Brief Encounter (1945)

A married woman (Celia Johnson) crosses paths with a married doctor (Trevor Howard) during her visits to the city, and they begin a casual friendship. Slowly they realize that they are in love.

Here is yet another film told almost entirely in flashback. Wife Laura narrates the events inside her head. Her unsuspecting husband is the only person she can trust to tell, but the only person she can never tell.

Looking over a list of recorded films, I selected Brief Encounter on reputation, having been nominated for three Oscars and sporting an 8.0 on IMDb. But when I sat down to watch I discovered that Dr. Cyclops had been recorded. A film about a mad scientist who shrinks people! Sign me up! But I steeled myself, and watched the respectable film.

 Based on a Noel Coward play, it was an early success for directory David Lean. He would go on to direct a desert drama that I will eventually watch. Johnson hadn't done too many films at that point and would eventually star in the dreadful Holly and the Ivy. Howard played Major Calloway in The Third Man.

Brief Encounter is a pretty dull movie. A lot of conversations happen between our mostly chemistry-less leads but also between a rail employee and a cafe worker that doesn’t resolve. But it’s an unusual story and does hold your interest, more or less. But clearly it charmed other viewers much more than it did me. AMRU 3.

The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

A young lawyer (James Stewart) from the East is robbed by the villainous Liberty Valance (Lee Marvin). Taken in by townsfolk, he plots a way to stop Valance without resorting to guns and violence. That doesn’t work out too great.

The story is told almost entirely in flashback with an elderly Ransom Stoddard (Stewart), now a senator, telling reporters the story of Tom Doniphon (John Wayne) at his funeral. The mystery of who actually shot Valance (the tenderfoot Stoddard or veteran gunfighter Doniphon) plays out well.

Wayne (54) and Stewart (53) compete for the affection of Vera Miles (31), revealing that the actors were much older than their characters. Not an uncommon occurrence for the Duke. Lee Marvin was recommended by Wayne after they worked on The Comancheros (1961) together, and he makes for an especially villainous villain.

The Man who Shot Liberty Valance is an entertaining tale, if not truly engrossing. It is considered one of John Ford’s latter masterpieces and did well at the box office. I found it a little better than watchable. AMRU 3.

The Skin Game (1931)

When a rich industrialist (Santa) eyes a valuable property with intent on building factories, an old money family is determined to stop him. The conflict has unintended consequences.

Come review time it had been several weeks since I watched The Skin Game, and truth be told, I didn’t remember much. I was forced to take drastic measures. I rewatched it.

The story mostly follows the old money Hillcrist family making them seem like the protagonists, but they are not without fault. Had they been more welcoming to the upstart Hornblowers, the whole conflict might have been avoided.

The central conflict is very much old money verses new money, a la The Gilded Age, or the Slobs verses the Snobs, if you prefer. Skin game is slang for a shady business deal, what Mr. Hornblower is accused of. But it is less the deal and more the conflict that is at the center of the story. And skin game takes on another meaning entirely at the climax.

Alfred Hitchcock was a little heavy handed with visual imagery early in his career. The Hornblower son and Hillcrist daughter meet at the beginning, teasing a love interest. She, on a horse, he, in an unusually loud car. When they separate, she follows a picturesque treed path, he, towards a more urban area. This kind of visual reinforcement is throughout.

Quite unlike latter Hitchcock, there is some sloppy dialog. Actors start speaking at the wrong time and correct themselves. Other times it feels like they are entirely improvising their dialog. It doesn’t detract from the film, however. Early talkies are pretty clumsy in general. Looking back, Hitchcock said about it in his interview with Francois Truffaut "I didn't make it by choice, and there isn't much to be said about it."

The Skin Game holds up to a second viewing. It could have been a two dimensional moral tale, but chooses a more nuanced path. AMRU 3.5.

The Giant Behemoth (1959)

In a presentation, marine biologist Karnes (Gene Evans) warns that nuclear testing in the world’s oceans will eventually lead to nature striking back. He is mostly dismissed, but lucky for him nature DOES strike back in the form of … something.

Initially the monster was to be a giant blob, but producers wanted another dinosaur. Elements more consistent with a radioactive blob remain. Willis O’Brien of King Kong (1933) fame was brought in, but budgets and deadlines were tight, and it shows.

Originally titled “Behemoth, the Sea Monster” which sounds a little like a kids show, it was later renamed to The Giant Behemoth. This I presume to distinguish it from those tiny behemoths we all know and love.

Eugene Lourie, who also directed The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms (1953), dispensed with the love interest part of the story, wanting to focus on science and monster mayhem. This decision may have contributed to the exposition heavy dialog. A young couple is introduced but disappears before the second act, despite being billed third and fourth.

The Giant Behemoth is a very by-the-numbers monster movie. Unfortunately it offers nothing new to the genre, and the stop motion effects were a half step down. The creature, unlike those created by Ray Harryhausen, lacked personality. AMRU 2.5.

Soylent Green (1973)

A cop (Charleston Heston) investigates the murder of an executive of the Soylent corporation, suppliers of much of the world’s food. Despite being told to let it go, he pushes on and discovers a disturbing secret. We all know. Go ahead, say the line …

I watched Soylent Green not long before I began the blog. It was on a library VHS tape and the quality was awful. Before the climax the video portion was completely shot. A quality copy makes an enormous difference.

Despite being set in the far off year of 2022, the filmmakers made no effort to give the world a futuristic look. The future isn’t ideal. It’s just like today except there is massive overpopulation, environmental disaster, and a worldwide food shortage.

Edward G. Robinson was dying during the production of the film, and in fact died the evening after his final scene. Early in the film is an improvised scene where Thorn and Sol (Heston and Robinson) feast on fresh food, practically non-existent in this world. It’s surprisingly impactful.

Elements of the story are a bit far fetched. The police just help themselves to items and furniture from a crime scene. Not that part. Climate change has devastated the environment and corporations control society. Not that either. We use the metric system. Seriously, what were they thinking?

Food, if you can call it that, is distributed in New York like it was a refugee camp. People sleep in hallways and staircases. Things like soap and pencils are a luxury. Soylent Green is an exceptionally prescient film. It could have been far preachier or leaned too far into levity. But it struck the right tone for 1973, and it strikes the right tone for now. AMRU 4.

Journey to Italy (1954)

A bickering couple (Ingrid Bergman and George Sanders) travel to Italy to resolve an estate they inherited. They discover that they do not enjoy each other’s company when not at home, so they bicker some more before exploring their own interests separately, nudge nudge.

Bergman made seven films during her “banishment” from Hollywood, most of which directed by her second husband, Roberto Rossellini. I hadn’t seen any of them and was eager to watch this, one of the highest rated.

Sanders and Bergman make an odd pair. Their acting styles were starkly different and had no chemistry. Sanders seemed to be in a different film from everyone else. He expressed a lot of frustration in his autobiography. This may be the only role of his I didn’t love. He was seriously miscast.

Journey to Italy wasn’t an unpleasant watch, but in the end it didn’t work for me. The majority of the film was a whole lot of nothing, and the ending felt unearned. I can’t express how little chemistry the leads had. They were to be a couple married with eight years of history together, but seemed like they just met at the start of filming. AMRU 2.5.

Young and Innocent (1937)

A man finds a dead woman on the beach and leaves to find help. He is seen “running away” so the cops make him the prime suspect and call it a day. He sneaks out of the courthouse and goes on the run. He convinces a pretty young woman to help him find the real killer. She is also the police chief’s daughter. Will love bloom?

Pretty Erica is very young (Nova Pilbeam was 17 during filming) and dashing Robert is innocent. She’s young and he’s innocent. Not a bad play on words. Much better of a title than “A Shilling for Candles”, the source material’s title. When it came to the US it was retitled “The Girl Was Young”, leaning hard into innuendo.

The setting isn’t very different from The 39 Steps (1935), with an accused but innocent man attached to a suspicious woman. Hitchcock revisited themes quite a bit. I’m surprised there wasn’t a scene on a train.

Young and Innocent was an unexpectedly fun watch. Two weeks on I admit I am struggling to recall the details, but I do remember being entertained. It’s a better “lesser Hitchcock”. AMRU 3.5.