John Holmes

This is one of Nicholas Ray’s 2 best films, the other being the Noir masterpiece, “In A Lonely Place,” with Humphrey Bogart. Made at the height of the Ozzie and Harriet idealized vision of them American family, “Bigger Than Life” traces the decline and fall of a husband-father as he endures the side effects of a new “wonder drug,” Cortizone. James Mason, always excellent, here is at the peak of his powers. Movie is based on an article that appeared in the New Yorker magazine, and Mason himself pushed hard to get the film made. It is, I think, the first movie to highlight the issue of addiction to pain-killer medications that would sadly become even more prevalent in later years. There are some very powerful and disturbing scenes in this remarkable movie, so naturally it was a box office flop. Barbara Rush is also excellent as Mason’s wife. Under-seen and neglected for decades, this is a movie anyone who enjoys a strong story will want to see. A+

No hype, no box office stars, no color, no special effects, and not even any sex or offensive language to liven things up. Yet the film-making skills (directing and editing) pull you in from the beginning, and the performances - every one natural and unobtrusive - combine to create a movie masterpiece. Throughout, a Protestant family wrestles to decide whether or not to leave their hometown because of the religious conflict that has literally come to their doorstep. Their Irish neighborhood in the 1960’s comes to life, as charming scenes of family life alternate with ones of anxiety and street fighting. Events and recollections of director Kenneth Branagh have fueled this movie and given it the authenticity evident at every turn. Best movie of the year - period.

Not for action lovers or the Monty Python crowd, this is a thoughtful movie that is seriously interested in this very old (so ancient the author’s name is unknown) English poem called “Sir Gawain & the Green Knight”. Should be seen by anyone at all drawn to the Arthurian tales and their movie treatments over the years. It treats the “quest” as a natural, life-cycle event in which the Knight might possibly gain a valuable insight into life’s purpose. Could use a bit more of a regal look, but most elements fall into place here, especially the acting; the effect created for the the “green knight” and the crackling sound effects that convey the breathing and movements of his bark are truly exceptional. It’s been a long time since John Boorman’s film “Excalibur,” but this is of that quality. Should be a feast for old or young English majors and lovers of classical literature.

BIG TIME SPOILER ALERT: Do any real fans of this series of films want to see this character die? The very idea runs afoul of the light, elegant style so deftly conveyed by all the other Bond movies. So there is a clear case of poor judgment on the part of the producers here to allow this very awkward ending to Mr. Craig’s tenure as Bond. Are we suddenly being expected to take 007’s ridiculous heroics seriously and view his death as actually happening in our real world? Did anyone ever seriously think these movies represented real-life espionage such as in John LaCarre’s fiction and films? Why now, after 60 years of successful, breezy action movies must we be asked to weep for his dying so his little girl can live a full life? We only wonder that if this IS in fact a real man, how many other children he might have fathered from his countless liaisons over the decades?

A young couple who seem maybe ”a bit odd” leave in a camper to see some tourist sights that are off the beaten path. At a rest stop the man becomes annoyed at the casual littering he sees a fellow traveler commit. His shocking way of dealing with the offense made it impossible for this viewer to stop watching, and very anxious to see what was going to happen next. It is indeed like watching a train wreck, except it’s in slow motion, which gives us just enough time to enjoy the mayhem as each car smashes one at a time before our startled eyes. Is there something wrong with people who find this nasty stuff enjoyable? Could be. Guilty pleasure fans, take note.

First “best picture” Oscar winner, famous in its day for its photography of aerial WW1 combat, and the thrill of watching the two male stars fighting for the love of Clara Bow, the “It” girl of 1920’s Hollywood. How ironic that it concludes with a genuinely touching love scene between these two leading men (Richard Arlan and Charles “Buddy Rogers). Of course it’s dated - how could it be anything else after nearly a century? The roots of scores of action/romance movies are observable in this first rate production. And the story, the action and the level of feeling the young actors bring to the project is still exciting to see. If you’ve never seen a silent movie, this would be a good one to start with.

This movie examines an emotionally fragile man as he descends deeper and deeper into what is probably a psychotic state. His deterioration begins as he identifies more and more with the previous tenant of his apartment. His neurotic impulses and distorted sense of reality overtake his life, and he is finally shattered by the terror that engulfs him. A harrowing, brilliant depiction of an extreme form of mental illness. Polanski gets wonderful performances from Melvyn Douglas, Shelley Winters, Isabelle Adjani and even from himself in the leading role. Not meant to be seen by the casual movie-goer - an audience of psychology majors might best relate to this extremely creepy masterpiece.

Monumental, really, even after all these years. Its success is no doubt due to the fact it ignores the novel’s entire second half. Concentrating instead on the doomed, troubled relationship between Cathy and Heathcliff, the movie benefits enormously from this sharper, narrower focus. And from the performances, writing, direction and musical score. No other romantic movie drama has equaled this one’s final fifteen minutes. Even the famous (or infamous) tacked-on final shot seems appropriate when you consider the ghostly presence near the beginning. Olivier would go on to fulfill his legendary career following his role asHeathcliff; but nothing Miss Oberon did, before or since, would come close to her first rate work here. One of the 12 best movies of the 30’s.

Interesting spin on Stevenson’s great tale, told from the point of view of a servant girl living in Dr. Jekyll’s house. The script examines her developing curiosity about her kindly employer as he gradually seems to be falling under the influence of his sinister friend, “you-know-who.” Implications indicate Mary herself may harbor sympathy for the new man in the house and the same need to let her own demons out. The director makes her ambivalence possible because Hyde looks merely like a more robust, sexier version of Jekyll. The real frightening presence here is Glenn Close’s garish lipstick and wig - she seems to have wandered in from a drag queen contest. Unusual movie because it avoids the highlights of the transformation and murder scenes of all the other movie treatments - yet it still manages to hold our attention. Yes, there is no attempt for the stars to speak the “King’s English” but this was also true of the 30’s and 40’s versions of the novel as well. A nicely-controlled, low-key thriller.

Sidney Pollack’s baseball movie succeeds on a level beyond its crazy screenplay. Its slow pace is as leisurely as the game itself, and it revels in the mystical hold the sport has had on generations of fans. Add Redford’s heroic presence, a host of shrewd performances and a musical score that soars at the bottom of the ninth - and you have a movie that even guys can get lost in. It has this in common with “Field of Dreams” which, well, plows the same field. You may hate yourself when your head clears after it’s over, but it does cast a spell.