x-lechard

This is a film I considered renting for a long time and then I always put it down and picked up something else. I must say I have never been a huge fan of Paul Newman, especially in his younger days when he always seemed to hesitate between Marlon Barlon and James Dean as his role model. Still, Patricia Neal happens to be one of my favorite classic actresses and I was curious to see the performance that brought her her only Academy Award. So I finally crossed the pond. I don't regret it, but I cannot say that I am enthusiastic either. First, Patricia Neal's performance is fine as always, but hers is definitely a supporting part. I am some dismayed at how the Academy nominated her as Leading Actress while she is billed after Melvyn Douglas, who still got nominated and won as Supporting Actor. The Academy decidedly has mysterious ways alien to our meager reason skills... Paul Newman delivers a good Brando-like performance and is not as irritating as he was in some contemporary films, although he has played that character several times before. The best performances in my view come from the aforementioned Melvyn Douglas and Brandon DeWilde whom I can't figure out why he didn't get a nomination. As to the film itself... Well, I have mixed feelings. Martin Ritt's direction is top-notch, with a masterful use of long-shots enhanced by James Wong Howe's inventive photography. Still, I found myself at the end wondering what I had been watching for the last two hours. This is a good film, even a great film in its own way but it has no point. I couldn't figure out what Ritt was trying to say and why he chose that story to put it. No driving force, no major theme surfaces.

Ms. De Carlo did some great films - "Criss Cross", "Band of Angels" - but her acting skills never had anything to do with it. Both films I mentioned had her teaming with excellent directors and leads who made up for her limited range. One of the (many) problems with "Salome" is that De Carlo is on her own, neither director nor actors being good enough to provide any supply. David Bruce in particular is so non-expressive he makes Sylvester Stallone looking like Alec Guinness. His love scenes with De Carlo are ridiculous, as he conveys as much love feeling as he had a cow in his arms. So sad, for a better acting *might* have made the screenplay a pill easier to swallow. It takes much humor or abnegation to believe in such a mess of a story, blending Lee and Bismarck, Prussia and West America, and filled with implausible characters and situations. I guess some viewers may find it funny, but I found it simply dull and boring. The only good thing about this flick is its looks: photography is splendid, worthy of a better material, and Ms. De Carlo is really beautiful - if not in an emotive way.

Bombs like this one belong to Golden Age of Hollywood as well as celebrated masterpieces, so one has to accept their existence. But it is not a reason to waste one's time watching them.

It took fifteen years for "London's Burning" to be shown in France, but it was worth-waiting. Though it may seem a little outdated in comparison with its more cinematic American equivalent "Third Watch", it still is a very good show with its own strong virtues. No excessive pyrotechnics, no frenetic rhythm, but solid plotlines and convincing, realistic characters. Actors have a great part in success of this series, with a special mention to the excellent Richard "Sicknote" Walsh. A must-see for viewers enjoying stories about heroes that happen to be also human beings.