Paul-Anderson Movie Reviews

I was disappointed when the DVD version of this film was released. I saw it in theaters in 1949 (probably 10 times)and still recall several missing scenes that are important to the plot. When the DVD came out I was excited thinking that surely they would have been restored in this format without the space constraints of VHS. I was wrong. The current cut, for example, does not explain the significance of the Toby mug that Dean Jagger finds in a London shop and replaces on the airbase officers' club mantlepiece. There are others, such as what happens to the young navigator and why. Obviously, I think this is one of the greatest war movies of all time. I just hope someday a director's cut is released with all the missing scenes restored. It's still worth buying but the film is incomplete without the missing scenes.

Those who think that "Saving Private Ryan" was a great movie ought to watch this old black and white classic. In virtually every aspect except photography and sound "Twelve O'Clock High" is superior. The script by Sy Bartlett in particular is vastly superior.

Spielberg's film focused on some of the command problems faced by Capt. John Miller (Tom Hanks) in fulfilling his combat mission, but the treatment and development were almost high schoolish (if I may) compared to the enthralling delineation in "Twelve O'Clock High." The problems encountered by Gregory Peck as the bomber group commander were complex, subtle and psychologically demanding, while the resolution was filled with the kind of male social and political dynamics not much explored at the movies these days. (We have female dynamics aplenty.)

Director Henry King's clean, crisp, "invisible" direction was also superior to the uneven and far too showy pandering from Spielberg. Furthermore the acting, with Gary Merrill and Hugh Marlowe supporting Peck, was also better. Ted Danson in his cameo and Matt Damon at times in "Saving Private Ryan" were almost laughable.

Comparing the two movies makes one wonder how much movies really have improved. Technically they have in every respect, but too often today's film-makers think they can get by with special effects and splashy sets. Pour a lot of blood, show a lot of skin, get people at each other's throat, and it will play, seems to be the attitude. What is often forgotten are the two most important aspects of film, namely, story and character development. In this respect I don't think today's films have improved on the great classics of the past.

Twelve O'Clock High proves that the best war movies are suspenseful and exciting without having to resort to shots of brutal fighting or the bloody aftermath. Although this movie makes the viewer keenly aware of the horrors of combat and its effect on people, it does not actually depict things the gory detail so common today. This is a great movie - perhaps the best war movie ever - and it is good mainly because of its fabulous cast and clever, insightful script.

Twelve O'Clock High is about a struggling squadron of American precision air bombers in Europe. After their benevolent, compassionate commander (Gary Merrill) cracks under the stress of having to send young men up to die, the normally understanding and reasonable General Savage (Gregory Peck) is called in to take over. In order to restore the morale of the group and instill them with pride and honor, Savage becomes incredibly strict and works the group very hard - which leads to some astonishing successes. But before long, the stress of leadership begins to get to Savage as well...

Anyhow, this is a very exciting movie! It even uses actual footage from WWII airplane battles. Furthermore, besides being entertaining, Twelve O'Clock High makes many interesting points about the responsibilities of leadership and the toll those responsibilities take on men. Unlike many similar dramas from the time, it has aged well and is just as relevant today as it was when it was first made. What is maximum effort, it also asks. To find out, watch this true classic - and enjoy!

I was disappointed when the DVD version of this film was released. I saw it in theaters in 1949 (probably 10 times)and still recall several missing scenes that are important to the plot. When the DVD came out I was excited thinking that surely they would have been restored in this format without the space constraints of VHS. I was wrong. The current cut, for example, does not explain the significance of the Toby mug that Dean Jagger finds in a London shop and replaces on the airbase officers' club mantlepiece. There are others, such as what happens to the young navigator and why. Obviously, I think this is one of the greatest war movies of all time. I just hope someday a director's cut is released with all the missing scenes restored. It's still worth buying but the film is incomplete without the missing scenes.

Those who think that "Saving Private Ryan" was a great movie ought to watch this old black and white classic. In virtually every aspect except photography and sound "Twelve O'Clock High" is superior. The script by Sy Bartlett in particular is vastly superior.

Spielberg's film focused on some of the command problems faced by Capt. John Miller (Tom Hanks) in fulfilling his combat mission, but the treatment and development were almost high schoolish (if I may) compared to the enthralling delineation in "Twelve O'Clock High." The problems encountered by Gregory Peck as the bomber group commander were complex, subtle and psychologically demanding, while the resolution was filled with the kind of male social and political dynamics not much explored at the movies these days. (We have female dynamics aplenty.)

Director Henry King's clean, crisp, "invisible" direction was also superior to the uneven and far too showy pandering from Spielberg. Furthermore the acting, with Gary Merrill and Hugh Marlowe supporting Peck, was also better. Ted Danson in his cameo and Matt Damon at times in "Saving Private Ryan" were almost laughable.

Comparing the two movies makes one wonder how much movies really have improved. Technically they have in every respect, but too often today's film-makers think they can get by with special effects and splashy sets. Pour a lot of blood, show a lot of skin, get people at each other's throat, and it will play, seems to be the attitude. What is often forgotten are the two most important aspects of film, namely, story and character development. In this respect I don't think today's films have improved on the great classics of the past.

Twelve O'Clock High proves that the best war movies are suspenseful and exciting without having to resort to shots of brutal fighting or the bloody aftermath. Although this movie makes the viewer keenly aware of the horrors of combat and its effect on people, it does not actually depict things the gory detail so common today. This is a great movie - perhaps the best war movie ever - and it is good mainly because of its fabulous cast and clever, insightful script.

Twelve O'Clock High is about a struggling squadron of American precision air bombers in Europe. After their benevolent, compassionate commander (Gary Merrill) cracks under the stress of having to send young men up to die, the normally understanding and reasonable General Savage (Gregory Peck) is called in to take over. In order to restore the morale of the group and instill them with pride and honor, Savage becomes incredibly strict and works the group very hard - which leads to some astonishing successes. But before long, the stress of leadership begins to get to Savage as well...

Anyhow, this is a very exciting movie! It even uses actual footage from WWII airplane battles. Furthermore, besides being entertaining, Twelve O'Clock High makes many interesting points about the responsibilities of leadership and the toll those responsibilities take on men. Unlike many similar dramas from the time, it has aged well and is just as relevant today as it was when it was first made. What is maximum effort, it also asks. To find out, watch this true classic - and enjoy!

I was disappointed when the DVD version of this film was released. I saw it in theaters in 1949 (probably 10 times)and still recall several missing scenes that are important to the plot. When the DVD came out I was excited thinking that surely they would have been restored in this format without the space constraints of VHS. I was wrong. The current cut, for example, does not explain the significance of the Toby mug that Dean Jagger finds in a London shop and replaces on the airbase officers' club mantlepiece. There are others, such as what happens to the young navigator and why. Obviously, I think this is one of the greatest war movies of all time. I just hope someday a director's cut is released with all the missing scenes restored. It's still worth buying but the film is incomplete without the missing scenes.

Those who think that "Saving Private Ryan" was a great movie ought to watch this old black and white classic. In virtually every aspect except photography and sound "Twelve O'Clock High" is superior. The script by Sy Bartlett in particular is vastly superior.

Spielberg's film focused on some of the command problems faced by Capt. John Miller (Tom Hanks) in fulfilling his combat mission, but the treatment and development were almost high schoolish (if I may) compared to the enthralling delineation in "Twelve O'Clock High." The problems encountered by Gregory Peck as the bomber group commander were complex, subtle and psychologically demanding, while the resolution was filled with the kind of male social and political dynamics not much explored at the movies these days. (We have female dynamics aplenty.)

Director Henry King's clean, crisp, "invisible" direction was also superior to the uneven and far too showy pandering from Spielberg. Furthermore the acting, with Gary Merrill and Hugh Marlowe supporting Peck, was also better. Ted Danson in his cameo and Matt Damon at times in "Saving Private Ryan" were almost laughable.

Comparing the two movies makes one wonder how much movies really have improved. Technically they have in every respect, but too often today's film-makers think they can get by with special effects and splashy sets. Pour a lot of blood, show a lot of skin, get people at each other's throat, and it will play, seems to be the attitude. What is often forgotten are the two most important aspects of film, namely, story and character development. In this respect I don't think today's films have improved on the great classics of the past.

Twelve O'Clock High proves that the best war movies are suspenseful and exciting without having to resort to shots of brutal fighting or the bloody aftermath. Although this movie makes the viewer keenly aware of the horrors of combat and its effect on people, it does not actually depict things the gory detail so common today. This is a great movie - perhaps the best war movie ever - and it is good mainly because of its fabulous cast and clever, insightful script.

Twelve O'Clock High is about a struggling squadron of American precision air bombers in Europe. After their benevolent, compassionate commander (Gary Merrill) cracks under the stress of having to send young men up to die, the normally understanding and reasonable General Savage (Gregory Peck) is called in to take over. In order to restore the morale of the group and instill them with pride and honor, Savage becomes incredibly strict and works the group very hard - which leads to some astonishing successes. But before long, the stress of leadership begins to get to Savage as well...

Anyhow, this is a very exciting movie! It even uses actual footage from WWII airplane battles. Furthermore, besides being entertaining, Twelve O'Clock High makes many interesting points about the responsibilities of leadership and the toll those responsibilities take on men. Unlike many similar dramas from the time, it has aged well and is just as relevant today as it was when it was first made. What is maximum effort, it also asks. To find out, watch this true classic - and enjoy!

I was disappointed when the DVD version of this film was released. I saw it in theaters in 1949 (probably 10 times)and still recall several missing scenes that are important to the plot. When the DVD came out I was excited thinking that surely they would have been restored in this format without the space constraints of VHS. I was wrong. The current cut, for example, does not explain the significance of the Toby mug that Dean Jagger finds in a London shop and replaces on the airbase officers' club mantlepiece. There are others, such as what happens to the young navigator and why. Obviously, I think this is one of the greatest war movies of all time. I just hope someday a director's cut is released with all the missing scenes restored. It's still worth buying but the film is incomplete without the missing scenes.

Those who think that "Saving Private Ryan" was a great movie ought to watch this old black and white classic. In virtually every aspect except photography and sound "Twelve O'Clock High" is superior. The script by Sy Bartlett in particular is vastly superior.

Spielberg's film focused on some of the command problems faced by Capt. John Miller (Tom Hanks) in fulfilling his combat mission, but the treatment and development were almost high schoolish (if I may) compared to the enthralling delineation in "Twelve O'Clock High." The problems encountered by Gregory Peck as the bomber group commander were complex, subtle and psychologically demanding, while the resolution was filled with the kind of male social and political dynamics not much explored at the movies these days. (We have female dynamics aplenty.)

Director Henry King's clean, crisp, "invisible" direction was also superior to the uneven and far too showy pandering from Spielberg. Furthermore the acting, with Gary Merrill and Hugh Marlowe supporting Peck, was also better. Ted Danson in his cameo and Matt Damon at times in "Saving Private Ryan" were almost laughable.

Comparing the two movies makes one wonder how much movies really have improved. Technically they have in every respect, but too often today's film-makers think they can get by with special effects and splashy sets. Pour a lot of blood, show a lot of skin, get people at each other's throat, and it will play, seems to be the attitude. What is often forgotten are the two most important aspects of film, namely, story and character development. In this respect I don't think today's films have improved on the great classics of the past.

Twelve O'Clock High proves that the best war movies are suspenseful and exciting without having to resort to shots of brutal fighting or the bloody aftermath. Although this movie makes the viewer keenly aware of the horrors of combat and its effect on people, it does not actually depict things the gory detail so common today. This is a great movie - perhaps the best war movie ever - and it is good mainly because of its fabulous cast and clever, insightful script.

Twelve O'Clock High is about a struggling squadron of American precision air bombers in Europe. After their benevolent, compassionate commander (Gary Merrill) cracks under the stress of having to send young men up to die, the normally understanding and reasonable General Savage (Gregory Peck) is called in to take over. In order to restore the morale of the group and instill them with pride and honor, Savage becomes incredibly strict and works the group very hard - which leads to some astonishing successes. But before long, the stress of leadership begins to get to Savage as well...

Anyhow, this is a very exciting movie! It even uses actual footage from WWII airplane battles. Furthermore, besides being entertaining, Twelve O'Clock High makes many interesting points about the responsibilities of leadership and the toll those responsibilities take on men. Unlike many similar dramas from the time, it has aged well and is just as relevant today as it was when it was first made. What is maximum effort, it also asks. To find out, watch this true classic - and enjoy!

Tennesee Williams' "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof" is a powerful play and here has been made into a powerful film. Family ties, lies, power, money, death, sexual troubles and even sibling rivalry coalesce as the troubled Pollitt family deals with the terminal illness of its patriarch. Although the gay subtext has been muted to fit 1950's sensitibilities, it's still there, adding resonance to the film. There's a bit of the mannered approach common to movies of the period, which gives the film a more theatrical feel than many movie adaptations of plays. In some ways, "Cat" comes across as an early, Southern version of "Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf."

The acting in this film is superb, if a little over-the-top at times. "Maggie the Cat" is a plum dramatic role, and Elizabeth Taylor more than does it justice. In her hands, Maggie's basic humanity alternates with her greed to eventually define her. Paul Newman likewise turns in an excellent performance as the troubled Brick. Burl Ives steals the show as Big Daddy, the larger-than-life dying patriarch. Jack Carson and Madelaine Sherwood play the elder, less-favored son and his fecund wife, Mae. Mae and her brood are played as wonderfully grotesque charicatures, greatly enhancing the oppressive atmosphere of the film. If you think of Diane Arbus shooting a movie, you'll get an excellent idea of what Mae and her little "no-neck monsters" are like.

Playwright Tennessee Williams' genius and sympathy for the human condition is again evident in this brilliant, though censored, adaptation of the equally brilliant play. Incredibly, the censorship does not hurt the plot, and the acting is so spectacular one hardly notices. The characterization of Maggie, played to perfection by the incredibly beautiful Elizabeth Taylor, as a "cat on a hot tin roof" shows Williams' sympathy for the character, who is much, much more than a "money-grubbing sexpot" as one reviewer put it. She is "Unfulfilled Woman" personified, denied the love she hungers for from her husband, also played brilliantly by Paul Newman, who has turned alcoholic and cold toward her because of his own self-hate and disgust with "mendacity." Her need for love, security, and a future are contrasted with Brother-man and Sister-woman's out-and-out greed and desire for more than they need, like the brood of "no-neck monsters" they put on display "like animals at county fair" to try to win the favor of irascible, dying, and in-denial millionaire Big Daddy (Burl Ives). Big Mama (Judith Anderson) gives a superlative performance as the faithful wife who, like Maggie, is ever trying to coax warmth from her husband. (What's wrong with these men?) And Madeleine Sherwood as Sister-woman is the true perfect cat of this movie and played to feline ferocity. I actually like the ending of the movie better than the play's--and, judging by the palpable chemistry between Newman (who, unlike his play's character, comes off as very heterosexual) and Taylor in the movie, well...judge for yourself whether he preferred it too.

This adaptation of a Tennessee Williams play was nominated for six academy awards in 1959. It stars Elizabeth Taylor as Maggie, rejected over and over by her alcoholic husband, Brick, played by Paul Newman. His father, Big Daddy, played by Burl Ives, has just returned to his Mississippi mansion after exploratory surgery. There's bitter rivalry in the family as they speculate about his death. Jack Carson plays the older son, who, with his pregnant wife, played by Madeline Sherwood and their five obnoxious children are determined to inherit Big Daddy's fortune. But Big Daddy despises him, as he does his own wife of 40 years, Big Mama, played by Judith Anderson.

As this film was originally a play, most of it is sharp and cutting dialogue, every line filled with tension and double meanings. Close-ups reveal the artistry of the actors, all of whom are excellent. I especially liked Burl Ives, whose performance called for a wide range of emotions, showing his vulnerability as well as his strength. And as the characters battled with each other, the story, which I understand was rewritten to fall within the guidelines of 1950s censors, slowly revealed itself. Some critics say this ruined this movie adaptation. I can't comment on that because I though the story was great. Most of the film takes place inside a house and there's almost no physical action. Not necessary. The dialog does it all. And it does it well. Recommended.

Tennesee Williams' "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof" is a powerful play and here has been made into a powerful film. Family ties, lies, power, money, death, sexual troubles and even sibling rivalry coalesce as the troubled Pollitt family deals with the terminal illness of its patriarch. Although the gay subtext has been muted to fit 1950's sensitibilities, it's still there, adding resonance to the film. There's a bit of the mannered approach common to movies of the period, which gives the film a more theatrical feel than many movie adaptations of plays. In some ways, "Cat" comes across as an early, Southern version of "Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf."

The acting in this film is superb, if a little over-the-top at times. "Maggie the Cat" is a plum dramatic role, and Elizabeth Taylor more than does it justice. In her hands, Maggie's basic humanity alternates with her greed to eventually define her. Paul Newman likewise turns in an excellent performance as the troubled Brick. Burl Ives steals the show as Big Daddy, the larger-than-life dying patriarch. Jack Carson and Madelaine Sherwood play the elder, less-favored son and his fecund wife, Mae. Mae and her brood are played as wonderfully grotesque charicatures, greatly enhancing the oppressive atmosphere of the film. If you think of Diane Arbus shooting a movie, you'll get an excellent idea of what Mae and her little "no-neck monsters" are like.

Playwright Tennessee Williams' genius and sympathy for the human condition is again evident in this brilliant, though censored, adaptation of the equally brilliant play. Incredibly, the censorship does not hurt the plot, and the acting is so spectacular one hardly notices. The characterization of Maggie, played to perfection by the incredibly beautiful Elizabeth Taylor, as a "cat on a hot tin roof" shows Williams' sympathy for the character, who is much, much more than a "money-grubbing sexpot" as one reviewer put it. She is "Unfulfilled Woman" personified, denied the love she hungers for from her husband, also played brilliantly by Paul Newman, who has turned alcoholic and cold toward her because of his own self-hate and disgust with "mendacity." Her need for love, security, and a future are contrasted with Brother-man and Sister-woman's out-and-out greed and desire for more than they need, like the brood of "no-neck monsters" they put on display "like animals at county fair" to try to win the favor of irascible, dying, and in-denial millionaire Big Daddy (Burl Ives). Big Mama (Judith Anderson) gives a superlative performance as the faithful wife who, like Maggie, is ever trying to coax warmth from her husband. (What's wrong with these men?) And Madeleine Sherwood as Sister-woman is the true perfect cat of this movie and played to feline ferocity. I actually like the ending of the movie better than the play's--and, judging by the palpable chemistry between Newman (who, unlike his play's character, comes off as very heterosexual) and Taylor in the movie, well...judge for yourself whether he preferred it too.

This adaptation of a Tennessee Williams play was nominated for six academy awards in 1959. It stars Elizabeth Taylor as Maggie, rejected over and over by her alcoholic husband, Brick, played by Paul Newman. His father, Big Daddy, played by Burl Ives, has just returned to his Mississippi mansion after exploratory surgery. There's bitter rivalry in the family as they speculate about his death. Jack Carson plays the older son, who, with his pregnant wife, played by Madeline Sherwood and their five obnoxious children are determined to inherit Big Daddy's fortune. But Big Daddy despises him, as he does his own wife of 40 years, Big Mama, played by Judith Anderson.

As this film was originally a play, most of it is sharp and cutting dialogue, every line filled with tension and double meanings. Close-ups reveal the artistry of the actors, all of whom are excellent. I especially liked Burl Ives, whose performance called for a wide range of emotions, showing his vulnerability as well as his strength. And as the characters battled with each other, the story, which I understand was rewritten to fall within the guidelines of 1950s censors, slowly revealed itself. Some critics say this ruined this movie adaptation. I can't comment on that because I though the story was great. Most of the film takes place inside a house and there's almost no physical action. Not necessary. The dialog does it all. And it does it well. Recommended.

I had high hopes for this film, and was dissapointed. Granted, it's nice to look at. The use of technicolor is beautiful, and the locations are well-chosen and attractive. But that's the best thing about this film. This story is a collection of every gay movie cliche; the plain but idealistic, romance-starved hero, the attractive guy who's supposedly straight but possibly interested, and the usual assortment of stock charactgers (the sassy female buddy, the older mentor, the shallow lover of the moment who leaves the hero feeling empty, noisy drag queens, money-grubbing talent agents, ect). Of course, our hero (Sean Hayes) falls for a hot, blond straight guy. Of course, the hottie (Brad Rowe) seems to be awfully friendly. And of course, we spend the whole movie wondering "will he or won't he" jump in bed with our hero. And that's about it for some 90 minutes. Sean Hayes plays the main character, and that's probably why this film got so many positive reviews. It's true that Hayes is hilarious on "Will & Grace" and a very talented artist. But here, he's saddled with a role that gives him little to do. Because the movie is too light to be a romantic drama and not funny enough to be a romantic comedy, Hayes struggles to find the right balance for his performance. Instead, he comes off as sullen and impatient, as if he can't wait for the movie to end. It's not one of Hayes finer moments, though it's not his fault. Thankfully, it didn't do any damage to his career. Brad Rowe has it no better. His role is also not easy. During the whole movie, the audience wonders, is Rowe really interested in Hayes but afraid to admit it? Or is he just friendly and not aware of how he effects his gay friend? Or is he an opportunistic jerk using Hayes to further his own career? The movie keeps all possibilities open for longer than I was able to care. Rowe is supposed to keep the audience uncertain, and wondering if his character is sexually confused. In the process he comes off as absent-minded and spacy. During most of his scenes, he acts like he's forgotten an important phone number. I regret to say that this movie is only for people who like to chase what they can never have.

Okay, it's another homobittersweetsexual movie. This one is set in a garish place called Hollywood, if you choose to believe a place populated by such shallow people really exists. It's also a delightful trifle.

Had I written this review shortly after receiving the DVD I would have gone on gushily about how great it is, but it hasn't worn that well with repeated viewings. The slender thread - should I say tease - upon which the plot hangs, "is he or isn't he," "will he or won't he," hasn't sustained my interest that much on subsequent viewings.

Still, it's a fun movie.

Sean Hayes is wonderful in this endearing role he created before becoming a stereotypical queen on "Will and Grace." The other characters are not as well drawn and mostly too true to simplistic stereotypes but are entertaining. Brad Rowe plays the somewhat naive but just-a-little-bit curious hunk well. It isn't a role that I'm very sympathetic to. I realize he was supposed to be more wooden and less graceful than Billy, and a bit of a tease and a bit of a jerk, but I kept wondering if he was chosen just for his Brad Pitt looks.

I am not a fan of drag or musicals, but the fantasy sequences were a real hoot, particularly the dance number with Billy and Gabriel and the Petula Clark numbers. Besides Hayes acting, these are the best parts of the film.

Director Tommy O'Haver has a few cute cinematic tricks up his sleeve. The use of the Polaroid as integral to the story was fine, but he was overly fond of it's use as a cinematic device. I found the opening sequence and "groovy" credits tedious the first time thru and even more so on subsequent viewings. When a film starts out by playing down to the audience and talking down to the audience, it's usually not a good sign, but fortunately the rest of the film treats the audience more intelligently.

The Polaroid device is also unfortunately used to present the tedious flashback of Billy's coming out, which I suppose is actually somewhat autobiographical of the director. I suppose everybody thinks their coming out story is absolutely fascinating, but in truth they seldom are to anybody other than the teller. Anyway, its preferable in a movie to show a prior coming out experience, if it's essential to the story, rather than just have a character narrate a slide show. Billy's character is already the only well developed character in the film and this extra insight isn't necessary to the plot.

Besides the tiresome overuse of the Polaroid as a cinematic device, the scene in which Billy gets some quality PosturePedic time with Gabriel and starts acting like a rabbit in a lettuce patch was a bit heavy for a trifle like this. I was grateful Gabriel quickly put a stop to it.

One of the best parts of the DVD is the track of director's comments; don't miss it. There is a lot to the film that doesn't catch the eye of a casual viewer and I hope Mr. O'Haver has the opportunity to make more films, so long as he loses the Polaroid next time around.

A touching, funny, and sad story about a young photographer ("Will & Grace" star Sean P. Hayes) and the object of his desire (Brad Rowe), "Billy's Hollywood Screen Kiss," is an impressive feature-film debut for director O'Haver. Set in Los Angeles (and concluding on Santa Catalina island) Billy's infatuation with coffee-serving Gabriel allows the viewer to grasp the idea of an ideal friendship in the gay 90's. Gabriel's sexual ambiguity disturbs Billy's so called "gaydar" that Billy sets up a series of photographs inspired by classic films like "From Here to Eternity" to see whether-or-not Gabriel is gay.

The film serves a visionary eye palette of colors that gives the film a catchy look. Utilizing methods to watch Nicholas Ray used in "Rebel Without A Cause," and what Pedro Almodovar utilized in "Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown," (both films used a technicolor red hue to give the protagonist a unique look) O'Haver successfully incorporates great color schemes and excellent lighting.

The film has many sad points especially when Billy tells Gabriel the significance of his Polaroid and especially the heartbreaking ending (reminscent of the ending of "Splendor in the Grass"). I was fascinated my the creative use of the Polaroids in the telling of the story.

Overall, both characters are cute, the supporting characters are excellent, and the film's script is an original escape from today's unoriginal recycled film scripts. An excellent film for all, regardless of someone's sexual orientation.

"So you, Matthew Harrison Brady, through oratory or legislature or whatever, you pass on God's orders to the rest of the world! Well, meet the prophet from Nebraska! Is that the way of things? Is that the WAY of things! ... Supposing Mr. Cates had the influence and the lung power to railroad through the state legislature a law saying only Darwin could be taught in the schools!"

That's from the big scene in "Inherit the Wind": the showdown between Henry Drummond (the fictional stand-in for Clarence Darrow) and the unfortunate Mr. Brady (William Jennings Bryan) over whether schoolteacher Bert Cates (John Scopes) should be convicted of teaching evolution in violation of state law.

Stanley Kramer's classic film was taken by many as true to life until debunked in 1997 by UGA Professor Edward J. Larson's Pulitzer-winning history, "Summer for the Gods." The film and play on which it was based did much to perpetuate the legend that the 1925 Scopes "monkey trial" in Dayton, Tenn., had exposed Christian fundamentalism as (in Darrow's actual words) a "fool religion" believed in by "bigots and ignoramuses." But as Dayton residents have long known, "Inherit the Wind" departs from reality at many points.

When it comes to contempt for others, it's hard to top Darrow, who fulminated against the "brainless prejudice of soulless religio-maniacs." Not even his ACLU associates thought very much of Darrow's conduct in 1925. And in the film, Drummond/Darrow's interrogation of Brady/Bryan is conducted with such fury that it ordinarily would be called a tirade or diatribe. But as delivered by the beloved, curmudgeonly old actor Spencer Tracy, the tirade is transfigured. It's early '60s liberalism in all its glory, not strident or mean but "impassioned."

While humanizing the caustic Darrow, however, "Inherit the Wind" does a real injury to the real-life "Brady," William Jennings Bryan.

The film shows Brady winning the confidence of the teacher-defendant's sweetheart, then betraying that confidence by putting her on the witness stand, where his bellowing, hectoring examination reduces her to tears. No such thing ever happened in the Dayton trial. The only real-life badgering seen there was Darrow's of Bryan.

The film shows Brady as disappointed that the defendant, when found guilty, is fined only $100. In reality, Bryan had advised the Tennessee Legislature against including any penalties in its anti-evolution law. With the Legislature having chosen otherwise, Bryan told the Dayton prosecutors that "I don't think we should insist on more than the minimum fine, and I will let the defendant have the money to pay it if he needs it."

Worse even than this celluloid transformation of the honorable, generous Bryan into the treacherous, vindictive Brady is the fact that the "Wind" playwrights and screenwriters misrepresented Bryan's case against evolution.

Unlike many of his fellow fundamentalists, Bryan allowed that the creation might have lasted six epochs rather than six days. What objection did he have, then, against the teaching of evolution? Biographer Robert W. Cherny explains that Bryan disputed "the concept of the survival of the fittest, 'the merciless law by which the strong crowd out and kill off the weak,' referring to it as 'the law of hate.' For Bryan, Christian love was the law by which the human race had progressed and developed."

Professor Cherny writes further that Bryan blamed "survival of the fittest" for contributing to the bloodiest war the world had yet seen, through the influence of Friedrich Nietzsche's writings (which were in turn influenced by Darwin). Bryan called Nietzsche's stuff "a defense, made in advance, of all the cruelties and atrocities practiced by the militarists of Germany."

Even with the Great War over, Bryan held that "survival of the fittest" was driving society "into a life-and-death struggle from which sympathy and the spirit of brotherhood are eliminated. It is transforming the industrial world into a slaughterhouse."

"There is no place in evolution," Bryan wrote, "for the penitent soul; it knows no such transformation as being born again or having sins forgiven."

Such were his concerns. His fight was with what we all now deplore as "social Darwinism." But you won't find a hint of that in "Inherit the Wind." So enjoy the movie for its bravura acting, but for the real story, read the book.

This film is as valid today as it was when it was first made; perhaps even more so. I used this film in my Sunday School class to portray the issues of fundamentalism and its impact on mainline education and culture.
Though there are some digressions, understandable in movie making, much of the dialogue is right out of the trial transcripts and the characterizations of Darrow (Tracy), Bryan (March) and H.L. Menken (Kelly) are close to the truth.
Contrary to one reviewer, who probably got his information from a fundamentalist/creationist preacher or the popular overweight draft dodger's radio program, Darrow's request for scientific expert testimony was rejected. (See Scope's memoirs as quoted in "Clarence Darrow, The Creation of an American Myth" by Richard Jensen, p 99).
The acting is superb, the directing outstanding, and the script excellent and thought provoking. Thought provoking is goal of this film and what those still writing these Salem-style laws in the states of the old Confederacy(not to mention the judges of the Kansas Supreme Court) are against.

Inherit the Wind is a movie about ideas, and in the hands of master actors like Spencer Tracy and Fredric March, the ideas are well delivered. March and Tracy bring the full force of their talents to their roles as opposing lawyers (and one time friends) who face off on the issue of evolution vs. Creation. The fact that this is based on a real life court case only adds to the drama. Florence Eldridge, March's real life wife, is excellent as March's movie wife who recognizes the flaws in her husband, but loves and admires him anyways. Harry Morgan also gives a solid performance as the judge caught in a very controversial case. Gene Kelly plays a very cynical reporter and has some good scenes, but overall isn't completely effective. The movie is full of dialogue, and is obviously based on a stage play, but the ideas are so strong, the actors so dynamic, and there are enough scenes away from the court case, so that the movie doesn't drag. And of course, the issues raised about freedom of speech and thought are still relevant today. This is a movie and a story to learn from.

The film itself, the style and political aspect/theme, did not impress me. There's nothing particularly compelling about the flashbacks-style wise-that drive the story. But what sets this film apart from others, what motivated me to keep watching, was Billy Crudup. Granted, I'm incredibly taken with this outstanding actor, but his performance in *Waking the Dead* surprised even me.

Crudup would have been the finest of actors in the days of silent movies because his facial expressions are exquisite. He need never speak a word and yet you would swear that you felt every emotion that his character felt right along with him. In my mind there is no one comparable to him in this regard. Perhaps it is just that he has this truly remarkable presence. You want to watch him no matter what subject he is dealing with on screen because he somehow makes you care.

Aside from his acting, or perhaps more aptly *because* of it, this movie is painfully, beautifully, intimate. At times it felt like I was witnessing things I had no right to. And because of that atmosphere I knew I had to own it within twenty-four hours of viewing it.

The circumstances surrounding the death of a young woman-- a peace activist working with a church organization in Minneapolis-- and it's effect on her lover, an aspiring politician, initiates a character study underscored with mystery in "Waking the Dead," directed by Keith Gordon. The movie begins by picking up the story in 1974, with a news report of the death of one Sarah Williams (Jennifer Connelly), then flashes back to 1972, when Sarah and Fielding Pierce (Billy Crudup) first met. Then the story flashes forward to 1982, where we learn what's become of Fielding since Sarah's death. The entire story unfolds in this manner-- flashing back and forth between '72 and '82, and finally between '73 and '83-- and it proves to be a very effective method of storytelling; it allows the viewer to get to know and understand Fielding intimately, as his character is developed succinctly through pivotal episodes in his life. And it works just as well with Sarah's character, though her death ultimately becomes shrouded in mystery. A good director will let his audience know in the first few minutes of a film exactly what can be expected from what follows, and from the opening frame Gordon establishes the method through which his story will be told, and it works beautifully. Ultimately, he creates an atmosphere in which the story thrives and maintains a pace that keeps it alive, while exacting performances from his actors that conclusively make it a memorable film. The story is character driven: Two people share the same principles and ideals and love each other deeply, but disagree on the methods by which to effect their goals. And Crudup and Connelly are more than up to the task of carrying the film; their respective performances are outstanding. Connelly especially captures the depth of Sarah's commitment and drive, while presenting a physical and emotional presence that personifies '70s sensibilities, up to and including the sacrifices she is willing to bear in order to "Make a difference" in the world. Crudup, meanwhile, successfully captures the essence of a young man in conflict, torn between whether to forego all in the name of principle, or to attempt to resolve the same issues through established and recognized channels of mainstream society, buying into the "Establishment," as it were. Crudup achieves an emotional level that aptly conveys the inner turmoil with which he must live without respite; a personal struggle that threatens to destroy him. It's a powerful performance that, along with his turn in "Almost Famous," should establish him as one of the best young actors in the business today. The supporting cast includes Molly Parker (Juliet), Janet McTeer (Caroline), Paul Hipp (Danny), Sandra Oh (Kim), Hal Holbrook (Isaac) and Ed Harris in a cameo as Jerry Carmichael. In the final analysis, "Waking the Dead" is a pensive, thought provoking film that will grab you intellectually as well as emotionally; Gordon maintains a tension throughout the film, and a sense of mystery, that compels the emotional involvement of the audience. And with the riveting presence and performances of the darkly winsome Connelly and the charismatic Crudup, it makes for a satisfying film-going experience that demonstrates what the magic of the movies is all about.

Such an experience of the strange ways love has. Sarah and Fielding are so involved in their own dream noble ambitions that keep their love, apparently, in second place (remember that Sarah always told Fielding he was her lover). But this is because they're so in love that want the other to succeed in their aspiring goals despite there's no place for both in any of these ways. (Sarah wants to help from outside the system -idealistic activist-, meanwhile Fielding wants to do it from inside -politics-).

When Sarah dies, Fielding continues his dream, but not exactly as he wanted in first place...he'll be a senator, but not "the senator" he wanted to be...and he knows. Sarah's memory appears to make him change back and take up again the correct road.

Even when you'll never know if Sarah is really alive or not, she is there for him and only for making him do things exactly as he wanted in the past, when he was a dreamer....the reason for why she falled in love with him.

If you've never been in love, you wont notest how much love is implied in the last scene (don't have enough words to describe it), but you surely will say that is a kind of love that will last forever.

I'm not paying almost 30 dollars for a standard format DVD. I have this on VHS in standard and that does me fine until they release the DVD in widescreen. I can't believe people would pay that amount for something they can see on cable in standard format or buy the VHS at about half the price. Being deaf the extra features don't add anything because they are very, very rarely captioned.

Based on Theodore Dreiser's novel "An American Tragedy", this film follows the short life of George Eastman (Montgomery Clift). George's family runs a mission for the poor and he wants to escape this drudgery to lead a better life. With the promise of a job by his wealthy uncle Charles (Herbert Heyes), he hitchhikes to the city with nothing but the clothes on his back. His cousin Earl (Keefe Brasselle) gives him a menial job on the assembly line and his life is suddenly looking better. In the local movie theater, George spots Alice Tripp (Shelly Winters) a worker on the assembly line. This chance meeting leads to a relationship that is against company policy.
Uncle Charles does not want "one of the Eastman's" to be a common worker and begins to give him more responsibility and introduces him to the society page life. At a party George meets Angela Vickers (Elizabeth Taylor), a beautiful debutant, and the two begin a whirlwind romance.
Alice learns that she is pregnant and when she tells George he starts to plot ways to get out of this situation. He is in love with Angela, playing with the rich and famous and leading a life that he never dreamed. Alice knows about his romance with Angela and becomes very controlling over George to the point of blackmail. The twists and turns take shape and George's up and down life starts it's final decent.
The cast does a wonderful job and is reason alone to view this film. However, the story will make the viewer take sides and wonder what might have been. Although the film is was made 50 years ago, the plot of obtaining a goal at all costs still applies today. A movie well worth adding to a collection.

I haven't read Theodore Dreiser's "An American Tragedy" on which this 1951 film is based, but I can see how the word "tragedy" is used in its classic sense - that of a character who meets disaster because of a tragic flaw. So even though purists might see "A Place in the Sun" as a romanticized version of Dreiser's tale, I certainly found it serious enough for me.

Directed by George Stevens, the film opens with Montgomery Cliff thumbing a ride. He's going to the town where his rich uncle owns a mill. He's awkward among his affluent relatives and happy to get a job, any job. And so even though he has to start at the bottom, packing bathing suits into boxes, he's aware of his future opportunities. Shelly Winters is cast as a factory girl he starts romancing. But then, his fortunes suddenly turn, he's invited to more and more upscale social events, and he falls in love with Elizabeth Taylor. The plot thickens as Shelly Winters announces her pregnancy and Montgomery Cliff finds himself trapped. The consequences are horrific as we watch his dreams all crash down around him.

I was captured by the story right from the beginning in a screenplay that kept the tension mounting and never let up. I identified with Montgomery cliff and found myself sympathic to his plight. He plays a complex character and has a lot of moral choices to make. He sweats, he shakes, he cringes, his eyes fill with tears. Certainly, he was one of the finest actors of his time and his performance is magnificent. Elizabeth Taylor was just 17 years old then and sure was a beauty. As she explains in an interview as part of the special features on the DVD, this was her first serious role. "Before that," she says jokingly, "all my leading men were either dogs or horses." She also tells us that Montgomery Cliff, with whom she maintained a long friendship with until his death at the age of 45, was her first movie kiss. "I had only just had my first 'real' off-screen kiss just two weeks before," she says. Shelly Winters talks about her role too. She wanted the role of the factory girl badly. However, at the time, she was typecast as a glamour queen. And so she dressed in an extremely plain way when she went for her screen test. She sat demurely in the office and George Stevens didn't even recognize her.

I loved this film. It had everything. Romance. High drama. Great acting. Moral choices. And I also loved the "behind the scenes" special feature that was on the DVD. "A Place in the Sun" might have been made more than 50 years ago, but the theme is universal and as valid today as the day it was written. I therefore give it my highest recommendation. It's simply wonderful.