Gun Glory (1957)

Ah, a Stewart Granger Western. Finally. This one co-stars Rhonda Fleming, Chill Wills, and James Gregory. I enjoyed it a lot, particularly the last twenty minutes. The rest of it is pretty standard Western fare, but the ending action and confrontations upped this movie a bit for me. It was just the right level of rousing and exciting and went exactly the way I wanted it to go to end satisfactorily.

Granger plays Tom Early, a man who turned to gambling and gunfighting and abandoned his wife and son and who is now seeking to return home and make amends. He has, of course, That Reputation, the one that young men fast with a gun want to challenge, the one the makes Early unfit company in a law-abiding town. The bitter, local shopkeeper (Jacques Aubuchon) wants Early out of town, especially when Jo (Rhonda Fleming), who lives at the general store, treats Early nicely. Chill Wills plays the local preacher who tries to keep the peace among everyone.

But Early has returned home too late, and he finds his wife has died and his son is now a young man full of bitter resentment at being abandoned. Early sets about trying to reconcile with Tom Junior. The son is played by Steve Rowland, and I personally felt he was the weakest link in the film. Not the character of the son, but the actor portraying him. He just didn't seem to fit the role he was playing.

The cool part of the movie is the main antagonist: James Gregory, playing one of those wealthy, I-can-do-what-I-want types that he's so good at. He intends to drive his herd of 20,000 cattle right through the valley where the new town is located on his way to the railroad -- right over the farmers that have have deeds and legal rights to that land, including Early. This was kind of different, and I really enjoyed the conscienceless James Gregory's attitude: "There weren't any people here the last time I drove cattle through, too bad they're here now, but they're in my way..." Having his cattle feed on their rich farmlands to fatten up is a nice bonus for him. His character of Grimsell is really quite despicable. Of course, he hadn't counted on Early (who he knows) living and owning land in this particular town, and he knows where the townspeople couldn't stop him on their best day, Early poses a distinct problem to his plan.

And so the fun begins.

I really loved everything having to do with the Cattleman vs. Town main plot. I loved how Chill Wills' preacher tries everything in his power to settle things honestly and legally and protect his people. I loved every time Gregory and Granger had a confrontation. I particularly love everything about Granger's single-handed plan to thwart James Gregory and how it plays out. It's pretty darned awesome. These are the strong points in the movie. Intermixed with those are the inevitable love story between Rhonda Fleming and Granger, and the father/son resentment/reconciliation. The script does nicely weave everything together so the subplots play into the main plot to reach the final outcome, so I really shouldn't complain. I just loved the action so much I wanted more of it. Granger fit very well in Western territory, I'm pleased to say, and I'm looking forward to more.

Moonfleet (1955)

Love the title of this film, though I was a bit disconcerted to find out it's just the name of the town in the film. This was a very dark movie, quite literally as well as figuratively-- there's only one scene filmed in daylight! This film drips with creepy, gothic atmosphere, accentuated by... guess what! Another Miklos Rozsa score! This film offers one of the creepiest statues I've ever seen. It was directed by Fritz Lang.

This film tells the tale of a newly orphaned boy, John Mohune (Jon Whiteley), sent by the dying request of his mother to stay with Jeremy Fox (Granger). Fox and the mother had fallen in love in their youth, with dire consequences for both. The mother presumes upon that brief, painful past to find a home for her son from a marriage to another man. Fox is wealthy, unmarried, dissolute, and leads a secret life -- wants no part of being responsible for a child. But John impresses Fox enough with his spunk that he ends up keeping him on. When John stumbles onto Fox's secret -- he's the ringleader for a bunch of smugglers in town -- Fox opts to send the kid to America, but things rapidly start going wrong. There's also various subplots. One about a lost treasure dovetails nicely with the smuggling aspect. There's multiple betrayals, some exciting escapes and chases, and that oppressive darkness that pervades everything.

I quite enjoyed this movie. Granger's a bitter, but self-assured and selfish bastard on the surface, but the movie gives him quite a bit of complexity beneath that. He has a sad, violent back story that explains why he won't let himself love anyone or care about anything anymore. His harsh past also explains why he leads the smugglers now. And because he has that past, and he slips and lets show what kind of a good man he could have been if fate hadn't derailed him, he maintained my sympathy throughout the film. The boy, of course, gets to him, brings out the better side of him. I liked their relationship, how much the boy sticks up for Fox, despite how Fox initially treats him. I liked watching priorities and goals shift for Fox throughout the film, how he changes because of both the boy and circumstances. Redemption is one of those themes of which I simply never tire.

There's one nice sword fight in the film... where Granger's opponent cheats and grabs a poleaxe instead of the proffered sword! Eep! Was a little worried how that lopsided match would turn out!

The always excellent George Sanders co-stars as an aristocratic friend of Jeremy Fox, who isn't exactly on the side of right himself. And Joan Greenwood, who was Granger's co-star in Saraband for Dead Lovers, is in this film as Sanders' wife, who also very openly and brazenly chases Granger. I can't say there's that many honest or upstanding people in this film! A young but unmistakeable Jack Elam has a small humorous part as one of the smugglers. And the poleaxe-bearing opponent is played by Sean McClory, who I love in Plunder of the Sun.

So, good cast, very creepy direction, great score, great dialogue... all in all, I have to say I really liked it. I watched this one on youtube and would really like to see it again on DVD (not sure it's available), as it was so dark on my computer monitor, I couldn't always make out the details. I think viewed on my television, it'd be considerably brighter.

I'd be remiss if I didn't add how much I have always loved this time period's clothes -- and how well Granger wears them. I think this is my favorite time period look for him, from the pigtail and tri-cornered hats, to the shirts and boots. Just adore it.

Which leads me into one other thought, switching topics... All those not interested in opera... fell free to click away now!

Since I'm such an opera lover, and since Tosca is my favorite opera, my sister and I often play casting games, where we try to select various sets of people to put in the lead roles. Sometimes it's combinations of opera singers who never performed together, sometimes it's actors. Tyrone Power is still my idea of the perfect cinematic Mario Cavaradossi (I went on about that once here). And I've always thought Deborah Kerr would make a perfect Floria Tosca. Scarpia has always been trickier, because there's so many different types of Scarpias, whereas the two protagonists are pretty cut and dried. So, depending on the dynamics I'm craving in Act 2, I often settle on very different casting choices. George Sanders would make an absolutely ideal Scarpia, along the Cornell MacNeil lines -- elegant and scheming, his dangerous, evil side camouflaged by that oh-so-suave exterior. So also, I realized while watching this movie, would Stewart Granger play a perfect cinematic Scarpia, but he's more the Sherill Milnes type -- more outright threatening physically, charming but not so smoothly urbane, and twice as dangerous a villain because he's sexy on top of it all.

In Moonfleet, Granger's character's entrance was so much like Scarpia's entrance in Tosca that I was singing Scarpia's first words "Un tal baccano in chiesa! Bel rispetto!" for him. Kind of shocked me when he didn't start speaking Italian like the moment required. LOL! But the flung-open door, the pose, the whip, the outfit, the expression of distaste... wow. Quite utterly perfect. I haven't had the chance to share that entrance with my sister, but I can't wait to!

All the Brothers Were Valiant (1953)

Another Stewart Granger movie right up my alley. This time in the sailing/South Sea Island vein. I quite enjoyed this movie, which had another nice score by Miklos Rozsa.

Robert Taylor also stars in this movie, as Granger's younger brother, which was weird, as Taylor looks older to me (and I think he was older in real life), but whatever. They were believable as brothers Mark (Granger) and Joel Shore(Taylor), scions of a long line of seafaring Shores.

The movie opens with Joel returning to port and finding Mark missing and presumed dead in the Gilbert Islands. There's some sordid tales spinning through the seamen on the ship Mark captained, about Mark skipping out on his crew. Joel won't accept any insult to his brother, however, and defends Mark's honor with fists when necessary.

Joel is given Mark's ship and becomes her new captain, and he immediately sets sail for the Gilberts to find out what happened to his lost brother. Ann Blyth plays Pris, the girl both brothers loved. With Mark out of the picture, she marries Joel, and sails with him on their three-year cruise! That rather surprised me. Who takes a woman on a whaling ship??

Of course, when they get to the Gilberts, Mark turns up alive and well with a wild story to tell. Mark's story was my favorite part of the movie, naturally! Just all Stewart Granger, friendly and unfriendly South Sea islands, a native girl he falls in love with, and a shifty-eyed bunch of pearl hunters looking to make it big that he falls in with accidentally. The wealth the pearls offer fuels the last portion of this movie, with Mark fully intent on recovering his loot, and Joel fully intent on continuing his whaling mission. Neither brother is willing to back down, so things get quite interesting at the end of the movie.

Like I said, Mark's story told in flashback was my favorite section, but there were quite a few other moments I really loved. When Mark finds out Joel has married Pris in his "presumed dead" absence, the look he shoots Joel is pure hatred. It's so strong a look I half expect Robert Taylor to burst into flames or something. Remind me never to make Stewart Granger mad! LOL! I loved most of the scenes between the two brothers, as they verbally spar with each other. There's a great scene where Mark takes special delight in telling his brother that he took Joel's toys away when they were kids, and he can still do it now. To Joel's credit, he doesn't rise to the bait, but if there's one thing Robert Taylor's really good at, it's being stolid and unflappable. And I loved when Joel finally decks Mark (hm, I see to enjoy watching Granger get knocked down... at least when he totally deserves it.). I loved the action-packed end of the movie too.

Other things I loved about this movie: the wonderful James Whitmore as one of the scroungy, scheming pearl hunters. Absolutely loved him, plotting quietly, acting decisively when he's ready. There's a desperate fight between him and Granger that I loved, even if I had to watch it through my fingers (I have this thing about knives being grabbed by the blade...). John Lupton is also in this film, in a small role as a seaman, and I dig him too. And Ann Blyth's character doesn't get in the way too much, so I didn't mind her along for the ride as much as I thought I would.

All in all, a rather different movie and quite enjoyable. I'd definitely watch it again.

Streets of Laredo (1949)

We interrupt this Stewart Granger movie marathon for Streets of Laredo, a William Holden movie I've wanted to see for ages. Thanks to a kind soul on youtube, I was finally able to view it!

I liked it a lot. It's about three outlaws, played by Macdonald Carey, William Holden, and William Bendix. They end up splitting up, and Holden and Bendix sort of accidentally become Texas Rangers! Carey stays the outlaw course. Well, you can guess there's more than one showdown coming for these guys, and the movie does not disappoint. The movie has some of my favorite themes: friendship, betrayal, the importance of giving your word, redemption.

There's a young woman, Rannie, played by Mona Freeman. She falls for Macdonald Carey from the first moment she lays eyes on him, not realizing she's fallen for a rat. Fortunately, Holden is still around to provide the third, stable side of the love triangle. I couldn't decide if she was annoying or I liked her, and I sort of vacillated between the two feelings the whole movie.

There's also another bad guy, Calico, played with delightful relish by Alfonso Bedoya. He runs around the territory collecting protection money from the farmers and cattlemen, stealing their cattle when they can't pay his exorbitant rates. He is quite the nasty piece of work.

It was a solid B Western, with good performances, an entertaining, though mostly predictable, plot, and enough action to keep me happy. Some of the action was surprisingly brutal. There were a couple moments that did make me scratch my head, such as why Holden's character decides to face one of the bad guys alone, when he's already got a group of Texas Rangers with him. Um... leaving your backup behind? Rather dumb. Still, it was a quite enjoyable way to spend 90 minutes. William Bendix had some great lines, and I loved his character. Macdonald Carey was smooth and slick and I couldn't wait for the final showdown with him. And Holden? Looked fabulous.

Why do you like the movies you like?

And now, time for a digression. A discussion of one of those pesky, perennial questions: why do you like what you like? Why does one movie appeal to you, and another does not? Is it a certain type of plot or themes or characters? Is it a certain emotion you like evoked? Do you know what drives your cinematic likes and dislikes?

A year ago, I would have had a convoluted and ultimately ambiguous answer. I would have said something along the lines of "I like action movies because they're exciting, they thrill me, I love to escape and they let me do so. I like the values of the heroes in action/adventure movies. I like sci fi/fantasy because I grew up with it and my dad's an astronomer." All of which is true... but tells you nothing. It beats around the bush. I've never had a satisfactory answer to why I like what I like. I just knew I liked it. No matter how hard I thought about it, I'd end up going into detail on what themes pushed my buttons, etc. But I never could get to the common denominator.

Well, I finally figured it out, and the answer is so simple it's almost scary.

The answer came after analyzing a couple things with a friend. We were talking about the television series Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and she had mentioned she didn't particularly like the title character of Buffy herself. I got hung up on that... how could you love a show as much as we both did and not love the title character? It puzzled me immensely, because, obviously, I saw things differently. We looked at a few other examples, and a pattern started becoming clear to me on my personal likes/dislikes.

Add to that, I did a 30-day book meme recently, and one of the questions was about characters you relate to. Once again, I got hung up on the fact that I absolutely adore Alistair MacLean as an author, his books are my top favorites -- and yet I don't actually relate to his characters. How was that possible? I asked myself. Why did I love those books so much? The same answer applied.

Which is?

I love a book/movie/tv show/story when I want to be the main character(s).

It's that simple.

Once I understood this, I realized it applies to just about all my likes/dislikes for me. It's like this beautiful, magical equation. There are other variables that do come into play, of course -- plot and theme are very important too -- but I can like some really dumb movies, and I will forgive the dumbness because I still want to be the main character in them. And as you can probably guess from the types of movies I love, the characters I want to be are the action heroes. (It should be no surprise that in real life I nearly went into the Navy, and I nearly became a LAPD officer.) Of course, what appeals to me in the main characters will be quite different from what other people want in their main characters. And the more characters in a story I want to be, the higher up my personal favorite list that film goes. Their gender is irrelevant. It's all about their personality, their strengths/weaknesses, their resourcefulness and intelligence, their honor and integrity.

This little revelation also explains all the books I love. I may not relate to Alistair MacLean's characters, but I sure want to be them. And my favorite book of all times, The Secret Ways, I want to be at least five of the main characters. No wonder it's my favorite book.

Television shows, movies... my goodness, it explains everything. I recently wrote about how King Solomon's Mines didn't do it for me. Everything I wrote in that review was true, but ultimately, above and beyond all that, it comes down to the fact that I really don't want to be any of those characters. I don't like most comedies... sure enough, I hardly ever want to be one of the characters in a comedy film. Westerns are my favorite movie genre... well, no duh! It's rare that I don't want to be the main character(s) in a Western!

Every day, I find myself looking at various things with this revelation in mind, and it just continues to astonish me how much it explains. And I wonder why it took me this long to figure it out!

So what about you? Do you know what draws you to your favorites?

Green Fire (1954)

Yowza, what an opening! Stewart Granger finds an old Conquistador mine that holds the promise of emeralds, then gets bushwhacked, shot, whacked unconscious, thrown down a mountain. When he comes to, he’s very nearly lunch for a jaguar. And that’s just the first five minutes of this movie! Certainly right up my alley, and I was hooked.

Alas, then the rest of the movie happened...

No, I don't really mean that. It was entertaining and I enjoyed it all, but it's hard to live up to an action-packed beginning like this film has, and it soon bogged down in romance. Granted, the romance is between Stewart Granger and Grace Kelly! Now, there's a ridiculously good-looking couple! Anyway, there's quite a bit good about this movie. In particular: Paul Douglas. I absolutely love Paul Douglas in everything I've seen him in, and he's far and away the best part of this movie. He gets all the cool dialogue and made me laugh quite a few times, he gets to save the day more than once, he gets to be the emotional center of the film, and he gets to deck Stewart Granger... As long as Paul Douglas was around, I was very happy with this movie.

But let's back up... Stewart Granger plays Rian Mitchell, a miner looking for that one big strike that will make him rich. He thinks he may have found it with the conquistador mine's potential for emeralds, but he needs money to mine it properly. His long-suffering partner, Vic (Paul Douglas), is just about to head for a nice stable job in Canada. Naturally, Granger has to muck up those plans so his partner (and his partner's money) support him. Granger's playing a charming (is he ever not??), but rather unscrupulous and very, very selfish man. He uses everyone around him, manipulating anyone gullible enough to fall for his line, so he can pursue his emeralds. I thought Granger was prefect in his role, just the right ruthless line, just the right charisma to get away with it, and just enough guilt to make me still like him.

Grace Kelly plays the hardworking owner of a coffee plantation that lies below the mine. She's trying desperately to make the place profitable. She has a younger brother, played by John Ericson. Naturally, Kelly and Granger fall in love. Naturally, his selfishness causes tragedy and ends up pitting the two against each other. There's also some local bandits, led by Murvyn Vye, who wants the emeralds -- but are perfectly willing to let Granger do all the work first, then come take the precious gems later. There's plenty more action, and a spectacular finish, and really, it was quite entertaining... I shouldn't have any complaints... but something never entirely gels to make this movie anything more than simply entertaining. I can't quite put my finger on it, though, since romance is my least favorite genre, I tend to want to point my finger at the romance in this film, perhaps unfairly. But it seems a bit unreal, and there's less chemistry between the two leads than I would like (I really like Grace Kelly, but she seems a bit uncomfortable in this movie), and I really don't get why she wants to stick with Granger when all is said in done. Not when Paul Douglas is so much more wonderful. There's definitely a Hollywood gloss to the proceedings. (The brother is also very annoying.)

But this movie still quite entertained me.

There's a really nice score by Miklos Rozsa, though what's up with the song sung over the credits? Ugh! It's a liberal helping of schmaltz that does not remotely fit this movie. Ah well, it's short, and the rest of the score is nice.

Also, some great location shooting down in Columbia really helped ground the movie.

Did I mention Paul Douglas was awesome? :-D

Saraband for Dead Lovers (1948)

Well, if the movie’s title doesn’t tell you this is not a happy movie, the opening intertitle further tells you that you’re about to see a tragic historic tale. And if that doesn’t clue you in that there’s no rainbows and flowers, then the depressing opening scene (which is really the end of the story), just hammers it home even more. Most of the movie is told in flashback form.

This movie is the story of Sophie Dorothea of Celle, who was forced into an unhappy marriage for political reasons with George Louis, Elector of Hanover, (and isn’t Elector a great title?), who eventually became king of Great Britain. After she met a Swedish foreigner, Count Philip Konigsmark, she was locked away in a castle for thirty years. This movie is a fictional account of that unhappy marriage and how she fell in love with the Count.


The Count is, of course, played by Stewart Granger. And you know the minute he sees Sophie Dorothea, played with desperate vulnerability by Joan Greenwood, that he's as doomed as she is.

Despite the doom and gloom, I rather enjoyed this film, mostly because the cast is so superb. My favorite character was the Electress, played with steely, unforgiving resolve by Francoise Rosay. She is so cold and determined to get one thing - the British throne for her family. And yet, in one one beautiful scene, she softens just enough to show that she, too, is as miserable as the heroine, she's just learned to hide it behind a wall of ruthlessness. Politics and happiness have nothing to do with each other in this court, and she counsels the young woman to give up all thoughts of happiness. There is some very fine dialogue between the characters.

Another fascinating character is the Countess Clara Platen, played with delicious manipulative slyness by Flora Robson. She does a lot of the political manuevering behind the scenes, and she also has an eye for Granger's character. (Who wouldn't?) When he falls for Sophie, you know Clara's not going to take that too well.

Peter Bull makes George Louis into quite the callous, despicable future king, and Anthony Quayle, as Durer, lurks in the shadows biding his time to strike for power. It really is a perfect cast for these historic roles. They're all very believable and fitting. The costumes are magnificent, the castle sets look great.

Stewart Granger gets one sword fight, a little too short for me, but still a good one, as he takes on four men alone.

This film tells of a historical time period I'm not particularly familiar with, so I enjoyed it from that aspect as well. A sad time, a sad story, and I admit, one moment at the end got me a wee bit teary-eyed. My favorite scene, besides the sword fight, is when a deliciously angry Stewart Granger attempts to get George Louis riled up enough to duel him. Granger, all storm clouds and challenge, Bull as George Louis all bored and I-really-don't-give-a-damn-about-your-insults. It's a fun, intense scene.

Treasure Island (1990)

I’ve never read Robert Louis Stevenson’s Treasure Island. I don’t know how that happened! I did have a copy of Kidnapped, which I had read when I was young, but not Treasure Island. I also have never seen any of the cinematic versions. Until this past week.

My first experience with Treasure Island is the 1990 version, starring Charlton Heston, Julian Glover, Christian Bale, Oliver Reed, Christopher Lee, directed by Fraser Clarke Heston. I loved it! But it was not at all what I was expecting. I appear to have developed some severe misconceptions over the years about the characters and plot based on photos from the 1950 Disney version that I used to study when I was a kid. I appear to have made up my own plot.

A few spoilers follow!

Biggest shock: for some reason, I had always thought Long John Silver was the good guy in Treasure Island. I knew he was a pirate, but I assumed he was on the side of right. Don’t ask me why. And boy, that couldn’t be farther from the truth! Silver’s a cold-hearted, ruthless, murdering villain! Knock me over with a parrot feather! I think I was further shocked because I'm used to Charlton Heston playing good guys, which added to my misconception going into this film. And he absolutely nails the role too. He is a perfect pirate, and a great villain, from the accent to the stained teeth. I love the moments in this movie when his smiling charming façade fades to dangerous, and his eyes get cold and calculating. I’m sometimes surprised he didn’t play more bad guys, he does it so well.

So, yeah. Long John Silver. Bad guy.

Second biggest shock: how much I loved the good guys. I again, mistakenly, assumed that there wouldn’t be many good characters beyond our young protagonist, Jim Hawkins (portrayed marvelously by a young Christian Bale). And again, I couldn’t have been farther off the mark.

Even as the movie gets going, and we meet Squire Trelawney (Richard Johnson) and Dr. Livesey, who fund and start the expedition to the island, I just thought they’d fade away, or get killed because I assumed this was a movie about a kid. My brain… it certainly can make a mess of stories when left to its own devices for many years! I loved both characters, particularly the wily doctor, played by the ever wonderful Julian Glover. Loved watching him sword fight! For a doctor, he's quite adept with that sword!

But beyond them, there’s a whole bunch of brave and honest Loyals, all standing against the pirates. I could not believe how much I fell in love with the captain (played by Clive Wood). I cannot even begin to enumerate the ways in which I love this character. Very cool-headed, intelligent, strong, brave, the definition of integrity and loyalty, and a good fighter and captain to boot. Very admirable character, and he’s now one of my all-time favorite characters. He really gets to shine when they make their stand in the stockade on the island. I must have watched that scene five times, and not just for him, but for all the good guys. I’m not used to having so many upstanding characters in one place! There was also Hunter, loyal seaman (played by Michael Thoma), who I love just about as much as the captain.

There's nary a dull moment in this film, but also plenty of room for the characters to grow, and I loved the sound, language, and style of the dialogue. Just puts you right back into that time period. My favorite speech was the captain telling Long John Silver after a parley just what he thought of Silver and the pirates, and what he, the Captain, stood for. Go Captain Smollett!

The film has commentary by Fraser Clarke Heston, which, once he got past the beginning where he seemed to be reading what he wanted to say, became quite interesting. Treasure Island was his favorite book growing up, and his father used to read it to him (how awesome would that be?), so of course, he jumped at the chance to make the film, and with his father no less. There’s some really nice stories in the commentary, and some nice insight into the choices he made when directing, the location shooting, real props, etc. He also wrote the script, and much of the dialogue is lifted straight from the novel. Dig that. No wonder I loved it. He also framed shots of the film to match the illustrations that were done in the book. Love that too.

And I particularly loved that the ship standing in for the Hispaniola is a replica of the HMS Bounty! Woo! There’s a lot of love and care put into this movie, with a very fine and expert cast, and I think it all shows.

I had this in my netflix queue because of Oliver Reed. He has the small, but important role of Billy Bones in the beginning of the film, and was excellent. He even has a great fight with another pirate.

The reviews I’ve read on IMDb and elsewhere are all extremely positive, most stating that this is the best and most accurate adaption of the novel. I can’t respond to that yet, but I plan on reading the novel at the earliest opportunity. I certainly did love the movie, enough that I may pick this up on DVD when I get a chance.

Frivolity with very old meme... A to Z movies

I was looking through my drafts and found this old meme from April last year, just sitting out there unposted, so... what the heck... it may be nearly a year late, but here it is! This was the movie alphabet meme that I believe I first saw on Millie's ClassicForever blog.

I have been out of town and have not been watching any movies here anyway. Although, I learned that one should always check the town one is visiting, because they just might have a revival theater, and they just might be playing something you want to see when you happen to be there... in this case 3:10 to Yuma! Glenn Ford and Van Heflin on the big screen! Woo! It was paired with The Searchers, which is not one of my faves, but I would happily have sat through it on the big screen. The thing I always liked best about The Searchers simply was that Natalie Wood's character had my name, Deborah. Alas, I found out about this double-feature a day late.

Anyway...

A – Alvarez Kelly (1966)


B – Big Jake (1971)


C – Crossed Swords (1977)


D – Dead Again (1991)


E – The Empire Strikes Back (1980)


F – Free Enterprise (1998)


G – Gladiator (2000)


H – Henry V (1989)


I – Island at the Top of the World (1974)


J – Jungle Book (1994)


K – Kiss Me Deadly (1955)


L – L.A. Confidential (1997)


M – Mask of Zorro (1998)


N – Nightfall (1957)


O – Our Man Flint (1966)


P – Plunder of the Sun (1953)


Q – Quick and the Dead (1995)


R – Ride the High Country (1962)


S – Spawn of the North (1938)


T – Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea (1954)


U – Untouchables (1987)


V – The Vikings (1958)



W – Where Eagles Dare (1969)


X - xXx (2002)


Y – Yellow Sky (1948)


Z - Zardoz (1974)


(this last one is actually a joke... couldn't think of any other Z movies. I've never actually been able to watch this movie, even with Sean Connery in it, though I've tried a few times. It is just too whacked out, even for me. But I used to have a picture of this flying stone head on my wall, just because... )