Mary Shelley: A Review (Review #2040)

MARY SHELLEY

Frankenstein, or The Modern Prometheus has haunted the imagination for over a century. The real story of its creator is more haunted and tragic. Mary Shelley is a respectable film with one good, strong central performance that makes up, barely, for its stodgy manner. 

Young Mary Godwin (Elle Fanning) has a fraught relationship with her stepmother, Mary Jane Clairmont (Joanne Froggatt). She is, however, fond of her stepsister Claire (Bel Powley). In a mix to both expand her education and bring relief to the household and struggling bookshop, her father William Godwin (Stephen Dillane) sends Mary to Scotland to stay with family friends. Here, Mary meets the dashing renegade poet Percy Bysshe Shelley (Douglas Booth). 

Claire hoodwinks her family into sendind for Mary and soon she returns full-time. She also reencounters Shelley, and a romance begins. Mary is initially unaware that Percy is still married and with a daughter, but soon their passion cannot be denied. Despite Mr. Godwin's own radical views, he is appalled at the liaison. He is more appalled when Mary and Percy run off together, accompanied by Claire. They live the high life until debt gets in the way. Mary has and then loses their child, in part to Percy's wicked ways. 

Claire, for her part, has an affair with more dashing and more renegade poet Lord Byron (Tom Sturridge). They go to his Geneva estate, where Lord Byron is somewhat pleased with their arrival. Mary is a haunted figure: haunted by the death of her mother after Mary's birth, by the loss of her own child, and by ideas of reviving the dead. In this dark and stormy season, Mary will pick up Lord Byron's challenge of all writing ghost stories to create her masterpiece, Frankenstein. Will she receive the recognition that her masterwork merits? Will her marriage to Percy, now free after his wife's suicide, bring happiness? Will her friendship with Byron's doctor frenemy John William Polidori (Ben Hardy) grow to something more?

If anything, Mary Shelley is elevated by Elle Fanning's performance. Affecting a convincing British accent, Fanning shows Mary to be this girl growing into a woman of renown and resolve. As the film goes on, Fanning reveals Mary's doubts, struggles, even shock at the man for whom she has sacrificed so much. At one point, one of Percy's friends suggested that they become involved. She rejets the suggestion, but then is shocked when Percy advocates that she should have taken up the offer. We see in Fanning how Mary is more than upset at Percy's manner. We see her sense of betrayal, that his love for her is not the way she loves him.

It is quite a good performance, and Elle Fanning should be commended for bringing Mary Shelley to life. She is not a bon vivant but also not a woman of sorrow. Instead, Fanning's Mary is a complicated figure.

I was also surprised to see that Douglas Booth was actually not bad as Percy Shelley. Booth is an exceptionally pretty figure. However, in the few projects that I have seen him in (a television adaption of Great Expectations and the horror of Jupiter Ascending), Booth has been a walking mannequin. Yes, he is very pretty, but also very blank, unable to communicate much in terms of emotion. Mary Shelley is probably the best that he has been when it comes to what I have seen of his filmography. Booth has a particularly good moment when he speaks surprisingly elegantly about his loveless marriage.

On the whole, I found the performances were all good to strong, a credit to director Haifaa Al-Mansour. Where Al-Mansour and screenwriter Emma Jensen go wrong is in making Mary Shelley a very stodgy affair. It is well-acted, but it is also very stately, a bit stiff at time. The actors, with all their good work, played the parts. That is, however, the problem. They played parts. They did not play people.

I liked Mary Shelley just enough to give it a mild recommendation. It could have been better. However, it is just good enough. Like her novel, I figure a biography is better than the film. 

1797-1851

DECISION: C+

Charlie Kirk: A Personal Reflection

1993-2025

These have been two hard weeks for me. I have had to replace all four tires one week, then replace the kitchen faucet the next week. The little that I have in savings is fast depleting. I had my-now former best friend ignore me for two weeks straight while we worked at the same location. Not a word, not a greeting, not an invite to lunch or breakfast, not a hello, not a goodbye. All these stressors caused me to miss part of my very high minimum payments, which I figure will increase. That, in turn, will increase my already heavy financial burden. I felt overwhelmed, distressed and depressed. I felt almost cruelly tested by God, forever attempting to show that I trusted Him by enduring harder and harder tests.

Then, the sight of a man, younger than myself, shot in the neck, blood gushing frenziedly, for holding an open-air debate, served as a terrible reminder that my troubles are in the long run, bearable. 

Charlie Kirk's assassination is monstrous. It is evil. It is damnable, and damn anyone who celebrates or condones his murder. Full stop. 

I saw the initial video, and it will shake me to my very core for however long I live. The details are in my mind: him putting the microphone down, the pop, the hole in his neck, the blood...dear God, the blood, the keeling over to the left. I cannot begin to imagine the total horror of his final moments. 

He expected yesterday to be a perhaps mocking back-and-forth between those who disagreed with his various views and himself. No one expects a particular day to be their last day, especially if you are as young as he was. I also figure that he was not expecting to be murdered before thousands for debating those who disagreed with him.

Everything about this horror distresses me: the crime itself, the celebratory nature among some who insist that "kindness matters", the ease to which violence is seen as justified because of disagreements. It is all so cruel, so evil, so terribly disheartening to me. However, I think of what Charlie Kirk was doing when someone shot him down. He was participating in something as old, if not older than, the Republic itself: asking and answering questions in a free and open exchange of ideas. 

Whether one agreed or disagreed with Charlie Kirk is unimportant. Whatever his views, he had the right to express and share them. He had the right to create an organization to promote those views (Turning Point USA). He had that First Amendment "right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".

Charlie Kirk's assassination is counter to that vital right. We, as a nation and as a society, cannot tolerate, cannot accept, cannot endorse a culture where people can feel justified in killing those who hold different points of view.

Sadly, the warning signs that some believe a bullet should settle all debate have been there for many years. 

I go to the Congressional baseball team shooting in 2017, where someone attempted a mass assassination of Republican Congressmen because of their politics. 

I go to the idolization, at times literal, of Luigi Mangione after his arrest, charged with assassinating United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson. Mangione was not condemned in certain circles for allegedly shooting a man in the back, murdering him in cold blood. He was, instead, feted and declared a "thirst trap". 

I go to the attempted assassination of then-former President Donald Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania. Had he not moved his head a few inches, we would have seen a former President and presidential candidate murdered before our eyes. Lest we forget, one man, Corey Comperatore, was murdered in the attempted assassination.

I go, now, today, to the slaughter of another man who was murdered for disagreeing with others and having people defend their views to him publicly in an open forum.

Each of these attempted or committed murders has a common denominator: the demonic belief that one can, perhaps should, kill those whose views you find more than objectionable. That oft-used phrase of "violence is not the answer" remains true. A free and open exchange of ideas cannot exist if any side decides that they have the power to execute whomever it disagrees with. That is terrorism. That is fascism. That is not what any American, on the Left or Right, can accept, support, endorse or celebrate.

Did I agree with Charlie Kirk? Did I find him and/or his views distasteful? I will not tell you, because my personal views about his political views do not shape my horror and anguish at his murder. I would feel the same if this had happened to Brian Tyler Cohen, a liberal commentator who is of Kirk's generation. I cannot find it in my heart or soul to think that killing your political opponents is right or moral on any level.

My heart breaks that anyone would think that such a thing would be right or moral on any level.

Politics is not my life. I vote on a regular basis. I have voted for Democrats and Republicans. I have my views, which are not uniform with one political party or another. I have criticized and ridiculed both sides. I have, at times, been appalled at some of what I hear from our political leaders and commentators. In all that, however, not once have I ever thought that those who disagreed with me should be exterminated. That anyone would think such a thing fills me, not with dread but with despair.

We cannot, we must not, kill those whose views are not like our own. No matter how odious you find those views, no matter how opposed you are to those views, committing murder does not make you heroic. It makes you satanic. Moreover, we cannot, we must not, justify or celebrate those who commit murder of political opponents. 

Charlie Kirk was murdered. We cannot celebrate murder. If we are not allowed to speak freely because someone believes that he or she has the right, if not duty, to kill us for openly holding a different viewpoint, we do not live in a free society but in a terror state. 

We never know if this day will be our last. We are today remembering that twenty-four years ago, so many were living their last day. Charlie Kirk did not know that yesterday, September 10, 2025, would be his last day of life. As I reflect on the horrors of yesterday, and remember the horrors of September 11, 2001, I remind myself to cherish those whom I love and that a late payment is not the end of the world. 

I close with this. Contrary to what some of my online compatriots say, I am not old enough to have been Charlie Kirk's father. True, I am much older than he was. As such, I have seen all sorts of terrible things. I never thought or imagined that I would live to see the political assassination of an activist, let alone an assassination that people dance to. It pains me beyond measure to see his birth and death date so close. I feel so much pain for his widow, his children, and his parents whom I presume are still alive. 

My deepest condolences to all of them.

Weapons (2025): A Review

WEAPONS

I went into Weapons thoroughly blank, with no knowledge of what it was about. It was just highly recommended by people that I know. I left Weapons pleased that it was a good film. It is not a great film. However, as things go, I think Weapons gives audiences what they ask.

Told through various chapters covering the chronicled events from various angles in nonchronological order, Weapons begins in voiceover from a child. The child reports that at Maybrook Elementary school, the entire third grade class of Miss Justine Gandy (Julia Garner) has disappeared. Well, all but one: Alex Lilly (Gary Christopher), who remains but who is silent. The mass disappearances of Miss Gandy's students in the middle of the night sends shockwaves throughout the community. 

Some of the parents, such as Archer Graff (Josh Brolin) insist that Justine has something to do with the disappearances, some of which were caught on camera. Justine, who is caring about her students but is also a bit of a tart and lush, continues pressing to speak to Alex. Her boss, Marcus Miller (Benedict Wong) keeps warning her against that. Eventually, she reconnects with Paul Morgan (Alden Ehrenreich), a cop and old flame. 

She not only pumps Paul for information but gets him to fall off the wagon. Paul has his own problems separate from his fraught relationship with Donna (June Diane Raphael), his wife or live-in girlfriend who is also the daughter of his boss. Paul also has to contend with two-bit criminal and junkie James (Austin Abrams). James may be high, but he also knows the shocking truth about what happened to the kids. This does not save him, however, from a brutal end. 

The shocking truth does not spare Marcus, who has become something of a zombie who tries to kill Justine in front of Archer. What is going on? What role if any does Alex's great-aunt Gladys (Amy Madigan) have in this sordid tale? There is witchcraft at work here, one that has netted innocents like Alex. Will parents and teachers find the missing kids? Who will make it out alive from this wickedness?

Weapons is divided into six chapters: Justine, Archer, Paul, James, Marcus and Alex. Each part gives us both bits of information about this case as well as filling in parts from other sections. For example, Justine ends with Marcus' shocking attack on her. We pick up in Marcus not only how this formerly pleasant and well-meaning man ended up a crazed zombified figure trying to murder Justine but how he came to do so while wearing a Mickey Mouse shirt. Marcus shows us that he had been enjoying a nice documentary with his life-partner Terry (Clayton Ferris) when Aunt Gladys unexpectedly came to them. Terry was wearing a Minnie Mouse shirt.

I did get a sense that Weapons was drawing a bit from Rashomon at least in giving us various viewpoints when it came to the overall story. I am not comparing Rashomon with Weapons or suggesting that the latter is on the same level as the former. I am merely saying that Weapons puts bits of other characters' stories until we get to that particular character's section. We get that there is or was a relationship between Justine and Paul in Justine. It is not until Paul that we get confirmation that he is both a recovering alcoholic and that he did schtup her as a result of falling off the wagon. How James came back into Paul's line of sight first seen in Paul gets revealed in James. It is an effective manner of telling the overall story, though it made it longer than I think it should have been.

Weapons gives viewers just enough to tease people about the mystery. Writer/director Zach Cregger kept things going well, building on one story to push the next one forward. I think Weapons works well because the performances never went overboard, even when some of the characters were essentially zombies. These moments were more shocking than silly. Granted, there was laughter from the audience at certain points. I can see why people laughed, but I did not think it was anything that would make me join in. 

I think that one element that makes Weapons work is that it takes the premise seriously enough without being morose or idiotic. That is a major credit given some of the scenes, such as a parent being a zombie apparently about to attack someone. Josh Brolin did well as Archer, the grieving father whose obsession in finding his bully son shifts his perspective from hostile towards Justine to becoming her ally. I am unfamiliar with Julia Garner, but I think she in her performance showed Justine to be flawed on a personal level but whose flaws did not extend to the classroom. I spent much of Weapons trying to figure out who Paul was, and it wasn't until the credits that I saw it was Alden Ehrenreich. The man who has at times struggled to escape his failed Solo effort does a good job as the troubled Paul. 

I think too much praise has been given to Amy Madigan as Aunt Gladys, the mysterious figure at the center of the wickedness. Yes, she is appropriately creepy as the shadowy force of evil. However, at times I did if not laugh at least smile at her efforts. More credit should be given to Cary Christopher as Alex, the innocent caught in Gladys' monstrous clutches. 

As a side note, I asked myself that the question people in town should have asked is not "Why did the children from Miss Gandy's class disappear?" but "Why was Alex the only one spared?". A lot of the case would have been solved if the police had pursued the second question rather than the first.

Weapons is an effective horror film, if a bit long. It works for what it is, even with the voiceover that begins and ends the film. In a weak year, Weapons is one of the better films that I have seen. 

DECISION: B-

The Naked Gun (2025): A Review

THE NAKED GUN

Leslie Nielsen was seen as a purely dramatic actor until he appeared in Airplane! where his deadpan manner made things funnier. The television series spoof Police Squad! and its film adaptation The Naked Gun cemented Nielsen's status as a comic actor to where I think people only saw him as that. I think that people soon could not see the forest for the trees when it came to Nielsen, opting to pigeonhole him to spoofs when he could have done more. With the revived The Naked Gun, it seems to try and want to do with Liam Neeson what the first Naked Gun did for Nielsen. More light chuckles than straight-out howlfest, The Naked Gun is mercifully short but not as funny as its predecessors.

Detective Frank Drebin, Jr. (Neeson) foils a bank robbery by disguising himself as a child. Unfortunately, his actions end up creating chaos and he is reassigned to a car accident where foul play is suspected. Alongside his partner, Ed Hocken, Jr. (Paul Walter Houser), Drebin seems fine to let the accident that killed software engineer Simon Davenport be reported as a suicide. Drebin does, however, find a matchbook that he finds curious. One person who won't accept that Simon's death was a suicide is his sister, Beth (Pamela Anderson). Beth, a crime novelist, suspects that it is murder. She suspects that Simon's death is connected to his employer, tech billionaire Richard Cane (Danny Huston). 

She is not far off, for Cane is involved. He is also involved in the bank robbery, where we find that a Plot Device was stolen. This Plot Device is part of Cane's nefarious scheme to go all Doctor Strangelove on the world. Frank Drebin, Jr. and Beth soon become thorns in Cane's side. Frank and Beth, who have fallen in love, now must join forces against both Cane and killer snowmen. Will they be able to stop Citizen Cane's wicked scheme? 

The Naked Gun runs 85 minutes long. I'm honestly surprised that it ran that long at all. It is more surprising to learn that the original also ran 85 minutes long. Perhaps another time I will compare the original with this sequel/reboot. For now, as I look at the 2025 Naked Gun, I find that it is...fine. 

The film, written by Dan Gregor, Doug Mand and director Akiva Schaffer, had some amusing bits and sight gags. One of The Naked Gun's greatest elements is in how it takes literal bits to make humorous moments and puns. The original had those in spades, where it threw endless gags and puns visual and verbal at you. Here though, they did not feel that funny. I thought the idea of opening the film with a literal PLOT Device was at least amusing. That "Primordial Law of Toughness" was the meaning of PLOT in "PLOT Device" felt as if it came from a more standard comedy. It might have done better if no one ever commented on what if anything "PLOT" meant. It would be just that: a literal "PLOT Device" and nothing more. 

Over and over, I thought that everyone involved with The Naked Gun was trying to be funny. I would even say that they were attempting to ratch up the humor a few notches. It just felt forced to me. When Frank Drebin, Jr. ends up framing himself, it could have been funny. Neeson gave it his all to try and make it so. For example, he finds a note telling him to pick up a tape recorder and say, "I did it" and he does exactly that. However, it played as if everyone knew that it was "funny", which in turn ended up making it not hilarious but labored.

Even for something as short as The Naked Gun, the scene with the killer snowman never felt funny even without its world. It looked like outtakes from Jack Frost. 

The thing about comedy, particularly something in the Naked Gun style, is that no one is supposed to play it as if they are aware that they are in a comedy. Some of the best comedies from Some Like It Hot to National Lampoon's Animal House to the original Naked Gun play their scenarios perfectly straight. I never got the sense that such was the case here. Instead, I got the sense that everyone knew that The Naked Gun was supposed to be a comedy. 

Again, there were funny moments. I thought, for example, that poor Ed Hocken, Jr. handing out free beers to everyone no questions asked, even a child, was amusing. There is a quick bit where he is sharing beer with children, which I did smile at. However, this bit had little buildup. It happened because someone thought it would be hilarious. It was, fine.

The same can be said for the performances. I think Liam Neeson took on this role because it would be a nice way to play against his own second persona as a tough action star. Once, Liam Neeson was seen as a serious dramatic actor, culminating with his Oscar-nominated turn in Schindler's List. Once he appeared in Taken, Neeson was transformed into an action star, where he has been for close to twenty years. I think Neeson as I said gave it his all to make Frank Drebin, Jr. into this bumbling moron. However, I never got the sense that Neeson could make himself into the bumbling moron his character needed to be. In a curious criticism, Liam Neeson seemed too smart to play dumb. 

The same can be said for both Pamela Anderson as our femme fatale and Danny Huston as our evil villain. I think that they tried. They worked to make themselves funny. The problem, again, is that everyone seemed to want to be smarter than the material. I did not laugh at Anderson's Beth attempting bad scatting at the nightclub. I never had any interest in Huston's Cane's plans for unleashing chaos.

As a side note, you couldn't have made one "Citizen Cane" quip or "Cane" related pun? 

I know that there are people who report to laughing nonstop at The Naked Gun. Yes, there were bits that were amusing. However, I was not falling down laughing. It was fine. It was barely passable. The Naked Gun is not up to the original's legacy. 

DECISION: C+

Misery: A Review

MISERY

Long before such things as "toxic fandom" and "stans" came to prominence, Misery touched on the possessive nature of fans. Well-acted, quietly intense, but for one expected moment Misery would be brilliant.

Paul Sheldon (James Caan) is the successful author of the Misery Chastain series of novels. The romance version of Sherlock Holmes has made him rich and famous, his editor Marcia Sindell (Lauren Bacall) reminds him. However, like Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Paul has grown resentful towards Misery, feeling that it keeps him from better work. With that, his eighth and newest Misery novel Misery's Child will kill off his golden goose.

Paul has finished Misery's Child in the Colorado mountains where he always writes. Caught in a snowstorm when leaving, Paul has a major car crash. He awakens in the remote cabin of Annie Wilkes (Kathy Bates). Annie is not just a nurse but Sheldon's self-described "number one fan". The accident has disabled Paul to such a point that he cannot be safely moved. Moreover, the snowstorm has left the Wilkes farm isolated from the nearby community. 

Annie seems nice if a bit mercurial and excessively attached to the character of Misery. When she reads Misery's Child with Paul's blessings, Paul is terrified by her reaction. Annie is violently enraged that Misery has been killed off. She will not stand for this murder. After ordering a weak Paul to destroy his newest unpublished work based on his early years, Annie now demands that Misery be revived. This begins a battle of wits and wills between Annie and Paul. 

Paul's disappearance has alarmed Miss Sindell, who contacts the local sheriff. That sheriff, Buster (Richard Farnsworth), believes that Paul may be dead. As he begins investigating alongside his wife Virginia (Frances Sternhagen), he soon starts thinking that Paul is alive but still in danger. He also begins to delve into the Misery world, coming upon a quote from one of the novels that triggers a memory. That memory leads him to wonder if Annie Wilkes, in her isolated farm, has something to do with Paul's disappearance, as her past as a murderess comes to light. Who will live and who will die by Misery's hand?

I do not know that today, people appreciate just how popular Misery was when it was released. The expression "I'm your Number One fan" became something of a catchphrase, albeit one that signaled that the speaker was bonkers. I think that, with hindsight of thirty-five years, Misery was far ahead of its time. Misery captures the possessive manner of fans, in this case of a literary series. Today, we see many fans of works as varied as the vampire Twilight books to the long-established Star Wars franchise be at times enraged by something that the original creators do. How much of a stretch is it from an Annie Wilkes getting hung up on minutia of Sheldon's Misery universe to say Doctor Who fans who can point out inconsistencies and contradictions. Misery is a dark portrayal of deranged fandom taken to the ultimate extreme. In that, I am surprised that William Goldman's adaptation of Stephen King's novel has not been given more credit for being prescient about how unhinged some devotees can be when it comes to the object of their fandom.

Misery is exceptionally well-acted. Kathy Bates created a villainess for the ages. Bates balances an almost sweet and disarming manner to someone who is beyond dangerous. She can switch on a dime from gleeful at recounting her enthusiasm about Misery's Return (the novel Annie forced Paul to write) to psychotic about Paul making the most innocuous statements. In between the rages and the notorious foot-maiming scene, Bates also allows bits of genuine vulnerability, even sadness. Bates' performance is so strong that through it, with Goldman's script, we get a moment of levity at Annie's expense. As she criticizes Paul for trying to cheat the audience, Annie tells him that he has to change everything except naming the gravedigger after her. That, she tells him in a staccato manner, he can keep. She is oblivious to how naming the gravedigger after her is not a compliment. 

Bates' scene where she recounts her rage at a movie serial getting a detail wrong has become legendary, at times mocked. It also, thanks to Goldman's adaption, reveals a quirk in Annie's nature. As she screams about the "cock-a-doodie car", we see someone who will not swear. A major point in Annie is her refusal to use even the mildest of vulgarities. That, however, sets up a rarely commented moment in Annie and Paul's final confrontation, when she calls him a "lying c**ksucker". 

Kathy Bates may have been the one to walk off with an Oscar for Misery, but there was not a bad performance in the film. It is a surprise that James Caan did not receive a nomination as well. His performance as Paul Sheldon was nowhere near as flashy as that of Bates. However, he was still effective as the tormented, at times arrogant Paul. I personally thought that it would have been better for the character to play along with Annie versus being as combative as he was. That being said, Caan is an excellent dance partner to Bates' unhinged intensity.

The supporting performances of Richard Farnsworth and Frances Sternhagen as Buster and Virginia are the closest Misery has to "comic relief". Do not misunderstand my meaning; they were not comic characters or performances. Farnsworth, in his quiet manner, was dedicated and intelligent, following the investigation in a methodical manner to its shocking conclusion. However, he and Sternhagen brought a little bit of impish charm to this married couple that could playfully play off each other. Their scenes were nice, even funny, where we saw Buster and Virginia jokingly insult the other. They brought lightness and a sense of calm to the at times wild goings-on in the film. 

None wilder than the aforementioned foot-maiming scene. Director Rob Reiner was actually restrained in this grisly scene. Just as many people remember the Psycho shower scene as being more graphic than it actually is, the foot-maiming is not as graphic as I had remembered it. Contrary to memories, we see on-screen only one ankle twisted. The rest of the scene merely suggests the other ankle met a similarly gruesome fate. It is through Reiner's direction of the scene and his actors, along with Bates and Caan's performances, that makes that scene more intense that what is actually on screen.

In every element I think Misery excels except for when we get Annie coming back for a second smackdown. I had hoped against hope that we would not see her make a jump-scare, but I suppose that is what audiences either wanted or expected. I knocked down a point for that. 

Minus that, Misery still holds up extremely well as a suspense thriller. 

DECISION: B+

The Phoenician Scheme: A Review (Review #2036)

THE PHOENICIAN SCHEME

By now, even the most casual filmgoer knows what he or she will be getting when they go to a Wes Anderson film. Enchanting to some, maddening to others, Anderson will never deviate from his twee aesthetic. Now, we get his newest film, The Phoenician Scheme. We see some old faces, some new faces, and the same droll manner that this time left me terribly, terribly cold.

Billionaire industrialist Anatole "Zsa-Zsa" Korda (Benicio del Toro) has survived yet another plane crash/assassination attempt. Hovering between life and death, Zsa-Zsa has visions of Heaven, but the divine court is unsure of whether or not he will enter Paradise.

Deciding to get things in order before his end (whenever that should be) Zsa-Zsa contacts his estranged daughter, Liesl (Mia Threapleton). Liesl is a Catholic novitiate who wants nothing to do with Zsa-Zsa. This frosty relationship is due in part to the suspicion that Zsa-Zsa murdered Liesl's mother in a jealous rage. Zsa-Zsa insists that he did no such thing. As The Phoenician Scheme goes on, we find that he technically did not pull the trigger but set the scene.

Liesl, somewhat reluctantly, goes with Zsa-Zsa as he sets off the Phoenician Scheme. He will get other people to fund his latest project involving a nuclear power plant and/or a dam. Zsa-Zsa is thoroughly unscrupulous in his business deals. Liesl watches as does Bjorn Lund (Michael Cera), Zsa-Zsa's secretary and entomologist. He cons two California businessmen (Tom Hanks and Bryan Cranston) despite his poor basketball skills. Phoenician Prince Farouk (Riz Ahmed) is to be fair, worse at basketball, having no concept of the game. He blackmails Marseilles Bob (Mathieu Amalric) but does save his life (albeit accidentally) from revolutionaries led by Sergio (Richard Ayoade). Finally, he threatens the life of his frenemy Marty (Jeffrey Wright) but does get him to pitch in.

Still, Zsa-Zsa is still half short of his financial goals. Could his cousin Hilda (Scarlett Johansson) be able to help? Will she agree to marry Zsa-Zsa anyway? What of Zsa-Zsa's half-brother Nubar (Benedict Cumberbatch)? Nubar is an investor in the Phoenician Scheme. He is a fierce rival to Zsa-Zsa. He may also be Liesl's biological father and her mother's murderer. Will the scheme ultimately work? Will Zsa-Zsa be able to buy his way to Heaven? Is there a potential traitor within Zsa-Zsa's inner circle?

I'm reluctant to use the expression, "You've seen one, you've seen them all" when it comes to Wes Anderson's oeuvre. This is especially true since there have been Wes Anderson films that I have genuinely liked, such as Moonrise Kingdom and The Grand Budapest Hotel. Terms like "quirky" and "twee" are often used to describe Anderson's cinematic style. Some people love this style. I barely accepted Asteroid City and disliked his short film The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar, which finally made him an Oscar winner. 

The Phoenician Scheme was not to my liking. Granted, you had lots of heady themes here: life, the afterlife, the good or evil that you do in the world following you to the next. However, I think that Anderson's deadpan manner, where everyone and everything is staccato, failed to make me care.

Some actors genuinely struggled with this manner. Of particular note is Anderson's fellow Oscar winner Riz Ahmed (who also won for his short film, the atrocious The Long Goodbye). He, in a curious criticism, seemed too animated for all of this. Ahmed could not make himself fit into Anderson's droll, deadpan manner. Tom Hanks and Bryan Cranston could. Even Michael Cera could. Ahmed, conversely, looked genuinely lost trying to be emotionless. 

I also thought little of Benedict Cumberbatch as Nubar. Looking like Rasputin's crazier cousin, he continues to show that his acting is solely based on his rich and luxurious baritone. Unlike Ahmed, he did not struggle with Anderson's insistence on having the characters look almost comatose in their line delivery. Like Ahmed, he never convinced me that he believed these were even fictional people.

This was not a problem for Mia Threapleton. She got into the act quite well, able to keep up with the Andersonian dryness. At times, I thought Threapleton veered close to a parody of Andersonian dryness. However, by this time Anderson is so standard that I think it would be hard to parody something that already plays as parody.

Benicio del Toro was certainly in on the joke as Zsa-Zsa. I think he did well in The Phoenician Scheme. His character was amoral but who slowly, very slowly, started wondering if it was right. Seeing bits of Heaven and even a chat with God (Bill Murray) might do that with people. 

As a side note, I admit to chuckling when one of the federal government agents referred to the mole inside Zsa-Zsa's inner circle as "the bureaucrat from Baltimore". 

The Phoenician Scheme does have typically strong aesthetics in its costuming and set decoration. If one thing can be counted on with Wes Anderson, it is that his films will always look quirky, whimsical and yes, twee. 

That, however, seems to be an investment of diminishing returns. Aesthetics and style can go only so far. The Phoenician Scheme is a film I barely remember watching. I do not know if that is a good thing or not.

DECISION: D+

Show Boat (1936): A Review (Review #2035)

SHOW BOAT (1936)

This review is part of the Summer Under the Stars Blogathon. Today's star is Irene Dunne.

I believe that there are at least two Broadway musicals that changed the musical theater. One of them is Oklahoma! where the story was as important as the singing and dancing. I think that Show Boat was the other. It too blended songs with plot but also tackled serious subjects like racism and miscegenation when musicals were seen as lighthearted confections. This second adaptation of the Jerome Kern & Oscar Hammerstein musical is a strong, beautiful adaptation with fine performances. It also has one moment that will probably shock modern audiences but which accurately albeit sadly reflect both the times it was set and made.

The Cotton Palace riverboat comes down the Mississippi to bring entertainment to the various communities on the river. Captain Andy Hawks (Charles Winninger) has brought a cavalcade of stars to sing, dance and act for audiences white and black. His wife Parthy (Helen Westley) is not keen on Andy giving townsfolk so many "free samples" of the various entertainments aboard the Cotton Palace. She is even less keen on her daughter Magnolia (Irene Dunne) being BFF with the main female performer, Julie LaVerne (Helen Morgan), the Little Sweetheart of the South. 

As it stands, Julie is keeping a secret, which is revealed when jealous crewman Pete (Arthur Hohl) goes to the local sheriff. Julie is biracial, passing for white and married to her white leading man, Steve Baker (Donald Cook). Steve will not leave Julie even though he married her knowing that she was half-black. This leaves the Cotton Palace in a jam. Very reluctantly, Parthy goes along with the idea to make Magnolia's theatrical dreams come true.

Joining her in those aspirations is charming gambler Gaylord Ravenal (Allan Jones), who becomes the new idol of wide-eyed theatrical patrons. Magnolia and Gaylord fall in love and eventually move away to Chicago. Gay's gambling starts out strong, affording them a nice life. However, like all gambler's lucky streaks, it ends. Feeling shame, Gay moves away, unaware that Magnolia is with child. She now has to rebuild her life, aided by former Cotton Palace hoofers Frank Schultz (Sammy White) and Ellie May Chipley (Queenie Smith). Also commenting from time to time are the "Negro" crew, husband and wife Joe (Paul Robeson) and Queenie (Hattie McDaniel). Will Magnolia and Gaylord reunite in the end, or will Old Man River just keep rolling along? 

I think I should start by getting what I figure will be the most controversial part of Show Boat out of the way. Late in the film, there is a musical number which was added to the film adaptation. Gallavantin' Aroun' is performed in blackface. If one is not prepared for such a moment (and to be honest, I doubt anyone who saw the 1951 version would know of it), the sight of Irene Dunne and her fellow performers painted up that way would shock, perhaps anger. 

As a side note, Show Boat has black audience members watching this number from the segregated balcony seats. I can only imagine what the black extras must have thought at the sight of this spectacle.

I in no way condone blackface. I think thought that viewers should keep some things in perspective. Blackface was sadly an acceptable entertainment style both for when Show Boat is set as well as in 1936. Mercifully, such practices were slowly fading out. I also think that under director James Whale, Show Boat gave some dignity to the two main black actors. Paul Robeson and Hattie McDaniel have a great duet in Ah Still Suits Me, another addition for the film adaptation. Their characters are treated with more respect than other black characters in movies from the era. 

McDaniel's Queenie even manages to put Pete in his place early in the film. Pete, who has been pursuing Julie despite knowing her racial background, notices that Queenie has a new piece of jewelry. He asks her where she got it. "It was a gift to me," Queenie coyly says. "Who gave it to you?" Pete barks. Queenie slyly replies, "Ask me no questions and I'll tell you no lies," laughing as she walks away. 

McDaniel and Robeson in Show Boat did something that few black actors at the time were allowed to do, which was to play fully formed characters. Joe and Queenie were a loving couple whose relationship was a subplot, again rare for the time. They were also full participants in some of the musical numbers. Can't Help Lovin' Dat Man has three women singing sections of the song: Dunne, Morgan and McDaniel. In a way, this puts McDaniel on equal pairing with her white counterparts.

Robeson has perhaps the standout musical number in Show Boat: Old Man River. I think Robeson's rendition of Old Man River is the definitive version, deep, resonant and filled with that sense of despair that the lyrics call for. Director James Whale did something quite extraordinary in Old Man River. He first does a full 360-degree turn of the camera to Robeson's singing. He then shows the lyrics on screen. When he sings "Tote that barge!", we see the crew toting that barge. When he sings "Lift that bale!", we see Robeson struggling with the weight of the bale on his back. "Get a little drunk" shows him stumbling out of a saloon. "And you land in jail" shows him and others behind bars. It is an exceptionally filmed sequence. I think it is very rare in film when we see the lyrics literally play out before us. Whale was highly creative in his filming.

Irene Dunne is beautiful and charming as Magnolia. She handled the musical moments well, making Magnolia a sweet and delightful young woman who eventually ages to a grande dame of the theater. Her final scene with Allan Jones while the next generation takes to the stage is deeply moving. Dunne balances the singing and acting. While I found her tones a bit operatic, they were also casual, and she kept a good Southern drawl.

Helen Morgan had created the role of the tragic Julie in the original Broadway production and recreated her performance for this film adaptation. Morgan's personal problems plagued her life, which is why Show Boat was her final film, dying five years later. I was moved by her performance as Julie, a woman who finds in Magnolia a sister and confidant whom fate allows her to help secretly. Helen Westley and Charles Winninger were delightful as Parthy and Captain Andy, a couple that bickered but showed genuine love between them.

If there is a weakness in Show Boat, it is in Allan Jones as the rakish Gaylord Ravenal. I did not think that he was either attractive or charming enough for the role. He sang well, but he seemed a bit nondescript for the character. 

Show Boat has moments of tenderness and even moments of humor. During a performance of a melodrama, we see Elly May's malapropisms where she claimed to have been plucked by a passing mule when she meant "male". In the same scene, an audience member threatens to shoot down the actor playing the villain for his evil on-stage actions, forcing the poor actor to flee for his life.

Show Boat is a well-acted, well-crafted film. The unfortunate blackface number aside, Show Boat is a film that entertains and showcases some great talents in Irene Dunne, Paul Robeson and Hattie McDaniel. This is a Show Boat that will sail for years to come.

DECISION: A-

The Horn Blows at Midnight: A Review

THE HORN BLOWS AT MIDNIGHT

This review is part of the Summer Under the Stars Blogathon. Today's star is Alexis Smith.

It might be the end of the world as we know it, but no one feels fine in The Horn Blows at Midnight. A star vehicle for Jack Benny, The Horn Blows at Midnight has a good concept but is played too broadly for it to reach its potential.

An unsuccessful trumpeter (Benny) finds that the radio house band that he plays with is somewhat beneath his talents. His bandmate, harpist Elizabeth (Alexis Smith) does her best to perk him up but also endures the grandiose ideas of "the artist", who literally keeps hitting wrong notes during rehearsals before the radio show goes live. The radio show is sponsored by Paradise Coffee, which promises the listener to send him to sleep.

That's the trouble, as the soft narration does cause the trumpeter to nod off and begin to dream. Now, he is Athanael, an angel in the heavenly host. Here too in Heaven 1945-1946, Athanael is not particularly good. Despite his lack of skills, Athanael has an ally in the Department of Small Planet Management office. That is the angel Elizabeth (Smith again), who is sweet on Athanael. The department head or Chief (Guy Kibbee) has given Athanael a major assignment. The Boss has decided that Planet 339001 has to get destroyed. The creatures of this planet, also known as Earth, have gotten out of hand. Athanael is to blow the first four notes of the Judgment Day Overture, signaling the end of the world. He must do so at exactly midnight, not a minute before or after.

Landing at the Hotel Universe, Athaneal blows not his horn but his chance. Pretty cigarette girl Fran Blackstone (Dolores Moran) is also on the roof, about to commit suicide. Athaneal's bumbling has foiled an attempted robbery by debonair thief Archie Dexter (Reginald Gardiner), for which Archie blames Fran. His bumbling also saves her life, but he misses his cue. 

Two beings thrilled that the world did not end are renegade angels Osidro (Allyn Joslyn) and Doremus (John Alexander). These two fallen angels have gone native long ago and hoodwink fellow angel Athaneal into thinking that they will show him the ropes. As he has failed in his mission, Athanael is now himself a fallen angel, a most reluctant one. Elizabeth pleads with the Chief to give Athaneal a second chance to blow his horn. He agrees, but it won't be easy. Osidro and Doremus are working feverishly to prevent Athaneal from completing his mission. They get Dexter and Fran to steal the trumpet, which Athaneal barely recovered. Will Athaneal manage to blow the world with his trumpet playing or will he wake up from his heavenly slumber?

I do not want to say that The Horn Blows at Midnight blew its chance to be funny. I think though that it was probably not the best idea to wrap a comedy around the end of the world. The film premiered shortly before the end of the Second World War. The nation had gone through a lot, seen a lot, endured a lot. All that misery and death came before the full horror of the Final Solution became widely known. As such, I do not understand who decided that a comedy about the world ending was what the public wanted to see. 

Perhaps in different hands, Sam Hellman and James V. Kern's screenplay might have worked. Strange as it sounds, director Raoul Walsh was not those hands. There was something rather forced about the h humor, as if everyone behaved as those all this was funny but knew that it wasn't. The best way for me to phrase it is that things were broad. There was no real buildup to, for example, Osidro and Doremus. We hear about fallen angels, but these two were just there. Efforts at humor mostly fell flat. When the hotel security confronts Dexter about the missing elevator, he asks if he's getting blamed for it. Dexter says he did not steal the elevator, though he did steal Whistler's Mother. 

The broadness continues when Fran, in part of the plot to steal Athaneal's trumpet, attempts to "seduce" him. As played by Moran and Benny, they know that it is supposed to be funny. They just did not make it funny. Worse, The Horn Blows at Midnight seems to have stolen a line from the Marx Brothers. As Fran demands that Athaneal hold her closer, he replies, "If I got any closer, I'd be standing behind you". That bit was heard in the 1937 film A Day at the Races. 

To be fair, there were a few moments of cleverness in The Horn Blows at Midnight. In that same seduction scene, Fran tells Athaneal, "Can't you see what my eyes are saying?". "Yes", he replies, "and you ought to watch your language". When Osidro and Doremus spy Elizabeth, they instantly know that she too is an angel. They quickly put together that she is there to help Athaneal. When one of them asks if that is what Elizabeth came to do, the other replies, "She didn't come down to pitch for the Brooklyn Dodgers". 

Another thing that weakens The Horn Blows at Midnight is the casting. Jack Benny is a comedic genius, but his genius lies in his persona. You do not see Athaneal, well-meaning but bumbling angel while watching. You see Jack Benny, ham actor who is in on the joke. His voice, his delivery, his asides mannerisms are all from his radio and television show. It is pretty hard to separate the Jack Benny persona of the cheap, vain man when he is meant to be a different character. 

Jack Benny would spend years mocking The Horn Blows at Midnight, using it as a punchline. He would have done better to have spent some of those pennies to buy up and burn every copy. I think everyone else did as good as they could with the material they had. Gardiner and Kibbee probably did the best as the sophisticated thief and the gruff but loveable Small Departments Chief. I wonder if a different movie, where Athaneal and Elizabeth have to stop Dexter from stealing the Horn of the Last Judgement would have worked better. 

Alexis Smith, I think, did her best. I also think that her heart was not in the project. She at times looked genuinely frustrated at having to play second harp to Benny. Try as she might, Smith could not convince me that she was wild about Benny. If there is anything good here, it is the sadly brief sight of Marx Brothers foil Margaret Dumont early on, attempting an operatic number while still being a bit of a diva. 

I think that there is a story rattling somewhere in The Horn Blows at Midnight. The film might be worth a remake in better hands. Angels we have heard on high, but few will want to sing the praises of The Horn Blows at Midnight. 

DECISION: D+

There's No Business Like Show Business: A Review

THERE'S NO BUSINESS LIKE SHOW BUSINESS

This review is part of the Summer Under the Stars Blogathon. Today's star is Donald O'Connor.

Long before the concept of a jukebox musical came into prominence, There's No Business Like Show Business took the idea of building a whole story on a songbook to create an entertaining film. With a massive number of Irving Berlin's songs and some surprisingly solid performances, There's No Business Like Show Business makes for enjoyable viewing.

With some voiceover by Terry Donahue (Dan Dailey) and his wife Molly (Ethel Merman), we learn that they are old-school vaudevillians of some renown. They go from just The Donahues to The Three Donahues and then ultimately the Five Donahues. Molly loves show business, but she also is unhappy to make their two sons and one daughter travel up and down the vaudeville circuit. Terry is fine with his kids being young hoofers, but eventually Molly gets her way, and the kids go to Catholic school.

When they grow up, the kids do literally get in on the act. The youngest, Tim (Donald O'Connor) proves himself a double threat, able to sing and dance. The oldest, Steve (Johnnie Ray) was not a dancer but could sell a song. Their daughter, Katy (Mitzi Gaynor) was more a dancer than a singer, but could easily carry a tune. While they carved out respectable careers, the kids were also working to be their own beings.

Steve is the biggest rebel, shocking the family by joining the Catholic priesthood. Tim for his part, is a Lothario, squiring pretty showgirls all over town. Katy is the opposite, working to keep the wolves at bay. Tim in particular comes to butt heads with hat-check girl Victoria Hoffman (Marilyn Monroe). He flirts with her, but no dice. She is focused on a stage career more than on some two-bit hoofer. She does start making waves. She also, despite herself, starts falling for Tim.

Molly and Terry are not pleased by a lot of their kids' decisions. Molly especially dislikes the now-Victoria Parker. She sees Victoria as some designing woman plotting to steal their material for her own act. As their lives and careers go through ebbs and flows, the Donahues find themselves both on the welcoming and receiving end of showbiz. Will Tim and Victoria get together or will he self-destruct? Will the Five Donahues ultimately come together, or will they be short a member? Is it possible that they might actually end up with more than Five Donahues at the end? 

There's No Business Like Show Business is not plot-heavy. It is a very simple story. However, it has many qualities that enhance the viewing. At the top of that list is the Irving Berlin songbook. There's No Business Like Show Business manages to squeeze in about sixteen Berlin songs into the film. Curiously, all but one or two are performed on a stage. Puttin' on the Ritz is heard at a dance hall for restaurant patrons. A Man Chases a Girl (Until She Catches Him) is the only number that can be called a musical number. Here, the song does express a character's feeling, if not push the plot forward.

It is also a rare solo number for Donald O'Connor. I think Johnnie Ray got more solo numbers (If You Believe and a section of the first rendition of Alexander's Ragtime Band where he sings at a piano). In that long Alexander's Ragtime Band number, O'Connor does have his own section where he performs the song as if he were Scottish, down to the bagpipes playing and him in a kilt. I guess that I am wrong about O'Connor not having a specific musical showcase for himself, but I digress.

The veteran hoofer dances with statues and up on the roof. He even "hears" Monroe's voice accompanying him (though she does not appear dancing with O'Connor here). It is probably the rare moment in There's No Business Like Show Business where director Walter Lang showed a moment of imagination in the musical staging. This is a very strong number. Donald O'Connor has incredible physical dexterity in his dancing. He uses his whole body, even throwing in a little bit of bouncing off the walls. 

Every other song is performed on a stage. In fairness, If You Believe and a reprise of When the Midnight Choo-Choo Leaves for Alabam is performed at Steve's farewell party before he heads off to seminary. One does have to give screenwriters Phoebe and Henry Ephron credit in how they snuck in Let's Have Another Cup of Coffee as a radio commercial jingle. In the When the Midnight Choo-Choo Leaves for Alabam number, O'Connor and Gaynor do solid imitations of Dailey and Merman. 

I think that There's No Business Like Show Business does give some of the actors a chance to showcase their musical range. While she is billed third after Merman and O'Connor, the film is pretty much a Marilyn Monroe film. She does not appear until almost half an hour into There's No Business Like Show Business. However, we see in the entirety of Monroe's performance some wonderful musical moments. There is Heat Wave, where she is appropriately sultry without being sleazy. There is also the sly Lazy number, where she shares the screen with O'Connor and Gaynor. Here, she is fun and flirtatious and quite charming.

The curious thing is that in the film, Monroe also gets a chance to show some dramatic range. Near the end of the film, she and Tim are having a fight. Monroe has a strong monologue where she talks about how. unlike Tim, she did not grow up in a vaudeville family. As such, she has had to struggle and fight for the success that she has. He, too drunk and arrogant to listen, suggests in a subtle but definite way that she essentially is using her feminine wiles to get ahead in showbusiness. This naturally angers her.

We see two Marilyn Monroes in the film. The beginning has her speaking with the stereotypical breathy voice, which she attributes to her vocal coach. When they reunite in Florida, Monroe's voice and manners are stronger, more confidant. Her character has gone through a change from Victoria Hoffman to Victoria Parker. Monroe brought about that sense of confidence. She even managed to show the intelligence behind her character. Pleading with Tim to let her use the Heat Wave number that Molly had planned to use, we end that scene with the band leader calling her the new champion, holding her hand as a boxer who has won his bout would.

Mitzi Gaynor is a human dynamo in There's No Business Like Show Business. She leaps about with wild abandon, exuberant and joyful. She is delightful and adorable in A Sailor is Not a Sailor, playing off well against the bombast of Ethel Merman. She can also handle the dramatic moments well, such as when she reunites with her long-lost brother. 

Donald O'Connor was surprisingly strong in the dramatic moments. Of special note is when he has a confrontation with his father that leads to a shocking slap. He also has those scenes with Monroe, where he plays some comedy in his efforts to woo her. However, when he makes a vague suggestion that Victoria has slept her way to the top, we see a hurt man lashing out. 

Ethel Merman never became the star on film that she was on Broadway. She still kept her big, brassy manner in There's No Business Like Show Business when singing, projecting to the back row in Poughkeepsie. To be fair, Merman was also able to handle much of the dramatic moments in a softer manner. I did not think much of Dailey, whose musical and dramatic style did not rise to where Monroe, O'Connor, Gaynor or even Merman were.

Perhaps the worst was, as the song goes, poor old Johnnie Ray. Part of me thinks that he was made into a priest as a way to get him out of the story. The film is open about how he was not a dancer. Ray did not dance much and certainly not alone as O'Connor and Gaynor did. His singing was not terrible, but he was a bit weak all around. He was miscast and probably the weakest part of the film.

On the whole, though, I was surprised at how entertained I was with There's No Business Like Show Business. It is splashy and bright, almost choking with Irving Berlin songs that almost always go well. Let's go on with the show indeed.

DECISION: B+

Strait-Jacket: A Review

STRAIT-JACKET

This review is part of the Summer Under the Stars Blogathon. Today's star is Joan Crawford.

One of the many infamous moments in Mommie Dearest is when Joan Crawford screams out to her adopted daughter, "TINA! BRING ME THE AX!" Crawford then proceeds to chop down a tree in her garden, swinging the ax with crazed frenzy while wearing an elegant evening gown. While this moment has been parodied and become a joke, there was a film where Joan Crawford did swing an ax with crazed frenzy. Strait-Jacket will entertain the viewer, though whether it is in a camp manner or not depends on said viewer.

Lucy Harbin (Crawford) comes home early to discover her husband Frank (Lee Majors) in bed with his ex-girlfriend, Stella Fulton (Patricia Crest). Lucy is shocked and devastated by this discovery. She does what any other woman would do in this situation: she stumbles onto an ax and hacks them to death. The so-called "Love Slayer" is found to be insane and for the next twenty years is locked up in the booby hatch.

Making things worse is that Lucy and Frank's daughter Carol saw both the liaison and the ax murders. Now, the adult Carol (Diane Baker) has revealed the truth about her bonkers mother to her boyfriend, Michael Fields (John Anthony Hayes). Why has Carol revealed all now? Simple. Lucy has finally been released from the funny farm and will be living on a real farm. She will stay with Carol, who has been living with Lucy's brother Bill (Leif Erikson) and his wife Emily (Rochelle Hudson). 

Lucy is uncertain and afraid of the outside world. Carol, however, is understanding and patient, welcoming her mother back to life. They go shopping and appear to start bonding. However, Lucy begins having terrifying dreams and hears childish taunts about her ax-murdering days (we'll leave aside for the moment her oddball flirtation with Michael). A visit from the hospital psychiatrist appears to push Lucy over the edge. It also pushes the psychiatrist into being the first person literally axed out.

Could Lucy have returned to her whacking days? Carol fears that her mother has gone all loony again. Less afraid is farmhand Leo Krause (George Kennedy), but he too gets cut out of things. Has Lucy gone loca? Who is behind these new killings? The answer proves shocking.

I admire films that do not pretend to be anything other than a good time. Strait-Jacket is such a film. This is a slasher film with bits of humor. The credit for such a curious blend belongs to three figures behind the film. The first is Robert Bloch, who wrote the screenplay. The man who wrote the novel Psycho gave us an interesting story of a woman driven insane who may be driven insane again.

As a side note, I like the title Insane Again for this stab at the "hagsploitation" or "Grande Dame Guignol" genre. 

We get nice twists and turns as the story rolls on. There are bits of sly humor, such as when Leo thinks that he is getting attacked but is really hit by clothes on the clothesline. One line in the opening section does come across as I presume unintentionally funny. In Carol's voiceover, she says of her mother, "She was very much a woman, and very much aware of it". That particular line seems more suited to a noir film than a psycho-biddy film. It does not help that Joan Crawford appears to make a valiant but ultimately unhinged effort to try and pass herself off as a woman in her twenties. 

The plot is not perfect. If one looks at Strait-Jacket, there are parts that do not make sense. For example, Lucy hears the Lizzie Borden children's rhyme; instead of "Lizzie Borden took an ax, gave her mother forty whacks" it's "Lucy Harbin took an ax, gave her husband forty whacks". We learn that this was a recording as part of the plot to drive her bonkers. However, Strait-Jacket shows two little girls playing jump rope outside the store where Lucy hears this taunting rhyme. They begin singing it to her. They even throw in a second rhyme, "Take the key and lock her up, my fair lady" that only Lucy can hear. Those two elements could not have been part of the master plan. That came from Lucy. 

I figure that this might have been a bit of misdirection from the second figure behind Strait-Jacket: director William Castle. Castle, a man not averse to cheap gimmicks to promote and make his films, showed some surprising touches in Strait-Jacket. There is a wonderful shot of Kennedy's Krause looking at slaughtered pigs that seems a bit of foreshadowing. He also did his best to shoot Crawford in literally the most flattering light. 

We still have some oddball moments that show how Castle was more showman than auteur. The actual killings look comical and extremely fake. 

It is unknown if slipping into the film a shot of a Pepsi pack, which Crawford heavily promoted while married to its head Alfred Steele, was a Castle promotional stunt.

The third and perhaps strongest element in making Strait-Jacket enjoyable is that formidable force known as Joan Crawford. I once heard someone remark that Crawford played Strait-Jacket as if it were Mildred Pierce except with an ax. The thing about Crawford is that she never cheated on a performance. She never winked at the camera. She always took whatever material she was given seriously. It did not matter how awful the film was. It did not matter how outlandish the material was. She always played things seriously.

You can see that in some of her other post-What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? films. If you stumble onto something like Berserk! or Trog, Joan Crawford took the same professional tone there that she did here. I would argue that Joan Crawford was actually quite good in Strait-Jacket. She made Lucy into a sympathetic figure, a woman attempting to keep her sanity even as it teeters dangerously close to collapsing. She and Diane Baker have a wonderful chemistry, with their scenes being a highlight of the film. In her at times crazed defense of Carol to her prospective in-laws and genuine sadness at the end, Joan Crawford does a standout job.

The part where she openly flirts with Michael is so bizarre, but again, bless Crawford for trying.

There is granted, one element in Crawford's performance that is simply too impossible to ignore. In the early section, her vanity got the best of her. There is no way that Joan Crawford, who was anywhere from 56 to 60 years old when Strait-Jacket was released, could pass for a woman in her forties. I'm not sure that she was supposed to be in her sixties for the bulk of Strait-Jacket. Her character may have technically been in her forties given that Carol was supposed to be in her early twenties. Crawford does look too old for any of this to make sense. However, I find it oddly brave of her to even try.

In terms of the acting, I think Castle did a serviceable job directing his cast. Diana Baker did a very respectable job as Carol. Baker made Carol into a woman torn between loving and hating her mother. Sometimes, she shows a very sympathetic and protective side. Other times, her hostility and anger come through. This film is an early role for George Kennedy as the loutish farmhand. He is delightfully despicable as Leo Krause, taunting Carol by calling Lucy a loony. It is to where one enjoys him getting his comeuppance.

One should give Castle credit for directing Mitchell Cox as Dr. Anderson, the psychiatrist who literally gets the chop. Why? Cox was not an actor. He was a Pepsi executive who got this role in Strait-Jacket due to Crawford's connections to Pepsi. He was clearly not an actor, but he did not embarrass himself either. 

The film has a very effective score from Van Alexander, part spooky part dramatic. There are also some wonderful close-ups of Crawford, a credit to cinematographer Arthur Arling. 

One final note about Strait-Jacket. In both Strait-Jacket and Mommie Dearest, we see Joan Crawford wielding an ax in a crazed manner. We also see in both films a scene where the male partner's heads are cut out of pictures. I do not offer anything other than an observation on how there are similarities in both stories. 

Slightly campy, slightly creepy, Strait-Jacket balances genuine thrills with a bit of amusement. The film has a strong and committed Joan Crawford performance (one that is perhaps too committed to the material). I am always entertained by Strait-Jacket, even it is a bit second-rate. It is, however, a cut above her later work. 

DECISION: B-

The Loneliness of the Long-Distance Runner. A Review

THE LONELINESS OF THE LONG-DISTANCE RUNNER

This review is part of the Summer Under the Stars Blogathon. Today's star is Tom Courtenay.

There was a time in British cinema where "the angry young man" dominated. These tales of working-class alienation and despair were prominent with such films as Look Back in Anger and Saturday Night and Sunday Morning. Even Sir Laurence Olivier got into the act with The Entertainer. Another film entry into the kitchen sink drama is The Loneliness of the Long-Distance Runner. This is an absolutely brilliant film, with a standout performance by Tom Courtenay as our antihero.

Young Colin Smith (Courtenay) has been sent to Ruxton Towers, a youth detention center (what is called a borstal in Britain) after having been found guilty of breaking into a bakery and stealing money. Here, Smith is at most indifferent to things, at most hostile to the people around him. He has one standout quality: Colin is an excellent athlete.

This piques the attention of the borstal Governor (Michael Redgrave). Ruxton Towers will have the chance to compete in an athletic tournament with the posh Ranley School. The Governor is sure that Smith will defeat Ranley in long-distance running. Smith does have great skill in this event and soon gets the priviledge of running through the nearby fields unaccompanied. As he runs, Colin has the chance to reflect on his life prior to Ruxton Towers.

He remembers his father's death and how his mother (Avis Bunnage) spends his father's life insurance money on needless luxuries such as a television and a fur coat. He also sees Mrs. Smith bring in Gordon (Charles Dyer), her new lover to live at the home with Colin and his younger siblings. He remembers his best mate Mike (James Bolam) and the scrapes that they got into together. He remembers Audrey (Topsy Jane), his first love and first lover. He also thinks about what the future holds for Colin Smith. He remembers the break-in and his efforts to pull a fast one on the cop doggedly pursuing him. He remembers how he was eventually caught, thanks to the rain.

Now he is here at Ruxton Towers, running but going nowhere. The Governor dreams of glory for Ruxton and by extension for himself. On race day itself, Colin soon overtakes Ranley's best runner, the upper-class Gunthorpe (James Fox). As he nears the finish line, the past comes at Colin in flashes. His mother. His father. The cop. Mike. Audrey. Gordon. Will Colin win the race, or will he win for himself?

I think The Loneliness of the Long-Distance Runner has one of the greatest performances in film in Tom Courtenay. Colin Smith is another angry young man, frustrated in life but finding no escape. I'm reminded of a line from Pet Shop Boys' West End Girls: "we've got no future; we've got no past". That describes Colin Smith perfectly. He sees what the future holds for him: a life like his father's. This is not what he wants. I think that he wants near-endless visits to Skegness with Audrey like the one that he took with her, Mike and Audrey's BFF Gladys (Julia Foster) who is also Mike's girlfriend.

However, that would take money, which Colin does not have. Worse, he sees how his mother flittered it away. He is powerless to persuade her not to splurge so rampantly. He is powerless to stop Gordon from trying to usurp Colin's place as head of the family. In short, he is powerless.

Unlike other angry young men in the kitchen sink genre, Colin Smith is a remarkably decent, thoughtful young man. He is angry, but it is the world around him that has shaped him so. Another angry young man, Laurence Harvey in Room at the Top, carried a permanent chip on his shoulder. Colin, on the other hand, shows a thoughtful, tender side, in particular with Audrey. He is a reflective young man, aware of the hardness of life and his inability to change it despite his wish to. "All I know is that you've got to run, running without knowing why, through fields and woods. And the winning post is no end, even though the balmy crowd might be cheering themselves daft". Colin understands through his time at Ruxton Towers that, for all the success that he might have for his athletic skills, he is still very much alone, condemned to stay in one place.

Metaphor has never been so well used in film as it is for The Loneliness of the Long-Distance Runner. 

Yet, I have wandered off from Tom Courtenay's performance. His Colin Smith is an antihero for the ages. Colin is cynical and sullen. Yet within him, Colin is also tender and caring. He has a brief scene where he looks in on his dying father. As everyone else seems to have forgotten the cantankerous old man, Colin quietly covers him with his blanket. Courtenay reveals Colin's anger at his mother's frivolousness to downright disinterest in her late husband on the family shopping spree. Sitting quietly, smoking, he observes her buying needless thing after needless thing, his impotency and condemnation clear. 

Courtenay reveals Colin's tender side when he is with Jane's Audrey. "I know enough, you know, to want to know more," he tells her. This line from Allan Sillitoe's adaptation of his own short story reveals so much about Colin. He thirsts for something more, something better, but knows that he will not find it. I think that he is disgusted with the world as it is but cannot find a way to change it. 

As his benevolent antagonist, Michael Redgrave is correct as the pompous Governor. He imagines that he cares about the young men at Ruxton Towers and in Colin's future. In reality, Colin and the audience knows that the Governor cares about glory and tribute for the institution and by extension, for himself. In the climatic race conclusion, Colin's smile is countered by the Governor's scowl. In this exchange, brilliantly directed by Tony Richardson, we see not just their battle coming to its conclusion. We see in a sense that battle between the haves and the have-nots.

The Loneliness of the Long-Distance Runner reveals itself in other ways. The use of the traditional British hymn Jerusalem is used ironically. This ode to patriotism is heard twice: in the opening and in counter for when an escaped borstal resident is returned and punished. The second use of Jerusalem is also when a "concert" for the boys is ended. This concert consists of a man doing bird imitations and an elderly couple singing a very old song in an old-fashioned way. It is such a laughable sight to have a bird imitator attempt to entertain young men. It does, however, reveal that disconnect between those in power and those under them. It is a credit to both Richardson and Courtenay that one is unsure if Colin Smith is singing along to Jerusalem because he genuinely believes in its sentiment or to mock said sentiment.

In one of the flashbacks, Mike and Colin have muted a television speech extolling a revived patriotism in the new Elizabethan age. The delight Mike and Colin have at how silly the man looks reveals much about their world and views on it.

Richardson even manages to have a bit of comedy in The Loneliness of the Long-Distance Runner. The break-in ends with deliberately sped-up action that would be seen in a silent movie, down to John Addison's music. Colin's efforts to hide the discovered money are also amusing. It does show that even a kitchen sink drama can have a genuine sense of fun.  

I finished The Loneliness of the Long-Distance Runner highly impressed with everything in it. Colin Smith is an antihero that you end up admiring. He is unbowed and true to himself. "I got caught. Didn't run fast enough," he tells an interviewer at Ruxton Towers. There is a lot of meaning in that line. The Loneliness of the Long-Distance Runner is simply brilliant, with a standout performance by Tom Courtenay. Anyone who takes time to see The Loneliness of the Long-Distance Runner will find a masterclass of storytelling. 

DECISION: A+