The Key

As a movie lover, Turner Classic Movies has been invaluable to me over the years. I've been introduced to movie stars, unknown classics, American, English, French, Japanese and many more types of movies. But every so often, their website cracks me up. Take 1958's The Key for example. The plot description aptly and appropriately stated 'The key to a woman's apartment may hold bad luck for her lovers.' All true, but what did it leave out? That whole WWII backdrop thing....if that means anything.

More than just a World War II setting, this Carol Reed-directed story is a unique, different WWII setting. Little background heading into that ever-important plot description. It isn't on the battlefield or even the home front, but somewhere in between. It is early in the war (1940 and 1941) and the North Atlantic is full of ships, the German U-boats wreaking havoc on Allied shipping. Because of these attacks, many ships are unable to sail to port, often severely damaged and desperately needing assistance. Enter the basically defenseless tug boats who's job it is to bring them in, the U-boats waiting to strike again. And on with that plot thing....

An American who volunteered with the Canadian Army, Capt. David Ross (William Holden) has been reassigned and given a command in the British Navy. He will co-command a tugboat that rescues handicapped Allied ships, a dangerous task considering his boat has one ancient gun and no armor. Ross immediately meets Capt. Chris Ford (Trevor Howard), an old friend and commander of another tugboat in the outfit. They hit it off right away, the old friends reuniting. In passing though, Chris hands Ross a key to his flat, telling him that if anything happens to him, he can move into the apartment. The only issue? A young woman named Stella (Sophia Loren) lives there too. The situation strikes Ross as particularly odd. What isn't Chris telling him, if anything?

From the few Reed movies I've seen -- from his classic The Third Man to lesser known films like The Running Man -- it's easy to see the British director is so highly respected. As a filmmaker, he's a step above most other directors. Anyone can point a camera at the action and call it a day. He goes for more than that, and 'Key' is certainly an example of that. As I mentioned before, the WWII backdrop is an essential part of the story, but the TCM description is spot-on too without even mentioning the war. So in the end, this is a WWII story with a quasi-love triangle (and more) where death hovers above the characters waiting for a chance to strike. It refuses to be pigeon holed at any point, seemingly reveling in its different qualities. Hard to compare to anything else, but it's a movie I very much enjoyed.

SPOILERS STOP READING SPOILERS The "twist" of sorts is that Loren's Stella is apparently some sort of angel of death. Her husband was a tugboat captain but was killed at sea. Her apartment was up for grabs then -- exact details and background are fuzzy -- but another sailor/tugboat captain moved in. He was killed....as was the next one, and then Howard's Ford moves in. Can you see where this is going? Reed plays up this angle for all it's worth. Yes, it is a love story set in WWII England, but it is also much more than that. As I watched, I couldn't help but think this was an extended, feature length episode of The Twilight Zone. That was a compliment by the way. I love that show.

Reed builds up those creepier elements, all the little things coming together to work together perfectly. Much of composer Malcolm Arnold's score sounds exactly like his score from The Bridge on the River Kwai, but then he uses a soft, eerie score that will send shivers up your back in certain scenes. Loren plays Stella almost like an apparition, a ghost. She can sense when her lovers' time is up, asking if she can go to the dock to say goodbye to them. Because of the job of the captains and its inherent risk, death is prevalent, but she knows when it's coming. Reed uses his camera here as a mood-setting, tilting it off to one way or another, aggressively zooming in and out at the action and dialogue. They are just little things that don't drastically affect anything about the story, but at the same time, it is subtle in its effectiveness.

From his spot behind the camera, Reed almost always had impressive casts to work with, and 'Key' is no different. This was Holden at the top of his game, and he doesn't disappoint. It isn't smooth, charming William Holden. This is an underrated acting performance for him. He's scared, angry and upset at the futility of what they do, finding a friend in Chris and possibly more in Stella. Howard plays against type to a point, getting a chance to ham it up a bit. It is a dark part (his "None of us will make it out alive" line speaking volumes), but it is a character that intends to take advantage of whatever time he has left. This is also the first Loren part I've seen that didn't glam her up. She's a beautiful woman, but that's not the focus of the part. She is traumatized, depressed and confused with what the world has thrown at her. Loren does a great job with the part, showing off her dramatic ability when given a chance to be only an actress with eye candy possibility.

Also look for Kieron Moore as Kane, Chris' weary second-in-command, Oskar Homolka as Capt. Van Dam, Ross' fellow commander of the tugboat they share, switching off missions back and forth, Bernard Lee as Commander Wadlow, the officer in charge of his unlikely fleet of tugboats, and Bryan Forbes as Weaver, Ross' second-in-command trying to help out in whatever way he can.

I don't want to give the impression that I liked this movie solely because it was different although that certainly helped. It is a genuinely good story and film, aided by Reed's direction and the acting performances from a very talented cast. Different? Yes, but for all the right reasons.

The Key <---TCM trailer/clips (1958): ***/****

Boy on a Dolphin

An Italian actress who came to fame in the mid 1950s, Sophia Loren finally made her debut in an American movie with 1957's Boy on a Dolphin. It's a good thing Miss Loren is around because other than her? The movie has some potential but never really amounts to much.

Diving with her boyfriend/fiance Rhif (Jorge Mistral) on the Greek island of Hydros, Phaedra (Loren) stumbles across an amazing find in reachable waters for divers; a treasure from over 2,000 years ago, a statue of a boy on a dolphin that was part of a pair. The other has been found, but this one is completely intact. Looking for a payday to support herself and her brother, Phaedra heads to Athens to look for a buyer for the statue, finding Jim Calder (Alan Ladd), an American who wants to preserve Greek history. She also meets Parmalee (Clifton Webb), a black market dealer who also wants to get his hands on the statue and to pay well for it. Now Phaedra must decide who to help guide to the long-lost statue.

What stands out the most in this otherwise pretty dull flick from 1957 is the on-location shooting in Greece and around the Greek Isles. Director Jean Negulesco shot 'Dolphin' on the island of Hydra but also filmed in and around Athens, Rhodes and Delos. Filmed in CinemaScope, this is a stunningly gorgeous film to watch. Scenes of a car driving along a scenic highway, or a way through the countryside with the rolling hills and mountains in the distance could destroy a lot of other movies as it slows down the story to a snail's pace. Sadly for 'Dolphin,' it's the best thing going here. As a viewer, you feel like you are actually getting the scope and beauty of these locations. I guess it's debatable then whether it is worth it to pursue the film. You would probably be safe finding a 'Tour the Greek Islands' DVD and skipping over the movie.

I was disappointed with the end result because between 45-60 minutes into the movie I was enjoying it. The long-lost, supposedly lost treasure, the poor village girl with a chance to make millions, her seedy partners, the idealistic American, the greedy black market dealer. Throw in the Greek locations, and you've got all the makings of a solid action thriller. Any suspense or tension is lost at about the hour-mark as Loren's Phaedra goes along with Webb's Parmalee and starts to dupe Ladd's Calder. The final 45 minutes are tedious to the point I found myself fast-forwarding through scenes of dialogue. The other scenes? How many times can you watch underwater divers swimming through coral and wreckage on the floor of the Aegean Sea before you get bored? I lost track fairly quickly, but let's say five or so.

Making her American film debut, Loren is a bright spot in this 1957 flick. For starters, her voice isn't dubbed so it's actually her talking in that heavily-accent Italian trying to sound Greek. Her Phaedra character in general comes across as more of a fiery Italian than anything, but minor details. She's funny, she's tough, and she's beautiful. Most of all, she can act though. 'Dolphin' certainly flaunts her physical talents -- like THIS diving scene -- and she always seems to be lifting her skirt up or wearing a shirt that's a size too small. Beautiful she is, but in a fun role, she doesn't let her looks take over on their own. Another bright spot is Ladd as Calder. It's a fun part for him as well, one that allows him to just goof around and be himself. A tad on the wooden side, he still has a decent chemistry with Loren in their scenes together.

That chemistry came at a price though. Ladd stood only 5-foot-6 while Loren was 5-foot-8. Makes for some interesting set-ups when the leading man has to look up to his leading lady. To even things out of sorts, Negulesco went to all sorts of different plans so it wouldn't be an issue, Loren towering over Ladd. In certain scenes together, Ladd was forced to stand on a box so the two stars would be eye to eye. In one particular scene where they're walking on the beach, a trench was dug so Loren could walk alongside of him while filming. Just some interesting trivia. Height differences aside, I thought they worked very well together.

With the rest of the cast, Webb is a villain of sorts, but a gentlemanly kind who isn't particularly interesting. He's up to no good, but he's not menacing in the least. Mistral is solid as the conniving Rhif, Phaedra's boyfriend and future husband, who seems more interested in a big payday than preserving Greek history. Also joining their motley crew is Laurence Naismith as Dr. Hawkins and Piero Giagnoni as Niko, Phaedra's little brother who forms a quick friendship with Ladd's Calder. Singing the title song is actress/singer Julie London which you can listen to HERE. A disappointing movie in the end. It has its positives, but not enough to revisit this one anytime soon.

Boy on a Dolphin <---trailer (1957): **/****

Lady L

The more I see of Paul Newman, the more I come to respect him as an actor. I don't always enjoy his choice of movies or parts, but I can give credit where credit is due.  He branched out, playing an eclectic list of characters and individuals over a 50-plus year career.  Some efforts fall far short -- playing a Mexican bandit in The Outrage comes to mind -- but when it would have been easy to be typecast, Newman tried something else. In a hit or miss historic romantic comedy, 1965's Lady L, Newman adds another oddity to his listing, a French thief who joins a revolutionary group.

This is a movie that is also known for its director, taking a trip from around the camera where he was usually in front of it acting, Peter Ustinov. The actor from movies like Spartacus and Quo Vadis takes a crack at directing, one of just six films he did over his career. It is an odd movie overall with a story that doesn't sound like a comedy but ends up being just that, a love story with some weirdly funny (and others not so funny) moments.

An old woman nearing her 80th birthday, Lady Louise (Sophia Loren) sits down with a writer and old friend, Percy (Cecil Parker), to tell him the story of her life growing up. As a young woman, Louise worked in a Paris bordello as a laundry girl where she meets Armand (Newman), an anarchist bank robber who the French police would like nothing more than to arrest him. She joins him in his adventures and misadventures, quickly falling in love with him. Adventurous Armand eventually ends up with an extremist group looking to assassinate a Bavarian prince, causing Louise to question if she can put up with him. She meets Lord Lendale (David Niven), questioning even more now who she belongs with. Could it work somehow to be with both men?

Like most flawed movies, I'm going to slightly recommend this movie mostly because of the casting. How often are you going to see a grouping of Sophia Loren, Paul Newman and David Niven?  Even when the script and the story is too cutesy for its own good, these three keep it grounded at least a little bit.  Loren -- wearing heavy make-up as an old woman -- gets to show her comedic and dramatic sides, Newman plays the straight man in the ever-growing ridiculous story, and Niven gets to play a variation of himself, a prim and proper Englishman looking for a wife, possibly finding it in Loren's Louise. None of the parts are among any of the three's best, but it's still fun to see actors of their caliber working together.

Writing the plot description made me realize how off the wall this story is. Reading some background on it, 'Lady' sounded like a romantic period piece. Well, partially. The choices made are odd, especially Newman's Armand as an anarchist thief, eventually joining a revolutionary group trying to assassinate anyone and everyone. The assassination attempt is played for laughs -- Ustinov making a cameo as Prince Otto of Bavaria -- so it's hard to criticize too much, but it comes off in poor taste (to me at least). Niven's Lendale later welcomes the members of the group to stay at his villa, preparing their next attack in peace and quiet. It sounds so ridiculous that it almost works, but the story itself is too weird, too different to fully work.

Now in that craziness there are some funny moments, many coming from Claude Dauphin's part as Inspector Mercier, head of the French police trying to arrest Armand. His team of inspectors isn't quite the Keystone Cops, but their efforts to arrest Armand are surprisingly funny, alerting each other the presence of the thief through a series of gruffer and louder throat clearings. Newman's introduction is funny as well, a bank robbery where nothing is at it seems. I did laugh a few times throughout the movie, but the chuckles were lost in a sea of otherwise boring scenes.

Not a long review for this movie because I neither hated it or loved it. The movie has a great look to it, large sets and lavish costumes that reflect the setting of pre-World War I Europe in the first decades of the 1900s. It's funny, but too much and too little at different times. The cast is good but not overly impressive. Average movie that could have been better.

Lady L <---TCM trailer/clips (1965): **/****

Five Miles to Midnight

This intro isn't exactly dead-on as it pertains to the movie, but it was one of the first things I thought of while watching 1962's Five Miles to Midnight. When I watched Airport for the first time a few years ago, I was genuinely surprised to learn that passengers could buy insurance in airports before their flights. For one like in Airport, it seemed an easy way for some suicidal nut to make some quick cash.  On the other hand, it hit me wrong, and I'm pretty cynical when it comes to things like that. In 'Five Miles,' life insurance at the airport ends up being the motivating force for one character.

After having a fight with her husband, Robert (Anthony Perkins), that turns physical, Lisa Macklin (Sophia Loren) decides she's had enough and tells him that she wants a divorce. He fights it at first, but finally agrees, telling her they'll figure it all out once he returns to Paris after a quick business trip. Lisa is stunned the next day when the newspaper says that Robert's plane crashed somewhere in France with no survivors. She's even more surprised then when he turns up on her doorstep, claiming he survived when he was thrown from the wreckage in the crash. Lisa wants nothing to do with him, but he makes a deal with her. He took out an insurance policy before takeoff, and he'll leave her behind for good if she receives the $120,000 claim and gives it to him. Can she go through with it though just to rid herself of him?

Two days after watching this movie, I'm not really sure what to write about.  Like any movie, there's positives and negatives to take away, but what were they? It's that rare movie I can't come up with something to write about. So here goes, probably a review that rambles more than it should. 'Five Miles' has some odd casting choices and not necessarily for the better, knows where it wants to get but not how to get there, has some excellent on-location work in Paris (hard to mess that up), and has an ending that while not particularly surprising still provides a bit of a shock factor.  Okay, that's a good start I guess.

Four years earlier in Desire Under the Elms, Loren and Perkins worked together so while I haven't seen that movie, I feel safe saying they must have had better chemistry than they did here.  Sophia Loren is maybe the most beautiful actress to ever grace the screen, and while I don't intend this as a dig against Perkins, they just don't look good together.  Is it fair to judge a movie on whether its cast members look good together?  For me, I needed some reason to believe that at some point Loren's Lisa met Perkins' Robert and fell for him.  Instead, we get nothing.  It also seems a stretch that Loren would be scared of a skinny guy like Anthony Perkins.  A great comment at the IMDB said that one punch/slap from the Italian actress, and he'd be down for the duration.

If it makes sense, the two actors don't have a great chemistry together, but their performances on their own are interesting.  Two years removed from the success of Psycho, it's easy to see Perkins already being typecast in Norman Bates-mode.  He makes Robert this neurotic ball of energy, at one second charming and personable while the next second he's overbearing, jealous and abusive.  As is the case with Lisa, his smile has a disarming effect on people, able to diffuse the situations he so often gets himself into.  Loren too delivers a solid performance as a young wife simply pushed too far past her limits.  She's had enough with her husband but has no way to get out of the situation any quicker than it's going.  Her descent into some sort of madness is creepy to watch, making the ending that much better.

The problem with that ending is that director Anatole Litvak takes his sweet time getting there. After the plane crash, Robert does his best Lazarus impression and is back in the story by about the 20-minute mark.  Then, as Lisa goes through the process of getting the insurance check, we get another 90 minutes building to the ending, and it is slow going.  Not much happens in between, and that's where the movie struggles.  Perkins interacts with a boy (Tommy Norden) curious why he never leaves the apartment. Lisa moves on, starting to see newspaper writer Gig Young who's naturally curious about what's going on. Building tension is one thing, but it's clear Lisa is nearing her limit, and the story just keeps piling on and on.

What saves 'Five Miles' from being a really bad, pointless even boring movie is the last 20 minutes.  You see the twist coming two-fold if you're paying attention at all, but that doesn't mean it can't be enjoyable to watch it unfold.  Better than the twist is the finale then, the final nails in the coffin for one character.  I was definitely surprised with that aspect of the story, especially the movie ending on such a sour note.  The other positive is the look of the movie whether it be the vast Macklin apartment that still manages to be claustrophobic or the Parisian locations.  It's got to be impossible to make that city look bad, and 'Five Miles' doesn't go for lots of known locations either.  Still, the movie is a mixed bag, and one I struggled to get through.

Five Miles to Midnight <---trailer (1962): **/****    

Arabesque

Released late last summer, The Tourist looked like plenty of movies released before it, pairing A-list stars Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie in a story of international intrigue that had the duo globe-trotting across Europe with some mysterious baddies on their tail.  It sounded pleasant enough, even when Golden Globes host Ricky Gervais roasted the movie for its "well-deserved nominations." The formula is a tried and true one though, pair two huge stars together and basically let them just have fun together, allowing audiences to wonder what it'd be like to be a huge movie star.

Director Stanley Donen is guilty of going back to the well a couple times for this gem, first with 1963's Charade and then basically remaking that movie three years later with 1966's Arabesque. Starring Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn, Charade is a genuinely good movie, switching back and forth between genre conventions, keeping you on your toes and guessing as to what's going to happen next. Using a similar story with the male/female roles reversed, Arabesque struggles to be even half as good a movie. Still, it's completely mindless and entertaining enough. But where Charade had a touch of seriousness to the proceedings, this quasi-sequel/remake is pure camp. Just know what you're about to watch.

Working at a university in England, American professor David Pollock (Gregory Peck) is approached to decipher a Hittite inscription by Arab businessman and all-around rich guy, Beshraavi (Alan Badel). He declines until he's approached by a Prime Minister from another Arab country (no names included), Hassan Jena (Carl Duering) to investigate the inscription.  Pollock is immediately thrust into a life and death situation where both sides want the much-needed information hidden in the Hittite message. Working closely with mysterious beauty, Yasmine (Sophia Loren), David isn't even sure who he can trust, especially when everything seems to point to an assassination attempt. Can he figure out when, who and where though before he gets knocked off?

Oh, no worries about Gregory Peck getting knocked off. He makes it, as does Sophia Loren. There is no threat at any moment in this movie where Peck's Pollock or Loren's Yasmine is even remotely in danger. So even as they're chased across London by people trying to drown, shoot, drug, smash, and in general, murder them, the movie loses some sort of edge because you know nothing is going to happen. That's maybe my biggest problem here. I was looking for something more along the lines of Charade, and it's just different enough to be disappointing.

Mindless is one thing, I love movies that make no demands on me as a somewhat coherent individual.  But this one pushed me too far. The plot relies almost exclusively on a MacGuffin, a generic item that doesn't necessarily mean anything until it's necessary for it to mean something. Long story short? It's something everyone wants and will do horrible things to get it. The script here is 75 minutes of twists and turns -- not all of which make complete sense -- as Peck and Loren run around in a panicked state trying to piece things together. Then once Donen's had enough, he reveals what the inscription really is.  It's not what you think by the way. The story is hard to follow and even ridiculous at times, taking away from that whole mindless aspect I so typically enjoy.

If this movie has a saving grace (I'm still not sure), it's that Peck and Loren are the ultimate professionals and commit to making the most of their characters and the story itself. Peck gets to ham it up some which is great as he throws away his titled, often wooden acting style (I'm a huge Gregory Peck fan, I can get away with criticizing him). He's funny and has some great throwaway lines which made me laugh.  Then there's the beautiful Sophia Loren, always very watchable and an underrated actress to boot. Lost in the shuffle of her constantly being half-naked or wearing next to nothing is that she is a great comedic actress, hamming it up right alongside Peck. Their chemistry together -- and what exactly Loren's character is up to -- makes the movie watchable above all else.

Other than that, nothing much worth mentioning here. Badel is a reliable smarmy villain who will get his due in the end, and Kieron Moore pops in here and there to play a rabid revolutionary playing all sides with John Merivale playing a constantly duped henchman who can't do anything right. The whole movie is ridiculous enough, all of it leading to an ending that in its stupidity is pretty entertaining. That's the movie. Stupid and entertaining with Peck and Loren clearly having a lot of fun. Instantly forgettable, but is that necessarily a bad thing?

Arabesque <---trailer (1966): ** 1/2 /****

The Millionairess

Each and every movie genre has its fair share of predictability, but depending on the viewer it might not be as big a deal.  For me, westerns can be easy to predict where they're going, but part of the fun is how it gets to the end result.  Yeah, the good guy usually wins, but how does he get to that point? What challenges does he face?  The journey getting there can overcome any predictability in the overall story.  How about romantic comedies though? The guy always gets the girl, but it's hard to get wrapped up in a story like that -- for me at least.

Something else has to work for a romantic comedy to be anything but average.  That's why typically I avoid rom-coms unless something secondary jumps out at me.  Interesting leads in the cast always help, and that's why I watched 1960's The Millionairess with Sophia Loren and Peter Sellers in the leads. Loren for all her beauty was an underrated comedic actress, and Sellers is one of the most accomplished comedic actors in movie history.  But the pairing just felt odd to me taking all considerations of talent aside.  Well, my worries were legitimate because even as talented as both actors are, they lack any real chemistry.  It's not entirely their fault because the script is rather lacking, but no chemistry is a deal-killer here in this romantic comedy.

After her extraordinarily rich father dies, Epifania Parerga (Loren) inherits so much money that she becomes the richest woman in the world.  But for all the money, the clothes, the glitz and glamor, Epifania just isn't happy with her life, especially when her choice for a husband ends up cheating on her.  She sets out to find a new husband -- because as comedies tell us, an unmarried woman is a failure at life -- who lives up to her recently passed father's expectations.  She can't find anyone until she meets an Indian doctor, Ahmed el Kabir (Sellers), who she quickly falls for.  The only problem?  Dr. Kabir has no interest in her whatsoever, and no matter what advances she makes, he wants nothing to do with her.

Depending on the quality of the movie and the timeliness, a movie can age well or not at all, and this one feels like a very 1960s comedy.  It's still funny that so many of these comedies were right at home with the premise that a woman might as well roll over and die if she wasn't married by a certain age.  That's Loren's character who has all the money in the world, runs a variety of successful businesses, and basically has the world at her disposal, but because she can't, and I quote "Make a man happy" she thinks her life is being wasted.  Any story that needs that kind of gimmick already has a strike against it before anything else happens.

It never helps then that an actress as beautiful as Loren plays a character so shrill, so downright annoying that you don't care how she ends up.  Her ploy to seducing Sellers is to continuously attempt to kill herself only to have the good doctor rescue her at the last second.  If that's not love, I don't know what is.  Her tactics border on stalkerish, and it's understandable why Seller's Dr. Kabir has no interest in this intensely shallow woman.  What's worse is that because the movie requires it, he eventually gets worn down and falls in love with her too.  Now it is Loren at her most drop-dead gorgeous so instead of a well-written character, we get to see her in various stages of undress that include lingerie, a *gasp* naked back, and all sorts of tight-fitting, very stylish outfits.  So the character's annoying, but she's nice to look at.

A concern I had reading the description was that Sellers -- a very British actor -- was going to play an Indian doctor.  It takes a very talented actor to play a different race, and that's just for starters.  There's nothing like a bad makeup job to make a pasty Sellers look like a middle-aged Indian man.  Well, my concerns were unfounded although at times it did sound like Sellers was doing Apu from The Simpsons.  He underplays his role so well that his Dr. Kabir is one of the more redeeming things about the movie.  His character is likable, and that's key when you hate his counterpart.  I've always liked Sellers as an actor, but he's much better when he isn't hamming it up like the Pink Panther movies. His humor is more subtle here, and the movie is better for it.

Still, as good as Sellers is, that doesn't overcome a lack of chemistry with Loren.  I assumed with two actors as immensely talented as them that an on-screen chemistry would just happen naturally, but it never develops.  I don't think it's their fault so chalk it up to the awful script or the directing or both. The script just doesn't give a lot of chances for anyone to be funny or a chance for the characters to interact in a humorous way. Alastair Sim has a funny part as Loren's lawyer Julius, and Vittorio De Sica is good as a sweatshop owner who meets Loren, but that's about it for the cast. A romantic comedy doesn't have to be hilarious to be good, but it can't be downright dull.  All other things aside, this movie was dull no matter the talent involved.

The Millionairess <---TCM clips (1960): **/****

Too Bad She's Bad

So I like movies with shootouts, car chases, and some sort of raunchy humor.  Okay, it's not that simple, but those three things always help.  Guys like certain movies and hate others the same way women like some types of movies and despise others.  One genre of films that stereotypically lean more toward a female audience is the romantic comedy.  It's fair to say that many of the movies I like can be pretty cookie-cutter, but I use that as a criticism here of romantic comedies which seem to churn out the same old story in new packaging every couple of weeks.  That's not to say they're all bad, but I'll admit to not seeking them out too often.

One that I came across thanks to TCM's weekly foreign imports feature (TCM Imports) was 1954's Too Bad She's Bad, an Italian romantic comedy with a bit of slapstick and screwball laughs thrown in too.  Maybe because it's a foreign comedy -- and to call it a straight comedy isn't fair -- I look at it differently, but thanks to some strong casting and a type of humor that doesn't overdo it, I enjoyed it.  If nothing else, it's different.  It isn't a cookie-cutter story of some ridiculously hot 30-year old woman who can't find a man, or an eccentric middle-aged man who finds his true love who can see past his oddness.  Although SPOILER ALERT the girl gets the guy, or is it the guy gets the girl? Eh, not important. It's a good movie.

Spending years saving up enough so he can invest in his own taxi cab, cabbie Paolo (Marcello Mastroianni) takes a far for two young men and a pretty girl, Lina (Sophia Loren), who want to drive from Rome to Anzio to spend a day at the beach. Paolo isn't aware the trio plans to steal his cab and leave him stranded but quickly finds out, foiling their plan. The two men get away and Lina slips away in the traffic when he tries to take her to the police station. Paolo can't afford the damages and starts to look for any of the three with Lina popping up repeatedly on his path. Just looking for some cash though, he gets deeper and deeper into a web of thieves with Lina's family all taking a shine to him. Worse than that? Through all the craziness, Paolo realizes he likes Lina too.

Now for starters, any movie that was filmed in Rome in the early 1950s is going to get at least a passing grade from me.  It's post-war Rome following WWII and is as beautiful and romantic a European city as I can think (okay, maybe Paris).  Director Alessandro Blasetti films much of his movie on the streets of Rome and with the exception of the Coliseum doesn't use any easily recognizable locations.  He shoots on the streets with the people, giving us a view of early 1950s Rome that only exists in pictures.  Alessandro Cicognini's musical score not surprisingly relies on Italian music to set the stage but never goes overboard.  My only complaint is that the English subtitles are in white letters, making it difficult to read at times against Blasetti's black and white camerawork. I never missed anything major but did find myself focusing more than usual on the subtitles just trying to keep up.

So you're casting a female part that requires the character to be so downright beautiful and charming that no matter how many unpleasant situations she gets you in the guy still wants to be around her.  If there was ever a part built for Sophia Loren this is it.  Just 20 years old at the time, Loren had already been in over 15 movies with parts ranging from small supporting parts to bigger roles like this.  Looks aside, she shows off some great comedic chops and impeccable timing as we get to know her Lina character.  Her thieving ways continue to get her into trouble, but there's not a situation created yet Lina can't talk her way out of.  My only complaint comes from a certain trend/style of the time...hairy armpits on a woman.  Loren is drop dead gorgeous, but there's not a woman alive that look works for.

Two male parts balance out Loren, one holding a slight edge over the other.  Mastroianni's incredibly gullible, even naive Paolo is too clueless for words at times.  Duped on repeated occasions by the lovely Lina, he continues to believe everything she tells him.  He has a knack for physical humor with some cliched mannerisms and reactions of a fiery Italian man, but he produces laughs, not groans with his actions.  The part I liked more was Lina's father, Vittorio, played by Italian director and star Vittorio De Sica. He raised a family of thieves that supports itself by selling anything valuable they steal with Lina his protege with the most talent.  Vittorio is smooth as silk, convincing you that what he's stealing means nothing, almost like he's helping you out.  It's clear from watching him where Lina got her talent for some truly underhanded things, but they're so charming and likable you don't even notice.

Where does that leave us? Ah, the ending, quite a mix of so many things with not all of them working.  A scene in a police station is played for some genuine laughs that goes on too long, leading to a bit of domestic violence leading to marriage.  It makes sense, don't you think?  An odd ending for sure to an otherwise enjoyable (whudda thunk it?) 1950s Italian romantic comedy.

Too Bad She's Bad <---low quality Youtube clip (1954): ***/****

Two Women

Does the Academy Awards tend to give an actress more credit for a role when she plays down her looks, like Charlize Theron in Monster or Hilary Swank in Boys Don't Cry?  I'm guilty of it as well, seeing a gorgeous actress and forgetting at times what a strong actress they can be.  But I do think there's something to it that when their looks are left by the wayside for a part people take them more seriously.  Unfortunate yes, but what are you gonna do about it?  I'm trying to decide if 1960's Two Women applies to that premise.

Italian star Sophia Loren won the Best Actress Academy Award for her performance of a widowed mother trying to get her 12-year old daughter through war-torn Italy late in WWII. It was the first Oscar ever given for a performance in a foreign language film, and one Loren fully deserved.  She's not playing against type because regardless the movie, serious or comedy, Loren was able to get into that character.  But it is a powerhouse performance that tries to dumb down her look, putting her in plain clothes with no makeup.  All I could think though was 'Good luck trying to make Sophia Loren look like an Italian peasant.'  But does her performance apply?  As of now, I'm thinking not at all, it's just a great performance.

Late in WWII, widowed mother Cesira (Loren) lives in Rome running a little grocery with her 12-year old daughter Rosetta (Eleonora Brown).  The war is not going in the Axis' favor, and Rome is being bombed more regularly, forcing Cesira to make the decision to leave the city until things quiet down.  With her daughter, they head to Cesira's village where she grew up as a child.  There much of her family waits, including many refugees and one intellectual (Jean-Paul Belmondo) who can't wait for the Germans and Italians to lose the war. Their biggest problems with so many people are finding enough to eat and drink every day, but as the war approaches the isolated country village, Cesira finds out that no matter how much you prepare, you can't prepare for everything.

Many of the WWII movies I've reviewed are of the front line soldier variety where we see the war from the perspective of a soldier or his unit in a certain battle.  While the war drives the story in 'Two,' this is a story that focuses almost completely away from the battles and the front lines other than a few strafing runs or appearances of lost patrols looking for help.  Director Vittorio De Sica creates this vision of war-torn Italy and lets the characters go to work.  It's a world where everyone is basically on their own for their own survival, and dangers lurk around every corner.  There aren't so much Allies and Axis soldiers as good and bad on both sides, a situation that comes into play late in the movie.  Everyone is affected by the war, and for these characters, they don't care who wins as long as the war ends.

Off and on throughout the movie, I didn't always get the sense of the danger that hung over Italy and more specifically Cesira's life in her village.  The biggest problem facing the single mother and her extended refugee family is food, finding enough so everyone can eat.  The war is the cause of this shortage, but it feels like a far-off war at many times.  More time is spent in the relationship between Cesira and Belmondo's Michele character, an intellectual who shakes his head at the whole premise of the war while also falling madly in love with Cesira (do you blame him?).  German characters drift into the story and leave -- along with two British commandos and a Russian deserter -- but the focus is more on the day-to-day survival caused by the war.

Where Loren won the Oscar for me was in the last half hour as Cesira and Rosetta return home to Rome via the country roads, the Americans and Allied soldiers advancing past them on tanks, trucks and jeeps.  This is where the real horrors of war come into play which I'm not going to spoil here.  It comes as a surprise because to a certain point we've been lulled to sleep by the relative safety of the country village.  But here Loren's mother has to protect her daughter in a way she's only considered, never thinking it would come true.  Loren's performance as a whole was excellent, feeling like a real mother with only two real concerns, her daughter and herself, but the final 30 minutes or so sets the character apart from other similar characters.

As for Loren's looks, I'm not sure if it is actually possible to dull them down.  Her hair is unkempt, she wears no makeup, and she wears loose, baggy clothing (if cut a little low at the neckline), all in an attempt to make her look like a run of the mill Italian peasant single mother.  Yeah, good luck with that.  I'll say this, natural is a good look for her.  If interested, watch the movie at Youtube starting with Part 1 of 13 with Italian subtitles. Early in the movie I struggled to keep up with the speed and lightning pace of the subtitles, but you get into a rhythm soon enough.  Also look for Raf Vallone in a one-scene cameo. Watch this one for a moving portrayal of WWII's effect on the civilians, especially Loren in one of her best performances.

Two Women (1960): ***/**** 

Operation Crossbow

Most of the war movies I watch are depictions of front-line action or at least the generals/headquarters making the decisions that affect the front-line soldiers.  But what about the Intelligence agencies doing their damnedest to help the war effort through espionage, gaining information and sabotage behind enemy lines.  So goes 1965's Operation Crossbow, a British-Italian production telling the true story of British efforts to slow down Germany's rocket/technological advances as WWII reaches its middle years.

As much as WWII was about one Allied soldier facing one Axis soldier, there was a race at home to be the first country to develop the atom bomb.  On less destructive levels, both sides tried to create weapons technology that could cause more death and destruction than the average grenade or artillery shell.  Obviously, these advances were kept as top secret as possible, but that doesn't mean each side wasn't trying to one-up their enemy by playing a little defense courtesy of the Intelligence community doing a little sabotage.

It's midway through 1943, and the Germans have developed a new flying bomb that they plan to unleash on London and other English cities.  The Allies are aware of the new development, and do their best to slow down the advances by consistently bombing German work sites where they believe the bombs to be built and launched.  But as dangerous as the bombs are, the Germans have a new weapon in the late stages of development; the V-2 rocket, that could drastically change the course of the war, including the D-Day invasion.  Facing such a huge game changer, Allied Intelligence is forced to use a desperate plan; send Allied agents into Germany disguised as engineers who will help develop the rockets.

You might have noticed there's not a single actor/actress listed in the plot description.  Basically, it would have taken too long to include them and make that paragraph a behemoth to read.  Like other big budget war movies, 'Crossbow' utilizes an ensemble cast with talent from all over the world taking part.  And in terms of story, the ensemble works better because the plot is very episodic.  The first 30 minutes is almost exclusively from the German perspective, the next 30 the Allied Intelligence, and the last hour mostly with the agents working deep undercover.  Each of these segments could have been expanded for their own movie, but together they work to form a coherent storyline.

The cast listing is an odd one because producer Carlo Ponti listed his wife Sophia Loren as the lead when really she makes a 20-minute or so appearance and is an add-on more than anything else.  That's not being critical of Loren because she's a fine actress, but big picture her part isn't essential to the movie.  Starring as Germans the ensemble includes Paul Henreid and Helmut Dantine as two high-ranking German generals, Barbara Rutting as German aviator Hannah Reitsch, and Anthony Quayle as Bamford, a secret agent/spy.  Allied Intelligence includes Richard Johnson, Trevor Howard, John Mills and Richard Todd as the men trying to halt the German advances.  The agents sent into Germany include George Peppard, Jeremy Kemp and Tom Courtenay, all posing as deceased scientists so they can access the German rocket plants with Lilli Palmer playing a resistance contact.

The whole movie is a good example of a solid WWII ensemble, but the best and most interesting/exciting part is when the story follows these three agents.  They are all forced to become someone else, knowing if they are caught they will be summarily shot on site.  Even getting to that point is difficult as Peppard's Lt. Curtis finds out when the scientist he is posing as is visited by his wife (Loren).  Courtenay's Henshaw is dealt a cruel twist of fate and must decide how much he is willing to sacrifice.  Kemp's Bradley is dropped into Germany as a last-minute resort with little knowledge of the man he's impersonating.  Their scenes as they try to dupe the Germans are tense and difficult to watch, those scenes where you get butterflies hoping everything doesn't hit the fan.

Crossbow's story covers a lot of ground -- almost a year and a half -- but never feels like we're being let out.  Supposedly a much longer finished product was turned in by director Michael Anderson only to have it cut heavily to the movie we see now which clocks in at just under two hours.  You can see where certain segments were cut, especially the German segment to open the movie, and other odd instances like Peppard gaining a bandage on his forehead, but we never see why.  But these are little things, not big disturbances that could ruin the movie.

While the V-2 rocket was actually used by Germany in WWII -- over 3,000 were fired at England -- the movie does have to have some sort of resolution if not necessarily a happy ending.  The finale is a whopper as Peppard and Kemp desperately try to pinpoint their underground location to a passing bomber force.  The huge underground facilities sets look like something out of a James Bond movie and provide quite an ending to a strong story.  Not as well know as some of its 1960s WWII counterparts, but definitely worth a watch or two.

Operation Crossbow <----trailer (1965): ***/****