Movie Review: The Third Man (1949)

SCORE
-4 out of 5-


CREDITS

• Joseph Cotten: Holly Martins


• Alida Valli: Anna Schmidt (as Valli)


• Orson Welles: Harry Lime


• Trevor Howard: Major Calloway


• Bernard Lee: Sergeant Paine


• Directed by Carol Reed
  
  "Arriving in Vienna, Holly Martins learns that his friend Harry Lime, who has invited him, recently died in a car accident" (source: imdb.com).

STORY

Holly Martins is an out-of-work pulp fiction novelist, which is a unique background for for the star character in a mystery. We've all seen savvy private eyes, policemen, and even lawyers "working cases" before, but an unemployed, naive fiction writer is a first on me, as it probably was for the original audience back in 1949, when the movie premiered. Martins, who is travelling to Europe to visit his lifelong friend, Harry Lime, unlike Sam Spade or Phillip Marlowe, isn't exactly what you would call quick. It would be unfair to call him dumb, but when he arrives in Vienna just in time to attend Harry's funeral, Martins is more than just a little slow in realizing that something is fishy. Witness accounts conflict concerning what happened after Harry was run down in a "hit and run" accident. In particular, Martins can't seem to get a straight answer to the simple question of whether only two men carried Harry's body off the street, or whether there was a third man assisting them.

What Holly Martins lacks in intelligence, however, he more than makes up for with stubborn determination and a sense of curiosity strong enough to kill ten cats. Throughout the international streets of Vienna, Martins pursues the mystery of the "third man," who may be the only one who really knows what happened to Harry Lime.

REVIEW

This movie was recommended to me by a friend. We at ATI don't make recommendations as a matter of policy, but I will say that I found this movie to be entertaining with a rather low cost on the spirit. Given that it premiered in 1949, the movie is shot entirely in black and white, but that medium has always worked well for the mystery genre. My favor B&W mystery is still, and will always be, "The Maltese Falcon," and "The Third Man" follows a lot of the same filming techniques. The camera angles are often shot from the ground looking up at the characters, casting their bodies in interesting, mood-setting shadows. The cinematography creates a sense of intrigue and suspense that the film actually delivers on, with the story resolving itself in what, perhaps, is the only way it could.

Many films since "The Maltese Falcon" and "The Third Man" have tried to mimic the genre, with various degrees of success. Certainly "Chinatown," "LA Confidential, and, to a lesser extent, "Devil in a Blue Dress" carry forward that same mood, dark sense of foreboding, and shadowy cinematography, but the introduction of colour into those pictures seems to have taken more than it gave. I cannot imagine "The Third Man" in anything other than its gritty, eerie black and white, yet modern audiences rarely have the patience for any movie without colour. It's a shame, because that reality has deprived the world of an entire niche of mystery/suspense films.

"The Third Man" really isn't an amazing feat in technology, and I doubt anyone will remember it for its special effects, but it's real treat, like so many older movies, lies in the story. The dialogue, at times, isn't quite believable, perhaps intentionally, but it fits. The story is original in both plot and in the execution. I can't really say more without giving too much away (perhaps a reason why people so rarely recommend mysteries these days - you can't safely explain what makes them entertaining without revealing the twists and endings), except that this movie departs entirely from the usual "whodunit" conventions to deliver something new. Without revealing too much, it is safe to say that the butler didn't do it.

PROS: With an utter lack of nudity and overt sexual content, relatively benign language by today's standards, and very mild violence, this movie probably won't tax your spirit. It's not exactly light-hearted, but the humor is witty and entertaining without creeping into crudeness. The true B&W noir style of cinematography displayed in the film is not in common modern use, giving it a certain anecdotal quality that movie buffs will appreciate. The film's historical setting has a certain educational value. The hero's dogged loyaty to his deceased friend is heart-warming, and the fact that he is not a naturally gifted detective makes his efforts all the more noble, and interesting. Amazing performances by both Joseph Cotten and Orson Welles.

CONS: The movie's setting might not make sense to someone unfamiliar with the relevant period of history or the international significance of Vienna. Also, the theme of murder is alawys a dark one, and the noir film style might actually scare young children. The film is dated in many ways, which hurts it as a period piece in a age of films like Peter Jackson's "King Kong." The period dialogue, which is a bit sub-par against the likes of "The Maltese Falcon," moves at a lightning pace, which may make the film difficult to follow for those under the age of thirteen.

FINAL THOUGHT: The dialogue is slightly less punchy than your typical noir, which I regard as only a minor flaw. If the plot piques your interest, and if black and white noir movies appeal to you, then "The Third Man" is a fine example of the genre that simultaneously delivers unique story elements never seen before or since.

BOTTOM LINE: 4/5

Movie Review: The Hangover (2009)

SCORE

-2/5-

CAST

• Bradley Cooper: Phil Wenneck.
• Ed Helms: Stu Price.
• Zach Galifanakis: Alan Garner.
• Justin Bartha: Doug Billings.
• Directed by Todd Phillips.
  

STORY

"A Las Vegas-set comedy centered around three groomsmen who lose their about-to-be-wed buddy during their drunken misadventures, then must retrace their steps in order to find him" (source: imdb.com).

REVIEW

Never before have I wanted more to give a movie 0/5 in score, but I have to admit that this film qualifies, on our objective scale (which you can read here), warrants a 2: "the movie has some value, but it fails to accomplish 1 or more of its goals."

The Hangover meets its basic goal of providing crude humor to those who appreciate it. Occasionally, it even provides a few brief moments of non-crass humor. I laughed at this movie, and, in restrospect, I am not proud of this.

The premise is clever enough: a bunch of groomsmen lose the groom following his bachelor party: they just can't seem to remember what happened the night before, and they have but mere hours in which to figure it out and get the groom to the altar. That might have been the start of a hilarious movie all can enjoy. Instead, the movie fell to a level of crassness and crude humor that degrades its audience more than it entertains. In this respect, the movie fails to offer a comedy that will entertain many members of its intended audience not deterred by the R-rating. This movie, by the way, should have been rated NC-17, which I found to be deceptive. Shame on the MPAA - it has lost all sense of morality and ethics.

PROS: Funny premise and clever dialogue, with competent performances by all actors. Well directed, technically speaking. The solution to the mystery of what happened to the groom is also unique and, in many ways, genuinely funny without being crass or crude.

CONS: Nudity, foul language, violence, pornographic content, drug use, glorification of prostitution, and a dark display of amorality that will leave you wishing you could forget having ever seen it.

FINAL THOUGHT: Do NOT take minors to see this film. Do NOT see this film if you are offended by any of the above. We do not make recommendations that people go see any given movie or refrain from going to see any given movie, but, trust me, as a Christian, you will be embarrassed and ashamed to have seen this piece of garbage. I know that I am. So, just short of telling you not to go see this movie, I encourage you to read this review and make the right decision on your own.

BOTTOM LINE: 2/5.

Movie Review: On the Waterfront

SCORE

-4 out of 5-

CREDITS

• 
  
  Terry Malloy: Marlon Brando
• 
  
  Karl Malden: Father Barry
• 
  
  Eva Marie Saint: Edie Doyle
• 
  
  Lee J. Cobb: Johnny Friendly
• 
  
  Directed by Elia Kazan

STORY

This is a well-known film (it's from this film that we get "I coulda been a contender!") but I hadn't seen it. I'm not entirely certain what makes it so strongly remembered, but it is a great film.

The film is about Terry Malloy, who was once a prizefighter but is now a longshoreman. One of the most interesting parts of this film is its blue-collar focus, and immensely helping with that feel is the use of many actors who all seem to be average-looking people. It may be perception, or even the fact that the film is in black-and-white, but it seems that older films had lots of good actors around who looked like normal human beings, rather than the luminous Greek-sculpture people we see in every role in newer films.

In many ways the film is far more effective for its small focus on a group of dockworkers. The docks are run by a petty tyrant, Johnny Friendly, who leads the dockworkers' local union. He decides who gets to work, who gets the good jobs, and who needs to be brutalized back in line. Terry's brother is one of Friendly's lieutenants, and Terry has been conditioned to accept this as "the way things are." He goes along to get along, enjoying the privileges of his position but not really being involved in the seedier side of the arrangement he benefits from.

At the start of the film, Terry is used to lure a man to his death. Terry didn't know that he was leading the man to his death, and while it bothers him a bit it doesn't weigh heavily on his conscience until the man's sister, Edie, comes into his life looking for her brother's killer. As this is going on, Father Barry, the new local priest, is seeking men to stand up to Friendly's murderous racket.

The film is a study of Terry, a man who has been neutral between good and evil for a long time. Terry has been able to benefit from the evil committed by his brother and his brother's cronies without having to do anything unseemly himself, and until murder becomes a part of it he had gotten used to strongarm tactics as a way of doing business. Because it gets him the good and easy jobs, he has been willing to go along.

However, as things progress and the evil of Friendly's group becomes clear to Terry, he finds that he isn't willing to do what's asked of him. Unlike Friendly's men he has not chosen Friendly's side, he was merely resting on his brother's laurels. When the time comes where he must make a choice, he chooses to stand up to Friendly, with the help of Edie and Father Barry.

There are a lot of things to like about this film. The small focus keeps the film grounded -- how many films are there where the hero saves the universe, but it all feels insignificant because of the impersonal nature of the proceedings? In this film a scene where a man walks across a dock is given incredible tension and importance.

The performances are all very good. In some ways I hesitate to discuss how good the acting is, because it doesn't seem like there is any of it, but then I guess that's the best kind. Everyone in this films seems simply to be who they portray, and that may be the highest compliment for a group of actors.

I think the smallness of the film's events -- the miniscule nature of Friendly's authoritarian kingdom -- allows it to stand in for any such situation, no matter how small or large. Friendly is a man who values his power over everything; he could be ruling a third-world country and he would be exactly the same man.

The portrayal of organized crime in this film is refreshing. Filmmakers often get caught up in the mystique of "codes of honor," "honor among thieves," and all that sort of thing. That can make for interesting films, but I suspect that the thuggish tinpot dictator represented by Friendly is a far better reflection of those who engage in mob tactics. All that "honor" and "code" is used by Friendly to use his subjects' own consciences to keep them from standing up to him and doing what's right.

In the same way, Terry's struggle is our own. How many of us have gone along with a system or group who was no good, either because we benefitted or because of the pressure of our peers to accept a corrupt arrangement? We are reminded here that wrong is wrong, "code" or no "code."

Finally, it's great to see a positive portrayal of a man of faith. In a new film, Father Barry would have a terrible secret, or hidden motives; in this film he is a good man serving God the best way he can. He believes wholeheartedly in deposing Johnny Friendly because he sees the suffering in the eyes of his congregation and he can't stand it.

PROS: On the Waterfront is a very moral film, a film about how a man can't be neutral between good and evil. And as is the way with many great films, it does so without the use of vulgarity or gore. There are some deaths, but the film is confident enough in itself to not need to make them overly grotesque to make its point. Terry is a very fallen man who learns, better late than never, to stand up for what's right, that there can be no accommodation with evil without becoming evil oneself. We all need to be reminded of that.

CONS: This isn't a film for children; its themes get intense, even if it is not vulgar and doesn't contain gore. There are several deaths and a brutal beating late in the film, though the makeup is not as ugly as it would be today. I thought it was unfortunate that while Father Barry supports Terry, Terry doesn't consider where this strength might come from. There is no hint that Terry sees anything in Father Barry but a good man, though there may be hope for that in the future after the events of the film.

Final Thought: It's easy to see Terry as blind, having ignored the evil all around him for so long, but aren't we all the same? Don't we all go along with evil, at least partway? Who would fight against a system that benefits him, at least until it asks something of him he doesn't want to do? Who hasn't walked many miles on the road to Hell while ignoring the road signs indicating the destination?

This film is valuable to remind us that whatever we think of ourselves we're no better than Terry, and we need the Lord's help to do good. And just as Terry inspires those around him, if we choose to serve the Lord and not the world, we can inspire others around us as well.

Bottom Line: 4/5

Movie Review: Lakeview Terrace

SCORE

-2 out of 5-

CREDITS

• Abel Turner: Samuel L. Jackson
  
• Chris Mattson: Patrick Wilson
  
• Lisa Mattson: Kerry Washington
  
• Directed by Neil Labute
  

STORY

Lakeview Terrace is the story of neighbors who become enemies. Abel Turner is a local cop who is well established in his home, raising his two children alone having lost his wife three years before. Chris and Lisa are a newlywed interracial couple who move in next door.

For the first third of the film or so, Abel and his neighbors are followed separately and seem to be in two different movies. Abel is a good, fairly strict father and a tough but strong cop. Chris and Lisa are a happy newlywed couple getting moved into their great new house.

These two stories intersect as Abel's possibly excessive security system bothers the newlyweds, and Chris and Lisa's newlywed exploits are too public for Abel to keep from his young and impressionable children.

A stark line is drawn between the kinds of people represented by Abel and his neighbors. Abel is presented as conservative, explicitly identifying himself as a Republican. Chris is presented in the opposite way, driving a Prius and talking about environmentalism. This is one of the many ways in which Abel and Chris clash.

I think this film's problem is that it (or possibly Samuel L. Jackson's performance) has created a character in Abel Turner that it doesn't understand. In the first half of the film Abel is very sympathetic, and often heroic. He may be a bit harsh or abrasive, but we're given a brief glimpse of what he deals with at work every day and it's hard to blame him.

Furthermore, whatever the film may think of him, Abel is right a lot of the time. "Climate change" is not settled science, as he points out; Chris ridicules his implication that not keeping a gun in the house is borderline negligent for his family's security, but Turner has the better end of the argument here too.

The extreme lengths Abel goes to later in the film seem forced. Up to a certain point Abel works within the law to make life unpleasant for his neighbors, but when he strays into outright criminality things become much less believable. I could imagine a cop character who is on a power trip and feels like he should get his way in his private life because of what he does for a living, and might be willing to break the law to pursue that end. Turner never gives off quite that impression, though, at least not that last part. Abel respects the law too much to perform blatantly criminal acts against his neighbors just because he doesn't like them. If he were to do something like that he would need a much better reason than he's given.

I identify with Abel Turner, if only because he may be the only self-identified Republican I've seen in a movie in a very long time who was in the least sympathetic (until later in the movie). Chris, on the other hand, ostensibly the "good guy," is unlikeable in the extreme. He's a whiny, complaining yuppie liberal, almost completely controlled by his wife who has very little respect for him or his decisions. While she comes off as a pleasant character most of the time, when you consider her actions she really cares only for her own desires. Chris is completely hung up on people giving him a hard time for marrying a black woman (which may have been interesting in a film about that, but just made him complain more in this one). On top of that he and his wife seem to be living off her Dad's money, completing the picture of a pair of spoiled, self-involved liberals.

I believe everything Chris does in the film, but as I said above I don't think this movie understands Abel Turner. He's a good man who may go a little too far but who is just trying to protect his family and mold them into good and morally upright citizens. He also hates rap, and I must say that earns a lot of points with me. Abel had to be the villain because he's a conservative and a Republican, and people like that can't be good or heroic in movies. I felt like the script forced Abel to do increasingly outlandish things that I never believed he would do just so he could manage, by the end of the film, to be even less likable than Chris.

PROS: I'm not sure what to put here. I loved Samuel L. Jackson's performance for the first half or so of the film; he really sells this character (though this just adds to the feeling of betrayal later). Samuel L. Jackson has incredible screen presence and he's always very enjoyable to watch. The early scenes with Chris and Lisa are alright, like something out of a lightweight drama or romantic comedy. I thought the first half or so really does a good job of showing the difference in perception between the oblivious newlyweds and the way they come across to the cautious and wary father trying to protect his kids.

I thought the exploration of the issues inherent in an interracial marriage was interesting, but out of place in this movie. Very large and complex issues are brought up but not really dealt with, since the last half was always going to be about escalating conflict between the neighbors.

I appreciate that the movie doesn't go the lowbrow route with lots of swearing or nudity. There are some scantily clad women onscreen, but it's reasonable in context and there's no nudity. There was some swearing but it wasn't pervasive.

CONS: I felt ripped off by the later section of the movie. The first half built up well, and if Turner weren't arbitrarily turned into a criminal I would've been very interested to see where things might go. Taking sides was unnecessary and makes the film much less worthwhile. If both sides were given their due, leading to a more ambiguous ending, perhaps the viewer would have something to think about after the credits. As it stands the film elects to tell you what you should think about the events depicted, just in case you might come to the wrong conclusion on your own.

This is especially unfortunate since the movie has set up both sides as representative of a political party or faction. Thus taking sides between the characters is a pretty explicit suggestion that one party is better than the other. Rarely would I say that Hollywood movies need more ambiguity, but this is one case where it would've been far better to make the events less cartoonish and let the audience decide who was right.

Final Thought: In some ways this was like watching a monster movie and eventually rooting for the monster, because the victims act stupidly and at least the monster is clever -- except in this movie I liked Turner from the start. The film wanted me to think of him as the bad guy by the end, but I question why it spent so much time making him sympathetic before trying to convince me that he was a bad person.

I don't think the writer had any idea what to do with a conservative or Republican character other than to make him deranged. I don't think he could stand the idea that the audience might think the Republican character was right. If there were movies in which Republicans actually were the heroes I wouldn't mind this, but since there aren't it's especially jarring, and it's a missed opportunity.

In the end this movie has no point, unless it was trying to make the case that spoiled yuppies who marry into money are better than hard-working men who protect and serve.

Bottom Line: 2/5