I would classify this 1943 film as "war movie with a lot of comedy and a little romance". Destroyer is the story of the USS John Paul Jones II from the day her keel was laid to her acceptance as a fighting ship. Steve Boleslavski (more commonly known as Boley), is an old has-been sailor with a long and interesting history--much of which we discover throughout the film. He "built" the second John Paul Jones and manages to get himself aboard the new ship as First Chief. In the process, he pushes out the younger Micky Donohue. Old Navy and New Navy clash as the "Jonesy" goes out for her sea trials--twice. Regarded as unfit for duty, she's relegated to a mail carrier--much to the disgust of the crew. Lt. Commander Clark (the ship's captain and an old friend of Boley's), finds himself with numerous transfer requests on his hands. Boley manages to save the ship--in a figurative sense and literally--twice simply because of his love for her and the Navy. His little history lesson about Captain John Paul Jones was really one of my favorite scenes. (I persist in calling the ship "her" because it fits with the tenor of the film as the following quotation will show: When Kansas [played by the inestimable Edger Buchanan] asks Boley, "Why do you call a ship a 'she'?" Boley responds, "Because she's like a woman--she curves in the right places, wears a coat of paint, and squawks loud in an agrument.") While Old Navy (Boley) and New Navy (Donohue mainly) butt heads, Commander Clark sets up a little scheme to try to get them to work together--knowing both are good men and could learn a lot from each other. The scheme includes Boley's pretty daughter Mary, who just adores her dad and knows that if he gets kicked off the "Jonesy" it would break his heart. Not to give too much away, the scheme doesn't work out exactly like it was supposed to.... All told, I really enjoyed this film. The story was quite engaging. There was character growth in both the main characters, Dad is not portrayed as dumb (maybe a little set in his ways, but not stupid), and of course, Edgar Buchanan provided plenty of humor as Kansas. Brave, sacrificial manhood is encouraged, even while the old sailor tells the scared kids that it's alright to be scared--and even to cry! "It'll do you good..."
No language, no gore, a small amount of kissing...See below for my one big area of 'issue-taking'--it's a spoiler. Beware: spoiler! I don't agree with the "underhanded" way the Micky and Mary got married--most particularly Micky's chicken-ness in telling Boley about it. It's an example of how not to get married, even though there really was nothing wrong with the match so to speak--and if Boley hadn't been serving with Donohue, he probably would not have had any real objections.
0 Comments
This English film made in 1940 is an adaptation from the book by the same name. I imagine that had one read the book some issues, like the nature of Thomas Arnold's "revolutionary" ideas, would be somewhat clearer. Tom Brown's School Days is the joint story of Thomas Arnold, headmaster of Rugby (a boys school) and Thomas Brown, a student and son of one of the trustee's (at least I think that is what he was); also to a great extent it is the story of another lad, East. Dr. Arnold's dream is to reform boys schools, he desires to produce a generation of "God-fearing" men (I use quotation marks for that is the langauge of the film). He encourages manliness and honor in his boys. He decries cowardice for what it is. He expells boys for lying--for that is an outworking of cowardice. One of the main things he fights against is the bullying. Tom is bullied as the "new boy". Tom's bravery in the face of one particular incident inspires the boys of the "Forth Form" (I suppose that is much like a grade), to fight back against the school bully, Flashman, and his special henchmen.
I cannot say much more without spoiling the climax, but I will go so far as to say that Tom is faced with a choice that has the potential to cause him disgrace and/or heartache no matter which choice, the right one or the wrong one, that he ultimately makes. I found this film to be quite encouraging in it's protrayal of boys as young men--men who cry with a broken heart, rejoice with their friends, have compassion on the downtrodden, and fight bravely against bigger and stronger oppressors. The viewer is left rooting for the boys to be manly, Godly, brave young men. We are disappointed when they fail, but encouraged as they pick themselves up and face forward into the fray again. I'm actually interested in reading the book after watching the film. I'll admit the title of this 1940 film takes one aback. It is something of an op-ed against some unsupervised (not exactly sure what the director/producer meant by that) "charity" home for single mothers. The story opens with a young newpaper reporter (Glenn Ford) hearing of the "babies for money" adoption schemes from an old, kind-hearted doctor. He leaves the newspaper over it and starts his own independent research on the issue. The other half of the story is about a young, pretty widow who goes to a place called Mercy House for help. The scheming doctor and nurse try to coerce her into giving her baby up for adoption, claiming it will be better for both her and the baby. Their real motivation is the money they can get for the child.
The lives of the young widow and her friend, a fellow Mercy House inmate, become entwined with those of the reporter and kind doctor. There is nothing sexual about this film and the closest one gets to "romance" is the final shot in the film--it's actually quite sweet. The topic addressed is not so much un-wed mothers, but the treatment single mothers (whether un-wed, abandoned wives, or widows) and their children recieved at the hands of profiteering "charity" institutions. How much of the film was based on actual events and facts, I don't know. What I do know is it brought it's point across very clearly without condemning all charity organizations. Just because it's "charity", doesn't mean that it's good. The sale of a child (even if he gets into a good home) is immoral--not because one is getting the child adopted, but because of how it is done. For a B-movie the story really was pretty good. I found it engaging and while not explicitly Christian, I cannot recall (I watched this last week so please forgive me if I have missed something here) anything that really stuck out to me as bad theology. This 1990 adaptation of Robert Louis Stevenson's book, ranks high up on the scale of my "favorite" movies. This movie is quite accurate to the book (which I have read--Stevenson being one my favorite "children's" authors). It is rare, at least in my viewing experience, for films made from books to be as closely aligned as this one is. The story follows young Jim Hawkins from the day the mysterious (and drunken) "Captain" Bones arrived at the Admiral Benbow Inn. When the Captain dies, Jim comes into the possession of the famous pirate Flint's map of Treasure Island, under some rather dangerous and disturbing circumstances. Soon he is aboard the Hispanola with Squire Trelawney, Dr. Livesey, Captain Smullet, Long John Silver, and a crew of (mainly) pirates. Upon reaching Treasure Island, the pirates and the remaining "loyal" men match wits and trade lead. At the center of the action is Jim Hawkins, acting with bravery and presence of mind. Ben Gunn also makes an apperence and helps in the fight against the pirates. There are a few things I would like to note: 1st--there is some language in this movie. One could cut it and not really lose any dialogue. It could certainly be worse, but that does not excuse profanity. (Most of it is in the form of the D- word.) 2nd--the music is outstanding and really adds to the film. Without the "olde English" style music, this movie would not quite have the 'real' feel that it does. Speaking of feeling real, there is one scene where Jim gets his first taste of being a sailor. I found myself rocking in the rhythm of the "Heave! Heave!"--partly due to the music, but partly because of the angle of the shot. (Not that this has anything to do with the storyline exactly...) 3rd--Jim is a manly youngster. In fact, Long John declares at one point (to the pirates), "He's more of a man than the lot of you!" (or something to that effect). This is quite encouraging and pleasing. He shows fear, but he overcomes it rather than succumbs to it. He is an honorable lad to the point that when he gives his word he will not go back on it, even if it results in his death. Jim is a loving, respectful son to his mother and a respectful young man towards his superiors. He's also not a bad hand with a pistol... 4th--there are some scenes that might frighten a young child. The main ones I'm thinking of occur close to the beginning with Blind Pew....he's scary enough looking with the rag over his eyes, but once that gets removed and one sees the makeup job, it can really give one a jolt. I remember the first time I saw this movie, I nearly jumped out of my skin. It's not so bad the second or third time around, but it's still startling. This is one of those movies that I want to watch again as soon as I'm finished with it, because it is just that good. This 1956 movie tells the story of one ship, the USS Belinda, and her men... Captain Jeb Hawks boards his new command, an Attack Transport, to find the vast majority of his crew is green. His Lt., Dave McDougall, is a former Merchant Marine Captain who naturally finds some discomfort in being de-moted in order to join the Navy. Also among the crew is Ensign Krugar, a brave youngster who used to play football, Gilber Hubert, a Tennessee hillbilly (he provides moments of humor), and Commander Quigley--whom his fellow officers don't like because up to this point he's basically had a desk job. There are a number of other characters who feature in their own moments, but the main story is that of Captain Hawks and Lt. McDougall along with Hawks' demanding, driving command of his ship. Serving in the Pacific between 1943 and 1945 the ship's company deals with inept officers and men, the fact that their mail hasn't caught up with them, boredom, underwater mines, and Kamikaze's. The movie is clean of profanity and gore. It does have some kissing in flashbacks scenes while Dave McDougall reads a letter from his wife. Also, in one of those, actress Julie Adams is dressed in a swimsuit--'modest' by today's standards but still lots of leg (same scene, McDougall is just in his short swim shorts--if that bothers anyone).
I found nothing really objectionable in this movie--it's pretty typical of a 50's film on WW2. The characters are men of honor (of if they are not they are not shown in a positive light). Capt. Hawks is a hard man; his 'aloof' behavior is at one point explained to the junior officers by former Capt. McDougall. He is also not a 'by the book' officer. The scene with the Kamikaze's was quite well done I believe...I caught myself cringing as those flaming planes rushing down straight into the camera. All told this is movie I would not mind watching again. This 1943 romantic comedy is a howler from the opening scenes where everything discribed in a broadcaster-ish voice over is the exact opposite of what is seen on-screen. Mr. Dingle (Charles Coburn), an old politician arrives in Washington and needs a room in the World War Two housing shortage caused by extra people coming in to work in the surrounding defense factories. Taking his lead from an inscription seen on a monument to David Faragutt, "Damn the torpedos...full speed ahead!" he acquires half an apartment--leased by a Miss Milligan (Jean Arthur). He then rents half of his half to a young man named Joe Carter (Joel McCrea; this is the second film I've seen with him in it and I think I like the actor), who is on special assignment for the government. Life is tricky...and amusing...and then things totally go whacky. I can't tell you much more than that without devulging plot points, but suffice to say when the FBI gets involved, an already interesting situation gets even stickier. Mr. Dingle's meddling and "full speed ahead" mentality really shakes things up and leaves the audience breathless with laughter as the situation deepens. This is a romantic comedy, so you do have the rather fast development of the romance, but this one takes several days to develop rather than being an instantaneous thing. I liked that. Mr. Carter was rather free with his hands in one particular scene--Miss Milligan could have put a more effective stop to it if she really wanted to...but anyway. One can't get away from some of this in Hollywood romances. It actually was used to comic effect as Connie kept removing Joe's hands when she could have just walloped him a good one on the jaw and he would have stopped. In this same scene, Miss Milligan's dress is cut somewhat low so exposes a trifle more skin than some might be happy with (more in the back than in the front). Mr. Dingle happily goes along planning things to his own busy-body pleasure. He is the source of much laughter as he quite good-naturedly bumbles along with his own motives guiding his actions. One can't help but like the old rascal who guides the story even when off-screen.
I quite enjoyed this ridiculous movie...but be warned there is kissing (though not as much as many romances have) and a situation that could have been inappropriate if certain characters had not been honorable. Starring Jimmy Stewart as Glyn McLyntoch, Bend of the River is a 1952 Western about several Missouri farmers and their families as they move to Oregon. Set after the War Between the States, the audience quickly gathers that Glyn is a former Kansas/Missouri boarder ruffian. He acts as the guide across the west, leading the wagon train into Oragon and helping get the community established. Conflict arises when gold is struck around Portland and the settlers supplies are in essence held hostage by a leading Portland citizen. Glyn must prove his mettle, and his changed heart, in order to get those supplies to the farmers before winter sets in. Among the postives of this film is Jeremy Baile, the head of the wagon train. He is a good man--brave, yet not rash...wise and kind. He also is a humble man who is willing to learn and can admit when he is wrong. Being an early 50's Western, the dialouge is clean and the movie in general wholesome and without any thing to really worry about children viewing. There is but one kiss...and it is used, I think, more to wordlessly demonstrate a situation than anything. (And in fact, from the angle it was shot at, I'm not sure the actor and actress were actually kissing each other...) I enjoyed this movie quite a bit though I did think some of the costuming/hair/etc. could have been more historically accurate--but one really can't expect that in a 50's Western. And of course, there is Jimmy Stewart. The man had such a unique voice and really played this kind of role well...almost awkward, but confident at the same time.
Produced in 1944 and starring Van Johnson as Ted Lawson, Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo is a story of Doolittle's famous raid made in April 1942. The story told in this film is also true...Ted Lawson is the pilot of a B-25 bomber. The story begins as he and his men are shipped to Eglin Air base in Florida to train for an extremely secretive mission. Which includes learning how to take off with only 500 feet of runway... Ted's beloved wife follows him and we discover a blooming, solid relationship between the two. "Tell me honey, why are you so cute?" Ted asks multiple times. "So I could get such a good looking fellow..." Ellen always responds. This interchange is playful, but says much about them. Ellen is a wonderful military wife. She sends her man off with a smile, even while the tears lurk behind her eyelids. I very much appreciated this portrayal of an army wife. I also liked that the romance is between husband and wife. (There is enough kissing to cover the bases.) After a successful bombing run, things go haywire...the rest of the story covers the men's return to the United States...along the way, they meet with rainstorms: Injuries: And some very kind Chinese: Among the stars in this film are Robert Mitchum and Spencer Tracy as James Doolittle himself.
One gets the sense of actually being in the airplane during the flights...one can almost get motion sickness. Like many war movies of the era, it includes actual footage of the planes taking off, flying, and dropping their ordinance. There is no language and nothing objectionable--unless you really cannot stand kissing in movies. Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo is a fine movie. I give it a 5-star. The Story of Dr. Wassell is based on a true story. The movie weaves together two threads of Dr. Wassell's life. The one is backstory, shown throughout the film as flashbacks. The second is the heroics of a humble country doctor turned Navy medical officer. Dr. Wassell is a Navy doctor on the Island of Java when the Japenese land in 1942. The men under his care are sailors from the ships USS Marblehead and USS Houston. When the island is evacuated, only the walking wounded are shipped out. Dr. Wassell refues to leave, so with the remaining stretcher cases, he braves the coming trouble. Each of the wounded men have their own part in the story. Without them, The Story of Dr. Wassell would not exist. The only material that might be objectional in this film is the Javanese girls clothing (which really isn't bad). There are only two instances of kissing and that isn't overly dramatic. There is no language and the blood and/or violence is very tastefully handled. The element of romance is several cases is probably very much Hollywood, though for some reason I suspect based on actual fact. I might not suggest this film for very young children--for starters they wouldn't understand everything going on--though they could certainly get a laugh out of sailor Johnny Leeweather's hijinks. I first saw this movie when I was upwards of 10 (I can't place it exactly) and remember finding certain scenes somewhat disturbing. Even now they are, but more because I understand the gravity of the situation, than out of childish upset. There is one scene that some might object to where Dr. Wassell addresses a statue of Buddah...almost like he's praying. I am not sure really how that was intended by the either the character or the director, but I found it almost comical while also understanding that prayer to anyone or thing beside God is sinful. While the story is of serious import, it does have the moments of humor that good directors always seem to manage to slip into their films to lighten a dark moment. All told, this movie ranks up there among my favorites. I give it a 5-star for engaging story, clean language, acting, and special effects. Made in 1944, the special effects are outstanding. You honestly think you just saw the road explode into black dust when a bomb lands. The Story of Dr. Wassell is a movie I certainly plan on watching again sometime....
Pork Chop Hill is the story of one company's daring and bravery in taking and holding the titlular hill. The film is based on a true account of the Korean War. Gregory Peck plays the lead part of 1st Lt. Joe Clemons, commanding officer of King Company. With a murderously high casualty rate, they take and hold Pork Chop while the diplomats parley. Within that main framework are the small pieces of human interest woven in...boys becoming men, cowards faced with their own fear, men reacting to the loss of a buddy. One gets the sense, while watching the film, that some things are missing--but seeing as it is based in reality that does account for some of the 'missing' time. If one had a fuller understanding of the situation as it was, the odd moment of "I missed something" would not be there. This film does have a smattering language; but for a war movie it is quite clean (of course, pre-60's movies in general were fairly light on the inappropriate). The blood doesn't get much gorier than in the above picture.
This ranks up there as one of 'good' war movies I have seen... |
RachealA Reformed Presbyterian girl who enjoys a good movie or a good book any ol' time. Archives
November 2016
Categories
All
Note: All images picked up online. No copyright infringment intended.
|