• Type:
  • Genre:
  • Duration:
  • Average Rating:

Movies

Review: Capote

Capote (2005)

review | Capote

also on Cineluxe

Sign up for our monthly newsletter
to stay up to date on Cineluxe

Strong performances, haunting cinematography, and powerful real-life source material make this 2005 rumination on the deeply flawed author worth a look

by Michael Gaughn
December 9, 2022

There’s not much point in beating up on older films since they’re already relegated to the past. Why take the time to pluck something out and hold it up for examination if it’s not worth recommending? That said, I think it’s fair game to talk about a flawed movie if it’s worth seeing at least once, especially if watching it offers some perspective on movies of the time or since. And that would be Capote.

This is a good film that could have been a great one—which is why I revisit it occasionally, only to experience the same frustration every time. It became apparent on this most recent viewing that it’s not great exactly because it was made at the moment when the movies stopped aiming that high, when they decided to invest only in the safely known and merely ape “great” gestures, putting all their money on style to convince audiences they were seeing something substantial; when they chose to divert instead of absorb.

Philip Seymour Hoffman, Chris Cooper, Catherine Keener, and Clifton Collins Jr. are all exceptionally strong. Even Bruce Greenwood wrings every last drop out of the thankless straw man he’s asked to play. The cinematography is accomplished and sometimes stunning, making the subdued palette as expressive as its limited tonal range will allow. Some of the scenes are powerful, with about half the credit going to the acting and half to the writing. And the subject matter—the intersection of the depraved slaying of a wealthy Kansas farm family by a pair of disaffected drifters and Capote’s efforts to capture that act and its aftermath in a book—is compelling enough to bear the film along even at the moments when it sags.

To see how badly somebody can botch the exact same material, watch Infamous, released the same year—although I wouldn’t recommend approaching that radioactive stink bomb without a hazmat suit. Highlights include Sigourney Weaver as, as best I can figure, a female impersonator, a woefully miscast Daniel Craig as Perry, and the novel concept of gay sex in prison. 

Capote aces Infamous in every way. The problem is that it’s also, in every way, shallow; lacking the courage the material demands, it offers instead an initially convincing but ultimately hollow simulation of strength. Hoffman comes tantalizingly close to translating Capote into a fully realized fictional being but needed a better director than Bennett Miller, someone who could tell him when too much of his own, more regular-guy personality was showing through and when he was slipping into caricature. And the cinematography is so proud of its own stylishness that it loses sight of when it’s no longer serving the material. Seizing on the muted colors offered by the Arts & Crafts revival raging at the time the movie was made, the filmmakers make it look like the events happened sometime between the the 1930s and mid ‘50s instead of the early 1960s. But those events were very much a product of their era, and not staying true to the transitional, sometimes disruptive look of that time robs the movie of much of its potential power. Then there’s the pouty adolescent “the never shines in this world” aesthetic, which, with its myopic brattiness, underscores the film’s larger myopia.

Miller and company would like you to think they’re being trenchantly spare, allusive, enigmatic, speaking in a kind of haiku, but they’re merely striking a series of poses—mainly because they don’t know how to do anything more substantial. That was really driven home when I watched the bonus features and realized all involved could be mistaken for J Crew models. People from those kinds of backgrounds, so sure of themselves and so eager to please, couldn’t begin to fathom let alone effectively portray deeply tortured figures like Perry and Capote. 

Representative is the scene where Capote gives Perry a copy of Walden, telling him Thoreau was put in jail because he was an outsider. Capote might have actually said that, but I doubt it. It feels more like a screenwriter trying to telegraph a point and missing the mark by a country mile. (For those playing along at home, Thoreau was in jail because he wanted to be there not because anyone was eager to lock him up.)

There are instances everywhere of the filmmakers getting things wrong just because they weren’t interested enough in getting them right (like Hoffman’s height as Capote varying by more than a half foot during the course of the film so that in one long shot he almost looms over Chris Cooper). But maybe the biggest flaw is that Hoffman’s character is the only one that shows any nuance, who goes through any significant changes. Everyone else is just there to provide context and foils and help fill the frame.

Miller’s constant need to seem cool and detached also kept him from doing anything interesting with Foxcatcher, another project with tremendous potential but realizing practically none of it, and another one where a based-on-true-life lead—in this case Steve Carrell—comes across as borderline cartoonish.  

Because it tackles a deep subject shallowly, Capote is good for two or three viewings at most. By then, you’ve learned all its mannerisms. It’s not one of those films that matures, offering something new and deeper each time—and my point is that it should be. My other, perhaps larger, point is that this has become the way of the world. That it’s fashionable to treat blockbusters as disposable—as popcorn movies—masks the larger problem that no current films are substantial enough to have any worth beyond their first release, let alone establish a legacy based on anything other than marketing. We’ve all become so cool and detached we’re no longer capable of—or interested in—producing anything that challenges and endures.

Michael Gaughn—The Absolute Sound, The Perfect Vision, Wideband, Stereo Review, Sound & Vision, The Rayva Roundtablemarketing, product design, some theater designs, a couple TV shows, some commercials, and now this.

PICTURE | While the cinematography is well served by the HD transfer, you can constantly sense how much more a straight 4K transfer would bring the experience

SOUND | The spare mix helps to highlight the impressive dynamic range, bringing an effective sense of presence to many of the scenes

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors

© 2023 Cineluxe LLC

Review: Swing Time

Swing Time (1936)

review | Swing Time

The plot & characters are mainly just annoying distractions but with Fred & Ginger dancing at the peak of their form, does that really matter?

by Michael Gaughn
December 5, 2022

It might sound like a contradiction to say that the best Astaire/Rogers film is filled with scenes so contrived and hokey you’ll find yourself averting your eyes half the time. It’s hard to believe this movie was made by the same guy who did A Place in the Sun. But it’s a symptom of the evolution of film grammar I talked about in my Darling Clementine review that, up until 1939, movies tended to sputter because the fundamentals hadn’t yet clicked into place. 

But then there’s the dancing—which of course you expect in an Astaire/Rogers movie, but for some reason the routines in Swing Time are at a whole other level from their other films, maybe because the numbers don’t just act in parallel with the plot but almost supplant it completely. That’s not to say there’s nothing to keep your attention during the dialogue scenes—Astaire does an unusually good job of holding his own and Helen Broderick is masterful at doing her bits while winking at the camera at the same time—the trick Groucho Marx did so well, and that a handful of performers used to lean on in the early days of sound in order to keep their creative dignity until the movies caught up with the sophistication of their delivery and gave them better material to work with.

And you can always admire the production design while you wait for the next dance number to kick in. RKO had the streamlined look of late Art Deco down so cold it felt like they’d actually come up with the style and were just exporting it to the rest of the world. That pared-down take on Deco was so stylized and so much of the moment it was destined to have a relatively brief lifespan but was both elegant and brash at its peak, which coincided with the creation of this film. 

Somewhat in line with the above, Swing Time features the smaller-group, tighter, more rhythmically-driven, more infectious jazz style of the late ‘20s and 1930s, which would soon be drowned out by the lusher, brassier, swinging-for-the-fences sound of the MGM musicals. The leaner, more energetic approach here fits well with the relatively constrained sets and bits of business and creates an appropriate intimacy that enhances the dance routines. Yes, the more modest orchestrations, sets, and scope of action were partly a necessary reflection of budget, like the not-an-inch-bigger-than-they-need-to-be sets of Casablanca, but in both films doing more with less keeps you appropriately closer to the characters and their interactions.

I’m not going to pretend I’ve got anything to add to the vast existing commentary on Astaire and Rogers. But it is worth pointing out how extraordinary their numbers are here for anyone who’s never seen them dance or hasn’t come across Swing Time before. There’s something about this movie’s pervasive creakiness that makes the dancing seem even more exhilarating than usual. Anyone who can watch them break into “Pick Yourself Up” and not feel an unbidden thrill should just go back to watching the deadening sadism of contemporary action films. 

That number, shot within the simple confines of a dance-school studio, begins with a deceptively casual stroll that quickly becomes both exuberantly kinetic and epic, making two people dancing far more compelling than any melodramatic scenery-chewing or special-effects set piece could ever be. Similarly the “Never Gonna Dance” number near the end, performed in the justly famous Silver Sandal nightclub set, takes the dross of the plot and transmutes into something sublime. Astaire and Rogers somehow create a whole other realm of existence where they express their emotions not just through dance but also through a kind of mime that for some reason doesn’t feel contrived but instead a natural extension of both their dance and what they’d more lamely been trying to convey through dialogue. By so intensely focusing their emotions, the result makes their limited characters infinitely deeper, more moving and human and real. 

And now, unfortunately, I need to talk for a moment about blackface—not that I really want to but the current cultural myopia with its mania to slap labels on virtually everything while showing zero tolerance for context makes it a necessity. That any intelligent human would ever take a pass on this movie because of a warning like that is unfathomable and makes me wonder how much lower we can go with smugly sneering at the past.

Yes, Astaire uses black makeup as part of his tribute to Bill “Bojangles” Robinson, but you need to put the first part of that sentence into context, because this is very much a heartfelt tribute on Astaire’s part and Robinson very much deserved to be honored—not just for his dancing but his efforts, as the most prominent black performer of the first half of the 20th century, to counter racial stereotypes. Anybody who, having bought into the whole “blackface bad—censorship good” mindset, misses the chance to experience this number also misses the chance to experience an important piece of history, reinforcing our vast and deepening cultural ignorance instead. And they’d of course be missing out on a virtuoso dance by Astaire with its groundbreaking cinematic framing—and there’s really no excuse for that. It’s more than worth it to claw back all the cultural howling and experience this movie and that number on their own terms, free of the fetid reek of political reeducation.

The HD transfer is good enough for something from 1936 and not likely to seriously get in the way of your experience of the film. There’s a grittiness to the presentation that could be removed with some judicious cleanup—the key word being “judicious.” It would take someone with a keen eye, a deft touch, a dedication to staying true to what was originally shot, and a respect for the inherent look of film to avoid turning Swing Time into a visual travesty. Here’s hoping somebody sensitive and astute enough decides to take that on sometime soon. 

There’s not much to be said about the sound of a movie this old but I was surprised by how well the orchestra was recorded, by how there was decent separation between the instruments and how accurate a sense it conveys of the size of the ensemble, with its chamber-size string section. Avoiding the temptation to make the orchestra sound bigger than it was went a long way toward maintaining the film’s sense of intimacy.

I apologize if my comments made it sound like I’m only half-heartedly recommending this film. The distorting pressure of marketing hype aside, there really are only a handful of movies that rise above the vast and rapidly expanding slough that is American film. Swing Time is far from perfect—but perfection is a fool’s goal and what it gets right it gets right in a way that all but erases its flaws and leaves most other movies in its dust. 

Michael Gaughn—The Absolute Sound, The Perfect Vision, Wideband, Stereo Review, Sound & Vision, The Rayva Roundtablemarketing, product design, some theater designs, a couple TV shows, some commercials, and now this.

PICTURE | The HD transfer on Prime is good enough for something from 1936 and not likely to seriously get in the way of enjoying the film, but it exhibits a grittiness could be removed with some judicious cleanup

SOUND | The sound is well recorded for a movie this old, with decent separation between the instruments in the orchestra and accurately conveying the size of the ensemble

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors

© 2023 Cineluxe LLC

Review: Black Adam

Black Adam (2022)

review | Black Adam

This latest romp through the DC universe is ultimately unsatisfying—mainly because it doesn’t let The Rock be The Rock

by John Sciacca
November 29, 2022

I’m a fan of superhero movies. And I’m a fan of Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson. Though I never watched him as a wrestler, I think he’s developed into an actor who chooses roles that really suit his persona and comedic timing, like Fast & Furious Presents Hobbs & Shaw, Jumani, and Jungle Cruise. And if you haven’t given his TV series Young Rock a chance—where he frequently plays off Randall Park—you should give it a watch.

So, I figured Black Adam, the latest entry into DC’s expanding cinematic universe, would be something of a layup, especially after The Rock talked it up so much and shared the grueling training regiment he put himself through to get into hero shape. So when the digital version dropped on Kaleidescape just 30 days after its cinematic release, I grabbed it and planned a family movie night.

But as much as I expected—and even wanted—to enjoy Black Adam, the movie just didn’t work for me. So much of it felt like ripoffs from what other movies had already done. The opening and even the city name of Khandaq felt like Wakanda from Black Panther. Khandaq has a special, powerful, and rare mineral called “eternium,” which, again, was like Panther’s vibranium (or even Avatar’s “unobtanium”). Dr. Fate (Pierce Brosnan) and his powers felt like things we’ve already seen better from Dr. Strange. The Justice Society has a campus along with a hidden super-jet that is straight out of X-Men. Plus we’ve already had a much more fun movie about Shazam called Shazam!

Now, I can forgive some cinematic borrowing. For all I know, Black Adam’s comic-book origins predate all of these other films. But it feels like in its quest to create a cohesive cinematic world and tie in different heroes and stories, DC has forgotten that the story also needs to be interesting, entertaining, and make sense for those new to the franchise trying to follow along. There were just too many moments where I was wondering, “Wait. Why is this happening?” or, “Who is that guy?” 

DC does its best to shoehorn in some connection to its bigger universe, with the walls of young Amon’s (Bodhi Sabongui) room covered with posters and paraphernalia of other DC stars like Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, and Aquaman. (Plus, there is a mid-credits scene that places Black Adam right in the heart of the DC heroes.) Ultimately, the film seems most interested in just getting to the next big effects-laden fight scene where multiple heroes from the Justice Society battle Black Adam, this international mercenary group called the Intergang, or otherworldly superbeings, flying around, smashing and destroying things while trying to find and take control of the Crown of Sabbac, a 23-pound crown made from pure eternium that gives the wearer great power. To be fair, the battles are cool, especially when they go into ultra-slo-mo to show how Black Adam “sees” things (again, similar to the Quicksilver effect from the X-Men films). 

Beyond any of that, though, what Black Adam is really missing is any fun and heart, the key ingredients Kevin Feige and Marvel have learned to include in just the right amounts. In trying to make him this dark antihero who kills his enemies—sometimes in manners worthy of Mortal Kombat or reminiscent of the opening-the-ark scene from Raiders of the Lost Ark—instead of bringing them in to face justice, they robbed The Rock of any chance to be The Rock. Sure, we get a Johnson looking as big and menacing as ever, but any CGI’d strong man could have filled the suit.

Fortunately, for home theater owners, Black Adam looks and sounds great. Shot on Arri at 4.5K resolution, the home transfer is taken from a 4K digital intermediate, and images look clean, polished, and terrific throughout. Closeups have incredibly sharp detail and clarity, showing single strands of hair, whiskers, and all the pores in actors’ faces, the bulging veins in The Rock’s head, cracks and texture in rocks, stones, and buildings, or the finest details in clothing, like the etchings in Black Adam’s suit. Though this ultra-clarity and detail comes at the expense of some of the effects and environments, revealing their CGI roots. 

The HDR effects are also abundant and on frequent display during the many fight scenes and make for some stunning visuals. There is glowing red-orange molten fire and vibrant blossoming explosions, bright eye-searing blue-white electrical bolts, the glinting gold from Hawkman’s (Aldis Hodge) suit, along with bright glistening beads of sweat. There are bright flashlights shining in darkened caves, sunlight streaming into darkened rooms, and a “tour” through Khandaq lit up at night. Visually, Black Adam is a treat to watch, and it will push your projector’s light output and tone mapping to its limits.

Equally impressive is the Dolby TrueHD Atmos soundtrack, which immerses you in ways both subtle and bombastic. In some of the external scenes, your listening room will transform into the mountains of Khandaq with the sounds of picks hammering away at rock around you, or you’ll hear the echo of voices, the rumbling and chatter of crowds, or the rustle of wind and sounds of birds. 

And when the action kicks in, so do the sound and volume. You’ll hear Black Adam whooshing off and out of the room, Hawkman and Intergang bikes flying and swooping overhead, Cyclone (Quintessa Swindell) swirling wind and debris all around, Dr. Fate’s voice booming overhead, things falling down—or flying up—into the ceiling, plus all manner of damage and destruction as things are hurled and smashed all around the room. And when something explodes, enemies collide, Black Adam charges through a wall, or the Justice Society jet roars past, the bass kicks in, energizing the room with low-frequency effects you’ll feel. 

Black Adam currently has an 89% audience rating on Rotten Tomatoes so clearly it resonated with many viewers. And even if you only watch the film once, you’ll likely turn to some of the six pre-bookmarked Kaleidescape scenes in order to show off your system when guests come over, wowing them with the stunning visuals and immersive audio. Plus, with the film still in theaters, you can enjoy it in the highest quality in the comfort of your own home theater via the Kaleidescape download a full 45-days before the 4K disc comes out early next year. 

Probably the most experienced writer on custom installation in the industry, John Sciacca is co-owner of Custom Theater & Audio in Murrells Inlet, South Carolina, & is known for his writing for such publications as Residential Systems and Sound & Vision. Follow him on Twitter at @SciaccaTweets and at johnsciacca.com.

PICTURE | The HDR effects are abundant and on frequent display during the many fight scenes, making for some stunning visuals

SOUND | The impressive Dolby TrueHD Atmos soundtrack immerses you in ways both subtle and bombastic

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors

© 2023 Cineluxe LLC

Review: Weird

Weird (2022)

review | Weird: The Al Yankovic Story

This low-budget biopic, streaming free on Roku, features big-name comedic talent & a somewhat less than true-to-life plot

by Roger Kanno
November 21, 2022

Weird: The Al Yankovic Story tells “the unexaggerated true story about the greatest musician of our time,” Weird Al Yankovic (Daniel Radcliffe), and his rise to the top of the music-parody business. Well, not really. While it is described as a biopic, like his songs, this version of Weird Al’s story is more of an over-the-top parody with all sorts of strange events beginning in his childhood when his mother tells him that, “we agreed that it would be best for all of us if you would just stop being who you are and doing the things you love.”

Produced by Funny or Die Productions and written by Yankovic and Eric Appel, who also directs, Weird premiered at the 2022 Toronto International Film Festival and is available for streaming on Roku as of November 4. Made on a reported budget of eight million dollars and shot in only 18 days, don’t expect lavish production values like with Baz Luhrmann’s Elvis or a lot of artistic cinematography, but Weird is one of the best and, more importantly, one of the funniest biopics in recent years, even if much of it is fictitious and outrageously exaggerated.

Whether you’re a fan of Weird Al’s music or not, you’ll likely enjoy the performances of some of his most recognizable hits, which were rerecorded for the film and are hilariously woven into the plot. For instance, he spontaneously creates the lyrics for “My Bologna” while making lunch for his roommates and for “Another One Rides the Bus” when confronted by Wolfman Jack (Jack Black) at Dr. Demento’s (Rainn Wilson) pool party. In addition to Black, there are cameos by Lin-Manuel Miranda, Conan O’Brien, Patton Oswalt, Michael McKean, Will Forte, Weird Al himself, and many others, but none more comical than Thomas Lennon as a door-to-door accordion salesperson. Quinta Brunson does an excellent job as Oprah and Evan Rachel Wood totally disappears into her bawdy caricature of Madonna. The plot line of the Material Girl pursuing an affair with Al and hanging around with him, which ultimately leads to a confrontation with Columbian drug lord Pablo Escobar, is hysterically absurd. 

The script and direction are refreshingly tight as are the performances of the supporting cast, but Radcliffe is absolutely superb as Yankovic. From the earnest and idealistic young Al, Radcliffe fully commits to the role as his character is consumed by his fame and transforms into an egotistical rock star living in a preposterously lavish mansion. In a particularly side-splitting scene, a drunk and totally off-the-rails, shirtless Al rants at the audience during a live concert. It also happens that Radcliffe is ridiculously jacked and walks around shirtless in this and some other scenes and his insanely ripped physique is never addressed, which just adds to the absurdity.

The quality of the streamed 1080p picture was a little soft when played back on my Roku television. Very early scenes of Al in his youth appeared a little dark and bathed in a pale yellow light, while they were noticeably brighter with more natural lighting later on with Al as an adult. The picture quality is acceptable for such a low-budget production but there were times when there was some breakup and blockiness during scenes with a lot of action or movement. The most challenging scene occurs when Al performs “I Love Rocky Road” in a dark, seedy club. The garish red stage lighting combined with the darkness of the setting resulted in some loss of contrast and made the picture look a little blotchy. Otherwise, there was more than enough fine detail for the straightforward cinematography and to display the colorful patterns in Al’s Hawaiian shirts as well as his slightly unkempt mop of curly hair and ‘80s mustache. 

Audio is made available in 5.1 Dolby Digital Plus but the songs are presented mostly in stereo with little use of the surrounds. They sounded good, with very discrete vocals on the newly recorded versions of the classic parody songs done for the soundtrack. Some scenes did take full advantage of the surround channels to provide an effective and enveloping auditory experience but most of the film is driven by dialogue, which was always clear and intelligible.

If you don’t have a Roku, you can still watch Weird through their app or on a web browser. It’s free, and although the advertisements are a little bothersome, Weird is an exceptionally funny film with an inspired performance by Radcliffe. 

Roger Kanno began his life-long interest in home cinema almost three decades ago with a collection of LaserDiscs and a Dolby Surround Pro Logic system. Since then, he has seen a lot of movies in his home theater but has an equal fascination with high-end stereo music systems. Roger writes for both Sound & Vision and the SoundStage! Network.

PICTURE | The 1080p picture streamed off Roku was a little soft with some breakup and blockiness during scenes with a lot of action or movement. Otherwise, you can see more than enough fine detail from the straight-forward cinematography.

SOUND | While most of the film is driven by dialogue, some scenes do take full advantage of the surround channels in the 5.1 Dolby Digital Plus mix to provide an effective and enveloping auditory experience

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors

© 2022 Cineluxe LLC

Reviews: Seconds

Seconds (1966)

review | Seconds

A arch portrait in alienation, this 1966 John Frankenheimer shocker might be more important for who it influenced than for what it is

by Michael Gaughn
November 20, 2022

It’s not really a horror movie but it’s got some pretty good jolts along the way. Not really science fiction, it would be meaningless without its sci-fi trappings. A portrait of suburban disenchantment and angst à la Updike and Heller, it doesn’t go far enough down that road to fully qualify. “Psychological thriller” probably comes closest but calling it that shortchanges everything else. John Frankenheimer’s Seconds is undeniably something but it’s virtually impossible to put your finger on exactly what. Probably the most appropriate description would be “mid-‘60s Gothic,” but what does that mean? 

What’s undeniable—although Frankenheimer might not have been aware of it and likely never saw the film—is that it’s the spiritual twin of Carnival of Souls, one of those detached portraits of utter alienation that started popping up beginning in the mid 1950s. Souls’ Mary Henry and Seconds’ Arthur Hamilton/Tony Wilson indisputably share the face of the same troubled coin—and that also makes it a descendant of the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers, the film that first raised the cry that there was something deeply rotten at the heart of Mid Century culture.

It’s also undeniable—although again likely a more unconscious than conscious influence—that Seconds springs directly from Hawthorne, not just because of its rarified/stylized world and use of typification that borders on allegory but also because it adopts the kind of sci-fi framework Hawthorne developed in stories like “The Birth-mark,” “The Artist of the Beautiful,” “Rappaccini’s Daughter,” and, most pertinent here, “Dr. Heidegger’s Experiment.”

And that kinship also points toward the fundamental problem with Seconds—while it does feel very much like a Hawthorne short story, it needed to be at least a novella to work. The neat pattern of introducing a character into an artificial microcosm, giving them a too easily achieved path to bliss only to have them realize to their horror that they’ve actually been led down to Hell, and then wrapping it up with a twist, is just too linear and one-note to sustain a feature film.

The film—I really can’t attribute this directly to Frankenheimer because there’s no way to know if he was aware of it—compensates for all that by becoming an exercise in style, one that leans heavily on European art movies, introducing Antonioni-like longueurs to at least put up the front of a serious film, and to pad out its run time. And in all that—and many other ways—it’s a progenitor of Lynch. It’s impossible to watch the Saul Bass credit sequence (one of his best—which is saying a lot) and not think of Eraserhead, The Elephant Man, or Blue Velvet. And everything from the stylized compositions, lighting, and camera moves to the callow ambiguity, meaningless pauses and elisions, and overall archness of the exercise, feels very much like Lost Highway, Mulholland Dr, or Fire Walk With Me.

It also feels very much like Rosemary’s Baby, with the scene where the Reborns subdue Rock Hudson’s Wilson when he gets out of line very much like the seniors subduing Mia Farrow for her Satan rape. And it’s also very much like Patrick McGoohan’s The Prisoner, with the central figure robbed of his identity by a bureaucratic/technocratic corporate society that promises paradise but only delivers the carrot of endless tantalizing diversion while perpetually poised to bring down the stick.

And that goes to the heart of why I’m bothering to write up a film that’s got so many flaws—because it represents a point of intersection for far too many important things in the culture to ignore. No, it doesn’t get many of the fundamentals right but it’s such a tantalizing slice of the zeitgeist, channeling so many powerful currents, anticipating what was about to boil over and what wouldn’t come to the surface for at least another 20 years, that it’s impossible to look away. On a more base level, it is creepy as all get-out, and it’s well worth taking the ride at least once. Just don’t expect it to do much for you the second time around. 

Frankenheimer tried his damnedest to be a first-rank director but his stuff just won’t stick. The Manchurian Candidate is the closest he got to making a great film but it wears too much of its anxiety on its sleeve and is too unnuanced, too dead-certain in its paranoia to have the requisite resonance and heft. Everything that feeds Seconds is valid and needs to be expressed but Frankenheimer just wasn’t deft or deep enough to translate it.

The biggest problem is that he doesn’t really care two craps about his main character or his dilemma and seems to treat him with a kind of contempt. The result is that it feels like Frankenheimer is just as cold-blooded as the entrepreneurs and minions who engineer Hamilton’s rebirth and demise, so it’s all kind of like watching a jaded medical-school professor do a lecture-hall dissection of a cadaver.

But it’s not like master cinematographer James Wong Howe (Sweet Smell of Success) wasn’t eager to try to deliver on anything Frankenheimer might have asked from him. Howe, through the framing and camera moves and documentary-ish, high-contrast, sometimes blownout look, all of which was about four decades ahead of its time, sets a tone and a mood that would have been mesmerizing for the duration if Frankenheimer had had a better grasp of his material.

The same goes for composer Jerry Goldsmith, who delivers a truly accomplished and innovative score (up there with the one he turned around on a dime for Chinatown) that at times references ‘20s and ‘30s horror while somehow avoiding slipping into kitsch, and evokes fin de siècle Viennese chamber music without slipping into pretension, lending the film a lot of depth it would have otherwise lacked. 

And I’m actually going to say some nice things about Rock Hudson, whose career, very much like Marilyn’s, stemmed from being game to be whatever the public wanted to project onto him without pushing back by trying to express anything authentically intrinsic to him. In other words, he was fine with—or at least reconciled to—being nothing but a big, empty hunk. The result was that he never looked entirely comfortable on camera and never felt entirely right in any of his roles. He had to have been aware of all that because he seems to channel it here to portray someone who not only just doesn’t belong but, like Mary Henry, just doesn’t exist. 

The HD transfer available through Amazon Prime is good—remarkably good. While the print isn’t pristine—there are some damaged frames and occasional circles for reel changes—there’s nothing fundamentally wrong with it. It’s crisp, tonally consistent, and faithful enough to the original film.

Noble failure? Flat-out failure? For some reason, going there just doesn’t fit. Seconds is undeniably an experience, an experiment that clearly didn’t succeed but also didn’t utterly fail. Crucial to blazing a fruitful and prodigious trail, it isn’t just some bizarro curiosity. The problem—and I wish there was some way I could be a little more precise about this—is that there just doesn’t seem to be enough there there.

Michael Gaughn—The Absolute Sound, The Perfect Vision, Wideband, Stereo Review, Sound & Vision, The Rayva Roundtablemarketing, product design, some theater designs, a couple TV shows, some commercials, and now this.

PICTURE | The print used for the HD transfer on Prime isn’t pristine but there’s nothing fundamentally wrong with it, being crisp, tonally consistent, and faithful enough to the original film.

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors

© 2023 Cineluxe LLC

Review: Play It Again, Sam

Play It Again, Sam (1972)

review | Play It Again, Sam

related reviews

Sign up for our monthly newsletter
to stay up to date on Cineluxe

This film version of Woody Allen’s Broadway play showed he had a range behind his cartoony early films, laying the groundwork for his more sophisticated later work

by Michael Gaughn
November 16, 2022

This is a decidedly minor movie made in the somewhat frivolous style director Herbert Ross (The Goodbye Girl, Footloose) was known for, and all involved had to have known they were devoting their energies to what was basically a throwaway. But Play It Again, Sam is still well worth watching 50 years on, partly because the lines still deliver but mainly because it was the incubator or springboard (pick your metaphor) for everything that would be great about Woody Allen’s later work.

In 1972, Allen was in the middle of making the “early, funny” films that would build his initial movie audience. Take the Money and Run and Bananas preceded Sam; Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex, Sleeper, and Love and Death would follow. The problem is, those first directorial efforts are almost unwatchable today—for a couple of reasons. Allen was still an apprentice, a little obviously learning on the job and with no real ability with actors. Also, conceptually, the films tended to be extensions of his S.J. Perelman-inspired essays for The New Yorker, and—especially when looked back on now—was the kind of material that played better on the page than on the screen. But if he hadn’t paid his dues, he would have never matured into a master filmmaker.

Allen originally wrote Play It Again, Sam as a play, which he performed on Broadway for more than a year with Diane Keaton and Tony Roberts. In it lie the seeds for everything that would blossom in mid-period masterworks like Annie Hall, Manhattan, and Stardust Memories, and would define the best of his later films. He already had vast experience as a TV sketch writer but Sam forced him to focus on creating believable characters who could sustain scenes and ultimately a play. Probably more importantly, it showed he had an uncanny ear for dialogue that feels convincingly natural yet is full of an appropriately theatrical energy, verve, and wit. Allen tends to downplay his abilities, but this alone shows his genius—a talent that’s never been adequately acknowledged because he makes it look so effortless and is done so well that the technique itself is almost invisible. 

I suspect Allen could have never arrived at the breakthrough of Annie Hall if he’d only made movies and never done a play. The need to make sure Sam would land with a live audience—a live Broadway audience—meant everything had to be perfectly honed by opening night since he wouldn’t have the luxury of fixing anything in post. (Most of his early films essentially had to be saved in the editing.) Nothing could be too glib or jokey, and the whole couldn’t play as a disjointed series of big laughs. Just as he learned how to be a filmmaker on the job and in public, the same with his education as playwright and stage actor. The theater forced him to finetune his writing and performance to a degree he’d never had to do with film.

More importantly, it showed him he didn’t need to rely on silly non sequiturs to entertain an audience, that there were people eager to watch other people sit around a New York apartment hashing out their neuroses—as long as there were a few fantasy sequences tossed in. Which is the formula for the best Allen films in a nutshell. No other filmmaker has ever made it more inherently interesting to just listen to people talk to each other for 90 minutes at a pop. 

It’s hard not to watch Play It Again, Sam and wish the Allen of five years later had directed it instead of Ross—but that would have been pointless because in Annie Hall, Allen took what was best about Sam to a far higher level. Fearing the movie version would feel stagebound, Ross made the mistake many directors do of building out the action way too much. And why the hell did they set it in San Francisco when everything about the characters and dialogue screams New York—especially the NYC references that are oddly retained from the play? The ‘70s were the absolute nadir of the film score, and here you have to suffer through an execrable effort by Billy Goldenberg.

But it’s not too hard to look around all that while watching the film and imagine it as it must have played on the stage and how it would have gone if Allen had made the movie instead of Ross. The scenes from the play, when they’re not arbitrarily chopped up for the film, still work beautifully, and this is the first movie where Allen isn’t just trying to be a funny character but a credible urbanite who’s both a victim of and wry commentator on his circumstances.

The  HD presentation on Amazon Prime is pretty faithful to the film’s look, which Owen Roizman (The French Connection, The Exorcist, Network) shot in that archetypal early-‘70s style he pretty much defined. But it seems flatter than it should—even for a style that was defined by its limited color palette. As A Clockwork Orange showed, it’s especially important to keep transfers of ’70s movies faithful to what was originally filmed so they don’t look drearier than they already are. 

One of the pleasures of the movie over the stage version of Play It Again, Sam is its famous—and, for some people, notorious—opening with footage from the final scene of Casablanca. The footage they cut into Sam wasn’t in great shape but it feels a lot more like watching that movie than the recent digitized-to-death 4K HDR release.

Michael Gaughn—The Absolute Sound, The Perfect Vision, Wideband, Stereo Review, Sound & Vision, The Rayva Roundtablemarketing, product design, some theater designs, a couple TV shows, some commercials, and now this.

PICTURE | The HD presentation on Prime is pretty faithful to the film’s look but seems flatter than it should—even for an early ’70s movie with a limited color palette

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors

© 2023 Cineluxe LLC

Review: My Darling Clementine

My Darling Clementine (1946)

review | My Darling Clementine

Often eclipsed by the more iconic Stagecoach and The Searchers, this lower-key approach to the western proves to be John Ford’s most satisfying take on the genre

by Michael Gaughn
November 14, 2022

I’m always wary of “best of” lists because they’re near always just a way to coerce a consensus, usually for institutional or marketing purposes, and rarely have much to do with the actual quality of whatever’s listed. But it’s hard to understand the importance of My Darling Clementine without going there, even if just a little. My favorite John Ford film, I would place Clementine just slightly above Young Mr. Lincoln and Fort Apache, partly because of its deceptively loose, almost documentary style and episodic structure, which have helped keep it limber and relevant. While I admire Stagecoach and The Searchers, I just don’t have the unalloyed affection for them that I have for those other three.

I would also humbly suggest that Clementine is the best western ever made—exactly because it isn’t epic and mythic but intimate and, that dread word, poetic. Anything shot in Monument Valley is inevitably going to have an epic feel, and there are moments when Ford gives the Academy-ratio frame the grandeur of widescreen. But he never lingers there for the sake of effect, instead devoting almost all his attention to developing his core group of characters, making sure they’re never eclipsed by the setting and that nothing allegorical or mythic distorts their human scale. 

He also keeps the film rooted in history, having it revolve around the actual town of Tombstone and the actual figures of the Earps, Clantons, and Doc Holliday, being careful to keep all the elements in proportion. Is it accurate? Not really—or not much at all. But rather than stay pedantically true to the facts, it stays true to the feel of the facts. This isn’t how history actually was but how we want it and need it to be.

Maybe the biggest reason for the film’s strength and durability, its glue, is its grounding in process. Ford doesn’t underline it but Clementine’s not just armature but foundation lies in its portrayal of Tombstone’s evolution from frontier outpost to something resembling a civilized town and of how Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday both effect and are affected by that maturation, which makes the film much richer than if the town had just been used as a backdrop.

The most startling thing about Clementine, though, might be its look, which is often stark and gritty with naturalistic light but filled with grace notes and, especially in nighttime shots, both exteriors and interiors, venturing into chiaroscuro. I suspect this was partly inspired by the documentaries Ford had been making for the government during the wartime years leading up to the filming, and that he deployed that style here to, again, keep things immediate, rooted in the characters, and seemingly real. 

I was struck this time around by just how fluid film grammar had become by 1946 and by how the ‘40s represented its crestline. Every movie pre 1939, no matter how well done otherwise, feels a little awkward, hesitant, because the language was still forming, only to click suddenly and a little miraculously into place right at the end of that decade. The most confident expressions of American film followed, 10 years during which the core genres were forged and the execution of movies, for all its contrivance, felt effortless, with the results speaking with both power and grace, economically and, often, with surprising subtlety. Everything since has been a reaction to, a mostly futile rebellion against, what was established then. 

You can even see this in the lighting—something seemingly secondary but actually core since it subliminally has a huge impact on how we experience a film as a whole. The technique had become so refined by the mid ‘40s that no moment in Clementine feels tainted by what we would usually think of us as the high-key Studio Era style. That doesn’t mean its look isn’t inherently theatrical, and there are times when Ford ventures surprisingly close to Expressionism, but it never draws attention to itself in a negative way—which makes it all the more curious that the next few decades—well into the ‘80s—would be defined by a much flatter technique often populated by numerous, blatantly artificial shadows. 

Clementine adopts a variety of visual styles, but it shows the maturity of both film grammar and of Ford as a director that their use and juxtaposition are never jarring. Large sections of the film feel like he was back working with Greg Toland, with significant swaths of deep black, faces in shadow, and low muslin ceilings. But then there are those starker passages with their documentary immediacy, which Ford never tries to make feel vérité, instead carefully using composition and light—especially the consistently dramatic western skies—to style his tale. 

Joe MacDonald’s mostly undistinguished résumé keeps him from being considered a top-rank cinematographer but he did have his moments, shooting Samuel Fuller’s classic noir Pickup on South Street and probably the two best color noirs, Fuller’s House of Bamboo and Henry Hathaway’s almost Sirkian Niagara. He also did outstanding work on Nicholas Ray’s Bigger Than Life and probably the best Frank Tashlin film, Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter? What he and Ford came up with for Clementine feels almost experimental, so fresh and responsive that you won’t encounter anything similar until more than a decade later with the emergence of the Nouvelle Vague.

Ford even extends that approach to the music. There are only a handful of cues and the ones that are there are just brief accents, not the usual wall-to-wall wash. Most effectively, there’s no score during the big dramatic scenes when almost any other filmmaker would be amassing great gobs of turgid Late Romantic noodling, relying on sheer musical tonnage to prop up their material. Fonda’s horseback pursuit of the stagecoach is just accompanied by the sound of charging hoofs, and the big shootout at the O.K. Corral is just isolated gunfire, spare dialogue, some whinnying from the corral, a passing stagecoach, and the wind.

This is probably Henry Fonda’s best performance, angular and laconic, of course, but making each line, look, movement, and gesture ring true—except in the somewhat discordant coda, which feels like a studio-mandated reshoot. It’s hard to believe a film this good could have Victor Mature near the top of the bill, and it’s a huge testament to Ford’s abilities that Mature’s presence doesn’t sink the whole thing. Linda Darnell specialized in playing what were once known as loose women, and she really works her patented trashiness here, but Ford even finds ways to draw expression from that laboriously manufactured erotic heat. (To Darnell’s credit, she pulls off Rex Harrison’s elegant, befuddled wife in Preston Sturges’ Unfaithfully Yours beautifully.) Walter Brennan, usually typecast as the cantankerous but lovable sidekick, is disturbingly strong as Clementine’s villain, his sadism all the more unsettling because Ford bases it in a believable devotion to his sons. 

So, to sum up, you’ve got a western that’s likely the best in the genre primarily because it doesn’t use epic sweep, mythic iconography, or fussy pedantry to distance you from the action but instead creates a compelling you-are-there effect with disarming moments of grace. Its technique is still fresh and engaging because its nut has never been cracked. And the characters are finely and distinctly drawn while still feeling like organic members of a burgeoning community. (I just realized I could be describing a Robert Altman film, but this is 1946, not 1976, and Altman was too much of a cynic to ever lend his characters the warmth and rough charm and unexpected but apt layers Ford used to bestow on big and small alike like a benediction.)

Michael Gaughn—The Absolute Sound, The Perfect Vision, Wideband, Stereo Review, Sound & Vision, The Rayva Roundtablemarketing, product design, some theater designs, a couple TV shows, some commercials, and now this.

CLEMENTINE ON PRIME
I realize that, watching Clementine in its current form, you have to take a decent amount—but hopefully not too much—of what I wrote in the main text on faith. The transfer available in HD on Amazon Prime is, like so many older films, a bit of a visual mess, with some sequences sharp and with the proper tonal gradation and others great blotchy blobs of black and white. (One brief shot of a stagecoach racing through the desert is so blurry, contrasty, and stuttering it looks like badly damaged 8mm film.) I can only make assumptions here, but it would be hard to believe most of this was present in the movie as originally released and is likely a product of having to cobble together the transfer out of disparate elements, some of dubious quality. 

That said, I also have to wonder if Clementine isn’t suffering a bit of the neglect that comes with manufactured consensus. Because The Searchers is big, widescreen, and Technicolor, unabashedly mythic and not afraid to beat its chest—and conspicuously, although mostly dubiously, influential—it’s been doted on in ways My Darling Clementine never has. True, Searchers is the more recent film (though by only 10 years), but it doesn’t seem completely unreasonable to think more can be done to steer Clementine back in the direction of the movie John Ford and Joe MacDonald created. (The recent 4K HDR releases of Casablanca and The Godfather show the downside of being iconic, so thoroughly scrubbed they no longer look much like film. Clementine even in its current state is the better experience because at least it still feels, from beginning to end, like a movie.)

Lastly, there’s something strange going on with the sound, with the music and effects track often mixed way higher than the dialogue. In the quiet scene where Henry Fonda delivers a monologue at the graveside of his younger brother, he’s almost completely drowned out by some strumming on a solo acoustic guitar. I don’t remember that being a problem with previous releases.

M.G.

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors

© 2023 Cineluxe LLC

Review: Casablanca

Casablanca (1942)

review | Casablanca

related content

Sign up for our monthly newsletter
to stay up to date on Cineluxe

The Bogart/Bergman classic looks sharp, punchy, and clean in 4K HDR—but does it look like film?

by Michael Gaughn
November 11, 2022

You’ll know within the first three minutes if you’ll be able to roll with Casablanca in 4K HDR. The images behind the opening narration have always looked a little cheesy, even on VHS and DVD. But while the optical pan down from the minaret over a matte painting to the streets of Casablanca has always been suspect, it’s never drawn inordinate attention to itself—which is what the filmmakers, working with a less than ideal budget, were hoping for. But the painting looks laughably bad now, like an art-class backdrop for a high-school play. 

And that goes right to the heart of my contention: If you come to Casablanca in 4K HDR expecting it to look like film, you’ll be quickly disillusioned. But if you’re OK with enhancements and manipulations and accents that make everything look distinctly digital—although not quite like video—you’ll be able to stick around for the duration with an untroubled conscience. 

It might sound like I’m completely dumping on this transfer. I’m not. It’s possible to peer through what’s been done and glimpse enough of what Michael Curtiz, Arthur Edeson, et al. originally created to enjoy the 4K ride. But it is a little troubling to think this could be what a lot of the most popular classics will look like going forward—not as egregious as what was done to The Godfather but troubling still.

Just to make sure I wasn’t projecting some weird bias onto what I was watching, I spotchecked Casablanca against the 4K HDR presentation of Hitchcock’s Shadow of a Doubt. From the first shot, picked at random, Doubt looked like film. The image was clean, the grain was restrained, and you could see where HDR had helped open everything up, but nothing—there or elsewhere—felt over-processed, like the movie had been possessed by overeager digital gnomes. 

Would Hitchcock have approved of the result? Probably not, but at no point does that transfer feel like a reinterpretation let alone a desecration. But then Doubt isn’t wrapped in the nostalgic, iconic, mythic glow that enshrouds Casablanca—which means it doesn’t have to try to fend for itself against the enormous marketing pressures that come with being that popular and that revered. 

Admittedly, Edeson’s photography for Casablanca has more of a high-gloss sheen than Joseph Valentine’s for Doubt, but it’s not like Hitchcock’s film lacks visual polish and style, and it’s not like what threw me in Casablanca had much to do with things like lighting, lenses, or filters. The manipulation is most noticeable in the skin tones. I’m not sure why the HDR decided to pick on poor Paul Henreid in particular, already saddled with the sappiest role in the film, and with having to play it with a steel rod up his ass to boot, but the makeover makes it look like he’s stitched together out of Naugahyde. After a while, you feel like you’re watching a video-game Victor Laszlo. And once you’re aware of that, everything in the film starts to look plasticy with everyone resembling giant marionettes, which is more than a little creepy.  

Because there were also some odd things going on with the 4K of The Apartment, I bounced that off Casablanca as well. The former must have been the product of a different bag of tricks, though, because while the look of both is off to about the same degree, the Wilder film has a tube-camera early-TV appearance that’s nowhere to be found in Casablanca. (It remains strange that The Apartment looks like an HDR transfer even though it’s straight 4K.)

I also have to once again shine a light on the curious practice of not including the original mono mix of a film with what’s supposed to be its highest-quality presentation. Theoretically, the 4K HDR version should be the one that comes closest to honoring the filmmakers’ intentions (although, as we’ve seen, that isn’t always the case). Why then give viewers no choice but to listen to a version of the soundtrack the filmmakers had nothing to do with?

I don’t have much to say about the movie itself since countless volumes, most of them paperweights, have already been written about it and trying to counter the consensual view would be like trying to push water. But I would like to emphasize how sophisticated—mature—Casablanca is, like many of the films of the ’40s—far more so than their counterparts today, which show little interest in rising above the adolescent wallowing that’s the basic price of admission to contemporary cinema. 

I’d also like to echo the legions of others who’ve expressed admiration for Curtiz’ technique. This was someone who really knew how to move a camera. And no other director has ever gotten as much mileage out of the shimmer of satin and silk. 

I need to be clear in closing that I don’t have a problem with 4K either with or without HDR. I’d be grateful for as many straight 4K transfers like The Good, the Band and the Ugly as possible, and we’ve heard director Barry Sonnenfeld praise the 4K transfer of When Harry Met Sally, a film he shot. As for HDR transfers, if they all at least aspired to the level of Shadow of a Doubt or Vertigo or The Shining or A Clockwork Orange, all would be right with the classic-film world. But higher resolution, with its tendency to expose both imperfections in the source material and any digital manipulation thereof, can be an awful harsh mistress. While it would of course be great if all older movies were handled as well as Doubt, etc., the treatment of Casablanca and The Godfather at one end of the spectrum and Creature from the Black Lagoon at the other suggests that anyone who deeply cares about the look of film as film is in for a bumpy ride. 

Michael Gaughn—The Absolute Sound, The Perfect Vision, Wideband, Stereo Review, Sound & Vision, The Rayva Roundtablemarketing, product design, some theater designs, a couple TV shows, some commercials, and now this.

PICTURE | Undeniably clean but apparently over-processed, giving the movie a plastic look that feels far more digital than analog

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors

© 2023 Cineluxe LLC

Review: Enola Holmes 2

review | Enola Holmes 2

ALSO ON CINELUXE

Sign up for our monthly newsletter
to stay up to date on Cineluxe

This strong followup to the Netflix offering about Sherlock Holmes’ smarter sister suggests the developing franchise might have some legs

by Roger Kanno
November 9, 2022

The rather unoriginally titled sequel Enola Holmes 2 is a breath of fresh air in the world of formulaic blockbusters that dominate the filmmaking industry. With a relatively modest budget but a strong cast and the same capable direction and screenwriting as the original, this second adaptation of the literary series demonstrates that the franchise may have staying power. Following up on the 2020 success of the original, Enola Holmes 2 has been available on Netflix since November 4.

The screenplay by Jack Thorne continues Enola’s (Millie Bobby Brown) story as she attempts to establish her own detective agency and emerge from the shadow or her famous brother, Sherlock (Henry Cavill). Starting a business as a young woman in the late Victorian era proves to be more difficult than she imagined. And through her investigations, she becomes involved with Sarah Chapman (Sarah Dodd), a historical figure and one of the leaders of the Matchgirls’ strike of 1888 that protested the dangerous working conditions in the Bryant and May match-making factory. The film takes on these heavier themes without becoming overly preachy and maintaining the lighthearted yet quick pace of the first film. 

Much of the film’s charm can be attributed to Brown’s delightful yet nuanced portrayal of Enola. She’s a little older now but still finding her way in a whip-smart but endearing manner. And although she may lack experience at times, she is just as capable, if not more so, than her celebrated brother. Enola is an exceptional role model, and in many respects is a more formidable motion picture hero than many of those who fly through the air and battle space aliens or monsters from other dimensions. 

Harry Bradbeer, who previously directed Phoebe Waller Bridge’s fabulous Fleabag television series, brings the same brisk and street-wise sensibility to this feature film. Enola similarly and slyly breaks the fourth wall and addresses the audience, which Brown handles superbly. Enola 2 also benefits from having the charismatic Cavill as the rather grim, but brilliant older Holmes sibling. And while his character doesn’t have as much to do nor is he as engaging as Enola, Cavill provides a sense of stability and measure that perfectly balances the relentless energy and optimism of his character’s sister. In contrast, their flighty mother, Eudoria Holmes is played perfectly by the vibrant Helena Bonham Carter. And even though her screen time is fairly limited, she makes the most of it to really bring her supporting character to life.

The movie is presented in a 2.39:1 aspect ratio, and looks extraordinarily film-like and pleasing. The lighting looks very natural if a little dark at times, but is befitting the setting in England during the late nineteenth century. Colors are understandably muted and outdoor scenes shot in historic areas of London suitably exhibit the grimy look the city was known for in that era. And while the Dolby Vision HDR picture doesn’t quite pop like it can, darkly lit scenes such as the inside of Sherlock’s apartment still display a high level of fine detail in the background of his many unkempt furnishings and other belongings. Some scenes are obviously enhanced with CGI, especially when recreating the extensive backdrops of the old city but are done so sparingly and tastefully.

The Dolby Atmos soundtrack is superb from the very first scene with enveloping music immediately setting an exciting tone, followed by a realistic piercing police whistle off in the distance. This quickly transitions to the sounds of Enola running through the streets of London with people, horses, and the general hustle and bustle of the city placed realistically around her. The music is especially skillfully integrated with the Foley effects, resulting in a marvelously immersive quality. During dreamlike flashback sequences, echoing voices swirl around the room with deep, ominous music filling all hemispheres of the soundfield to produce a very menacing effect. During the horse-carriage chase, the nature of the sound inside the carriage is quite quiet, with an immediate quality making dialogue very intelligible even though the conversation is at a normal speaking level and many sounds outside the carriage are also audible. The height and surround channels are used more often to create a sense of envelopment rather than for directional effects but the soundtrack is wholly satisfying and adds greatly to the cinematic experience of this film.

All told, Enola Holmes 2 features a solid story and some fine performances along with high production values. I wish more franchise films and films from streaming services were similarly as accomplished and still as thoroughly entertaining for the entire family. 

Roger Kanno began his life-long interest in home cinema almost three decades ago with a collection of LaserDiscs and a Dolby Surround Pro Logic system. Since then, he has seen a lot of movies in his home theater but has an equal fascination with high-end stereo music systems. Roger writes for both Sound & Vision and the SoundStage! Network.

PICTURE | Enola Holmes 2 looks extraordinarily film-like and pleasing, and while the Dolby Vision HDR picture doesn’t pop as much as it could, darkly lit scenes still display a high level of fine detail

SOUND | The Atmos soundtrack is superb from the very first scene. The surround channels are used mostly to create a sense of envelopment rather than for directional effects, but the mix is wholly satisfying and adds greatly to the cinematic experience.

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors

© 2023 Cineluxe LLC

Review: Hail the Conquering Hero

Hail the Conquering Hero (1944)

review | Hail the Conquering Hero

This Preston Sturges comedy would be one of the very best American films if Sturges hadn’t decided to pull his punches at the end

by Michael Gaughn
November 7, 2022

We’re back in smalltown America again with Eddie Bracken and William Demarest and the action again revolves around World War II, but beyond that Hail the Conquering Hero bears little resemblance to The Miracle of Morgan’s Creek from just earlier that same year. Preston Sturges was on a roll and Morgan’s Creek had been one of the biggest films of 1944, but he was never one for formula and Conquering Hero is dark and almost brooding in exactly all the places where Morgan’s Creek was silly and light. 

Sturges pretty much broke the comedy mold here. The first almost 20 minutes are shot and for the most part performed as straight drama—so are most of the closing 15. The satire, which was so light in Morgan’s Creek that the audience wasn’t even sure it was being kidded, is here brought to the foreground and with such force that it verges on the vicious and bitter. The contrasts are so stark that, if it wasn’t for the presence in both films of Bracken and Demarest, of Sturges’ recurring themes and his vast stock company, it would be hard to believe they’re from the same director, let alone made in the same year. 

This was all very much deliberate of course and not just Sturges being wildly schizo. You just need to compare Bracken’s characters, and his performances, to see what Sturges is up to. In Morgan’s Creek, Bracken is so broad you almost want to cringe. Here, his character is again a schnook but he’s also a genuinely tortured soul. The Norval of Morgan’s Creek could have never done the long monologue about the history of the Marines or the closing speech where Bracken tells the town members he’s nothing but a fraud while at the same time basically calling them a bunch of morons.

Morgan’s Creek was about how war hysteria had stirred the moral pot, breaking up the too-simple strictures of smalltown America and putting them in play. In Conquering Hero, Sturges frontally attacks the American love for appearances over substance, how we’ll believe practically anything as long as it comes from someone we want to believe in and are deaf to the people we don’t want to see. The film revolves around the premise that we already know what we want to hear and are just looking for mouthpieces that fit those preconceptions—which is why Bracken is able to get away with so visibly and audibly reacting to being forced into that role. The townspeople literally can’t see or hear him. 

The scene where he tries to resist the locals’ effort to draft him into running for mayor, with them conveniently spinning his protests into affirmations, is a sitcom staple I don’t think has ever once worked on TV. But it succeeds here because Sturges has built up to it so carefully and cunningly that it becomes an ambiguous and troubling moment that almost gets the audience to look at itself.

Hail the Conquering Hero is one of the great American movies and would be one of the very best if Sturges hadn’t gotten himself all snarled in his own net. The final third begins to fall into the tradition of bold and cutting truth-telling that defines the greatest American art—the saying “No! in thunder” that Melville ascribed to Hawthorne. But right after Sturges delivers a couple of staggering blows, he fails to finish the job, instead pulling his punches, all too aware he’s making a major-studio film in the middle of a particularly brutal war and ultimately reverting to what the audience wants to hear instead of what it ought to hear. And so it almost always goes with the movies, which is why they’ll always be a second-tier artform.

You have to wonder if Sturges’ inability to reconcile his insights and ambitions with the material didn’t spill over into the production, which is, at moments, oddly uneven. About half the cast proves nimble while the other half can barely get its lines out, which can be disconcerting when four or more of them are trading quips within the same scene. Ella Raines is undeniably striking but also as wooden as they come, and you just need to compare that four-minute take in Morgan’s Creek where Bracken and Betty Hutton stroll through town to the similarly long stroll here with Raines and the tall, handsome, and dull Bill Edwards to feel how the latter scene creates a drag on Conquering Hero. If coat trees could converse with each other, this is what it would sound like. 

The cinematographer, as with Morgan’s Creek, is John Seitz, the man who in Double Indemnity single-handedly defined the look of noir and thereby the look of all American movies from that moment on. Conquering Hero has a much more noirish style than Morgan’s Creek and that couldn’t feel more right—partly because what Sturges is doing here overlaps sympathetically with the true heart of noir. The distance between Fred McMurray in Indemnity and Bracken in Hero is so slight they could be doppelgängers. Both are trying to control worlds that have their own agendas—worlds that definitely don’t have either character’s best interests at heart. Both ultimately have to admit to the futility of will and don’t so much come to accept their fates as have them imposed on them. 

Visually, Conquering Hero is discernibly darker than Morgan’s Creek and that comes across well in the HD presentation on Amazon Prime, which is a step up from the same service’s presentation of the latter. But the deep grays (there are no real blacks) are muddy and crushed throughout, making the transfer darker than it should be, which can make the film feel a little oppressive. The 4K HDR release of A Clockwork Orange showed how using a transfer to bring a film all the way back to its original look can have a big impact on how it’s perceived (that is, if the director and cinematographer knew what they were doing in the first place). I have to wonder if nailing the original look of Conquering Hero—getting the visual tone to match the comedic/dramatic tone—wouldn’t go a long way toward clarifying what Sturges was up to. 

Many filmmakers have tried to peer into the American soul—some have even tried to lead a charge against it—but none have ever done it, as Sturges did here, in the guise of Norman Rockwell. It all comes cascading down in an avalanche—patriotism, heroism, boosterism, motherhood, smalltown democracy, civic pride, the myth of the childhood sweetheart, the basic decency of the common man. The funny thing is, in the wake of the ‘60s and ‘70s and their relentless assault on those same institutions, which triggered the relentlessly cynical reaction of the ‘80s to the present, all of that has been successfully obliterated but nothing of any substance has been put in its place. We just have endless self-obsession and self-indulgence and the need to be endlessly diverted instead. That lends a delicious and frightening irony Sturges could have never foreseen to the fact that everything in Hail the Conquering Hero is set in motion by the actions of a psychopath.

Michael Gaughn—The Absolute Sound, The Perfect Vision, Wideband, Stereo Review, Sound & Vision, The Rayva Roundtablemarketing, product design, some theater designs, a couple TV shows, some commercials, and now this.

PICTURE | Conquering Hero is a dark, almost noirish film, and that comes across well in the HD presentation on Amazon Prime. But the deep grays (there are no real blacks) are muddy and crushed throughout, making the transfer a touch darker than it should be. 

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors

© 2023 Cineluxe LLC

Scroll to top

sign up for our newsletter

receive a monthly recap of everything that’s new on Cineluxe