The Maltese Falcon (1941)

Why does Bogart have a different haircut in this movie than he has on this poster?

Who says remakes are always a bad idea?  The Maltese Falcon is the third film adaptation of Dashiell Hammett's classic novel of the same name, and the third time is definitely the charm.  I haven't seen the other two versions (one has the same title and the other is a comedy, titled Satan Met a Lady), but only this one is widely regarded as a timeless classic, so I think it's safe to assume that this is the best version to date.

I'm going to be completely honest with you right now.  I am a huge fan of Dashiell Hammett's hard-boiled novels and am a fan of any movie that chooses to adapt his work.  I am also a big fan of Humphry Bogart, at least in part because I've only seen him in his classic roles; I'm sure the man made some flops in his time, but history tends to gloss over those mistakes in favor of his more famous work.  I am also a big supporter of director John Huston.  And if none of that convinces you that this is going to be a great viewing experience, it was in the inaugural class of movies chosen for preservation in the Library of Congress' National Film Registry.  If you're still hesitant to check out this movie because it's black-and-white or because it's old or because you only like movies with talking animals in them, my advice is simple.  Man up and get some culture.  It is significantly awesome.

The private detective firm of Spade and Archer consists of three people: the secretary, Effie (Lee Patrick), Sam Spade (Humphrey Bogart) and Miles Archer (Jerome Cowan).  One day, a new client hires them to track down her sister, who has run away from home with an undesirable man named Thursby.  The client, Ruth Wonderly (Mary Astor), doesn't tell a very convincing tale, but she waves around a lot of money, and that's enough for the detectives to take her case.  Liking the looks of his sexy new client, Miles offers to be her proverbial white knight, boubie, and track down this Thursby himself.

Did Miles Archer influence the character of Ellis from Die Hard?  Surprisingly, they're pretty close.

That night, Miles is shot and killed.  Sam gets the call, heads to the crime scene, and promptly leaves to clear his head.  When he gets home a few hours later, the police are right behind him; Thursby had just been gunned down in the streets, so the cops naturally assume that Sam killed the man who killed his partner.  He didn't, but his alibi is basically "wandering around aimlessly in the streets," so Sam Spade has to solve the case to clear his name.  Besides, it's good business to avenge the death of your partner.  Sam quickly finds himself in complex web of lies and deceit as he tries to discover...well, I suppose he's trying to solve the murder of his partner and simultaneously cover his own ass, but he doesn't seem to concerned about that.  Instead, Sam seems to genuinely enjoy the game of deception as he and three other interested parties converge on the object that ultimately caused all this trouble, the Maltese Falcon. 

Bogart, about three seconds away from giving you a facial burn for laughing at his toy bird.

Admittedly, the story isn't terribly special.  A detective manages to get entangled in a mess of lies?  You could pick my jaw up off the floor.  It's handled very well, though.  The pace is brisk, the plot is murky enough to keep you guessing while Sam Spade puts all the pieces together, and the ending scenes are great, appealing to many demographics (romantic, cynical, heart of stone, tough guy, etc.) and somehow never losing its bad-ass edge.

The acting and directing are nearly flawless.  This is one of the two films that helped Bogart become a star in 1941 (the other was High Sierra) and was his first significant non-gangster role.  What can I say?  The man was born to play tough guy detectives.  His timing with dialogue is perfect here, managing to be funny, witty, and sadistic --- sometimes in all in the same line.  As someone who has read dozens of hard-boiled novels and seen many film noirs, I can state that Bogart's portrayal here is the archetypal noir hero.  That might seem like a "no duh" in retrospect, but consider just how many classic actors from Hollywood's golden age tried similar roles; it's a great performance, but it's even more impressive when you realize how many other actors fail to live up to it.

So that's where they got the hair idea for There's Something About Mary...

The supporting cast was nearly as good as Bogart.  Mary Astor's femme fatale, while a little melodramatic by modern standards, still holds up pretty well today.  She's mean and nasty, but vulnerable and magnetic, the very epitome of a dangerous lady.  The other women in the film play their parts pretty well, but Gladys George (Archer's wife) and Lee Patrick can't hold a candle to Astor's performance.  Peter Lorre does a great job as an effeminate criminal; the interactions between him and Bogart amuse me so much, especially when Bogart is mocking an armed Lorre.

Well...that's phallic.

This was Sydney Greenstreet's film debut (and the first of nine movies with Peter Lorre) and his performance is especially impressive for a rookie; as the main villain in the film, he managed to be sneaky, powerful, and humble in quick succession.  Perhaps my favorite supporting performance in the film (although it is hard to beat Lorre) comes from Elisha Cook, Jr. and his part as the gun-toting arm of Greenstreet.  I've always liked the idea of a character that plays tougher than they truly are, but I think Cook really nailed that idea on the head with his performance.

The writing gave these performers a lot of great lines, but John Huston did a wonderful job directing them all.  The timing in each scene was impeccable, the pace is fast but you never get lost in the details; these are important elements in any crime story, but are essential when the dialogue needs to crackle with wit.  Huston also did a good job with the cinematography; there is a lot of symbolism in this movie and there are a lot of interesting (and, thankfully, meaningful) camera angles used.  Even though this was his first film, it must have been apparent from the start that John Huston was a master director.

When you add all that up, what do you get?  In short, probably my favorite movie of all time (although Raiders of the Lost Ark is another good choice).  It has great direction, a better script and a delightful cast.  Is this an action-packed movie?  No, but the story moves quickly enough to make you think otherwise.  That might be the key to this film's longevity; even though times have changed, everyone loves the guy who outsmarts the competition and mocks his enemies.  It's the American Way in (a slightly cynical) film format.  In other words, in a genre --- this is vintage film noir, in case you hadn't realized it --- of tough men, dangerous women, and hazy morality, there is nothing better than The Maltese Falcon.

The African Queen

Looking at this movie poster, you might think that this is a film about a dashing leading man who rescues a beautiful woman from dangerous...hippos?  Um...and there's an explosion in the corner.  While there is some truth to this poster --- the leads are in a boat, and there is an explosion --- it's not a very accurate representation of the film.  That's okay, though.  If you're lured in by the poster, you might not see the movie you thought you wanted to watch, but you will still catch a classic.

The African Queen is adapted from the novel of the same name, which tells the story of how a religious old maid and a drunken river rat decided to help Great Britain fight the Germans in World War I.  The story opens with Rose (Katherine Hepburn) and her brother (Robert Morley) in a missionary church, doing their best to instill Christianity to their non-English speaking African flock.  Their best isn't terribly impressive.  Charlie (Humphrey Bogart), the dirty and bearded owner of a small steam boat (The African Queen), shows up from time to time to deliver mail to the mission.  This time, though, he also brings news of a war between England and Germany.  That's bad news for these British missionaries, because their mission is in German East Africa.  The siblings naively believe that they have nothing to fear and Charlie leaves.  Soon after, Germans enter the mission, round up the locals (for unknown reasons) and beat Rose's brother; he survives the attack, but falls ill and dies soon after.  Charlie stops by a few days later and finds Rose numb with grief.  He helps her bury her brother, and the pair take the African Queen to safety.

Or do they?  It turns out that Charlie doesn't get a chance to talk to English-speaking people much, and he fills awkward silences with one-sided conversation.  Charlie reveals that he is a machinist, and that he can make just about anything, given the right parts.  He could even make torpedoes from the material on his boat.  Charlie also let it slip that the Germans have a huge gunship in a lake downriver that effectively keeps the British forces at bay.  Rose puts these two thoughts together and decides that she and Charlie should sink the German gunship by ramming a torpedo-wielding African Queen into it.  Of course, that is assuming they can navigate the treacherous river together, avoiding its natural and man-made dangers all the while.  As you might surmise from my brief character descriptions, Charlie and Rose are not very similar and much of the story is devoted to their relationship.  Predictably, they start out fairly frosty toward each other, but eventually warm up and fall in love.  The film is basically their love story, with the attack on the Germans serving as their zero hour. 

I hadn't seen this film in at least ten years before this viewing, so I went in with somewhat fond recollections.  I wasn't terribly impressed with the first act of the movie this time around, though.  Sure, I appreciated the amount of scenes that were clearly filmed in Africa (which was a hassle in 1951 with their enormous cameras) and liked the subtle jab at the futile efforts of "converting" third world people to Christianity.  I've got no problem with missionaries converting people, but to presume that you can create spiritual and moral understanding without having a language in common is just silly.  Oh, Colonialism, you are the prankster of all -isms.  But I digress.  Charlie and Rose's characters are well-established in these early scenes, but something about them bothers me.  I don't think they are very likable characters when the movie begins.  I understand that their stereotypical presentations are just to establish a quick understanding between the filmmakers and the audience, but these scenes are awkward, both purposefully and accidentally.  I see this serving a purpose in their relationship, but the pace is slow enough for this part of the film to seriously drag.

That doesn't last long, though. Once the film establishes its direction with the let's-sink-the-Krauts idea, the main characters loosen up and become very entertaining.  This isn't a typical Bogart role; his character has more flaws than most of his memorable characters and fewer obvious strengths.  This isn't your normal, debonair romantic Bogart, either.  Charlie is dirty and uncouth.  This might be the happiest Bogart character I have seen, though, and when Charlie is enjoying himself the movie flies by.  Bogart won the Best Actor Oscar for this role, and it is a fine performance, although it might have been one of those we-can't-believe-you-haven't-won-yet awards, since he beat out Marlon Brando's work in A Streetcar Named Desire.  Katherine Hepburn is no slouch, either, of course.  I'm not usually a huge Hepburn fan (mostly because of her voice), but she does a good job here, showing a very plausible transition from prim and proper lady to a woman discovering love for the first time.  Plus, it's Katherine Hepburn...the woman's whole career was Oscar nominated, so you can bet she doesn't mail her performance in here.  Together, Bogart and Hepburn are delightful to watch and their romance manages to remain fun and never gets too cloying.

There really aren't many other actors in this film.  After Robert Morley's character dies, the next important character is the German captain, played by Peter Bull.  They're serviceable, but that because that's all they need to be.  This is not an ensemble movie.  That means that the director, frequent Bogart collaborator John Huston, spent almost his entire focus on the film's romance, and it pays off in spades.  The cinematography is pretty good, although the occasional African animals that receive a quick cut were clearly never near the stars.  Huston is a great director, and while this movie is more light-hearted than most of his classic works, he is still able to make an entertaining film with two great lead performances.

John Huston also co-wrote the screenplay, which is substantially less great than his direction.  It's not a bad script, by any means, but a lot of the dialogue has become dated in a way that his other screenwriting credits have not.  There is also the completely valid complaint that the plot of this movie is implausible as all hell.  I don't really mind that so much, since the main characters are so much fun to watch, but it would be a huge problem if the lead actors were, say, Ashton Kutcher and Tara Reid.

The absolute worst thing about this film, though, is the soundtrack.  There are long periods where the only background noise comes from nature, and that fits this film's tone perfectly.  Every so often, though, Allan Gray's score pops up.  I don't have any musical education, so it's hard for me to put those sounds into words.  I guess the best I can do is have you picture Denzel Washington, after several tense minutes, breaking into a smile to charm his woman, even in a bad situation...and then the Popeye theme music comes in, not as a joke or an homage, but because they felt that that type of music with those instruments fit that moment just right.  Awful, right?  Well, it's a little worse in The African Queen.  It's so bad that the score should end each of its pieces with a "wah-waaaaah" noise to at least sympathize with the audience that has to listen to it.

To summarize: Bogart and Hepburn are great, and so is Huston's direction.  The writing is a little hokey, but the score is distractingly bad (when it appears).

Casino Royale (1967)

Sometimes, when I watch movies, there will be a sequence that makes me stop the picture, rewind and play it again.  This is done out disbelief, which can be either good or bad.  A sweet line of dialogue or an absolutely ridiculous stunt gets good disbelief.  Absolutely random or stupid things get the bad disbelief.  The entire running time for Casino Royale gets the bad kind.

While Casino Royale is based on Ian Fleming's first James Bond novel of the same name, don't confuse it with the 2006 version.  This is not an official Bond movie, but a British spoof of Bond and a bunch of other spy movies.  The film has five (!) directors, with each making their own vignette that is tied together at the very end.  John Huston, Val Guest, Ken Hughes, Joseph McGrath, and Robert Parrish all acted as director.  Each vignette has its own style and feel, and spoofs different things.  Likewise, the story is very segmented and disjointed.  It should be no surprise that the story is not the main focus for the film.  Instead, the emphasis seems to be on several small moments that, when they work, are extremely funny.

The story begins with an attempt to coax Sir James Bond (David Niven) out of retirement by his old boss, M (John Huston), a CIA guy (William Holden), someone from the KGB, and a French guy.  Predicting Bond's refusal, M arranged for the British government to bomb Bond's home and have it blamed on the evil international organization SMERSH.  The house crumbles,convincing Bond to come out of retirement, but sadly, M dies in the bombing.  Way to plan ahead, genius.  Bond's first act is to return M's body to his family in Scotland.  Sir James is a very prim and proper man who despises the seductive film versions that have had success in recent years; SMERSH seeks to discredit him by ruining his chaste image.  To do so, they replaced all of M's family with sexy SMERSH female agents, all intent on seducing Sir James.  Despite their best efforts, he resists their charms and wins over the operations leader (Deborah Kerr).  From there, Bond returns to England as the head of MI6.  He has his secretary, Miss Moneypenny (Barbara Bouchet) assign the code name "James Bond 007" to all remaining secret agents, in an attempt to confuse both SMERSH and the audience. 

I could go on in detail, but that's as clear as the plot ever gets, so it's probably not worth it.  There are only two other important story lines, in my opinion.  The first involves the recruitment of Evelyn Tremble (Peter Sellers) into a "James Bond 007" identity by fellow "James Bond," Vesper Lynd (Ursula Andress).  Tremble-Bond's mission, like in the 2006 version, is to defeat the villainous Le Chiffe (Orson Welles) at cards.  The other story line involves Sir James Bond facing off against the head of SMERSH, who also happens to be his clumsy nephew, Jimmy Bond (Woody Allen).  Jimmy is very intimidated by his uncle, so he has trouble speaking in his presence, but if his evil plan succeeds, he won't have to.  All men over 4'6" will die, leaving Jimmy as the big man in the world for all women to adore.  The rest of the film has a smorgasbord of movie stars in bit parts and plot sequences that make little to no sense, leading up to a finale that involves cowboys, Indians, and Woody Allen hiccuping illustrated clouds of smoke and eventually exploding.

The supporting cast is very good, even if they only are given a few lines.  Aside from those already mentioned (who give the best performances), George Raft, Jean-Paul Belmondo, Jacqueline Bisset, Anna Quale, Tracy Reed, Peter O'Toole, and Jack Gwillim all have bit parts.  The main acting, though, is not as good.  I realize that David Niven is as British as they come, so his humor is probably going to be very British (read: dry and peculiar, with a weakness for men wearing dresses).  This movie has a ton of slapstick in it, though, which doesn't match his style at all.  He seems uncomfortable throughout.  Peter Sellers is better, but at least half of his screen time is painfully awkward; the other half is pretty funny, though, which makes up for quite a bit.  It's Woody Allen that gets the most laughs with a great show of physical comedy near the end of the film.

The frustrating thing about this movie is that it should be far better than it is.  Seriously, who would have thought that a Peter Sellers/Woody Allen movie wouldn't be very funny?  The problems are myriad, but they boil down to a lack of vision.  Just because the movie is split into several sub-stories doesn't mean that the film as a whole has to suffer; Creepshow, Twilight Zone: The Movie, Grindhouse, and Kentucky Fried Movie are all choppy and mashed together, but their segments share a similar tone.  Casino Royale can't decide what type of comedy it is.  There's an entire sequence that appears to be a satire of contemporary German films, but then finishes with a Benny Hill-type ending.  Huh?  That's okay, Mr. Random Ending, Peter Sellers outdoes you by being physically missing from the final third of his scenes (he either quit or was fired, depending on who you ask).  David Niven's scenes work better as a whole, but they feel like they came out of a British sitcom.  They're cheap, cheeky, and pretty lame.  Basically, there are too many styles at work, and none compliment each other.  I will give director Val Guest credit for trying to tie these disparate strands of story together, but he never truly succeeds; he apparently realized this and turned down a "Supervising Director" credit after he saw the final cut of the film.  Disappointing movies don't come easily or quickly, it seems, and this mess takes over two hours to wind down.

Despite all the bad (two hours!), this movie is not without its charms.  As a James Bond aficionado, it's fun to see the series lampooned.  Personally, I thought David Niven's turn as a celibate Bond was clever, even if it wasn't very funny.  As I mentioned before, Peter Sellers and Woody Allen are entertaining, although Allen was criminally underused.  Many of the other scenes would have worked better if they were shorter, or if the vignettes were edited together as a united film.  But, for what it is, Casino Royale isn't terrible.  It's a product of its time, filled with clean-cut men, sexy women, surreal randomness, and painfully British humor.