|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Aug 25, 2024 12:24:51 GMT
Q: Why watch a movie with Charles Laughton in it?
A: Because Charles Laughton is in it.
As good a reason as any!If I recall correctly, the first time I watched IT STARTED WITH EVE was just after Deanna Durbin passed away and TCM featured this title as part of its year-end In Memoriam segment. At the time I hadn't seen any of her other films, so this was an excellent introduction.
I think I'm going to put this one on my "Neglected Films" short list for the second half of the year. |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Sept 15, 2024 20:30:21 GMT
This neglected film is from 1948.
Is a future in the straight world possible?
In this Universal noir, with a title that is as lurid as it is exciting, Burt Lancaster stars in his first co-production with a major studio. He plays a man who uses his fists first and thinks later. Of course his propensity for violence keeps him from joining the right side of society. The story, based on a bestselling novel by Gerald Butler, is a variation on the theme of being misunderstood. Lancaster’s character, a former soldier who spent time in a Nazi prison camp, is the king of being misunderstood.
We see him wage an uphill battle against social”forces” that pressure him. His is a somewhat bleak existence, and in the post-war era, he is struggling to find peace and happiness like many ex-soldiers were.
The opening sequence is full of tense confrontation and action, with Lancaster fleeing a brawl and running down London streets at night (on the Universal backlot in Hollywood). He has just quarreled with a man inside a pub, knocked the dude out and accidentally killed him.
Bolting from onlookers and the police, he jumps over a railing and takes off. Soon he has leapt up on to a scaffold of a residential building, where he opens a window and hops inside. Lucky for him, he has just entered the apartment of a pretty young woman (Joan Fontaine) who until this moment had been sleeping soundly.
Lancaster spends the night— not in her bed, of course, since the production code is still being enforced. The next morning he starts to win her over with his good looks, charm and earnest story. It doesn’t take long before she is convinced of his innocence, even if she thinks it best he leave her place and find some other place to stay.
He agrees to vacate the apartment as she goes off to work— she’s a nurse employed at a nearby clinic— but since trouble is his middle name, he gets into another altercation. This time the police take him off to jail for six months. Fontaine tries to visit him while he’s banged up, but she is not allowed to see him. Absence will definitely make the heart grow fonder and all that.
Though this is a film that focuses a bit more on Lancaster’s character than it does on Fontaine’s, she is the one who holds the story together. Fontaine’s smart acting choices draw us in; it’s obvious her character will play a pivotal role in the ultimate redemption of Lancaster’s character.
While he’s locked up for six months, there are some flogging scenes in which Lancaster’s bare chest is on full display. The actor seems unafraid to explore the darker side of the role (having just made BRUTE FORCE for Universal, which contained similar abuse).
In these kinds of films, with his shirt off, Lancaster quickly established himself as a beefcake star in the late 1940s. Incidentally, there are blogs written by gay men who devote wet dreams and screenshots to the flogging scenes from this movie, because I suppose it is a turn-on for them, as it must be for the hot blooded women watching the film..?
KISS THE BLOOD OFF MY HANDS is more than anything else, a story about two young people who have been thrown together by violent circumstances. It’s not a meet-cute as much as it is a meet-danger.
But we know that if given half a chance, Lancaster might reform. This couple might beat the ends and find a happily ever after.
Lancaster and Fontaine are given plenty of good support by British actor Robert Newton. Newton is occasionally flamboyant as a scheming crook who witnessed Lancaster’s accidental killing of the bar patron at the beginning of the story.
He blackmails Lancaster’s character into stealing drugs from the clinic where Fontaine works. In terms of plot, this is a good way to embroil Fontaine’s character more in the overall drama. Of course, she is going to do her best to convince Lancaster to make better choices and turn from a life of crime.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Sept 16, 2024 9:04:31 GMT
Kiss the Blood Off My Hands form 1948 with Joan Fontaine, Burt Lancaster and Robert Newton
Kiss the Blood Off My Hands could fit into a 1950s one-hour TV drama like Alfred Hitchcock Presents, but the outstanding performances, directing, and noir atmosphere make it an excellent film, especially for fans of the leads.
The story itself is pretty simple: set in England, a WWII veteran, played by Burt Lancaster, suffering from PTSD (although, it's more complicated as he acknowledges having had an uncontrolled violent streak even before the war), hits and kills a man in a bar fight.
Lancaster initially hides out in an apartment he snuck into to avoid arrest. The apartment's surprised tenant is a lonely nurse at a clinic, played by Joan Fontaine. From here, the movie follows Fontaine trying to help Lancaster straighten out his life as they fall in love.
It would probably have all gone well in real life as Fontaine gets Lancaster a job driving a truck for the clinic and helps to calm his violent temper, but this is a noir and, in noirland, your past always comes back to haunt you.
For Lancaster, the past shows up in the form of a shady black-marketeer, played with pitch-perfect slimy smarminess by Robert Newton.
Newton witnessed the bar fight and now pops up regularly threatening to expose Lancaster unless he steals supplies from the clinic for Newton’s "business."
That's the story: a violent man with a PTSD overlay meets a sweet woman and tries to reform his life, but can't as an unctuously evil crook blackmails him into committing a crime.
Lancaster, in this one, is young, handsome (contrivedly shirtless in one scene), intense and fills the screen with a barely controlled energy that pairs perfectly with Fontaine's delicate beauty and quietly resolute screen presence that makes this as much her picture as his.
Newton proves their equal playing the relentless thorn in their side, hindering Lancaster’s attempt to start over and, thus, Fontaine and Lancaster's happiness.
The standout scene is, surprisingly, Fontaine’s faceoff with Newton, which has you white-knuckled gripped on your chair without realizing it until it's over.
Director Norman Foster keeps this short movie, with a focused but thin story, moving at a rapid pace against an English noir backdrop, created on obvious but well-done California sets.
Foster smartly recognized that less would be more, so he filmed the movie in an austere Hemingwayesque short-story style.
Kiss the Blood Off My Hands (a rather dramatic title) is elevated above its routine crime-and-redemption story by the acting talents and chemistry of Fontaine, Lancaster, and Newton, and Norman Foster’s just-noted skilled directing.
Sometimes a simple, short movie, done well, is all that is needed. |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Sept 16, 2024 13:34:18 GMT
Excellent review.
"Sometimes a simple, short movie, done well, is all that is needed."
Agree one million percent.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Sept 25, 2024 14:37:59 GMT
This neglected film is from 1953.
Classic western remake
Universal got plenty of mileage out of W.R. Burnett’s bestselling novel ‘Saint Johnson.’ There was a precode version of the story in 1932, starring Walter Huston with script duties handled by his son John. The studio would remake the story as a serial in 1937 with Johnny Mack Brown. Then Brown was put into a ‘B’ film version in 1940, with the characters’ names slightly changed. Finally, the studio offered viewers a rousing 1953 version in color, starring Ronald Reagan.
Burnett’s tale was based on Wyatt Earp’s exploits taming the west. Eradicating lawlessness and disorder is not an easy job, it’s a dangerous way to make a living; and there is little time for romance or settling down. Reagan portrays the Earp stand-in, a man who leaves Tombstone to take up ranching in another town called Cottonwood. But as he soon finds out, the new community he’s moved to is just as wild and lawless as Tombstone used to be.
One interesting aspect of the story is how Reagan’s character thinks he can escape his reputation as a well-known lawman. He cannot just move to a new area and become one of the regular folks. A judge (Richard Garrick) and town council know about the good he did for Tombstone, and they want him to become their marshal. Part of the urgency is related to the fact that a crooked rancher (Preston Foster) whom Reagan tangled with in the past, is running things by pulling the strings of a corrupt sheriff (Barry Kelley).
Of course, these are stock characters. So is the girl (Dorothy Malone) that Reagan loves. She’s a saloon proprietress from Tombstone who gives up her former life to follow Reagan to Cottonwood. She has resigned herself to the fact that Reagan is the one for her, even if he puts his work wearing a badge above everything else, including her.
Malone is beautiful and does a wonderful job conveying her role without tapping into stereotypes of a saloon gal turned homemaker. She is no real sinner, but she’s no saint either.
Another thing that makes this production stand out is its inclusion of the brothers who also tag along with Reagan. These guys are played by Alex Nicol and Russell Johnson. Nicol is the first one to take the new marshal job when Reagan insists on sticking to ranch work.
After Nicol is killed by Foster’s son (Dennis Weaver), Reagan and Johnson get drawn into the action. Reagan realizes he must restore law and order, while youngest brother Johnson takes a different approach and seeks cold-blooded vengeance. In addition to the romantic plot between Reagan and Malone, there is a romantic subplot between Johnson and Foster’s daughter (Ruth Hampton)…shades of Romeo and Juliet, the young lovers from opposing families.
When Johnson kills Weaver, the stakes are even higher between Reagan and Foster. It’s all expertly played by these actors, and there is plenty of outdoor action…especially when Johnson tries to make a run for the border. Reagan must trail after him and bring him back to stand trial. Meanwhile, Foster’s reign of terror comes to an end when he’s brought to his knees.
It’s really Reagan’s show, he’s the main alpha male. And though Reagan was never going to be mistaken for Olivier or any highly esteemed actor, he still turns in a credible performance. He is particularly good in his scenes with Malone.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Sept 29, 2024 13:54:06 GMT
This neglected film is from 1934.
Raw terror with virtuoso emotionalism
THE MAN WHO RECLAIMED HIS HEAD is about a Frenchman named Paul Verin (portrayed by Claude Rains). He starts as a peace-loving writer who inevitably becomes involved in the battles of WWI.
He is by his very nature a pacifist, and I suspect in his most innocent phase, represented the idealism and anti-war sentiment espoused by scenarist Jean Bart. Bart’s play in three acts and sixteen scenes ran on Broadway during the autumn months of 1932 with Rains in the lead role. Rains was so invested in the story that he persuaded the executives at Universal to purchase the property for him and adapt it to the screen.
As the tale unfolds we learn that Paul Verin had written essays about the importance of remaining neutral. However, he has been duped by a publisher, Henry Dumont (Lionel Atwill), who is in actuality a warmonger unbeknownst to Paul. This seems conveniently ironic but here we get the crux of the drama, and Paul’s own inner conflicts escalate when he learns he’s been “betrayed” by Dumont. It drives him mad.
A subplot involves Paul’s wife Adele— played by Jean Arthur on Broadway and by a blonde Joan Bennett in the film. Adele is an ornamental social climber who pushes Paul to achieve financial success so she can escape poverty.
She has a relationship with Dumont which on some level is over emphasized, so we can side with Paul even more and sympathize when he’s in the throes of madness. There is considerable hammering home that Paul’s been betrayed by Dumont. Plenty of reason for him to exact revenge in a most spectacular fashion.
In critics’ circles there is some debate about whether this is a true horror film, though it does have dark tones and atmospheric touches that border on the horrific. The carnage of war carries over into Paul’s personal life and builds to a shocking final scene that is hinted at in the beginning.
Only Claude Rains can project such pathos on to the audience in such a commanding yet disturbing way. Rains made several different horror-tinged flicks at Universal in the 1930s and 1940s. He is a performer who mixes raw terror with virtuoso emotionalism.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Oct 4, 2024 13:21:55 GMT
This neglected film is from 1952.
Working in a broader sense towards victory
RED BALL EXPRESS is a Universal war film starring Jeff Chandler that tells a WWII story. It was photographed in black and white, but still an “A” budgeted picture. The narrative has deceptively quiet moments…only for us to be jolted back to reality as the horrors of war re-present themselves.
Mostly we see staged drama with actual footage from the war included. This is probably the main reason it was shot in black-and-white, so that the material with the actors matched the newsreel footage. Not only is it difficult to distinguish between the two, but it makes the Hollywood elements of the picture seem a bit more real.
Apparently 75% of the Red Ball Express involved African American soldiers because they had a lower ranking in the military and were considered more “expendable” for such a risky mission. Sidney Poitier has a key role as one of these men. We get the idea that team work occurs across racial divides. It is more than black soldiers being put into one big job. Instead they are working in a broader sense, with other soldiers of different nationalities, towards victory…even if they sometimes have individual quarrels.
After I watched this film, I checked out some user reviews online. One review that I read was written by an African American man. He recalled seeing this movie in a theater in 1952, when he was a kid. His dad had been a member of the Red Ball Express during the war. Their whole family went to a local theater when the movie came to their town. However, the family had to sit upstairs in a sectioned off part of the balcony, where ‘colored folks’ were seated. So although the movie shows how integrated races could be, the American viewing audience was still quite segregated.
As for what’s on screen…one of Universal’s goals with this production is to showcase Jeff Chandler to some extent, since he was their biggest moneymaker (before Rock Hudson took over). They were also grooming second lead Alex Nicol to be a leading man. There aren’t very many women on screen, but the ones we do glimpse manage quite well with their limited screen time…even if they are portraying stereotypical females in a war setting.
Despite my liking Chandler, Nicol and Poiter, I have to say that Charles Drake was my favorite performer in this film. He gets to play the romantic storyline, and he has several amusing moments when he leaves his European girlfriend’s house and must take a bicycle across dangerous terrain to rejoin the other men of his unit.
The scenes where Drake’s character meets his girlfriend’s family almost feels like a different film, which I like. In these moments, we get a different view of life overseas.
We see how the girl’s family has little food but still offer him something to eat. Their appreciation for the American soldiers is obvious. And of course, it quickly leads to a blossoming romance.
Most viewers will be impressed by the film’s big action sequence. It’s the part where Chandler and other men drive trucks along a winding road through fire.
I thought it was particularly suspenseful. However, it’s all done rather swiftly. If the movie was remade today, this sort of sequence would be extended, and probably overloaded with computerized special effects. And all the advertising would include images from these scenes to emphasize the action elements of the film.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Oct 16, 2024 7:01:55 GMT
This neglected film is from 1957.
A sobering truth
Actor-director Richard Carlson helmed this Universal crime drama that is a better than the average studio programmer. Contract player George Nader plays an alcoholic reporter whose career and personal life have both seen better days. He’s made a right mess of everything, including his relationship with the sister (Joanna Moore) of a local police lieutenant (Brian Keith).
Nader’s character resolves to get back on track and salvage things. His redemption depends on Keith's sister in more than just the romantic sense, for he can also salvage his career with her help. If he promises to stay off the sauce for a full day, she will give him a hot tip that will put him back in good standing with bosses at the newspaper office where they both work.
He needs to be sober and alert to cover the story of a fugitive criminal (Frank de Kova) who will be arriving later at a nearby restaurant. So not only is this about catching a figure of the underworld, it’s about an otherwise decent man fighting his own shadowy demons at the same time. The film is shot in stark black-and-white compositions by Carlson and his cinematographer William E. Snyder.
While I usually don’t think too highly of Nader as a performer— he’s an okay actor— he does do quite well here conveying the conflicted emotions and temptations of the character he’s portraying, a man whose entire existence is defined by the black-and-white morality of 1950s society.
Equally impressive is Moore’s work as a well-meaning woman who just wants the man she loves to stand strong and beat what’s continually bringing him down and tearing them apart. The story reaches a turning point when Nader’s character goes to where the fugitive gangster is supposed to turn up and ends up getting booze splashed on his clothing. He has not been drinking, but because he still reeks of alcohol, he is not believed by Moore or her brother (Keith) when he describes a ruse that the gangster and his girlfriend (Virginia Field) have concocted to evade justice.
It’s interesting to see a grown man treated like a child who cannot be trusted. Particularly when he’s telling the truth, but nobody around will believe him. Of course, this means Nader’s character must work to nab the gangster without help from others who disbelieve his version of events. Again, Nader does very well in his scenes as a man who ironically conquers his demons but still has to conquer the naysayers who don’t think he’s quite on the up and up. This is a decent cinematic effort from the folks at Universal that’s worth checking out.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Oct 27, 2024 15:19:25 GMT
This film is from 1941.
A lot of innocent people might be hurt
Released six years after WEREWOLF OF LONDON, Universal’s original entry in the series– and just two days after the bombing of Pearl Harbor– THE WOLF MAN lives in infamy as one of the studio’s most popular horror films. Though initially panned by some critics in late 1941, it would prove successful with audiences and was a bigger hit at the box office than its predecessor.
While the real-life horror of the second world war played out during the next several years, horror as a movie genre evolved from serious “A” budget fare to lower budgeted whimsy and ultimately turned into a form of self-parody. But THE WOLF MAN is done in a fairly straightforward fashion…no small feat.
The film was given more than a modest-sized budget for hair and make-up– plenty of that is on display in the form of the title character, played by Lon Chaney Jr.
Chaney Jr. had been known up to this point as the son of Lon Chaney Sr., who specialized in grotesque characterizations during the silent era. Chaney Jr. was also regarded for his role as the mentally challenged Lennie in the stage version and subsequent 1939 screen adaptation of John Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men.
But when he was hired to play Larry Talbot in THE WOLF MAN, the actor found his greatest role and lasting fame. His screen immortality would be assured with this iconic appearance as well as a succession of appearances in several sequels.
Bela Lugosi, who is cast as a gypsy’s son, had coveted the lead role here. But Bela’s star was waning. Interestingly, Chaney Jr. wanted to play the PHANTOM OF THE OPERA in the studio’s 1943 remake of his father’s most well-known picture, but Claude Rains snagged it.
Rains takes an important supporting role in THE WOLF MAN. He’s on hand as the estranged British father of Larry Talbot (Chaney Jr.). Their relationship is a Greek tragedy of sorts. When Larry becomes bitten during a brawl– and experiences the curse of a werewolf– a killing spree occurs. His refined dear old dad must stop him and put him out of his misery forever. Otherwise a lot of innocent people might be hurt.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Nov 3, 2024 15:38:53 GMT
This neglected film is from 1950.
Charming offbeat character study
Donald O’Connor had already proven himself in musical comedies at Universal by the time he was inducted into the U.S. Army in 1943. He was just eighteen years old, but beloved by movie audiences. More importantly, he was well-liked by studio execs who would continue to feature him in light fare when he returned from service to Hollywood after the war.
In 1949, the studio had an agreement with O’Connor which paid the actor $30,000 to appear in FRANCIS, a war comedy with a silly premise. Even if O’Connor wasn’t bowled over by the script, the paycheck would come in handy and he said yes. It turned out to be a fortuitous bit of casting, since O’Connor’s affable screen persona would work quite well with his playing opposite a mule. That’s right, a mule.
It could be argued that O’Connor’s character isn’t nearly as fleshed out as the titular animal. In fact, Francis the mule gets some of the best dialogue (voiced by Chill Wills). Though, to be sure, O’Connor gets to ham it up as a slightly befuddled second lieutenant named Peter Stirling, whom we learn was sent to Burma where he met Francis.
The duo’s initial meeting is quite memorable. Francis saves Peter, who seems very flustered in battle, from being killed. Later, Peter is recovering at a medical facility, and he tells the other men he made it to safety because of what a mule had told him. Of course, they think he’s wacky. So, off he goes to a psychiatric ward. The head nurse, Valerie Humpert, is probably even nuttier than Peter is; she’s portrayed by ZaSu Pitts. (Pitts would reprise her role in a later installment of the franchise.)
A subplot involves a sexy French woman (Patricia Medina) at the army camp who is dating a much-older colonel (Ray Collins). But Medina’s character ends up spending more time with O’Connor’s character, once she realizes he and his pal the mule can give her information that she might pass on to the Japanese. This means a long-term romance is out, since she is obviously a spy and will be caught.
Though the situations are rather amusing, none of it is really laugh out loud funny. Unless talking mules and spastic lieutenants tickle your funny bone. Mostly, this is a charming offbeat character study about a lonely guy who is befriended by an animal while serving abroad. In that regard, it’s a sincerely played scenario. Contemporary audiences enjoyed it so much that Universal made six more sequels, five with O’Connor and the last one with Mickey Rooney.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Nov 10, 2024 13:04:27 GMT
This film is from 1933.
Until he unravels
THE INVISIBLE MAN is probably among the top three Claude Rains films. The other two being CASABLANCA and NOTORIOUS. It was Rains’ Hollywood debut, however it was not his first motion picture which has often been erroneously reported. He had been in a silent British film in 1920, eighth-billed. During the thirteen year gap, he concentrated primarily on stage work in Britain before emigrating to the U.S.
He is superb in Universal’s THE INVISIBLE MAN. It is a role where he must rely almost entirely on his voice and the ability to bring a character to life without using his body. Fortunately Rains has the type of voice that lends itself to the imagination and it’s rather easy to envision Dr. Jack Griffin in these scenes, even if he is invisible.
The screenplay by R.C. Sherriff is of course based upon H.G. Wells’ novel, first published in 1897. Interestingly, it took over 35 years for anyone to “picturize” Wells’ classic but luckily these duties were eventually taken on by director James Whale. Whale had previously directed a film based on one of Sherriff’s most successful plays, JOURNEY’S END. And after the resounding success of THE INVISIBLE MAN, they’d collaborate on two additional motion pictures– ONE MORE RIVER in 1934; and THE ROAD BACK in 1937; both at Universal where Whale was basically an ‘house’ director.
Speaking of houses, Whale had previously helmed the memorable horror-comedy THE OLD DARK HOUSE in 1932 which featured Gloria Stuart. She is also in THE INVISIBLE MAN as the love interest. Critic Pauline Kael uses words like bosomy and fleshy to describe Stuart, which is somewhat ironic since our title character is not visible and is fleshless.
In order to convey Griffin’s fleshless qualities but still give him some semblance of a human form, we have him wrapped in clothing and bandages. His unique physicality, along with Rains’ voice, convinces us he’s real even if the overall situation is unreal. Griffin’s goal, per Wells, is to be able to go anywhere undetected and to sell his secret formula to a government leader who might use invisible armies to conquer the world. It’s a notable concept, and Wells identifies the secret formula as monocane. I should point out that there is a drug called monocaine which is an anesthetic.
The fictitious drug in Wells’ story not only causes invisibility but also aggression and madness. Rains is at his most masterful in “showing” us what a megalomaniac Griffin becomes as he unravels (pun intended).
Universal produced a sequel, THE INVISIBLE MAN RETURNS, in 1940. That time Vincent Price took over the lead role. Directorial chores were handed to someone else, since Whale’s career was winding down. But John P. Fulton, who devised most of the witty effects of the original, returned to provide more special effects. Although the sequel lacked the freshness of the original, there was still enough interest among moviegoers for Universal to produce several more Invisible follow-ups, including one with Abbott & Costello. In 2020, the studio remade the original.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Nov 20, 2024 13:12:49 GMT
This neglected film is from 1948.
An act of social realism and contrivance
This is a rather well made motion picture, with some extraordinary performances. But a few things do not work for me.
First, I want to discuss the scene where Florence Eldridge’s character experiences wincing pain and breaks a mirror in the bedroom while she is packing. We have this quick dramatic scene, then it is not mentioned again. Of course, the filmmakers are letting us know, by foreshadowing it, how fatal her prognosis is.
But how did she explain to her husband (Fredric March) the mirror getting broken? And even if she had it fixed without his knowledge, wouldn’t she know at that moment there is something terribly wrong with her? People having good days do not go around smashing bedroom mirrors.
Second, and this plot point might seem minor, but why is it that before they go on their trip he takes the note explaining her full medical condition?
Obviously, the filmmakers have neatly included it in his suitcase so that she can find it and learn about her situation. But wouldn’t he have have left this information in his office or already sent it on to the local physician?
And third, now this is what bothers me most, because it is certainly not addressed– but when he gets behind the wheel during the raging storm with his wife in the passenger seat– how does he know if his plan to kill her will be successful? What if he kills himself in the process, too? Can we assume that he was not only homicidal but suicidal as well?
Did he ever take into account the possibility that he may not survive the wreck but his wife could? If so, what good would that accident have done? Obviously, in the very next scene we see that his plan apparently succeeded and the only visible evidence that he was even in a serious crash is the cane he walks with for the rest of the picture. He has no disabilities or scars (not even a bruise or scratch) while his wife conveniently (and mercifully?) experienced a much more final outcome.
Another thing that didn’t make sense to me is: when did she figure out he was giving her something stronger than aspirin? And how was she to know how toxic it was? So was her overdose intentional or accidental? It is never explained, even later at the trial. Seems a bit hard to believe she would have put the drugs into her purse without him realizing that she had taken them.
What appears to be happening at one turn after another in this picture is that the filmmakers are trying to dramatize a philosophical thesis about mercy killing. But because they have not fully worked out all the plot details, we are left to wonder if this could have been a better film than it is and if the points could have been made more smoothly and convincingly.
As it is we are left with an artistic statement about a difficult decision regarding the quality or end of life, but we are given it in uneven terms and in a scope that is overshadowed by contrivance instead of the social realism they may have been striving to attain.
|
|
