He majored in architecture, but doubted whether he'd be able to find work in that field in the wake of the Wall Street Crash of 1929 that kicked off the Great Depression. Some college friends of his got him a gig with a summer stock group called the University Players, although he mostly worked as crew, building and designing sets while getting the occasional bit part. The Players made their way to New York in 1932 for a Broadway gig, and Stewart went with them, rooming with fellow future Hollywood star Henry Fonda, who would be a lifelong friend of his. Stewart began getting more and better roles in a variety of Broadway productions from 1932 through 1934, and he made his film debut in 1934 in the Warner Bros. short Art Trouble (1934), starring Shemp Howard. However, it was his performance in the Broadway production of Yellow Jack (1934) that earned him a shot at a screen test - and a contract - with MGM

    [​IMG]

    Despite his acting talents, Stewart found it hard to snag decent roles on account of his natural shyness and stuttering voice (later to be hallmarks of his more famous early roles), and at first, he was used more often for screen-testing other actors. His first film with MGM, The Murder Man (1935), had him playing a supporting role opposite Spencer Tracy, but it wasn't well-received. His next few films were hit-or-miss, spread out over several different genres, including playing nicely against type in After the Thin Man (1936). However, things started to change for Stewart when MGM loaned him out to Columbia at the request of Frank Capra, who thought he'd be ideal to star in You Can't Take in With You (1938). The film was a huge critical and box-office success, even winning Best Picture at the Academy Awards (as did Capra for Best Director). In 1939, Stewart and Capra teamed up again for Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, which was also a big hit, earning Stewart his first Academy Award nomination. Next came his first Western, a genre he'd be closely identified with later on, Destry Rides Again (1939). More hits followed, including The Philadelphia Story (1940), his only Oscar win (and one he felt was undeserved). Although his father repeatedly tried to get him to quit acting, Stewart nevertheless sent him his Oscar statuette, which he proudly displayed in his store.

    [​IMG]
    James Stewart, Cary Grant, and Katharine Hepburn in The Philadelphia Story (1940)

    However, it wasn't his father's wishes that compelled him to leave Hollywood for a time, but the impending outbreak of World War II. (As much as I'd love to cover Stewart's distinguished military service, I I think that's best saved for a different review, just for pacing purposes - this section's getting pretty long as it is.) After the war, Stewart struggled not only with rebuilding his Hollywood career, but also with PTSD - something he was able to channel into his vivid performance in Frank Capra's It's a Wonderful Life (1946), his first role in five years and one of his best remembered. Unfortunately, It's a Wonderful Life was a commercial flop, as were his next few movies. He returned to the stage to take over the leading role in Harvey, a hugely successful play penned by Mary Coyle Chase. Stewart stayed with the production for three years, and when Universal decided to bring it to the big screen, Stewart came along with it, as did Josephine Hull, who played his long-suffering sister. Harvey's stage success meant a huge payout for the film rights, but it was money well spent, given the quality of the film.

    [​IMG]
    It's a Wonderful Life (1946)

    WARNING: Here be spoilers! Read further at your own risk!

    Not many people have a rabbit as a best friend - particularly a pooka, a benevolent but mischief-prone figure from Irish lore, who manifests itself as an invisible six-foot-tall talking rabbit. Elwood P. Dowd (Jimmy Stewart), a wealthy, middle-aged eccentric claims to be such a man, referring to his dear friend as "Harvey." Dowd takes great pleasure in introducing Harvey to everyone he happens to strike up a conversation with, and not surprisingly, most people are put off by a middle-aged man with an imaginary pal. His sister, Veta Simmons (Josephine Hull), is increasingly despondent over the impact Harvey is having on his niece Myrtle Mae (Victoria Horne)'s social prospects, and she decides to have Elwood committed. However, when she tells Dr. Sanderson (Charles Drake) about Harvey, Sanderson believes she's the crazy one and ends up committing her instead. A clever comedy of errors of all sorts ensues, as Dr. Sanderson and his nurse Kelly (Peggy Dow) and short-tempered orderly Mr. Wilson (Jesse White) try to track Dowd down. In the midst of the chaos, we discover that maybe Harvey isn't as imaginary as everyone thinks he is...

    [​IMG]

    The role of Elwood P. Dowd seems like it would be a very easy one to overplay, even for the best of actors. Fortunately, this is Jimmy Stewart we're talking about, who strikes the right balance a role like this requires. It's not just how he talks and listens to Harvey, but his artful movement and body language, which does a lot to sell his belief that Harvey is right there with him. Another thing that makes his performance - and the film as a whole - work for me is how well Stewart brings out Dowd's naturally gentle, kindly personality. He conveys a sincere interest in meeting new people, wanting to get to know them over a drink or dinner, and listening to whatever they may have to say.

    [​IMG]

    The rest of Harvey's cast pull their own weight quite well, and I don't think there's any dead weight among them. Josephine Hull is hysterical as Veta, especially in the aftermath of being mistaken for a mental patient. However, she also has her sweeter moments as well, particularly at the end of the film. (Stewart said that Hull had the hardest role, having to believe and not believe in Harvey at the same time.) Charles Drake and Peggy Dow are the straight men of the show, the calming voices genuinely concerned with Dowd's well-being and wanting to understand him better. I wouldn't say they have the most smoldering chemistry with each other, but what we get is certainly serviceable, and most likely appropriately limited by the demands of their scripted personalities. However, they also demonstrate perfect comedic timing in numerous scenes, and they pull it off so naturally, with nothing even close to a knowing wink to the audience. Cecil Kellaway's performance as Dr. Chumley, the straitlaced administrator of the asylum, also has a lot of warmth to it, especially when he discovers the truth about Harvey.

    [​IMG]

    Aside from the performances, Harvey holds up well on a technical level as well. It strikes that perfect sweet spot between not rushing and not dragging. At Jimmy Stewart's suggestion, cinematographer William H. Daniels used wide shots whenever Harvey was "in frame," which I thought was a clever touch. However, like everything else about the film, it's a subtle one, and one I don't think I'd have picked up on had I not known that little detail beforehand. The filmmakers had considered having Harvey appear at the very end of the movie, but this decision was widely scrapped. The first time this had been tried on stage was also the last, due to the scathing audience feedback. As for the comedic elements, I've found that it's hard to talk about the brilliance of a really good comedy, particularly when it comes to timing and deadpan delivery of some clever lines, so you'll just have to take my word on that part. (This is one reason I don't review more comedies.)

    [​IMG]

    Harvey wasn't a bomb, but it wasn't a huge hit either, and the cost of the film rights to the play ate up quite a bit of the film's profits. It did attract strong critical acclaim, with Stewart earning his fourth of five Academy Award nominations, and Josephine Hull taking one home for Best Supporting Actress. However, one critic felt that it was too easy of a role for Stewart, who was basically playing his same-old screen persona. This may have been what prompted Stewart to take on more challenging and darker roles later on, including Westerns and numerous Alfred Hitchcock thrillers. His performance in Harvey remained among his favorites, however, and when it was released on VHS in 1990 (which went on to be a huge seller), he recorded a special introduction to the film. If you want to catch it, it's been released on both DVD and blu-ray, and it looks like you can snag it at a decent price - and, of course, there's always TCM if you have it.

    [​IMG]

    I really can't think of a better way to describe Harvey other than "sweet." It's a delightful little comedy with lots of charm to it, and one I definitely recommend.

    [​IMG]
    Sodapopcorn likes this.
  7. [​IMG]
    Sir Francis Drake fights for queen and country in Seven Seas to Calais, another film that tries to recapture the magic of the Golden Age of swashbucklers.

    [​IMG]

    Drake (1540? - 1596) is one of history's more renowned action-adventure heroes, although the real Drake was more villain than hero. His family worked on the estate of Lord Francis Russell, who held the title of Earl of Bedford, and Drake himself was apprenticed to a merchant, learning seacraft and navigation when accompanying said merchant on his international travels. Some members of Drake's family had gotten into the privateering business and recruited him, as he had a talent for seamanship, and eventually Drake was commanding his own ship. His piracy career began with slave trading, and he developed a seething hatred of Spain after a near escape in Mexico that got most of his men killed. He received his commission as a privateer from Queen Elizabeth I in 1572, and kicked off his new line of work with a successful raid on Panama, despite being seriously wounded in the fray. It was during his years of service to Elizabeth that Drake became the first Englishman to circumnavigate the globe, a mission the queen secretly assigned him. He continued to plunder Spanish ships and towns, culminating in his defeat and destruction of the Spanish Armada in 1588. (History would repeat itself decades later when the British navy sank another Spanish armada at the Battle of Cape Passaro in 1718.) Drake died in 1596 during a failed military expedition to Panama, buried at sea in a lead coffin which to this day has never been found.

    [​IMG]

    Drake's notoriety, particularly the slave trading, is probably why he rarely features as a main protagonist in fiction, instead relegated to supporting roles or character backstory. Pulp hero Solomon Kane, one of Robert E. Howard's numerous creations, served under Drake at one point in his career, and was present for his infamous execution of Thomas Daughty, one of Drake's co-commanders. Nathan Drake, the protagonist of the Uncharted video game series, is a direct descendant of Sir Francis, and was inspired by the exploits of his famous ancestor. There have also been fictional pastiches of Drake, such as Errol Flynn's character of Captain Geoffrey Thorpe in The Sea Hawk (1940), widely considered to be one of the greatest swashbuckler movies ever made. (Yes, I'll be getting to this one.) Other than that, if you're looking for fiction about Drake, especially with Drake as the main character, Seven Seas to Calais might be one of your only bets.

    [​IMG]
    Errol Flynn as Captain Geoffrey Thorpe, a Drake pastiche, in The Sea Hawk (1940)

    To play Drake, MGM brought aboard Rod Taylor (1930-2015), who had originally made a name for himself as an actor in his native Australia. He started off in radio before making his big screen debut in King of the Coral Sea (1954), which became one of the most financially successful Australian films of the 1950s. He was soon on his way to Hollywood, where he continued to be cast in a number of supporting roles in movies and guest appearances on television, including an episode of The Twilight Zone. In 1960, he made his starring role debut in The Time Machine, which was a solid hit. Although the next film he starred in, Colossus and the Amazon Queen (1960) wasn't anything to brag about, critically or commercially, he followed it up with voicing Pongo in the Disney classic One Hundred and One Dalmatians, which fared much better on both fronts. His performance in the TV series Hong Kong earned him favorable press, and later would help land him the starring role in Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds (1963). Taylor would continue to work for MGM over the years, continuously racking up screen credits in film and television. (He would have played the role of Roper in 1973's Enter the Dragon, opposite Bruce Lee, had he not been deemed too tall for the role.) His last on-screen appearance was a cameo in Quentin Tarantino's Inglorious Basterds (2009), in which he played Winston Churchill.

    [​IMG]

    WARNING: Here be spoilers! Read further at your own risk!

    On a dark night in Plymouth, 1577, young nobleman Malcolm Marsh (Keith Mitchell) tries to rescue a man from Spanish assassins. The rescue fails, but the man has time to give Marsh a message for Captain Francis Drake (Rod Taylor) before he dies. Marsh fights his way to where Drake's ship is docked, eventually rescued by Drake and his crew. The message turns out to be a map of Spanish gold mines in the New World, and Drake petitions Queen Elizabeth (Irene Worth) for permission to raid the mines. Drake sets sail, Marsh joining his crew after saying what I'm sure was supposed to be a tearful, heartfelt farewell to his fiancée, Arabella Ducleau (Edy Vessel). Under Drake's command, Marsh contends with Spanish forces, a mutinous crew, and tumultuous seas during their many travels across the globe. But while Drake's away, there's intrigue afoot, courtesy of a Spanish plot to assassinate Elizabeth and secretly assemble a mighty Spanish armada in preparation for war with England. Not only that, but the treacherous Lord Babington (Terence Hill) is part of the conspiracy, and he plans to use Arabella as a dupe to help carry it out.

    [​IMG]

    It's hard for me to say whether I liked Seven Seas to Calais, or whether I thought it was good overall. There are some aspects of the film that are quite well done, and some that aren't. When critiquing the flaws, there are some mitigating factors that need to be kept in mind. For one thing, this production was clearly hampered by a low budget - one of the reasons it was shot in Italy and used local talent - although this is an obstacle I've seen numerous other films overcome. Then again, while Seven Seas to Calais lacks the visual splendor and spectacle of MGM's earlier swashbucklers from the 1940s and 1950s (which I've criticized before for emphasizing style over substance), the end result is something of a gritty realism. This was also the last film to be directed by Rudolph Maté (1898 - 1964), who started off as a cinematographer during the Silent Era before switching to directing in the late 1940s. In fact, Maté didn't even direct the entire film - he shares a director's credit with Primo Zeglio, who had already directed a number of pirate films and swashbucklers before this one. Maybe two different directors with different styles account for some of the film's issues, although this could have been overcome with a stronger script.

    [​IMG]

    I have to give Seven Seas to Calais props for Taylor's strong performance as Drake, which did a lot to keep me engaged. He's convincing as a swashbuckling hero, something I can't say about others who have tried following in the footsteps of Errol Flynn, such as Cornel Wilde, Robert Taylor, or Kerwin Matthews. He's decent with a sword, handles his dialogue naturally, and walks a fine line between taking his role as a historical action hero seriously without forgetting to have some fun with the role. Taylor is particularly effective at conveying a sense of melancholy and internal conflict in some of the film's quieter moments. Keith Mitchell is...okay as Marsh. He's a bland character, but not unbearable to put up with. The same, however, cannot be said for Edy Vessel, delivering her lines in a terrible French accent without much in the way of conviction. (She might have just been badly dubbed, but I can't find anything to confirm this.) It would have been bad enough if she was just a thrown-in romantic interest, just there to look pretty and not contribute much to the plot (a fate that has befallen quite a few actresses in this genre, unfortunately). Unfortunately, she plays a crucial role in the plot, so the role really should have gone to an actress capable of delivering a stronger performance. (I did, however, like how when Marsh was indignant with her spending time with Babington, she called him on it by pointing out his dalliance with a native girl during his travels.) Likewise, Terence Hill as Babington and Arturo Dominici as the Spanish ambassador, Don Bernardino de Mendoza, are rather weak antagonists, lacking any real sense of menace, which hurts the film in the climax. On the other hand, veteran stage actress Irene Worth simply shines as Queen Elizabeth, playing her as a wily, clever ruler who knows which face to put on when.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    The film's premise certainly sounds exciting on paper, and indeed, Seven Seas to Calais starts off strong in terms of building solid dramatic tension. As soon as the opening credits end, we get mysterious strangers meeting on the night-shrouded streets of Plymouth, armed Spanish agents on the prowl, a mysterious message for Captain Drake, and some decent swordplay. The sense of intrigue and adventure is maintained throughout the first half of the movie, especially thanks to an attempted mutiny and a well-filmed raid on a gold mine. (Drake's duel with the mutinous Corrigan was my favorite of the action scenes - a good, lengthy duel with solid bladework by both actors.)

    [​IMG]

    Unfortunately, the second half gets bogged down with story and editing issues; Drake's adventures eventually just become a series of events, choppily edited together between scenes of the Spanish plotting against Elizabeth. The climactic rescue of Queen Elizabeth and the attack on the Spanish Armada are disappointingly lackluster, especially when compared to the earlier action scenes, and the destruction of the armada in particular is woefully anti-climactic. Some plot threads have some interesting build-up that don't pan out well enough, such as the rivalry between Marsh and Babington, or the consequences of Arabella's unwitting involvement in the plot against Elizabeth. It's enough to make you wonder why the filmmakers even bothered putting these scenes in the movie. The interlude on the island is particularly cringe-worthy on account of its stereotypical imagery and the comedic shift in tone that feels like it belongs in the film. (And while Drake is credited as one of the people who supposedly introduced the potato to England, I'd be willing to bet it wasn't named for a native girl who had the hots for his first mate. Yes, there's actually a character named Potato in this movie.) Last but not least, Franco Mennino's musical score is okay, but way too repetitive, and it's hard to not notice this.

    [​IMG]

    For all its faults, Seven Seas to Calais raked in a decent profit for MGM. On a budget of about $650,000, it raked in over $2 million at the box office, half of it from overseas attendance. I wasn't able to find any reviews from when it was released, so I don't know how it was received critically, although Jeffrey Richards praised the swashbuckling elements of the film in Swordsmen of the Screen. The film was released on DVD in 2012, courtesy of the Warner Archives, and every once in a while, you can find it on Turner Classic Movies (which is how I saw it). As for me, while I think Seven Seas to Calais had some excellent moments, particularly earlier on in the film, the whole isn't better than the sum of its parts, and it missed its potential to be better than it was.

    [​IMG]

    I certainly wouldn't call Seven Seas to Calais unwatchable, and it's better than other MGM swashbucklers I've seen, but it does have its issues. My advice: catch it on TCM some time and make your own call.

    [​IMG]
  8. [​IMG]

    A southern teacher attempts to save a local school in Within Our Gates, the oldest known surviving film by Oscar Micheaux.

    [​IMG]

    I am by no means a film expert, and even when it comes to favorite genres and filmmakers, I have huge gaps in my knowledge base. That being said, Oscar Micheaux (1884 - 1951) is a name I'm surprised I didn't hear sooner than I did, as he was the first African-American to ever direct a feature-length movie. Different sources have provided contradictory details about his early life, even including how many siblings he had, so I apologize for any inaccuracies in my standard brief bio. The son of former slaves, Micheaux (originally Michaux) was born on a farm near Metropolis, Illinois, but the family quit the farming life either to give the kids access to good education or because of money woes (most likely a combination of the two). At the age of 17, he moved to Chicago, working as a porter (among other jobs) before buying some land in South Dakota, becoming a lone black homesteader among white neighbors. This new venture lasted two years before a drought forced him out of business. Micheaux turned to writing novels, his first being The Conquest: The Story of a Negro Pioneer (1913), based on his experiences as a sharecropper. He established his own publishing company to print them and went door-to-door selling copies of his novel, which he later reworked as The Homesteader in 1917.

    [​IMG]

    Soon after its publication, The Homesteader got the attention of the black-owned and managed Lincoln Motion Picture Company, and they tried to negotiate with Micheaux for the movie rights. However, the deal fell through when they wouldn't let Micheaux direct The Homesteader himself. Instead, Micheaux establishing his own filmmaking enterprise, adapting his own novel into a feature-length film. Within Our Gates was his next film, and the one he's most famous for. It's commonly considered to be a counter-point to D.W. Griffith's The Birth of a Nation (1915), although Micheaux himself denied this intent. He kept directing films for the next twenty years - including Body and Soul (1924), in which Paul Robseon made his film debut - all the way through the sound era, during which he became the first African-American to direct a talkie (1931's The Exile), directing over 40 movies throughout his career. As a filmmaker, Micheaux used the medium to depict the realities of contemporary black life in America. In addition to criticizing systemic racism and bigotry and challenging stereotypical depictions of African-Americans, his work also bluntly depicted class and gender struggles within African-American communities themselves, while also vociferously condemning "Uncle Tom" type characters who sold out their fellow African-Americans to gain favor with white bigots. Micheaux was also greatly influenced by the writings of Booker T. Washington, and his works reflect the idea of the self-made person.

    [​IMG]

    Within Our Gates falls under the category of "race films," a label used most commonly to refer to movies targeting African-American audiences and featuring predominantly African-American casts and crews. Some of this was a result of segregation laws, which banned African-Americans from going to the same theaters as whites. (While these laws were more common in the south, northern theaters would also segregate black audience members, either delegating them to separate sections of the theater or only allowing them to attend particular showtimes.) That same bigotry also closed doors to African-American filmmakers looking to get their films produced and distributed, meaning they had to do it all themselves, and with much fewer resources. Unfortunately, many of these early films were lost (although Kino Lorber is working on restoring what can be found). In fact, Within Our Gates was thought to be a lost film for a long time until a print of it was found in Spain in the 1990s, and it remains the oldest surviving full-length movie directed by an African-American. The title cards had to be recreated, translated from Spanish and worded based on Micheaux's writing style from his novels.

    [​IMG]

    WARNING: Here be spoilers! Read further at your own risk!

    Sylvia Landry (Evelyn Preer) is visiting her cousin Alma (Flo Clements) up north. She's eagerly awaiting the return of her fiance Conrad (James D. Ruffin), who is due to return home from army service in Europe after World War I any day now. However, Alma has her eye on Conrad herself, and successfully engineers a rift between the two. She also plots to set up Sylvia with her brother-in-law Larry (Jack Chenault), a gambler and crook. In the wake of all this, Sylvia sadly returns down south to Piney Woods, "where ignorance and the lynch law reign supreme," to quote one of the film's inter-titles. The local school for African-American children, run by Reverend Jacobs, is faced with closure due to crowding and neglectful state officials who refuse to provide adequate funding. A teacher herself, Sylvia decides to head back up north to raise funds for the school, without much initial success at first.

    [​IMG]

    After a series of remarkable coincidences, she secures the funds with the aid of Dr. Vivian (Charles D. Lucas), who falls in love with Sylvia. The money actually comes from Mrs. Elena Warwick ("Mrs. Evelyn" - yes, that's how she's credited), a white anti-segregationist. All seems lost, however, when Mrs. Warwick seeks the advice of Mrs. Geraldine Stratton (Bernice Ladd), a bitter opponent of the suffrage movement who fears that educated black women will one day get the right to vote. (Within Our Gates was released on January 12, 1920; the Nineteenth Amendment, which gave women the right to vote, would not be ratified until August 18 of that same year.) She tries to persuade Mrs. Warwick that education won't do African-Americans any good, that they can't handle it, the usual bigoted claptrap. However, in the end, Mrs. Warwick decides to make the donation anyway and save the school (going far above and beyond the amount Sylvia needed to raise in the process). We then find out why saving the school was so important to Sylvia. As a child, her attending school allowed her to help her father (William Stark) manage the family finances and discover he was being cheated of his wages by his boss, Mr. Girdlestone (Ralph Johnson). When Girdlestone was murdered, his black servant Efram (E.G. Tatum), fearing he'd be falsely accused, pinned the blame on the Landrys, leading to their deaths. Oh, and there's also a love triangle between Sylvia, Dr. Vivian, and Reverend Jacobs.

    [​IMG]

    Given the times and the circumstances under which it was made, Within Our Gates is a remarkable achievement. Quite a few cast members only acted in a small handful of films before and after this one, and for others, this would be their on-screen performance. Evelyn Preer, a former stage actress who carries the film quite well, is the only one who seems to have continued acting in the long-term. The rest of the cast is pretty good; their performances are low-key when compared to other silent era performances I've seen, which I think is appropriate for a film such as this. The standout performance for me was Old Ned's, and I wish I had been able to find out who played him. His performance at the end of his scene, in which he berates himself for selling out his fellow African-Americans, is heart-wrenching to watch. Writing-wise, although there's a lot of plot crammed in, Within Our Gates does an effective job of getting its message across, and Micheaux isn't afraid to be blunt about it. Inspired by the writings of Booker T. Washington, Micheaux preaches a message of pulling one's self up by the bootstraps. As contemptable as the instituonalized racism depicted in the film is, Micheaux also lays part of the onus on the African-American community to rise above their stereotypical image, and presents education as the key to achieving their full potential.

    [​IMG]

    For all the merits of its message, cinematically, this film has some issues. Like I said, there's a lot of story crammed into the 80-minute running time (including several sub-plots I didn't cover for the purposes of conciseness), and not all of it fits together. For instance, Sylvia's backstory isn't introduced until after she's gotten the money for the school and the main conflict has been resolved, and it's presented as something of an "oh yeah, I should probably address this" afterthought. Likewise, as emotionally moving as the scene with Old Ned is, particularly the closing of the scene, it doesn't really have anything to do with our main characters. I certainly don't object to those scenes being included in the film, but I would have liked for them to have been fit into the narrative a bit more smoothly. In all fairness, however, not only was Micheaux still an inexperienced film director by this point (again, this was only his second film), but film itself was still a young medium. Also, Micheaux was on a tight budget, unable to reshoot scenes, so that's something that needs to be taken into context in the interest of fair criticism. (It's also possible that current prints of the film may not be complete; there may be some missing scenes out there that might have addressed the cohesiveness issues.)

    [​IMG]

    Micheaux didn't have an easy time getting Within Our Gates released. Censors in Chicago and Omaha, still reeling from recent race riots, were among the cities that initially blocked its release. They claimed they were concerned that the depictions of lynchings, mob violence, and attempted rape would provoke further violence. In some cities, certain scenes were cut or trimmed from the prints. However, when it was released, it drew sizable audiences and favorable press, and not just from black audience members. Within Our Gates is today recognized as a snapshot of African-American life in both the north and the south after World War I, not to an important milestone in African-American culture. The fact that it's the oldest surviving feature-length film by a black director has only added to its historical and cultural significance over time. For my part, Within Our Gates has made me curious to see more of Micheaux's work - the only reason I haven't is the same time constraints that made me stop doing this blog on a weekly basis.

    [​IMG]

    Within Our Gates is an important landmark not only of African-American culture, but film history itself, and sadly, still all too relevant today. This one's definitely worth a watch.

    [​IMG]
  9. [​IMG]

    The X-Men's arch-nemesis begins his transition from cardboard cutout villain to tragic figure in this milestone issue. From October 1981, this is "I, Magneto..."

    [​IMG]

    I already went into the premise and publication history of the X-Men the last time I reviewed one of their comics (one of my favorite INCspotlight reviews I've ever written), so I won't do so again here. Instead, let's focus on our villain, Magneto, the self-styled Master of Magnetism. Magneto made his debut in [Uncanny] X-Men #1 (September, 1963), the same issue that introduced the X-Men themselves. (I think of all the Marvel superheroes that came out of the Silver Age, the X-Men are unique in this regard - the others didn't go up against their arch-enemies until months or even years after they were first introduced, unless you count S.H.I.E.L.D. and HYDRA.) The X-Men were initially trained to defend normal humanity, who hated and feared them, from evil mutants who sought to conquer and enslave them. Magneto was one such mutant, who felt that his power gave him the grounds to pick on people weaker than him and make them his slaves. Following his first encounter with the X-Men, he returned in the fourth issue with a team of his own, the ridiculously named Brotherhood of Evil Mutants, although he would also attack our heroes solo sometimes.

    [​IMG] [​IMG]

    Originally, there wasn't much that was distinctive about Magneto - he was just a typical bad guy out for world domination and that was it. He claimed to his followers that he was driven by fear that humans would turn on mutants, but I'm under the impression that he didn't really believes this in his earliest appearances, given his rants to the X-Men. This may have just been a ploy to persuade some of his more reluctant underlings (Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch, who eventually reformed and joined the Avengers) to fight for him. Not that he wasn't a force to be reckoned with on his own. Even from the beginning, he was able to use his mutant powers of controlling magnetic fields and manipulating metal in a wide variety of ways, as well as displaying some mental abilities (which were never mentioned again after the Silver Age). Although the X-Men were his primary foes, his agenda brought him into conflict with other Marvel heroes, including Thor, the Avengers, the Fantastic Four, and the Defenders. An encounter with the last of these ended up with him reduced to infancy (man, this is a weird genre), seemingly ending the threat he posed to the world.

    [​IMG]
    The Uncanny X-Men #4 (March, 1964)

    In March, 1970, X-Men was effective cancelled as of Issue #66, the next few years of the series dedicated to reprinting earlier issues before ending with Issue #93 in April, 1975. However, one month later, a new lineup made its debut in Giant-Size X-Men #1, packing more raw power, hailing from different countries around the world, and having a much more volatile team dynamic. The new team members included the demonic-looking teleporter Nightcrawler (Kurt Wagner); Storm (Ororo Munroe), possessing the power to control the weather; the gentle-hearted Colossus (Piotr Rasputin), who could transform himself into solid steel; and, of course, the enigmatic Wolverine (Logan), whose healing factor allowed him to survive a gruesome experiment that laced his skeleton (including natural claws) with adamantium, an indestructible metal. Founding member Cyclops stuck around for a while, as did Jean Grey, until her tragic "death" at the conclusion of the Dark Phoenix storyline (Uncanny X-Men #129-138), which prompted Cyclops to leave the team. The new X-Men not only faced new enemies, but also was quickly reunited with some old ones, including the Master of Magnetism himself, restored to his physical prime. But we still didn't get much in the way of what really made Magneto tick, aside from a quick scene in Uncanny X-Men #125 of Magneto pining for his late wife as he recovers from a recent encounter with the X-Men. At least, not until this issue. (And even then, lots of blanks were still left to be filled, including his name. At some point after today's comic was published, his name was given as Erik Magnus Lensherr, but this turned out to be an alias. His true name was eventually revealed to be Max Eisenhardt decades later. But all that is yet to come.)

    [​IMG]
    Uncanny X-Men #112 (August, 1978)

    WARNING: Here be spoilers! Read further at your own risk!

    Our comic begins with Magneto, using his advanced technology, sending a threat to world leaders from around the globe. He demands that every nation dismantle its nuclear arsenals in order to protect mutantkind from getting caught in the crossfire of a nuclear war, or face utter destruction. As he explains to the currently retired X-Man Cyclops and his human girlfriend, Lee Forrester (captives on his island for the past several issues following a shipwreck and powerless thanks to an inhibitor thingie), the funds spent on such weapons could now go to more worthwhile causes, such as combating hunger, disease, and poverty, ushering a new golden age - with mutants ruling humans and himself ruling mutants. Cyclops counters that there will be resistance, and a Soviet submarine, the Leningrad, proves him correct when it fires a nuke at Magneto's island - an attack he easily repels. He then uses his powers to sink the sub, killing all aboard.

    [​IMG]

    Meanwhile, the X-Men have been out looking for Magneto, as they've been since last issue, and they finally happen upon his island base. Unfortunately, the island's safeguards not only disable their plane, but their powers as well. However, they're fortunate enough to meet up with Cyclops, who not only gives them the lay of the land, but also details about Magneto's ultimate plan. He means to enforce his demands with a device that can manipulate the earth's crust, and destroying it is now their top objective. Although they don't have their powers, their natural skills enable them to destroy Magneto's inhibitor. Magneto is unfortunately alerted to their presence, but with the X-Men's mutant abilities restored, the battle is on, both the X-Men and Magneto getting good shots in. However, when Magneto nearly kills Sprite (Kitty Pryde, the latest addition to the team and in her early teens), he realizes just how far he's fallen and how much he's become like the people that destroyed his family, and he backs down. Storm tries to reason with him to change his ways, but Magneto is doubtful he can change, having lived with his hatred for too long. With the danger over, Magneto slips away, and Xavier hopes this encounter inspires their old enemy to change his ways after all, and end his war with mankind.

    [​IMG]

    Admittedly, I initially snagged this comic merely because it offered a fight between the X-Men and Magneto, not realizing how significant of a story it was to X-Men continuity, even after reading it for the first time. As long-time INCspotlight readers know, my favorite superhero comics to collect are the ones where the hero dukes it out with someone from his or her recurring rogues gallery, and brownie points if it's their arch-enemy. Magneto's bouts with the X-Men get even higher priority, since they happen so much less often in modern times, thanks to Magneto's frequently shifting loyalties (more on that in a bit). So when I found this on eBay, and at a really good price, this was something I simply couldn't pass up. And milestone issue aside, I was glad I didn't. The rich depth of character and the quality of Chris Claremont's writing (even if the prose can be a little too purple and the dialogue a bit too cliche-ridden) help demonstrate how the X-Men became so popular after their relaunch. In addition to Magneto, the X-Men themselves get some solid moments of their own: Cyclops ruminating on how Magneto's supposed Golden Age will cause more problems than it will solve, Storm's temptation to murder Magneto as he sleeps and her post-battle attempts to reason with him, the inexperienced Kitty's terror of dying, and Lee dealing with what it's like to be hated and despised just because of who you are. Dave Cockrum's art can be a little stiff sometimes, and there's something about the way he draws Storm's face that bugs me (specifically her eyes), but I think that's just a matter of personal taste. Other than that, he does a solid job of portraying a character's emotions. Fans of superheroics and actions will have plenty to enjoy here as well, and the way the X-Men go into action without their powers shows ingenuity on Claremont's part.The battle between the X-Men and Magneto is a good one, with both heroes and villain using their powers cleverly, so that neither side comes off looking badly. It's clear the X-Men have learned from their past encounters with Magneto, pushing him farther than they have previously.

    [​IMG]

    This is also the comic that establishes Magneto's backstory as a Holocaust survivor, who witnessed the murder of his entire family at Auschwitz. Having lived through one genocide, Magneto was from here on out portrayed as wanting to prevent a similar fate from befalling mutantkind. As if this wasn't bad enough, we also find out in this issue that he'd built a new family for himself years after World War II with a wife and daughter, only to lose them to anti-mutant violence. With a background such as this, it's no wonder he turned out the way he did. Obviously this doesn't excuse what he's done, or his anti-human bigotry, but it does make him a more complex, three-dimensional character, and thereby a more interesting villain. Incidentally, there was speculation that Magneto's origins meant he was Jewish, something Marvel was hesitant to state at first, probably thinking that it would be considered anti-Semitic to have a Jewish villain. As someone who is Jewish myself, the idea of Magneto being Jewish has never bothered me, and I was glad when his Jewish heritage was later confirmed. Much to my delight, this was even kept it in the live-action movies. In X-Men (2000), a young Erik Lensherr is clearly seen wearing a yellow star on his clothes, and X-Men: First Class (2011) has him remembering celebrating Hanukkah as a child with his family (although it would have been nice if they'd gotten the chanukkiah right).

    [​IMG]

    From here on out, everything was different for Magneto. I could go into a lot more detail here than I'm about to, but X-Men continuity is so complex and in-depth that it would take forever, and it's not really relevant to this particular story. Suffice to say, after this story, he was almost always depicted in a more complex light, even being a member of the X-Men at more than one point. (The first time, he even led the team.) Even on the occasions he resumed his war against the X-Men and the human race, he never returned to his "the world shall be mine, muah ha ha ha" demeanor. (Grant Morrison's "Planet X" storyline, which showed Magneto engaging in mass genocide and putting humans in concentration camps, was widely reviled by fans for being so out of character. The story was later retconned with the revalation that Magneto had been impersonated.) The haunted, fanatical survivor aspect of his personality has become such an integral part of his personality that it's carried over to alternate continuities (except for the Ultimate universe), various video games, the beloved animated series from the 1990s, and, of course, the live-action movies, in which he was portrayed by both Sir Ian McKellen and Michael Fassbender. The dynamic between Xavier and Magneto also changed over time, a later issue revealing they had been friends when they were younger, but fell out over their drastically different beliefs. Just as the X-Men themselves have been seen as an allegory for the civil rights movement, the Xavier/Magneto feud has often been compared to the rivalry between Dr. Martin Luther King and the more militant Malcolm X.

    [​IMG]
    Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen as Professor X and Magneto, X-Men (2000)

    Normally I dislike it when a villain becomes a hero, for the same reason I like seeing villains killed off. Like I said, I enjoy seeing heroes duke it out with their villains, and making the villain a hero takes away that conflict. More importantly, I like to see good stories come from the clash of ideologies. Having the X-Men, who fight for peaceful co-existence, clash with an embittered victim of prejudice who sees force as the only answer makes for great storytelling and drama when it's done right. In Magneto's case, however, I think his occasional reformations work. The times when he does fight alongside the good guys is probably the ultimate tragedy that defines the character. He probably could have been one of Earth's greatest heroes all along instead of one of humanity's most dangerous enemies, if not for the many losses he's endured at the hands of hate-filled bigots. It's probably why he remains such a compelling, enduring character over the years, and one of the key elements in the success of the X-Men franchise. He's been depowered and re-powered, an X-Man leader and antagonist, killed off and resurrected. But through all this, Magneto remains a tragic figure, haunted both by his past and his increasingly justified fears for the future.

    [​IMG]

    The last X-Men comic I reviewed showed the team at arguably its worst. This one shows them at their best. If you're an X-Men fan, you owe it to yourself to snag this.

    [​IMG]
  10. [​IMG]

    INCspotlight regular Errol Flynn returns in the unfortunately mediocre melodrama Another Dawn, starring Kay Francis.

    [​IMG]

    Given how many Errol Flynn movies I've reviewed on the INCspotlight so far (and there are many more to come), I'm kinda running out of things to say about the guy, so let's talk about his leading lady, Kay Francis (1905 - 1968) - who was one of the biggest stars of her day. Francis's real name was Katherine Edwina Gibbs, leading people to assume her mother (also Katherine) was the founder of a chain of vocational schools - something Francis never bothered correcting people about. Her mother was actually an actress, but Francis herself didn't get into showbiz until 1925, with a small part in a modern-dress Broadway production of Hamlet. More stage roles followed, earning her Paramount's attention and leading to a two-year contract with said studio. After a small role alongside the Marx Bros. in The Cocoanuts (1929), she began to get bigger parts more and more frequently in films such as Trouble in Paradise and The False Madonna (both in 1932). In most of her roles with Paramount, she was typically cast as wily villainesses, which she quickly tired of. Eventually, Warner Bros. lured her away from Paramount with the promise of better pay as well as better parts.

    [​IMG]

    During her time with Warner Bros., Francis's career skyrocketed, thanks to a number of high-grossing hits such as I Found Stella Parish (1935), The White Angel (1936), and Confession (1937). She was such a box office draw that she was earning more money than any other actress in America, and her face appeared on more movie magazine covers than anyone else at the time except for Shirley Temple. All this in spite of a slight speech impediment that caused her to pronounce the letters L and R as W. (On the Paramount lot, she was known as "the wavishing Kay Fwancis.") In fact, when she was cast in Another Dawn (adapted from the play Caesar's Wife) opposite Errol Flynn, Francis was the one who got top billing. Then again, hers is the main character, so that's only fair. (Fun fact about this movie's title: apparently, in previous Warner Bros. films that had scenes with a movie marquee, they kept using the title Another Dawn. When the studio couldn't come up with a title for this particular movie, they just slapped that title onto it.)

    [​IMG]

    Another Dawn's director, William Dieterle (1893-1972), also deserves some spotlighting here. A native of Germany, Dieterle started off as an actor while in his teens, including six years under the direction of Max Reinhardt. Dieterele started off as a romantic lead, a type of role he continued as he transitioned to film roles during the Silent Era, under the direction of German Expressionism pioneers such as F.W. Murnau (including his 1926 classic Faust) and Paul Leni. Eventually, Dieterle lost interest in acting in favor of directing, making his directorial debut in 1923 with Man by the Roadside, featuring pre-stardom Marlene Dietrich. Dieterle's association with Warner Bros. began in 1930, prompting his emigration to the United States, and initially he directed German-language movies for the German market before moving on to their regular films, beginning with The Last Flight (1931). In 1935, Dieterle and Reinhardt reunited for a lavish big-screen adaptation of A Midsummer Night's Dream that unfortunately performed poorly at the box office. Fortunately, some of Dieterle's later films for Warner Bros. fared far better, including The Life of Emil Zola (1937) and Juarez (1939), as well as RKO's The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1939).

    [​IMG]

    WARNING: Here be spoilers! Read further at your own risk!

    Our story is set in the fictional (?) British colony of Dickit, somewhere in India. The local garrison is commanded by Colonel John Wister (Ian Hunter), with the aid of the gallant Captain Denny Roarke (Errol Flynn), an old friend of his. During a trip to England, Wister meets Julia Ashton (Kay Francis), whose fiancé recently passed away. The two hit it off over several more encounters, and she eventually agrees to marry Wister, hoping to find contentment, if not exactly happiness, as she's still emotionally in mourning. However, after her arrival in India, she meets Roarke, and the two fall in love. Julia is torn between being a faithful wife and finding genuine love with Roarke, while Roarke faces a similar dilemma regarding his friendship with Wistin. Wistin is no fool, and when the opportunity comes for a convenient opportunity for self-sacrifice, he naturally takes it for the sake of Julia's happiness. (Hey, that's what the spoiler warning is for. Besides, it's an ending you can see coming ten minutes into the movie.)

    [​IMG]

    It's a short plot summary, I know. Then again, it's a short movie, only clocking in at 73 minutes. However, it felt longer than that; as big an Errol Flynn fan as I am, this was a chore to sit through. None of the romances in this movie, on which the entirety of the story depend on, feel at all natural or organic. They seem to happen just because the plot says so (and because it's Errol Flynn - of course he's gonna have the hots for a lady). Even Wistin's sacrifice for the sake of Julia's happiness at the end (an overdone cliche I've seen done much better in numerous other movies) just happens, with no emotional build-up. The dull script and lack of chemistry between the leads share the blame for this one. Kay Francis's performance in this movie is painfully dull, both her line delivery and facial expressions. I know she doesn't have that interesting of a character to portray, and the dialogue she's stuck with is as stiff as a frozen turkey leg, but she doesn't seem to be even trying to elevate it. By her own account, she was dismissive of her role in this movie due to its lack of substance, and it shows. (Come to think of it, this seems to be a movie nobody wanted any part of. Flynn also disliked this movie - like Kay Francis, he was tired of being typecast as a romantic lead - and Dieterle only directed it as a favor to Hal Wallis, one of Warner Bros.'s top producers.) Ian Hunter's performance is utterly forgettable, and he lacks chemistry with the other leads in the cast.

    [​IMG]

    Is there anything redeeming about this movie? A few things here and there. Flynn's performance is a saving grace, making the best of what he can, which isn't much. Not only do I continue to maintain he's a better actor than he's given credit for, but there's no denying he has a magnetic screen presence - it's not hard to see why he was such a big box office draw. Yet it's Herbert Mundin, who plays Colonel Wister's uptight orderly Wilkins, who probably gives the best performance of the movie. Wilkins actually has an interesting subplot dedicated to him; apparently ran away during a battle and has been derided by his fellow soldiers for it ever since. Naturally, in the movie's only action scene, a pretty decent desert battle, he gets the chance to redeem himself. Unfortunately, it doesn't really seem to connect with the main plot in any way, nor does it really have anything in the way of payoff. (Another subplot involving Roarke's sister Grace, played by Frieda Inescort, also feels disconnected and goes nowhere interesting.) Last but not least, while Another Dawn doesn't sport one of my favorite Erich Wolfgang Korngold scores, it's still an Erich Wolfgang Korngold score, which is a welcome addition to any film. (Much to my surprise, Korngold's score for this movie was one of his favorites that he ever composed, even using parts of it for his 1947 violin concerto.)

    [​IMG]

    Upon its release, Another Dawn didn't earn much more than a "meh" reception from critics. However, as the studio hoped, Francis and Flynn's combined star power was enough to bring in audiences, and the film took in double its budget at the box office. Ever since starring in Captain Blood (1935), Errol Flynn had a hot streak of one hit after another after another, Another Dawn included, and it would be years before it fizzled out. Kay Francis, however, was not so fortunate. Shortly after Another Dawn's release, her dissatisfaction with the roles she kept getting led to arguments with the studio bosses, and her career took a bad swan dive shortly thereafter, to the point where she was officially considered box office poison for a while, until former co-star Carol Lombarde helped her snag a choice role in In Name Only (1939) for RKO. She enjoyed a nice rebound after this until World War II, during which she did extensive volunteer work. After the war, though, she struggled to get work, even turning to poverty row studios such as Monogram Pictures, and she retired from acting in 1948.

    [​IMG]

    As a fan of Errol Flynn's movies, this is definitely not one of his better ones. I didn't hate Another Dawn the way I hated Santa Fe Trail (1940), but that was on account of Santa Fe Trail's favorable depiction of slavery and escaped slave hunters - other than that, I have to admit that it was a technically well-made film. I also didn't find it as tedious as Silver River (1948), which was overly long and slowly-paced, although Flynn and Ann Sheridan deliver solid performances. Still, there's no denying this is one of his lesser efforts and lesser films, and while I'm not sorry I saw it, I doubt I'll be rewatching this one any time soon.

    [​IMG]

    I can't recommend Another Dawn except to the most hardcore of Flynn fans. If you miss out on this one, it's no great loss.

    [​IMG]
    Sodapopcorn likes this.
  11. [​IMG]

    At long last, Donnie Yen makes his INCspotlight debut in Drunken Tai Chi - which is not only also his film debut, but one of the last old-school kung fu movies ever made.

    [​IMG]

    Long before he was kicking Imperial Stormtrooper ass in Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (which I really enjoyed), Yen (born Yen Ji-dan) was one of the top talents in the Hong Kong martial arts film industry, finally achieving superstardom in the mid-2000s after two decades of career ups and downs. I've been a long-time fan of his ever since college, thanks to the very first film class I ever took spending a week on Hong Kong martial arts cinema - in fact, that's when I became a hardcore fan of the genre as a whole. (Sadly, I had a schedule conflict when said he attended a screening of his directorial debut, Legend of the Wolf, at said college.) Mostly what appeals to me about him, besides his talent as one of the most impressive screen fighters I've ever seen, is that for a long time, I saw him as something of an underdog. He's one of those actors I feel deserved a bigger following than he had for a while - and, to be frank, a better filmography. He's no underdog anymore, having had a series of critical and financial successes over the past few years that have made him the top action star in Hong Kong, and it remains to be seen if Rogue One, or the upcoming xXx: The Return of Xander Cage (2017) help him achieve similar acclaim here in the US.

    [​IMG]

    Although Yen Ji-dan was born in Guandong (aka Canton), China in 1963, his family relocated to Hong Kong when he was two, and then to Boston, Massachussets when he was eleven. His mother is Master Bow Sim-mark, a martial arts instructor of no small renown, and Yen began taking lessons from her at an early age. Yen's appetite for martial arts training was insatiable, and he studied a wide variety of styles under other instructors as well. As a kid, Yen would frequently skip school to not only study and practice martial arts, but watch kung fu movies in theaters, and he apparently had a knack for being able to perfectly replicate the moves he saw on screen. He also started spending a lot of time in Boston's infamous Combat Zone, prompting his parents to send him to the Beijing Wushu Academy, where he trained under Wu Bin - who was also Jet Li's instructor - for two years. After this, he decided to return home, but made a fateful stop in Hong Kong, where he happened to meet director Yuen Woo-ping. (I've heard different accounts about how Yen and Yuen met.) Having launched Jackie Chan to stardom with Snake in the Eagle's Shadow and Drunken Master, Yuen was looking for a new star to work the same magic with. He offered Yen a screen test, and after a stuntwork gig in Miracle Fighters 2 (1982), Yen wound up with the lead role in Drunken Tai Chi.

    [​IMG]

    WARNING: Here be spoilers! Read further at your own risk!

    Qian Dao (Donnie Yen) is the favored son of a wealthy yet miserly salt merchant (Lee Kwan), much to the chagrin of his elder brother (Yuen Yat-chor), who Qian Dao always sticks up for in vain. Qian Dao is is the local bully Ta Sha (Mandy Chan), a apparent long-time rival of Ching Do. When one of Ta Sha's payback schemes goes awry, he has a complete nervous breakdown as a result, and his vengeful father (Wong Tao) hires the mute assassin Tie Wuxing (Yuen Shun-yee) to murder Qian Dao and his family, and the killer strikes while Qian Dao's enjoying a night out on the town. Alone and destitute, he's taken in by an eccentric puppeteer (Yuen Cheung-yan) and his wife (Lydia Shum). It's an uneasy relationship at first, as Qian Dao's ineptitude at basic household tasks causes all sorts of hijinks, but a family bond of sorts forms between them after a while, and the puppeteer eventually trains Qian Dao in the art of tai chi. It's a good thing, too, because it's only a matter of time before Qian Dao and Tie Wuxing's paths cross and vengeance must be served - but not before Qian Dao befriends Tie Nian-ci, Tie Wuxing's young son.

    [​IMG]

    In many ways, Drunken Tai Chi isn't all that different from other martial arts comedies of the few years that preceded it, such as Snake in the Eagle's Shadow (1978), Drunken Master (1978), Magnificent Butcher (1979), or Knockabout (1979). We see a lot of the same tropes and stock characters: the young bratty protagonist, the eccentric mentor with an unorthodox training method, over the top villains, and at least one doomed family member. (And, unfortunately, we have a second act bogged down with lots of pratfalls and lowbrow comedy.) However, this movie goes further than the others when it comes to its characters and giving them some depth. For instance, Qian Dao's favored son status makes him an unlikely protagonist in a genre that thrives on unlikely underdog heroes - one might expect that his brother would end up the protagonist, rather than Qing Dao. Then again, Qian Dao is constantly looking out for Qian Yu Pung, even helping him with chores and sneaking him food, despite their father's objections. (Think of the Boromir/Faramir/Denethor dynamic from the extended cut of The Two Towers.) It helps establish empathy with his character, rather than him being the protagonist just because the plot says so. Speaking of family dynamics, it's unusual that the mentor figure is married, and Lydia Shum's longing for a kid gives her character pathos beyond her just providing comedic antics. The big one is the final boss villain of the movie, Tie Wuqing, having a young son, and while it's never outright stated, the subtext is pretty clear that Tie's only an assassin for hire so he can look after his son. Qian Dao befriending Tie Nian-ci and knowingly facing off with his father, who he learns is the true killer of his family, gives their final battle a bit more of an emotional heft. I don't know whether Yuen Woo-ping knew he was making the last film in a fading genre at the time or not, but if he did, it's clear that he wanted to go out with more of a bang than just in terms of action.

    [​IMG]

    Even beyond the extra effort put into character depth and development, as a first time lead, Donnie Yen carries the movie extremely well. While he can be over the top at times, he's no more so than Jackie Chan, Yuen Biao, or Sammo Hung were in these similar kinds of roles. He has a great sense of comic timing in addition to his physical skills, and the scene where he breakdances while dressed like a puppet (it makes sense in context, I swear) is hilarious. Yuen Cheung-yan hams it up like there's no tomorrow as the hapless puppeteer who nevertheless knows his stuff when it comes to tai chi, and Lydia Shum, while her longing for a kid helps to make her an empathetic character, also provides some decent comedy. Wong Tao doesn't have that big a role in this film, which is unfortunate, given that I've become a big fan of his in recent years, but what screentime he has is solid, and he pulls off a villain role quite well. Last but not least, Yuen Shun-yee is a surprisingly compelling character than other villains of his ilk, and he plays the doting father just as well as the ruthless killer for hire.

    [​IMG]

    Now let's finally get around to discussing the action - which is naturally awesome, with talent like this in front of and behind the camera. As a screen fighter, Yen combines effortless grace and agility with ferocity and power in his fight sequences, which is one of the reasons he's my favorite martial arts movie star. He has plenty of opportunities to show his stuff, both against solo and multiple opponents - a testament to the quality of the fight scenes he'll be able to deliver in future movies. Most of the fights in the first and second act have a lot of slapstick in them, but they're still entertaining to watch, as they demonstrate a lot of creativity - not just in terms of moves, but how props and the setting are integrated into the action, such as paintbrushes or an improvised hamster wheel of sorts. Then again, this is Yuen Woo-ping we're talking about here, so that should be no surprise - not to mention his brothers, who not only also worked on the action, but play several key roles in the film. Yuen Cheung-yan is no slouch in the action choreography department in his own right, having arranged the fight scenes not only for various Hong Kong productions, but also Hollywood movies such as Charlie's Angels (2000) and Daredevil (2003). The third act, when Yen finally goes up against Wong Tao and Yuen Shun-yee, gives us the best of the martial arts sequences. (Which makes sense - save the best for last, right?) Both actors serve as formidable opponents for Yen, and my newly-acquired appreciation for Wong Tao makes me enjoy his fight with Yen even more. It serves as a fitting passing of the torch from one generation of martial arts movie talent to the next. (Just as a caveat, Qian doesn't actually perform any tai chi moves while drunk, despite the title of the movie. Most likely, that's just to cash in on the fame of Jackie Chan's Drunken Master.)

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Drunken Tai Chi made less than $7 million HK upon its release, and I'm not sure if that was considered decent money back then (although given the likely budget, I'm sure the movie made a profit). Either way, it was the launching pad for a long career for Yen, which I'll be covering in more detail when I review some of his later films - and believe me, I will. As for this movie, it's still well-regarded by kung fu movie fans, not to mention Donnie Yen fans like myself. Much to my annoyance, a region-compatible Chinese language release with English subtitles doesn't seem to exist, and every version that claims to be such a release them is apparently lying. (This includes Miramax's release available through Amazon, which really pissed me off.) It hasn't even gotten a decent release on DVD or blu-ray in Hong Kong. I would have hoped that Yen's recent superstardom would mean that his older work would be more in demand, especially his first film. However, I've been told that Hong Kong audiences simply aren't interested in older films, and there isn't much market for them, so I may have a long wait on this. (Unless someone puts together a fan edit.) Still, I'm hoping one day Drunken Tai Chi will get a proper DVD release so I can watch it the way it was meant to be seen.

    [​IMG]

    Drunken Tai Chi is not only an entertaining sendoff for an era of Hong Kong filmmaking, but a worthy debut for one of Hong Kong's top action stars. It's definitely worth a watch, even in the absence of a decent release.

    [​IMG]
    Sodapopcorn likes this.
  12. [​IMG]

    A wizard contends with a mysterious enemy in The Face in the Frost, a delightful fantasy that offers laughs and genuine chills in equal measure.

    I haven't been able to find out all that much about John Bellairs (1939 - 1994), which is a shame, given the acclaim he earned throughout his literary career. He's apparently most well known for his several fantasy series he wrote for young adults, featuring the supernatural adventures of Lewis Barnavelt, Johnny Dixon, or Anthony Monday, which constitute the vast majority of his books - of the 31 novels he completed, all but three were part of these series. Other than that, I don't really know much about him, except that prior to becoming a professional writer, Bellairs was an English teacher throughout New England, and he drew inspiration for his gothic fantasy works from M. R. James's ghost stories. His first published book was a collection of articles and essays entitled St. Fidgeta and Other Parodies (1966), a parody of Catholic rituals in the wake of the Second Vatican Council. He followed this up with The Pedant and the Shuffly (1968) and The Face in the Frost, his last novel for adults before moving on exclusively to works aimed at young adults. Frost, written while Bellairs was on a trip to England, was also an attempt to emulate J.R.R. Tolkien's writing style - more on that in a bit.

    [​IMG]

    I'm really excited to be able to review this particular book on the INCspotlight - not only because I think it's a great book in dire need of attention from modern readers, but also because of what I had to go through in order to read it again. I first got my hands on The Face in the Frost when a family friend gave me a bunch of used books he didn't want anymore and thought I might like, this book obviously being one of them. I ended up really enjoying it, to the point that it's among my favorite books. I unfortunately made the mistake of loaning it to someone at camp who never gave it back (a genuinely devastating loss), and I spent more than twenty years since then trying to find it again. As The Face in the Frost has been out of print for a very long time (and for the life of me, I can't figure out why), I turned to used bookstores and libraries without success. I held off on buying it online because I wanted to make sure I got the same edition I had originally read, with Marilyn Fitschen's illustrations and Carl Lundgren's cover design. (A couple of bad experiences have left we wary of buying books online.) Eventually, I lost patience and snagged it on Amazon, hoping that the version advertised was the one I would receive (and thankfully, it was). And having read it again...well, I think by this point, you can already tell if I think it was worth all that time and effort put into tracking it down.

    WARNING: Here be spoilers! Read further at your own risk!


    As our story opens, we're introduced to a wizard named Prospero (no, not that one, as the book helpfully reminds us), who lives in a run-down house loaded with all sorts of knickknacks and wizarding paraphenelia, including a sarcastic talking mirror. He wakes up one morning with a feeling that something is somehow wrong, and that he's in some sort of danger. As he proceeds about his day-to-day business, the feeling continues, compounded by some unsettling incidents. Fortunately, that night, his old friend and fellow wizard Roger Bacon drops by for a visit. Bacon's been researching a book of magic written in a mysterious cypher for Prospero, and they wonder if it has anything to do with whatever may suddenly be after him. The next morning, it becomes evident that whoever has the book is gunning for Prospero for some reason, and Prospero and Roger set forth to find out who is after him and why. But their foe is growing stronger every day, attempting to create a permanent winter over the world, leaving behind a ghostly face in the frost-coated windows as his sigil.

    [​IMG]

    The signs of Tolkien's novels influencing this story are subtle - I didn't even pick up on some of them until I was researching this book for this review - but they're there, and hard to miss once you're aware of them. (This isn't a complaint - just an observation.) For instance, both The Hobbit and The Face in the Frost open with a description of their protagonists' houses before we know anything about the protagonists themselves. (Bellairs had a fondness for antiques, and it shows in the detailed descriptions of all the stuff in Prospero's home - since I like this sort of thing, I wasn't bothered by it, but other readers may find it a bit boring.) Also, both books start on a fairly comical note before getting more serious as the story progresses. One can also draw parallels between Prospero and Gandalf, two old men who initally seem harmless beyond a cutesy spell or two, but who wield more power than you might at first expect. None of these parallels make The Face in the Frost feel derivative of Tolkien's works; his writing style, and the overall plot, have a flavor all their own.

    [​IMG]

    The Face in the Frost is not a long read. I'd compare it to The Hobbit in length, and it may be even a bit shorter than that. However, it usually doesn't feel rushed, nor does it drag. The mystery of who's after Prospero and why is well-established, and it drives the reader's curiosity to figure out what's going on as they follow Prospero trying to answer those same questions. Another strong point in the book's favor is that it's easy to become invested in Prospero and Roger, which I consider to be important as a reader, as both have well-developed personalities. What truly makes the book stand out, and earned it a lot of praise from other fantasy authors, is its establishment of an eerie, unsettling tone that could get pretty darn creepy. Even reading it as an adult in a room with lots of lights on, I still got chills in certain scenes. It helps that there's a cloud of mystery and uncertainty behind the different attacks on Prospero, who is as much in the dark about his enemy as we are for most of the book, and it's the unseen menace that's the most frightening. The climax, however, is a bit hard to follow, and even now, I'm not sure what's going on - and it doesn't help that even Prospero doesn't quite understand it himself.

    [​IMG]

    The Face in the Frost drew rave reviews upon its release, with Lin Carter, Ursula K. Le Guin, and John Clute praising it for its style. (Carter went so far as to praise it as one of the best fantasy books to be published since The Lord of the Rings.) Dungeons & Dragons co-creator Gary Gygax listed the book as recommended reading in the Master's Guide, and may have gotten ideas for the game from this book (particularly wizards having to memorize spells before being able to cast them). As I said earlier, it's been out of print for a long time, which really is a shame, because fantasy fans are really missing out on this one. (I couldn't even find scans of the illustrations.) Still, it ought to be easy to find online without coughing up too much money for it, and there's always Kindle. I'm glad to have gotten a hold of it again, and I enjoy re-reading it - while also finding a standalone fantasy novel a refreshing change. I enjoy reading fantasy, but most books in the genre that I've come across are multi-volume series that require a significant time commitment, so I haven't gotten around to as many as I'd like to. Bellairs had kicked around both a prequel and a sequel to this book, but abandoned them in favor of his numerous young adult series, and only a fragment of the former exists.

    [​IMG]

    If you want a fun, spooky, fantasy adventure that won't take up an entire bookshelf, The Face in the Frost ought to be right up your alley.

    [​IMG]
  13. [​IMG]

    It's a rite of passage for parents to be dragged to bad movies by their kids, or vice versa, but I'd like to think that when I was a kid, my family usually dodged that bullet pretty well - at least when it came to seeing stuff in theaters. Not only was I not the movie buff I am today as a kid, and not only did we usually have other commitments that limited theatrical outings, but my parents have always had a pretty good sense of quality control. (My dad may love watching bad movies for the sake of being entertained by how bad they are, but he's not the type to spend twenty bucks to knowingly see one at a theater.) And speaking of my dad, he worked for Blockbuster Video for most of my formative years, and he got to rent stuff for free all the time. There simply wasn't the urgency to see certain movies in theaters when I knew that eventually, I could see it at home thanks to one of his free rentals. There were some movies I couldn't wait to see on the big screen, like Disney's The Three Musketeers or The Mask of Zorro, which weren't exactly hard sells (my mom's a big fan of the Disney Zorro television series), but fortunately, both ended up being good.

    [​IMG]

    Still, for one reason or another, I've found myself sitting through a stinker here or there in theaters. Not a ton, but enough to populate a top ten list, with a few other possible contenders I just didn't find memorable enough to include on here. To my credit (and I suppose to my parents' as well), a number of these I was dragged to by kids I was babysitting or when I was at camp. Others...either I just didn't listen to the reviews, or I'd been misled by my own expectations. And then, of course, were the times when the movie just wasn't to my personal taste, regardless of its qualities. (That's why this is a "least favorite" list and not a "worst" list.)

    [​IMG]

    I'm not really sure how to rank this list, even for the number one choice, so I think I'll just list them in chronological order. In order for a movie to make this list, I had to have seen it for the first time in theaters (as opposed to seeing it on home media and then catching it in theaters in a re-release), and I had to have hated it the first time I saw it. If I liked a movie and then later changed my mind upon a second viewing, it didn't make this list.

    So without further ado, here are my Top 10 Least Favorite Movies I've Seen in Theaters!


    10) Problem Child (1990)

    [​IMG]

    I don't remember this movie very well (and I had no intention of revisiting it for this review), but I have a very strong memory of not wanting to see it. I only did so because it was a camp outing, and I did not enjoy it in the least. It was just too mean-spirited for my liking, and I've always had a problem with stuff like that. Maybe I'd feel differently if I gave it another shot, but again, from what I remember of it, I don't really feel the need to do so.


    9) Dracula: Dead and Loving It (1995)

    [​IMG]

    Okay, Mel Brooks, this should have been a no-brainer. You were parodying both the classic Universal Dracula and the overdone Francis Ford Coppola version (1992). Not only that, but you had Leslie Nielsen, one of the titans of comedy, as Count Dracula. Plus, you made Young Frankenstein (1974), a brilliant horror parody that happens to be one of my all-time favorite movies. How could you have possibly screwed this up?! Oh, right, lazy writing, forced humor, and not having of the cleverness and charm that made your earlier spoofs so delightful to watch. I don't remember cracking so much as a smile during this movie, which is sad, given how much I remember I'd been looking forward to this one. This felt more like a Friedberg and Seltzer "comedy" than a Mel Brooks movie, and that is a painful thing to say about a comedic genius of Brooks's caliber.


    8) The Jackal (1997)

    [​IMG]

    A remake of the 1973 thriller The Day of the Jackal, which in turn was based on the novel by Frederick Forsyth, this movie was just tedious to sit through, with boring characters, boring dialogue, and very little in the way of intrigue and action. (Plus, the "plot twist" with there being a true target all along made no sense - both the fact that there even was a true target and who it turned out to be.) Part of me wonders if I was disappointed because I'd recently seen Face/Off, which I thought was excellent, and I was expecting something similar, especially where the bad guy was concerned. Face/Off's villain, Castor Troy, whether played by Nicolas Cage or John Travolta, is among my favorite movie villains, and I was hoping Willis's portrayal of The Jackal would be just as formidable and entertaining. He wasn't either one, even when not compared to Troy. This is also the first movie I ever saw in a theater by myself - I went to the theater with my dad, but he'd wanted to see something else, so we each went to our own movie and met up afterward. I don't remember what he went to see, but it had to have been better than this was.


    7) Home Alone 3 (1997)

    [​IMG]


    This was not only part of a weekend babysitting gig, but also assigned viewing by a brand-new local newspaper I was trying to get to take me on as a film reviewer. (Unsuccessfully, making the memories of having to sit through this all the more unpleasant.) The big problem here was that the kid (Alex D. Linz) seemed too vulnerable, and the professional thieves he was pitted against were too imposing for a kids film like this one. The Wet Bandits from the first two Home Alone movies were capable thieves, true, but there was a sense of comedic ineptitude to them, and they were up against an older, more snarky kid. It gave those movies more of a sense of fun. Here, seeing a sick little kid menaced by hardened pros, the kind you'd see in a Bond or Bourne film...it's more uncomfortable to watch. Plus, in the end, it's still a re-tread of the same old pratfalls and booby traps.


    6) The Thin Red Line (1998)

    [​IMG]

    Terrence Mallick's World War II drama had the unfortunate timing of coming out around the same time as Steven Spielberg's masterpiece Saving Private Ryan, and I'm sure comparisons between the two films were inevitable. For me, though, there was no contest. Even if I hadn't seen Saving Private Ryan first, I can't see myself having any other reaction to The Thin Red Line other than "it sucked." If it hadn't been a class assignment from the best high school teacher I ever had, I doubt I'd have seen it in theaters, if at all, and I don't think I'd have been any worse off. I barely got to know any of the characters, the film didn't really seem to be saying anything, and it just felt so fuggin' pretentious, so hollow and devoid of substance while trying to feel substantial and deep. I think I even slipped these sentiments into the writing assignment I had to do after seeing it; fortunately, my grade for said assignment didn't depend on liking the movie.


    5) Gladiator (2000)

    [​IMG]


    Ooooooooh, I'm gonna get me some hate for this one. But I'm sorry: I just don't care for Gladiator. There's no question it's impressively crafted from a technical standpoint, but its story and characters just left me cold. (Well, except for the late Oliver Reed as Proximal - that was a saving grace.) I guess its story just felt too formulaic and overdone, and Russell Crowe's perpetual moodiness and lack of anything to live for except revenge just felt one-note. I get what Ridley Scott was trying to do, show how a lone slave and gladiator can overcome someone as powerful as an emperor, but the execution just didn't do it for me. I've seen it twice since, each time trying to keep my mind as open as possible, and nothing's changed my initial opinion so far.


    4) Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003)

    [​IMG]


    As far as I'm concerned, the Terminator franchise ended with the second film, Judgment Day, and everything since then is just bad fanfic. I had no intention of ever watching this unnecessary sequel, and the only reason I did is because some friends invited me to go with them to see it, and I didn't want to be unsocial. As it turns out, none of us liked the movie, and the most entertaining part was us making fun of it together. There was no way any sequel could have possibly topped T2, which is probably one of the best sci-fi action movies ever made, but Rise of the Machines didn't feel like anyone was even bothering to try. The action wasn't exciting, some of the jokes killed the mood, and I really hated the whole "Judgment Day is inevitable" thing that undid the message of the previous film, one of the things that made it resonate and hold up as well as it does.


    3) Eragon (2006)

    [​IMG]


    As a favor to some family friends who were staying with us over their kids' winter break, it fell to me to take them to see this. I'd started reading the book a while ago, and...it just wasn't my thing and I didn't finish it, let's leave it at that. (As someone trying to get a book published, I think it's bad karma to publicly shred another author or their work.) The movie, however, felt like a recycled retread of better movies that had come before it, and Ed Speelers in the title role was a tear-inducingly boring character - not to mention kind of annoying. (At least his character on Downton Abbey was supposed to be unlikable.) As with Gladiator, there's a lively supporting performance from the inevitably doomed to die mentor character - in this case, Jeremy Irons as Brom - and Rachel Weisz did a good job as the voice of Saphira. It just wasn't anywhere near enough to get me into what could have been a much more satisfying fantasy adventure.


    2) Spider-Man 3 (2007)

    [​IMG]


    Yup, another third entry in a trilogy, and this one especially hurt. The first two Sam Raimi Spider-Man movies are among my favorite comic book movies, and they laid a lot of groundwork for what could have been an awesome third film. Unfortunately, way too much got crammed in, and the entire movie suffered as a result. And what the hell was with Venom's origin? I can't fault Raimi for how it turned out, as I understand there was a lot of studio interference on this one, resulting in a bloated mess of a movie with some good moments, particularly the Spider-Man/Sandman fights (one of which made my Top 15 favorite comic book movie fights list earlier in the year). I don't get why Sony didn't trust the guy who'd struck gold twice already, or at least broken this up into multiple movies. I hope the new Spider-Man movies with Tom Holland manage to avoid this mistake. (Also, semi-minor nitpick: I don't like how Peter Parker never fought Harry Osborn, aka the New Goblin - ugh, I hate that name - while in his Spider-Man costume.)


    1) Quantum of Solace (2008)

    [​IMG]


    Casino Royale (2006) was just the shot in the arm the Bond franchise needed, giving us a peek behind the curtain at what made Bond tick, while also giving us practical-looking effects and stunts. It also set the stage for interesting possibilities with a brand-new Shadowy Evil League. Not only that, but I'd seen three of director Marc Forster's other films by that point - Finding Neverland (2004), Stranger Than Fiction (2006), and The Kite Runner (2007) - and I was encouraged that a director of his caliber would be at the helm of this movie. Sadly, Quantum of Solace was a cluster in every sense of the word; it meandered and dragged, the action scenes were so rapidly cut that I couldn't follow any of the fight choreography, and the villain's scheme just seemed underwhelming. (And I despised the opening song "Another Way to Die.") What a waste of potential. At least Skyfall made up for it, although I have issues with that one's storyline as well when I think hard enough about it.


    HONORABLE MENTION

    The Matrix Reloaded (2003)


    [​IMG]

    I'm on the fence as to whether I think the original Matrix is good or not, but I'm not so conflicted about the sequels. The ending to the first sequel, Reloaded, left me both disappointed and confused as all hell, and not really all that interested to see what would come next. (I did see Revolutions, but only on DVD - a smart choice in retrospect.) Reloaded grabs the honorable mention slot, though, because I'm not sure how I feel about the rest of the movie. There was a lot of potential here that just didn't have a good payoff, and the leads were bland and uninteresting, both in terms of performance and characterization. Still, there were some high points. Any scenes with Hugo Weaving as ex-Agent Smith or Lambert Wilson as The Merovingian just lit up the screen. They seemed to be the only cast members actually having anything resembling fun (or any other emotion). Plus, some of the martial arts sequences were genuinely impressive, and I liked actually being able to see Zion. I just couldn't decide at the time if I'd actually liked what I'd just seen, and I guess I still can't.
    Sodapopcorn likes this.
  14. [​IMG]

    For obvious reasons, I kinda have the number "three" on the brain right now. And that means it's finally time for me to review Disney's The Three Musketeers, which once upon a time was my favorite movie ever.

    [​IMG]

    The last time I reviewed a Three Musketeers adaptation, I went into a lot of detail about the history behind the original novels and some of the more notable film adaptations, so I won't bother with that here. I also briefly covered the numerous other adaptations that are out there, so again, no need to rehash. Of all the adaptations I've seen (the 2011 movie and BBC series still aren't among them - and I really want to see the BBC series), I still consider this one to not only be my favorite, but the best one we've gotten so far, despite it baring only superficial resemblance to Dumas's work. While some might prefer a movie more true to the novel, I wonder if The Three Musketeers is one of those books that simply might not work as a film - or at least a single film. It's a long story in which a lot happens, and as good as the novel is, it's very uneven in terms of its pacing and tone, most of the swashbuckling action takes place in the first half of the book, and the ending is bittersweet at best. The silent adaptation from 1921, starring Douglas Fairbanks Sr., is a good film, probably the best Three Musketeers film behind the one I'm reviewing today, but it only adapts the first third of the book. The 1948 adaptation I already reviewed crammed most of they story into a two hour film, and it felt badly rushed as a result. Richard Lester made a smart decision to split the story in half, giving us The Three Musketeers (1973) and The Four Musketeers (1974), but his inclusion of broad slapstick comedy contrasted sharply with the second film's more dramatic moments, resulting in serious mood whiplash (a problem I also had with the 1948 film). So I can see why filmmakers might be tempted to stray more from the source material, and I'm okay with that - within certain limits. (Airships, Paul W. S. Anderson? Seriously?)

    [​IMG]
    The Three Musketeers (1973)

    The director of The Three Musketeers, Stephen Herek, also deserves a bit of attention in this review, as my fellow children of the 'Eighties undoubtedly know some of his work. Born in 1958, Herek studied filmmaking at the University of Austin, where the legendary Edward Dmytryk was one of his instructors. His movie career started off with him working for the master of shlock, Roger Corman, as an assistant director. During his tenure with Corman, he co-wrote the script (with old friend Dominic McNair) for Critters (1986), which was his directorial debut - and a surprise box-office hit. The success of Critters led to more directing offers, and his next film ended up being none other than the comedy classic Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure.(1989) for Warner Bros. His next two films weren't exactly critical darlings, but they were popular with audiences, including The Mighty Ducks (1992), which took in five times its ten million dollar budget. With Herek's knack for overcoming weak reviews and bringing in strong profits, plus a gift for working comedy into other genres, it makes sense that he ended up being the guy to direct Disney's live-action telling of The Three Musketeers. Sadly, Herek only released one more hit after this one, the live-action 101 Dalmatians remake (1996). After two disastrous flops, including the epically disastrous Eddie Murphy vehicle Holy Man (1998), he hasn't worked in theatrical films much recently, if at all.

    [​IMG]

    WARNING: Here be spoilers! Read further at your own risk!

    Our story takes place in France in the 1620s, supposedly under the benevolent rule of the young, naive King Louis XIII (Hugh O'Connor), newly married to Anne of Austria (Gabrielle Anwar). However, Cardinal Richelieu (Tim Curry) is the one with the real power, and the people of France suffer under his covert tyranny, despite the best efforts of the royal couple. Meanwhile, d'Artagnan (Chris O'Donnell) is off to Paris to follow in his late father's footsteps and become a musketeer, depicted in the film as the king's personal bodyguards. His timing is unfortunate, as Richelieu has manipulated the king into disbanding the musketeers, supposedly in preparation for a pending war with England. Three of them, however - Athos (Kiefer Sutherland), Porthos (Oliver Platt), and Aramis (Charlie Sheen) - have refused to resign their commissions and are now hunted by Richelieu's minions, including Captain Rochefort (Michael Wincott). Naturally, d'Artagnan ends up picking fights with all three of them, but he impresses them when he helps them fight off a group of the Cardinal's guards. Despite their victory, though, d'Artagnan ends up captured by Richelieu's men. While in captivity, d'Artagnan learns of Richelieu's scheme to put himself on the throne by forging an alliance with England's Duke of Buckingham, and the cardinal dispatches the seductive Countess de Winter (Rebecca de Mornay) to England with the treaty. After being rescued by our titular trio, d'Artagnan and his new comrades in arms must race the clock to thwart the cardinal and protect the king. Much awesomeness ensues thereafter.

    [​IMG]

    I make no apologies for considering this adaptation of The Three Musketeers to not only be my favorite, but the best of the lot. Like I said earlier, its similarities to the original novel are superficial at best, but unlike films such as King Solomon's Mines (1950) or Scaramouche (1952), what we get in place of the source material is enjoyable, engaging, and so much fun. It doesn't take itself too seriously, presenting itself as an enjoyable popcorn flick (which Herek himself asserted they were going for), and in this respect, it succeeds. This is probably one of the reasons the movie is able to mostly maintain a consistent tone, where numerous other adaptations have failed. It's no technical marvel or anything, but it's well-shot, and the pacing is fluid, efficiently establishing story and character without bogging things down or hurriedly shoving them into the narrative. The plentiful sword fights, choreographed by Bob Anderson, are pure swashbuckling action, devoid of unnecessary CGI, wirework, or unnecessary over-editing. And, of course, there's Michael Kamen's glorious score for this film - I think I've mentioned before that this is one of the films that really got me into movie music. I even like the end credits song "All For Love," performed by Bryan Adams, Rod Stewart, and Sting. I've taken a lot of grief over the years for this being my favorite song (or at least it used to be - not sure if it still is), but if there's anything I've learned from Channel Awesome and its comrades in arms over the years, it's not to be ashamed of my taste in movies or music, or anything like that.

    [​IMG]

    What really made The Three Musketeers such a winner for me is how invested I was able to get in the story and the characters, and I want to break down how the filmmakers accomplished this. First up is Athos, Porthos, and Aramis, the three musketeers themselves. While many other adaptations focus on d'Artagnan and how awesome he is, the titular trio are actually the stars of their own adventure, something that, again, can't even be said about them in the original novel. (Porthos and Aramis are far more important in the literary sequels than the original book.) D'Artagnan is still the main character, of course, but Athos, Porthos, and Aramis have a lot more to do here than in other adaptations. And it's a good thing, too, because the chemistry between the musketeers is nothing less than magical. I'm completely sold that these guys have fought, laughed, and mourned together for years, and would sacrifice anything for each other. More importantly, for all their snarking and witty banter, they understand the stakes they're playing for, and they take their duties seriously - and they know when to be serious, not breaking the drama of a somber moment for the sake of a cheap one-liner.

    [​IMG]

    I also want to spend a bit more time on d'Artagnan himself, who I have to admit isn't one of the stronger elements of the film. Like his literary counterpart, he's brash and cocky, sometimes annoyingly so, and his romance with Constance (Julie Delpy) feels like it was thrown in as an aftertought. Also, while I wouldn't call Chris O'Donnell's performance bad by any means, he's overshadowed by the rest of the cast. On the other hand, he's less of a Marty Stu in this version than the others I've seen. He pulls his weight and makes important contributions to the plot, but he's still appropriately depicted as inexperienced and needing the help of his new friends, which is a nice touch. Another refreshing aspect about his characterization is that despite his father dying in the line of duty, he's not motivated by revenge. There's no "one day I'll find and kill the guy whoever killed my father thing" going on. In fact, in the climactic duel with Rochefort at the end, he doesn't even know Rochefort is the guy who killed his dad (hey, the spoiler warning is there for a reason) until the very end of the fight. The entire rest of the time he's fighting him, it's out of duty to the king, not personal vengeance. Last but not least, I can relate to him wanting to make the musketeers proud, and be seen as deserving to be one of them.

    [​IMG]

    The villains, of course, are not to be outdone by our heroes. Tim Curry is perfectly cast as Cardinal Richelieu, and the amount of fun he's having with this performance is infectious. He not only looks the part, but he leaves no scenery unchewed in his delightfully over-the-top performance, worthy of comparison to Alan Rickman's performance in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. And speaking of Prince of Thieves, Michael Wincott fares much better in The Three Musketeers than he did in that film, actually getting to show off his stage combat chops and play a villain who actually gets to be villainous, as well as duke it out with the good guys. Interestingly, Milady de Winter, on the other hand, is a much more complex character than she was in the original story. Rather than a raging demon with a heart of pure evil, as written by Dumas, this Milady is more of a guilt-ridden tragic figure behind her manipulative facade. Last but not least, Doctor Who fans are in for a surprise treat, as the Eighth Doctor, Paul McGann, appears in a dual role here: not only is he the screechy-voiced Gerard, who bears a grudge against d'Artagnan for getting overly friendly with his sister, but also Jussac, an officer in Richelieu's guards. I'm not sure why they double-cast McGann in these two roles - did the filmmakers just really like working with him that they wanted to maximize his screen time as much as possible, or was he a last-minute re-cast?

    [​IMG]

    The Three Musketeers was also an important lesson as a writer in terms of making the audience care about the stakes. In the book and all other adaptations of The Three Musketeers that I've seen, King Louis XIII is a petty, selfish ruler who cares little for his subjects' welfare or his wife's happiness. If the life of such a king was in danger, you probably wouldn't give a damn whether he croaked or not. In fact, in the French film Revenge of the Musketeers (1994), that's exactly how I felt about Louis XIV's life being threatened by the villains - I didn't care, because he was such an unlikable prat. (And yes, that one's also on the list.) By making the king young, innocent, and good-natured, not to mention genuinely in love with Anne, you feel sympathetic towards him, and you actually care if he lives or dies, beyond not wanting to see the ruthless Richelieu seize the throne. It's a lesson I've taken to heart when trying to come up with stakes for my stories.

    [​IMG]

    Like most of Herek's other films, The Three Musketeers didn't go over well with critics, and even on IMDB, it only has a 6.4 rating. It made a decent amount of money, earning a decent profit, but it was no blockbuster. The single of "All For Love," however, went on to become a big success, throughout Europe as well as here in the US. Also, in 1994, Marvel (not yet owned by Disney) thought it was worth the effort to publish a two-part comic book adaptation. (I haven't read it, so no idea how good it is.) I can see why this movie didn't have more of a lasting impact, let alone make more of a splash when it hit theaters. However, seeing it in theaters as a twelve-year-old kid, I thought this movie was nothing less than awesome, and hit so many high marks, I couldn't think of any other movie I'd enjoyed more up to that point, and for many years afterwards.

    [​IMG]

    So...what happened? If I enjoy The Three Musketeers so much, and have so many good things to say about it, how did it fall from grace? Easy: it didn't. It's still on my top ten list, and even though my taste in movies and my standards for what makes them good have changed, I still hold this film in high regard. Everything I used to love about it, I still love about it. The few bits I didn't care for still annoy me. But the movie is still the same amazing, fun, exciting swashbuckler I've always regarded it to be, no matter how many times I see it. That hasn't changed. I've simply been exposed to a lot more movies over the years, a few of which have managed to equal or surpass it. Also, I finally acquired a copy of The Adventures of Robin Hood, something I didn't own for a long time, and I've had more chances to see it more often. If we'd owned said copy growing up, I'm sure Robin Hood would still have been the front-runner, and The Three Musketeers a close second.

    [​IMG]

    The Three Musketeers is the kind of swashbuckler that simply isn't made all that often anymore: a rollicking adventure with likable characters and a genuine sense of unpretentious fun. I'd definitely recommend this one.

    [​IMG]

    And thus concludes another year of The INCspotlight! It hasn't been as productive of one as years past, simply because my schedule doesn't allow me to crank these out on a weekly basis anymore. I'd like to think, though, that a more flexible schedule has given me time to get each review right, to find something interesting to delve into and research for each film, comic, or book that I'm looking at. I still love writing this blog, though, and I hope to keep it up for as long as possible - there's still tons of stuff I haven't gotten to yet. I'd also like to once again thank the folks at Channel Awesome for giving this humble little blog a home, all my readers for your time and encouragement these past three years, and my family and friends for all the support.

    'Till next time!

    [​IMG]
  15. [​IMG]

    Is it weird that one of my favorite writers is fictional? Is it any less weird if we can actually read his work?

    [​IMG]

    In 2009, after one and a half seasons, ABC cancelled True Beauty in favor of a new crime series, Castle. Created by Andrew W. Marlowe, who also wrote the screenplays for the movies Air Force One (1997) and End of Days (1999), Castle was a mid-season pickup that managed to blend comedy and drama perfectly, to the point where you were never quite sure which category best matched it. It quickly found an audience and a devoted fan following, and continued on for seven more full seasons - probably one or two too many, depending on who you ask.

    [​IMG]

    The eponymous Castle is Richard Edgar Castle (Nathan Fillion), a mystery writer who rides along with ace homicide detective Katherine "Kate" Beckett (Stana Katic) of the NYPD during her investigations. Prior to their partnership, Castle had written 23 best-selling novels, including a series of thrillers starring Derrick Storm, a private detective turned CIA troubleshooter. Castle eventually became bored with writing about Storm and killed him off, thinking he could easily come up with new characters. Unfortunately, he hit a bad case of writer's block, as he lacked inspiration for a new book. Then Detective Beckett (a closet Castle fan) stepped into the picture, investigating a series of serial killings based on Castle's books (his lesser works, by his own estimation). With the case solved, Castle found in Beckett the inspiration for a new character - Nikki Heat, a tough, savvy, sexy homicide detective. Thanks to his connections, Castle arranged it so that he would accompany Beckett on her cases, much to her initial dispeasure. Castle's snark and immaturity grated on the seriously professional Beckett, as did his depiction of her fictional counterpart, but his writer brain allowed him to come up with out-of-the-box angles for investigating and solving cases, and the two evolved from being uneasy partners to friends...and, of course, a couple. Castle was also instrumental in helping Beckett solve the long-unsolved murder of her mother, written off as a random slaying at first, but later revealed to be part of a widespread conspiracy.

    [​IMG]

    In addition to its deliciously snarky banter, Castle's biggest strength was its well-developed characters, brought to life by a talented cast with strong chemistry - not just the leads, but the supporting cast as well. Aiding Beckett with her investigations were fellow detectives Javier Esposito (Jon Huertas) and Kevin Ryan (Seamus Deaver), staunch allies and friends who enjoyed the bickering between Castle and Beckett, and who could always be counted on to get their backs. Castle also had his family - his high-school/college age daughter Alexis (Molly C. Quinn) from his first marriage, and his mother Martha (Susan Sullivan), a former Broadway star. Other recurring characters were the NYPD's forensic specialists, Dr. Lanie Parrish (Tamala Jones) and Dr. Sidney Perlmutter (Arye Gross). For the first three seasons, Beckett's commanding officer was the kindly Captain Roy Montgomery (Ruben Santiago-Hudson). In Season 4, Montgomery was replaced by the more taciturn Captain Victoria "Iron" Gates (Penny Johnson Gerald), who didn't warm up to Castle for a long time. Also in Season 4, psychiatrist Dr. Carter Burke (Michael Dorn) began making occasional appearances, a very different character than I'm used to seeing Dorn play (or hearing him voice).

    [​IMG]

    The showrunners put a lot of work into the gimmick that Castle actually existed. Real-life authors, including James Patterson, Dennis Lehane, Michael Connelly, and the late Stephen J. Cannell, would join Castle at his regular poker games, and sometimes even offer writing advice. Not only that, but Castle had his own website where you could see his entire bibliography, as well as get writing advice (quite useful advice, I must say) and read his blog. Blog entries included his bucket list, plans for successfully ambushing Alexis at laser-tag, and homemade memes mocking Nebula 9, Beckett's favorite sci-fi show. It really was remarkable how much work and detail went into this website, which makes it all the more unfortunate that it's been taken down, replaced by a generic "about the show" page. I guess when ABC decided to destroy everything enjoyable about Castle during Season 8, they wanted to be as thorough as possible.

    [​IMG]

    The crowning achievement of this gimmick, however, was the publication of the actual Nikki Heat novels, supposedly authored by Castle himself. The identity of the actual writer remains unknown, and is a source of much internet speculation. The "about the author" sections of the books show a photo of Nathan Fillion with a bio of Castle, not to mention acknowledgments from "Castle" himself. To top it off, Nathan Fillion's not above signing books as Castle - something I can personally attest to, thanks to the friend who got me into all this in the first place.

    [​IMG]

    As of the time I'm writing this, seven books in the Nikki Heat series have been published, all New York Times best-sellers, with an eighth on the way this October 25th and a ninth announced for next year. (There are also some real-world works about Derrick Storm, including a series of graphic novel adaptations of the older novels published by Marvel Comics, as well as new novels featuring Derrick Storm, revealed to have faked his death. Nikki Heat makes a cameo in the first of these novels, Storm Front.) In fact, it was actually the books that finally got me into Castle in the first place. (Well, that and the urging of a very old friend whose judgment I can trust about this sort of thing.) I'm much more picky about TV shows than movies these days, on account of the time commitment required to invest in an ongoing series, and Castle just didn't seem like anything original, based on the premise. However, once I saw the Richard Castle books on shelves at a local Barnes & Noble, that's when I had my "okay, I've gotta listen to my friend and check this show out" moment. It didn't take me long to get hooked, for the reasons I stated above, and then I went ahead and nabbed all the novels in print at the time. I've had a lot of fun re-reading these in preparation for this review, as has my always-dependable Trusty Research Assistant. (I was briefly tempted to follow suit with this review, playing along with the idea that Castle was real, but I wasn't sure how many people would get the joke.)

    [​IMG]

    Similar to the show, Nikki Heat is an NYPD homicide detective whose mother Cynthia was murdered in her home by an unknown assailant. Since then, she's dedicated herself to making sure every victim gets the justice he or she deserves, regardless of who they are, never becoming just another statistic. Her ridealong, Jameson Rook, is a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist doing research for a magazine article. (He also writes romance novels on the side under the alias "Victoria St. Clair.") Miguel Ochoa and Sean Raley (given the joint nickname "Roach") are clear analogues for Esposito and Ryan, as is Captain Montrose for Captain Montgomery. There are some new additions to Nikki's homicide squad that don't seem to be based on anyone from the show. Randall Feller and Dan "Opie" Rhymer, and in two of the books, burglary detectives Malcolm and Reynolds. (Like the show, the books drop lots of references to Fillion's prior role as Captain Malcolm Reynolds in Firefly.) The annoyingly inept Sharon Hinesburg is modeled on Detective Karpowski, a character who only appeared in a couple of episodes - Hinesberg plays much more of a key role in the books than Karpowski ever did on the show. Other than that, the books could basically be episodes of the show.

    [​IMG]

    You don't need to have seen a single episode of Castle to be able to follow the books, although it will help you appreciate all the mythology gags and references to the TV series. While the show won't really spoil all that much from the books, the books will have lots of spoilers for the show, especially if you read the acknowledgments, as I encourage you to do. So if you're planning to check out both Castle and Nikki Heat, watch Castle first, then read the books. Just as a heads up, the books are also far more explicit than the show, especially when it comes to language, violence, and sexual content. (In the first novel, Heat Wave, Heat fights off an assailant in her apartment while she's completely in the buff.) This isn't a bad thing: just something to be aware of for those of you who are concerned about stuff like this. I'm not going to review each individual novel as a whole, because it would basically be repetitive. The quality of the writing and the chemistry between the characters is consistent throughout the series. I'll try and keep the spoilers to a minimum as much as possible.

    Alrighty, I think that's more than enough exposition. On with the review!

    Heat Wave (2009)

    [​IMG]

    Nikki Heat investigates the murder of real estate tycoon Matthew Starr, all the while saddled with a ride-along: famed reporter Jameson Rook, who's writing an article about her and her squad. Naturally, Rook's cavalier attitude, refusal to follow instructions, and attempts at charm grate on Nikki, but he's nevertheless instrumental in helping solve the case. Castle fans who had yet to see Castle and Beckett so much as hug by the time this book came out probably enjoyed seeing their fictional counterparts hook up. This book starts off as a fairly straightforward mystery, which takes some interesting turns later on. The real fun is watching Heat and Rook play off each other, and everybody else enjoying the show. A strong beginning to the Nikki Heat series.

    According to Castle lore, Heat Wave was a smash hit, leading to an offer from Castle's publisher for three more books. It even got a movie adaptation starring Natalie Rhodes (Laura Prepon) as Heat, and there was an episode where Rhodes - a hardcore Method actor - shadowed Beckett so as to best be able to portray her on-screen. Unfortunately, it went straight to DVD on account of Rhodes's substance abuse issues.


    Naked Heat (2010)

    [​IMG]

    As Heat deals with the fallout from Rook's article in First Press, she unexpectedly finds him at the scene of a murder. The victim turns out to be notorious gossip columnist Cassidy Towne, who had no shortage of people who wanted to see her dead - athletes, pop stars, celebrity chefs, you name it. Rook is once again on hand to help out Heat, but thanks to his article, he's not exactly welcome, which makes for some nice tension. Not as much action in this one compared to the other books, but lots of suspects, and it does a better job of building suspense once we get to the killer's identity and motive. Everything I enjoyed about the first book was here in force, but I found the actual mystery itself to be more engaging this time around.


    Heat Rises (2011)

    [​IMG]


    A priest is found tortured to death in a BDSM dungeon, and it appears Captain Montrose is involved somehow. As Heat struggles to unravel the mystery, she finds herself stonewalled by her captain, under assault by mysterious assassins, ensnared by police department politics, and devoid of an on-assignment Rook for the first part of the book. The case turns personal for Heat when she unexpectedly suffers a devastating loss.

    This is, by far, my favorite book in the series, and I've re-read it more times than the other entries. I think it's the best written, the best plotted and put-together, and it did the best job of keeping me riveted to the page wondering what would come next. The mystery has lots of moving parts to it, and I'm impressed with how well everything tied together in the end. All the books in the series have been able to pull this off, don't get me wrong, but Heat Rises stands out in this regard.


    Frozen Heat (2012)

    [​IMG]

    A dead woman is found in a suitcase that once belonged to Heat's mother, reopening the cold case as she works to solve this newest murder. As Heat and Rook inch ever closer towards the truth, some surprising revelations about Cynthia Heat are brought to light, none of which I saw coming - including the identity of her killer. (I was audibly surprised by who it turned out to be, which got me some weird looks as I was riding the bus home from work.) It also ends on an EVIL cliffhanger, and I was chomping at the bit waiting impatiently for the next book to come out in paperback. Beyond this, Heat and Rook have some beautiful moments together, which appeal to the sentimental sap in me, and while the bad guy may be a bit too easy to identify (at least if you're a veteran of the genre), it's a minor quibble in an otherwise stellar entry in the series - probably on par with Heat Rises.


    Deadly Heat (2013)

    [​IMG]

    Continuing from the previous book, Heat faces a double-threat: the same shadowy conspiracy from the previous book, and a ruthless serial killer who's racking up serious headlines. As Heat confronts these double-threats, her superiors once again are on hand to question her ability to tackle both cases at once. There's also some rivalry with an anti-terrorism unit working the first case, one member of which is an old flame of Rook's. As if this wasn't bad enough, but someone on Heat's squad may be working for the bad guys.

    I'm not entirely sure how well the two plots of the conspiracy and the serial killer intersect - especially since the two perps manage to get in each other's way, making one of them come off as substantially less of a threat. This probably would have worked better as two separate stories. Still, it's well-written, and it does a good job of wrapping up this particular arc of Nikki Heat's story, even if I was hoping for something a bit more epic. It left me wondering where the series would go from here, especially once I learned that it would indeed go on.


    Raging Heat (2014)

    [​IMG]

    Nikki Heat encounters one of her more gruesome crime scenes - a victim apparently dropped from a plane. The man behind it appears to a charismatic but ruthless former businessman turned Port Authority commissioner primed to move on to bigger and better things. Nikki is convinced the evidence points to Gilbert, but her squad, her superiors, and even Rook aren't so sure. The timing on this lack of faith couldn't be worse, as Heat is facing some professional and personal possibilities that this case threatens to undermine. Oh, and Hurricane Sandy is bearing down on New York as all this is going down.

    This is an interesting variation compared to the other books in the series so far, as we pretty much know who the guilty party is from very early on in the book, and certain key plot points make it all the more inevitable. The mysteries here are how Heat can prove it, why the victim was murdered in the first place, and what the culprit's overall scheme is - and Rising Heat keeps you guessing all the way to the end on that, with a satisfying payoff in the end. And speaking of endings, Rising Heat's has quite a status-quo game-changer that ends on a bit of a cliffhanger. Also, it was an interesting choice using Hurricane Sandy, a real storm that did a great deal of damage and cost many lives, as opposed to a fictional storm.


    Driving Heat (2015)

    [​IMG]


    Nikki Heat, now precinct captain, suffers yet another loss - Dr. Lon King, her psychiatrist, who has been mysteriously shot to death. As the bodycount increases, the NYPD faces a hacking assault that shuts their tech down, and Heat faces some internal squabbling that casts doubt on her ability to be an effective captain. Also, Rook's principles as a journalist force him to hold back key information he might have on the case, which puts him at odds with Heat.

    While there was a lot about this book that I enjoyed, especially the beautifully written ending, I don't think the mystery was as well-assembled as it was in the previous books. The payoff was especially disappointing, even after a second read-through. It's not by any means bad, but I was expecting more.

    [​IMG]

    I'm looking forward to seeing what the next book, High Heat has to offer, and hopefully it'll leave me wanting to come back for the next one, Heat Storm (which I'm guessing will be a full-fledged Nikki Heat/Derrick Storm crossover). I hope the series remains strong, and avoids making the mistakes of its television source. As long as it does, the Nikki Heat series can count me in...always.

    [​IMG]
    Legene likes this.