When the terms “American Film Institute”, “classic”, and “Austria” are put in the same sentence, most people would think of the 1965 film, The Sound of Music. While that movie has become a beloved staple in cinema, there’s another title that fits the aforementioned criteria; 1949’s The Third Man. This film also fits the criteria for Hometowns to Hollywood’s Celluloid Road Trip Blogathon: International Edition. I’ve seen several movies from American Film Institute’s list of the top one hundred films of all time. Some of these films have, in my opinion, earned their respective places on that list. Other films have left me confused, questioning why a given film is on the list in the first place. While American Film Institute’s list comes across as objective, I have learned that almost any movie list is subjective. Therefore, I’m checking out The Third Man for myself, determining if I think the 1949 film should be on American Film Institute’s list!
The Third Manposter created by London Film Productions, StudioCanal International, and Selznick Releasing Organization
Things I liked about the film:
The acting: In The Third Man, Ernst Deutsch portrayed Baron Kurtz, a friend of Harry Lime. Despite appearing in the film for a limited period of time, Ernst, in my opinion, stole the show! Anytime he appeared on screen, Ernst’s facial expressions were very fluid and expressive, allowing his character’s reactions to be on point. His performance makes me wish he had more appearances in The Third Man! Individual portrayals were not the only memorable performances, as I liked the on-screen chemistry between Joseph Cotten and Alida Valli. One scene shows Holly and Anna discussing Holly’s friend, Harry. This scene gave Alida and Joseph the opportunity to give their characters genuine emotion, from Anna shedding tears over how the world grew up around Harry to Holly smiling over a past memory of his friend. Their performances made their characters feel like they were meant to be together.
The set design: As mentioned in the introduction, The Third Man takes place in Austria. With the story set in Vienna, the landscape is urban, boasting a European charm that is reflective in the set design. Toward the beginning of the film, Holly goes to a restaurant in the middle of the city. The crown jewel of this location is the marble columns holding up the ceiling. Carved detailing bordered the edges on the ceiling, adding quaint elegance to the restaurant. Even the police station featured elegant design choices, such as the patterned wallpaper. The set design of The Third Man serves as a visual example of timeless beauty, still holding up 74 years later!
An honest glimpse of post-World War II Europe: The story of The Third Man takes place after World War II. Through visual presentation and the dialogue, the state of Vienna, Austria is showcased in an honest way. In one scene, Holly is being chased through the city. During this chase, Holly runs over rubble and hides in an abandoned car. Holly’s hiding place, as well as the rubble, are remnants of the war. Featuring these remnants prominently in the chase scene highlights the aftermath Vienna, Austria faced.
Tilted angles: The role of a cinematographer is to present a scene in visually appealing ways. Creative decisions relating to cinematography can make a scene memorable, allowing the audience to bring up specific moments. In The Third Man, several scenes stood out because of cinematography, as these scenes were delivered at a tilted angle. However, there was no reason for those scenes to be presented that way. In fact, the tilted angles came randomly. It felt like those scenes were filmed that way simply for the sake of it.
Tonally unfit music: Acoustic guitar served as the only soundtrack for The Third Man. While this sound was pleasant to hear in some scenes, it was jarring to hear in other scenes. When the police, in one scene, dig up a grave in order to solve a mystery, the acoustic guitar sound gave off a cheerful tone. Yet, the scene itself was very serious in tone, as the film’s mystery is a murder mystery. This is just one example of the music being tonally unfit.
Inconsistent sense of urgency: As I just mentioned, the mystery in The Third Man is a murder mystery. In these types of stories, there is typically a strong sense of urgency, as the protagonist wants to stop the guilty party from hurting other people. But in The Third Man, the sense of urgency was inconsistent. Chase scenes and the climax are where the urgency was present. However, these moments were far and few between. Most scenes featured characters talking with one another. While there can be urgency included in these moments, urgency was not prioritized in the script.
My overall impression:
In 2008, the American Film Institute released a revised list of their one hundred films of all time. On this list, The Third Man was replaced by other titles. However, it does make me wonder why this film was on American Film Institute’s original list in the first place? As I stated in my review of The Bridge on the River Kwai, movies that appear on lists such as American Film Institute’s should, in my opinion, fit one of two categories; those that represent the time they were released and those that brought something new to the cinematic table. The only explanation I can think of is how The Third Man shows Europe post-World War II. Yet Roman Holiday takes place in Italy post-World War II and never appeared on any of American Film Institute’s lists. As for bringing something new to the cinematic table, I can’t think of how The Third Man achieved that. Similar to The Bridge on the River Kwai, this movie has left me confused.
Overall score: 6-6.1 out of 10
Have you seen The Third Man? How many movies from American Film Institute’s lists have you watched? Please share your thoughts in the comment section below!
Three years ago, I created a tier rank list of every Hallmark Hall of Fame movie I’d seen. These films were categorized by my overall impression of each presentation. In honor of 18 Cinema Lane turning five, I promised my readers I would revisit one of my past articles. I’ve seen more Hallmark Hall of Fame movies since I published my original tier rank list, so that’s the article I’ve selected! Along with adding more Hallmark Hall of Fame productions, I changed the names of each tier category. This decision was made to better reflect whether a film is worth its retail price of twenty dollars a DVD compared to its quality. The new tier category names are the following:
Bottom of the Barrel – Not Even Worth a Dime
Ok – Catch it on TV/Youtube
Decent/Fine – Bought It at a Garage Sale for a Dollar
Good – Get It On Sale for Half Off
Great – Where Do I Pay Full Price?
For each movie I added or moved to a different tier, I will share my thoughts on them. If I wrote about a movie on my blog, I will add the link to this article.
Screenshot taken by me, Sally Silverscreen
Bottom of the Barrel – Not Even Worth a Dime
Durango
Reviewed for the Legends of Western Cinema Week Blogathon, I stated Durango should have been a David and Goliath story. That’s because a David and Goliath reference was placed within the last nineteen minutes of the movie, the creative team’s attempt to include a higher stake into the story. But this attempt didn’t work because the majority of the film had lower stakes. The protagonist and his plan to transport cattle worked out perfectly, too perfectly for the standards of the western genre. This takes away any room for concern the audience could have for the characters and their well-being.
As I explained in my list of the top ten worst movies I saw in 2022, the audience was not given a reason to care about the characters and their story in Journey. This flaw was achieved because the film’s creative team didn’t provide explanations for the characters’ choices. It also did not help how annoying Grandpa Marcus was, his photography hobby becoming an obsession. A major theme of Journey is memories being irreplaceable. That theme was poorly delivered in Journey, as Marcus’ hobby creates a plot hole within the story. Also, I’ve seen Hallmark Hall of Fame movies express this theme better, such as The Lost Valentine.
A Place for Annie
When it comes to movies that are products of their time, they can fit into one of two categories: movies that serve as visual time capsules and those that are dated on arrival. A Place for Annie, sadly, falls into the latter category. The majority of the story focuses on the medical information of HIV/AIDS that was known during the late ‘80s to mid ‘90s. That focus causes the film to show its age more obviously. The way foster care/adoption is discussed in this story is so oversimplified, I couldn’t take that part of the movie seriously. Similar to what I said about Journey, the theme of adoption is expressed better in other Hallmark Hall of Fame stories, like Redwood Curtain.
The Corsican Brothers
Alexandre Dumas’ stories are, more often than not, filled with adventure, intrigue, and suspense. But in the case of The Corsican Brothers, these elements were lacking. Granted, I still haven’t read the book this movie is based on. Though I do wonder how similar the 1985 adaptation is to the source material? If the original story primarily revolves around Louis attending fancy events in Paris, that would explain why the adaptation is so underwhelming. However, the original story could explain some of the confusing parts of the movie, such as the woman giving some of the characters fates.
The 1996 movie, The Summer of Ben Tyler, feels like Hallmark Hall of Fame wanted to create their own version of To Kill a Mockingbird. Upon reflection of this film, it doesn’t seem like the creative team displayed a strong understanding for what made Harper Lee’s story work. If anything, it feels like ideas are copied from Harper’s novel and pasted into the Hallmark Hall of Fame presentation, making The Summer of Ben Tyler a little too similar to To Kill a Mockingbird. This is a case of if you’ve seen one movie, you’ve basically seen the other. So, if you’ve seen the adaptation of To Kill a Mockingbird, you’ve already seen The Summer of Ben Tyler.
Decoration Day
The way I feel about Decoration Day is similar to Promise; the majority of the story is very “slice-of-life”. To me, this makes both films less memorable than other Hallmark Hall of Fame titles. However, I did find Gee Pennywell’s dilemma over receiving the Congressional Medal of Honor the most interesting part of the movie. In fact, I wish Decoration Day had solely revolved around that dilemma.
Foxfire
Hallmark Hall of Fame has a history of adapting plays into films. Sometimes, a movie’s creative team will take advantage of the expansive nature of cinema, allowing the story to move beyond the boundaries of the stage. For Foxfire, though, the story was confined to the four walls of Annie’s house. A smaller cast and a condensed story also caused the 1987 Hallmark Hall of Fame project will feel more like a televised play. If I choose to watch Hallmark Hall of Fame film, I expect to watch a film. Foxfire subverted my expectations, but in a disappointing way.
Calm at Sunset is one of those movies where better, more interesting ideas were woven into the fabric of this story. One example is when the protagonist spots a cruise ship and imagines the types of people aboard that ship. Honestly, I wish Calm at Sunset was about that cruise ship instead. Similar to what I said about The Corsican Brothers, I haven’t read the book this movie is based on, so I don’t know which parts of the production came straight from the source material. If the book is pretty close to the film, it would explain why the adaptation was lackluster.
Witness for the Prosecution
Based on the adaptations of Agatha Christie’s books I’ve seen, the protagonist will play an active role in solving the mystery. Witness for the Prosecution is the exception to this statement, as Wilfred focuses more on the legal case he’s working to resolve. In a story where the protagonist doesn’t actively solve the story’s mystery, it can be difficult to get the audience invested in the story itself. Because Wilfred’s case is the primary focus of the story, the film is more dialogue heavy, putting emphasis on telling instead of showing. Hallmark Hall of Fame’s Witness for the Prosecution is a mystery that is light on the mystery.
In my editorial about the adaptation of The Flamingo Rising, I explained how the story should have been adapted into a television show or a multi-part mini-series. This is because the story itself is drawn out over the course of the protagonist’s life. Reflecting on the adaption, it felt like Hallmark Hall of Fame tried to fit The Flamingo Rising into their brand of storytelling. In this attempt, several parts of the source material were omitted or changed due to them not being “Hallmark appropriate”. As I did in the aforementioned editorial, I questioned why Hallmark Hall of Fame would choose to adapt Larry Baker’s story over a story that was more “Hallmark appropriate”?
Having read the source material and seen the adaptation of O Pioneers!, I can say the movie is respectful toward the book. With that said, if you’ve seen the film, you’ve already read the novel. Speaking of the adaptation, I said in my review how the story should have been adapted into a mini-series or a television show. With so many characters and so many parts of the story, maybe O Pioneers! would have benefitted from receiving more time. The 1992 Hallmark Hall of Fame presentation is a western that didn’t leave a memorable impression on me.
I’ve stated before on 18 Cinema Lane how the 1972 adaptation of Harvey is better than the original from 1950. While this statement is still true, the 1972 and 1950 versions of this story felt like a copy of one another. It makes me wonder why Hallmark Hall of Fame would choose to adapt Harvey if they knew they were going to make a lot of the same creative decisions as the original film? Despite the similarities, I did like the changes in the 1972 adaptation. One example is how the made-for-tv movie chose a dramatic tone for their version of the story instead of being both a drama and comedy.
Decent/Fine – Bought It at a Garage Sale for a Dollar
The Locket
For a movie titled The Locket, the locket itself is treated as an afterthought. What the story focuses on instead is the protagonist and his hardships. But from what I remember, the 2002 project addressed the importance of elder care. Since that topic is rarely brought up in Hallmark’s programming, I appreciate that creative decision. Marguerite Moreau is one of the reasons why I chose to watch The Locket. Her performance was so good, she ended up outshining the other actors in the movie! Unfortunately, Marguerite was kind of under-utilized in this film, as her on-screen appearances were not as consistent as I expected.
I said in my review of Saint Maybe how the adaptation is faithful to the source material. However, there are changes the film made from the book. One notable example is how religion/faith is downplayed in the Hallmark Hall of Fame presentation. Meanwhile, religion/faith played a significant role in the novel. For years, Saint Maybe was included in Hallmark Movies & Mysteries’ ‘Miracles of Christmas’ marathon. Now that I have seen the adaptation, I understand why the network would make this decision. Personally, I wouldn’t call Saint Maybe a Christmas story/movie, as the story itself takes place over several years.
The Lost Child serves as a good introduction to Native American culture, specifically the Navajo culture. Through dialogue and character interactions, the audience receives a glimpse into life on a Navajo reservation. For the story itself, The Lost Child didn’t leave a strong impression on me. The most interesting part of the film, Rebecca’s search of her family, wasn’t emphasized as much as her adjustment to reservation life. Also, Rebecca’s search for her twin brother was abandoned after she meets her biological family.
I’ve finally seen Loving Leah in its entirety! The way I feel about the 2009 movie is similar to The Lost Child; it’s a good introduction to Jewish religion and culture. Throughout the story, the audience receives a glimpse into the many aspects of Jewish life. Like The Lost Child, Loving Leah didn’t leave as strong of an impression as other Hallmark Hall of Fame titles. From what I remember, the story was a little too drawn out. But from what I also remember, it was nice to see the protagonists’ relationship unfold. With all that said, the movie was pleasant!
Good – Get It On Sale for Half Off
An American Story/After the Glory
Since publishing my review of An American Story/After the Glory, it has become one of my most popular reviews, garnering 1,838 views and counting! The innovative and compelling nature of the project is likely the reason why this particular title is so well-received on 18 Cinema Lane! Like I said in my review, An American Story/After the Glory felt kind of ahead of its time. This feeling is achieved by incorporating the discussion of veterans’ mental health into the script. The way veteran related topics are included in the story is reverent and respectful. An American Story/After the Glory is definitely one of Hallmark’s better military themed productions!
The Love Letter is one of Hallmark Hall of Fame’s more unique titles, as fantastical elements are rarely found in this collection of films. Yet this part of the story worked in the 1998 movie, helping to create a love story that was simple yet intriguing! The characters were not only well written, but also well-acted! Since the protagonists were multi-dimensional, their connection throughout the film was interesting to watch. I also liked the historical accuracy in The Love Letter, as the attention to detail was handled with care!
In my five years of movie blogging, I have discovered very few films that were better than their respective source material. Hallmark Hall of Fame’s Redwood Curtain is one of those films, as I found myself liking it over the play! The movie’s creative team took advantage of the expansive nature of cinema, broadening the horizons in Geri’s life. More characters were added to the story, giving them characterization that the play didn’t provide. Geri’s personality was more likable in the movie, which made me like her as a character. Redwood Curtain is a Hallmark Hall of Fame presentation I wish was re-released on DVD.
As of the publication of this list, Caroline? is, so far, the best movie I’ve all year! That’s because the 1990 production is a close to perfect example of what a Hallmark Hall of Fame presentation can and should be. From the younger actors’ performances to the differentiation of time, I could tell there was a lot of effort and care put into this project! Even though the story of a long-lost family member’s return is nothing new, the way Caroline? was written was creative, allowing this story to have its own identity. This movie is one I wish more Hallmark fans acknowledged!
During my blogging years, I have seen Charles Dickens adaptations I have liked. The 1980 version of A Tale of Two Cities is definitely one of those films! Despite the movie being two hours and thirty-six minutes, the story never felt too long. The immersive nature of the story helped the pacing, as I was invested in what was happening on screen. This Hallmark Hall of Fame production was so good, it makes me want to read the source material! It’s also another film from this collection that deserves more recognition!
Hello everyone! This post is to remind anyone who is interested in participating in the Familyathon Blogathon that there is still time to sign up for the event! Information about the blogathon can be found at the link below:
Recently, I wrote about a movie that was recommended by one of my readers. That film was the 1998 romantic comedy, You’ve Got Mail, a title I chose to review for a recent blogathon! But that’s not the only film recommendation I’m talking about for a blogging event this month. Because September’s Genre Grandeur theme is ‘Movies That Take Place in Mexico’, I had to research titles that would be eligible for the event. When I discovered one of these movies was No Country for Old Men, I remembered how Annlyel, from Annlyel Online, had once recommended the film to me. Finding another good opportunity to review a recommended title, I selected the 2007 film for this edition of Genre Grandeur! No Country for Old Men is a movie I had heard of, as it was nominated for several awards during “awards season”. But since I hadn’t seen the film until this blogathon, I couldn’t form an opinion on it. Now that I have checked out No Country for Old Men, I can finally share my thoughts on the 2007 picture!
No Country for Old Men poster created by Paramount Vantage, Miramax, Scott Rudin Productions, and Mike Zoss Productions
Things I liked about the film:
The scenery: In some scenes, the story takes place in a desert. Through screen-writing and cinematography, the desert looked photogenic on film! One of my favorite shots is when Llewelyn is returning to his truck. While he does this, a huge gray storm-cloud is slowly overtaking the sand-colored desert in the background. Thunder can also be heard. This shot looked striking on screen, as well as serving a visual representation of what was to come in the story.
Showing instead of telling: The script of No Country for Old Men doesn’t rely on dialogue. This is to emphasize the visual presentation of the story. Choosing to show instead of tell also allows the audience to figure things out for themselves. Throughout the story, Llewelyn is being chased by Anton. During this chase, it is unknown how Anton knows where Llewelyn is. Until Llewelyn makes a discovery that explains Anton’s knowledge of his whereabouts. This discovery and its connection to Anton are visually presented, with no dialogue included. The audience is given the opportunity to piece the story together because of this creative decision.
Hiding causes of suspense: As I already explained, No Country for Old Men emphasizes showing instead of telling. Another way this is accomplished is by hiding characters that cause suspense. When Llewelyn discovers a crime scene, he sees another truck is parked next to his truck, with characters entering and exiting their vehicle. Because this takes place at dawn, only the silhouette of the characters and their truck is shown. Later in the movie, Llewelyn is being chased through a small town. During the chase, the film’s antagonist can be seen in the reflection of a nearby store window. But only their silhouette is shown in this window, causing suspense to take place in the story. Both suspense and intrigue were incorporated into the film because of the use of showing instead of telling!
The run-time: No Country for Old Men is a movie that boasts a run-time of a little over two hours. While a competently written, directed, and acted story can be captured in a two-hour time-frame, I don’t think it was necessary for the 2007 film to be this long. Scenes were either drawn-out or added for the sake of satisfying this run-time. This creative decision caused the story to take longer to get to its intended point. In my opinion, No Country for Old Men could have benefitted from having a shorter run-time, say an hour and twenty or thirty minutes. The story would have reached its point sooner and the script would have been a bit tighter.
Almost no sense of urgency: Like I just mentioned in this review, No Country for Old Men has a run-time that, in my opinion, is longer than necessary. The film’s run-time caused the story to contain almost no sense of urgency, making suspense and intrigue far and few between. No Country for Old Men has a “cat and mouse” type narrative, with the protagonist constantly trying to get away from the antagonist. The chase between these characters felt like it was taking place in slow motion because of the drawn-out story. This resulted in the picture, sometimes, feeling boring.
Some things left unexplained: While I appreciate the script respecting the audience’s intelligence by allowing them to figure things out for themselves, there are some parts of the story I wish had been explained. One example is when Anton stops at a gas station. He explains to the gas station’s owner how he has a special coin that he’s carried for 22 years, stressing how his coin was meant to be at that specific place in time. Throughout the movie, however, there are no explanations provided for the coin’s significance. In fact, Anton never brings up that coin again after his stop at the gas station.
Throughout cinema, there have been movies that have received an abundance of praise. Some of these films have left me confused, questioning why it has achieved its positive recognition. For me, No Country for Old Men is one of these movies. While it’s not a bad title, it does leave me wondering why it won Best Picture, let alone get nominated at all? The film has a run-time of a little over two hours. Instead of benefitting the story, the run-time caused the movie to feel too drawn-out and, sometimes, boring. There are strengths within No Country for Old Men, such as utilizing the storytelling technique of showing instead of telling. However, these strengths do not outweigh the flaws. Looking back on the movies from the western genre I’ve reviewed, I haven’t found a film from this genre I actually liked. Similar to made-for-tv movies from the 1970s and my choice for a “so bad it’s good” title, I guess it’s time to go back to square one and continue the quest.
Overall score: 6 out of 10
Have you seen No Country for Old Men? Are there any movies from the western genre you’d like to see me review? Please tell me in the comment below!
Every so often, I try to review a movie that has been recommended by one of my readers or a fellow blogger. It’s a wonderful opportunity when I can write about a recommended film for a blogging event. This is what happened when I joined the Everything Is Copy Blogathon! When I learned Rebecca’s, from Taking Up Room’s, event centered around the Ephron family, I realized no one had chosen You’ve Got Mail as their blogathon entry. Since the movie was recommended by Janis from Momshie Diaries, I found the perfect excuse to finally see the film in its entirety! You’ve Got Mail is far from the first romantic comedy (rom-com) I’ve talked about on 18 Cinema Lane. Several Hallmark Channel films have received their own review, ranging from terrible to the best I’ve ever seen. So, where does You’ve Got Mail rank among those Hallmark titles? Log in to this review to find out!
Tom and Meg’s on-screen chemistry: An ingredient to a successful rom-com is casting an actor and actress who share strong on-screen chemistry. This ingredient creates an on-screen relationship that feels believable. In You’ve Got Mail, Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan portray Joe Fox and Kathleen Kelly; two literary business owners who have different perspectives on the world of bookselling. Yet, whenever they’re together, Kathleen and Joe share a spark between them, learning over time how they have more in common than they initially believed. The on-screen chemistry between Meg and Tom makes it feel like their characters have known each other for many years. It also helps how Tom and Meg brought a strong sense of likability to their characters. Even though Joe was a businessman who felt there was a time and a place for “big box stores”, his personality was more jovial than some of the businessmen who appear in a typical Hallmark Channel rom-com. Meanwhile, Kathleen’s personality was fun and fancy-free, trying to find a silver lining during autumn in New York City.
The set design: One of the conflicts in You’ve Got Mail was a bigger, chain bookstore affecting the business of a smaller, locally owned book shop. The interior design of the bigger bookstore was meant to imply how impersonal that store’s shopping experience was. But I actually liked the interior design of both stores! At the smaller book shop, the pale yellow walls paired nicely with warm wood shelves. With string lights circling near the store’s ceiling, the space itself felt cozy and quaint. At the bigger bookstore, white supporting columns, dark gray granite countertops, and shiny silver railings boasted a modern space that looked and felt heavenly. Quirky décor, such as a large, spinning silver globe and a replica of the Statue of Liberty reading a book prevented the store from being dull. Even the bookstore’s bakery section was promoted as a hip gathering space, a curved countertop with tall stools providing an area for readers to come together and enjoy each other’s company. Both spaces looked inviting and appeared photogenic!
The dialogue: The strength of dialogue can create or break a script. While the dialogue can be elevated through delivery, its believability and memorability lie in the writing talent. Within You’ve Got Mail, there was dialogue that I thought was cleverly written! One example was when Kathleen and Joe met each other at a restaurant. Using advice from her anonymous pen pal, Kathleen shared what was on her mind with Joe. Frustrated by Joe’s inability to see how his bookstore prevented other bookstores from thriving, Kathleen told Joe his brain was replaced by a cash register and his heart was taken over by the bottom line. While her statement was meant to be insulting, Kathleen’s quote was an eloquent way of illustrating how she saw Joe. Her quote also stressed how her love of literature helped her choose words that made her opinion sound mature and intelligent.
Forgettable secondary characters: In a rom-com, the main male and female character are not the only characters who can make a story work. A collection of secondary characters who interact with the protagonists can add humor, wit, and even thoughtful insight to the film. The story of You’ve Got Mail revolved so heavily around Kathleen and Joe, all of the movie’s secondary characters seemed like an afterthought. This group of actors and actresses did a good job with the material they were given. But the characters they portrayed weren’t as 3-dimensional as Joe and Kathleen. Some rom-coms will give at least one secondary character a subplot. However, no subplots were given to the secondary characters in You’ve Got Mail. Even when there was the possibility for a secondary character to receive their own piece of the story, this opportunity didn’t lead anywhere. It felt like You’ve Got Mail was the world according to Joe and Kathleen, where every other character was simply given permission to exist in it.
The protagonists’ love interests: I have seen some Hallmark rom-coms where the main male and female characters are already in a romantic relationship, only for these characters to end their previously established relationships in order to fall in love with each other. This trope is not limited to Hallmark’s films, as it appeared in You’ve Got Mail. At the beginning of the movie, the story established Kathleen is living with her boyfriend, Frank. Meanwhile, Joe is considering proposing to his girlfriend, Patricia. Because You’ve Got Mail is a rom-com, there is a greater likelihood Kathleen and Joe will fall in love. I’ve also mentioned in this review how, in my opinion, Tom and Meg had strong on-screen chemistry. Therefore, Joe and Kathleen’s previously established relationships feel pointless.
The run-time: You’ve Got Mail has a run-time of one hundred and twenty minutes. This is almost the same run-time as a typical Hallmark movie. Like I mentioned in this review, none of the story’s secondary characters were given a subplot, as the film revolved heavily around Joe and Kathleen. You’ve Got Mail’s plot includes anonymous pen pals desiring to connect in the real world. With the story being so simple and easier to follow, the movie’s run-time feels excessive. Some scenes are drawn out to likely satisfy the film’s run-time. In my opinion, You’ve Got Mail should have shown the anonymous pen pals meeting sooner. That way, they could not only help each other with their professional dilemmas, but the story itself could have become a contemporary retelling of Pride and Prejudice.
Before and after the release of You’ve Got Mail, rom-coms have found their place in the world of film. Like any genre, there’s a variety of titles, some good and some bad. For me, You’ve Got Mail falls somewhere in the middle. The main romance was well written, directed, and acted. This combination allowed the protagonists to form a relationship that felt believable and charming. While the dialogue and set design certainly helped this picture, it wasn’t enough to outweigh the film’s flaws. From none of the secondary characters receiving their own subplot to the run-time, these things held the movie back from being a stronger story. With the film titled, You’ve Got Mail, and with the anonymous pen pals exchanging emails and instant messages, I’m surprised none of the story’s bookstores brought up the possibility of selling their merchandise online. In fact, I’m shocked the internet wasn’t a bigger topic/theme in this movie! I would say that was a missed opportunity. But with the film itself being just fine, I guess I don’t have much to complain about.
Overall score: 7.2 out of 10
Have you seen You’ve Got Mail? What’s your favorite rom-com? Tell me in the comment section below!
In the five years I’ve been movie blogging, I discovered some of my most popular content has been Hallmark-related. One example is how, in a six-month time-frame, my editorial about why Francesca Quinn, PI is the worst Hallmark movie I’ve ever seen has received over two thousand views! Yet, it’s been a while since I reviewed a Hallmark production, with my last review for the Hallmark Hall of Fame adaptation of A Tale of Two Cities. To remedy that, I decided to write about the latest Hallmark Movies & Mysteries film, Guiding Emily! When I first heard about this movie, I liked the idea of a story that didn’t seem to utilize a lot of the tropes and cliches typically found in Hallmark’s projects. However, I was skeptical of the inclusion of a talking dog in the film. Guiding Emily is based on a book of the same name by Barbara Hinske, where the novel is told from the protagonist and her guide dog’s perspective. But I was unsure how the guide dog’s perspective would translate to the screen. Despite this uncertainty, I wanted to check out the movie and see if that uncertainty was justified!
Guiding Emily poster created by Front Street Pictures and Hallmark Movies & Mysteries
Things I liked about the film:
Sarah Drew’s performance: Whenever I’ve talked about an actor or actress’s performance, I have brought up the expressive nature of their performance. One way an actor or actress can achieve an expressive performance is through the use of their eyes. Because Emily, the film’s protagonist, has lost her eyesight, Sarah Drew, the actress who portrayed Emily, used other acting techniques to her advantage. These included body language, vocal inflections, and movements of the mouth. A good example of this can be seen when Emily receives news from her boyfriend, Conner. When she first hears Conner’s news, Emily is excited for him. A smile is shown on her face, even a giggle is heard in her voice. But as Conner shares more news, Emily’s smile fades and her voice sounds defeated. This defeat quickly turned into sadness. The slight quiver of Emily’s lower lip and the sobs heard in her voice provide proof of her feelings. Throughout this scene, Emily has bandages over her eyes because she recently had surgery.
Honesty about guide dog training: Guiding Emily follows Garth, the dog that will become Emily’s guide dog. Before he can take on that role, Garth needs to learn how to be a guide dog. His training is shown through a series of scenes. These scenes address the reality of guide dog training. For approximately two years, Katie trains Garth. During this training period, Katie’s son, Alex, is frustrated that he can’t take Garth into the pet store. He feels frustrated because he sees taking Garth to the pet store as a form of socialization. Katie explains to her son how Garth hasn’t had his vaccinations yet. She also tells Alex how Garth isn’t trained to handle so much stimulation. When Garth is ready to graduate out of his training years, the scene itself is presented as an emotional moment. Katie is sad about Garth’s graduation, even looking like she wants to cry. Mark, the man who placed Garth with Katie, displays a bittersweet look on his face as well. Scenes like this one don’t shy away from addressing how sad it can be to let go of a dog that one bonded with through training.
The scenery: Though not one of the main focal points of the story, I really liked the scenery in Guiding Emily, as it was marvelous to look at! One place that boasted wonderful scenery was the backyard of Emily’s mother’s house! A sprawling green lawn provided the stage for the star of the show. This star was a large body of blue water. A border of shrubbery and a colorful array of flowers served as the star’s “curtain”. At the water’s edge, a sitting area was situated around a gray stone fire pit. The backyard of Emily’s mother’s house would definitely be the perfect cover story for any home and garden magazine!
A disjointed story: Like I said in my introduction, Guiding Emily is based on a book where the novel is told from the protagonist and her guide dog’s perspective. This element of the novel was translated to the screen, with the story bouncing between Emily and Garth’s point of view. However, the script emphasized Emily’s side of the story, as Garth’s side of the story was sometimes told through brief scenes. I found this disappointing because I expected both Garth and Emily’s perspective to be told for an equal amount of time. Honestly, I wish this story was about Emily and Garth learning to work together as a team.
Forgotten young characters: When Emily stays at her mother’s house, she meets her mother’s next-door neighbor, Zoe. This encounter sparks an acquaintanceship between the two characters. But after Zoe talks to Matthew, one of Emily’s friends, at his rock-climbing facility, she disappears from the story. This means that Zoe is gone for half the movie. When Katie is introduced in the story, it is revealed she has a son named Alex. In this two-hour film, Alex only appeared in two scenes total. He didn’t even show up at Garth’s graduation day. With all that said, it makes me wonder why younger characters were included in the story when they just ended up getting forgotten about?
Parts of the story that didn’t make sense: After being discharged from the hospital, Emily returns to her apartment. While there one day, she attempts to navigate through her home without the use of her vision. This attempt ends in disaster, with Emily tripping over a couch and spilling pasta noodles which she thought were chips. Following the aforementioned disaster, Emily’s mother criticizes Conner for leaving Emily alone for six hours, as Conner explains to Emily’s mother how he was “taking a meeting” during that time. But where was Emily’s mother during those six hours? Wasn’t she staying with her daughter? Because the script never addresses the whereabouts of Emily’s mother, this scene is one of a few moments in the movie that didn’t make sense.
On the blog, It’s a Wonderful Movie, a commenter mentioned how Guiding Emily should have been a Hallmark Hall of Fame movie. While reflecting on this film, I will say Hallmark Movies & Mysteries’ latest presentation does feel reminiscent of Hallmark Hall of Fame projects of yesteryear! Sure, the movie does have its flaws, such as a disjointed story and a few parts of the story that don’t make sense. But Guiding Emily is a fine, pleasant film. It does tell a more unique story from those that Hallmark typically creates, avoiding a lot of Hallmark’s tropes and cliches. The talking dog element of the movie is similar to Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey, where it sounds like the audience is hearing the animal’s thoughts. I wish Hallmark created more movies like Guiding Emily, where the creative teams are given more opportunities to think outside of the box!
Overall scores: 7 out of 10
Have you seen Guiding Emily? Would you like to see Hallmark tell more creative stories through film? Let me know in the comment section!
Every beloved film star has at least one movie on their IMDB filmography that has earned the distinction of being a “classic”, “iconic” or “fan favorite”. But for every “classic” title, there’s also that one film that is under-rated or unheard of. In the case of Ingrid Bergman, one of those movies is A Walk in the Spring Rain! Prior to The Wonderful World of Cinema’s 6th Wonderful Ingrid Bergman Blogathon, I had never heard of the 1970 picture. However, that’s the great part of participating in a blogathon; discovering films that are “new-to-you”! As I said in my review of Evel Knievel, I haven’t had the best of luck, this year, finding a movie from the 1970s I like. By expanding my cinematic horizons, I am hoping to solve that problem. Where does A Walk in the Spring Rain rank among the other ‘70s movies I’ve reviewed this year, so far? Keep reading my review in order to find out!
The chemistry between the cast: When watching characters interact with one another, the believability of those interactions depends on the strength of the cast’s acting talents. Though the cast in A Walk in the Spring Rain was smaller, this believability could be felt. In a scene between the protagonist, Libby, and her daughter, Ellen, the interaction appeared realistic, presenting the idea of a mother and daughter discussing a personal matter. Concerned about her mother’s apparent unhappiness, Ellen (portrayed by Katherine Crawford), seems genuinely worried, that worry with a touch of sadness consistently shown on her face. Meanwhile, Libby (portrayed by Ingrid Bergman) is distraught over personal turmoil. Her face shows her distress, tears in her eyes and sadness spread over her face. She even goes so far as to violently push a tea cup off the kitchen table in an act of sudden anger. During their stay in Tennessee, Libby and her husband, Roger, meet a local man named Will. One evening, the three go frog hunting, with Roger and Libby trying moonshine for the first time. This scene shows the on-screen chemistry between Ingrid Bergman, Fritz Weaver, and Anthony Quinn. Their smiles, laughter, and jovial demeanor radiates off the screen. It feels like they are three close friends who are picking things up where they last left off.
The set design: In A Walk in the Spring Rain, Libby and Roger rent a cabin in Tennessee. This cabin featured design choices that I found memorable! The main focal point in the living room is a fireplace. Surrounded by exposed stone and a dark wood mantle, good décor complimented the darker shades of both wood and stone. The living room was not the only room where exposed stone was found. In the kitchen, an antique stove guarded a wall of exposed stone. Also in the kitchen, a dark wood corner shelf housed the fine china and fancy dinnerware. This shelving unit was a unique way to make the best use of the room’s available space!
The scenery: A Walk in the Spring Rain was filmed in Tennessee, specifically at Great Smoky Mountains National Park. The story takes place during two seasons: winter and spring. Despite the difference in seasons, the scenery was very picturesque, stealing the show from time to time! In some establishing shots, Tennessee’s snowy landscape was beautifully captured on film. The scenery honestly looked like a Christmas greeting card. In a scene where Will shows Libby the first blooms of the season, a tree with small, magenta flowers provides a nice pop of color amid the background of green foliage and rolling hills. Even when characters are driving through the country-side, these surroundings were pretty to look at!
A meandering story: According to a synopsis I read for A Walk in the Spring Rain, Libby and Will have an affair. This affair didn’t fully come into fruition until fifty-three minutes into an hour and thirty-eight-minute movie. That forced the audience to wait more than half the film for the inevitable to happen. Even though Will and Libby flirted with one another leading up to the affair, these interactions were brief. While waiting for the affair to happen, the script focused on other parts of the story, such as the Merediths adopting baby goats.
The run-time: Like I mentioned in my previous point about the film’s meandering story, A Walk in the Spring Rain has a run-time of an hour and thirty-eight-minutes. Because of how drawn out the story was, that hour and thirty-eight-minutes felt longer. There were several stretched out scenes serving the movie’s run-time. One example is a ten-to-fifteen-minute scene of Libby and Roger’s trip to Gatlinburg, with the majority of this scene showing the Merediths walking down a tourist heavy street. Had scenes like this one been trimmed, A Walk in the Spring Rain’s run-time might have been about an hour and ten minutes.
Drawn-out subplots: There were some subplots in A Walk in the Spring Rain that were drawn out, likely to satisfy the movie’s run-time. One of these subplots revolved around the Merediths’ daughter, Ellen. Ellen desires to go to law school. However, Libby and Roger feel her decision would disrupt her family. While this subplot does get resolved, it takes the entire movie for the resolution to happen. Because of this, the resolution feels anticlimactic.
In the introduction of this review, I said I had never heard of A Walk in the Spring Rain prior to The 6th Wonderful Ingrid Bergman Blogathon. Looking back on this movie, I think I know why. If I could describe the 1970 film in one word, it would be ‘bland’. The drawn-out, meandering story causes the movie to feel longer than an hour and thirty-eight-minutes. Great Smoky Mountains National Park provides this story with beautiful scenery. But as I’ve said in past reviews, “the scenery can’t save you”. The cast in A Walk in the Spring Rain is solid, maintaining strong on-screen chemistry. However, when a project has a weak script, there’s only so much the cast can do to salvage that script. I know this film was released toward the end of Ingrid’s career. But, honestly, she, as well as the rest of the cast, deserved better material.
Overall score: 5 out of 10
Have you seen or heard of A Walk in the Spring Rain? Are there any of Ingrid Bergman’s films you’d like to see me review? Let me know in the comment section!
When it comes to movies from the 1970s, I haven’t had the best of luck, this year, finding a film I actually like. While I thought Days of Heaven and The White Buffalo were ok, I wasn’t impressed with The Last Child and Double Nickels. However, I was still determined to search for a movie from the ‘70s I enjoyed. During this search, I stumbled upon the 1971 film, Evel Knievel, a biopic about the stuntman of the same name. Since August’s theme of Genre Grandeur is ‘bikers, bikes, and motorcycles’, I had a great excuse to check this movie out! Choosing the 1971 title for Genre Grandeur also gave me an excuse to learn more about Evel Knievel. Before watching this film, I was familiar with who Evel is and why he was famous. But that basic information was all I knew. Besides broadening my cinematic horizons, I used my entry for Genre Grandeur to learn something new.
Evel Knievel(1971) poster created by The Fanfare Corporation, Fanfare Films, and American Broadcasting Company (ABC)
Things I liked about the film:
The acting: In my review of RKO 281, I talked about Liev Schreiber bringing humanity to his portrayal of Orson Welles, finding the heart of the “genius” and putting some genuine emotion behind it. This was successfully done to highlight Orson as more than just a legend. During his career, Evel Knievel became a celebrity, performing stunts that most people would never dream of attempting. Similar to Liev Schreiber, George Hamilton found the man behind the famous name and presented the human side of him. Toward the beginning of the film, Evel is at a local bar, talking to his friends how “something big” is going to happen in town. From furrowing his eyebrows to showing a good-hearted smirk, Evel talks about this upcoming, unknown event with ease and confidence. Through George’s performance, Evel is shown as more than just the famous stuntman, adding a sense of charm to his portrayal.
Throughout the film, Evel interacts with his wife, Linda. Portrayed by Sue Lyon, Linda and Evel’s encounters were pleasant to watch! This is because George and Sue had nice on-screen chemistry! Evel and Linda kind of reminded me of Abby and Bill from Days of Heaven. In the 1978 movie, it felt like Bill and Abby truly got along with one another, with a shared gentleness understood between them. The 1971 shows Linda and Evel respecting one another and, more often than not, being on the same page.
Despite appearing in the movie for a short period of time, Dub Taylor left a memorable impression as Turquoise Smith! The ring-master of a local rodeo, Turquoise had a larger-than-life personality. But this personality never felt over-the-top, thanks to the way Dub portrayed Turquoise. Even when there was a tragedy at the rodeo, Turquoise maintained professionalism and showmanship. Because of the quality of Dub’s acting talents, these components of the character remained consistent.
The stunt footage: During Evel Knievel, a montage of stunt footage is featured. This footage shows Evel performing various stunts throughout his career, with some stunts more successful than others. The montage is used as a bridge between his early years and “present day”, as the footage emphasizes the dedication and willpower Evel put into his stunts. Since the movie is a bio-pic about a real-life person that existed at one point in time, the montage added contextual depth to the story. It also provides a nice connection between the film and the actual Evel Knievel.
The messages and themes: As I said in this review’s introduction, I chose to write about Evel Knievel because I wanted to learn more about the titular man. However, I was surprised by the messages and themes that came out of this story. While reflecting on his relationship with Linda, Evel recalls a time when he visited Linda at her high school. During this encounter, Evel explains why he doesn’t play basketball. He feels that in basketball, you don’t have much to lose, as all the stakes are lower. He also confesses how he doesn’t want a lettermen sweater, as Evel doesn’t need to prove he’s a hero. With this, he tells Linda, “heroes know who they are”. Letterman sweaters/jackets have been known for being something high schoolers can earn through academic and athletic achievement. But until watching Evel Knievel, I’ve gained a newfound perspective on this subject.
Transitions between past and “present”: The story of Evel Knievel is told through Evel’s recollections of his past as he’s preparing for an upcoming stunt. But the way the film jumped between past and “present” was confusing. During one of Evel’s recollections, he remembers a tragedy that took place toward the beginning of his career. As soon as the tragedy occurs, the story is brought back to the “present”, showing Evel nervous about the upcoming stunt and dealing with an injured leg. It took me a little while to realize the story had transitioned between the past and “present”, as the scene changed so abruptly. Personally, I think the story should have been told through a chronological order.
The past more interesting than the “present”: Like I mentioned in my previous point about the story’s transitions between past and “present”, Evel is preparing for an upcoming stunt in the “present”. But aside from seeing Linda and Evel interact and the aforementioned stunt, I didn’t find the “present” interesting. In fact, I found Evel’s recollections of his past more interesting, as it was an opportunity for me to learn more about Evel Knievel. Even though the stunt in the “present” is shown, it doesn’t take place until the story’s last ten minutes. So, the audience is forced to wait almost the entire movie for that moment.
An omission of a “where are they now” segment: In most biopics, there is a segment toward the end of the movie which explains what happened to the story’s key people after the events of the movie. But this segment was omitted from Evel Knievel. During the “present”, Evel talks about how he wants to perform a stunt in the Grand Canyon. I was hoping there would be a sense of closure about whether this stunt actually took place. Sadly, no explanation about the fruition of this stunt was provided. I don’t know where Evel’s career was at the time of the film’s release. However, I still think a “where are they now” segment should have been included.
I’ve seen some movies where I felt the subject would have been better served through a documentary, as the subject itself is quite fascinating. This is how I felt while watching Evel Knievel. I was able to learn more about the “king of stuntmen” through his recollections of his past. In fact, I found the past more interesting than the “present”, as I was kind of bored by the weak conflict. Despite the confusing jumps between past and “present”, Evel Knievel provided an introduction to the titular man. As this is one of the reasons why I watched the film, the 1971 title does its job. When it comes to biopics, Evel Knievel doesn’t really reinvent the wheel, with the story being pretty straight-forward. The acting, stunt footage, and messages and themes prevent the movie from becoming unmemorable.
Overall score: 6.1 out of 10
Have you seen or heard of Evel Knievel? Which biopic do you think is well-made? Tell me in the comment section!
As I was coming up with a theme for my next blogathon, I first reflected on late Autumn to early Winter, the time when the event will take place. Several holidays where family gathers together take place during this time of year. This common theme inspired my new blogathon, which is called “Familyathon”! November 16th to 20th is when the event will take place. Since the subject of ‘family’ is so broad, I’ll list some ideas on potential topics:
Themes relating to the subject of ‘family’ (ex: how of the theme of ‘family’ is woven into the Fast & Furious franchise)
Stories revolving around a family (ex: I Remember Mama, The Middle, etc.)
Characters joining a family (ex: birth, marriage, adoption, etc.)
Characters departing from a family (ex: someone going to college, someone moving out of the neighborhood, etc.)
Families losing a family member (ex: a family member passing away, a family member going missing, etc.)
Stories about siblings (ex: What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?, etc.)
Stories of “found family” (a group of unrelated people forming their own family)
The subject of ‘family’ from a pet’s perspective (ex: Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey, etc.)
Familyathon blogathon banner created by Sally Silverscreen of 18 Cinema Lane
If you’re interested in joining Familyathon and have an idea in mind, here are the official rules every participant must follow:
Please be respectful toward other participants and the subject(s) you’re writing about
Please let me know in advance if you plan on publishing your post(s) earlier or later than the allotted time-frame (November 16th to 20th).
Only new posts will be eligible for the event.
Duplicate entries will not be allowed, as the subject of ‘family’ is broad.
Each participant can only submit a total of three entries.
All entries must be original work.
Subjects from any genre, year, or country are allowed.
If you’re interested in participating, please share your idea(s) in the comment section below.
Choose one of the four banners and let others know about Familyathon!
Participants of Familyathon
Sally from 18 Cinema Lane – Review of …and Your Name Is Jonah (1979)
Gill from Realweegiemidget Reviews — A list article of the theme of family from the Fast and Furious franchise
Rebecca from Taking Up Room — Review for Life Begins for Andy Hardy (1941)
Hamlette from Hamlette’s Soliloquy — Review of Mr. Mom (1983)
Ruth from Silver Screenings — Review of Old Yeller (1957)
Quiggy from Midnite Drive-In — Review of The Godfather(1972)
Erica from Poppity Talks Classic Film — Review of Sabrina (1954)
Grace Avender — A list of Grace’s top five favorite families
Katherine — An article about Katherine’s three favorite film families
Familyathon blogathon banner created by Sally Silverscreen of 18 Cinema Lane
Familyathon blogathon banner created by Sally Silverscreen of 18 Cinema Lane
Familyathon blogathon banner created by Sally Silverscreen of 18 Cinema Lane
Have you ever stumbled upon a film that was “new to you” and think, “I’ve never even heard of this”? That was my experience discovering the 1978 movie, Days of Heaven. Prior to the Legends of Western Cinema Week Blogathon, I had never heard anyone talk about the aforementioned Western. With the blogathon fast approaching, Days of Heaven crossed my path at the right time! This is my fourth year participating in the Legends of Western Cinema Week. Looking back on the programs I reviewed for the event, I realized the stories fell into one of two categories: cowboys seeking justice or some aspect of farming. While Days of Heaven belongs in the latter category, the primary perspective focuses on the actual farming. This is different from a movie like O Pioneers!, where the story’s priority was the relationships between the characters. How does Days of Heaven rank among the films I reviewed for the Legends of Western Cinema Week? Before traveling on those “happy trails”, let’s read my review!
The scenery: The majority of Days of Heaven takes place in the wheat fields of Texas. Despite how monotonous that type of location may sound, the wheat fields offered up many glimpses of natural beauty! My favorite shot in the movie was when a storm cloud approached the story’s wheat fields. Large, gray clouds dominated the sky, appearing larger than life on screen. The presence of these clouds provided a small window into the blue sky above the fields. The golden yellow of the wheat was a pop of bright hue against the sky’s blue and gray palette. This shot was so beautifully captured, it, honestly, looked like a painting!
The historical accuracy: Days of Heaven is set in the 1910s. Like any historical period film, it’s important for the story to feel immersive due to its historical accuracy. Based on what the movie presented, the creative team behind Days of Heavenpaid attention to how historically accurate their project looked! The finer details visually prove that point! In a scene where the story’s protagonists, Bill, Abby, and Linda, go swimming, their swimsuits are reflective of the clothing styles of the early 1900s. While Bill wore what would be described as a short-sleeved unitard, Linda and Abby wore swimming dresses, complete with stockings. When it came to transportation, the trains and tractors appeared to be coal powered. Even their exterior designs looked industrial, considered antique be the standards of today. The historical accuracy paired with the aforementioned scenery made Days of Heaven an appealing film to look at!
Richard Gere and Brooke Adams’ on-screen chemistry: As I mentioned in my previous point about the movie’s historical accuracy, Bill and Abby are two of the protagonists in Days of Heaven. Portrayed by Richard Gere and Brooke Adams, these characters are in a romantic relationship. When Abby and Bill are together in a romantic context, the on-screen chemistry between Brooke and Richard was sweet. It felt like the on-screen couple truly got along with one another. During their interactions, there was a gentleness shared and understood between them. Whether walking in the water or cuddling on top of a train, Abby and Bill’s relationship was pleasant to watch because of Brooke and Richard’s acting abilities. Without spoiling Days of Heaven, I will say Bill and Abby’s relationship was not consistent throughout the story. This is a shame, as I liked seeing these characters together.
Legends of Western Cinema Week 2023 banner created by Olivia from Meanwhile, in Rivendell, Heidi from Along the Brandywine, and Hamlette from Hamlette’s Soliloquy
What I didn’t like about the film:
An unclear motive: According to the film’s synopsis, Bill, his younger sister, Linda, and his girlfriend, Abby, plan to con a farmer out of his money and wheat fields. Throughout the movie, however, their motive for conning The Farmer (what Sam Shepard’s character is referred to) is not made clear. I understand Bill, Abby, and Linda don’t like working under someone’s thumb. But the man who they try to con doesn’t seem to deserve a comeuppance. In fact, The Farmer, more often than not, is respectful toward Abby, even going so far as to allow Bill and Linda to live in his house, in order to keep Abby’s “family” together. In a series of voice-overs, Linda claims The Farmer is dying of an unnamed illness. Later in the film, though, she states how The Farmer’s health is staying the same, neither improving or regressing. Yet again, it is never made clear if The Farmer’s health issues are the reason for the con. I wonder why I was supposed to care about Bill, Linda, and Abby’s conning scheme when I don’t even know why The Farmer was being conned in the first place?
A drawn-out story: Days of Heaven has a run-time of about an hour and thirty minutes. Yet the story itself was drawn-out longer than necessary. This issue was caused by establishing shots littered throughout the movie, which served as the production’s padding. I know establishing shots are meant to set up a given scene. But if the creative team of Days of Heaven had cut some of the film’s establishing shots, the run-time would have been trimmed down to about an hour and ten to twenty minutes.
Distance from characters: Through a combination of acting talent, screenwriting, and direction, a movie’s audience can not only be introduced to a character, they can also get to know that character as the story progresses. In Days of Heaven, however, it feels like the characters are kept at a distance from the audience. Sure, the characters share pieces of information about themselves. But this information only allows the audience to become familiar with them. Because of the aforementioned distance, the audience is prevented from connecting with the characters. That disconnection also prevents emotional investment in the story.
The first movie I reviewed for a blogathon this year was Black Narcissus. In my review of the 1947 movie, I said that while Black Narcissus was a competently made film, it was one of the most confusing movies I’d ever seen, due to the story providing little to no explanations. I feel similarly about Days of Heaven. The film itself is very photogenic, from the scenery to the presentation of the story’s historical accuracy. But the story was confusing. No motive for why Bill, Abby, and Linda are conning The Farmer is made clear in the script. Emphasis on style over substance affected any connection the audience could have had with the characters. Throughout the movie, several questions arose that weren’t really answered, such as how The Farmer knew a group of circus performers who came to visit his home. This added to the story’s confusion. As a film, I thought it was just ok. But as a Western, it provides a perspective that is different from the typical cowboy or cattle farmer.
Overall score: 6 out of 10
Have you seen Days of Heaven? Which Westerns would you like to see me review? Tell me in the comment section!
18 Cinema Lane 