The Prisoner of Shark Island (1936)

  'The Prisoner of Shark Island' is a 1936 film directed by John Ford and starring Warner Baxter.

  On the night of President Lincoln's assassination, John Wilkes Booth stops by a doctor's house to tend to his broken leg. The doctor, called Samuel Mudd, lets him in, and tends to his leg, without knowing that he was the one who shot President Lincoln. The following day, the army are trying to find Booth and stop in on Mudd's house. They find a shoe with Booth's name on it, and accuse him of being an accomplice in the assassination. Soon after his trial, he is sent to life imprisonment in a prison in the Dry Tortugas (of the edge of Key West).

  This is another rare OOP Masters of Cinema DVD that I bought a few weeks ago. They release the definitive editions of the films (in region 2), and take care over their releases. What attracted me to this film was the awesome title, and that it's a John Ford film (a director I should know more of). 'The Prisoner of Shark Island' is one of his patriotic American films, as oppose to his small Irish films. Not a western, the genre he is most known for, but a mixture of different genres, starting of as a retelling of events, then turning into a court drama, then an prison-escape film, before finishing as a heroic biopic. The film is relatively unpredictable, but it's clear Mudd will eventually find freedom (similar to '12 Years a Slave', 'The Shawshank Redemption' etc).

  The story is told in a typical, celebratory way, as seen in 'The Birth of a Nation', that over-emphasizes America and fills the story with considerable patriotism. This is a film taken place after a turbulent period in American history, and allows Ford to show the love for the country (even if he is Irish). Ford makes the audience sympathize with a heroic underdog as he eventually succeeds, a plotline that is similar to some of his other films, but this is the best example. For me, the 1930s is the worst decade in film, partially due to the lack of style and beauty. John Ford does counter this belief (Cahiers du Cinemalove him), making his films unique for the time period.

  As the events the film takes gets worse and worse, the courage that Mudd displays is humongous. It's hard to believe this was based on a true story of the real-life Samuel Mudd. Warner Baxter portrays him with real authenticity and is often perceived as his finest performance. It may even be considered his best if the film wasn't forgotten over time.

TO CONCLUDE
It may not be his best film (that would be 'The Grapes of Wrath'), and the film is often cliche and predictable, but it's enjoyable and has a great pay off at the end.

SCORE

77

The Secret Life of Walter Mitty (2013)

  'The Secret Life of Walter Mitty' is a 2013 film directed by and starring Ben Stiller.

  Walter Mitty is a daydreamer, who often imagines his life being better. He works for LIFE magazine, which are firing employees due to an acquisition. It's his duty to sort out the final cover of the last ever edition, but the negative has disappeared...

  Most films with this low of a score are dull and boring. 'The Secret Life of Walter Mitty' is many things but it is not boring. It constantly barrages the audience with luscious visuals, and constant action for it to be dull. The amazing visuals do feel out of place and the action does feel unnecessary and inconsequential, but it did prevented me from falling asleep.

  It's not the worst movie of the year but the most cringe-worthiest movie of the year. Some scenes made me feel physically sick, especially the ending (where he sees what's on the LIFE magazine cover). Very predictable as well. I could guess what was on the negative the second it went missing. The film gets incredibly stupid in places, trading the stretchy doll for the skateboard was probably the dumbest thing I have ever seen. The film is meant to be escapism, so the intention is for it to be unrealistic, but scenes like this take the piss.

  The film adds storylines and interesting characters, then drops them after three minutes. I never did understand the point of the radio he dropped in the ocean or why the photographer took a photograph of his mothers piano. I didn't find the product placement as annoying as other people have, but it did take me out of the action a few times, to sigh heavily. Most of the advertisements are America-specific so they are completely pointless anyway, regardless of the effort they take to try and make them blend in.

  The cringe-worthy, stupid moments and the awful script, is forgiven in a couple of films by amazing acting. Not in this film, with Ben Stiller starring as an awful protagonist. I never liked Ben Stiller, and now I don't like him more. It's not that he is bad in the role, he is atrocious. Anyone else rooting for the shark?

  To be fair the cinematography is excellent and Sean Penn was surprisingly good. But in the end it's a film about Ben Stiller imagining of living life, then living life, then not, then living it again. Way too much bullshit manipulated excessively to try and hit every feel-good bone in the body, but misses them all. It does hit the stomach.

TO CONCLUDE
This film has split audience and critics. Some even claim it to be the next Forrest Gump (as seen on every bus poster in England for about three months). I thought it was a physically painful experience and I am surprised at the amount of people who loved it, how can they be spoon-fed this Americanized bullshit so easily.

SCORE
38

Wuthering Heights (1939)

  'Wuthering Heights' is a 1939 Romance directed by William Wyler and starring Laurence Olivier.

  Lockwood is a traveller in mid-19th Century English Midlands, when he stops at a house due to a heavy storm. There he meets the rude Heathcliff (Olivier) and Ellen the housekeeper. Lockwood believes he saw a figure outside, shouting "Let me in, I'm out on the Moors. It's Cathy". Upon Heathcliff being told this, he runs out onto the moors. Ellen then tells Lockwood the story of Heathcliff and Cathy's (Merle Oberon) endless love.

  'Wuthering Heights' is one of the most well-known literary works ever written. The book was published in 1847 by the author Emily Bronte, and has been made into numerous film and TV adaptations (17 according to IMDB). The adaptations include a 1954 film directed by Luis Bunuel and a 1985 film directed by Jacques Rivette, but it is this 1939 William Wyler film that is always considered the greatest.

  Seeing as the book was written in the 19th Century, the story has dated with age. The 'girl split between two guys' storyline is overused nowadays, especially with the release of the 'Twilight' and 'The Hunger Games' films. But there is enough in this film to make the film different from these many imitators. For example, the first five minutes gives away the entire storyline of the film. The audience knows how everything is going to end up, so the film focuses instead on how they get there. Why is Heathcliff rich and Cathy dead? So as the film progresses, the pieces of the puzzle are gradually slotted together. When the final flash-forward to present day occurs, everything makes sense, completing the story. Its not about the result, but the journey it takes to get there.

  This film was made earlier in 1939 "The (apparently) best year for film ever", and contains many stylistic choices that feel ahead of its time. Yes it is a Romantic film (my least favourite genre), but it feels like a Dickensian David Lean film, like 'Great Expectations' and 'Oliver Twist'. The Romantic Hollywood films made around this time, usually lacked aesthetic, or any kind of stylistic approach. The sets of the Moors are some of the greatest of the 1930s. I have been to the Midlands a few times, and they have never been this beautiful.

  This is Olivier in one of his best roles. I feel guilty for disliking his performance in 'Henry V', as I realize now he can truly act. The character he creates, tells the rags to riches tale and the lost love tale, perfectly. After watching I can see why this story is timeless, and despite loosing half the book in transition, this film is perfection for the 1930s.

TO CONCLUDE
'Great Expectations' (aesthetic) meets 'Twilight' (love triangle) meets 'Cinema Paradiso' (lost love) meets 'Camille' (tragic ending).

SCORE
78

The Savage Innocents (1960)

  'The Savage Innocents' is a 1960 film directed by Nicholas Ray and starring Peter O'Toole and Anthony Quinn.

  Inuk (Anthony Quinn) is an Eskimo living in the Arctic Circle. He wants a wife, but they're in a shortage as the male population is far larger than the female population. He takes a wife called Asiak, and while hunting a polar bear, meets an Eskimo with a gun. He is fascinated by the gun and journeys out to a trade post with his wife and her mother.

  It's memorable because of the vast white landscapes and the crazy characters, but also quite an irritating ordeal to watch. Inuk may be an accurate character, but he is isn't a sympathetic one. He is ignorant, self-centred and speaks like an autistic Yoda. Actually, all the Eskimo characters speak like an autistic Yoda. Instead of saying I'll go hunting he says "Someone needs to hunt". The characters constantly refer to themselves as someone, but this only touches the iceberg (lol).

  Inuk kills an innocent man because he rejects laughing with his husband. How can I like any character after that. Above all else, the laughing is the worst thing about this film. Inuk and his wife laugh at EVERYTHING. They can't have a normal conversation without the aggravating laughter. If Eskimos do this, they should have glanced over it for the film, as it is not good film-making. Quin maybe giving a valid attempt at a portrayal of an Eskimo, however his whole performance gets very close to racism. Thankfully Peter O'Toole appears and saves the day 30 minutes from the end.

  Overall the film is fairly enjoyable. If you look past these bothersome aspects, the film is well made, and visually gorgeous. Ray's directing is spot-on, mixing the Eskimo's lifestyle with rock and roll. He doesn't shy away from the detestable (from outsiders point of view) aspects of the Eskimo's lifestyle. The film features animal cruelty, and a family tradition where they leave their mother behind in the Arctic wastes when she is too old (Ballad of Narayama much?). This was the most touching scene of the film, but I do wish the rest of the film was as engaging as this moment.

  Whether this 'The Savage Innocents' is realistic, or not is a different question. I find it hard to believe they are as savage and irritating as they are portrayed. Half of the reviews say it's authentic, while the other call it inaccurate and insulting. I honestly have no idea. As much as I want to believe it's authentic, I highly doubt it is.

TO CONCLUDE
Ray portrays the Arctic as a beautiful and harsh place. The characters of this oddity are irritating, and there are a couple of cringe-worthy moments, but it's worth a watch for a cinematic experience quite unlike any other.

SCORE
71

Caught (1949)

  'Caught' is a 1949 film directed by Max Ophuls.

  Leonora Eames has dreamed all her life to become a lady married to a rich man. She has learnt etiquette in charm school to pursue her dream. When she meets millionaire Smith Ohlrig, she tries to marry him. When he does, she spends most of the day alone in the mansion waiting for him to come home. He believes she is money obsessed, and didn't  marry him because she loved him. Leonora escapes to a small flat, and gets a job as a secretary for doctor Larry Quinad. They fall in love, and she falls pregnant with Smith's baby.

  German born director Ophuls, is known for his German and French films 'Lola Montes' and 'The Earrings of Madame de...'. I had no idea he went to America and made three Film Noirs ('Caught', 'Letter from an Unknown Woman' and 'The Reckless Moment'). I would consider 'Caught' a romance that gradually turns into a thriller.

  I was pleasantly surprised with this film. I saw it because Empire Magazine gave it five stars, and had low expectations. They were surpassed in the first five minutes. This is the highlight of my most hated genre, the 1930-40s American Romance. The story was basic, and the cinematography was nothing particularly good, leaving the film dependant on the acting.

  The lead is played by 'Vertigo' actress Barbara Bel Geddes. She plays the sweet Leonora with perfection. I found James Mason ('Lolita') to be the best actor, with his clear British accent and friendly personality. Robert Ryan ('The Wild Bunch') plays insane effectively as Larry Quinad. The three of them, create a riveting film, with passionate acting and great characters.

  The most unusual aspect of this film is the ending. (SPOILER 1)

TO CONCLUDE
An unexpected good film. It's nothing phenomenal, but it is an effective watch.

SCORE
77

SPOILER 1 (highlight)--> Leonora gives birth prematurely, but smiles as if this is a good thing. This was a very unsettling scene, especially for 1949.<--

Stardust Memories (1980)

  'Stardust Memories' is a 1980 film directed by and starring Woody Allen.

  Sandy Bates (Woody Allen) is a famous movie director and comic in his 30s, going through an existential crisis. He has just made a film, which the studio heads want to recut, he is going through a bad patch with his wife Dorrie (Charlotte Rampling) and thinks of starting with his new lover Isobel (Marie-Christine Barrault). He attends a weekend retrospective of his films, where he questions his existence, recalls his love with Dorrie and remembers his past.

  Woody Allen has made many great films ('Love and Death', 'Purple Rose of Cairo') and many bad films (Celebrity), the weird thing is, is that everyone has different choices. Both me and my father, both hated Annie Hall and Manhattan, his two most loved films. I guarantee if everyone made a top 10, they would all be completely different. So if I give my opinion on 'Stardust Memories', it may not be yours (half the audience love it, the other half think it's pretentious and boring).

  This is about as good as 'Purple Rose of Cairo'. The story is often confusing, as there are flashbacks, flash-forwards and fantasies all intertwined with Allen's comedy. Everyone says "I prefer his early funny ones", but I think the 80s was his best period. The funniest parts of the film are when the character say this to Bates, breaking the fourth wall slightly. Allen plays Bates but Bates is Allen. He is autobiographically reflecting on his own life and his daily struggles, in an incredibly clever way.

  Allen is Bergman's biggest fan, and some of the themes match 'Wild Strawberries' (remembering youth), but the main inspiration was '8 1/2' (or should I say "Homage? No, we stole the idea outright!"). The characters in the foreground and background, the crisp black and white cinematography, the music at the UFO party. The story is depressing but Woody Allen's humour had me laughing all the way.

"I took a course in existential philosophy. On the final, they gave me ten questions. I couldn't answer a single one of em. I left them all blank. I got a hundred".

  The confusing story is a problem, and the first five minutes is the best part of the film... But I don't care. It's genius in every way. Visually beautiful, plenty of funny jokes and a storyline which makes you think.

TO CONCLUDE
Funny, philosophical and fantastic. 8.5 out of ten (well... almost).

SCORE
81

Saving Mr Banks (2013)

  'Saving Mr Banks' is a 2013 American film directed by John Lee Hancock and starring Emma Thompson and Tom Hanks.

  Walt Disney (Tom Hanks) wants to make a film from the P.L. Travers (Emma Thompson) novel 'Mary Poppins' and has been trying for twenty years to persuade her to give him the rights. P.L. Travers decides to take a trip to California, paid by Disney, and there he would try and obtain the rights. Things don't go 100% to plan as Travers is an uptight, well-spoken, strict and grumpy woman who refuses to give her permission. Disney tries everything to obtain the rights, from a trip to Disneyland to having her say on the film's results. Meanwhile, Travers reminisces on her childhood in Australia, and the events that would inspire the creation of Mary Poppins.

  Firstly, I have to say I am a massive fan of the original Mary Poppins. It's a timeless film, that has catchy songs, good acting and a nice message. So of course I'm going to be slightly biased with this review.

  The acting in 'Saving Mr Banks' is very good. Tom Hanks does his 'Tom Hanks charm' amazingly as always, while Emma Thompson is fantastic as P.L. Travers. I am surprised she wasn't nominated for an Oscar, but they never seem to make the right decisions (although this year was close). Emma Thompson does her usual depressive British character, but this time you feel like she is Travers, not just an impression which I was expecting.

  The music of Mary Poppins may be the best thing about the 1964 film, with all of the songs being good to tear-jerking in quality. In 'Saving Mr Banks' they recreate these songs on a piano, and the results are great. However it made me want to watch the original again, which is always a problem with films like this.

  This is another film in which the main character reminisces events in chronological order. If she were to reminisce in real life, she would have thought about the most important event first. It also plays to the trope in which "If a main character coughs, they will die before the end". Despite this, I thought the script was very well-written, with witty dialogue and a remarkable closeness to what actually happened.

TO CONCLUDE
As good as a film about getting the rights to a film can get. I almost cried at the end. I didn't. But it was close. The extras on the blu-ray are worth watching as well.

SCORE
79