Last Seen Movie - The Latest Movie You Have Seen; ratings

[Precious Doll]

Creed (2015) Ryan Cooglar 4/10
In the Heart of the Sea (2015) Ron Howard 1/10
Courted (2015) Christian Vincent 8/10
Where to Invade Next (2015) Michael Moore 4/10
Au Revoir l'ete (2013) Koji Fukadala 6/10
My Name is Not Ali (2011) Viola Shafik 4/10

Repeat viewings

The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Road (1976) Nicolas Gessner 6/10
Chinese Roulette (1976) Rainer Werner Fassbinder 10/10
The Bitter Tears of Petra von Kant (1972) Rainer Werner Fassbinder 7/10
House of Bamboo (1955) Samuel Fuller 7/10

[Big Magilla]

REWATCH: The Quiet Man (John Ford, 1952) 4/10

An American boxer trying to escape his past seeks to court a stubbornly independent Irish woman. Upon another viewing, I can say that I really don't like this film, and I don't think it's good in the slightest.

"The Quiet Man" is basically "The Taming of the Shrew" without any of the humor or tongue-in-cheek lines. This is one of the rapiest films I have ever seen. The entire premise of the film is that feisty women need to realize that a big, strong man is all they need. There's a scene where John Wayne literally breaks down Maureen O'Hara's door, grabs her by the hair, and forces her to kiss him. And O'Hara's not enjoying it at all. And, as the music and direction and lighting tell us, we're supposed to think she's into it. There's also the scene where he literally drags her across the countryside all in the name of Irish tradition.

But the film doesn't say these traditions are bad or old-fashioned. The film, instead, glorifies Ireland and all its stereotypes. Barry Fitzgerald is resorted to playing a leprechaun without any of the magic. It's all "hoy-ta-toy-ta-toy" and sage witticisms that, really, aren't that clever or great. Victor McLaglen gets to play the other stereotype as a stubborn, violent, drunken and protective brother to O'Hara. There's a fight sequence between McLaglen and Wayne that feels as long as the car chase from the second "Matrix" film. Except, unlike the Wachowski production, this sequence is unbearably long and drifts into uninterest quick. How John Ford won his fourth Oscar for this, I'll never know. It doesn't even seem to have any of his trademarks apart from Winton C. Hoch's gorgeous color cinematography (which I was told was so good because the suited goons from Technicolor weren't on set to screw everything up). That cinematography is easily the best part of the film. There's also a sequence where Wayne's character imagines himself back in the boxing ring after being punched, and it's the most innovative, attention-grabbing part of the film.

As for Wayne, his performance as a romantic lead is ultra-clunky and unconvincing. Luckily for him, Maureen O'Hara seems to know what she's doing because she gives the film's best performance. There's a scene where she describes something troublesome to her father in Irish and everything that needs to be conveyed is driven across perfectly by O'Hara. She's the best part of an otherwise bad film. I can completely understand why Irish people cringe at the very thought of this over-romanticized stereotype of a film.

Oy vey. The Matrix has absolutely nothing to do with The Quiet Man. The only "modern" film it has anything in common with is Fight Club.

John Ford won his sixth Oscar (his fourth as director) for The Quiet Man for two reasons beyond what is visible on screen - one because it was his long sought labor of love, in the planning since the 1930s for which he finally received backing in the early 1950s, and for his famous thwarting of Cecil B. DeMille at a DGA meeting at which DeMille led a fight to oust Joseph. Mankiewicz as president for not supporting the blacklist. The film, one of the first to be made on location outside the U.S., was hugely popular for showing U.S. audiences a world they had only heard about. Of course it's a takeoff on The Taming of the Shrew as was the short story by Maurice Walsh who wrote the same type of material about the Scots (Trouble in the Glen). Victor McLaglen's character was supposed to be a jerk. Frank Nugent's screenplay softens him a bit in the end by having him become a sort of buddy of Wayne's, but that's only because Ford preferred "happy" endings. The film gave Wayne one of his best non-cowboy roles and the entire cast is at their best, most notably Maureen O'Hara, Barry Fitzgerald, Ward Bond and Mildred Natwick. McLaglen, too, was good within the realm of what he was supposed to be doing. Fitzgerald is slyly funny, a return to form after playing more serious roles in And Then There None and The Naked City.

The 1952 Oscar ceremony was a microcosm of the political turmoil of the time. Virulent right winger DeMille's insipid Greatest Show on Earth won Best Picture while right-leaning Gary Cooper won for the left-leaning High Noon and the liberal Ford won for direction. For decades now, the non-nominated Singin' in the Rain has been the consensus choice as the year's best film, but absent its nomination, The Quiet Man was the best of the nominees and should have won Best Picture with High Noon close behind. Wayne who hated High Noon, nevertheless was a good sport about accepting Cooper's Oscar in his behalf as well as Ford's while not even being nominated himself.

[Precious Doll]

600 Miles (2015) Gabriel Ripstein 4/10
Rock the Kasbah (2015) Barry Levison 2/10
Censored Voices (2015) Mor Lovshy 7/10
The Witch (2016) Robert Eggers 7/10
A Brighter Summer Day (1991) Edward Yang 10/10
Sherpa (2015) Jennifer Peedom 6/10

Repeat viewings

Address Unknown (2001) Ki-duk Kim 7/10
The Rise of Louis VIX (1966) Roberto Rossellini 7/10
To Be or Not to Be (1942) Ernst Lubitsch 9/10

[ksrymy]

REWATCH: The Quiet Man (John Ford, 1952) 4/10

An American boxer trying to escape his past seeks to court a stubbornly independent Irish woman. Upon another viewing, I can say that I really don't like this film, and I don't think it's good in the slightest.

"The Quiet Man" is basically "The Taming of the Shrew" without any of the humor or tongue-in-cheek lines. This is one of the rapiest films I have ever seen. The entire premise of the film is that feisty women need to realize that a big, strong man is all they need. There's a scene where John Wayne literally breaks down Maureen O'Hara's door, grabs her by the hair, and forces her to kiss him. And O'Hara's not enjoying it at all. And, as the music and direction and lighting tell us, we're supposed to think she's into it. There's also the scene where he literally drags her across the countryside all in the name of Irish tradition.

But the film doesn't say these traditions are bad or old-fashioned. The film, instead, glorifies Ireland and all its stereotypes. Barry Fitzgerald is resorted to playing a leprechaun without any of the magic. It's all "hoy-ta-toy-ta-toy" and sage witticisms that, really, aren't that clever or great. Victor McLaglen gets to play the other stereotype as a stubborn, violent, drunken and protective brother to O'Hara. There's a fight sequence between McLaglen and Wayne that feels as long as the car chase from the second "Matrix" film. Except, unlike the Wachowski production, this sequence is unbearably long and drifts into uninterest quick. How John Ford won his fourth Oscar for this, I'll never know. It doesn't even seem to have any of his trademarks apart from Winton C. Hoch's gorgeous color cinematography (which I was told was so good because the suited goons from Technicolor weren't on set to screw everything up). That cinematography is easily the best part of the film. There's also a sequence where Wayne's character imagines himself back in the boxing ring after being punched, and it's the most innovative, attention-grabbing part of the film.

As for Wayne, his performance as a romantic lead is ultra-clunky and unconvincing. Luckily for him, Maureen O'Hara seems to know what she's doing because she gives the film's best performance. There's a scene where she describes something troublesome to her father in Irish and everything that needs to be conveyed is driven across perfectly by O'Hara. She's the best part of an otherwise bad film. I can completely understand why Irish people cringe at the very thought of this over-romanticized stereotype of a film.

The Narrow Margin (Richard Fleischer, 1952) 8/10

A tough cop must protect a widowed gangster's moll on a train as she travels to testify and break omertà. I'm slowly finding myself more attracted to the sleaze and roughness of B-noirs to their more polished cousins. I wasn't holding out hope for "The Narrow Margin" because the dreadful Richard Fleischer was behind it, but I came away surprised and incredibly pleased. With no big names in the cast, everyone seems to be doing their best to be the star. Charles McGraw is mostly good if not a bit typical playing a tired, weary cop protecting someone he doesn't care for. But, as nobody would ever suspect or expect, this film is dominated by women. Both Marie Windsor and Jacqueline White are marvelous in their twisty, well-played roles. They each strike such different balances and notes that it creates a much more effective atmosphere of eeriness and unease than some lazy smoke and fog would do.

The film is surprisingly well-constructed for such an underproduced flick too. The editing and sound are well-done and the train feels like more than a set we've seen before in a dozen other films. "The Narrow Margin" comes together well and would be a film I'd consider great.

REWATCH: The Sniper (Edward Dmytryk, 1952) 6/10

A young man, who targets and kills only women, sends a letter to the police begging them to stop him. Upon rewatch, this is still an interesting product of its time. Its views on *gasp* SEX CRIMINALS!!! are a bit shallow and underdeveloped, but this was probably a huge, exciting thing for the time.

More than last time, I really appreciate Arthur Franz's work as our young sniping antagonist. He's very Salingeresque in his being a terrible person but having all our sympathies align with him. The rest of the cast pales in comparison. And Franz's anger and self-hatred and misogyny thrives because "The Sniper," Edward Dmytryk's first film back from HUAC, is an angry one, but it's channeled into the kind of subdued rage this film thrives on.

The film's cinematography is great. There's a shot near the end where Franz shoots a painter, and the shot is breathtaking. It's something out of Hitchcock or De Palma. The cinematographer's eye for cityscapes is constantly on glorious display here.

"The Sniper" is good if immature in its psychology. It's an array of great shots from that opening sequence involving a dresser until the final shots of the film.

5 Fingers (Joseph L. Mankiewicz, 1952) 6/10

A British valet in Turkey seeks to be paid for selling secrets to the Germans during WWII. This could've been a truly great spy thriller from an era that could have used more. Joseph L. Mankiewicz always had a great way with dialogue, and "5 Fingers" is no exception. There are very long segments of nothing more than talking. It's reminiscent of "Inglourious Basterds" in that way. Mankiewicz expertly frames and directs these intimate, intense scenes.

And James Mason, Danielle Darrieux, and Michael Rennie all put in interesting work. Mason's work is more interesting in that this should be a piece of pie role for him, but he doesn't come off with that usual mystique he so typically embodies. Michael Rennie does a good job in a role that doesn't bring too much attention to itself. It's Danielle Darrieux who does the film's best work. Her opening scene, begging for money, is captivating and sets an excellent tone for the film. She's the MVP of the cast.

But while those talkative scenes sure are good, Mankiewicz proves his inability to direct a good action sequence and this holds the film back. Mankiewicz would later combine the two perfectly in "Sleuth," but he is too grounded in a stagnant camera to get creative in these larger moments of action.

So "5 Fingers" is good, but it's a huge case of woulda/coulda/shoulda.

The Lusty Men (Nicholas Ray, 1952) 9/10

A former rodeo star, disabled by a series of accidents, hobbles back to his hometown and falls hard for the wife of the man helping him earn money. Nicholas Ray is back in the saddle after my most recent viewing of his, "On Dangerous Ground," yielded less than stellar results. "The Lusty Men" is a tale of redemption and anger. Robert Mitchum's performance is very good. He makes Jeff McCloud an entirely relatable character with hints of disgust with the world that we've all felt. He seems to be in a permanent ague until he's stopped by Susan Hayward who gives, at this point in her career, what was her very best performance. Hayward's turn is full of fire and savvy wit. Her brilliance in trying to remain deadpan when Mitchum comes onto her is what took me aback the most. Surprise is one of the very few emotions that is, literally, impossible to capture genuinely. But Hayward could fool you with her turn in these scenes. For a film about these rough-and-tumble men, Hayward sure makes the film her own. More often then not, I found myself wondering when she would come back on screen.

That isn't to say the film gets boring or drags, because it doesn't. It's impossible to get boring when you have Hayward with Mitchum and also throw Arthur Kennedy into the mix. Kennedy's bronco-buster is excellent. He strikes the right balance of machismo with self-awareness and doubt. Throw a good Arthur Hunnicutt into the mix, and you've got yourself a heck of a cast.

And the rodeo scenes are impeccably captured. The quickfire editing, reeling shots, gorgeous cinematography, and real sense of danger and thrill are great. It's the most exciting I've seen Nicholas Ray outside of "Johnny Guitar." I actually think this might by Nick Ray's best film outside of "Johnny Guitar." I think "In a Lonely Place" is great, but "The Lusty Men" does more with less.

I can't wait to revisit this film.

Kansas City Confidential (Phil Karlson, 1952) 8/10

A down-on-his-luck ex-G.I. goes down to Mexico to seek revenge on the men who framed him for an armored car robbery. "Kansas City Confidential" is better than it ought to be. It's one of those miraculous B-noirs that avoids many standard trappings and creates a real, brutal world. I can imagine something like this being destroyed by Burt Lancaster, so I'm glad we're given such a small cast here.

John Payne is no pretty face, but he's got a hell of a mean mug. On the most obvious, physical level, he makes a character devoid of compassion on his quest to spill rat's blood. And the cavalcade of supporting rats, led by Preston Foster but whose most memorable character is played by Lee Van Cleef, is solidly acted. There's not a person in the bunch you remotely like by film's end. It's good character development from a surprisingly good script.

"Kansas City Confidential" is a great film. It's like a foreign stew made with unknown ingredients you're not sure you will like that all come out deliciously. Everyone ballasts everyone else and we're rewarded with an excellent film.

The Big Sky (Howard Hawks, 1952) 5/10

A group of determined fur trappers escort a Blackfoot princess upriver into Native American territory in the hope it will give them access to a fresh market ahead of the big fur companies. A swing and a miss by Howard Hawks who obviously knows how to make better westerns than this. To be fair, films like "Rio Bravo" have excellent scripts and character development behind them unlike this. Kirk Douglas plays one note the whole time being a tough fur trapper and not doing much else. All lines are delivered similarly and help create a terrible monotony. This movie, at times, feels like four or five random episodes of "The Virginian" or "The Rifleman" or "Wagon Train" or, you know, thrown together. Oscar-nominated Arthur Hunnicutt isn't bad. He's certainly one of the more entertaining aspects of the film as our resident trail philosopher. His scenes are the best and actually aim more at what Hawks was going for, I think.

But the film's dull pacing mixed with a dreadful turn by Elizabeth Treatt make "The Big Sky" just that - something of endless possibilities. And these possibilities are never expanded upon. It's a big waste of potential that I wish could've been better. Maybe trading out Kirk Douglas for someone like Gregory Peck would've been a better choice. I think the studio was just going to machismo though and they got Douglas in that stead.

"The Big Sky" is mediocre but certainly not awful. Oscar completists won't completely hate this movie.

Othello (Orson Welles, 1952) 5/10

The Moor of Venice confides in his self-serving confidante and believes his wife is having an affair with a war hero. I've come to realize that Orson Welles is very overpraised. His first two films are stunning and most everything after, except "Touch of Evil" and "Chimes at Midnight," isn't very good. Least of all his Shakespearean work.

And while it isn't as bad as, say, "The Stranger," Welles's Shakespearean works just fall plain flat. He does many interesting things with the camera making for a pleasant viewing experience, but, this time, the acting is just so poor. Welles's performance is hindered more by his pompous, overwrought line readings than the blackface. And Micheál MacLiammóir's Iago is dreadful. Iago is supposed to be this cunning, charismatic, incredibly sly vulpine figure and MacLiammóir's performance makes Iago into a dumpy, obviously untrustworthy rat. It makes you wonder how Othello could be so dumb as to believe this person obviously pulling a rug out from under him. And the Desdemona performance, by Suzanne Cloutier, is also awful. Fay Compton, as Iago's wife Emilia, is the one good part about the cast. Also, Roderigo is such a funny dimwit in the play, and he's given such serious treatment here. And, if one would argue that he is funny, I certainly don't think the jokes translated well.

I respect Welles for everything he did to make this film (taking every imaginable role in Europe to pay for these projects), but the end product isn't very good. His "Macbeth" is at least good at the very best, but this is a disappointment.

Flavor of Green Tea Over Rice (Yasujiro Ozu, 1952) 8/10

A young woman uses her aunt and uncle's marital problems to avoid attending arranged marriage interviews. Akira Kurosawa famously claimed that Japanese films tend to be like "green tea over rice" as a dig at the country's filmic output. I think that's why so many westerners prefer him to his fellow countrymen - Kurosawa's films are more bombastic and full of action.

But I also think this is why I prefer Ozu and especially Mizoguchi to Kurosawa. They don't seem to be trying as hard. Ozu's "Flavor of Green Tea Over Rice" is quiet and beautiful. I think it also contains the best ensemble work of any of his films that I've seen so far. The performances by the aunt/uncle duo, played exquisitely by Shin Saburi and Michiyo Kogure, are excellent. The two play off one another very well. They create a stark portrait of a marriage in danger that is both believable and touching. You don't want to see them apart. In most movies that threaten divorce, there's a point where the viewer thinks, "God, just end it already!," but that moment never comes with these two.

But the film's best performance comes from the niece Setsuko, played by a superb Keiko Tsushima. I'm surprised Ozu didn't get Setsuko Hara to play the role, but I think Tsushima played it better than Hara could have. Tsushima plays Setsuko with an incredible sense of determination and carries her character in a shroud of independence. She's absolutely incredible.

Ozu and Kogo Noda have to be among the greatest screenwriting teams, and screenwriters in general, of all-time. Their scripts are so engrossing. Another great film in Ozu's filmography.

REWATCH: The Machine That Kills Bad People (Roberto Rossellini, 1952) 8/10

A demon gives a self-righteous photographer the power to kill anyone he takes a picture of. A great moral tale by Robert Rossellini that feels like it could've been made by Éric Rohmer twenty years later. Rossellini's camerawork and direction are top notch here as he directs Gennaro Pisano to an excellent performance. Pisano's work as the meek, indignant cameraman as he slowly turns into something more forgiving and insightful is excellent work. It's probably the best male performance I've ever seen in a Rossellini film. Pisano's frantic body language is pitch perfect.

You think the film's going to get a bit cheap as it starts off very similarly to "I Know What You Did Last Summer," but it grows into anything but. This scene, though, is very tense and as eerie as anything Rossellini ever made.

And that beginning speech over the handcrafted, cardboard set is so great. It's trompe l'oeil at some of its cinematic best. The fact that the illusion disappears when it all comes together is impressive.

Despite the terrible, translated title, "The Machine That Kills Bad People" is a great movie. It's an underappreciated gem of Italian cinema and one of its director's very best. An Italian acquaintance told me this is the director's rarest film. I'm proud to have easy access to it. This second viewing reaffirms everything I thought about it before. A great movie with appropriately excellent cinematography and a helluva performance by Gennaro Pisano.

Europa '51 (Roberto Rossellini, 1952) 7/10

After the death of her son, an American industrialist's wifeliving in Rome begins to care for the poor, causing conflict with her husband, friends, and authorities. I think this film falls short of greatness only because of two things. First, Alexander Knox, who plays Ingrid Bergman's husband here, is pretty bad as he's always been. Secondly, the St. Francis allegory is obvious, but it shouldn't be as obvious as it is. The only thing they did to keep it from being over-the-top blatant was not naming Bergman's character Francesca d'Assisi. It gets a bit heavy-handed.

I will say, though, that this film is better than "The Flowers of St. Francis," and Ingrid Bergman is magnificent in the leading role. Bergman plays Irene with a masterful control and range. Her scenes with and after her encounter with the sickly prostitute are some of the best work she's ever done.

The film is a little bit of a slow burn. It's very good, but it all leads up to the end. This is a very backloaded film with a hell of a payoff. The final shots are astounding and resonate with us all. After all, this film is all about dichotomies (free vs. imprisoned, light vs. dark, evil. vs. good, poor vs. rich, etc., etc.) and that last scene makes it all come together. Rossellini's implications about saints in the modern world is intense and interesting. I forget who said it, but, with saints in the modern world, I agree with that quote that says something like, "The only thing separating the saints from the Christians was their madness." Rossellini owns that quote and turns it into a heck of a film.

"Europa '51" is another very good film by one of the best directors we ever had. And it has one of the best performances by one of the best actresses we've ever had.

The Star (Stuart Heisler, 1952) 5/10

A washed-up movie queen does everything she can to mount her comeback. A film that very much tries to be "Sunset Boulevard" but without everything that makes it amazing. Sterling Hayden being strapping and slightly Scandinavian opposite a self-destructive Bette Davis makes for interesting viewing at times, but Davis plays Margaret Elliott with a level of ham and cheese that makes her Baby Jane performance look subtle. In case you think I'm lying, there's a sequence where Elliott drives around drunk and talking to her Oscar which is precariously placed on her dashboard. You can bet where the scene goes from there.

The film would be good, I'd think, if it completely nixed the storyline between Elliott and her daughter, played by Natalie Wood(en). Wood was always one of the very worst screen actresses and knowing how she got to stardom makes it all the sadder. Wood's acting is horrible and makes the "I miss you" scenes all the worse. Davis does well in these scenes though. Davis actually shines most in these real, visceral scenes instead of the ones where she's obsessed with herself. I see why the scenes are in the movie, but if the movie instead focused on the total self-absorption of Elliott, it would work way better. And the mother/daughter angle might be a bit more feasible if it weren't the most overwrought, trite part of any story like this. It's completely unoriginal.

The movie's best sequence is where Elliott plays a part for a screen test and takes it over like a tsarina. Even better is when she gruelingly watches the footage later and realizes how bad it is. I could've watched 90 minutes of that.

But, instead, we're stuck with a very typical Heisler production. Heisler was a studio hack but with the latter word being entirely used in the context we know it in today. This deserved to be better. Calling it mediocre is almost too nice, I think, but I never found myself actively hating the film (only Wood).

REWATCH: The Life of Oharu (Kenji Mizoguchi, 1952) 10/10

An aging prostitute in 17th century Japan recalls the decline of her life starting when she falls in love with someone outside her social caste. Oharu has a pretty goddamn terrible life. For over two hours, we see her get beaten, raped, see her hair shorn by a jealous, crazed master, spat on, kicked, and thrown around. And Mizoguchi steers clear of true misery porn. How is this even possible? It's because Mizoguchi, better than contemporaries like Ozu and Naruse and especially Kurosawa, finds humanity in the darkest of places and, most importantly, keeps it there. The humanity, dignity, and self-respect Oharu has left isn't brought out to the forefront in a big, flashy moment of victory, but it is kept in check. These qualities are the wallflowers to Mizoguchi's films, and I think that's what sets him apart from the rest. It's what makes him his nation's foremost, premier director.

And these qualities are portrayed subtly and powerfully by Kinuyo Tanaka whose performance as the title character is one of the crowning achievements in Japanese film and acting in general. Tanaka's ability to force us to empathize with her characters while making it seem like our own choice is film manipulation at its best. We /need/ to see her succeed. As Thelma Houston would say, "Don't leave me this way, Oharu." The catharsis is strong with this film.

And, my God, the cinematography is astounding. I can't believe I'd forgotten about that aspect. Mizoguchi and cinematographers Yoshimi Hirano and Yoshimi Kono create a wild array of shots that include deep focus, all ranges of close-up, a love for a good medium shot, and a tinge of asymmetry but not enough to get annoying with it. It's absolutely masterful.

"The Life of Oharu" is a slog to get through but never because it is bad - only because it's so sad. But we leave feeling hopeful and with tears crawling from our lids.

Clash by Night (Fritz Lang, 1952) 6/10

A bitter woman dissatisfied in her marriage falls in love with her husband's best friend. This is really interesting for a Lang film because it's so humanist and stays clear of noir elements. Despite its name, coming out in the early fifties, and starring Barbara Stanwyck, "Clash by Night" is more of what we'd call "adult entertainment" than a film noir.

It seems to be trying to cash in on "A Streetcar Named Desire." The thing is, though, that this is super stagey whereas the Kazan film is not. And I'm not shocked to see that this was based on a(n unsuccessful) play. The whole film is people talking to each other in houses about love and problems. The original play starred Lee J. Cobb and Tallulah Bankhead which I'd have loved to have seen instead of Stanwyck and Robert Ryan, as much as I love them. Stanwyck's alright, but Robert Ryan is really, really good. If there was ever an actor who was really, really good at doing his usual schtick but never quite giving the same performance each time, it's Ryan. Paul Douglas is also really solid as well. It's a shame he didn't get more leading work because I'd take him over Broderick Crawford any day. As for Marilyn Monroe, she's okay in a dull role.

"Clash by Night" is good, but its pacing suffers from the stuffy settings and unexceptional camerawork. And unexceptional camerawork and Lang are a pair I'd assume would never be together.

Ruby Gentry (King Vidor, 1952) 3/10

A poor, young girl marries a rich man while carrying a torch for another. Or: Every Hollywood Melodrama. No, "Ruby Gentry" is not good. It falls into that same terrible overcooked crap that made "Beyond the Forest" so bad. "Duel in the Swamp" makes Jennifer Jones kinda sorta Cajun maybe, I guess, instead of a Mestizo and gives her Karl Malden and Charlton Heston instead of Gregory Peck and usual leading man Joseph Cotten.

I honestly might have liked this a bit more if it had truly embraced its melodrama though. The first hour of this film is awful. Jones stumbles around with Karl Malden wondering what's wrong all the time and Charlton Heston looking like a totem pole. Heston's range is so bad. It's a wonder how someone could ever fall in love with him. And Jones and Heston's chemistry never reaches a mere simmer. Malden isn't bad though, but he looks like he knows he could be in a better film.

The last twenty minutes of the film really make up for it though. Jones turns into Alexis Carrington Colby and channels Joan Crawford (and Collins, unknowingly) and wreaks havoc on the social caste system that so shunted her. The film picks up a bit of steam, but it all falls apart.

"Ruby Gentry" is pretty bad. It's sad to see a director like Vidor make films like this and "Beyond the Forest" so close to each other. He made some excellent films. This is like watching someone die - and I mean both Vidor's decline and watching this film in particular.

Lorna (Russ Meyer, 1964) 6/10

A sexually unsatisfied wife falls in lust with her rapist and matters become worse when her husband comes home early one day. This is a really interesting film in terms of Meyer. It's one of the few I've seen where sex, for the most part, isn't a joyous delight, a divine feeling. The rapes are brutal, and Lorna feels brutalized. It isn't some kind of sexual (re-)awakening like the Eufaula Roop's evangelical radio broadcaster gets in "Beneath the Valley of the Ultra-Vixens." Instead, the film focuses on those deep fetishes humans have that stem from traumatic, subconscious things.

And that makes "Lorna" hard to watch - moreso than any other Meyer film I've seen. The comedy is mostly gone and/or not done too well so this becomes frustrating and unnerving fairly quickly.

That isn't to say it's bad though because this has one of the more solid plots from a Meyer film. His previous films were very windy and daffy, but this sense of plot maturation would prove fruitful later as his masterpiece "Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!" would come out the next year and change everything.

So I can appreicate "Lorna" for what it is. It's a total black sheep in Meyer's filmography with some good parts and some attempts to be psychologically inciteful.

[ksrymy]

Hunted (Charles Crichton, 1952) 6/10

A man on the run after killing his wife's lover takes a six-year old boy running from a housefire with him after he witnesses the crime. "Hunted" is a nice little film with a solid Dirk Bogarde and an even more impressive little Jon Whiteley as our toddler protagonist. This film is reminiscent for me to "Tiger Bay" from a few years down the road. Bogarde and Whiteley have solid chemistry with Whiteley doing a lot of excellent silent work. He follows Bogarde around like a puppy and it's both precious and terrifying. Bogarde trying to ditch the child several times is heartbreaking. The film really works in forging this excellent relationship between two people who do not belong together at all.

And a ton of credit should go to Charles Crichton for getting such good work out of these two and creating a gripping thriller to base these performances in. I haven't seen Crichton do a lot of dramatic work, so I was surprised this worked as well as it did. It's a small, enjoyable film showcasing Bogarde's talents in his earlier years.

My Cousin Rachel (Henry Koster, 1952) 6/10

A man falls in love with the woman he suspects of killing his relative for a large fortune. "My Cousin Rachel" is mostly good because it's nice to see Olivia de Havilland still giving good performances into the fifties and Richard Burton's Hollywood debut is really, really good. Burton's signature intensity and those dark, stormy eyes are on full display in this du Maurier adaptation. How he was nominated in support, I have no idea (other than, you know, studio politics). I was actually more impressed with de Havilland though. I think her restrained performance here is better than the one she gave in "The Heiress." It's that restraint that keeps the audience guessing.

And I've seen so many people complaining about the ending, but, honestly, I thought it was solid. It seems to be enjoyed by those who need concrete endings for whatever reasons. But the story isn't about whether or not Rachel killed Ashley's cousin; it's about letting your guard down. And this film does that well.

"My Cousin Rachel" boasts two solid performances from its leads. It's not as good as several other du Maurier adaptations, but Hitchcock seemed to do those best.

Sudden Fear (David Miller, 1952) 6/10

After rejecting an actor for her new play because he doesn't look like a typical romantic leading man, the playwright marries the actor and slowly starts to believe he may be planning to murder her. It's a typical noir plot, but the film is surprisingly good. When I first saw this years ago, I thought it was pretty awful, but I have no idea why. The film is fairly solid with solid performances all around.

That is, save for Gloria Grahame whose performance as Jack Palance's devious girlfriend is pretty hysterically bad. It's like she's trying to be a teenage Mae West or something, but it doesn't translate very well to the camera.

But Palance and Joan Crawford are both solid and play really well off one another. Crawford's contained hysteria is much better here than it is in films like "Possessed" but not quite as good as her later psychobiddy brilliance. She vogues her way through the shadows which are, admittedly, really well-done. The cinematography is solid and evocative. And Palance with his incredibly angular face is really menacing and crafts a distinctive noir villain out of, on paper, a really boring baddie.

"Sudden Fear" is good. It's not incredible by any means, but it's got a pair of excellent stars doing some of their best work.

The Crimson Pirate (Robert Siodmak, 1952) 5/10

An acrobatic pirate gets involved in the revolutions that marked the late 18th century Caribbean realm. "The Crimson Pirate" is fun but also very weak. The film is mostly action piece after action piece strung together by a wire-thin plot. To be fair, the action scenes are mostly really entertaining and the stunts are impressive, but the film is barren from anything other than showcasing these stunts.

Burt Lancaster is obviously having a lot of fun, but his performance is nothing more than flashing a pirate's smile and striking dashing poses for the camera. I found the film most interesting when Lancaster's mute second-in-command, played by Nick Cravat, came on screen. The film's comedy, with Cravat in tow, tended to focus a little more on actual humor than just relying on the slapstick the film aims so high for.

But it's also a very pretty film with nice sets and effects. But it doesn't amount to too terribly much. "The Crimson Pirate" is a bit of a bust not not offensively so. It's another uninspired Technicolor picture from Warner Bros.

Scaramouche (George Sidney, 1952) 7/10

A man masquerades as a stock theatre character to avenge the murder of his friend. Oh, George Sidney - some consistency would be nice. You do things like make this, "The Harvey Girls," and "Annie Get Your Gun" but then stoop into dreck like "Ziegfeld Follies," "Anchors Aweigh," and "Show Boat."

"Scaramouche" is wildly fun. Everything else aside, the film should be seen for the astounding fencing duel at the end. The stunt work is wonderful and the choreography is mesmerizing. And the rest of the film's production values are great too: the sets, costumes, makeup, hairstyling, and shots are all beautiful.

As for the cast, they're mostly what keeps it from being great. Eleanor Parker is sultry and good as our red-headed vixen, and Mel Ferrer is always a solid villain. But Stewart Granger is duller than dishwater which distances us from our supposed-to-be-heroic lead. His flatness is deeply noticeable and awful across from Parker's magnetic persona. Janet Leigh is mostly miscast and looks ridiculous in her wig.

But "Scaramouche" is a lot of fun and never gets dulls as predictable as it is. It never tries to be "The Three Musketeers" like most non-pirate swashbucklers try to be which is a resounding success in my book.

Limelight (Charles Chaplin, 1952) 4/10

An aging music hall comedian aims to help a despondent ballet dancer walk and feel again. This is probably the most masturbatory film I've ever seen. This film's praise has to be from people who can't understand that great filmmakers can make bad films. There's no great meaning in this. Chaplin bumbles around mugging the camera the entire time making his character out to be the saint of all saints. The mugging onstage makes sense but he's not delusional and Norma Desmond-y enough to have it make sense off the stage. The film's uninspired script and direction dooms this from the start. Maybe under someone like Charles Crichton or Howard Hawks, "Limelight" could've succeeded. But this just goes to show that after "The Great Dictator," Chaplin failed in the sound era.

"Limelight" might've been a bit more tolerable had our weepy ballerina been played by someone other than Claire Bloom who really sticks with one note throughout the film and sticks with it hard. She lies in a bed and looks to one side then looks to the other than sticks her chin out to get a better shot. And even worse than both leads is Sydney Chaplin as possibly the most bland love interest in history.

And the worst part is the Keaton/Chaplin duel. Keaton comes out and bumbles around with some music sheets for a few minutes with nothing substantial to do. And whether or not you believe that Chaplin cut his parts down because Keaton was funnier than Chaplin in these scenes, it certainly doesn't come off well. Astaire and Kelly's dance in "Ziegfeld Follies" was fun at least.

"Limelight" is a failure. I do think there's a lot of good in the play, but I think Chaplin's involvement steered it wrong. This would be better suited to stronger actors and a better director. I feel my rating might be a bit too high, but lowering it feels too harsh. The film has some decent scenes (the stage numbers are pretty good). But, man, this is such a disappointment.

REWATCH: Umberto D. (Vittorio De Sica, 1952) 10/10

A retired civil servant with a dwindling pension tries to find enough money to live in an increasingly expensive city. Vittorio De Sica's masterpiece remains just so as "Umberto D." reveals itself to be humanist in both enlightening and depressing ways.

Let's talk about the ending. A lot of people keep saying that the happy ending doesn't fit with the rest of the tale, and, to that, I say, "What happy ending?" They must've cut out early because the music turns from joyous to ominous. De Sica knows full well that just because Umberto didn't die doesn't mean he still doesn't have insane rent money to pay and a pension so meager not even a homeless person could live on it. And, to go off track for a second, the film opening on a pension march is super smart and sets a much larger tone and meaning for the film right away. It creates a political conversation that only wouldn't align you with Umberto's story if you were Reince Priebus.

And is there a better relationship between a man and his dog on film than in "Umberto D.," because I haven't found it. This isn't just a relationship but a dependency. It doesn't have the sap of all the typical dead dog films which is utterly refreshing.

As for the cast, both Carlo Battisti and Maria Pia Casilio are spectacular. Casilio, as a poor, pregnant, maid unaware of which of two men could be the father is heartbreaking and also the emotional pillar of the film. Her maid is a great example of those small, supporting characters in De Sica's films that lend a great heft of emotionality and sense to his films. And Battisti himself gives arguably the best performance in any of the director's films. Battisti's masterful neorealist performance captures all the anguish and glints of brief joy that encapsulate the difficult times in our lives.

"Umberto D." is a masterpiece. It might be my favorite Italian film. It's incomparable and beautiful.

The Snows of Kilimanjaro (Henry King, 1952) 2/10

A man on safari looks back on his life while dying of an infection. This is really bad - like really, really bad. I've read my fair share of Hemingway, and, even though I've never read the work this film is based on, I can tell you immediately that it disregards everything Hemingway has to say. And I wasn't surprised to find Ava Gardner's character was added in - she's entirely inconsequential and thrown in just to give Gregory Peck some more to think about. It's two hours of "Do I love the sexy woman with a godawful haircut or do I love this really devoted, wonderful woman who's been nursing me back to health?" It's a stupid setup where you can obviously tell what's going to happen.

And even though the color cinematography is absolutely beautiful, the lazy pastiche of stock footage mixed with set shots looks unprofessional and bad. The scenes in the camp with Kilimanjaro in the background made me laugh several times because the matte painting in the background is really bad and never believable. To be fair, I couldn't paint one better myself, but that's never been a good argument.

That cinematography is the only good thing about this film. When Susan Hayward doesn't have room to breathe or shine, your film is obviously doing something wrong. "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" is awful. Hemingway was right to call it "The Snows of Zanuck," and his assessment that the hyena was the best member of the cast isn't wrong.

REWATCH: The Bad and the Beautiful (Vincente Minnelli, 1952) 7/10

A director, actress, and screenwriter all look back on their relationship with a ruthless producer who needs them to reunite with him for funding on his most recent film. "The Bad and the Beautiful," a title right out of Fitzgerald, is a disappointing sandwich in that the meat is the worst part.

We're given Kirk Douglas' Jonathan Shields, a really wonderful character and his relationship with a director. The director, played by a capable Walter Pidgeon, is a good character and his relationship with Shields to both symbiotic and destructive. I think it's the film's most middling section. I like it quite a bit, but it lacks the oomph that the last section has.

And that last section is oh so good. Well, it's good in that Dick Powell is absolutely marvelous as the screenwriter whose meddling wife is dealt with by Shields. I never understand how Gloria Grahame won her Oscar for this. She's in the film for ten unsubstantial minutes speaking in a stereotypical Southern belle accent and wondering just what's going on all the time. It was the shortest performance to win the Oscar until Beatrice Straight came along. Grahame had done so much better work before and after. Maybe it's a swan song win or something. But her character makes this section a bit dopey at times. But when Powell and Douglas are at it, the film is at its most electric. It's the section dedicated to writing and its written with an acidic pen and enough acerb to make you cringe (in a good way).

And then there's the disappointing meat I was talking about. Lana Turner's middle segment is, at times, wildly bad. To be fair, it's mostly pretty good. But Turner's performance is pretty awful. She doesn't even look or act like herself. She fades into this character I never really got myself attached to. Georgia Lorrison isn't as exciting as the two men she's compared to. Her performance is mostly hysterical with that final car ride being the biggest, most awfully hysterical cherry on top. I can't believe Vincente Minnelli looked at that scene and said, "Yeah, that's good. That'll work." It's sixty seconds of Turner screaming and flinging herself around in a manner that makes "General Hospital" look professional and reserved.

But despite that groan-inducing middle segment, "The Bad and the Beautiful" is mostly really solid. Dick Powell and Kirk Douglas make the film.

REWATCH: Casque d'Or (Jacques Becker, 1952) 9/10

A carpenter falls into an ill-fated romance with a gangster's moll in 1898. My second time through "Casque d'Or" confirms that Jacques Becker is incredible and this film is beautiful.

If there's one thing keeping it from being a masterpiece, it's Serge Reggiani's performance which doesn't carry the same heavy gravity that the rest of the cast embody. Claude Dauphin is always threatening and letting the odds be known, but it's Simone Signoret's Marie who absolutely owns the film. It's difficult to take your eyes off her. What an amazing performance. I'm hesitant to call it her best work because I don't think I can ever forget her work in "Room at the Top," but this might be her next best bit of work. Signoret's expressive face and musical eyes make for a hell of a viewing experience. If you aren't absolutely entranced by her then I'm questioning your soul.

The film looks amazing with excellent costumes, sets, and shots. It's a buffet of visual treats. And the camera movements help create a living, breathing world that, otherwise, would make this movie majorly stagey with all the dialogue.

"Casque d'Or" is very great. I'm a big, big fan of it, and I think Jacques Becker is due for a critical rebirth.

Bend of the River (Anthony Mann, 1952) 6/10

Two gunslingers with questionable pasts lead a wagon train from Missouri to Oregon. "Bend of the River" isn't as good as other Mann/Stewart collaborations because Stewart's performance feels off. Films in which Stewart's character is murky or has a shady past don't really come off to well. Stewart always plays his roles so earnestly that it's just difficult to believe him in these instances. But, then again, maybe it's just this one film because his similar roles in other Mann films are good.

No, if this movie gets praise it isn't for Stewart or the vapid Julia Adams or a wasted Rock Hudson - it's for Arthur Kennedy. Kennedy was one of the very best of the time, and his work here is pretty solid. In terms of 1952 alone, I think he's better in "The Lusty Men" and "Rancho Notorious," but, here, his anger and resentment and frustration with Stewart remains palpable even when he isn't on-screen. Kennedy's seething anger and overall passion stoke the fires that make his character, Cole, really good.

The film looks gorgeous with excellent Technicolor cinematography. The outdoor shots are absolutely beautiful.

But I think this is just good. It's more in line with "Man of the West" or "Winchester '73" than it is "The Naked Spur." And that's not a bad thing - it's difficult to be as good as "The Naked Spur."

Hans Christian Andersen (Charles Vidor, 1952) 6/10

A small-town cobbler with a knack for storytelling aims to become a full-time writer. "Hans Christian Andersen," a phrase you will hear in this movie until you want to vomit, is a joyous little romp with a lovable Danny Kaye as our guide. Kaye's warmth is perfect for this role, especially in scenes involving children at the beginning and end. The beats he hits as a raconteur are smart and recognizably great. He tells a story just the way your grandfather did when you were young.

The film's songs are mostly good, but, honestly, I don't think any of them are super memorable. I watched this a couple days ago, and it's hard for me to think of the lyrics to any of the songs apart from the titles. "Wonderful Copenhagen" might be the film's best work in the song score. And as for staged numbers, "Anywhere I Wander" was also used well.

I think the film is a little vain and in love with itself because it drags on a lot longer than it needs to, but it's mostly harmless fun. "Hans Christian Andersen" is a fun fairy tale about the man who made fairy tales. Kaye's performance is good and keeps the film grounded when Charles Vidor wants to soar to eye-rolling heights.

Monkey Business (Howard Hawks, 1952) 5/10

While working on a youth pill, a scientist thinks his work is coming to fruition despite the fact one of his escaped monkeys accidentally mixed his chemicals. Howard Hawks and Cary Grant try to recreate the magic of "Bringing Up Baby" and fall very flat. Ginger Rogers is no Kate Hepburn, and Rogers' performance is dull. You can obviously tell where this semi-comedy-of-remarriage is going the whole time. The script really doesn't try to do anything out-of-the-ordinary despite its love of Esther the monkey. Marilyn Monroe doesn't do much and isn't really funny here. I'm always shocked when I see a new film with her in it because, from her superstar status, you'd expect her to be more prominent in films and always sexual. Here she does neither and her character is mostly inconsequential. If I have to praise the cast, Charles Coburn is good doing his normal schtick.

"Monkey Business" is mostly a miss while, admittedly, being pretty funny. I think the film is too in love with the monkey and Grant's character to really explore these other interesting characters. Grant got worse and worse at acting the further his career ran (save for some excellence with Hitchcock in '59). "Monkey Business" is just that - monkey business.

Viva Zapata! (Elia Kazan, 1952) 5/10

Mexican revolutionary Emiliano Zapata leads an uprising against the dictator Porfirio Diaz. Oh, man. This film goes wrong in all sorts of places. First off, Marlon Brando is really bad as Zapata. I'm not sure how he got nominated for this. He mutters and yells (there's no middleground in this movie) his lines with a really bad accent. Brando's own accent gets in the way and creates this linguistic amalgamation that makes Tommy Wiseau look like Richard Burbage. Anthony Quinn is good in his few scenes. It's easy to see why he won his Oscar.

What shocks me most is that John Steinbeck was involved and this is some of his worst writing. You figure he'd be trying to fix what Hollywood did to "Tortilla Flat" or something, but, no, he's here making something mediocre. Elia Kazan's unimpressive, unstylish, un-unique direction doesn't help this.

"Viva Zapata" doesn't deserve its exclamation point. It's a dull, trite film with almost no inspiration behind it.

REWATCH: Come Back, Little Sheba (Daniel Mann, 1952) 5/10

An alcoholic chiropractor struggles with his own marriage to a frumpy, slatternly woman when their young, new tenant brings home a strapping gentleman caller. I still don't quite understand why people adore this movie. Maybe they love Inge, but Inge belongs on a stage because there's no way these characters can function as hysterically as they do inside a film.

Burt Lancaster's alcoholic doctor is pretty awful. He's way too young for the part, and his acting chops still hadn't come to fruition. He walks around grumbling about his wife and the young girl living with them and becomes violent in really ridiculous scenes. These scenes may have worked on stage, but they look awkward on film. The choreography didn't work for the way the sets were decorated.

Shirley Booth won the Oscar for maybe the most shrill, annoying performance ever. But, then again, that's exactly what the role calls for. She needs to be annoying to get our sympathies to align with Lancaster's. I don't think the film effectively portrays that. Instead, it seems to focus strictly on how bad Lola has it instead.

As for Terry Moore, she's sure cute, but her performance isn't really anything special.

"Come Back, Little Sheba" isn't actively bad. I'm more indifferent to it than anything. I just wish Lancaster had been played by an Ernest Borgnine type. That would be far, far more believable and better-acted.

Springfield Rifle (André de Toth, 1952) 4/10

A major in the Army is disgracefully removed from duty only to be in the whole time on a secret counterespionage ring responsible for selling Union cavalry mounts to the South. This pretty yet vapid film makes no case for itself with stiff-as-a-board Gary Cooper meandering through everything. In films like this, it's hard to ever believe Cooper is motivated by anything. There's stoicism and then there's the complete lack of emotion because of an inability to do one's job - Gary Cooper was terrible if not under Henry Hathaway or Frank Capra.

The cinematography is gorgeous though. There are scenes involving fire that are vivid and striking. And this might be thanks to the goon at Technicolor not being involved. And these fiery action scenes are shot well by André de Toth who always had a good eye for where to focus our attention during many an ado.

But "Springfield Rifle" is mostly unexciting. The story is really interesting and deserves a better lead and better writing. But the cinematography makes the film better than it should be.

REWATCH: Angel Face (Otto Preminger, 1952) 10/10

An ambulance driver gets involved with a young, beautiful, rich girl after a family accident occurs. One of the all-time greatest films noir, "Angel Face" is a film I see once a year or so and always say, "Why don't I watch this more often?" It's a thrilling, sexy picture that makes the chemistry between couples like Bogie and Bacall or MacMurray and Stanwyck look like nothing. Robert Mitchum's unconventional good looks and rugged charm pair well with the deceitful eyes and innocent face of Jean Simmons who, from what I've seen, had never given a good performance up until this point. And this is Simmons' best work (she's good in "Elmer Gantry," but this beats it easily). Simmons' performance relies on manipulation, avoidance of eye contact, and a very controlled vocal performance. She's a black widow, she knows it, we know it, and yet we, the audience, still find ourselves drawn into this wicked web.

And in addition to those excellent leads, Barbara O'Neil also pops in for a bit to give a really good turn in support as well. It's the best I've seen her since "The Toy Wife."

"Angel Face" is uncompromising and brutal. The ending is one of the biggest kicks in the face in cinema history. An absolutely astonishing film by noir master Otto Preminger whose impeccable direction comes across effortlessly.

Talk About a Stranger (David Bradley, 1952) 6/10

After a young boy accuses a mysterious man of poisoning his dog, a small town's gossip and integrity are put to the test. "Talk About a Stranger" is mostly good. It doesn't carry quite the same impact as a film like "The Window" does, but that more credit to Billy Gray than anything else because he can be very good, but, boy, is he ever shrill! Gray's annoying tendencies are not prominent and ultra-recurring so the film doesn't suffer too much.

The rest of the cast is mostly very bland. Nancy Davis, George Murphy, and, sadly, Lewis Stone don't do much and aren't really very exciting. The film's ensemble had so much potential, script-wise, that it's sad to see it fail like this. The dynamics between the parents are certainly there to make things interesting; there's a dinner conversation where Gray's character is obviously acting out and the parents act like he doesn't exist to get him to stop. There's a lot of talent in this scene. I wish the film operated on subversive and smarter levels like this the whole time through.

So "Talk About a Stranger" is just another standard children's noir. It stays moderately exciting though and manages to be rather touching in the last ten or so minutes. A success but no large one at that.

Ivanhoe (Richard Thorpe, 1952) 3/10

A chivalrous knight tries to restore Richard the Lionheart to his rightful place upon the throne while saving an elderly Jew and his young daughter from discrimination. This particularly uninspired piece of film looks as fake as it is. You can practically smell the studio lumber and rubber and paint and foam. Everything looks rather cheaply done except the costumes which are nice.

Robert Taylor has firmly placed himself among the worst leading actors of all-time here. I've seen him do a lot of crap jobs, but he's so consistent about it. His Ivanhoe (and they say "Ivanhoe" about five trillion times in this) is not charming, handsome, or even particularly cool. Taylor just tries to look dashing and hopes the director gets him through everything. Not even George Sanders makes this better, and he's one of the greatest of all character actors. Elizabeth Taylor is miscast and blows her big speeches. She's far too pretty and '50s glamorous to be believable in old England. Joan Fontaine is much better suited to the scene though she isn't much better, performance-wise. If anyone in the cast deserves praise, it's Felix Aylmer whose splendid performance as an old, discriminated Jew that brings the film the gravitas and sense of urgency it so desperately needs.

The jousting scene is mostly very good, but the other action scenes are pretty poor. And what more would you expect from Richard Thorpe? He was one of the worst of the studio hacks. It's amazing how he lasted as long as he did. "Ivanhoe" is a failure. It's not even pretty to look at which MGM was usually good for. MGM had to be the worst of the big studios.

The White Sheik (Federico Fellini, 1952) 6/10

On their honeymoon, a young woman steals away to meet the star of a photocomic strip she loves while her husband frantically searches for her and comes up with excuses to his family about where she is. Fellini's first solo venture into filmmaking is good, but it lacks everything that makes his later films so memorable.

"The White Sheik" is very funny, I'll give it that. Fellini's dialogue is excellent as always, and Antonioni's involvement makes it all the better, though it's a story I'd never expect him to have created. The titular character is played by a gut-busting Alberto Sordi. Anyone who has seen movies or read a book before will know that this charming matinee idol isn't going to be what we expect him to be, but he subverts this expectation in the best way. He's riotous and every line is he utters seems to be custom-made for him. He nails the role.

As for the rest of the film, though, I'd say it's good at best. Leopoldo Triesta and Brunella Bovo are merely alright as our main married couple. They don't have any chemistry, so it's sad that the film's biggest payoffs come when they're on their own. Trieste's story, while certainly funny, drags a bit. The best segment comes when he finds solace in conversation with a prostitute, none other than Fellini's own Cabiria from five years down the road. It's that rare cinematic moment where we see the twinkle in the eye of the begetter.

But if Sordi were anyone else, this would be a mediocre solo debut for Fellini. It's still worth seeing because he's one of those directors whose entire filmographies really must be seen.

REWATCH: Rancho Notorious (Fritz Lang, 1952) 7/10

A cowpuncher infiltrates a retired dance hall hostess' criminal harbor looking for the man who killed his beloved. My second venture into this film solidifies what I thought all along: Fritz Lang needed to make more westerns. Granted, this isn't a film that will come to anyone's mind if a conversation about Lang were to arise, but it's still pretty solid.

I think Marlene Dietrich is largely wasted and doesn't come off as well as she should. This should be a more sultry, rough-and-tumble version of her character from "Destry Rides Again," but she's mostly tame. This is most probably attributed to her not speaking to Lang by production's end. Arthur Kennedy is very good as our determined, angry hero. Kennedy's angular features and excellent acting skill always seem to benefit him no matter what he's playing. That's no different here.

If anything, I think Mel Ferrer's performance as Frenchy, the western equivalent of a less-threatening Dr. Mabuse, isn't as good as it should be. That and the film doesn't inspire any awe. Had communication between Lang and Dietrich and Ferrer been better, this would be another easy choice for one of Lang's best. But it's solid and I'm glad to see the German master's venture into westerns isn't wasted.

The Greatest Show on Earth (Cecil B. DeMille, 1952) 2/10

Two trapeze artists engage one another in a dangerous game of one-upmanship while the female of the two is romanced by her manager boyfriend and the rival performer. This really is one of the worst movies to win Best Picture. Betty Hutton doesn't shine the same way she usually does, Cornel Wilde is an awful wooden trainwreck like usual, and Charlton Heston holds his jaw firm and growls his way through another insipid performance. Not even clownfaced Jimmy Stewart saves the film. The performances are just so wildly bad.

Like most DeMille films from the sound era, this is all spectacle with not much underneath, but you'd be hard-pressed to find anything at all underneath. Calling this film mawkish would be a compliment. Buttons the Clown's psych advice makes Lucy van Pelt's look professional. It's all so simplistic, but DeMille gives it the overbloated direction we're used to seeing from him that claims everything happening under this big top is straight out of Sophocles or Euripedes.

If anything about this film is good, it's the visual effects and stunts. The trapeze scenes are mostly very good and may very well be the only gripping, worthwhile scenes in the film.

But this film is so bad. I couldn't wait for it to be over. At least it isn't outright offensive.

REWATCH: Le Plaisir (Max Ophüls, 1952) 8/10

We're presented three stories about pleasure: one about a man hiding his age behind a mask, a tale of what happens when the madame of a whorehouse takes her girls to the country to attending her niece's communion and the reaction of the men who think it's closed down for good, and a painter and the model that falls for him.

This is as great as I remember. Ophüls' visual style is unparalleled. He was always able to combine lush visuals and settings with the characters that inhabit them better than anyone else.

The first tale is short and sweet with influences of Poe. It's a story about pleasure and youth, or age, if you'd rather. The reveal is great and unexpected. Ophüls shoots this sequences with his trademark moving camera which sashays around the dancefloor with our cast of characters. There's a great amount of focus put on movement, throughout dance, throughout life.

The second story is very humorous and some of the best comedy Ophüls has done outside the meta editing sequence in "La Ronde." As the men gather 'round the empty whorehouse slowly finding their microcosms falling apart, the laughs rack up. Funny enough, the romance between Jean Gabin and Danielle Darrieux isn't as good as it should be, and I'd watch those two do just about anything.

The third tale is when the film gets heartbreaking, and I'd argue it's the film's best segment. Daniel Gélin's performance as the arrogant, dismissive artist is the film's greatest, and his chemistry opposite a ravishing Simone Simon is electric. The story is a tiny bit overdramatic but mostly stays true to its realist roots. There's a shot, and you'll know it when you see it, that is mind-bogglingly impressive and scary.

"Le Plaisir" is excellent. Ophüls continues his streak of great films and solidifies himself as the most stylish of the great French directors.

The Golden Coach (Jean Renoir, 1952) 8/10

In eighteenth century Central America, the star of a theater company becomes the point of contention between three men: a wealthy viceroy, young Spanish officer, and a torero. Jean Renoir's best film in nearly ten years feels like a breath of fresh air. Renoir dominated the '30s, so this decade of struggles, since "This Land Is Mine," really had me wondering if I'd been overpraising him (a silly thing to think). But "The Golden Coach" is great. It's a pretty standard tale set in an original, fun location. The sets are gorgeous. Our first look at the dilapidated theater shows intricate, painstaking detail in the crafting of the art here. The titular coach itself is as breathtaking as it is gaudy.

As for the performances, I think the work of the men in the film keeps it from being a masterpiece. It's easy to see why Magnani would go after the men she does, but they're played so blandly. Either that or they look bland across from a radiant Magnani whose theatrical, emotive performance is so very good. Her long, expressive face and earthy voice make Camilla a great character who embodies passion for passion's sake and wanting to have it all.

"The Golden Coach" feels more like a novel in its ambitions and comes off with the gravity, symbolism, and intents of a novel. It's executed well and looks gorgeous. It's a return to form for Renoir who, in my opinion, had been struggling for years in Hollywood. All it took was going back to France (and Italy) to make him great once again. "The Golden Coach" is a great film.

Has Anybody Seen My Gal? (Douglas Sirk, 1952) 6/10

In the 1920s, an aging millionaire decides to leave his wealth to the family of his first love who turned him down years before because he was poor but moves in with them under a pseudonym to test their moral fabric. If I were to tell you Douglas Sirk, king of Hollywood melodrama, made a light, gay, joyous little movie with jazz, several song breaks, and a cameo by James Dean as Youth at Soda Fountain, you'd probably tell me to put down the codeine. But "Has Anybody Seen My Gal" is just that, and it's pretty delightful.

Piper Laurie is good as always - I think this is the youngest I've ever seen her, but that's probably only relevant to me because I know her best as the brassy Catherine Martell in "Twin Peaks." Laurie and Rock Hudson have excellent chemistry and make for a nice, wholesome couple. I wish there were some more lurid, sexy undertones here because the film's a bit too squeaky-clean at times. Lynn Bari and Gigi Perreau are good as Laurie's mother and sister, respectively, but the film has one big reason to see it: Charles Coburn.

By this point in time, Charles Coburn playing a soft-hearted millionaire up to some kind of crazy antics is commonplace, but Coburn plays Samuel Fulton with the same warmth and intelligence that we're used to while crafting a character very much different than his similar role in "The Devil and Miss Jones" and others of the same ilk. Coburn's performance is one of his very best - probably his best after and since "The More the Merrier."

And so maybe the most unusual film in Sirk's filmography yields alright results. I'd heavily recommend it to anyone looking for old-timey, copacetic fun.

REWATCH: High Noon (Fred Zinnemann, 1952) 8/10

As a town's marshal hangs up his badge and sets off to a docile life with his new Quaker bride, a recently-freed gang leader and his crones are on their way to town to seek revenge for their putting behind bars. An absolute classic that I like returning to every now and again even if Gary Cooper's performance is pretty awful. Cooper was always extravagantly wooden. Will Kane's heartfelt pleas for help don't come across well due to Cooper. Cooper plays it like these people owe him something instead of appeal through pathos. "I kept you safe, now help me keep you safe" doesn't work well with Cooper. I think this is a role James Stewart could've eaten alive.

But even with a terrible lead performance, this film is still great - something about which very, very few other films could probably boast. "High Noon" is still wonderful largely due to the colorful supporting cast and Fred Zinnemann's taut, smart direction. The only part of the direction I think gets a bit overwrought is the constant awareness of the time. I know we're set in real time and time matters, but the constant flashes to the clock saying, "GUYS!! IT'S ALMOST TIME!!" for 90 minutes wears out its welcome quickly. But these character actors get great time to shine. A young Grace Kelly is nice as Cooper's Quaker bride - the little twist scene involving her is one of my favorites in all of westerns. Their nearly thirty-year age difference is jarring and would be less noticeable if the two had any chemistry, but the script resorts to Kelly being shy and reserved and showing no real passion. I wish they'd have brought Amy a bit more out of her shell. Lloyd Bridges as the replacement sheriff is rather good and Thomas Mitchell gets a small role with a big speech that he knocks out cold.

But let's not act like this film isn't owned by Katy Jurado whose old flame and business owner is the film's best creation. Jurado's expressive eyes, command of scenery, and expert control in tone makes Helen Ramirez the film's best character. She's a perfect example of what a supporting character should be: someone on the outside, not necessarily integral to the plot, who steals a film and makes it better. "High Noon" would work without Helen, but we wouldn't get that excellent conversation between Jurado and Kelly which, for my money, is the film's best.

As for the film's composition, there's excellent editing and beautiful shot selection (that crane shot, man...). It's in stark black-and-white and knows it.

"High Noon" is great. It's a great film in a genre full of great films. It's smart but not without its super obvious intentions.

Park Row (Samuel Fuller, 1952) 10/10

In 1880s New York, an ambitious journalist full of integrity decides to start his own newspaper to counter the sensationalist hoopla his old paper embraced. Watching this after seeing "The Steel Helmet" for the first time is almost too perfect. Samuel Fuller is really one of the foremost geniuses cinema ever had. Martin Scorsese once quipped that is you didn't like Sam Fuller, you didn't like cinema. Cinema is Fuller.

You can tell that this was a passion project for Fuller from the get-go. Fuller, a reporter himself, states from the opening message that this is a love letter dedicated to the press. And this passion he has for the subject is deeply felt and realized in every frame of this film.

The shot selection in this film is nothing short of incredible. There's a small riot where a man gets his head beaten against a plaque at the base of a statue on Benjamin Franklin, one of the fathers of the press, that is obvious but majorly successful in its intentions. The film feels super original too. I don't think I've ever seen a film like this.

As for the performances, Gene Evans gives a real solid performance under Fuller's direction, but it's Mary Welch, as the ruthless woman running the BuzzFeed of the 1880s, who steals the show. Her performance is absolutely magnificent. There's a scene where he tries to seduce an inventor on the cusp of making the printing press faster to come to her paper that is basically a big, great Oscar clip. All her scenes could qualify as those though and not because they're bombastic and brash. Welch maneuvers through the film on a small pocket of musty air which she'd gladly use to pollute the room you're in at any time.

"Park Row" is an out-and-out masterpiece by one of cinema's best directors. It's probably the greatest newspaper film I've ever seen (I appreciate what you did, but sorry, Woodward & Bernstein). An absolutely engrossing film.

Macao (Josef von Sternberg, Nicholas Ray, 1952) 7/10

A man on the run in Portuguese China gets mistaken for an undercover police officer. Going in, I was more interested in the backstage drama than the film itself. Howard Hughes (who is a hack) and Josef von Sternberg (who is mostly amazing) not getting along and resulting in von Sternberg's firing tells me who was in the wrong. Then Nicholas Ray is hired to fill the gaps.

To be fair, those gaps were massive. Motivations and personalities veer off in entirely different directions for seemingly no reason. And this makes for a jarring, cock-eyed film. But it's a very pretty cock-eyed film. There are small details littered throughout the film that really come together later, and not a lot of films from this time did that (at least not films the studios didn't put a lot into). There's a chase through boats and smoke and nets at film's end that is really gorgeous. It evokes the spiderweb imagery that's slowly been growing throughout the film. We're watching flies here.

Jane Russell gets the Jane Russell treatment in that she sings a couple of, admittedly, really good songs and puts up a façade of attitude to deal with her character's personal shortcomings. It's not a stretch at all, but it comes across really well - much better than it did in "The Outlaw," that abortion of a film.

As for the film's best performances, it isn't Russell or a laconic Robert Mitchum who do the best work. It's the trio of supporting players that make it so good. Thomas Gomez's fat, angry lieutenant is a more blustering version of Claude Rains's iconic Captain Renault. And Gomez gets to show his comic side a little bit more than he does in his other works. Gloria Grahame gets to be a sexy little vamp who loves throwing a perfectly rusty wrench into any machine she pleases, but it's Brad Dexter's cool, collected, treacherous casino owner antagonist that steals the show. He's an incorrigible villain who reeks of slime and pomade. It's a fantastic performance.

The film's sets are also stunning and, honestly, are the best part of the film at times. It evokes all the mystique of the far east while never getting garishly stereotypical.

"Macao" is better than it should be, and I don't know whether to credit von Sternberg or Ray. They're both distinct and excellent, but their styles blend together here in a natural way. The two make for an intense, excellent case of mistaken identity much like the film itself.

The Pride of St. Louis (Harmon Jones, 1952) 7/10

This film follows the story of St. Louis Cardinals legend Dizzy Dean. This is an interesting film in that Dean isn't exactly someone you'd expect to have a movie based on. Players like Robinson and Gehrig and Stratton all had dramatic stories whereas Dean's life story isn't really too spectacular. So why is this film better than those other three? The director, Harmon Jones, doesn't have any real artistic vision, but, in this case, telling a straight story with a great performance is enough.

Dan Dailey's performance as Dean is a career-best turn. He makes Dean a lovable, determined man who wants nothing more than to make the Cardinals, and, most importantly, his wife happy. And his wife is played by a more than competent Joanne Dru who really doesn't get a whole lot to do other than sit in the stands and be supportive. But this is Dailey's show and whether he's helping out at the ticket stands or being colorful behind a microphone, he's giving a consistent, great performance - one of the very best I've seen in a sports film, a genre that I find sorely lacks excellent turns.

The film isn't super hagiographical either. It paints Dean as a complicated man whose desire to be beloved clashes with the suits above. And while there's a big, important speech about being who you are, it doesn't really feel overdone.

I guess the only thing keeping this film from being great is that it didn't really "wow" me outside of Dailey's work. But it's still a really good film based off material you wouldn't expect to yield a film so good.

[Precious Doll]

In the Shadow of Women (2015) Philippe Garrel 6/10
Rosalie Blum (2016) Julien Rappeneau 8/10
Sleeping with Other People (2015) Leslye Headland 4/10
The End of the Tour (2015) James Ponsoldt 4/10
Marguerite (2015) Xavier Giannoli 6/10
A Bigger Splash (2015) Luca Guadagnino 5/10
Floride (2015) PhilippleLe Guay 4/10

Repeat viewings

The Confession (1970) Costa-Gavras 10/10
Shivers (1981) Wojciech Marczewski 9/10
Bad Guy (2001) Ki-duk Kim 7/10

[Precious Doll]

The Brand New Testament (2015) Jaco Van Dormael 8/10
The White Nights (2016) Joachim Lafosse 4/10
Cartel Land (2015) Matthew Heineman 4/10
No Escape (2015) John Erick Dowdle 2/10
A Perfect Man (015) Yann Gozlan 7/10
Un + Une (2015) Claude Lelouch 4/10
The Lady in the Van (2015) Nicholas Hytner 7/10
Coming Home (2014) Zhang Yimou 6/10
River of Grass (1994) Kelly Reichardt 4/10
Dheepan (2015) Jacques Audiard 2/10

Repeat viewing

Kikujiro (1999) Takeshi Kitano 6/10

[FilmFan720]

I've seen Chloe, but I must admit that my memories of the film are not really about the artistic merits...

[Reza]

Nathalie... (Anne Fontaine, 2003) 9/10

A story about a failing marriage, about individuals who find it hard to communicate, about deceit and erotic desire and presented in a leisurely but mature manner which is how most french films move. A gynaecologist (Fanny Ardant) feels her husband is (Gerard Depardieu) growing distant and when he casually confesses to a few meaningless affairs she hires a prostitute (Emmanuelle Béart) to seduce him to see what makes him tick. The prostitute (they both decide her name should be "Nathalie) begins to regularly meet the wife and (for a price) describes in erotic detail what all she did with the husband. The film is one long talkfest with all the sexual activity, which is discussed in graphic detail, performed offscreen. There is also a strong lesbian undercurrent running throughout as the two women bond while discussing the husband. Béart is perfectly cast as a sexpot with her natural high cheekbones and pouty lips dressed in fishnets and sporting peroxide locks using sex as a weapon. Ardant is cool and collected, elegance personified who manages to find a fling of her own along the way. The film quietly but savagely exposes the messy side of sex and marriage with no solutions (not withstanding a twist ending) but merely suggests that the mess exists (in almost every marriage?). A story that makes you think.

Ah, the French ... I saw this movie long time ago, and while I found it more intriguing conceptually than actually successful (the twist ending being, by the way, too predictable), I must admit that those two actresses - so different and, again, so French - made it a joy for the eyes. I wonder if you - or anyone else - have seen the American/Canadian remake, called Chloe, with Julianne Moore in the Fanny Ardant role...

Yes I've seen Chloë but had forgotten it was a remake of this one. Amanda Seyfried is terrible in it. In fact the whole film was utter crap. This one works, I think, due to the french milieu and moreso due to both stars. Ardant, in particular, is superb.

[ITALIANO]

Nathlie plays on TV in Australia all the time. I really should tape it next time it shows up again to see how the film and those scenes hold up to a second viewing.

Yeah well, for some reason it's often on Italian TV too - but I should also see it again. It's clearly not a great movie, but I think that the two actresses are fascinating to watch, not because they are especially good in this movie, but because of their typically French beauty, and of the way the camera lingers on their faces - especially on Fanny Ardant's sphynx-like expressions. And it's probably true that one can find it - despite all the dramatic intrigue and Michael Nyman's typically solemn score - unintentionally funny, but I guess that the French atmosphere makes it work (definitelly much more than it would work in Italy, or in Pakitan, or in Australia - and that's why I'm curious about the English-language remake).

It's also interesting that despite the great cast (and all three actors were very big stars at the time), the movie wasn't very commercially successful in France when it first came out. Still, it has become a kind of long-seller, mostly on tv of course, probably because the central idea is kind-of universally fascinating.

[Precious Doll]

Nathalie... (Anne Fontaine, 2003) 9/10

A story about a failing marriage, about individuals who find it hard to communicate, about deceit and erotic desire and presented in a leisurely but mature manner which is how most french films move. A gynaecologist (Fanny Ardant) feels her husband is (Gerard Depardieu) growing distant and when he casually confesses to a few meaningless affairs she hires a prostitute (Emmanuelle Béart) to seduce him to see what makes him tick. The prostitute (they both decide her name should be "Nathalie) begins to regularly meet the wife and (for a price) describes in erotic detail what all she did with the husband. The film is one long talkfest with all the sexual activity, which is discussed in graphic detail, performed offscreen. There is also a strong lesbian undercurrent running throughout as the two women bond while discussing the husband. Béart is perfectly cast as a sexpot with her natural high cheekbones and pouty lips dressed in fishnets and sporting peroxide locks using sex as a weapon. Ardant is cool and collected, elegance personified who manages to find a fling of her own along the way. The film quietly but savagely exposes the messy side of sex and marriage with no solutions (not withstanding a twist ending) but merely suggests that the mess exists (in almost every marriage?). A story that makes you think.

Ah, the French ... I saw this movie long time ago, and while I found it more intriguing conceptually than actually successful (the twist ending being, by the way, too predictable), I must admit that those two actresses - so different and, again, so French - made it a joy for the eyes. I wonder if you - or anyone else - have seen the American/Canadian remake, called Chloe, with Julianne Moore in the Fanny Ardant role...

I've seen Chloe (directed by the once promising Atom Egoyan) and it is insufferable but at least is unintentionatly funny, but than so is Nathalie but it is a much more assured film, though most of what Anne Fontaine has directed during her 'career' has is absolute garbage. Chloe has got one of the most cringe-worthy lesbian loving making scenes ever committed to celluloid: Julianne Moore & Amanda Seyfried looking very awkward and embarrassed during the whole ridiculous scene. And poor Liam Neeson had little to do in the film. It also has a tinge of tragedy to it as Neeson's wife Natasha Richardson passed under the most terrible of circumstances during the making of film.

Nathalie gave me and my partner two great big belly laughs so I'm kind of fond of it for those laughs more than anything else. One was in the response by Fanny Ardant to Emmanuelle Beart when she questions Fanny Ardant about her sex life and in what manner she and her husband (Gerard Depardieu) have sex. Ardant's response was 'classic'. I don't recall what the subtitling was but we burst any laughing at the response and the delivery by Ardant. The other was when Fanny Ardant is checking out the 'working girls' upstairs one of whom is bent over on all fours, naked of course, revealing her ''private parts' in all their glory. That moment detracted from the whole scene because though it wasn't set centre stage it sort of took over the scene of what was meant to be Fanny Ardant's reaction to what she was seeing around her.

Nathlie plays on TV in Australia all the time. I really should tape it next time it shows up again to see how the film and those scenes hold up to a second viewing.

[ITALIANO]

Nathalie... (Anne Fontaine, 2003) 9/10

A story about a failing marriage, about individuals who find it hard to communicate, about deceit and erotic desire and presented in a leisurely but mature manner which is how most french films move. A gynaecologist (Fanny Ardant) feels her husband is (Gerard Depardieu) growing distant and when he casually confesses to a few meaningless affairs she hires a prostitute (Emmanuelle Béart) to seduce him to see what makes him tick. The prostitute (they both decide her name should be "Nathalie) begins to regularly meet the wife and (for a price) describes in erotic detail what all she did with the husband. The film is one long talkfest with all the sexual activity, which is discussed in graphic detail, performed offscreen. There is also a strong lesbian undercurrent running throughout as the two women bond while discussing the husband. Béart is perfectly cast as a sexpot with her natural high cheekbones and pouty lips dressed in fishnets and sporting peroxide locks using sex as a weapon. Ardant is cool and collected, elegance personified who manages to find a fling of her own along the way. The film quietly but savagely exposes the messy side of sex and marriage with no solutions (not withstanding a twist ending) but merely suggests that the mess exists (in almost every marriage?). A story that makes you think.

Ah, the French ... I saw this movie long time ago, and while I found it more intriguing conceptually than actually successful (the twist ending being, by the way, too predictable), I must admit that those two actresses - so different and, again, so French - made it a joy for the eyes. I wonder if you - or anyone else - have seen the American/Canadian remake, called Chloe, with Julianne Moore in the Fanny Ardant role...

[Reza]

Nathalie... (Anne Fontaine, 2003) 9/10

A story about a failing marriage, about individuals who find it hard to communicate, about deceit and erotic desire and presented in a leisurely but mature manner which is how most french films move. A gynaecologist (Fanny Ardant) feels her husband is (Gerard Depardieu) growing distant and when he casually confesses to a few meaningless affairs she hires a prostitute (Emmanuelle Béart) to seduce him to see what makes him tick. The prostitute (they both decide her name should be "Nathalie) begins to regularly meet the wife and (for a price) describes in erotic detail what all she did with the husband. The film is one long talkfest with all the sexual activity, which is discussed in graphic detail, performed offscreen. There is also a strong lesbian undercurrent running throughout as the two women bond while discussing the husband. Béart is perfectly cast as a sexpot with her natural high cheekbones and pouty lips dressed in fishnets and sporting peroxide locks using sex as a weapon. Ardant is cool and collected, elegance personified who manages to find a fling of her own along the way. The film quietly but savagely exposes the messy side of sex and marriage with no solutions (not withstanding a twist ending) but merely suggests that the mess exists (in almost every marriage?). A story that makes you think.

[Reza]

Fiorille (Paolo & Vittorio Taviani, 1993) 8/10

A family curse passed down through the centuries. A man relates the curse to his children as they drive through Tuscany to visit their old grandfather. Three different episodes relate the curse as flashbacks to the distant past explain how stolen gold caused the death of an innocent french soldier. His lover, pregnant with his child, carried the curse forward into the present. The Taviani brothers create three different historical time periods - the Napoleanic Wars, the early 20th century and during WWII - in their typical sumptuous fashion celebrating not only a time gone by but showing Italy and it's glorioys landscapes in a shimmery hue. The outstanding production values - cinematography, production design and costumes - compliment the epic grandeur of the plot. A must-see to appreciate dreamlike cinema that is no longer to be found.

[Reza]

Il Sole Amiche Di Notte / The Sun Also Shines at Night / Night Sun (Paolo & Vittorio Taviani, 1990) 8/10

An intimate spiritual journey of a man told against an expansive historical backdrop by the Taviani brothers who, through their visually splendid films, present their country Italy in all it's splendor. Based on Leo Tolstoy's short novel "Father Sergius", the directors transplant the story from the era of Czar Nicholas II in Russia to that of Charles III of Naples. Sergius (Julian Sands), a womanizer and soldier from a minor aristocratic family, has had a childhood ambition to serve his King. Fate brings him to the attention of the ruler who arranges his marriage to a woman (Nastassia Kinski) of noble birth. On the eve of the marriage she reveals to him that she had been the King's lover. Disillusioned he flees to his family home in Southern Italy and decides to join the priesthood. Even when he retreats as a hermit to a barren part of the countryside he finds that temptation of the flesh follows him (courtesy of Charlotte Gainsbourg as a disturbed woman who reintroduces him to sexual pleasure). Defeated he tries to return to the "real" world as a drifter. Haunting story about faith and miracles glimpsed through the gorgeous camera of Giuseppe Lanci, filmed on magnificent locations with superb production values and a lovely score by Nicola Piovani.