back to the startRecent reviews

  • Written by them00ch on 30.07.2010

    Yet another unfortunate victim of the infamous Hollwood blacklisting by HUAC in the 1950s, Jules Dassin made Night and the City while essentially beginning exile for “un-American” behaviour. Dassin, forced to make the film abroad and extremely quickly before the main studio heads shut him down, had to resort to near-guerilla tactics to create this noir masterpiece.

    The difficult political situation Dassin found himself in forced him to take instinctive, rapid decisions, using on-location shoots in the after-midnight locale of London’s inner-city backstreets – and as Dassin already proved in the lighter noir-policier “The Naked City“, he knows how to direct in an urban environment, using late-night London as a stage, and bringing her to life in a completely natural and satisfying way. For example, a stand-out scene which was forcibly imposed due to the shooting conditions, is a fairly long, single-take shot from the back of a car as it drives around Piccadilly, the driver stopping occasionally to speak to the people on the streets. Dassin admitted later that he had no permission to film, there were no traffic restrictions in place, they just jumped in a car and shot in the midst of the real-life of London. It is an incredibly effective shot, and amongst others gives Night and the City a unique, organic feel, and proves how inventive Dassin could be under pressure. It isn’t just the on-location shots which impress either – visually, the film is an end-to-end feast for the eyes, with immaculately lit sets complimenting the outdoor cityscapes.

    Despite completing shooting of this expansive, densely plotted film at a rapid pace and under restrictive conditions, none of this is felt by the viewer at any moment. The film unfolds masterfully and patiently, driven forward by the complex characterization of our main protaganist Harry Fabian – portrayed here in the performance of a lifetime by the dependably excellent Richard Widmark.

    Fabian is a very complex character – A confident and charming small-time trickster with two feet rooted deep in the gutter. Ultimately, his passionate self-belief is not matched by his ability, and despite always having a big break “in the palm of my hand“, he never manages to carry it through, frequently dragging his long-suffering girlfriend Mary (the beautiful Gene Tierney) down with him. The film follows Fabian as he attempts to make a splash in the London wrestling racket, using his observational skills and a couple of fairly cheap confidence plays to secure the attention of worldwide Greco-Roman wrestling legend Gregorius (played by real-life wrestler Stanislaus Zbyszko). Gregorius is the father of rival wrestling promoter and underworld boss Kristo (the effortlessly cool Herbert Lom) who is loathe to see his father represented by the infamous Fabian, a man known as a two-bit loser by everyone in London. Seeking funding from Mary’s nightclub boss Nosseross (Francis L. Sullivan) and his reluctant wife (Googie Withers), Fabian quickly gets in over his head, and so the film’s web of deceit and suspicion is spun.

    Such a complex character, driven to extreme highs and lows, requires much of Richard Widmark, and once again he doesn’t disappoint, as he bears the weight of Fabian’s paradoxical and conflicted personality without falter. Laughing one moment, crying the next, moving swiftly from confident and arrogant to humble and apologetic, Widmark’s range hits all the right notes in a naturally tragic, realistic, career-defining performance. The rest of the supporting cast, while they are not tested and stretched anywhere near as much as Widmark, still manage to put in stellar complementary performances, with the possible and understandable exception of non-actor Stanislaus Zbyszko. What he lacks in emotive delivery though, he makes up for in screen prescence, and partakes in one of the most intense fight scenes ever captured on film.

    It is also worth noting that the film is an excellent piece to study how post-production can effect the final product, as two versions exist. For reasons lost in time, the UK and US versions worked with the same footage, but were edited seperately, and perhaps more importantly scored completely differently. The US version is scored by Franz Waxman who utilized a huge orchestra and chose to fully score most of the film with energetic, jazz-infused instrumentals, while the UK version was composed by Benjamin Frankel, who opted for a smaller scale, more traditional score. I have to say I preferred the UK score. The on-location shots felt had a more natural ambience with little-to-no music, while Waxman’s US score at times feels a little intrusive and overpowering – a little too “Hollywood” for the London setting.

    The opposite can be said for the plot however – the US version completely omitted a few characterization scenes, and surprisingly for Hollywood had a much more downbeat realist ending than the heavily romanticized UK ending. The US edit was in my opinion correct in it’s decision to remove superfluous segue characterization, as the perfect screenplay already framed the characters “in-plot”, no extra exposition was needed. The extra scenes in the UK version felt a little forced and unneccesary, and the ending in the UK cut would probably have knocked at least half a star off the review score. However one short scene bizarrely cut from the US edition was a fairly important one, and without it, a character inexplicably appears at a location they couldn’t have known about. This doesn’t detract too much from the overall experience though, and the pacing of the US cut still has the edge.

    For review purposes I have concentrated on the US edit, but both versions combined are a fascinating example of how the tone of a film can be completely altered in post-production.

    Whilst my knowledge of film-noir is still in relative infancy, this film has been a real highlight for me, and I still feel confident enough to proclaim it as one of the best ever made, especially considering the restrictive conditions it was produced under. Directed with flair and passion by Jules Dassin, this sits alongside “Du rififi chez les hommes” as a shining example of his output. A absolute must-see for noir fans.

  • Written by coolathlon on 29.07.2010

    Within all those men in tights, there are few that stand out. One of them is wearing big glasses, acting shy while being a reporter. Why is he that popular? Because he's the fastest one on the typewriter and he's a super man they tell.
    That's maybe the same reason why some may love this enormous number of special effects. We see strings, blue screen, front projection, optical editing and other techniques that were modern back then in 1978. (Actually, we see none but the result of them on the screen.)
    But I'm not satisfied with that. I'd more like watching C-beams glitter than Mr. S flying on and on and --
    What made this Alien become vivid was the fresh play of Christopher "notwalkin'" Reeve (I did not notice before the enormous number of alternative meanings to that middle name I just gave). He's a Fredric March with crystal powers and a spark of making-fun-of-himself. Clark still is a nice guy after his many small faults he makes in everyday's life. But Louis -- who's that? only thing to remember well is her screaming. Watching a huge continental rift coming near and not running away is too much for a human being with two legs and a brain.
    Which leads us to the script. Thank god the original one of more than 500 pages was reduced and freed of comic events involving Kojak and things. I did not get in the mood to develop a relationship to the characters. May it because it's too sweaty, or I have not the mind for taking super powers for granted, or because I've never read any comic of one of the most ancient American heroes. BTW "sweaty":
    http://www.abload.de/image.php?img=vlcsnap-2010-07-29-21hpca9.png
    [29.07.2010 21:37:05] <Sebas> ...the fuck?
    [29.07.2010 21:37:36] <Sebas> Is that from a real superman film, or some terrible porn knockoff?
    [29.07.2010 21:38:27] <coolathlon_movi> That IS Christopher Reeve. It's the test audition that made him Mr. S.

    In summary we have a mass of SFX with good quality (for that time), a story with too often exaggerating the situation to some sillyness and an earworm soundtrack thanks to John Williams.

    So go just look at the WTM-shots, buy the soundtrack and 'Maus. A Survivor's Tale' from Art Spiegelman if you are not into heroes but dramatic stories.
    Else it's long SFX fest for popcorn cinema lovers.
    If you're really into classy pictures: Originally it was made in 70 mm. A few cinemas may show it not only on the big screen but the bigger one.

  • Written by sati on 29.07.2010

    I heard something about Jason Statham's movies from my friend – that he have made three truly awful movies – Uwe Boll's film, “Revolver” and “Death Race”. I haven't seen first two, but having seen “Death Race” I have to say I strongly disagree about last one. The movie is very entertaining, and as an action movie works well. “Crank 2” was hell a lot worse, to the point I would close the review in two words only - “Jason, why?”

    In 2012, amid economic chaos and high unemployment, Americans by the millions watch criminals with life sentences race armored cars on Terminal Island. Two-thirds of the combatants die but the winner may earn his freedom. On the day he loses his job, steelworker Jensen Ames (Statham) is arrested for his wife's murder. Sent to Terminal Island, he's offered an out by the steely and manipulative warden Hennessey (Joan Allen) race as the popular mask-wearing (but now dead) champion, Frankenstein, or rot in prison. Jensen makes the bargain. As the three-stage race approaches, he realizes that the whole thing may be a set up - can an anonymous man behind a mask get revenge and win his release?

    The race scenes are amazing – I don't have a driving license myself (because I want to live and had I driven a car a lot of people would surely die) so I'm always impressed by any race/chase scenes. I can't even imagine how some of the scenes were made – after all it's all fake – nobody died, nobody's head was decapitated, but all of those stunts look so incredibly dangerous and realistic you totally forget you're watching a movie. The editing is also very nice and Paul Haslinger's score is excellent.

    It's really refreshing to finally see (after all those mindless action films) Statham playing a character you can sympathize with. I liked his character in “Transporter” series, but this could be due to the fact he wore a suit and drove a fancy car, but I hated the one in “Crank”. Here the whole set-up for his character reminded me of “Law Abiding Citizen”, especially the beginning – his wife gets killed and he wants revenge. He also has a little baby girl to whom he wants to return to. That's enough for the viewer to root for him.

    Statham also finally got actual woman to play his love interest, not those slutty chicks in “Transporter” movies. Natalie Martinez is very attractive and plays likeable character of Chase, Jensen's navigator. They have very good chemistry and Jason smiles about 10 times more than in all “Cranks” and “Transporters” combined. Hell, I'm not surprised he did, finally having a reason to do that. The ending is also very good and satisfying.

    The film has two actors in it, who you think should feel out of place, but they don't – Ian McShane and Joan Allen. McShame plays one of the guys who help the main hero with the car and along with other men from mechanic crew brings a lot of comic relief. Allen plays icy warden and is great to watch – she's cold, determined and ruthless. I had the same feeling here as when I was watching Bill Nighy's performance in “Underworld”. Those actors know that the movie is just an action film, far from masterpiece, but still manage to do great work and have some fun in addition to it.

    The story is very simple, as with most action films. Most of the film are race scenes, but given how they are placed in a futuristic world (I cannot imagine this actually happening any time soon, people racing to death with the approval of prison wardens and their supervisors) it's interesting and quite unique. The visual side works well – everything is dark and grim, movie's pace is very fast – I wasn't bored for a second. Yes, some of the lines are cheesy and some of the dialogue is awful, but the bottom line is that I had a lot of fun watching the film and I'm glad I saw it, despite awful reviews and opinions about it.

    64/100

  • Written by them00ch on 29.07.2010

    I’ll preface this review by saying of all the films on my noir list that I am working through, this was one that I was looking forward to the most. I only own one other Samuel Fuller film – Shock Corridor – but it is a personal favourite of mine, so I had high hopes for Pickup on South Street. I wasn’t disapponted.

    Petty thief Skip McCoy (the excellent Richard Widmark whom I respect more and more as a dramatic actor every time I see him) is in the wrong place at the wrong time as he lifts a purse from the earthy, but alluring Candy (Jean Peters) on a train. Unluckily for him, she was a mule, carrying a microfilm for her weasly boyfriend Joey (Richard Kiley). Before long, he finds himself an unwitting player in a Communist spy ring, playing off the cops on one side and fighting for his life against the Communists on the other.

    The political connotations aren’t exactly subtle, especially when you consider when this was made. No matter what side you are on in this movie, everyone hates the Commies! The attitudes of Americans at the time are summed up perfectly in a single line by Brooklyn wise-girl Thelma Ritter. Her character – Moe Williams, is as happy to hang out with criminals as she is to sell them out to the police, flirting with both sides of the law, but when suspected of selling out to a “Commie” though, she gives the deadpan reply :

    “What do you think I am, an informer?”

    Thankfully, Fuller doesn’t really push this as a propagandist film, and in fact there is much to suggest this is to be taken as a satirical glance at American attitudes, rather than an anti-communist propaganda work. The sign-of-the-times satire is further suggested by another line given life by Ritter;

    “What do I know about commies? Nothing… but I know I don’t like ‘em“.

    Like I said, everyone hates the commies. Even the stool pigeons.

    Also, the Communists create the added bonus of putting an inventive twist on the standard noir themes. Rather than just having the law and the criminals, and every shade of gray in between, the film uses the Communists as a 3rd player, creating an interesting playground wherein the law are after the criminals, and everyone is after the communists and their microfilm – giving a fresh feel to what is essentially a genre-film.

    Zeitgeist political suggestions aside, this is a swift, entertaining roller coaster ride of a movie. Weighing in at a fairly lightweight 77 minutes, the film breezes along, rarely slowing down to take a breath.

    The performances are excellent, with the possible exception of Richard Kiley, whose anxiety-ridden character is often tinged with wide-eyed, twitchy melodrama. Richard Widmark plays his role to perfection, one of the truly great noir anti-heroes. If a film can have you rooting for someone even after they punch out a beautful lady and laugh about it, that’s one great script and actor. When Skip isn’t dislocating the lovely Candy’s jaw, he is caressing it, and the more tender scenes between them are simply electric, with a real chemistry.

    They are very nearly all upstaged though, by the afore-mentioned Thelma Ritter. Without a doubt one of the most under-appreciated supporting character actresses that ever lived. Her character is a complex one, one that works on both sides of the law. She sells her friends out to the police, and they know it, but they still have a huge amount of respect for her. In a genre that is ridden with stoolies who get their come-uppance, this is a quite a hard cliche to break, yet the combination of the excellent script, and Ritter’s pitch-perfect performance lend the film the credibility it needs to break that barrier.

    Visually, the film is faultless and unique. Fuller plays with high angles, low angles, shadows, light, cross-fades etc. in a masterful way. It’s all tightly edited, with no excess baggage and underlined by an understated but desperately cool blues saxophone.

    I cannot write this review without mentioning the bone-jarringly realistic fight scenes. One scene in particular, shot in a single take, is a brutal tête-à-tête between Richard Kyley and Jean Peters, and the beating he hands out to her is quite hard to watch. Slaps and punches land with convincing fervour, and the poor actress is thrown into tables and furniture as they smash on her battered body. I can honestly say that of all the films I have seen from this era, this is the first time a fight scene has made me wince in imagined pain – it is a powerful moment.

    In summary, I cannot find a fault with Pickup on South Street, other than a slightly hammy perfomance at the start of the film by Richard Kiley – but even he picks up the ball and runs with it towards the end. This is a brilliantly dark, fast-paced, satirical script, with well developed characters and relationships, great set-pieces and flawless direction, as well as being an essential commentary on American political beliefs at the time. A must-see.

  • Written by Bwoud on 28.07.2010

    Chris Whilton (Jonathan Rhys Meyers) a retired tennis pro, works at a high class London sports club as a tennis teacher, where he befriends one of his students. This student, named Tom Hewett, takes Chris to see his family who happens to greatly enjoys his company and absorb him into the family as one of their own. This bond is made even stronger when Chris falls in love and eventually marries Tom's sister Chloe (played beautifully by Emily Mortimer).
    Chris however, will not settle for a loving relationship,a lot of money and his new high end job. He falls in love with Tom's girlfriend and after the couples break-up starts an affair with her. Nola Rice (Scarlett Johansson) as she is called eventually gets pregnant and threathens to reveal the affair to Chris' wife. Chris now is faced between the impossible choice of choosing between his loving and rich life or the passion of the relationship with Nola.
    Drawn between the two decisions he eventually starts a plan to escape from the trouble he has created for himself.

    In this movie by Woody Allen he strings out a beautifully simple yet intricate storyline which in the end has some nice twists and turns to it. The setting of London might be uneasy for regular Allen-fans, as they might be used to every of Allen's stories taking place in and around NYC. The setting of the old and stately England however is just right for the rich upper class world the main character gets himself in to. This also brings in some stiff upper lip acting but at the same time leaves some opening for explosions of true passion when they are needed.

    The movie is a must for Allen fans and also for people out there who enjoy a great movie with a strong story centered on the subtle intiricacies of personal relationships and the trouble people can get themselves into while balancing on that thin line.

reviews written by