The Dean and the Flunkee”

Posted on September 24, 2025 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Welcome to Retro Television Reviews, a feature where we review some of our favorite and least favorite shows of the past! On Wednesdays, I will be reviewing the original Love Boat, which aired on ABC from 1977 to 1986! The series can be streamed on Paramount Plus!

This week, we have a special two-hour episode!

Episodes 6.18 and 6.19 “Isaac’s Aegean Affair/The Captain and The Kid/Poor Rich Man/ The Dean and the Flunkee”

(Dir by Alan Rafkin, originally aired on February 5th, 1983)

The Love Boat is going to Greece!

This is another one of those two-hour Love Boat episodes. The crew is assigned to work a Greek cruise. Love and sight-seeing follow. Isaac, for instance, falls in love with a passenger named Reesa (Debbie Allen) and even resigns from the crew so that he can spend the rest of his life in Greece with her. Unfortunately, Isaac forgets to ask Reesa ahead of time and, when Isaac returns to Reesa’s Greek flat, he discovers that she had reconciled with her husband (James A. Watson, Jr.). It’s back to the Love Boat for Isaac!

Meanwhile, the graduating class of Captain Stubing’s old college is holding their graduation ceremony at the ruins of a Greek temple. The class valedictorian (Jameson Parker) give a speech in which he shows appreciation to his Greek aunt (Eva Marie Saint), even though he’s discovered that she’s not as a wealthy as he originally assumed she was. The Dean (Eddie Albert) is finally convinced to give a makeup exam to a student (Leigh McCloskey) who missed his history final. A teacher (Shirley Jones) finally agrees to marry the dean. And Vicki briefly falls in love with a 16 year-old prodigy (Jimmy McNichol) and she gets engaged to him for about an hour or two. Captain Stubing wonders how Vicki would be able to continue her education if she got married. I’m wondering how she’s continuing her education while living and working on a cruise ship.

There was a lot going on in this episode but the true star of the show was the Greek scenery. This episode was filmed on location and, as such, it’s basically a travelogue. Fortunately, Greece looks beautiful! Seriously, the 2-hour, on-location episodes of The Love Boat must have been a blast to shoot.

This week? This week was probably a 10 out of 10 on the How Coked Up Was Julie Scale but hey, she was in Greece. She had every right to live a little.

Now, I want to take a cruise!

Brad’s “Scene of the Day” – Cary Grant & Eva Marie Saint hang out on Mt. Rushmore!

Posted on August 13, 2025 by Bradley Crain

Have y’all been to Mt. Rushmore? My wife and I stopped by in 2023 on the way home from Yellowstone. It was pretty cool stuff!

I remember as I was driving up to Mt. Rushmore, I saw a sign that mentioned the Alfred Hitchcock movie NORTH BY NORTHWEST (1959) being filmed there. I hadn’t seen the movie in many years, so I decided to watch it again when I got home to celebrate the trip. I enjoyed seeing Cary Grant and Eva Marie Saint hanging out near the giant rock faces of some of America’s great presidents. In celebration of Hitchcock’s 126th birthday in cinema heaven, I thought I would share that scene with all of you!

Nothing In Common (1986, directed by Garry Marshall)

Posted on July 10, 2025 by Jedadiah Leland

Tom Hanks plays David Basner (Tom Hanks), an advertising executive whose immature lifestyle gives him insight into what sells but has also left him totally unprepared to deal with the fallout when his mother (Eva Marie Saint) leaves his father, Max (Jackie Gleason). David, who is struggling to come up with the perfect commercial for a demanding client (Hector Elizondo), has to come to terms with both his father’s bad health and his history of infidelity.

This isn’t my favorite Tom Hanks movie. It comes from that awkward period when Hanks was trying to make the transition from comedy to drama and its attempt to mix the two genres is not always successful. The scenes of Hanks at the ad agency are often so cartoonish that they don’t seem like they belong in a movie where Jackie Gleason loses a foot to diabetes and realizes that he spent his entire marriage emotionally abusing his wife. The movie, though, is worth watching for the teaming of Hanks and Gleason, two comedic actors who eventually proved themselves to equally as skilled at playing it serious. Gleason, especially, gives a strong performance. This was his final film and Garry Marshall convinced him to take it by asking, “Do you really want to go out on Smokey and the Bandit 3?” Gleason would die a little over a year after the release of Nothing In Common and this film, even if it wasn’t perfect, gave the world a chance to see what a good actor he really was.

This film is often cited as the the movie that started Hanks on the way to becoming a dramatic actor. Like Punchline, Nothing In Common played a role in Hanks becoming more than just a comedian but I think Big was ultimately the better showcase for Hanks’s ability to mix pathos with laughs. Nothing In Common was directed by Garry Marshall and, as was usually the case with Marshall, he often doesn’t trust the audience to figure things out for themselves. He goes overboard trying to force an emotional response instead of just trusting the material. Tom Hanks still does a good enough job in Nothing In Common. Hanks is as likable as always and you can see the dramatic actor emerging in Hanks’s performance even if Hanks still wasn’t totally comfortable with it.

Nothing In Common is flawed but it was definitely a better swan song for Jackie Gleason than Smokey and the Bandit 3.

Film Review: Exodus (dir by Otto Preminger)

Posted on January 27, 2025 by Lisa Marie Bowman

First released in 1960 and based on a novel by Leon Uris, Otto Preminger’s Exodous is two films in one.

The first half of the film takes place in Cyprus in the days immediately following World War II. A young war widow named Kitty (Eva Marie Saint) is sightseeing when she learns of the Karaolos Internment Camp, where the British are interning thousands of Jewish refugees who demand to be allowed to go to the land that will eventually become the State of Israel. Kitty visits with General Sutherland (Ralph Richardson), who oversees the camp and who is rumored to secretly be Jewish because of his relatively benevolent attitude towards the internees. Disgusted by the anti-Semitism displayed by many of the British officers (one of whom is played by Kennedy in-law Peter Lawford), Kitty volunteers at the camp and learns about the Holocaust from those who survived it. She also meets Ari Ben Caanan (Paul Newman), a former officer in the British army. Ari manages to get control of a cargo ship, one that is renamed Exodus. Six hundred refugees stage a hunger strike, vowing that they will willingly starve to death rather than be returned to Europe.

The second part of Exodus takes place in what will become the modern State of Israel. It follows Ari, Kitty, and several of the passengers of the Exodus as they adjust to life and continue to fight for a land of their own, despite the opposition of the British and much of the rest of the world. Karen (Jill Haworth) is a young woman who searches for her father, a brilliant man who has been driven into a nearly catatonic state by the horrors of the Holocaust. Dov Landau (Sal Mineo) is an explosives expert who survived Auschwitz as a Sonderkommando and who was repeatedly raped by the guards at the camp. Dov joins the Irgun, a paramilitary organization that the British consider to be terrorists. Leading the Irgun is Ari’s uncle, Akiva (David Opatoshu), and Dov soon finds himself being targeted by both the British and the Arabs who, despite the moderating efforts of men like Taha (John Derek, who would later direct Ghosts Can’t Do It), want to violently force the Jews out of the land.

Legend has it that, after a private screening on Exodus, comedian Mort Sahl turned to director Otto Preminger and said, “Otto, let my people go.” And it’s true that Exodus is a very long film. Preminger, who started out making film noirs like Laura, spent the latter part of his career making “important” epics and, like many Golden Age directors struggling to compete with television and the 60s counterculture, he tended to make long, star-studded films that dealt with current events and which pushed the envelope just enough to be controversial without actually being radical. However, I would argue that the three-hour running time of Exodus is justified. To understand why Ari, Dov, Karen, and the other passengers of the Exodus would rather risk their lives by staying in what will become the State of Israel, one has to understand both what they went through to get there and also the anti-Semitism that they faced even in post-World War II Europe. If Exodus were made today, it would be a mini-series. Since it was made in 1960, it was instead a 3-hour film with an intermission.

Exodus holds up relatively well, with the sprawling action anchored by the presence of a cast of familiar faces. Paul Newman and Eva Marie Saint bring a good deal of movie star glamour to scenes that would have otherwise just been dry exposition. The film’s heart truly belongs to Jill Haworth and Sal Mineo, both of whom bring two life characters who have very differing views of the world. Karen remains an optimist, one who is convinced that people can live together. Dov, fueled by his own guilt and anger, has no room for negotiations and compromises. Mineo received his second and last Oscar nomination for his performance in Exodus, though he lost to Peter Ustinov’s showy turn in Spartacus. Exodus itself was clearly made with a hope for Oscar glory. While Exodus did pick up a handful of nominations, it was left out of the five movie Best Picture slate. The Academy only had room for one historical epic and they went for John Wayne’s The Alamo. The eventual winner was The Apartment, the best of the nominated films. (Indeed, even if Exodus had taken the Alamo’s spot, The Apartment would still be the best of the nominees.) The Oscars aside, Exodus remains a good example of the type of epic filmmaking that once defined the Hollywood studios.

Holiday Film Review: Carol For Another Christmas (dir by Joseph L. Mankiewicz)

Posted on December 24, 2022 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Daniel Grudge (Sterling Hayden) is a wealthy American industrialist who served in World War II and who, despite seeing first hand the horrors of Hiroshima, still believes that war is sometimes the only answer. He spends his Christmas Eve sitting in darkened study, thinking about his dead son (who was killed in combat) and listening to an old record. When his nephew, Fred (Ben Gazzara), stops by, it leads to an argument about American foreign policy. (Who stops by their uncle’s house on Christmas Eve to argue politics?) Fred is do-gooder. Daniel Grudge hates do-gooders.

So, naturally, it’s time for Daniel Grudge to be visited by three ghosts! The Ghost of Christmas Past (Steve Lawrence) takes Grudge first to a troop ship that is full of coffins, representing the dead of World War I. Then he forces Grudge to relive his own callous reaction to Hiroshima. Grudge sees how his actions upset the nurse (Eva Marie Saint) who was traveling with him. The Ghost of Christmas Present (Pat Hingle) invites Grudge to eat a feast in front of a camp full of refugees. The Ghost of Christmas Future (Robert Shaw) takes Grudge to the future where, after a devastating nuclear war, a buffoonish leader (Peter Sellers) encourages his followers to continue to make war and to live only for themselves. Grudge watches as his former butler (Percy Rodriguez) is murdered for advocating for peace. Back at his mansion, Fred shows up again and Grudge must now decide …. will he support the work of the United Nations?

YEEEEESH! What a heavy-handed movie! Really, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised at how unsubtle the film’s message was. Originally made for television, A Carol For Another Christmas was actually co-produced by the United Nations. It was the first of four UN-produced films that aired on ABC between 1964 and 1966. Seen today, with all that we know about the UN’s signature mix of corruption and incompetence, the film’s message seems almost laughably naïve. “Only the UN can bring peace,” the film says. Tell that to Israel, the next time that the UN passes a resolution condemning it for existing and defending itself. Say that only the UN can make the world a better place when some of the worst dictatorships on the planet are sitting on the Human Rights council.

The heavy-handed message aside, A Carol For Another Christmas was full of talent both behind and in front of the camera. This was the only TV movie to be directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz and, whatever else one might say about the film, he was responsible for some intriguingly moody shots. The script was written by Rod Serling who, unfortunately, allowed his didactic tendencies to get the better of him and wrote a film where characters didn’t have conversations as much as they just gave speeches. The cast, however, is uniformly strong. Sterling Hayden, Robert Shaw, and Steve Lawrence are obvious stand-outs. Pat Hingle does fine until his role is diminished to one long harangue. Playing the so-called “Imperial Me,” Peter Sellers brings so much needed unpredictability to the film, even if his character is saddled with the film’s most heavy-handed moment. The Imperial Me teaches his followers that the individual is more important than the state and that everyone should focus on “me” instead of “we.” Cutting-edge satire this is not and again, there’s something rather offensive about the UN being held up as humanity’s last hope against rampant individualism.

This is very much a film of its time. The fear of nuclear war runs through every frame. The disillusionment that came with the assassination of John F. Kennedy is present in the film’s open-ended conclusion. What good is convincing one man when the rest of the world continues to think for itself? the film seems to be asking. Dickens, I think, would probably say that Serling missed the point of A Christmas Carol and it’s hard not to feel that Dickens would be correct.

Cleaning Out The DVR: The Sandpiper (dir by Vincente Minnelli)

Posted on March 31, 2021 by Lisa Marie Bowman

I recorded The Sandpiper that last time that it aired on TCM. This 1965 film is one of the many films that Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton made together after they fell in love during the making of Cleopatra. And while it’s true that Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? won Taylor an Oscar and probably should have won one for Burton as well, the majority of the Taylor/Burton films were overproduced melodramas that often seemed as if they’d been rushed into production in order to capitalize on the couple’s tabloid popularity. Unfortunately, Virginia Woolf aside, neither Taylor nor Burton seemed to bring out the best in each other as actors.

The Sandpiper finds Taylor playing Laura Reynolds, an artist who lives in a California beach house with her young son, Danny (Morgan Mason). Laura is a free spirit who believes that everyone, including her son, should have the freedom to make their own choices. She is resistant to any and all authority. She’s a bohemian, a rebel, the type who doesn’t care what society has to say and who flaunts her refusal to follow the dictates of respectability. Good for her! However, she’s also Elizabeth Taylor, which means that she’s impossibly glamorous and even her “cluttered” beach house looks like it’s a hundred times more expensive than anything that anyone viewing the film will ever be able to afford. Though Taylor tries hard, there’s nothing convincingly bohemian about her.

Richard Burton plays Dr. Edward Hewitt, who runs the nearby Episcopal school. Dr. Hewitt is not a free spirit. Instead, he and his wife, Claire (Eva Marie Saint), very much believe in structure and playing by the rules. They believe in a traditional education and, when a judge orders Danny to be enrolled at their school, that’s what Hewitt plans to give him. This, of course, brings Hewitt into conflict with Laura. Both of them have differing ways of looking at the world and Laura is not a fan of religion in general. However, since they’re played by Burton and Taylor, they’re destined to fall in love and have a scandalous affair.

Dr. Hewitt is one of the many religious figures that Burton played throughout his career. In fact, Burton played so many alcoholic priests that I spent most of the movie assuming that Hewitt was an alcoholic as well. However, he’s not. He’s just Episcopalian. That said, Burton delivers every line of dialogue in his trademark “great actor” voice and every minute that he’s onscreen just seems to be full of self-loathing. Even before he cheats on his wife, Hewitt seems to hate himself. Of course, once Burton does start cheating on his wife, it only gets worse. The film presents Hewitt as being something of a hesitant participant, someone who knows that he’s doing the wrong thing but he simply cannot stop himself. Laura, meanwhile, is presented as being someone who is fully willing to break up a marriage to get what she wants. One gets the feeling that 1965 audiences probably just assumed they were watching the true story of how Taylor and Burton fell in love during the making the Cleopatra. That said, it’s all pretty tame. Just like Taylor, director Vincente Minnelli was too much of a product of the old Hollywood to truly embrace this story for all of its sordid potential.

If you’ve ever wanted to watch Charles Bronson debate religion with Richard Burton, this is the film for you. Bronson plays a sculptor and an atheist who upsets Hewitt by calling him “reverend.” Bronson is actually more convincing in the film than either Burton or Taylor, bringing a rough authenticity to his role. Whereas Burton and Taylor both seem to be going through the motions, Bronson comes across as if he actually has a personal stake in the film’s story. It’s not enough to save the movie, of course. Fortunately, a year later, Liz and Dick would be used to better effect in Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

Horror Book Review: Alfred Hitchcock and The Making of Psycho by Stephen Rebello

Posted on October 15, 2017 by Lisa Marie Bowman

57 years after it was first released, Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho remains one of the most influential films ever made.

Certainly, every horror film ever released since 1960 owes a debt to Psycho. The infamous shower scene has been duplicated so many times that I’ve lost count. Whenever a big-name actor is unexpectedly killed during the first half of a movie, it’s because of what happened to Janet Leigh in that shower. If not for Psycho, Drew Barrymore would have survived Scream and that shark would never have eaten Samuel L. Jackson in Deep Blue Sea. Every giallo film that has ended with someone explaining the overly complex psychological reasons that led to the killer putting on black gloves and picking up a scalpel owes a debt to Simon Oakland’s monologue at the end of Psycho. Psycho is so influential and popular that, decades later, A&E could broadcast a show called Bates Motel and have an instant hit.

What goes into making a classic? That is question that is both asked and answered by Stephen Rebello’s Alfred Hitchcock and The Making of Psycho. Starting with the real-life crimes of Ed Gein, Rebello’s book goes on to examine the writing of Robert Bloch’s famous novel and then the struggle to adapt that novel for the screen.

This book is a dream for trivia lovers. Ever wanted to know who else was considered for the role of Marion Crane or Sam Loomis or even Norman Bates? This is the book to look to. Read this book and then imagine an alternate world where Psycho starred Dean Stockwell, Eva Marie Saint, and Leslie Neilsen?

(That’s right. Leslie Neilsen was considered for the role of Sam Loomis.)

The book also confronts the controversy over who deserves credit for the shower scene, Alfred Hitchcock or Saul Bass. And, of course, it also provides all the glorious details of how Hitchcock handled the film’s pre-release publicity. Ignore the fact that this book was cited as being the inspiration for the rather forgettable Anthony Hopkins/Helen Mirren film, Hitchcock. This is a fascinating read about a fascinating movie and a fascinating director.

First published in 1990 and still very much in print, Alfred Hitchcock and The Making of Psycho is a must-read for fans of film, horror, true crime, history, Alfred Hitchcock, Anthony Perkins, Janet Leigh, and Psycho.

Lisa Reviews An Oscar Nominee: The Russians Are Coming, The Russians Are Coming (dir by Norman Jewison)

Posted on February 8, 2017 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Earlier tonight, I watched a 1966 film called The Russians Are Coming, The Russians Are Coming.

It’s a cheerful comedy about what happens when the captain (played by Theodore Bikel) of a Russian submarine decides that he wants to take a look at the United States. Though he was only planning to look at America through a periscope, he accidentally runs the submarine into a sandbar sitting near Gloucester Island, which itself sits off the coast of Massachusetts. The captain sends a nine man landing party, led by Lt. Yuri Rozanov (a youngish Alan Arkin, making his film debut and receiving an Oscar nomination for his efforts), to the island. Their orders are simple. Yuri and his men are too either borrow or steal a boat that can be used to push the submarine off the sandbar. If they run into any locals, they are to claim to be Norwegian fisherman.

Needless to say, things that don’t quite go as planned. The first Americans that Yuri and his men meet are the family of Walt Whitaker (Carl Reiner), a vacationing playwright. Walt’s youngest son immediately identifies the Norwegian fisherman as being “Russians with submachine guns.” When Walt laughingly asks Yuri if he’s a “Russian with a submachine gun,” Yuri produces a submachine gun and promptly takes Walt, his wife (Eva Marie Saint), and his children hostage.

Yuri may be a Russian. He may officially be an enemy of America. But he’s actually a pretty nice guy. All he wants to do is find a boat, keep his men safe, and leave the island with as little drama as possible. However, the inhabitants of the island have other plans. As rumors spread that the Russians have landed, the eccentric and largely elderly population of Gloucester Island prepares for war. Even as Police Chief Mattocks (Brian Keith) and his bumbling assistant, Norman Jonas (Jonathan Winters), attempt to keep everyone calm, Fendall Hawkins (Paul Ford) is organizing a militia and trying to contact the U.S. Air Force.

Meanwhile, Walt’s babysitter, Allison (Andrea Dromm) finds herself falling in love with one of the Russians, the gentle Alexei Kolchin (John Phillip Law).

As I said at the start of this review, The Russians Are Coming, The Russians Are Coming is a cheerful comedy, one with a rather gentle political subtext, suggesting that the majority of international conflicts could be avoided if people got to know each other as people as opposed to judging them based on nationality or ideology. There’s a rather old-fashioned liberalism to it that probably seemed quite daring in 1966 but which feels rather quaint today. Sometimes, the comedy gets a bit broad and there were a few times that I found myself surprised that the film didn’t come with a laugh track. But overall, this is a well-acted and likable little movie.

As I watched The Russians Are Coming, The Russians Are Coming (and, as someone who is contractually obligated to use a certain number of words per review, allow me to say how much I enjoyed the length of that title), I found myself considering that the film would have seemed dated in 2013 but, with all the talk of Russian hacking in the election and everything else, it now feels a little bit more relevant. Not a day goes by when I don’t see someone on twitter announcing that the Russians are coming. Of course, if the film were released today, its optimistic ending would probably be denounced as an unacceptable compromise. Peaceful co-existence is no longer as trendy as it once was.

Another interesting thing to note about The Russians Are Coming, The Russians are Coming: though the film was written by William Rose (who also wrote another example of mild 1960s feelgood liberalism, Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner), it was based on a novel by Nathaniel Benchley. Benchley was the father of Peter Benchley, the author of Jaws. It’s easy to see the eccentrics of Gloucester Island as distant cousins of the inhabitants of Amity Island.

As previously stated, The Russians Are Coming, The Russians Are Coming was nominated for best picture but it lost to the far more weighty A Man For All Seasons.

Lisa Marie Reviews An Oscar Winner For Labor Day: On The Waterfront (dir by Elia Kazan)

Posted on September 7, 2015 by Lisa Marie Bowman

I like On The Waterfront.

Nowadays, that can be a dangerous thing to admit. On The Waterfront won the Oscar for Best Picture of 1954 and Marlon Brando’s lead performance as boxer-turned-dockworker Terry Malloy is still regularly cited as one of the best of all time. The scene where he tells his brother (played by Rod Steiger) that he “could have been a contender” is so iconic that other films still continue to either parody or pay homage to it. On The Waterfront is one of those films that regularly shows up on TCM and on lists of the greatest films ever made.

And yet, despite all that, it’s become fashionable to criticize On The Waterfront or to cite it as an unworthy Oscar winner. Certain film bloggers wear their disdain for On The Waterfront like a badge of honor. Ask them and they’ll spend hours telling you exactly why they dislike On The Waterfront and, not surprisingly, it all gets tedious pretty quickly.

Like all tedious things, the answer ultimately comes down to politics. In the early 50s, as the House UnAmerican Affairs Committee conducted its search for communists in Hollywood, hundreds of actors, writers, and directors were called before the committee. They were asked if they were currently or ever had been a member of the Communist Party. It was demanded that they name names. Refusing to take part was career suicide and yet, many witnesses did just that. They refused to testify, apologize, or name names.

And then there was the case of Elia Kazan. When he was called in front of HUAC, he not only testified about his communist past but he named names as well. Many of his past associates felt that Kazan had betrayed them in order to protect his own career. On The Waterfront was Kazan’s answer to his critics.

In On The Waterfront, Terry Malloy’s dilemma is whether or not to voluntarily testify before a commission that is investigating union corruption on the waterfront. Encouraging him to testify is the crusading priest, Father Barry (Karl Malden), and Edie (Eva Marie Saint), the saintly girl who Terry loves. Discouraging Terry from testifying is literally every one else on the waterfront, including Terry’s brother, Charlie (Rod Steiger). Charlie is the right-hand man of gangster Johnny Friendly (a crudely intimidating Lee J. Cobb), who is the same man who earlier ordered Terry to throw a big fight.

At first, Terry is content to follow the waterfront of code of playing “D and D” (deaf and dumb) when it comes to union corruption. However, when Johnny uses Terry to lure Edie’s brother into an ambush, Terry is forced to reconsider his previous apathy. As Terry gets closer and closer to deciding to testify, Johnny order Charlie to kill his brother…

The issue that many contemporary critics have with On The Waterfront is that they view it as being essentially a “pro-snitch” film. It’s easy to see that Elia Kazan viewed himself as being the damaged but noble Terry Malloy while Johnny Friendly was meant to be a stand-in for Hollywood communism. They see the film as being both anti-union and Kazan’s attempt to defend naming names.

And maybe they’re right.

But, ultimately, that doesn’t make the film any less effective. Judging On The Waterfront solely by its backstory ignores just how well-made, well-acted, well-photographed, well-directed, and well-written this film truly is. Elia Kazan may (or may not) have been a lousy human being but, watching this film, you can’t deny his skill as a director. There’s a thrilling grittiness to the film’s style that allows it to feel authentic even when it’s being totally heavy-handed.

And the performances hold up amazingly well. Marlon Brando’s performance as Terry Malloy gets so much attention that it’s easy to forget that the entire cast is just as great. Rod Steiger makes Charlie’s regret and guilt poignantly real. Karl Malden, who gets stuck with the film’s more pedantic dialogue, is the perfect crusader. Eva Marie Saint is beautiful and saintly. And then you’ve got Lee J. Cobb, playing one of the great screen villains.

The motives behind On The Waterfront may not be the best. But, occasionally, a great film does emerge from less than pure motives. (Just as often, truly good intentions lead to truly bad cinema.) Regardless of what one thinks of Elia Kazan, On The Waterfront is a great work of cinema and it’s on that basis that it should be judged.

A Late Film Review: Winter’s Tale (dir by Akiva Goldsman)

Posted on November 17, 2014 by Lisa Marie Bowman

I liked Winter’s Tale.

And I don’t care what anybody else says!

And that’s a good thing too because, critically, Winter’s Tale has been one of the most maligned movies of 2014. It came out on Valentine’s Day, at the same time as Endless Love. And the critics absolutely hated it! For a while there, the online film community was taking bets on which one of the two Valentine’s Day releases would end up with the lowest score on Rotten Tomatoes. And, though it was a close race, Winter’s Tale actually ended up with the lower score, coming in at 13% as opposed to Endless Love‘s 15%.

That’s right — according to most mainstream film critics, Winter’s Tale was actually worse than Endless Love.

Well, those critics were wrong. That’s how I felt when I first saw Winter’s Tale and, after watching it a second time on HBO, that’s still how I feel. Winter’s Tale is not a bad movie!

(Incidentally, Winter’s Tale has a 6.2 rating over at the imdb, which would seem to indicate that I’m not the only person who knows better than Peter Travers.)

Admittedly, the plot of Winter’s Tale does not make much logical sense but that’s kind of the point. It’s a tale and tales are not about being realistic. Tales are about emotion and the whole point of listening to or telling a tale is to inspire feelings. To truly appreciate Winter’s Tale, you have to understand that this is a fairy tale that happens to be set in the most mythical of American cities, New York.

Opening in 1895 and ending in 2014, Winter’s Tale tells the story of Peter Lake (Colin Farrell). When Peter was an infant, his immigrant parents were refused entry into Manhattan because they both had tuberculosis. So, they put Peter in a toy boat and dropped him into ocean and watched as the boat slowly floated towards America.

Jump forward 21 years and Peter has grown up to be a thief, working for a gangster named Pearly Soames (Russell Crowe). What few people know is that Pearly is actually a demon who regularly visits his boss, Luicfer (played by Will “Yes, that Will Smith” Smith). Pearly is immortal as long as he stays in New York City.

When Peter decides that he wants to leave Pearly’s gang, Pearly orders that Peter be killed. However, while fleeing from the rest of the gang, Peter is rescued by a flying white horse. While Peter’s first instinct is to fly the horse out of New York and spend the winter in Florida, he instead decides to rob one more mansion. (It helps that the horse literally takes him to the mansion.)

While robbing the mansion, Peter meets Beverly Penn (Jessica Brown Findlay), a passionate and talented pianist who is dying of tuberculosis. In what is literally a case of love at first sight, Peter forgets about robbing the mansion and instead has a cup of tea with Beverly. They discuss their lives and Beverly tells Peter that everyone has a miracle inside of them and that everyone becomes a star after dying.

Soon, Peter and Beverly are a couple and Peter even manages to win over Beverly’s suspicious father, Isaac (William Hurt). Peter and Beverly spend the winter at her family’s summer home. Peter believes that his miracle is to save Beverly. Meanwhile, an angry Pearly waits for his chance to get revenge…

Now, I will admit that there are some obvious flaws with Winter’s Tale. Russell Crowe goes totally overboard, with his accent wildly going from Australian to New Yorkish to Scottish and back again. Meanwhile, Will Smith is not necessarily a bad choice to play the devil and he actually gives a pretty good performance but it doesn’t chance the fact that, whenever he’s on screen, all you can think about is that he’s Will Smith and he’s playing the devil.

But, honestly, who cares? This is an amazingly romantic film and Farrell and Findlay have a lot of chemistry. When you see them together, you have no doubt that Peter and Beverly are meant to be together. You care about them as a characters, even if you don’t always understand everything that’s happening around them. Their love feels real and, when it comes to telling a love story, isn’t that the most important thing?

(Add to that, does any actor fall in love as convincingly as Colin Farrell?)

And the film itself is gorgeous! From the costumes to the set design to Caleb Deschanel’s cinematography, the film is just beautiful to look at. Undoubtedly, cynics would argue that the film is almost too glossy in its appearance but Winter’s Tale is not a film for cynics. It’s a film for romantics.

So, yes, I did like Winter’s Tale and I am not ashamed to admit it.