Happy Birthday, William Holden!

 

 

Double feature at the Egyptian

I couldn't resist heading to the Egyptian theater in Hollywood last night to catch a double feature:  The Wild Bunch and The Dirty Dozen.  The latter, of course, is one of my top five movies of all time, but I've never been able to see it on the big screen.  That has been remedied... sort of.  These are playing as part of a tribute to Ernest Borgnine.  They've had several other movies I've really wanted to go see this past week, but alas, have to pick and choose, and I chose my favorites over seeing some new movies.

It was a pretty nice 35 mm print of The Wild Bunch.  It's actually the first time I've seen William Holden in color on the big screen, and boy, that was nice.  His blue eyes are gorgeous on television, but on the big screen?  Wow.  And Pike Bishop is my favorite character he plays, so it was really neat to see it big screen, for so many reasons.  Great experience, with a large audience that was quite vocal and appreciative.

The Dirty Dozen was not a film print, it was apparently a projected blu ray, and... that was disappointing.  It didn't seem to fit the screen right, and it just lacked that natural big screen feel that Wild Bunch had.  Nonetheless, it was still The Dirty Dozen on the big screen, and I still loved every minute of it.  And I had that new problem of what to look at on screen?  After seeing the film 50-60 times small screen, suddenly, I had to choose where to direct my eyes.  Ack!  Who to focus on in a scene?  It so made me wish it was playing again, as I'd go right back again to watch different things.  Mostly, I chose to watch my favorite character in the film, Franko, played by John Cassavetes.  But yeah, I still saw new things, read those signs in the corners, picked up on details you just can't see on DVD.  It was great.

It was two long movies that didn't start until after 7:30 pm, and I did not get home until after 2 in the morning, but it was totally worth it. 

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.

Blaze of Noon (1947)

Time out from lists for a quick review. I watched Blaze of Noon last night, courtesy of youtube. It's a William Holden film I've never seen hide nor hair of, so this was a treat. I watched it in two halves, as I went to see a school play last night (Diary of Anne Frank).

SPOILERS follow, so stop right here if you want to remain unspoiled!! You have been warned!

Blaze of Noon is about four brothers, (William Holden, Sterling Hayden, Sonny Tufts, and Johnny Sands), who make a living doing stunt flying for a circus. This film is set in the 1920s, so we've got some lovely bi-planes zipping around. The first half of the film is rather light. We see the brothers at work, they leave the circus for the serious job of carry air mail between cities for a start-up company. William Holden falls madly in love with Anne Baxter, proposing just hours after meeting her. She eventually accepts. The first half is all kind of adventurous and fun and sweetly romantic with a touch of comedy...

Then there was the second half, in which we leave light and happy behind and swerve straight into melodrama. I find it very ironic that I viewed this film in the two segments, because it is almost like two movies! This wasn't a bad movie, but it doesn't hang together very well, and it has a lot of missed opportunities. It also doesn't hit the emotional points like it should, as there's a lot to be emotional about in this movie, but it glosses past those things.

I love Anne Baxter, so it was quite fun to see her with William Holden, who is as incredibly handsome and charming as ever. She finds marrying one brother is very nearly like marrying all four, as they all share a home and Holden can't yet afford his own place, and that starts ratcheting up the tension. The four brothers were quite good together, very likeable, though Sterling Hayden seemed to spend most of the film in a cranky mood. Of course, his character is jealous of Holden's for winning Anne Baxter's love when he wanted it himself, so maybe his crankiness is justified. The other supporting actors in the film are all fine, particularly William Bendix as another flyer who spices up his mail route by buzzing farmhouses and trains against strict orders. Flying in a straight line is too boring for him. The owner of the mail service is played by Howard Da Silva, and I really liked him. Made a great boss really trying to make a go of this new airmail service thing. The cast was definitely the best thing about the film.

Things I didn't like... well, besides wanting to re-write parts of the script to flow more consistently, I didn't like the ending. I know one of their points was that flying in those early days is dangerous, but really? REALLY???? They'd proved how dangerous it was long before the ending. Which seems kind of tacked on and I'm not sure how it helps the movie. Besides it made me very grumpy and unhappy. LOL!

I used to think only Dana Andrews needed to stay away from planes, but I was wrong. William Holden also needs to stop flying planes. His track record is getting nearly as bad. Hmph.

Listy things! -- William Holden

I have at least three movie reviews I'm behind on, but I've been fighting a cold and can't focus on anything right now... so we're going to do some lists for November, starting with my personal top ten favorite movies from several of my favorite actors.

I absolutely love how many people can adore the same actor and yet love completely different movies starring them. As they say, how boring it would be if we liked the same things, right? And when there's a jillion movies to choose from, and only ten can go on a list... So, here's my personal favorites (ie: the most watched go-to movies when I'm in a William Holden mood). There's still a few of his films I haven't yet seen, that I have a feeling will be on this list, once I do see them, like Streets of Laredo. That's the thing... favorite lists are so flexible and ever-changing. But as of this moment:

William Holden

1. The Wild Bunch (1969)
2. The Horse Soldiers (1959)
3. Sunset Blvd. (1950)
4. Escape from Fort Bravo (1953)
5. Alvarez Kelly (1966)
6. Stalag 17 (1953)
7. Picnic (1955)
8. The 7th Dawn (1964)
9. Golden Boy (1939)
10. Texas (1941)


(Up tomorrow... Dana Andrews)

Wild Rovers (1971)

I'll admit up front that this review might be just a wee bit colored by the frustrations I've had trying to watch this film. For some reason my computer has fits with Netflix instant viewing now, and glitches every few seconds. I tried to watch this movie a month or so ago, gave up, and finally just bit the bullet and watched it, constant glitching and all.

Despite the fact that this is a Western, and stars William Holden, I did not particularly enjoy it. There was too little plot for its length, and consequently I found it tedious (not a normal complaint of mine -- I generally like long movies). But I need strong plots, and this one just didn't have one. Has an okay main concept, but doesn't do much with it, relies on coincidence and fate rather than character action. There's also a subplot about sheep farmers that really has nothing to do with anything, it just gets in the way of the rest of the story. Yawn.

The good things that almost outweigh the rest:

William Holden. I thought he was fabulous, particularly towards the end of the film. Watching him react to things, watching the emotions on his face nearly made me like this movie despite the lack of plot. He carries this film, and his character is the only one who changes a tiny bit.

Jerry Goldsmith's score. I've always liked this score, so it was great to hear it in context, and more than that, hear the music that's not on the album.


Moses Gunn as an old soldier friend of Holden's was great. And the scenery was pretty nice, but that's about all the positive.

And you know, I'm really really glad the first thing I saw Tom Skerritt in was Alien. He was a good guy there, nice, brave, and a bit naive. Mostly, he was just a nice guy, and I really liked him. I swear I have not seen him play a good guy since then. He shows up a lot in older films (and TV shows), usually as a young, whining, uncouth lout who I usually cannot wait to see get what's coming to him. This movie was no exception.

April 17

Two of my favorite actors - old and new - share a birthday today: William Holden and Sean Bean. I'm not sure what it is about April, but so many of my favorites were born this month, and that includes friends and family.

And tonight, Game of Thrones premieres on HBO. It's the first day in years that I really wish I had television. I love the books, and with Sean Bean playing my favorite character from the first book (Ned Stark), it's as delightful as finding out he was playing my favorite character from the Lord of the Rings series (Boromir), or my favorite character from the Iliad (Odysseus). He has a habit of doing that, and no complaints here! Alas, Game of Thrones will air tonight, and I will not be able to watch it, but I will be dreaming of it, and waiting for the day I can watch it myself. Sigh.


Happy birthday, Sean Bean, and happy birthday to my number one favorite -- William Holden.

Forever Female (1954)

Well, I'll state right up front that I am not the intended audience of this movie, so take anything I say with a grain of salt. Someone who enjoys romantic comedies might like this movie a lot, but if William Holden hadn't been in it, I wouldn't have watched it, or I would have got partway in and turned it off. And that's because the two lead women characters (played by Ginger Rogers and Pat Crowley) seem deliberately to be the most annoying creatures on the entire planet. And I love Ginger Rogers, too! She's wonderful! And she's good here, it's just that her character drives me batty. And fortunately, her character isn't half as annoying as Pat Crowley's name-changing up-and-coming actress, whose very voice drove me up the wall. Both women change into different, nicer people at the end, their "true" selves, I suppose, but by then, it's too late. The movie's over.

And oddly, as annoying as the women are, the two lead male characters (Paul Douglas and William Holden) are the exact opposite. They're both nice and charming and even funny in some moments. Particularly Paul Douglas, who plays Ginger Roger's ex-husband. He's a complete sweetheart, as he puts up with everything else. For one thing, they're both honest about things and the women aren't. I just don't get it. I don't get what this movie's really trying to be about or what it's trying to say. I failed to see the humor (not surprising, really, given how not into comedies I am).

However, Paul Douglas? His character almost saves the picture, and he and Ginger Rogers are very natural and delightful together -- when her character stops being the vain actress. I love their scene at the airport, where she comes to see him off. William Holden is as handsome as ever, but he simply doesn't get much to do here.

Submarine Command (1951)

One of my favorite subjects! Submarines! Alas, this movie's script is at its sharpest when the characters are ashore and there isn't a submarine in sight. The first twenty minutes were my favorite, when we're actually at sea, at the end of WWII, doing what subs do best: sneaking up and sinking the enemy, rescuing downed pilots. I really do love the opening of this movie.

Then... it derails a bit because the war ends, and the sub goes home. But at the same time, the strongest and best written parts of this movie happen in the middle, in the scenes between Nancy Olson's Carol and William Holden's Ken White, who marry shortly after the war. Their relationship is very well done, and the two actors really bring it to life. Nancy Olson gets my favorite line of the whole movie, when a cranky, irritated Holden storms out of his own party, and she says to the other guests, "Excuse me, I have to kill a husband, I'll be right back." I love their interactions in this movie. Nicely handled, and their conversations have a realistic feel.


The driving force of the film, however, comes from the beginning where Holden dives the sub with the captain and another man still on deck. I love this, and I don't mind at all that Holden's character is eaten up by guilt for most of the movie. Who wouldn't be, even if you know you did what you had to? What I mind is the fact that the film cheats the moral dilemma by showing the audience that the captain was killed before the sub dived, and by having one of the more experienced men on in the crew (William Bendix) take exception to the fact that Holden's action saved the rest of the men on the sub, particularly with a Japanese destroyer bearing down on them dropping depth charges. Excuse me? I don't buy Bendix's CPO character's reaction for a second. A younger crewman, inexperienced and idealistic, absolutely! But not Bendix. He's been around, he knows how the deal works. Bendix then carries a grudge the rest of the film, and the ridiculousness of it is compounded by how easily he forgives Holden at the end, for a completely unrelated set of events. I never did figure how the latter event would forgive the former in anyone's mind except in the realm of Hollywood. Too bad, because that initial moral dilemma is so delicious and could have been better served half a dozen ways.

The ending action... well, it reminded me a bit of Crash Dive, which had more than its share of problems too. (And would someone explain how Mr. Rescued Flyboy ends up as the one playing commando? I know it's just to keep our cast of characters together, but really.) I've never been fond of the whole submarine-as-glorified-taxi routine as a major plot of a submarine movie because it takes us off the sub to follow the people on shore. The only time it really works is in a movie like The Frogmen, where the movie isn't about the sub or its crew. Also, what the heck??? Since when do WWII subs have to fully surface to get off a radio message? You just raise the antenna which is attached to one of the periscopes. I swear, submarine movies provoke the most talking to the screen out of me when I watch them and they do dumb things.

Now, all that aside, I still enjoyed the movie. I mean, come on, my favorite actor captaining a submarine, some lovely real submarine footage... that's enough to keep me hooked and watching and drooling and wanting more. I've given up expecting much from most submarine movies anyway. I just need to remember to ignore the plot and the technical errors and enjoy the actors and the sub, both of which I love.

The Turning Point (1952)

This movie had great promise. Edmund O'Brien stars as an idealistic special prosecutor out to get organized crime in the city. He really wants his cop father to take on the position of chief investigator, but his father (the always reliable Tom Tully) is reluctant because he's secretly on the take. O'Brien's childhood friend, William Holden, who is now a reporter, figures out what's up with the father, but then tries to both protect O'Brien from the truth and help the father out of his fix... with rather disastrous results. Add in O'Brien's girl, who falls for Holden, in some smooth-talking nasty bad guys, and this sounds awesome.

This is a great setup, with great actors... but the movie never quite finds its groove and settles in. It's awkward and a bit cumbersome, instead of smooth and tense, which is really too bad. For me, I think a big chunk of the problem is the love story thrown in the mix. That pesky romantic angle that Hollywood just has to toss into the middle of everything. It's the most awkward and cliche part of this film, with little chemistry between any of the parties, and it just bogs the good stuff down. So this movie ends up just okay, rather than great. Highlights include the Neville Brand as a hitman, Tom Tully as the father torn by guilt, and Adele Longmire as Carmelina, who does the right thing at great risk to her own life.


And it seems to be a trend... if Edmund O'Brien and William Holden are in the same movie, things won't go well for Holden in the end.

Proud and the Profane (1956)

This movie has the feel of a movie that wants to say something profound about the human condition. It tries very hard. It has appropriately weighty speeches, but really, it's just a lousy excuse of a movie. I did not like this film much. It was condescending, contrived, full of varying degrees of unlikeable people behaving badly, and had a lame excuse of an ending.

It's an unlikely, unpleasant, and unromantic love story, starring two very fine actors, Deborah Kerr and William Holden, who get to do nothing worthy of either of them. She plays a woman who's lost her husband in the war. She joins the Red Cross hoping to get to where he was and find out what happened to him. William Holden's character is first rate jerk who decides she's the one attractive enough on the island to go after. He lies about her husband to get close to her. He is a truly uncouth lout with no good qualities whatsoever. In one of the few honest scenes in the movies, Deborah Kerr's character actually admits he's a boorish jerk and she should dump him, but gosh, he's still attractive despite all of that! He honks his car horn and she's out of there like a flash to go out with him again. What??? Yeah yeah yeah, movies adore "opposites attract " scenarios and all that jazz, but this movie goes beyond that into ridiculous.

And Deborah Kerr's character is not exactly a sterling example either. She's cowardly and weak (clearly, or she wouldn't have let this loser of a man near her), and begs off a lot of work in the Red Cross because of her selfishness. We find out more about her character later, in a moment that's supposed to be eye-opening, but you can see it coming a mile away and as with the whole plot, the scene's set up is convenient and contrived instead of organic and natural.


Neither lead character seems remotely real. They're like overdrawn caricatures, put there to pound you over the head and make some point about Good, Bad, Redemption, Truth, Honesty (and yes, this movie wants them to be capped because they're Important, don't'cha know) that, frankly, eluded me because the characters are just so awful that 1) I don't buy any message about them, and 2) I don't give a flying hoot what happens to them. Not even my beloved William Holden. (Well, actually, I kind of really wanted his character to get knifed in one part and killed in another, but I got cheated even of that.)

However, this film does have one very bright spot: Thelma Ritter. She is absolutely marvelous! (when is she not??) She is so good and solid and entertaining, and basically everything the rest of the characters are not, that she single-handedly very nearly makes the movie worth sitting through, just for her. Considering what dreck the rest of the film is, that's saying a lot. Ms. Ritter -- my hat's off to you!!


But as far as William Holden movies go, this one is down near the bottom of my list.

And so ends November 2010

I got my 50,000 words of new novel done this year, making this my seventh successful nano. This was the year of slow and steady, where I needed the weekends to make up for the lack of time during the week days. I'm fairly pleased with how the month's writing went. I skipped over a few scenes in the beginning, but overall, everything is usable, and I did not go off on any strange tangents. I got hit with lots of surprises, mostly in the character area. I should be used to this by now, but my two intended bad guys failed the evil test and have become good and semi-good guys. One of my good guys becomes a bad guy, but I knew that before I wrote one word of story, so that did not surprise me. There was also an even bigger bad guy behind the not-bad-any-longer bad guys who revealed himself. That was a delicious revelation, because it made everything else I was doing make sense. Mwah-hah-hah.

I never did make it to the big awesome scene I had in my mind. That's still down the line a bit. I will be continuing on the novel in the next few months to completion, though not quite at the same pace.


To celebrate, I watched The Seventh Dawn (1964), with William Holden, Capucine, and Tetsuru Tanba on Netflix instant viewing. I'd never seen this one before, and I really liked it because it had multiple triangles going on -- romantic and ideological, and I am very partial to triangles in fiction. This movie takes place entirely in Malaysia and was filmed on location. It opens in Malaysia at the end of WWII, with the Japanese surrender. Our three main characters have been together awhile and have an easy camaraderie, and complete loyalty and trust and love in each other. After the war, though, Ng (Tetsuru Tanba -- who I know best as Tanaka from You Only Live Twice), heads off to Moscow to study communism. Ferris (William Holden) and Dhana (Capucine) stay behind in Malaysia, where Ferris becomes a very successful landholder and businessman. Ng returns as Malaysia is trying to gain its independence and things turn nasty as his new communist ideals put him on the other side of the line from his former companions. This sets up a nice hotbed for all sorts of my favorite things: betrayal, acting/dying for your beliefs, loyalty, the bonds of friendship, love, rebellion, racing the clock.

What I liked best about this movie was the quite complex relationships of the characters. Ferris and Ng both love Dhana, but Dhana loves Ferris and so stays with him. But he won't marry her, and just keeps her as his mistress, until he realizes too late what he took for granted. A young Susannah York also stars in the film, as Candace, who also falls in love with Ferris, but to my great delight, he actually doesn't fall for her in return. Quite surprising, and very refreshing. The only big flaw is that Ng is not given the same depth of character as the others, and I really wish they'd given him more. It was needed to balance out the sides and show where he's coming from.

Other things I liked:

• this is not a happy movie, and that lack of rosiness really works here.
• William Holden in a sword fight! Okay, it was a machete fight, but that's pretty darn close.
• the on location scenery and real jungle
• leeches!
• William Holden (that almost goes without saying, but I really liked his character in this film)
  

Strange threesome

I've been watching a lot of movies lately, but I've been very remiss about posting about them. Just haven't been in a posting mood. Anyway, I'll try and fill in some of the blanks with some short reviews.

Under the Mountain (2009) - rented from Netflix for Sam Neill, 'natch. Who I loved. This was an interesting movie. Sort of Lovecraft meets Lord of the Rings. Our heroes have to pitch something into the volcano to destroy the Big Bad Evil while extremely creepy minions try to kill them. There isn't enough to this movie to really make it work right. But if you check your brain at the door, the lead actors are all quite engaging and fun to watch. This is billed as a family movie, but I wouldn't let any youngsters watch it. The Wilberforces are flat-out freaky (very nice make up and effects on them), and their dialogue is nicely not-human in cadence and wording. Sam Neill was wonderful, as usual, his character a bit shady and lost, redeeming himself at the end. Mmmm.

Speaking of checking your brain at the door, I went to the movie theater and saw an actual currently playing movie! I just couldn't resist going to see The Expendables. Yeah, yeah, but I grew up on violent action movies and this sounded right up my alley. Of course, I also had this misconception that Bruce Willis was going to have more than 5 minutes of screen time (I love Bruce Willis), but you know, he got one of the funniest moments, and he got to threaten Sylvester Stallone. I'd say that's a win.

As for the movie, it was a fun popcorn flick, not too much plot, not too much character, but enough of each to backbone the explosions, shoot-'em-ups, and hand-to-hand fights. I was surprised at how much I liked the Expendables themselves. In particularly Jason Statham's character and Jet Li's character, who hands down got the funniest dialogue. There was one great action sequence (the plane escape), the rest was par for the course.

Fun, but good lord, I can handle a lot of violence, but really, do we need that much blood and flying body parts? Really? It's all very cartoonish, but still I was a bit surprised by how gory it was. Not one I'd want to own, but I'm glad I saw it in the theater.

Father is a Bachelor (1950). (Thank you, Kate!!) We're still in brainless territory, but this one is a very cute and harmless film. William Holden plays part of a medicine show act who gets stranded in a town when his boss is arrested. He hides out, does some fishing, discovers a houseful of orphans and ends up caring for them, problems ensue, problems get solved. There really is nothing more to this movie than cute, but that's okay. When the cute is William Holden, I'm fine with it. However, there's also that bunch of kids. I liked the boys, but the little girl just made me roll my eyes and wish her elsewhere. There is a hilarious scene though when WH thinks he can make her a dress to replace a ruined one. This is a bit of a musical too, with lots of singing... only someone's dubbing over WH, and it's not a good match. Sigh. All's well that ends well, though, and this was overall a pleasant, if not particularly memorable movie.

Oh, and I have this pet peeve about actors who can't chop wood. I can't remember what movie it was now, but there was some modern movie with some buff guy who was supposed to be chopping wood, and he couldn't do it. He was doing these short little choppy swings that would accomplish nothing. I've chopped wood, and when I can swing an axe in a full overhead swing and split a piece of wood in two, and some manly actor can't when he's playing a character who's supposed to be able to... well, it irritates me greatly. It's just one of those pet peeve things. Not that I had any doubts on the matter, but I'm pleased to say William Holden chops wood beautifully.

Day 21- Favourite film from your favourite actor/actress

Favorite film with William Holden? That's easy. The first film I knew him from, The Horse Soldiers (1959).

This is one of those movies I don't really have any memory of seeing for the first time, because it was part of the John Wayne round-up of films we watched whenever they came on TV. When I was little, I loved Constance Tower, in her gorgeous dress, cleverly scheming to find out the Yankee plan. I loved her spitfire attitude, her attempts to escape or warn the Confederate soldiers, how she changes as she witnesses war and its cost. But I never did understand why she fell for John Wayne and not that other guy, the doctor, the one who was so good-looking and willing to go toe-to-toe with John Wayne. That William Holden guy.

I loved his character of Major Kendall. He starts out friendly, here to do his job, but Colonel Marlowe (John Wayne) just lays into him from the get-go. Kendall's not one to let it wash over him, so the animosity between the two men grows. This is one of those movies that even though I own it on DVD, I can't just scene jump to the "good parts" at the end. There's quite a few movies like that, where jumping ahead just ruins the ending, because what makes the ending work so well is sitting through the rest of the movie to get to that point. You gotta have the build up. Like Flight of the Phoenix... I can't jump to the starting of the plane, even though I've seen the movie fifty times. When that engine finally catches, what makes it so satisfying is what you've gone through to get there. Gladiator's like that, and a bunch of others. Payoffs have to be earned.

The Horse Soldiers is that way for me too. My favorite part is when William Holden finally gets pushed too far and dashes his drink in John Wayne's face. And off they go to duke it out. And it gets better when Holden asks him what the rules of the fight will be, and Wayne says "Just make up your own." So Holden slugs him on the spot. Very satisfying. Alas, their fight is way too short, interrupted by battle, but that just leads us to an even better scene, when Wayne gets shot and Holden gets to treat him. Hah. I love it.

The rest of the film has nicely spaced action scenes, cool scenery, a catchy main theme that I will find myself singing for the next two weeks after a viewing of it. I love that the love story is understated, that it just happens quietly, almost in the background, the characters conveying emotions with looks and actions more than words. I love that William Holden stays behind with the wounded soldiers at the end. And I really love the Wayne/Holden actor combo. They sell this story to me.

Day 16- Film character you relate to the most

Okay, my answer is probably going to sound really really weird. But I've been thinking and thinking about this question, and I keep coming back to the same answers.

It sort of ties in with William Holden, and why he is my favorite actor. A big part of it is because I relate very strongly to the types of characters he plays, and that is a naturally attractor. I ran through all of Dana Andrews' movie characters, and despite the fact that he's one of my favorite actors... I actually don't relate to any of his characters. Not one. But William Holden... now I can name half a dozen characters off the top of my head, without looking at his filmography, that I can relate to.

There's two, though, that I relate to more closely than any of the others. They're nearly a tie, but as one movie features a love story and the other doesn't, that lets Pike Bishop from The Wild Bunch edge out Capt. Roper from Escape from Fort Bravo.

I said it was going to sound like a really really weird answer, particularly for a girl to choose. But when I finally sat down and watched The Wild Bunch for the first time a couple years ago (I'd only seen pieces of it prior to that), the thing that I liked most about the movie was how much I related to the character of Pike.

From the little things: how he wears two holsters -- a shoulder one in addition to the one around his waist (and tucks away a third and fourth pistol before the end fight) and not that I even own a gun, mind you, but in childhood games involving squirt guns, etc., that's how I did things. The little private thank-you/farewell exit salute he gives the train engine for serving them well, so to speak; I'm always doing that with inanimate objects -- to the way he sits there thinking all the time, to the hat doff salute to Robert Ryan's character, to the things that make him smirk.

To the big things: to the things he believes in, to the grudge about the husband who shot him that he's carried every day after, to deciding to trust the wrong person and getting shot in the back for it, and most particularly: to the plans he makes. Logistically, the character plans and anticipates and safeguards his actions and men exactly the way I would. The first time I watched the film, I spent a lot of time thinking, for example, "you know, the Mexican troops are going to try to take those guns without paying for them, so if that was my gang, I'd rig it so... yep, he just did that." And then nodding to myself, pleased. I'm very much in synch with the character of Pike Bishop. Right down to the ending. He doesn't blame his former partner for coming after them ("he gave his word!"), and he also knows that Deke is probably the one man good enough to catch them eventually. And that, plus witnessing Angel's mistreatment... I'd do the same thing myself at that point. And there's that moment where he's taken out Mapache, and the gang could probably still walk out alive. The Mexican troops are so shocked, they're just sitting there, leaderless and lost. Pike has a choice. Walk out and go back to running from Deke in a world that had no place for him or his gang anymore, or go out, guns blazing, and take some of those troops that have been hunting Angel's people with them. Sort of a community service, if you ask me, as the only "good" people in this film seem to be the mountain villagers fighting to stay alive. I never did want to live forever. I'd make the exact same choice.

So, of all the film characters I've been rattling around in my brain, for better or worse, I keep coming back to Pike Bishop as the one I relate to most.




(Random aside... you think Joss Whedon likes this movie perhaps? There appears to be some Wild Bunch name homage in Buffy -- Angel, of course, and Lyle and Tector Gorch show up in a Buffy ep as well. Isn't the main guy in the Buffy movie named Pike? I think I'll start paying attention, see if there's any more Buffy/Wild Bunch name connections. Or I'll just google it and see if anyone else has noticed that too. Weird.)

Day 6- Favourite actor/actress

Hah! Been here done that, answered this before. Favorite actor is still William Holden.

And if I'm playing by my own rules here, then it's Sam Neill for the post 1970 answer to this question. I've loved him since I first saw The Hunt for Red October. And then I hunted up everything of his I could find. The neat thing about liking actors in this era, of course, is that you can watch their career grow, can wait for new movies and shows. It's all brand new and evolving. I remember how excited I was when Jurassic Park came out, because before that film when I said, "I love Sam Neill," all I got was a "who?" response.

Something different

I don't go in much for horror. Not my cup of tea. But I recently ended up watching some anyway. Funny how that happens!

First there was Rosemary's Baby. I wanted to see this one mostly because John Cassavetes was in it. Unfortunately, this was a couple months ago now, and I forgot to write it up at the the time, so I've lost most of the impressions and comments I wanted to write down about it. I remember it felt long though it didn't lose my interest, was creepy in a few sections (the telephone booth!), John Cassavetes had some great lines, Mia Farrow is just plain strange. The supporting actors, particularly Ruth Gordon and Patsy Kelly, were hilarious... and creepy. I know I'm never eating chocolate mousse again unless I make it myself! LOL! The ending grew on me after I thought about it later.

This week, I watched remake of The Omen, and then the original again. I'd seen the original a long time ago, and watching the remake I kept thinking, doesn't this happen just like this in the original? So then I had to watch the original again to confirm. Remakes seem to fall into a couple different categories, and this one was basically a replica of the original, just with a different cast. So imagine my great surprise, when I found I actually rather liked the remake! Not something I ever expected to do, but parts of it worked really well, in some ways better than the original, in others, not so much.

The best part of the original (besides Jerry Goldsmith's score) is Gregory Peck. What makes the movie work so well is that he's one of the last actors you expect to find in a horror film. He's so upstanding and solid. But that's also exactly what the movie needs. You need a hero who doubts what he's being told until he has the proof himself. And hearing Gregory Peck shaking with rage and affrontry when he says "He wants me to murder a child!" Well, nobody does that kind of verbal anger better than Gregory Peck.

Lee Remick is also perfect as his wife, she has that fragile edge that just fits. The remake has Liev Schreiber and Julia Stiles. I really liked Liev, but Julia Stiles seemed miscast. I like her a lot as an actress, but not in this film. She seemed far too young, and lacking... something. Not quite sure what.

From a casting aspect, I have to admit... the remake has the most delightfully brilliant bit of casting, putting Mia Farrow in as Mrs. Baylock. It's just too perfect, after her turn in Rosemary's Baby! I really am not fond of her, but she was just perfect and I genuinely liked her in it. The strawberry scene.... eeeeeeek! Freaky.

I think, ideally, I'd like a combo of the two versions. Combine the cast: Gregory Peck and Lee Remick, but David Thewlis and Mia Farrow. Now, don't get me wrong, I absolutely adore David Warner... and he's great as Jennings, but I liked the vulnerability of David Thewlis better. As for Damien, the original kid is far more creepy, though I had no problems with the second one either.

The new movie has a long winded beginning that really needs to go. I'd definitely keep the original's opening and cut to the chase... but I like the new movie's finale better. The way Liev played it really got to me, made it more emotional and personal. The cemetery scene in the original is vastly superior. The new one wimped out there. And as for the deaths... well both movies are just about equally gruesome, so either works -- with the exception of (SPOILERS!!!! highlight to read) Mrs. Thorn's death in the hospital. The new movie made that scene truly and utterly frightening, so I'd take that version.

For the score, obviously, I'll take Goldsmith's score any day, though the remake wasn't bad, particularly as it pulled in a couple themes from the original in places, and the Ave Satani made a welcome, albeit short, appearance in the end credits. (And I know it probably sounds weird, it being horror and all, but that song will get stuck in my head for damned near weeks at a time. Like now.)

I also watched Damien: Omen II, which I had only seen the first half of before. It's a waste of time. It simply repeats the plot of the first film -- adoptive parents discover they're raising the anti-christ -- and does nothing new with it. Been there, done that, folks, what's the point here? It could not have been more predictable, and they clearly have no idea what to actually do with Damien. Very shoddy world-building. The one idea that would have made it interesting (Damien's genuine friendship with Mark) doesn't go anywhere. The bad guys supporting Damien do nothing, the good guys do nothing, the people who know the truth are all incapable-of-speaking-coherently raving lunes who have no idea how to actually tell anybody what they've found out, and the entire film seems just an excuse to kill people in new and exotically gruesome manners. No, thank you. This middle movie just needs to vanish, even if William Holden is in it. Speaking of which, the actors were all fine in this film (love Leo McKern and Sylvia Sidney!), they were just given nothing interesting to do. Quite a shame, actually, as it could have been a good movie if they'd tried something original.

And I think that's enough horror films for me for awhile.

Movies I should like... but don't

My sister and I were talking about certain movies that seem like they should be not only right up our alley, but favorites to boot... but instead, we can't stand them. I thought this week I'd blog about a few of my own "Movies I should like... but don't." Some are old, some are newer.

I think the biggest one on my list is The Bridge on the River Kwai.


I mean William Holden is my favorite actor! Right there alone, you'd think this would be high on my list, particularly as he spends a large portion of the movie shirtless. Rowr. I also love WWII movies. My favorite genre behind Westerns. And I love Jack Hawkins and James Donald. But I hate this movie. God, how I hate this movie. I can't even watch it for William Holden. The characters, the narrative, the themes, the music... none of them work for me. They just don't push my buttons, and what I'm left with is a gigantic snoozefest of truly gorgeous, panoramic, but endless jungle shots, a bunch of characters I can't stand, doing things I'm supposed to care about, but don't.

There's only one part of this movie I actually enjoy, and that's the bit of dialogue in the middle where they tell William Holden he's going to have to parachute in without any practice jumps. His reaction is great. That's the only part of this film I willingly hold onto. Okay, I also enjoy the bridge explosion and train crash (because I'm shallow that way), but not enough to sit through this movie just to get to that part.

The rest... sorry. I know it's famous, I know it's David Lean, I know it won a jillion oscars. I don't care. This one's just not for me.

Day 17 → Whatever tickles your fancy

I'm swapping Day 17 and Day 18 because today is William Holden's birthday and that more'n tickles my fancy, and I don't feel like waiting until tomorrow. :-D

New Year's Day viewings

I finished off the second disk of the Barbara Stanwyck show last year and enjoyed it as much if not more than the other disks. The first three episodes were very strong. The fourth was the only ep not to star Stanwyck. Milton Berle was the lead... and it creeped me out immensely. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to make of the ep. It's not quite humorous enough, but not quite serious enough either, just a weird amalgam of both, and it just gave me the willies. At least it had a cat in it. All in all, the three discs of Vol 1. were well worth watching, and I do hope more episodes are released in the future.

I try to watch a Dana Andrews' movie every Jan 1st, in honor of his birthday, but I just wasn't in the mood this year. I watched Escape from Fort Bravo (1953) and Black Rain (1989) instead. I know, odd combination, but both offered emotional outlets I was seeking. I love Fort Bravo, mostly for the beginning and the end. The middle gets bogged down with dances and weddings and plans and characters falling in love. Fortunately, I love all the actors in this one. William Holden is in his prime here. The other two Williams -- Campbell and Demarest -- are hilarious and have the best dialogue as they constantly nag, tease, and snap at each other, but always affectionately. John Lupton is a long-time favorite (he was in one of my favorite Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea episode), and he's young and earnest here. And I even like Eleanor Parker. She's clever and strong in this one, beautiful but not afraid to get dirty. Dig it. And the entire last third of the film is one of the tensest stand-offs in a Western I've ever seen.

(ahhhhh, perfection...)

(The other two Williams)

There is the First Viewing of a Movie experience, and then, there is the Every Other Viewing experience. Usually they're quite different. The first time, you don't know what's going to happen (unless you've been spoilered) and the unknown always ratchets up the tension. After that first viewing, when you know how it turns out, it's never quite the same. Most of the time, movies just get better and better with subsequent viewings. But sometimes, they're lacking and you discover what made it work so well the first time was your innocence as a viewer. Fort Bravo is a bit like that. The First Viewing experience is outstanding. Not knowing what was going to happen, I was on the edge of my seat the last third. At one point, I actually paused the DVD because I was too wrapped up and had to break the tension, just for a minute.

But the second viewing of Fort Bravo was very different. That tension was gone. I knew what happened. I couldn't quite get as into the moment as I did the first viewing, and I found myself mildly disappointed on New Year's Day. On the other hand, I started liking more of the first half, which had bored me in the first viewing (so much so that the very first time I tried to watch this movie a few years ago, I turned it off halfway through. I need action in my Westerns, and it wasn't delivering. Silly me. If I'd only had another ten minutes of patience...)

Black Rain was also a re-watch. It's one of my favorite Ridley Scott films, and the first one of his films I saw in the theater when it came out. It's still my favorite Andy Garcia performance. I adore him in this movie, even more than in The Untouchables, which is saying a lot. It was also one of the first movies to make me start liking Michael Douglas. I even like Hans Zimmer's score for this film, minor miracle. It think it's probably the only Hans Zimmer score I truly like. But it had genuine character. Yusaku Matsuda, who played Sato, was absolutely brilliant in his role (one of the best things about the movie), and I still remember how shocked and sad I was when he died of cancer just a few months later. He was so young. I'm always fascinated by how alien and unnerving the streets of Japan are in this movie. It's nothing like any city I've been to. I think half of what makes the movie work so well is the setting.