It's a Wonderful Life (1946)

Director: Frank Capra
Writer(s): Capra, Frances Goodrich, and Albert Hackett, from a story by Philip Van Doren Stern
Starring: James Stewart, Donna Reed, Lionel Barrymore, and Thomas Mitchell

How I had never seen Frank Capra’s It’s a Wonderful Life up until now is a mystery that could puzzle even the world’s greatest detective.  Although my mom and I never really watched a lot of Christmas movies together growing up, save for the old Rudolph and Frosty animated television shorts, this one was by far her favorite.  So far, I’ve purchased it for her twice in two separate Christmases—one way back when I was a teenager, on VHS, and one just a few years ago, on DVD.  I suppose in another handful of years, I’ll probably be buying it for her on whatever futuristic media lies beyond Blu-Ray (unless she eventually latches onto that one).  Yet I don’t recall her ever inviting me to watch it with her, and I know for sure that I never asked her to.

Adding to the mystery is how my wife—whose family still reveres Christmas with the same childhood enthusiasm that unfortunately left me as soon as I left childhood—had also gone the first 26 years of her life having never watched it.  It’s a film that has come to signify the spirit and the meaning of Christmas, perhaps moreso than any other, for millions of people worldwide.  With that in mind, we both set out to right our wrongs and vowed to make this the year that we would finally sit down to a viewing.

You probably know the film’s plot by heart, but I still feel the need to at least throw together a brief summary in the off chance you are uninitiated: James Stewart plays George Bailey, a businessman who helps run a loan company in the small town of Bedford Falls.  Even from his younger days, he has always planned to leave the town and travel around the world the first chance he got, but the death of his father prevents that, and puts him at the head of The Bailey Brothers’ Building and Loan.

Every movie needs a villain, and this one comes in the form of Henry Potter, the richest man in town.  He runs a bank (and just about everything else around), and is used to people falling at his feet; in George, he finds a rival, a man that refuses to bow down to him and accept his greatness.  This frustrates him, and he is constantly plotting ways to either get him on his side or, when that fails, permanently ruin his life.

In the span of one night, George becomes suicidal, which we are alerted will happen at the beginning of the film.  He’s about to jump off a bridge to kill himself, when a man jumps in before him, so George jumps in to save him.  Why George picked that bridge to jump off to kill himself, knowing that the fall wasn’t far enough to kill him outright, is a pretty glaring oversight, but whatever.  Anyway, he saves the "man", who as it turns out is not a man at all, but an angel sent to save him!  I will admit, I fell asleep right after this part, and woke up as he was excited about life again, exclaiming “Merry Christmas” to every stranger he bumps into on the street, in that ridiculously cheesy, over-the-top manner that millions somehow find “endearing”.

Then it of course ends on a happy note, with George avoiding bankruptcy and the townsfolk all banding together to pitch in enough money to replace the 8,000 crucial dollars that he had lost (which Potter found and kept, in a further attempt to ruin George).  It seems George’s generous life of giving has finally turned around back on him!  The citizens of Bedford Falls all pour into his house, all offering him as much money as they can afford, in that ridiculously cheesy, over-the-top manner that millions find “charming”.  Soon after, the words “The End” appeared on screen, and I just felt a sudden burst of happiness in my own life—is this why people find it so inspiring?

It’s a Wonderful Life feels like it was filmed in real-time—it drags and drags on, all just to set up its twenty minute grand finale that I fell asleep through.  It’s all competently made (even though it’s poorly edited, with several terrible jump cuts; then again I don’t watch many old movies, and so it might be a part of movies from that time period), but for a well-received comedy/drama, there are very few laughs, and very little drama.  One thing I hate about old movies that prevents me from forcing myself to sit through them, is the acting technique, in which people virtually yell as loud as they can while striking a pose (a slight exaggeration, but nevertheless a distant cousin to the acting of today).  Such technique is on full display here, and so none of the performances really resonated with me—James Stewart’s actually felt the most exaggerated of the bunch.  But film scholars say it’s good, so I guess it must be!

George’s transformation, from generous, good-natured man, to suddenly suicidal, is just another aspect that feels completely artificial; the way his luck abruptly changes would be more apt in a comedy movie, than one actually attempting to toy with its viewer’s emotions.  I get that his business was struggling for a while, but watching him yell at his children, become an alcoholic, and contemplate killing himself by jumping off the world’s shortest bridge, all basically within a 24-hour span, was legendarily tacky.  People really fall for this empty, forced junk?

As with many Christmas films, and maybe even films in general, I think a lot of warm feelings people get from certain movies, stems from a sense of nostalgia.  Many children grow up watching the same films over and over, beginning from early childhood, and there isn’t even a sliver of doubt early exposure to certain films can create a lifelong appreciation of them that can carry over into their adult years.  The same can be said for movies that are widely accepted as “classics”, which automatically tends to put the viewer in the mindset of unequivocally enjoying the movie, because he or she feels like they are supposed to.

I went in simply with an open mind, and was rewarded with a long evening of boredom, punctuated with an all-too-brief nap that would prove to be the highlight of my viewing experience.

RECAP: It’s a Wonderful Life is a long, drawn-out movie that follows a poorly-written character as he somehow becomes suicidal all within the span of a single day.  Then he learns that such thoughts are silly, because he has too much to live for!  Relying on a series of cheap sentimental scenes, it has, not surprisingly, been hailed as a classic by critics and the masses, who always prove to be suckers for forced writing and empty emotions.  In an ironic twist, I felt like jumping off a bridge by the time it finally ended.

RATING: 3/10

TRAILER

The Night of the Hunter (1955)

Director: Charles Laughton

Writer(s): James Agee, from a novel by Davis Grubb

Starring: Robert Mitchum, Shelley Winters, Billy Chapin, and Sally Jane Bruce

The first time I saw Night of the Hunter, I must have been a teenager; I rented it after hearing all about what a terrifying movie it was.  But back then, I didn’t have much patience for anything other than gore, and I spent just about the entire movie in a state of constant boredom.  Flash forward a decade, and after seeing it still get brought back up in “scariest movie of all time” discussions, I wanted to give it another chance.

Robert Mitchum plays Harry Powell, a traveling preacher who only stops in towns to seduce women, and then murder them for their money, all in the name of God.  While serving some time in prison for vehicular theft, he’s placed in a cell with Ben Harper, a man who killed two people while robbing a bank of $10,000, and was subsequently sentenced to death.  Since the two have nothing but time to talk, Ben casually suggests that he has hidden the money somewhere in his house, though he doesn’t specify where; doesn’t matter, as this is already music to Harry’s ears.

After he is released, Harry heads to the house of Willa Harper, Ben’s widow (by this time, his sentence for hanging has been carried out), where he “seduces” her, getting her to marry him very shortly after meeting him.  John, Willa’s young son, dislikes the preacher right from the outset, but he’s having problems convincing his younger sister, Pearl, to do the same.

I’ll start off with an honest inquiry: How is a reviewer supposed to approach “classic” movies from the past?  Should he review it as if it were released in this day and age?  Should he transport himself back to the year it was released, and pretend as if he’s watching it for the first time?  Or should he simply conform to popular opinion, and just profess that it’s a good movie, whether or not that’s what he truly believes? 

Well I’m just going to go out on a limb and say that, even ten years after originally viewing it, Night of the Hunter is still boring.  It was no doubt shocking when it was released back in 1955, but a lot of things have changed in 60 years—for the most part now, it feels incredibly dated, which dilutes many of its climactic scenes.  The acting from the two main child stars, most notably the little girl, is completely nonexistent; she just throws out her lines with reckless abandon, and apparently no one behind the camera cared if her tone matched her mood.  The writing is quite terrible, with characters frequently behaving simply at the whim of the script, with little logical framework to back up their actions.  Many reviews dismiss these problems by claiming the film was attempting a dreamlike atmosphere, which feels like a cop-out to allow them to like a movie that they otherwise wouldn't.

The only aspect where the film manages to succeed are in the visuals, courtesy of cinematographer Stanley Cortez; this is a movie that’s gorgeously, brilliantly shot.  Even by today’s standards, there are several scenes that will stay with you for the rest of your life, like Willa’s lifeless body floating underwater, or the scene of the preacher riding a horse across a sunset, his body seen in silhouette as the kids watch him from afar.  While I found the score to be just an average example of early orchestral fluff, the use of the Christian hymn “Leaning on the Everlasting Arms” as a motif for terror is quite an inspired, and another absolutely genius, artistic decision.

But while there’s no denying that Cortez’s images will sear themselves into your brain, and hymns make a great backdrop to attempted terror, the problem is everything else will drop out instantly.  I will not remember a single scene of Willa Harper alive, and the only way the children remain memorable, is for the sheer stupidity of their performances.  That might sound harsh to say about the acting chops of a six-year-old girl, and slightly older boy, but come on—pretty much the entire movie is centered around them, so you would think they would have gotten children that could actually emote.  And if you think I’m exaggerating, the fact that both of their careers were over by the end of the ‘50s (while both of them are still alive today) is only further proof of their inability to carry a picture.

RECAP: Night of the Hunter is considered a “classic”, and by badmouthing it, I think I have just rejected my American citizenship.  But I don’t care; while this might have been a perfectly frightening movie 60 years ago, just about everything, save for its extraordinary visuals, and its excellent use of "Leaning on the Everlasting Arms", are incredibly dated today.  Clearly, I’m in the minority in my beliefs (it frequently holds a spot on the IMDb’s top 250 list), so take my opinion with a grain of salt, but the acting (mainly from the two young leads) is atrocious, and the writing leaves a lot to be desired.  Maybe it’s just not my cup of tea, but I found Night of the Hunter to be an overrated horror "classic".

RATING: 5/10

TRAILER

Short Night of Glass Dolls (1971)

Director: Aldo Lado
Writer(s): Lado; additional dialogue provided by Ruediger von Spies
Starring: Ingrid Thulin, Jean Sorel, Mario Adorf, and Barbara Bach

What can you say about a film like Aldo Lado’s Short Night of Glass Dolls (original title, Short Night of the Butterflies)?  It was released to DVD as part of Anchor Bay’s Giallo Collection in the early 2000s where I purchased it based entirely on the brief synopsis on the back.  But while it certainly has some elements of the giallo, marketing it in this way does the film a little bit of a disservice; I was expecting at least some blood and gore, a staple of the subgenre, to help keep me entertained, and upon first viewing, was massively disappointed when there was next to none.

Knowing that for this go-around, I went in with a more open mind.  While I still feel it falls short of its potential—it manages to drag very slowly in places, and the plot goes a little too far off the deep end—there are still moments of genuine suspense, with an absolutely pitch-perfect, and pitch black, ending.

Gregory Moore is an American journalist visiting Prague with his beautiful girlfriend Mira.  Shortly after attending a party with Greg, she disappears, and in true giallo style, he teams up with a few friends to look for her himself.  The police don’t take kindly to his attempts at heroics, and when nothing else seems to turn up, start looking at him as a suspect.  Can he get to the bottom of the mystery, before it’s too late?

Sounds like a simple, straightforward little mystery, right?  Well, Short Night has one absolutely brilliant twist:  Gregory Moore is incapacitated from the beginning, discovered lying in bushes by a groundskeeper and believed to be dead.  But while he is physically paralyzed, his brain functions as normal; so the entire story above unfolds in his memories, as he’s trying to piece everything together as his body is prepared for an autopsy.  It essentially plays out like a story-within-a-story; we cut back and forth between his visions, and sequences in a morgue, where he silently pleads for people to realize that he’s still alive.  Despite the film’s tendency to drag in parts, there is a great gradual, raising tension between the mystery of Mira’s whereabouts, and his own fate—as he gets closer to the truth in his mind, it becomes a race against the clock to beat the start of his own autopsy.    

That gives Short Night enough to elevate it above typical mystery fare, but I found the ending to Mira’s story be rather convoluted and…well…stupid.  The internet is rife with conjecture about what happened (well, “rife” is a strong word, considering I don’t think many people have even seen this), but no one seems to know for sure, and even Lado himself seems to sidestep specifics.  It definitely has a feeling of surrealism, but given the relative tameness of the rest of the movie, it really feels out of place.  I can see where that kind of juxtaposition could make it infinitely more shocking, but it felt tacky to me.  The ending to Greg’s story, though, packs a helluva punch.

On a technical front, Short Night is very impressive.  The cinematography is always good, but a couple scenes are memorable.  Ennio Morricone’s score isn’t befitting his best work, but it serves the movie well.  Its biggest downfall are the dubbed voices and English dialogue…I would have much preferred subtitles, but there doesn’t seem to be a version available in its original Italian language.  As it stands, the dubbed voices are pretty bad, and the English dialogue is sometimes atrocious.  But I guess these are small prices to pay for the convenience of having this film available on DVD, so I’m at least gracious in that regard.

RECAP: It drags in some parts, and the English dubbing is frequently awful, but Short Night of Glass Dolls is still a unique entry in the Italian giallo subgenre, helped along by a fascinating, original plot and a brilliant finale that will hit you like a ton of bricks.  Gorehounds will be severely disappointed—there’s nary a drop of blood—but those that enjoy mysteries should really get a kick out of this.

RATING: 7/10

TRAILER

De dødes tjern (Lake of the Dead)

Director: Kåre Bergstrøm

Writer(s): Bergstrøm, adapted from a novel by André Bjerke

Starring:  André Bjerke, Bjørg Engh, Henki Kolstad, Per Lillo-Stenberg

A while back, I did some fairly extensive research into what people think is the scariest movie of all time, simply because I wanted to find one that would terrify me.  Of course, there are the usual suspects: Psycho and The Exorcist, but I wanted to dig much deeper than that.  I looked at many older movies (such as The Uninvited, Dead of Night, etc.), and many foreign ones (A Tale of Two Sisters, Shutter, etc.) and somehow in my travels, combined both “foreign” and “old”, stumbling on a long-forgotten Norwegian horror film from the 1950s.

Well, it’s not forgotten elsewhere:  In Norway, De dødes tjern is revered with the same amount of respect that we level at films such as Frankenstein and Dracula…it is their all-time horror classic.  This alone had me intrigued from the outset.  Tracking it down, at least here in the U.S., took some detective work, as it has never officially been released to DVD; once I finally got my paws on it, I eagerly dug in.

The plot couldn’t be any simpler:  Five friends go to an old cabin in the middle of woods (gee, sound familiar?), where there is a legend of a screaming ghost that haunts the shores of the lake.  Of course, there are some subplots that eventually work their way into the story (one character’s brother is supposedly staying at the cabin, but won’t respond to her calls), but just the basic synopsis got my skin crawling, and I thought of all the ways that this could terrify me.

This was actually my second time watching it, and I felt the same exact way as I did the first:  It fell quite a ways short of the (admittedly high) mark that I had set for it.  While the filmmakers clearly were shooting for a creepy atmosphere more than straight-up shocks, they’re done in by curious nighttime scenes that are so heavily saturated with light, they literally resemble the daytime sequences.  That’s a shame, too, because there are a couple sequences (one involving some pretty good stop-motion animation) that do an excellent job of ratcheting up the tension.  With some darker photography, I feel like this really could have achieved the high level of terror that it was going for.

Also taking me out of it (minor spoilers ahead) was the final description of what really happened (something that seemed to be required of all old movies, lest the audience should actually be required to follow along).  The entire movie is based around these supernatural theories, and to have a “real world” explanation was kind of disappointing.  Without saying too much, I will say the final shot is ambiguous, and hints that there might have been supernatural elements at play after all, but having everything wrapped up so cleanly, complete with a tiny little bow just seems counterproductive.  When will filmmakers learn that the fewer questions you answer, the more unsettling your film will be?

While the end result was nowhere near my expectations, this is still a film that deserves a far wider amount of respect than it has received.  I’m shocked at the kinds of movies that revel in the spotlight (Sharknado, anyone?), while others, far more deserving of attention, simply disappear.  Despite its flaws, it’s a beautifully shot film with loads of potential, and it should be a prime suspect for an American DVD release, if for no other reason than its cultural significance abroad. (although Americans can generally care less about the culture of others…)  While I won’t be mentioning it in the same breath as I would mention my favorite films, there’s certainly a lot here to like; it’s certainly a shame that its destiny seems not to inspire a new generation of filmmakers, but to disappear from the public’s memory entirely.

RECAP (MINOR SPOILERS AHEAD): This is Norway’s equivalent to our Psycho and Frankenstein; a film that has terrified their culture for six decades.  Some effectively chilling moments are done in by overly-lit night scenes that offer no scares or intensity.  Final scene also a letdown, as it takes it away from its supernatural roots and offers a “real-world” explanation of what happened, that seems even more farfetched than if it would have just been a ghost. Despite its flaws, there is plenty here to like, and it’s a shame that it remains unreleased (and virtually unheard-of), here in the United States, where it at least deserves a DVD release.

NOTE: This can be a very hard to track down:  Thankfully, the entire film is available on Youtube, complete with clear English subtitles.  Be sure to check it out now, before it’s too late!

RATING: 5.5/10

FULL MOVIE (W/ ENGLISH SUBS):