Here you go. Presenting a couple reviews for older movies. Hellzapoppin' is from 1941 and is very rarely seen within the United States, which is a shame. Lone Star is a review I did, because I have a calendar of movie posters. I'm going to review each month's poster in the month it's displayed, whenever possible. For February, look for An American in Paris. Ocean's 11 and the two modern ones are still coming eventually. I promise. Hopefully this will tide you over until then.
Lone Star (1952)
Review by Jon Waterman
*1/2
The United States is looking to turn the Republic of Texas into a state. However, Texans aren’t too keen on that idea. Joining the US would mean denying the proposed treaty with Mexico and thus starting a war with them. After going through the heartbreak of the Alamo, the Republic doesn’t quite want to go through that turmoil again when it’s just as easy to remain separate. President Andrew Jackson doesn’t want to give up hope. He knows if Sam Houston agrees, Texas will be behind them. So, Jackson sends Devereaux Burke to find him.
This is one of the most politically charged westerns I’ve seen so far (granted, that isn’t too many). It presents the arguments for and against annexation in a nice back and forth format. However, the arguments against seem much more thought out than those for it. I guess there’s really no reason to restate the case if you’ve already won. The audience knows how it turns out, so why prove it was worth it, right? Either way, it was still a way to flesh out the story line and differentiate it a little from the other westerns.
If you’re not too political or don’t care about all of that stuff, you might enjoy all the fighting. There are a few shootouts and a brawl or two to pump the adrenaline up and balance out the “boring” stuff. Horses, guns, arrows, fisticuffs, battering rams, explosions, stuff breaking – what more could you want? Anything to draw attention away from the ridiculous love story is just fine with me. I don’t know if was just the lacking chemistry between Clark Gable (Burke) and Ava Gardner (pro-Texas newspaper editor Martha Ronda), or if not enough quality time was devoted to it before it really got popping, but something just didn’t sit quite right with me. It was a strange, roundabout way to further the plot.
The whole process took longer than it should. They describe what will happen, show it happening, and then tell other characters what happened. It’s a bit too repetitious for my taste. And also knowing how it all turns out adds to the drag factor. I think the action sequences were the only scenes that really made the movie worth watching, ultimately. Those weren’t incredibly spectacular either, but at least they were well done and proved entertaining.
I know there are better westerns out there, there are better love stories out there, and there are better more political movies out there as well. This one doesn’t mix the elements all that effectively. However, it could be worse. As it stands, aside from the romantic subplot turned plot, the motion picture is just okay.
+++++++++
Hellzapoppin’
Review by Jon Waterman
***1/2
How do I describe this one? Okay, the vaudeville team of (Ole) Olsen and (Chic) Johnson are trying to adapt their hit Broadway show for the silver screen. The director gets fed up with its madcap, anarchistic styling and brings in a writer to give it a plot. The plot involves a love triangle, and it’s O & J’s job to get the right guy paired up with the girl. At the same time, they have to coordinate and put on a different stage play for all the wealthy guests that will be attending. Did you get all that? I’m sure you think you did, but you don’t know the half of it, my friend.
In all honesty, you should forget the plot. There’s no real reason for it to be there, except to provide the running gag of trying to implement a straightforward plot inside an obviously surrealist, madcap motion picture. Honestly, I was disappointed they kept the joke going as long as they did. I wanted the film to return to the magic of the first fifteen-twenty minutes where anything could happen and it certainly could. After all, they do warn us from the start, “Any similarity between Hellzapoppin' and a motion picture is purely coincidental.”
I don’t know what the original stage production was like, but it certainly couldn’t be the same as this. The movie makes the most of it’s format of presentation, by playing around with editing, composites – shots where Ole and Chic are standing in front of a screen that’s projecting an image of Ole and Chic, title cards, special effects, and big, extravagant sets. This is the best early example I know of (so far) that fully utilizes the medium as part of the art.
“Hellzapoppin’” is full of every kind of humor imaginable. There’s plenty of physical comedy, tons of parody and satire, self-referential, surrealistic, musical and straight-up jokes. It all culminates near the end as they try to sabotage the play they’ve been setting up. Expect to see a little bit of everything. One of the best aspects is their frequent willingness to break the fourth wall and remind everyone it’s a movie. This is one key reason why the plot is so inconsequential. From the beginning, they’ll turn to the audience and speak to them. They’ll also call on the projectionist to rewind the picture or to adjust the framing.
This film also contains a great dance number performed by the Harlem Congeroos. Fans of swing dancing should watch the movie just for this sequence. But mostly, you should watch it for the comedy, supported by a great cast. Of course there’s Olsen and Johnson, but you also get Martha Raye as the horny city girl chasing after the wealthy prince; Hugh Herbert as the master of disguise (although, what he’s dressing up for is beyond us); and Shemp Howard as the slightly sadistic, misogynistic projectionist.
Everyone really came together to create a great, influential piece of comedy. I give great credit to director H. C. Potter for showing off the immense preparation and coordination that obviously went into this production, and to writers Nat Perrin and Warren Wilson for not fully submitting to the studio norms. Not every joke works, but many hold up surprisingly well. You don’t see movies like this anymore. Even the contemporary genre parodies don’t quite capture this type of atmosphere and this level of playfulness.
Lone Star (1952)
Review by Jon Waterman
*1/2
The United States is looking to turn the Republic of Texas into a state. However, Texans aren’t too keen on that idea. Joining the US would mean denying the proposed treaty with Mexico and thus starting a war with them. After going through the heartbreak of the Alamo, the Republic doesn’t quite want to go through that turmoil again when it’s just as easy to remain separate. President Andrew Jackson doesn’t want to give up hope. He knows if Sam Houston agrees, Texas will be behind them. So, Jackson sends Devereaux Burke to find him.
This is one of the most politically charged westerns I’ve seen so far (granted, that isn’t too many). It presents the arguments for and against annexation in a nice back and forth format. However, the arguments against seem much more thought out than those for it. I guess there’s really no reason to restate the case if you’ve already won. The audience knows how it turns out, so why prove it was worth it, right? Either way, it was still a way to flesh out the story line and differentiate it a little from the other westerns.
If you’re not too political or don’t care about all of that stuff, you might enjoy all the fighting. There are a few shootouts and a brawl or two to pump the adrenaline up and balance out the “boring” stuff. Horses, guns, arrows, fisticuffs, battering rams, explosions, stuff breaking – what more could you want? Anything to draw attention away from the ridiculous love story is just fine with me. I don’t know if was just the lacking chemistry between Clark Gable (Burke) and Ava Gardner (pro-Texas newspaper editor Martha Ronda), or if not enough quality time was devoted to it before it really got popping, but something just didn’t sit quite right with me. It was a strange, roundabout way to further the plot.
The whole process took longer than it should. They describe what will happen, show it happening, and then tell other characters what happened. It’s a bit too repetitious for my taste. And also knowing how it all turns out adds to the drag factor. I think the action sequences were the only scenes that really made the movie worth watching, ultimately. Those weren’t incredibly spectacular either, but at least they were well done and proved entertaining.
I know there are better westerns out there, there are better love stories out there, and there are better more political movies out there as well. This one doesn’t mix the elements all that effectively. However, it could be worse. As it stands, aside from the romantic subplot turned plot, the motion picture is just okay.
+++++++++
Hellzapoppin’
Review by Jon Waterman
***1/2
How do I describe this one? Okay, the vaudeville team of (Ole) Olsen and (Chic) Johnson are trying to adapt their hit Broadway show for the silver screen. The director gets fed up with its madcap, anarchistic styling and brings in a writer to give it a plot. The plot involves a love triangle, and it’s O & J’s job to get the right guy paired up with the girl. At the same time, they have to coordinate and put on a different stage play for all the wealthy guests that will be attending. Did you get all that? I’m sure you think you did, but you don’t know the half of it, my friend.
In all honesty, you should forget the plot. There’s no real reason for it to be there, except to provide the running gag of trying to implement a straightforward plot inside an obviously surrealist, madcap motion picture. Honestly, I was disappointed they kept the joke going as long as they did. I wanted the film to return to the magic of the first fifteen-twenty minutes where anything could happen and it certainly could. After all, they do warn us from the start, “Any similarity between Hellzapoppin' and a motion picture is purely coincidental.”
I don’t know what the original stage production was like, but it certainly couldn’t be the same as this. The movie makes the most of it’s format of presentation, by playing around with editing, composites – shots where Ole and Chic are standing in front of a screen that’s projecting an image of Ole and Chic, title cards, special effects, and big, extravagant sets. This is the best early example I know of (so far) that fully utilizes the medium as part of the art.
“Hellzapoppin’” is full of every kind of humor imaginable. There’s plenty of physical comedy, tons of parody and satire, self-referential, surrealistic, musical and straight-up jokes. It all culminates near the end as they try to sabotage the play they’ve been setting up. Expect to see a little bit of everything. One of the best aspects is their frequent willingness to break the fourth wall and remind everyone it’s a movie. This is one key reason why the plot is so inconsequential. From the beginning, they’ll turn to the audience and speak to them. They’ll also call on the projectionist to rewind the picture or to adjust the framing.
This film also contains a great dance number performed by the Harlem Congeroos. Fans of swing dancing should watch the movie just for this sequence. But mostly, you should watch it for the comedy, supported by a great cast. Of course there’s Olsen and Johnson, but you also get Martha Raye as the horny city girl chasing after the wealthy prince; Hugh Herbert as the master of disguise (although, what he’s dressing up for is beyond us); and Shemp Howard as the slightly sadistic, misogynistic projectionist.
Everyone really came together to create a great, influential piece of comedy. I give great credit to director H. C. Potter for showing off the immense preparation and coordination that obviously went into this production, and to writers Nat Perrin and Warren Wilson for not fully submitting to the studio norms. Not every joke works, but many hold up surprisingly well. You don’t see movies like this anymore. Even the contemporary genre parodies don’t quite capture this type of atmosphere and this level of playfulness.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home