The Manchurian Candidate

Release Year: 1962

Director: John Frankenheimer

Review: The original film based on a political thriller novel, 'The Manchruian Candidate' is a somewhat meandering movie with a terrific plot.  The premise is great, which is probably why the original source material was twice made into a movie.  A group of soldiers were captured during the Korean War and brainwashed, and one of them, Raymond Shaw(Laurence Harvey) is programmed to be an assassin.  It's up to  Maj. Bennet Marco(Frank Sinatra) to figure out what is going and stop Shaw before he he does too much damage.  A plot that sizzles, combining action and politics.  A kind of Bruce Lee meets Joesph McCarthy political action thriller.  The plot sounds great, if only it wasn't so mishandled.  

This was my second film which I have seen directed by John Frankenheimer, and both left me unimpressed by his direction.  He unfolds the story in the most melodramatic way, substituting actual passion for forced emotion.  There is a sort of quality to his films that feel like he is directing rigid cardboard cutouts rather that fluid actors.  The acting was far from good.  Lansbury is the saving grace, giving a truly wicked performance as Shaw's mother. Sinatra is also fairly good as the cool, straight man, but I'm not sure if it's his performance which is actually good, or if he just looks good in comparison to everyone else.  This is the problem with Frankenheimer.  It's as if he presses the actors to give the most hokey performance they have in them, making them reach too far, stretching for scenes that are more powerful then is earned.  I admire the fortitude of the film, however.   For the time, it took some big chances, showing some genuinely disturbing scenes with no remorse.  Unfortunately these risks did not ultimately pay off.  The story was too loose and misguided.  The woman love interests were completely useless, with absolutely no chemistry or depth whatsoever.   I like this film more than this review may make out, but was disappointed since I know it could have been so much more.  For a story which has as much going for it as this one, it falls short on many levels.
Rating: 3/5

Birdmn of Alcatraz

Release Year: 1962

Director: John Frankenheimer

Review: 'Birdman of Alcatraz' is a biographical prison drama based on the real life of Robert Stroud. Stroud, an against-the-grain type of prisoner who refuses to bend to the rules of the prison, which earns him a permanent stay in solitary confinement.  Upon finding a wounded bird, Stroud begins keeping birds and studying them.  Despite being uneducated, he meticulously studies the birds and becomes one of the leading experts on the subject and even writes two books.  The real life of Stroud is an amazing story which is unfortunately watered down and sensationalized in the film adaptation.  The film was released while Stroud was still alive and there was a movement to get him released from prison.  In a sense it was a bit of a propaganda piece.  In the film, Stroud is played to be very heroic and sympathetic, completely ignoring the fact that he was a unremorseful killer, or that he wasn't a very pleasant person.  Burt Lancaster plays him as if he were to be looked up to.  There was no depth to the character, but rather a generic cardboard cut out of a Cool Hand Luke type.  There are several scenes where Lancaster tries to deliver powerful lines and they just fall flat, only amplifying the problem with the film.  While some films featuring small sets enhance the drama within, it felt suffocating in the prison cell with Stroud from sheer lack of anything interesting happening.  Instead of telling a compelling story of a complex man, they sugarcoat the only person of any interest into bland character.  All the plot points are by-the-book.  The love interest felt forced and all the conflicts felt like filler.  The Birdman of Alcatraz is a fascinating real person but a completely generic film.
Rating: 2/5

Dr. No

Release Year: 1962

Director: Terence Young

Review: The one that started it all.  The original Bond.  Having seen no Bond films pre-Casino Royale(the modern one), I figured it was best to start at the beginning.  The film finds Bond on a mission to a mysterious island to stop a weapon that would disrupt the launch of a space launch.  Or something like that.  The plot doesn't matter so much.  It's a Bond flick. It's all about the action and the Bond swagger.  Being that this was the first, it was done on a very low budget.  This gave the entire film a very unique feel.  Rather than relying on special effects, its about using Bond as a vehicle to convey thrill.  It also means it is very campy.  I'm not a huge fan of camp, but it worked here.  The ridiculous effects, cheesy one liners and predictable plot points gave a sense of warmth and familiarity to the film.  In short, it felt like the first Bond film and I enjoyed it because of that.  Watching Sean Connery carve out the outline for one of movies most recognizable characters is exciting. Connery uttering the famous phrases for the very first time is a special experience.  Watching Bond fully embrace his womanizing reputation was a bit unsettling however.  He is someone that is supposed to be the epitome of cool, and I couldn't help but think of him as anything but a slime-ball.  It isn't to the point where it ruins the experience, but it certainly diminishes my connection with the character.  While the film is definitely dated, it has a certain undefinable quality that being the first in the series bestows upon it and makes this fun even today.
Rating: 3/5