El Dorado (1966)

4/5

Howard Hawks's El Dorado is a loose remake of his earlier, better Rio Bravo (read my review here). The story isn't as interesting, the characters aren't as rich, and the comedy is nearly absent. Much is the same, but a little bit cheesier. Both films have lackluster cinematography. The pacing is fluid and the story is solid, even if they lack innovation and novelty. What El Dorado does have over Rio Bravo is better actors and more exciting action. All in all, it's an entertaining story told effectively. If you're looking for a fun western, check this out. If you're looking for a great western, check out Rio Bravo.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061619/

A Man for All Seasons (1966)

3/5

A Man for All Seasons tells the story of Thomas More and his refusal to acknowledge King Henry VIII's divorce from Catherine and marriage to Anne Boleyn. For some unexplained reason, the king wants--no, needs--his approval. And since he won't give it, they put him on trial for high treason and detate his cappa, as Michael Scott would put it. I was not a big fan of the movie. I couldn't get involved in the story, as none of the characters' actions or motivations were explained or even hinted at. The first half an hour bored me half to death--I could not even sate my desire to look at something interesting due to sparse set design and drab costuming.

Still, not all was bad. The cinematography and music were merely humdrum. And there was some good stuff. There were some tense scenes and a really powerful ending (slightly marred by a worthless voice-over afterwards). Paul Scofield's acting was quite magnificent. Though I disagree with his opinion and his steadfastness, I could still respect him. All in all, not recommended, but feel free to enjoy it if that's your bag.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0060665/

Fahrenheit 451 (1966)

1/5

In Truffaut's bizarre vision of Ray Bradbury's dystopian novel Fahrenheit 451, Guy Montag is German. I presume it's because they got a German actor and for no other reason. This futuristic world is not so much futuristic as it is impossible. They've created a new salute and handshake for the movie, which look ridiculous. They drive a fire truck that looks like a toy and they can slide up the fire pole. Technically, it's a mess, with obtrusive editing, garish colors, preposterous dialogue, and hammy acting! Which all make it so severely dated. This movie is the epitome of all that is ludicrous. Which makes it hilarious, in the same way Plan 9 from Outer Space is hilarious.

To be fair, it did look much better than the movies Truffaut made before this one. There were actually some pretty impressive shots. The filmmaking techniques are much more traditional than they usually are, which makes the movie easier to watch. Also, the story itself draws you in and keeps you interested. It's a shame that it starts off with such insane details that distract from Bradbury's brilliant story. Despite these relatively scattered positives, you just can't ignore how bad the rest of the movie is. Don't waste your time.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0060390/

Closely Watched Trains (1966)

3/5

Closely Watched Trains is a Czechoslovakian movie about a young man who, as IMDb puts it, longs to be liberated from his virginity. The biggest problem with this movie is the pacing. I found it tedious and boring and thought it moved much too slowly. The first half lacked any real substance, and it was only in the second half of the film that we got some semblance of theme or message. This movie would have made a pretty stellar 30 minute short. The mood, sound, and images were so timeless, however, that if it weren't in Czech it could pass as a modern American independent film. (And with it, all the negatives associated with the modern American independent.) Technically, the movie is rock-solid. The shot compositions and editing were quite good, with equally well-done sound design and music to match. The characters were all really interesting, although their actions and motivations were usually quite bizarre and ultimately unexplained. There are some astoundingly erotic scenes, mixed in with tense drama and witty humor to make a very full-bodied movie. But I did not find it particularly meaningful, funny, or romantic; it didn't excel or stand out for me in any of those categories. It's a bit more tender than the gotta-get-laid comedies being made now, and for that I can appreciate it. But sometimes it's just too emo, and that is unforgivable.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0060802/

Torn Curtain (1966)

4/5

The first half of Torn Curtain was absolutely amazing (Hitchcock at his best), while the second half was simply disappointing. The plot follows Michael Armstrong (Paul Newman), an American physicist during the Cold War who pretends to defect to gain nuclear secrets from a (much-smarter) Communist scientist there. His fiancée (Julie Andrews) has followed him against his will and unaware of his pretense.

The tension, the wit, and the romance in the first half were all there, and in just the right quantities. The characters were well-developed, and the acting stellar. Our hearts are with the protagonists every step of the way. The pacing and editing were extremely precise. The shots, as always, were incredible. The music, though not by Herrmann, was still riveting and a good accompaniment to the movie's mood. But the best part of the first half is that it contained one of the most incredible murder scenes ever committed to film--I was nearly breathless the entire time. This movie should be seen just for that one scene. The second half was marred by a meandering, overlong escape, the introduction of a million worthless side characters, and a complete lack of progression and build-up. I did like the very unexpected re-introduction of a very minor character from the first half of the movie, but that is pretty much it. Despite moments of tension, it just didn't build up to anything and bored me. I was just waiting for it to end. The finale has nothing on The Great Escape. Even with the problems in the second half, the first half is just too good not to recommend it.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0061107/

Seconds (1966)

2/5

Seconds follows aging Arthur Hamilton, who is selected to have his death faked and undergo surgery so that he can start a new life. It is in fact a rather bland drama masquerading as a thriller. Neither genre works, moving back and forth between the two with no central mood, build-up, or connection. It was interesting to see how this film connected them, but the final product just doesn't work. The drama portion is the most compelling part because the suspense aspect simply does not succeed, despite being directed by Frankenheimer (he previously directed the brilliant original version of The Manchurian Candidate). The drama hit me hard despite its lack of originality, mostly because I was expecting a traditional thriller and was surprised to see its presence in the movie at all. It deals with the age-old question of the meaning of life, the choices we make, and the mistakes we must live with. But it's not worth sitting through the entire movie just to get that little out of it. Instead, go out and rent It's A Wonderful Life because it deals with the same questions more thoroughly and honestly--not to mention that it's more tense because you come to really care for Jimmy Stewart's character as he contemplates suicide.

The acting felt hollow, except for John Randolph and Rock Hudson, who really owned their parts. Most of the cinematography was distracting (especially the distorted, close-up hand-held shots) except for a very few interesting and effective ones. The editing confused instead of clarified, and it tried too hard. There was a lengthy bacchanalia sequence that felt out of place and exploitative. There are so many characters and events that are simply a waste of time; I felt cheated out of an hour of my life, as this movie could've been made much tighter and better in 45 minutes. Plot points were intentionally left muddy and unexplained. I did get something out of the movie, but not anything that would have taken 105 minutes on my own. Don't bother with this movie.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0060955/

Au Hasard Balthazar (1966)

1/5

Wow. This is perhaps the most disappointing movie I have ever seen. I desperately wanted to like it; I thought it would be a masterpiece. It was like anticipating The Godfather and getting The Hot Chick. This is the first time in a long time, maybe even ever, that I felt like walking out of the theater halfway through.

The acting, as in all Bresson movies, is completely flat. The dialogue is there merely to get from one place to the next. Reviewers have called this movie a staggering emotional masterpiece, but I cannot feel emotion for characters I am completely separated from. This separation is a direct result of Bresson's desire for "austere," "pure" images. The music was bare yet melodramatic in its usage, blatantly attempting to evoke emotion that the actors were not allowed to generate. Bresson decided not to explain any character's motivations, perhaps hoping the audience would chalk it up to human nature and how people sometimes act illogically; this decision made the movie not only confusing, but also insulting to the viewer.

I found absolutely no redeeming qualities in this movie. It was a complete and utter waste of 95 minutes of my life.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0060138/