ANGELA MAKES TIM WATCH: Maverick (1994)

 

Maverick (1994), starring Mel Gibson, Jodie Foster and James Garner. Written by William Goldman (based on the TV series created by Roy Huggins). Directed by Richard Donner.

TIM SAYS:

I'd admit I was somewhat reluctant to watch this movie, which was based on the classic TV series that ran from 1957 to 1962. James Garner's portrayal of Bret Maverick in the series is indeed a classic. Garner, in fact, created a one-of-a-kind character that could never truly be recreated by anyone else. Imagine someone other than Peter Falk as Columbo, for instance. Sometimes, an actor fits a role perfectly and that perfection can never be recaptured by someone else.

But I was able to enjoy the 1994 movie. Mel Gibson was good in the role of Bret and if you take the movie on its own--disconnected from the series and set in its own parallel universe--than it gives us a fun, enjoyable story. 

The plot involves Maverick trying to get to a massive poker contest and also raise the last few thousand dollars he needs for the contest entry fee. Along the way, he falls in with a very pretty thief named Annabelle Bransford (Jodie Foster) and an aging lawman played by Garner. They have a series of mini-adventures, with Annabelle trying to snitch Maverick's money on several occasions. The various situations they encounter shows Maverick's skills as a gambler and a con artist, as well as showing us that he can use a gun if he absolutely has to AND that, if push comes to shove, he actually has some moral sensibilities. The entire movie builds up to a series of funny plot twists to bring everything to a satisfying conclusion.

I enjoyed the cameos featuring actors who made their names in Westerns (Robert Fuller, Doug McClure, Denver Pyle, etc), but I did think a Danny Glover cameo with a shout-out to Lethal Weapon was a bit too heavy-handed. 

The ambiance of the movie is more action-oriented than the TV series usually was and Gibson's version of Maverick will never be the equal of Garner's original version. But I enjoyed Maverick regardless. 

I am going to make Angela watch an episode of the TV series, though. 

ANGELA SAYS: 

I saw this adaptation of Maverick fairly soon after it came out and really enjoyed it. It is an easy going, hilarious movie, that doesn’t take itself too seriously. I don’t recall seeing any reruns of the original series, but I know the premise was Garner playing a gambler/conman; except his cons were always to make sure the bad guys didn’t win each week. The character came across as a little bumbling and inept, yet always won the day before the credits rolled.

The movie starts with Maverick desperately trying to get the final $3,000 needed to enter a high stakes poker game. Most of the movie romps through western tropes; caravan attacks, savage Indians, runaway stagecoaches, show downs in the street, double crossing outlaws and gamblers, lots of gamblers. Along the way, he is conned and manipulated by pioneer missionaries, “savage” Indians and Annabelle Bransford. Ultimately, Maverick wins the money and the girl; or does he?

Bad language in movies is a hot button of mine, especially when it isn’t necessary, and this movie has some. Fortunately, it wasn’t enough to spoil my enjoyment, just enough to make me wish they’d left it out. Overall, I thought it lived up to expectations. And it was fun to see all the cameos by old time western actors and country music stars. Some of the shout outs pushed the envelope a bit, but they succeeded in generating a chuckle so they did their job.

I was a little apprehensive when I suggested this. I know Tim considers Maverick one of the classic tv westerns and he can tend to nitpick; particularly over anything that might spoil a beloved childhood favorite. I knew he would like the movie, but I wasn’t sure how he would take Gibson in the role of Maverick. I’m glad he was able to enjoy it as much as I did. In return, I agreed to watch an episode from the original series – that should be fun as well.

TIM MAKES ANGELA WATCH: The Maltese Falcon (1941)

 

The Maltese Falcon (1941), starring Humphrey Bogart & Mary Astor. Written and directed by John Houston. Based on the 1929 novel by Dashiell Hammett. 

TIM SAYS: 

Dashiell Hammett pretty much invented the hard-boiled school of fiction. (Other authors contributed as well, but Hammett is the guy who turned it into a legitimate form of literature.) His short stories were brilliant and when he began to produce novels, they were even better. 

The Maltese Falcon was adapted in movies in 1931 and 1936, but its this 1941 version that really strikes gold. Houston's script is 98% faithful to the novel in both plot and dialogue. His direction and the cinematography was influencial enough to help eventually usher in Film Noir. 

And the cast could not be more perfect. Humphrey Bogart's career is stuffed to overflowing with iconic roles, but his portrayal of Sam Spade is arguable his best. Mary Astor is the prototype femme fatale, while Peter Lorre, Syndey Greenstreet and Elisha Cook, Jr are among the best bad guys ever.

Angela and I were going to see it in the theaters a month or so ago when it played as one of TCM's Big Screen Classics. But I no longer have Free Will and so, when Angela decided to pass on it, so did I. But I insisted we watch it at home and, because she is an Awesome Wife, she agreed to this. 

One thing that stood out to me as we watched it together was the interesting fact that Gutman and Cairo (Greenstreet and Lorre) obviously think of themselves as master criminals. But when it comes right down to it, neither are really competent. Their careers as criminals--as far as we can see--is one failure after another. Elisha Cook's Wilmer parallels this--he thinks of himself as a top gunman, but he's really just a loser that Sam easily disarms multiple times without effort. 

Sam Spade, in the end, is the only person in the movie who really knows what he's doing, even when he doesn't have all the facts. He is often improvising as he looks for the Falcon and tries to solve the three murders that take place during the story, but he always does so intelligently. The villains think they can wrap him around their fingers, but it's Sam who has the upper hand.

ANGELA SAYS:

I put off watching this movie for a couple of weeks because I wasn't really looking forward to it. I enjoy old movies and Humphrey Bogart is great, so I knew I wouldn't hate it. BUT, I wasn't very impressed with the Maltese Falcon when I read it. I know you can't call it cliched since it created the cliches, but Brigid just annoyed me. I couldn't picture her as a classic femme fatale, and I felt like Spade half believed her, or at least wanted to.

I have to say, the movie impressed . For me, this is one of the rare times when the movie is better than the book. Mary Astor was masterful as Brigid O'Shaughnessy. She played the damsel in distress well enough that she had ME wanting to believe her. Bogart did a good job of leading her along just enough to make her think she was succeeding before cutting her off. It was clear he doubted her from the lost sister story at the beginning to the assertions of love at the end.

The twists and turns of the story were fun to follow and all the supporting characters worked well. The henchmen were hilarious in their ineptitude. And you begin to feel sympathy for Wilmer in his role as scapegoat. I know he killed two people; although he couldn't manage to finish the job with Captain Jacoby well enough to get the Falcon. He tries to be dangerous, but will clearly lose his weapon to pretty much anyone he faces.

Finally, I loved Sydney Greenstreet in the role of Kasper Gutman. You could see his theater roots in the way he over emoted a bit, but he did an excellent job. He gave the impression of a favorite uncle who would indulge your whims, but he was clear in his willingness to cast Wilmer as the scapegoat. His subtle facial expressions and humorous attitude clearly hid a devious mind.

So to conclude, this movie worked for me MUCH better than the book; maybe it was the addition of the video, since the script and dialogue was nearly identical to the book. Regardless, the cast was excellent and the pacing, lighting and directing pulled me into the story. I kind of hope there are still people out there searching for the Falcon.

TIM MAKES ANGELA READ: Hands in the Dark (1932)

 

Hands in the Dark, by Walter Gibson (using the house name Maxwell Grant). First published in the May 1932 issue of The Shadow Magazine. 

TIM SAYS:

There are two distinct versions of the Shadow--the one who appeared in the original pulp magazines beginning in 1931 and the protagonist from the radio show that premiered in 1937. The latter was supposedly based on the pulp character, but was different enough to be essentially a new character. 

Both characters are awesome in their own ways and I was introduced to both of them about the same time in my teens. I ended up owning an LP that contained two episodes of the radio show (which I saw at a record store and whined about until my Mom bought it) and a paperback reprint of one of the pulp stories, which I bought off the book rack at Winn Dixie, probably with paper route money.

Over the years, I've read scores of the Shadow stories, but that paperback--reprinting the 1932 story "Hands in the Dark"--will always be one of my favorites simply because it was my first. It begins with a bang--a kidnapping followed by a murder. This is all part of a plot to obtain an obscure clue that will lead to a fortune in stolen loot.

(That clue, by the way, is featured on the magazine cover above. I don't remember figuring it out the first time I read the book and I've always wondered if I would get it if I were to read the novel for the first time as an adult.)

Soon, the Shadow is on the trail of the gang of villains who are responsible for all this intrigue and violence. The plot moves switfly and logically, with spurts of violent action seeded throughout the story. Towards the end, there's a wonderful confrontation between the Shadow and the surviving crooks in a dark attic, followed by a gunfight when a remaining killer is trapped in a railroad car as he shoots it out with the cops. 

"Hands in the Dark" is a great example of the best of pulp fiction--a strong story with a clever plot and exciting action.

And, of course, it stars the Shadow, who is 100% pure awesomeness, with an awesome outer coating and an awesome filling in the middle and with awesome sprinkles on the top.

cover art by Jim Steranko

ANGELA SAYS:

The little I know about the Shadow is from the 1994 movie starring Alec Baldwin. I have been told that it's a mashup of different incarnations of the Shadow and not the “proper pulp magazine version.” Overall, I enjoyed the look and feel of the movie so I wasn't sure what to expect from the novel. As it turned out, I enjoyed it. The mystery was well crafted and I enjoyed following each step along the way. While a series of minor characters are used to move the story along and provide the next clue, each one is given enough development that their murder, or attempted murder, generated anger at the callous mobsters and sympathy for that character.

It proves that chapters of background information is not necessary to create a three dimensional character that readers care about. Series' written by different authors under house names can be hit or miss, but generally, they lasted because most of the writers turned out well developed stories that fit into the universe. I often tease Tim that; while his Goodreads list may have 200+ books for a year, 90% or more are under 200 pages. But there is some truth to his argument that a well crafted, tightly written story doesn't need to be any longer. Many of today's authors turn out books of 300-400 pages, but the stories often aren't as well constructed and developed.

I had some criticisms of this book, though. The conversation when Moose Shargin was warning Wing Toy of the abilities of the Shadow and dangers of facing off against him was rife with cliches. I don't know if gangsters in the early 30s really talked like that, but it felt contrived to me. Also, Toy says the gas for the trap would kill, but later he said it just knocked out the victim; the killing came later. Lastly, three different minor characters pulled guns on the gangsters and all three failed to make use of their advantage. Granted, they were all elderly, and at least one was nearly blind, but I felt like yelling “Either pull the trigger or don't pull out the gun”. At least two of them would likely have survived if they had done so.

Finally, I'm torn about the Shadow himself. In this book, at least, he almost feels like a minor character. Granted, he is orchestrating a lot behind the scenes and is often listening in the shadows (pardon the pun). But I'm not sure if it's just a judicious use of an almost mystical character or the uncertainty of how to best use and develop him. Perhaps I should read further stories to see how he is used across several novels. (Shh, don't tell Tim; I can't set the precedent that he's right about such things).

SPECIAL BONUS: A video Tim made on how the character of the Shadow was created:

 

ANGELA MAKES TIM WATCH: Sabrina (1995)

 

SABRINA (1995), starring Harrison Ford & Julia Ormond. Written by Barbara Benedeck & David Rayfiel. Directed by Sydney Pollack.

TIM SAYS:

Well, this version of the movie doesn't include Humphrey Bogart, Harrison Ford is not playing either Han Solo or Indiana Jones and it's not in black-and-white. All these things should be unforgiveable. But, though the 1995 film does not hold up very well when compared to the 1955 original, it is (as one critic wrote) "a pleasant diversion."

Aside from what I mentioned above, the movie has a few other points against it. It's 20 minutes longer than the original (and seems to be a little longer) without needing to be. And it depends too much on drama while dropping much of the comedy that gave the original its charm. 

But the cast does their jobs well and the movie's big denoument scene (in which Linus is forced to admit he loves Sabrina and follows her to Paris) is arguably done a little better. And the part of David's fiance is more fleshed out here and more important to the plot than in the original. 

All this allows it to make up a few points, but the original is definitely the superior film. If only Harrison Ford had been allowed to use a blaster or a bull whip at some point. That would have saved it for sure. 

ANGELA SAYS:

I’m torn on this one. I like things about both versions of the movie so it’s hard to pick a true winner.

Original

PROS

1. Audrey Hepburn and Humphrey Bogart – need I say more?

2. The script does a better job of showing Sabrina’s teenage, over the top, despair at David’s inattention

3. Hepburn’s fashion display is much more “Paris”

CONS

1. Hepburn doesn’t look frumpy at the beginning – just younger. I don’t know if it’s the studio’s aversion to making their stars ugly, but I didn’t see much transformation between the New York and Paris Sabrina’s

2. Elizabeth Tyson is just a place holder, with no personality or development to make us really believe she’s enough to reform David Larrabee

3. The “take charge” David in the dénouement doesn’t feel believable

4. Bogart (53 to Hepburn’s 24), just looks too old to be accepted as a valid love interest. Although the black and white film somewhat softens the extremes.

Remake

PROS

1. Ormand is much more believable as the frumpy ugly duckling who transforms into a swan. The makeup and costuming at the beginning makes the transformation much more believable.

2. David Larrabee is a more fleshed out character than the original. I can believe Elizabeth Tyson is capable of reining in David’s excesses, and she won’t put up with his playboy ways

3. This version of David is much more believable in the dénouement;I can accept he’s secretly kept up with the business. Even though he isn’t likely to be up to the day to day running of the company; he seems able to fill in, with the help of his mother and the rest of the staff. I can believe that the two brother’s will have a much better relationship when Linus returns

CONS

1. Ford and Ormand just aren’t the same as Hepburn and Bogey.

2. The extended Paris scenes where Sabrina “finds” herself are too long and unnecessary. It slows the pace of the movie and doesn’t have the charm of cooking school Sabrina in the original.

3. The age difference between Ford (53) and Ormand (30) isn’t quite as wide, but it still looks “off” on screen.

4. And, for Tim, there isn’t a bullwhip or blaster in sight.

Overall, I’d say the original 1954 film edges out the remake, but only just. There is a lighthearted, ethereal charm to it that is missing in the later one. I don’t know if it’s the black and white aspect, but it just has more of a fairy tale feel. I can see it beginning “once upon a time…….. and see Cinderella set in modern times.

ANGELA MADE TIM WATCH: Sabrina (1954)

 

SABRINA (1995), starring Humprhey Bogart & Audrey Hepburn. Written by Billy Wilder, Ernest Lehman & Samuel A. Taylor. Directed by Billy Wilder.

ANGELA SAYS: 

Neither of us were ready for sleep and Tim was scrolling through the TMC on demand movies and we decided to watch Sabrina. We've both seen it before, but it's been awhile and it had three great things going for it: black and white, Audrey Hepburn and Humphrey Bogart. There isn't much that will beat that combination in this house (except maybe Katherine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy).

 

Hepburn was believable as the somewhat frumpy, star struck daughter of the family chauffeur who transformed into an elegant and beautiful adult. Unfortunately, she still hasn't outgrown the infatuation with the younger son of the manor house. William Holden was perfect as the playboy (David Larrabee) with three ex wives who hasn't worked a day in his life. Bogart plays the workaholic older brother (Linus Larrabee) who picks up the pieces after his brother's affairs fail, mostly by paying off the unacceptable women.

 

When David fixates on the adult Sabrina, threatening to disrupt the marriage/merger that Linus has manipulated, Linus decides to manage the situation. The obvious happens and the couple fall in love, despite some twists and turns along the way.

 

Ben Mankowicz (TMC host) mentioned that Cary Grant was the first, and (in his opinion) better choice for Linus Larrabee. I disagree. While it's true that you wouldn't normally expect Bogart to play the lead in a romantic comedy, I think he is much more believable as the workaholic brother. Grant is much too suave and debonair. The surprising love affair between Linus and Sabrina would have had no impact and failed as a twist for the first audiences.

Overall, a pleasant way to spend a couple of hours during the Christmas weekend.

TIM SAYS:

There were a couple of crime movies and Film Noirs on demand, but I can never get Angela to watch any of those. My goal of  Angela and I being inspired to enter into a life of crime, eventually double-crossing each other and coming to tragic, violent ends remains a distant dream. 

It does seem a shame to put Humphrey Bogart in a movie and not give him an opportunity to shoot Conried Veidt or Barton MacLane. But Bogie is indeed great in the role, as is everyone else. This includes the supporting cast, especially John Williams as Sabrina's dad, who obviously loves his daughter but is convinced that she won't be happy if she tries to cross class lines.

The script is clever and funny and I did enjoy seeing Sabrina once again. I'm not sure I completely buy the plot twist at the end, since the 30-year difference in age between Audrey and Bogie is a bit extreme.  And, to be fair to the movie, the characters Audrey and Bogie were playing did require there to be a gap in their ages.  

Angela mentions that Bogie fits the role better than Cary Grant would have, since it would have been too obvious from the beginning that Grant would be a love interest. I can't argue that, but at the same time, it would have been fun to see Grant play the workaholic businessman.

And, I suppose the part of me that wishes that there had been a gun battle between Bogie and William Holden is just being silly. 

ANGELA MADE TIM WATCH: Daddy Long Legs (1955)

 

DADDY LONG LEGS (1955), starring Fred Astaire and Leslie Caron. Written by Henry and Phoebe Ephron. Directed by Jean Negulesco. 

TIM SAYS:

It is obvious almost right from the beginning of the film that this has to be judged on its own merits. Though it takes the bare bones of the plot from the novel, several major changes to the story structure and characters essentially make it a different story.

For instance, the movie set in the then-contemporary 1950s, Judy is now from a French orphanage and we find out right away that Jervis is her sponsor (though it is still a secret from her). 

And this is fine, because it's a fun movie. The dance sequences are magnificent and (in every case) also serve to further either the plot or character development. Both Astaire and Caron exude their usual charm in their roles and both seem to be having fun (though in real life, Astaire was mourning the death of his wife, so perhaps he wasn't having all that much fun). 

As Judy, Caron doesn't have the same "Anne of Green Gables" vibe that book-Judy had, but she is still smart and vivacious. 

I also liked the supporting cast, especially Fred Clark as Jervis' assistant and Thelma Ritter as his secretary. The script succeeds in giving them all three-dimensional personalities.

ANGELA SAYS:

If you read the book before you watch the movie, please note, the book clearly inspires the movie more than anything else. The feel of the book is rural, quiet and content. The feel of the movie is urbane, sophisticated and splashy. This is just an observation, but an important one if you have read the book.

Jervis Pendleton (Fred Astaire) is presented, not as a playboy in the traditional sense, but as a swinging New York bachelor. Without the book's foundation of philanthropic orphanage trustee, Hollywood had to create a reason for him to send an orphan to college. Their rather ham-handed approach was to send him on a government mission to France where he stumbles across an orphanage after his car runs off the road. The orphanage just happens to have a beautiful, former ward, who is now a teacher. Pendleton sees Julie Andre (Leslie Caron) teaching the children and is enchanted with her, arranging for her to attend college in the United States. Fast forward two years and Pendleton's majordomo forces him to read the thick stack of letters that has accumulated from Andre. This sets off the events that leads to the inevitable conclusion.

The movie was amusing and Caron's depiction of a bemused and confused Frenchwoman coming to the US for college was charming. As this cast would suggest, the movie is a dance musical and the routines fit the plot well. There isn't the feel that they are just shoved in somewhere to allow the actors to show off their abilities. 

BONUS: the fantasy scene of Astaire as a dancing Texas cowboy is hilarious. 

The supporting cast is excellent, and even the minor characters are given enough to work with that they feel fleshed out and real. And the finale, when Julie learns the truth, is believable and doesn't feel contrived.

Some minor critiques.

• There is no real explanation of why an orphan girl, from an out of the way institute in the backwater of France would speak perfect English. Like many things Hollywood does, you just have to accept it and move on.

• I know the ages of the actors rarely has a real influence on the ages of the characters they play, but I really dislike Hollywood's insistence of casting leading men who are old enough to be the father; sometimes even grandfather, of the leading lady. It's disconcerting at best and creepy at worst.

I love old movies, partly for the fact that they rarely fail entirely and make me regret the time I spent watching them. And this is far from a fail; it's a fun movie and well worth a couple of hours of your time.

ANGELA MADE TIM READ: "Daddy-Long-Legs," by Jean Webster

 

TIM SAYS:

Since Angela and I became a couple (not counting the approximately one year period in which we were apparently dating without my being aware of it), she has commanded that I read Jane Austin novels, Anne of Green Gables and the Little House on the Prairie books. I've enjoyed them all--which is just another example of why she is The Perfect Wife.

So when she next handed me a copy of the 1912 novel Daddy-Long-Legs, I figured I would enjoy it as well. And, in fact, I did enjoy it.

It's an epistolary novel, collecting the letters of 17-year-old Jerusha (Judy) Abbott, who had grown up in an orphanage, but now has acquired a mentor who is paying her way through college.

The mentor insists on remaining anonymous. He's a trustee of the orphanage, but Judy only caught a single, brief glimpse of him. Told to write him regularly (with no expectation of the letters ever being answered), she dubs him "Daddy-Long-Legs."

Judy is a fun character--someone who reminds me a lot of Anne Shirley from Anne of Green Gables. Her letters are fun, sometimes jumping from one topic to another and sometimes rambling on a bit, but always full of humor and emotions we can relate to. Judy slowly builds up her own image of Daddy-Long-Legs and a one-sided but still very real sense of a father-daughter relationship builds.

I thought the ending, which includes an important revelation and a change from a father-daughter story into a love story, was a bit abrupt and not completely satisfying. But overall, the novel was a lot of fun to read and, as I've said, yet another indication that Angela is indeed The Perfect Wife.

ANGELA SAYS:

I read Daddy Long Legs as a young adult and remember enjoying it. So when I saw it on my bookshelf a couple of weeks ago; I thought it would be a good one for this blog. And BONUS, there is a movie version we could review also.

I found the book mostly how I remembered it. The letters and drawings are more juvenile than I recalled (which makes sense, because I was much younger when I read it then). But the zingers included in this one sided conversation are still amusing as an adult. I can understand, and sympathize with, a young girl's response to some heavy handed tactics used by an absent guardian. And I can also see the growing jealousy on the part of that absent guardian.

 

I agree with Tim, that the ending was a bit abrupt. I don't agree that he should have kept his role secret forever, but there wasn't much of a transition from guardian to fiance. Perhaps another few letters easing us into the knowledge would have improved the book.

 

Addendum,

 I discovered there is a sequel to Daddy Long Legs about Judy's college roommate, Dear Enemy. It is also an epistolary style book, and I found it to be even funnier and more witty. I would highly recommend you read both.