Hawks is one of those classic directors whose oeuvre is difficult to pass by. The quality of his work seems invariably linked to its pulpiness, the bigger the stars, the worse the films. Not my cup of tea, but worth exploring for his status alone.
Movies
A surprisingly fun flick. It could be that my expectations were pretty low, as Carpenter's version is often cited as a superior remake (and it is, truly), but that doesn't mean this 50s version is without merit. The "thing" itself may look like a low-budget Frankenstein, but the tension and setting make for a decent enough horror. It's a plus that the creature doesn't get too much screen time. The inhospitable setting, the unknown dangers and the squabbles between the soldiers and the scientists keep the tension tight. There isn't quite enough meat to keep the film interesting from start to finish, but it's certainly one of the better classic horror films I've seen so far.Read all
A startlingly simple western stretched out to its limit, so much in fact that it passed the two-hour mark. Even after having watched the film I'm still not entirely sure how they actually managed to do it, though obviously the film did feel tepid and slow in places. Hawks really made a bad call there. Wayne is a really poor actor and the more dialogue there is, the less appealing his performance. While the setup could've worked for a simple, short genre flick, the excess dialogue and the prolonged scenes really screw with the pacing. The ending is pretty cringeworthy too, making this a pretty confusing western.Read all
A film that felt like it tried very hard to replicate the success of Casablanca. That's not really a classic I appreciated, so it's no surprise that To Have and Have Not did not do much for me either. It's a sluggish noir with some romance and action elements that failed to get the blood pumping. I really can't stand Bogart and Bacall doesn't have a lot to work with either. The dialogs left me cold, the tension was completely absent and the cinematography wasn't that remarkable either. Not the kind of noir I like, but there's clearly a market for these films as they're still well respected.Read all
Stuffy old comedy, written by Billy Wilder and directed by Howard Hawks. If you like classic Hollywood this is a film for you. If you dread American cheese and anything AFI-related, it's better to stay away from this one. It's an overly long film that has nothing to offer besides a rather odd premise. That's about the only fun thing about Ball of Fire, which gets you through the first 15 minutes. After that, the film settles into more classic patterns and all that is left are dusty dialogues and crummy performances. I have no idea why they thought this had to last almost two hours, there's hardly enough material to fill half that runtime.Read all
As someone who watches quite a bit of Chinese cinema I come across a lot of propaganda discussions. I tend to be relatively lenient, but some films do cross a line. And it's not just Chinese ones. Take a film like Sergeant York for example. Fair enough, it was made during wartime, but this was just near impossible to sit through. So yeah, if you want to give meaning to your life, become an army man and they'll turn you into veritable heroes. The performances are grotesque, the drama is cheesy and the with a runtime of two hours plus, the film greatly outstays its welcome. I think this is a film best left forgotten.Read all
An old Howard Hawks film. He's vintage Hollywood, a guy known for handling big movie stars and cranking out classic blockbusters. And that's exactly what you may expect from Only Angels Have Wings. It is a film about burly, rough men who live dangerously and still manage to be big romantic hunks for the ladies. Cary Grant and Jean Arthur, that's what you're getting. There's a little action (with the planes), a truckload lot of classic romance, and way too much dialogue. At two hours, the film is also a good 30 minutes too long. People with a thing for classic cinema probably won't mind, but I didn't care for any of it.Read all
Grating. Grant is absolutely horrible and Hepburn's voice is completely unsuited for screwball comedies. The dialogue is fast and there's plenty of it, but almost none of it is funny. And so, safe a few inspired moments, the film simply goes on and on and on, growing increasingly more annoying with each passing minute.
