Oh, I've seen terrible films, some that I could barely get through, but this list is perhaps the worst of all.
These films are not just horrendous, these films are I think Satanic.
These are films that I gave an F- to. How bad must a film be to receive not just a failing grade, but something even lower?
Well, they must be boring and/or they must insult the audience's intelligence. Generally, their stories are incomprehensible (or reprehensible), the acting must be non-existent, and they must really be one of those things that they don't even qualify for a 'so bad they're good'. These are movies I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. Actually, I would wish them on my worst enemy...because I'd hate them that much. These Unlucky 13 Movies are as low as one can go without it being an actual snuff film (and one of them I think is on the borderline of that).
Avoid these films. Burn the negatives. Erase these films from history. I support film preservation, but in these cases...
Well, it's time for some confessions. I'm not a fan of the Coen Brothers and M. Night Shyamalan is responsible for two of these dreadful films. I see brain-dead comedies and two-time Oscar nominee Jonah Hill in all this mess. I see 1970 was a bad year. Finally, I see that all of these film really thought little to nothing of the audiences who paid to watch them. Yet I have sat through them all, suffering the insufferable, all to report on how people of I assume average intelligence could have generated such evil.
At last, the Film Review retrospective is at an end.
Now, on to better films...honestly, I am not sure I could survive more films like these...
James Stewart: Best Actor for The Philadelphia Story
TUESDAYS WITH OSCAR: 1940
1939 is the Greatest Year in Film History. However, looking at 1940, it wasn't that bad either. We have a whole slew of classic films that have stood the test of time. The variety among the nominees is breathtaking: melodramas, Gothic romance, sparkling comedies. Oddly, the only major genre missing from the Best Picture list is musical. However, the real world is starting to enter the Best Picture race in the form of three of the ten nominees. There is film about the Great Depression and two films about the growing menace coming from Germany. One of them was a suspense thriller, the other a comedy. Facing the oncoming horror of World War II was done by stealth, but as even Hollywood was coming to terms with the impending global conflict, it didn't skimp on production quality.
The 13th Academy Awards have some interesting tidbits. The Best Supporting and Lead ACTRESSES were first-time nominees, while the Supporting and Lead ACTORS were previously nominated. Of all four acting winners, there was only one repeat winner, the somewhat ubiquitous Walter Brennan, in his third and final win. In what can be seen as a curious pattern, Brennan had won Best Supporting Actor every even year since the category's creation (1936, 1938, 1940). He would have one final nomination in 1941, and perhaps to the shock of everyone, didn't win. With Rebecca's win for Best Picture, it was the first time a producer won back-to-back Oscars, and Alfred Hitchcock's introduction to American filmgoers.
As always this is just for fun and should not be taken as my final decision. I should like to watch all the nominees and winners before making my final, FINAL choice. Now, on to cataloging the official winners (in bold) and my selections (in red). Also, my substitutions (in green).
THE 1940 ACADEMY AWARD WINNERS
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Judith Anderson (Rebecca) Jane Darwell (The Grapes of Wrath)
Ruth Hussey (The Philadelphia Story)
Barbara O'Neil (All This, And Heaven Too)
Marjorie Rambeau (Primrose Path)
You have two great supporting performances this year, so the real battle is between two old ladies. In many ways, the fight between Anderson's Mrs. Danvers, housekeeper/banshee in Rebecca and Darwell's Ma Joad in The Grapes of Wrath can be seen as opposite sides of the coin regarding portrayals of women. The former is a cold, vicious woman (and while obviously never stated out loud, a lesbian to boot), the latter is a warm, loving woman (and overtly stated, a devoted wife and mother). I think you have two different ideas of womanhood between them: the caring, loving, mothering side (who lives only for her children) and the cold, obsessed, deranged and sexually dangerous side (who lives only for her dead 'mistress', however one wishes to read that). Darwell gives a strong and passionate performance full of pathos and agony over the miseries visited upon her. The fact that she's a good woman, real salt-of-the-earth, makes Ma Joad's tragedies all the more difficult. Still, she's an optimist. "We're the people that live," she says in the tacked-on happy-ish ending, and personally I like the ending and think it stays true to the characters.
No need to have everyone unhappy.
Judith Anderson (Rebecca)
Jane Darwell (The Grapes of Wrath)
Ruth Hussey (The Philadelphia Story)
Barbara O'Neil (All This, And Heaven Too)
Marjorie Rambeau (Primrose Path)
However, for myself it is Anderson's cold, imperious, and ultimately loony Mrs. Danvers who still holds the most power and impact today. She knows she has great power, especially over the second Mrs. DeWinter, and will use her position to drive the poor girl mad. However, like a spider caught in her own web, it is Mrs. Danvers who has gone mad, and her final end is still both shocking and oddly beautiful (which explains why Rebecca won Best Black-and-White Cinematography).
Judith Anderson (Rebecca)
Jane Darwell (The Grapes of Wrath)
Ruth Hussey (The Philadelphia Story) Carmen Miranda (Down Argentine Way)
Barbara O'Neil (All This, And Heaven Too)
Oh no, there's no real justification for this choice. I'd just thought it be fun having Carmen Miranda win an Oscar. You gotta have SOME surprises now, don't you? However, in her defense, who do YOU recognize: Carmen Miranda or Marjorie Rambeau?
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Albert Bassermann (Foreign Correspondent) Walter Brennan (The Westerner)
William Gargan (They Knew What They Wanted)
Jack Oakie (The Great Dictator)
James Stephenson (The Letter)
Well, Brennan's 3 for 3 in Oscar wins, but I doubt if any of his Oscar-winning turns strikes a note with modern audiences. I think affection carried him to the winner's circle because there are at least two strong supporting performances which gave Brennan a good run for his money and which I would argue are far better remembered than his in The Westerner. This isn't to say he didn't deserve this or any of his Oscars (no final decision can be made until they are seen and compared to all the others). However, I don't think I would have voted for him.
Albert Bassermann (Foreign Correspondent)
Walter Brennan (The Westerner)
William Gargan (They Knew What They Wanted) Jack Oakie (The Great Dictator)
James Stephenson (The Letter)
I would make it a fight between Bassermann's principled/abducted diplomat and Oakie's spoofing of Il Duce. As they duke it out, I think Oakie's unapologetic take-down of Mussolini in his stupidity mixed with egotism (the hallmarks of any dictator) do what great supporting performances are meant to do: draw attention to themselves without overwhelming the film. Oakie manages to not only hold his own against Charlie Chaplin, but manage to make himself stand out against him.
Albert Bassermann (Foreign Correspondent)
Ralph Bellamy (His Girl Friday)
Jack Oakie (The Great Dictator)
Akim Tamiroff (The Great McGinty) Conrad Veidt (The Thief of Bagdad)
As a child, I was terrified by Veidt's evil Grand Vizier in the remake of The Thief of Bagdad (still one of my favorite movies and certainly among my favorite early movie memories). Veidt, a master actor from Germany who fled to Hollywood to escape the Nazis (his wife was Jewish if memory serves correct, and he also despised Nazism without that thrown in), his English-language career consisted of playing heavies (ironically, his most famous and final role was that of a Nazi commander in Casablanca). However, in The Thief of Bagdad he reveled in being evil, and his influence still holds today apart from his turn in the film. His character's name? Jaffar...just like the evil Vizier in Disney's Aladdin.
Let's see Walter Brennan top that!
As a side note, Veidt's performance in the silent film The Man Who Laughs (as someone who has a permanent grin on his face as a result of evil surgery) was influential in the creation of another iconic character. Think of who else smiles with such malevolence... I'm not 'joking' around.
BEST ACTRESS
Bette Davis (The Letter)
Joan Fontaine (Rebecca)
Katharine Hepburn (The Philadelphia Story) Ginger Rogers (Kitty Foyle)
Martha Scott (Our Town)
The Academy loves it when an actor/actress takes a 'dramatic' turn, and we proved it here with Ginger Rogers' win for Kitty Foyle. After making all those great comedies and musicals with Fred Astaire, Rogers wanted to prove (and prove to herself) that was a good actress, not just someone who could do every Fred Astaire did only backwards and in high heels. She picked a fine role as the working-class girl who loves a rich boy but who finds their differences (and his WASP family) too much to bear for her and their child. It's a bit like Stella Dallas almost, at least to my mind. It also helped that Rogers was extremely popular with audiences, unlike the patrician Hepburn, for whom The Philadelphia Story was a bit of a comeback after being dubbed 'box office poison'.
Bette Davis (The Letter) Joan Fontaine (Rebecca)
Katharine Hepburn (The Philadelphia Story)
Ginger Rogers (Kitty Foyle)
Martha Scott (Our Town)
For me though, it is Fontaine's performance as the frightened "I" (her character's real name is never revealed, as she refers to herself as "I" and everyone else calls her primarily "Mrs. De Winter" or "The Second Mrs. De Winter", anything other than a distinct name) that to me was the best performance that year. Going from a timid, frightened woman into one who, driven to point of suicidal madness, manages to rally to the man she loves and ultimately triumph we see Fontaine give a memorable and iconic performance. As she descends the stairs to her husband, the tension is quite palpable, and Fontaine makes the Second Mrs. De Winter both victim and winner in the course of the film.
Bette Davis (The Letter)
Joan Fontaine (Rebecca)
Katharine Hepburn (The Philadelphia Story)
Paulette Goddard (The Great Dictator) Rosalind Russell (His Girl Friday)
When I think of great screwball dames, Rosalind Russell comes to the forefront. Actually, when I think of great actresses who could do it all (drama, comedy), Russell comes to the forefront. His Girl Friday is a remake of a previous Best Picture nominee (The Front Page) but with one small change: the genders were altered so that Hildy Johnson was turned into not just a woman, but the ex-wife, lending more comedic opportunities. Again, comedy is slowly slipping into the background at the Oscars, and while comedic performances can be recognized on occasion, the Academy appears content to look at drama as being worthy.
Sadly, Rosalind Russell would never win a competitive Oscar, but did receive the Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award. I don't begrudge her that, but why no actual Lifetime Achievement?
BEST ACTOR
Charlie Chaplin (The Great Dictator)
Henry Fonda (The Grapes of Wrath)
Raymond Massey (Abe Lincoln in Illinois)
Laurence Olivier (Rebecca) James Stewart (The Philadelphia Story)
Ah, the Retroactive Oscar Strikes Again!
I have never shaken my belief that the Academy, embarrassed somewhat by picking Robert Donat's turn as the meek schoolteacher in Goodbye, Mr. Chips over the fireworks James Stewart provided with his performance in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, decided they'd better make up for it by giving Stewart the Oscar for The Philadelphia Story, his next nomination. It also helps that Stewart played against type as the cynical reporter who woos and temporarily wins the fair heart of patrician goddess Tracy Lord. At this point he was the 'aw-shucks' type, the pleasant young man, slightly bumbling, who managed to come out in the end. Here, he was as unpleasant as Stewart could get.
Sadly, this would be Stewart's only win, and worse, some of his best performances never merited a nomination.
Charlie Chaplin (The Great Dictator) Henry Fonda (The Grapes of Wrath)
Raymond Massey (Abe Lincoln in Illinois)
Laurence Olivier (Rebecca)
James Stewart (The Philadelphia Story)
His climatic "I'll Be There" monologue near the end of The Grapes of Wrath is enough to have merited Fonda the Oscar from his longtime friend Stewart (despite their wildly divergent political views: the stalwart conservative Stewart versus the hard-core liberalism of Fonda). His entire performance of the former criminal who sees the darkness and decides it's best to work behind the scenes (however he can) is such a powerful performance that it holds the film together. The "I'll Be There" speech is delivered so well, with a plainness and conviction that it breaks your heart.
Amazingly, this would be Fonda's only nomination until the "Quick! Give It To Him Before He Drops Dead!" win for On Golden Pond. I'm not saying he didn't deserve to win for On Golden Pond, but given the breath of his performances throughout his career, how Fonda merited only ONE nomination but someone like Jonah Hill can merit two (so far) is just nutty.
Charlie Chaplin (The Great Dictator)
Henry Fonda (The Grapes of Wrath)
Cary Grant (The Philadelphia Story) Joel McCrae (Foreign Correspondent)
Edward G. Robinson (Brother Orchid)
There simply has to be something psychologically wrong with the Academy when everyone in The Philadelphia Story received a nomination except for Cary Grant. Personally, I would have made Stewart a Supporting Actor nominee because I think his role is a supporting character, but at the time a major start like Stewart couldn't be 'supporting'. McCrae was simply so overlooked as an actor, and I suspect he isn't as well-remembered as he should be. He too plays a cynical reporter, but one who finds himself caught up in international intrigue rather than the whims of a WASP princess. He has action, romance, and a murky scheme to uncover. Just as Henry Fonda's final speech was brilliant, McCrae's warning to a sleeping America about the incoming menace as London is bombed around him in Foreign Correspondent is equally brilliant.
BEST SONG
Again, I'm too lazy to write down all nine nominees. I don't know why Best Song has as many if not more nominees than most of the other nominees, but there it is. Out of the nine the only ones that stick to mind are the title song to Down Argentine Way, Our Love Affair from Strike Up the Band, and the winner...
From Pinocchio, When You Wish Upon a Star, lyrics by Ned Washington, music by Leigh Harline.
When You Wish Upon a Star, to me, strikes a similar tone to the previous year's winner Over the Rainbow in that it also speaks about how to keep one's hopes and dreams alive. When You Wish Upon a Star is the first Disney film to win Best Song, a category it would dominate with 11 future wins (counting Pixar films), the latest being Let It Go from Frozen.
BEST DIRECTOR
George Cukor (The Philadelphia Story) John Ford (The Grapes of Wrath)
Alfred Hitchcock (Rebecca)
Sam Wood (Kitty Foyle)
William Wyler (The Letter)
You have fine directing this year, and as much as I love Hitchcock and think he did a masterwork with Rebecca in terms of performances and visuals, and as much as Cukor did with handling all those actors in The Philadelphia Story, the stark realities of The Grapes of Wrath still grips me and stands as testament to Ford's greatness as one of the Great Directors of All Time.
George Cukor (The Philadelphia Story) John Ford (The Grapes of Wrath)
Alfred Hitchcock (Rebecca)
Sam Wood (Kitty Foyle)
William Wyler (The Letter)
Again, I see no reason to change the Academy's choice.
Charlie Chaplin (The Great Dictator)
George Cukor (The Philadelphia Story) Howard Hawks (His Girl Friday)
Alfred Hitchcock (Rebecca)
Preston Sturges (The Great McGinty)
Of course, if I could alter things a bit, my heart goes to Howard Hawks, a man who could rival John Ford in terms of both filmmakers in general and Westerns in particular.
And Now, The Best Picture of 1940...
All This, And Heaven Too Foreign Correspondent The Grapes of Wrath The Great Dictator Kitty Foyle The Letter The Long Voyage Home Our Town The Philadelphia Story Rebecca
Rebecca is the first and only Hitchcock film to win Best Picture, and technically the first 'suspense' or 'thriller' to win Best Picture. It might be the fierce campaigning by Rebecca's producer, David O. Selznick, who wanted to somehow start escaping the shadow of Gone With the Wind. While he never fully escaped it, he did his best. There are really so many great films this year, and while they aren't exactly rivals to 1939's status as The Greatest Year in Film History, 1940 is still a pretty strong year when it comes to Great Films. You have the winner, you have great comedy (The Philadelphia Story), a great action film (Foreign Correspondent), romances (All This, And Heaven Too), spot-on satire (The Great Dictator), and heavy drama (The Grapes of Wrath). Really, how to choose?
All This, And Heaven Too Foreign Correspondent The Grapes of Wrath The Great Dictator Kitty Foyle The Letter The Long Voyage Home Our Town The Philadelphia Story Rebecca
Again, there are simply great films to which to choose from. Out of the nominees, many will stand the test of time. From the ones listed, the one that I would single out is the spoof of Hitler and fascism, one that takes down Hitler before we fully knew the extent of his barbarism. Chaplin has said that if he had known just how horrible Hitler and his thugs were going to be, he would never have made The Great Dictator. Minus the speech (which is impassioned but somehow to me never fully fit in to what had come before) The Great Dictator manages to be both completely funny and incredibly compassionate.
Finally, MY Choice for Best Picture from My Nominees...
Fantasia The Great Dictator His Girl Friday Rebecca The Thief of Bagdad
We do have great Gothic films, great comedies, and a massive step forward in animation. However, after wavering between it and The Great Dictator, I opted to go for one of those films that made me love film. The Thief of Bagdad is one of those films that allowed me to see the greatness of movies. I got lost in the fantasy aspects of it when I was young, and thought in movies all things really were possible. The Thief of Bagdad is a beautiful-looking film and while at times it may slag a little, I never fail to react not just to the film itself, but to the memories The Thief of Bagdad brings to me. I learned to love films thanks to many movies, and among them is The Thief of Bagdad.
Now, I have revisited First Class after three years when I saw it in the theaters. Have I changed my mind, or have I solidified my view? Even worse, have I actually found First Class to be worse the second time round and given it a lower grade?
Well, I don't feel the need to go over the plot because this isn't a review of the movie itself; instead, this is a reevaluation of both the film and my review. For that, I am looking over my review and the movie to see if I hit or missed the mark.
The definition of "frienemies"...
One thing that I appreciate now that I didn't when watching the first time was that X-Men: First Class was not as disorganized as I'd remembered it. It certainly is still a long movie (and I still think a bit longer than it should have been) but I no longer think its jumbled, hopping from one point to another without much sense. I think my objection came from the fact that Erik and Charles took a long time getting together for a common goal, and especially because a good chunk of the first act is devoted to Erik's Nazi Hunter episodes.
Some things were also clearer the second time around. Sebastian Shaw's status as a mutant himself, which I had missed or maybe misheard, was now clear. Another thing that I did get wrong is the story. At first, I thought it was so sprawling that it wasn't really telling one. Now I see that it had a good story (Sebastian's desire to kill all non-mutants and rule over the mutants left alive), even if still it took a long time getting there. In retrospect as well, the training montage now seems clearer and more clever than when I first saw it, and also includes great insight into Xavier's worldview, even serving as a bit of a mentor to the deeply emotionally wounded Erik.
One thing that had bothered me (the fun and games of the Junior mutants until Shaw storms the CIA compound) doesn't bother me that much. I still think it slowed the film a bit, but not stop it dead cold. I don't know if I liked the idea of killing off the CIA agents so quickly, but it doesn't annoy me as it had previously. However, the "If you're not with me, you're against me" line (which now seems to be de rigueur for "I'm quoting George W. Bush, so I must be evil because he is") still annoys me, not because I'm pro-Bush but because it takes a simplistic view to the President's meaning (that there can be no neutrality when it comes to fighting tyranny); just like ACT-UP believed "Silence = Death" in the battle against AIDS, so President Bush believed that silence or willing non-cooperation meant you lent support or sympathy to Islamofascism. It may not be the case, but today that "You're either with me or against me" line is too easy to use and misuse.
Of course, there are things that I remembered from my original evaluation that I still stand by. The score still cues the emotions and tries too hard to tell us what is happening/going to happen (it becomes menacing when something bad is going to happen). I don't like it when music blasts out what my reactions should be instead of trusting me to 'get it'.
Also, I still think First Class is still longer than it should or could be. Despite two viewings I still couldn't figure out who some of the characters were (such as Riptide or Havok), and for those of us not into the world of X-Men, it can be a little confusing. I still hold to the idea that Angel's conversion to the Dark Side was still rather quick, and again...did they really have to kill the black guy first?
Finally, while the sets were great, did they really have to make a version of Dr. Strangelove's "War Room"?
A Second Look at X-Men: First Class revealed that the movie is slightly better than I remembered it. I think my dislike came from its length and from the fact that it took a long time getting to where it was going. I still don't think I would have applauded at the end of the movie, but now I see it closer to X-Men than X-Men: The Last Stand. Should I rank the X-Men franchise, I would put First Class fourth (after X-2: X-Men United, X-Men, and X-Men: Days of Future Past) and the last good X-Men film rather than the first bad X-Men film.
To sum up, my opinion of X-Men: First Class has gone up. Congratulations...you passed and can move up.
Odd Thomas is the title character in a book series that has spanned six novels (with a seventh coming and a couple of prequels). Given how wildly popular the Odd Thomas book series is, the feature film adaptation of Dean Koontz's first novel of the short-order cook who 'sees dead people' snuck in and out so quickly no one apparently noticed. One would think that the audience who love the stories would flock to the film, but they didn't. In fact, no one did, and the film version of the first Odd Thomas book sadly has the opposite effect of having one NOT want to know All About Odd, despite star Anton Yelchin's very best efforts.
Odd Thomas (Yelchin) is living in the California town of Pico Mundo, where his powers to see and communicate with the dead come in handy. His gifts allow him to solve murders, where his friend Chief Wyatt Porter (Willem Dafoe) is able to use Odd's powers to find evidence to bring killers to justice. Despite his gifts he would rather not be part of general society: no lease, no health insurance (at least until now...thanks, President Obama), but he does have his job and his friend Stormy Llewellyn (Addison Timlin), who is somewhere between girlfriend, friend with benefits, and wisecracking girl Friday.
In any case, Odd now finds that bodachs, evil beings that feed on the misery of others, are massing around Pico Mundo. Odd knows this means that people are coming close to being killed in large numbers. It is up to Odd, Chief Porter (who himself was targeted for assassination) and Stormy to stop the bodachs and a coven of I think Satanists/white supremacists (same thing) from having a mass shooting. The where/when/why of when this mass murder will take place, along with some twists, make up the bulk of Odd Thomas, with the film ending with Odd overlooking Las Vegas, aware that there are so many dead there, waiting for someone like him.
Odd Thomas already starts out with a bane of my cinematic experience: the voice-over. I dislike the easy way filmmakers take to explain or give details for plot, story, characters, or anything else. Odd Thomas then ends with another bane of my cinematic experience: the suggestion there will be a sequel. It violates one of my Golden Rules of Filmmaking: Never End Your Movie By Suggesting There Will Be a Sequel. It suggests arrogance on the filmmakers part, and when a movie fails as badly as Odd Thomas does, it makes them look foolish.
If that weren't enough, Odd Thomas falters because even at its 93 minutes it feels so dragged out and rushed simultaneously. The rushed part comes from the fact that we are given information in such a slapdash manner that unless one has read the novels (which I haven't), one doesn't quite understand why things are a certain way or care.
Take for example the bodachs, these malevolent beings that emerge like dark shadows to feed off the torment of others. We learn quickly that they will kill you if you admit to seeing them or acknowledge their presence in some way. We find this out when Odd finds "Mexican Teenager" (Jesus Mayorga, and this is how he's billed), who freely tells Odd he can see these beings. Immediately Odd tells this cholo that these beings will kill him for saying that, and soon enough he is run over. How Odd came about this information about bodachs killing if you recognize them we don't know. We also get bits about his mother and father (a mentally unstable figure and one who abandoned the family) which we don't care all about that much and other elements that are thrown at us sans rhyme or reason.
Kevin Goss (Morse Bickell) is not a teacher but a Satan-worshipping hitman we're barely introduced to. If he was on-screen for more than five minutes prior to the big reveal I'd be amazed. Similarly, Odd's friend Ozzie Boone (Patton Oswalt in what could be a cameo) is introduced without any idea of how and why they know each other is again unknown.
In some ways Odd Thomas (which sadly looks a bit on the cheap side special-effects wise) looks more like a potential pilot than a franchise-starter.
Sadly, Odd Thomas' major failures come at the expense of a great performance by Yelchin, who is slowly climbing to my Best Actors List. He makes Odd into a real person in a bizarre world, where he handles the situations he finds himself in a realistic and natural manner. When he realizes the truth about Stormy, the expression of pain and loss is so well-performed even I found myself emotionally moved by it all. Yelchin's performance is excellent, but given how almost everyone else was (either bored or hyper), it has to be because Yelchin is an actor who can make the material given to him work and not because screenwriter/director Stephen Sommers is a good director/writer.
Apart from The Mummy and The Mummy Returns (films that were fully aware of their B-Movie status that didn't take themselves seriously), has there been a good film he's made (Van Helsing, G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra)? Odd Thomas, for all its ghosts and Satanists, is the most realistic film Sommers has made, and he fumbles the human aspects of the characters.
Apart from Anton Yelchin (an actor I'm really warming to) Odd Thomas is really either a lousy adaptation of a good book or an accurate adaptation of a lousy book. The film has a big bomb go off near the end...and apparently, it speaks volumes about the film itself.
Silent films, even after the success of The Artist, appear to be an acquired taste. I still find too many people either frightened or dismissive of movies with no dialogue. The term 'silent film' is a misnomer, because they were never truly 'silent'. There was a pianist, organist, or even a full orchestra to accompany the images, and there are some simply beautiful images to go along with the films. Sadly, a good number of people look on 'silent film' as something to avoid, like Shakespeare or broccoli (all of which I enjoy). I think they rob themselves of great pleasures, because if you see silent films, you see an artistry, a beauty, and some extraordinary stories that aren't encumbered by translations or accents.
Carla Laemmle, niece of Universal Studios founder Carl Laemmle and one of the last people who not only remember silent films but actually worked on them, has died at 104. Why should her passing make me sad?
Well, for one thing, I admire the films she was in. Who up to yesterday could have said they worked with Lon Chaney, Sr. on the original Phantom of the Opera? She remembered Lugosi in his iconic turn of Dracula. These precursors to horror films (which are still watched and have influenced generations of film-viewers and filmmakers) relied more on atmosphere, on what wasn't seen, that overwhelm us with blood and gore. Today, perhaps they are not as frightening as they were when released, but these films have stood the test of time.
Though the gap between her last film (1939's On Your Toes) and her 'comeback' (2010's Pooltime) is longer than some people's lives, I think the most important role Carla Laemmle played was as Ambassador of Cinema to the World. She was not just someone who provided first-hand knowledge of the early days of film but was a tireless advocate of silent and early sound films. She continually spoke up and out about the importance of these films and the pleasure one could derive from them. Her insights and the sheer pleasure she communicated from sharing her memories made what appears to be such a distant time, place, and subject into something so much closer and fun.
I would see Carla discuss how wonderful Universal Studios was in its early days, of her uncle and cousin Carl, Jr., and of the work they did fighting to be among the big studios like Warner Brothers or MGM, and of how the truly classic films like Phantom or Dracula came to be. She was the best spokesperson for that long-lost era where filmmakers took risks, didn't focus test films to death, and let the creativity rule. They were in the business of making money, no doubt, but were also encouraged to make film into a legitimate art form. They knew it took money to make money, and it was all up there on the screen.
There are now a few, very few, people left to remember those early days of silent or pre-Code films: Diana Cary (better known by her stage name of Baby Peggy, child star), Luise Rainer (currently the oldest Oscar-winner at 104), Olivia de Havilland (at 97 the last surviving cast member of Gone With the Wind, who ironically played the only character to die in the film). With Carla Laemmle's death, I think we not only lost someone who could speak about a time none of us will know, but someone who never tired or flagged in her outspoken and genteel manner about why these films mattered.
They still matter, and all of us who love cinema, who think silent films and early sound films are as good if not better than the newest blockbusters, pause in honor of One Who Remembered When Silents Were Golden...
I give you 2045's Kennedy Center Honorees: Rebecca Black Dane Cook Taylor Lautner Lindsay Lohan Jaden Smith Channing Tatum
And now, the end IS near...the listing of the Worst Movies I have seen since I began writing about films.
I found 60 films to which I could only look back in wonder and wonder, "Why did they make this?" Well, technically 59, but I threw one more in that I haven't reviewed yet, just to have an even 60.
With all these films, is there a common denominator too? Well, I think the big one is the story. These movies don't have one. Even those that were adapted from novels didn't have a story or plot that made sense to begin with. In a few of them, I found at least one good thing (perhaps a very committed performance amid all the stupidity of it all), but sometimes even a good performance isn't enough to save the film. On the whole though, these films are filled with bad performances, bad scripts, bad directing, and are just plain bad.
This sorry collection of wastes of celluloid will stand as testimony to hubris, to bad planning, to catering to the lowest tastes, to attempting to be more than what they are, and finally, to some simply appalling ideas that would never have worked no matter who was in front or behind the camera.
Oddly, I noticed Stephanie Meyer wrote a good number of them. I also noticed Taylor Lautner was in a few of these. Coincidence...or Works of the Devil?
Too Low? Too High (if that's possible)? Let me know and I'll take a Second Look.
BUT WAIT...THERE'S MORE!
A Bonus Round...Films So Awful I actually gave them an F-.
I Give You...Future Turner Classic Movies Stars of the Month:
Where'd I leave my Tony for Death of a Salesman?
"To be or not to be"? Who wrote THIS crap? When does Ham-whatever take his clothes off?
.jpg)
_wmplayer_2013-07-12.jpg)
