#391- Gallipoli

Quick recap: The tale of two Australians who go off to fight in World War 1…..and it does not go well.

And stars a hot and sweaty Mel Gibson

Fun (?) fact: ANZAC Day was originally observed to honor the Australian and New Zealand soldiers who died in the Gallipoli campaign but is now a day to remember all those who died during war.

physically hot, not attractively hot. He was probably an anti-semitic jerk even back then

Thoughts and observations: 

As has become the standard PSA on this blog, war is hell. Gallipoli is no exception of course, so let’s see just how hellish the movie gets:

  • takes place during World War 1, one of the most hellish wars to date (1 POINT)
  • The characters are fictional but I got attached nonetheless and didn’t want anyone to die (1/2 POINT)
  • One of those characters was played by Mel Gibson (-5 POINTS)
  • The actual battle scene only takes place the last 20 minutes or so of the film (-1 POINT)
  • There are SO MANY dead bodies and the death is realistic (2 POINTS)
  • The English bungle everything and have Australian blood on their hands (1 POINT)
  • The training scenes take place in Cairo, against the backdrop of the pyramids ( beautiful setting but worth 0 POINTS)
  • The final scene is of the main character dying a most honorable death (3 POINTS)

So, based on the point system I created just this very second, Galipoli is certified ‘pretty freaking hellish’.

I was surprised by how much time was spent on getting to know the characters and learning about their love of sprinting. I kept wondering when it would be important to the battle and it definitely paid off in the final few scenes. And by saving the gory stuff for the very end, I was lured into a false sense of security that maybe this would be a successful battle and everyone would be ok. Like I said, pretty freaking hellish.

Watchability score: 4/5. Also some choice nudity if that is your thing

Up next: Journey to Italy

 

 

#390- The Nutty Professor

Quick recap: Professor Kelp is tired of being bullied by everyone so he creates a potion to turn him into a stronger version of himself. What emerges instead is Buddy Love- a handsome but absolute jerk of a person.

Is it weird that the pigtails turned me off more than Professor Kelp’s nerdy look?

Fun (?) fact: Here’s some hot 1960s gossip for you: Buddy Love was apparently based off of Jerry Lewis’ partner Dean Martin. What a scoop!

Baby Professor Kelp is the most offensive part of the movie. Fight me

Thoughts and Observations:

As my ten-year-old put it, ‘ That movie was………something. Not what I expected at all’. And to be fair, I agree wholeheartedly with him. When I suggested watching the movie together I roped him in by saying it was a light comedy. I think my exact words were, ‘It’s got NUTTY in the title! You can’t go wrong with that!’

It didn’t take long at all to realize how very wrong I was. The meanness of the bullies in the film didn’t bother me as much as I thought they would, which was surprising. Lewis worked hard to make sure everything was over the top in that regard. If I had to put my finger on it, I guess I felt mostly annoyed at the character of Professor Kelp more than sympathetic. Sure, the Dean of the college could’ve been nicer but this guy just blew a hole through a classroom on top of constantly letting football players stuff him into cabinets. And then there is the matter of Kelp having a mad crush on his student Stella, who looks 35 but wears pigtails for some unknown reason. I was so relieved when it came time for the transformation to happen because no matter what emerged, it had to be better than Kelp.

And here comes the second time I can admit wrong- what emerged was not in fact better. Buddy Love, Kelp’s alter ego may have been better looking but he was an absolute jerk to everyone, including Stella, his crush. Sure, Love could sing well and had a presence that made girls swoon but he was so awful. I did eventually have sympathy when Love transformed back to Kelp in front of everyone at the dance and admitted how awful both parts of him were. It was a really touching scene in a movie filled with so many cringeworthy moments.

The 1001 movies book that I get my research from made an excellent point that in some ways, Jerry Lewis playing Professor Kelp vs Buddy Love was showing Lewis’ public vs private side. The entertainer in different forms, so to speak. I don’t know much about Lewis to comment but I think that theme is one that almost anyone can relate to, to some extent.

Watchability score: I’ll go with 3/5 although my son would give it a 2.

Up next: Gallipoli

 

#389- Chimes at Midnight

Quick recap: Prince Hal loves his good buddy Falstaff until it’s time to become king and then he completely breaks off the friendship.

Fun (?) fact: Orson Welles had to actually slim down for the role of Falstaff.

Thoughts and observations:

Shakespearian language is beautiful, I suppose, except that I only understood about 10% of the movie. Maybe 15% if I’m feeling generous. To make matters worse, there wasn’t a subtitles option so I had to listen carefully like some commoner. About halfway through the movie I decided to stop trying to pay attention to what was said and instead treat Chimes at Midnight as if it were a silent film or a film in another language. And it worked, for the most part. I read the synopsis afterward, quite proud of myself for getting the gist of the movie.

But only getting the gist of a movie does not a good movie make. Was it well acted? Sure! Did the music set the tone? Definitely! Was the setting appropriate for the plot? Of course. But I just don’t see the point of ANOTHER film based on Shakespeare. This movie was made in 1965, coming right after several versions of Shakespeare plays and right before many, many more. Now, I’m a bit biased in this regard because literally the only version I have every enjoyed is Baz Luhrmann’s Romeo + Juliet. Minus the battle scene, which I’m still not entirely sure who was fighting who, making a film version didn’t add to the play at all. Same costumes as I’m accustomed to, same stale language, same pompous acting. And from the research I did (which was very little) really the only thing people loved was how fat Orson Welles was. If that’s the only criteria here, then this movie is a MASTERPIECE. I have no idea how Welles was able to move around and didn’t just keel over the second the director yelled, ‘cut!’. He actually went on to live another 20 years, which I’m more impressed about than anything else I learned from this movie.

 

Watchability score: 2/5. There are plenty of other films to watch if you want to see kings doing king things.

Up next: The Nutty Professor

#388- M

Quick recap: A child murderer is on the loose and everyone wants to see him caught: parents, the police and especially the criminals, whose good name is being ruined.

Fun (?) fact: Several groundbreaking techniques debuted in M, like voice-over narration and a musical theme to signify a character.

Bonus fact: Director Fritz Lang hired real criminals for the criminal court scene and several were later arrested.

Thoughts and Observations:

So, M was not the movie I expected at all. Not that I expected much because all I knew before watching it was that it was German and made in the early 30s. I pictured a mix of The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari and The Jazz Singer. Boy, was my face red when the very first scene was of a group of children singing a song about a murderer butchering them to bits! I still wasn’t quite sure what I had gotten myself into until a few scenes later when the little girl’s body has been dumped in a clearing and the camera focuses on her balloon, no longer tethered, drifting into wires above.

like most things made for children back then, this balloon is a whole other level of creepy

I would be simplifying things too much by calling M a ‘murder mystery’. Yes, murder takes place but Fritz Lang not only wanted to show how different sides were impacted but to get the audience to empathize with each one:

The parents: the first scene of a mother lovingly making lunch while waiting for her child to arrive home from school (which never happened) was especially heartbreaking to watch.

The citizens: The entire town was in a frenzy and willing to suspect literally anyone talking to a child but at the same time, they were dealing with a serial killer who left zero clues.

The police: It’s always fascinating to learn how police solved crimes before DNA matching. In this case, they had one fingerprint and……that’s about it. And the longer it took to catch the murderer, the greater change the city would lose their collective mind and more children would be killed.

The criminal underworld: Did NOT see this one coming but it makes sense. The police began raiding bars every night and rounding up anyone without papers because they had nothing else to go on. As a result, the criminals weren’t able to do their various illegal activities- plus, they are pickpockets not child killers.

and finally, the murderer himself, a former asylum patient released as cured but very much still sick. Played perfectly by Peter Lorre ( a little too perfectly because he had trouble shaking the role even years later), the murderer is so very creepy as he whistles ‘In the Hall of the Mountain King’. But I couldn’t help but have sympathy for him as he tried to outrun the mob. His most powerful scene comes during the ‘trial’ with the criminal underworld as he begs for mercy because he couldn’t help himself. And as disgusted as I was by his actions, I believed him. In the final few minutes of the film, the police arrive and arrest him before mob justice is carried out. He gets the treatment he needs but the parents are left asking if justice was really served. It’s a question we still ask to this day without any clear answer.

Watchability score: 5/5

Up next: Gabbeh