Motherless Brooklyn

This outing poses an obvious question: who made the mistake in making the lead character a Tourette's-afflicted gumshoe? Was it Edward Norton the writer, or Norton the director, or Norton the actor? Amazingly enough, the auteur gets off the hook, as the condition comes from the source book, and was simply carried over into the movie. I suppose it would have been impossible not to do so, as the character's affliction is a signature mark of the work, but the device probably works better in print--where the reader has a certain amount of control over distraction--rather than on screen, where it becomes a one more layer of opacity in a complex story. Some of the story gets away from the viewer, which adds a demerit to an otherwise solid effort. So too with Norton's penchant (typical in an unproven director) to try to be a bit too gimmicky in the presentation; sometimes it works, other times keeping it simple would have served better. Those flaws are mostly outweighed by the overall skill, which is well employed in creating a solid, neo-noir environment that is one of the real joys of the film experience. It's hardly perfect, but this piece is perfectly watchable, and promise even better works to come.

Gaslight

Here's an interesting example of the problem with some old movies. A certain kind of formalism sometimes pervaded films back in the day. This is especially true of mysteries, where the inclination to take shortcuts through exposition can be irresistible--a path that can create stilted scenes and dialogue. That's what you get here, particularly early in the picture. It makes for a doubtful viewing experience for about the first half of the film. Thankfully, the story picks up a lot of steam in its second half, driven particularly by a strong, understated performance from Joseph Cotten. By the time you get to the denouement, the story wraps up in in an enjoyable final set piece. Put that together with some fine set design, atmospheric exterior scenes that really set the mood late in the game, and solid performances by the other principals--Boyer is arch, Bergman is good in a rangy role (and looks spectacular as usual)--and the ultimate result is a flawed but mostly enjoyable film that just edges its way up into the realms of recommendation,

The Petrified Forest

Interesting. Another movie with a lot on its mind, more so than you'd expect from the basic premise (lost people intersect with gangsters in an isolated cafe). This flick gives you healthy doses of thoughtfulness to go along with your serving of violence. And it says something that Leslie Howard makes at least as much of an impression as Humphrey Bogart. All in all, this film is entertaining and effecting in its crisp, hour and a half running time. I think it earns its classic cred. Give it a look.

Strangers On A Train

At first blush this film seems dated, and a little obvious, and perhaps even a little clumsy. Then things get rolling, and the clever plot, artful direction, and healthy doses of wit begin to show as the the stakes grow more imperative, until finally you're left guessing about how it's going to end (not to mention whether or not the protagonist deserves to get out of his mess). In fact, this movie may be the epitome of why today's audience should show plenty of patience when it indulges a taste for yesteryear. There's a lot of good stuff out there, and once you get past the hurdle of outdated references and sensibilities, you can immerse yourself in the clever goings on that paved the way for today's finest works. Give it a shot sometime.

The Postman Always Rings Twice

He's a dirtbag. She's a bitch. They're both stupid. Her husband's an old, drunken fool. What could possibly go wrong? This is one of the oddest movies I've ever watched. It wasn't exactly un-engaging, but it's hard to know what to make of a film where the sleazy lawyer character is the one you root for the most. At least Lana Turner was fairly easy on the eyes. Not only were the characters all anti-heroes, but little of the story made much sense. I stayed with it for all of its length--though I was tempted to bail after the second or third false climax--but didn't feel particularly rewarded for the effort. This may be a "film buffs only" project; the rest can probably do without.

Double Indemnity

Boy, Fred MacMurray sure was a cocky son of a bitch back in the day. There's a hilarious component to his character here, which takes some of the noir out of this film noir. And the story is obvious, but that's forgivable for being so sharp and entertaining. The rest of the cast is spot on, including Barbara Stanwyck--"Baby," to Fred--as the femme, and Edward G. Robinson as the sharp claims manager who pulls the string and unravels the whole plan. Fun stuff.

To Have and Have Not

I didn't really find myself getting sucked in by this one when I watched it. The story, some humbug about WWII intrigue in the Caribbean, did little to hold my interest. And you know how I feel about Faulkner (one of the screenwriters). So why the positive recommendation? Because you just can't go wrong watching Bogart do his insolent, tough guy shtick. That's always worth a look.

The Big Sleep

This movie is muddled and confusing. And the on screen sparks between Bogart and Bacall? I didn't believe a moment of it (ironic, since they were hot for each other off screen). So why do I recommend this movie? It's all on Bogart. No one could deliver a line like Bogart. The pleasure of watching him work wins out over everything else.

Spellbound

Alfred Hitchcock's supposed classic. I say supposed because, though the film has much to recommend it, it never really clicked for me. Maybe Gregory Peck didn't convince me, or the laughable idea of Ingrid Bergman--roughly 21 years old at the time of filming--as a psychiatrist pushed my suspension of disbelief too far, or...actually, I can't really put my finger on it. You can watch it, and you'll probably like it, but you can also forget it, too. Pick your poison.

Laura

Pretty flat for a supposed classic. The story just isn't that interesting.