romarub Reviews

Viva Zapata! (1952)

A taut film

[10/10 · 4 April 2024]

Some reviewers seem to forget that this is a Hollywood film - entertainment - not a textbook history. As such, deviations from actual events, in places, is acceptable, even expected. It is one of my favorite films, and I've watched it dozens of times, know a lot of the dialogue, ad it has never bored me. The film is taut, thanks to Kazan's excellent direction. Every scene and word of dialogue has significant meani ng - as regards the plot, the mood, the characterizations, the development of who the characters are, what they represent, and how and why they further the story line. There is nothing wasted in this film, no "fillers". It is also to be commended on how smoothly it moves along, with clear and precise character developments. Even if certain characters and events are "created" or modified, the film works, as entertainment, and reasonably, as historical drama. If it doesn't satisfy one's thirst for actual detail, this film is the kind that wil spur them on to do further research into the characters and events depicted. Excellent, all around.

How the World Ends: Aliens Invade (2017) Season 1, Episode 6

A glaring omission in 1:6

[7/10 · 24 November 2023]

While the episode, Aliens Invade (1:6) was interesting and thought-provoking, there was one glaring oversight or omission that stood out. Joni Strother, one of the interviewed abductees, claimed that she was actually impregnated by an alien and that the fetus that resulted had to ultimately be aborted. The question is why there was no mention of any DNA test done on the fetus, or if and how it was preserved. This would have offered actual, tangible evidence not only as to the physical nature of the alleged aliens, but also to the veracity of Joni's story. Dr. Shostak, in another interview, even referred to the value of such DNA analysis as this in gleaning insight into who and what aliens might actually be. That this opportunity clearly presented itself in Joni Strother's case, but received no further mention or attention in the show, was most curious given the significance of information that might have been obtained.

Dark Passage (1947)

What did happen to Madge behind the drape, and why?

[8/10 · 31 October 2023]

Vince tells Irene on the phone, conclusively, that Madge "accidentally" fell out the window, but this conclusion is NOT supported by factual evidence presented in the film.. Madge went behind the drape knowing the window was there, it is heard breaking, and she falls (or jumps) out. Vince did not witness the actual event, and could not see or know how or why Madge actually exited the window - whether it was accidental or a deliberate act of suicide. Yet this remains the only unchallenged explanation given of what happened to Madge, and UNSUPPORTED BY FACT. The other plausible possibility, is that Madge committed suicide,. Jumping deliberately, an explanation that fits in perfectly, and is supported, factually, by earlier plot events and ultimate revelations. Madge had just previously taunted Vince, trying to convince him - and HERSELF - that she could not be proven guilty of the murder. He argued that she could. She goes behind the drape, and falls (or jumps) out the window. Listening to Vince, Madge seems to have been unable to convince HERSELF she couldn't be found guilty. Concluding that Madge fell by "accident" is pure speculation; concluding that she committed suicide by jumping, is consistent and comports with the earlier events and revelations in the film Madge likely jumped out of frustration and a realization she could not get away with the crime, which Vince made her see.

D.O.A. (1949)

Past events presented at multiple levels

[10/10 · 5 October 2022]

For me, this is the #1 film noir, with excellent performances, atmosphere and intrigue throughout. It is unique not only in that the preceding events are told and depicted in retrospect, but also in that the telling of Bigelow's story serves as the means of revealing the even earlier key events that came before. The movie, in effect, relates to events on multiple levels of time, all at once. Although I find no contradictions in the plot, the number of characters presented, both in the immediate story being told, and those described by them whose actions and relation to events are only described by them but are not themselves depicted on the screen, seems to result in an inordinate number of characters seen or described, overall, and in relatively rapid succession.. Given all of the names, with at least one ultimately identified by 2 different names, and the necessity of having to consider how these characters relate to the somewhat complex plot and to one another, confusion can result as the plot moves on in rapid order. Nevertheless, the overall sequence of events depicted or described, in succession, conveys a general overall understandable impression of the events of the story, enough to satisfy an overall comprehension of the plot. I attempted to make a chart of the characters and relate them to the plot and to one another, my confusion being what it was. This was the only problem I had with this film, but I was ultimately able to fit all the named or depicted characters into place relative to the story. I find it somewhat ironic that this movie appeals to me as much as it does (it's one of my favorites) given the extreme complexity of plot, and characters both named or depicted - yet it does. Perhaps the action and the acting make up for the problems I've alluded to. I've sufficiently overcome the difficulties in watching this film whenever it is shown on TV, even though I still take time to go over the characters' significance (both those shown and those only described). The action in this film dominates, and beautifully, and the names of the characters, it seems, is only of secondary importance. Overall, I think this is a great film.

Seinfeld: The Maestro (1995) Season 7, Episode 3

An error in the cast listing?

[11 November 2021]

Although the credits list "Gary Yates" as the actor who plays the security guard, this cannot be correct. The only actor of this name is white, while the security guard is black. Seinfeld, it seems, erred in this credit listing. The actor who played the security guard actually resembles, and strongly so, both visually and vocally, the actor Gene Anthony Ray who died in 2003, and who played Leroy in the movie, Fame (1980). Although that movie came out a dozen years prior to The Maestro,, the strong resemblance is still there.

Union Pacific (1939)

Astounding similarities with Whispering Smith ((1948)

[8/10 · 22 September 2021]

Robert Preston appears in very similar roles in 2 films, both with very similar plots: Union Pacific (1939) and Whispering Smith (1948) .Both movies center around railroading; Preston plays a likable but misguided "heavy" in both; in Union Pacific, Joel McCRea plays a lawman to Alan Ladd's title character, Whispering Smith; in Union Pacific, Barbara Stanwyck plays the love interest, married to one, romantically attracted to the other male leads - in Whispering Smith, Brenda Marshal plays a very similar character; in his film, Ladd has William Demarest as his sidekick, while in Union Pacific, McCrea has Akim Tamiroff and Lynne Overman; in both films, the likable but misguided Robert Preston characters die at the end; both films take place in roughly the same era; in both films the heavy (Preston) was a good friend of the leading good guy (McCrea or Ladd) from way back when; in both films the lead (McCrea or Ladd) tries to get their old friend, Preston, back on the track to decency by reasoning with him; in Union Pacific, the arch demon is played by Brian Donlevy, while in Whispering Smith, he's played by Donald Crisp; there are train wrecks galore in both films; both the McCrea and Ladd character work for the railroads. There are other parallels, as well, so many that it would seem that Union Pacific served as a rough template for Whispering Smith to a large extent, with Preston playing essentially the same, or very similar, character roles in both films.

Whispering Smith (1948)

Astounding similarities with Union Pacific (1939)

[8/10 · 22 September 2021]

This film bears an amazing number of similarities with the earlier film, Union Pacific (1939), yetI cannot find any reference to any relation between the 2 films. Both are railroad films, the characters are very similar (in fact Robert Preston plays very similar characters in both films!), the plots are very similar as are the character relationships, etc. That the writers for each film are different is hard to explain, If you watch each film you cannot miss the many similarities. For example: Robert Preston appears in very similar roles in 2 films, both with very similar plots: Union Pacific (1939) and Whispering Smith (1948) .Both movies center around railroading; Preston plays a likable but misguided "heavy" in both; in Union Pacific, Joel McCRea plays a lawman to Alan Ladd's title character, Whispering Smith; in Union Pacific, Barbara Stanwyck plays the love interest, married to one, romantically attracted to the other male leads - in Whispering Smith, Brenda Marshal plays a very similar character; in his film, Ladd has William Demarest as his sidekick, while in Union Pacific, McCrea has Akim Tamiroff and Lynne Overman; in both films, the likable but misguided Robert Preston characters die at the end; both films take place in roughly the same era; in both films the heavy (Preston) was a good friend of the leading good guy (McCrea or Ladd) from way back when; in both films the lead (McCrea or Ladd) tries to get their old friend, Preston, back on the track to decency by reasoning with him; in Union Pacific, the arch demon is played by Brian Donlevy, while in Whispering Smith, he's played by Donald Crisp; there are train wrecks galore in both films; both the McCrea and Ladd character work for the railroads. There are other parallels, as well, so many that it would seem that Union Pacific served as a rough template for Whispering Smith to a large extent, with Preston playing essentially the same, or very similar, character roles in both films.

Calamity Jane (1953)

A wonderful movie in all departments

[9/10 · 3 April 2021]

This is an an uplifting, entertaining, fun filled, and gorgeous film. Everything about it is top-notch, and the songs rank among those of the best musicals. Doris Day shines in this, as does everyone in the cast. Howard Keel is superb, as always. I've known and loved this film from the time it came out and it keeps on shining through the years. The kind of film that doesn't get old!

The Wrong Man (1956)

How did Hitchcock miss this fatal flaw in The Wrong Man?

[8/10 · 2 September 2020]

There is a fatal flaw in this film that undermines its entire premise, yet Hitchcock, incredibly, let it slip by. Not once in the film is it pointed out or questioned that Manny would return to the scene of the crime a third time after allegedly having robbed the insurance company not once, but twice earlier, and then reveal his true identity in trying to take out a loan on an insurance policy. Manny, alone, should have pointed out the irony of this, which would have demolished any charge against him for committing the robberies, and, surely, his attorney should have made this a major point of his defense. But neither Manny, his attorney, nor anyone else makes any mention of this irony throughout the film, incredibly. This would seem even stronger proof of Manny's innocence than providing alibis for his being elsewhere when the crimes were committed. Common sense was the real victim here.

Enter Laughing (1967)

A Very Funny Movie

[7/10 · 29 July 2020]

This is a very funny film even though it's plot parallels that of a good number of other such good films where a youth is torn between one heartfelt life pursuit while his family had decided on another course for him. I knew I had seen Reni Santoni before, and then it dawned on me that I'd seen him (and continue to see him in reruns) on Seinfeld as Poppie in several episodes, all in which Santoni has a distinct Italian accent, obviously put on, as I now realize. Once I came to that realization, it was hard for me to disassociate Santoni from those Seinfeld appearances of some 30 years later. Nevertheless, I think Santoni did an excellent job in this film, with understated and believable humor. I, as others have noted, was somewhat surprised that he had been selected for the role of a Jewish Bronx resident when he hardly looks Jewish and does look decidedly Hispanic or Italian. Santino's acting and comic sense did, ultimately, lead me to accept, and appreciate his performance in this role. This role should have led to a greater appreciation of him and to greater celebrity, but such is life. Shelley Winters did an acceptable job as Mrs. Kolowitz, I think, but Shelley, to my thinking, at least, almost always allowed her personality and persona to overshadow the role itself, and that was the case here. I am not criticizing Shelley Winters, the actress, for whom I had much admiration, but Shelley always seemed to be more "Shelley" than the character she was portraying. Perhaps I relate to her too closely as far as our backgrounds are concerned. Overall, though, this was a picture worth seeing - and laughing along with - from entry to exit.

The St. Valentine's Day Massacre (1967)

Interesting, Entertaining and Cartoonish

[7/10 · 9 January 2020]

I can't understand how anyone can compare this to The Godfather, which was a fictional crime drama saga masterpiece. While entertaining, THE SAINT VALENTINE'S DAY MASSACRE, is a pseudo-documentary style expose of the people and circumstances related to the actual titled event. While basic facts may be accurately depicted, much of the film is a stereotypical, cartoonish depiction of the thugs and gangsters of the '20's. Jason Robards, a fine actor, is totally unconvincing as Al Capone. No only does he not resemble Capone in the least, but his speech pattern doesn't support the character he's playing, and he overacts throughout the film. He has the absolutely worst Italian accent imaginable - really laughable. In his very small uncredited role, Jack Nicholson says his one line in a ridiculous, gangster-like accent. For al its faults, though, I found this film to be both entertaining and laughable at times, though I don't think the latter was its intent.

Roar (1981)

Why?

[3/10 · 7 July 2017]

This script-less hodge-podge of a film is about as entertaining as a car wreck! It almost makes SeaWorld's former captivity and maltreatment of killer whales seem humane and inspirational! There seems little doubt that self-indulgence, bordering on the psychotic, was responsible for this exercise in stupidity and childish excess - with, perhaps, a hint of a death wish thrown in for good measure.

That laws were not in place to prevent the kind of animal abuse the film is reliant on, even at the time the film was made, is a sad commentary on our society. Thankfully, things have changed in the intervening years, denying the possibility of a repeat of the kind of fiasco this film represents. That anyone can find any redeeming quality in this production, especially if they consider themselves animal lovers, is beyond me. Abuse is abuse, and wild is wild. And sick, is sick - which is about what this film boils down to, especially considering its production history and background.

The Wheel (1923)

Too Long, Too Dark - but interesting

[8/10 · 29 March 2012]

I agree with just about everything that's been written in the reviews (many of which, however, seem as monstrously long as the film, itself!). I think it was my interest in trains and railroading that sustained me for 4-1/2 hours, although the characters and action were interesting, if too, too progressively dark, dark. Those locomotive models were particularly interesting to me - so sad when that locomotive slipped from Sisif's hands . . . . That "slide valve vaporization" device that Sisif was working on caught my attention at once, but I'm not clear if the civil engineer, Hersan, profited by getting credit for it. Overall, a fascinating, if overlong, ride!

Lure of the Wilderness (1952)

Constance Smith/Jean Peters

[7/10 · 26 December 2008]

When I happened to come upon this film on TV, Constance Smith was on the screen. Immediately, I thought of Jean Peters because the resemblance was so great. I even thought she WAS Jean Peters, although the eye color and absence of the turned up tip of the nose gave me reason to doubt my initial impression. Lo and behold, who did I find was also in the film - Jean Peters! I did not see any reference in the film to the resemblance between the two, but I wonder if they were cast together because of this resemblance (admittedly, a subjective impression on my part). Perhaps there was an unstated implication that Jeffrey Hunter was attracted to Jean because of her resemblance to his "fiancee", played by Constance. In any event, a very good, if relatively unknown film, even as a remake of the generally more highly rated film it's derived from (with Walther Brennan in both!).

The Corn Is Green (1945)

Questionable action by Miss Moffat, and Morgan's response

[9/10 · 14 September 2007]

I've loved this movie since I first saw it, although there's one thing that bothers me about the story. That Miss Moffat should have even suggested to Morgan that he not come to see her or his illegitimate child again, and make Oxford his sole involvement for the immediate future, seems to have been extremely presumptuous on her part, maybe even heartless. She is determined to retain her own "creation" ( i.e.Morgan, as the Oxford scholar), but deny his to him ( i.e. His son). This is particularly troubling because, as in the case of divorced couples in which the mother is granted custody of the children, the father often is given visitation rights. There seems no legitimateno reason why Morgan could not have seen his son, even if adopted by Miss Moffat (who might be explained as an "aunt" or "grandparent"). Bessie had no interest in the child, in any case.

That Morgan should have conceded to Moffat's wishes, portrays him as being somewhat of a wimp. Moffat, through her pronounced influence over Morgan, seems almost to have given him with one hand, and to have taken away with the other. The result is that he becomes more of a scholar, but less of a human being. In one moment he loudly proclaims his role and responsibility in creating this life, but almost immediately after, is dissuaded from his dedication by Miss Moffat and her influence over him to achieve her own, selfish objective - to see Morgan succeed so that, vicariously, her personal efforts are rewarded and she is fulfilled.

Yes, Miss Moffat is the staunch, devoted teacher who has "discovered" Morgan as her "diamond in the rough". She has his best interests at heart, but also her own selfishness, as well, in seeing that her "creation" succeeds, at any cost, made evident by the movie's end. She wants them both to succeed but sees her success as possible only by having Morgan abandon his own flesh and blood in pursuit of the "higher goals" she has set for him. She has, in effect, exerted a form of "mind control" over Morgan, effectively having him reject his justified sense of paternal love so that she may be fulfilled. This development always leaves me with a bitter taste in my mouth.

711 Ocean Drive (1950)

Still entertaining, warts and all!

[7/10 · 7 July 2007]

711 Ocean Drive was indeed preachy, as attested to and confirmed by the blurbs at both beginning and end. Still, I found the film interesting and entertaining (although D.O.A. remains my all-time favorite O'Brien, and one of my top favorites, overall). The character of Mal Granger really presented a sharp and unexpected contrast to that of Frank Bigelow in D.O.A. The real surprise in this film came early on when the personality of Granger, itself, did a 180-degree turnaround, from the benign, carefree and kindly telephone repairman (who insisted his co-worker accept a few bucks that he was in need of), to the ruthless, unscrupulous, and murderous "operator" for whom even a little power is seen to surely corrupt. Although the early-on character of Granger is seen for only the first 15 or 20 minutes of the film, the contrast remained with me throughout. An excellent characterization by O'Brien, as usual.

They Shall Have Music (1939)

Another uncredited and unmentioned cast member?

[25 June 2007]

I caught a clip of this film with Heifetz's performance of Tchaikovsky's Violin Concerto on YouTube - which was phenomenal. Watching the performance from the wings with Andrea Leeds was an actor who looks exactly like Frank McHugh (with mustache), but there's no mention of him in the cast, or of this appearance on his biography page. I assume he was an extra even though he was rather prominent in this single(?), non-speaking appearance in the film. Can anyone confirm if it was him, one way or the other?

Does anyone know if this movie is available on VHS or DVD? I remember seeing it, I believe, on TV, but I'm not certain as to whether I watched a clip of it in a documentary biography of Heifetz, or saw the film, itself.

The Magic Cottage (1949–1955)

I was also a regular viewer of The Magic Cottage

[10/10 · 11 June 2007]

I only recently (within the last 10 years!) discovered how Pat Miekle's named was spelled. I think I still remember that safety ditty manginess mentioned:

Johnny (or Jenny) was only jaywalking/ S(he) didn't mean harm to a soul/ But because (s)he was only jaywalking/ An auto went out of control./ Two thousand pounds of chrome and steel/ Flying through the air,/ That was the end of an automobile,/ And innocent kids that were there,/ etc., etc.

Thanks for bringing that back. It obviously really made an impression. I was also a great fan of Ray Forest's Children's Theater. (I spotted his obituary in the NY Times a few years ago and the past came reaching into the present.) Ah!, the good old days . . . .

Untamed (1955)

Katie O'Neill is a very unsatisfying character

[5/10 · 23 December 2005]

I was amazed that Katie (Susan Hayward) could be such a bitch - so self-centered, so arrogant, so unappreciative, and so willfully embroiling Paul (Tyrone Power) and Kurt (Richard Egan) in a contest over her affections - and not be justifiably rewarded, even a little, by film's end. She slaps Paul in the face, teases and flirts, then rejects, then accepts Kurt, all while being in love (?) with Paul. I found it most incredible that Paul could lower himself to the point of actually pursuing (let alone ending up with) her after she tells him that she'd married her husband and had a child with him, watched him die (without a twinge of emotion) defending her and the wagon train, and came to South Africa in the first place just so she could be near him, Paul! This woman is unscrupulous to the nth degree, and that she could avoid any degree of lasting hellfire, and could repeatedly twist the two male love interests (Paul and Kurt) around her little finger throughout the film, was wholly unsatisfying. Kurt was somewhat hotheaded, and I'd have expected him to come to the end he does. But Paul seemed more rational, and should have disassociated himself from this woman as soon as he got that slap - but didn't. Life may be unjust, but in the movies we expect to see villainy uncovered and subject to its own reward. Not only was Katie not so repaid, but the male leads looked stupid in the process for not seeing who and what she really was. Thumbs down, all around!

Frontline: Memory of the Camps (1984) Season 3, Episode 18

A masterpiece of visual imagery and narration

[10/10 · 23 May 2005]

Although there have been many films documenting the Nazi atrocities and the horrors of the extermination camps, Memory of the Camps must rank at the top of this genre in effectively conveying the sense of unreality experienced by the Nazi's victims. While the visual record is preserved for posterity and has been incorporated in many tellings of these events, Trevor Howard's narration must be singled out as, perhaps, the major contributor in making this particular telling of the story the true masterpiece that it is. As has been noted, Howard's straightforward narration, devoid of emotional embellishment, conveys, almost matter-of-factly, the events that unfold, and it is through this underplay in tone in the telling of the story, that the true depths of the surreal horror seen on the screen, impinges upon the viewer. Although I saw this documentary several years ago, it is Howard's narration that sets this telling apart, and recalling it continues to send chills up my spine.

The Fugitive (1993)

Too fantastic a thriller?

[8/10 · 6 February 2005]

The Fugitive is, indeed, a fast-paced action thriller and mystery drama which portrays the trials and tribulations, as well as determination, of Dr. Richard Kimble (Harrison Ford) in his attempt to elude authorities and prove himself not guilty of a crime he was convicted of, all while tracking down the real murderer. But in large part, the film must be viewed as a cartoon-like fantasy, with reality taking a back seat to the action. In his relentless attempts to escape the doggedly pursuing Detective Gerard (Tommy Lee Jones), Kimble encounters an incredible amount of unbelievably good luck in the number of golden opportunities that seem to materialize out of the blue to satisfy his needs of the moment, serendipitously providing him access to the means and paraphernalia by which he, conveniently, is able to repeatedly slip from Gerard's grasp and carry on his pursuit of the real murderer. Everything, from needed clothing just being available at the right time and place to be of use to Kimble, to a subway car stopping short in an emergency, but with its door just happening to be in position to allow access to the station platform, almost laughably discredit any link to reality the movie may lay claim to. The viewer, however, will not be bored.

Fidel (2002 TV Movie)

I couldn't bear watching it.

[2/10 · 27 April 2002]

I was very surprised, and disappointed, at what I thought was a very amateurishly acted movie. I expected something dynamic, controversial, and last but not least, interesting. Instead the acting seemed wooden (I can't think of a better way to describe it), the characters, unlike their real-life counterparts, devoid of life. The word "amateurish" kept popping into my head as I watched what I could of it - then I just gave up. I'm assuming the actors and creative staff must know what they're doing, but it just didn't come together in this "production". I was almost embarrassed for all the people involved in the making of this film.

Guess Who's Coming to Dinner (1967)

Mrs. Drayton's absence of liberalism

[8/10 · 21 April 2002]

There is one scene in this film that is hard to swallow. Mrs. Drayton fires Hilary in a very nasty, abrupt manner, but is she really punishing Hilary in place of herself? Hilary's expression of shock at the upcoming marriage, even if it implies a degree of prejudice, is nevertheless understandable given the sudden revelation of the impending marriage. The firing seems irrational and unjustified. Hilary's lack of hesitancy in expressing her sentiments to Mrs. Drayton implies that the latter has expressed similar sentiments, herself (why else would Hilary, who has known Mrs. Drayton for some time, be so candid with her if she didn't feel she was addressing a sympathetic ear?). Mrs. Drayton's action is really an overreaction. The Dr., in fact, earlier tells Mrs. Drayton that she looks as if she's going to faint when the news of the marriage is broken to her. Mrs. Drayton's actions vis-a-vis Hilary shows her willingness to punish others for her own feelings, real or imagined; this caused me to lose a significant degree of respect for her for the rest of the film. Am I stating the obvious?