Scenes I Love: A Visit to the Planetarium from Rebel Without A Cause

Posted on August 7, 2025 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Since today is Nicholas Ray’s birthday, it seems appropriate to share a scene from Ray’s best-known film, 1955’s Rebel Without A Cause. In this scene, a group of teens who can barely find happiness or peace on their own planet are asked to consider the wonders of the universe.

Guilty Pleasure No. 83: Meteor (dir by Ronald Neame)

Posted on May 16, 2025 by Lisa Marie Bowman

1979’s Meteor is about a big rock that is tumbling through space. Earth is directly in its path and, if it hits the planet, it could be an extinction-level event. Unfortunately, little bits of the rock keep breaking off and crashing into Earth, destroying cities and fleeing extras. Goodbye, Hong Kong. Goodbye, Switzerland, which is destroyed via stock footage lifted from Avalanche. Goodbye, New York, which blows up in such spectacular fashion that the scene was later re-used in The Day After.

It might seem like the planet is doomed. The meteor is unstoppable. Bruce Willis hasn’t become a star yet. But fear not! Some of the brightest faces of the 70s have been recruited to stop the meteor. Natalie Wood, in one of her final films, plays a translator and gets covered in muddy river water. Sean Connery wears a turtleneck and curses in that Scottish way of his. Karl Malden wears a hat and tells people to calm down while he calls the President. Brian Keith plays a Russian with all the grace and skill of a cat trying to rip open a bag of treats. Martin Landau is the military official who doesn’t think that the scientist know what they’re talking about. Henry Fonda is the president. That’s a lot of balding men for one movie and it’s hard not to notice that both Malden and Keith often seem to be wearing a hat whenever they share a scene with Connery. My personal theory is that the production, having spent all of their money on blowing up New York, couldn’t afford more than two toupees so everyone had to take turns wearing them. (The few scenes where Malden is hatless while in Connery’s presence are often oddly filmed, with either Connery on Malden standing with their back to the camera, almost as if the scenes were actually done with a stand-in.)

We’re supposed to breathe a sigh of relief when we see that Henry Fonda is playing the President but I’ve seen Fail Safe and I remember him allowing the Russian to nuke New York City. Interestingly enough, New York gets destroyed in this film too. Why didn’t President Fonda care about New York City? Of course, the scientists and the military folks are all located in a control center that’s located under the city. Malden mentions that they’re right next to the Hudson River. It doesn’t seem to occur to anyone that this is a bad idea but, then again, they also elected Henry Fonda president again.

My late friend and colleague Gary Loggins described Meteor as being a “crashing bore.” I have to admit that this is one of the few times that I have ever disagreed with Gary. Meteor is a tremendous amount of fun, as long as you’re watching it with a group of people and nobody takes it seriously. (The first time I saw it was at one in the morning while I was in college. Jeff and I watched it in the lounge of one of the dorms. We may be the only two people to have romantic memories of Meteor.) Meteor features a cast of champion scenery chewers. Karl Malden, Sean Connery, Martin Landau, Brian Keith, none of them were exactly subtle actors and giving them an excuse to argue about how to deal with a meteor allows for a lot of very enjoyable overacting. As well, the special effects are so cheap and obviously fake that it’s hard not to laugh out loud whenever the film cuts to that shot of the meteor rolling through space or the incredibly shiny American and Russian missiles slowly heading towards it.

Meteor’s a lot of fun, even if it is one of those movies where no one points out that our heroes inevitably seem to make every situation worse with their own stupidity. It’s very much at the tail-end of the 70s disaster boom. Watch it for the stars. Watch it for the rock. And watch it for the hairpieces.

Previous Guilty Pleasures

Film Review: The Jackpot (dir by Walter Lang)

Posted on May 3, 2025 by Lisa Marie Bowman

In 1950’s The Jackpot, James Stewart plays Bill Lawrence.

Bill has a job at a department store. He’s not the manager but he’s still a respected member of the staff and who knows? Maybe his boss (Fred Clark) will give him a promotion someday. He lives in a big, two-story home with his wife, Amy (Barbara Hale). He and Amy have two children, one of whom is played by a 12 year-old Natalie Wood. By all appearances, Bill is doing pretty good for himself. At one point, it’s mentioned that makes a grand total of $7,500 a year.

That definitely caught my attention. “I make more than that!” I snapped at the screen. I pulled up an inflation calculator and I discovered that $7,5000 in 1950 is the equivalent of — wait for it — $102,000 today! (Technically, I still make more than that but still, it’s six figures.)

When Bill answers a phone call from a radio station and guesses the correct answer to a trivia question, he wins $24,000-worth of prizes. (I didn’t bother to figure out how much that $24,000 would be be in 2025 dollars but we can safely assume that it would be quite a bit.) Unfortunately, a lot of the prizes end up costing more than their worth. Bill wins a side of beef , 7,500 cans of soup, and a 1,000 fruit trees but he doesn’t win anywhere to store it all. He also wins a maid, an interior designer, a pony, a swimming pool, a trip to New York, and a session with portrait painter Hilda (Patricia Medina). He also ends up with an income tax bill for $7,000. Remember, he only makes $7,500 a year. Damn the IRS!

Realizing that he’s going to have to sell the majority of his winnings, Bill loses his job when he’s caught trying to sell to the store’s customers. Needing money to pay off his tax bill, he tries to pawn a diamond ring and ends up getting arrested. With his anniversary coming up, he asks Hilda to paint a portrait of Amy from his description of her but Bill ends up spending so much time with Hilda that Amy becomes convinced that he’s having an affair.

Basically, one terrible thing after another happens to Bill, all the result of having won a contest. (The film is loosely based on a true story, with James Gleason playing a fictionalized version of the reporter who wrote the original story.) The movie’s a comedy but, as with the majority of the films that James Stewart made after World War II, there’s a sense of melancholy running through it. Even before he wins the money, Bill doesn’t seem satisfied with his life. Much like George Bailey, he’s restless and wondering if there will ever be more to his life than just his house in the suburbs and his job in the city. Also, like George, Bill learns to appreciate what he has as the result of getting what he wants and discovering that he was happier before. Few actors were as skilled at capturing ennui and dissatisfaction as Jimmy Stewart. The Jackpot is a silly comedy but it’s also an effective portrait of a middle-aged man trying to find peace with the way his life has turned out. That’s almost entirely due to Stewart’s likable but honest performance.

The Jackpot may not be one of Stewart’s most-remembered films but it’s entertaining, with the supporting cast all providing their share of laughs while Stewart provides the film with a heart. The film may be a comedy but it’s also a look at America and Americans adjusting to life in the years immediately following World War II. Suddenly, abundance is everywhere but, as Bill Lawrence, not without a price.

Artwork of the Day: Natalie Wood Gets Ready For The Academy Awards (by Alan Grant)

Posted on March 2, 2025 by Dazzling Erin

by Alan Grant

This picture was taken before the 1962 Academy Awards ceremony. Happy Oscar Sunday!

Artwork of the Day: Natalie Wood Gets Ready For The Academy Awards (by Alan Grant)

Posted on March 12, 2023 by Dazzling Erin

by Alan Grant

This picture was taken before the 1962 Academy Awards ceremony. Happy Oscar Sunday!

The Films of 2020: Natalie Wood: What Remains Behind (dir by Laurent Bouzereau)

Posted on December 25, 2020 by Lisa Marie Bowman

It’s a bit frustrating that I have to start this review of a documentary about one of my favorite classic film actresses by discussing the gossip and innuendo that has surrounded her death but, unfortunately, that’s the world that we live in nowadays.

It’s been nearly 40 years since the death of Natalie Wood and the circumstances of her drowning are still debated, largely by people who know nothing about the incident beyond what they’ve read online. In 2011, when an employee of Wood and her husband, Robert Wagner, suddenly changed the story that he had been telling for 30 years, the Los Angeles Police Department reopened the investigation into Wood’s death. Suddenly, all over twitter, people were accusing Wagner of having killed Wood, either deliberately or accidentally. Interestingly enough, Christopher Walken was also on the boat on the night that Wood drowned but very few people accused him of having anything to do with it, largely because Walken is better-known to most twitter users than Wagner. (It’s easier to accuse someone of murder when he’s not a celebrated cultural icon.) Things were not helped when the LAPD announced that Wagner a “person of interest” in the case. Of course, “person of interest” is a vague term that can mean anything.

Also not helping matters was that Lana Wood, Natalie’s sister, publicly accused Wagner of having something to do with Natalie’s death. I can still remember that bloviating gasbag, Dr. Phil, having Lana on his show and asking her if she thought Wagner murdered Natalie. Footage from that interview appears in the HBO documentary, Natalie Wood: What Remains Behind.

Fortunately, in the documentary, Robert Wagner is also interviewed about the night that Natalie Wood drowned and there’s a marked contrast between the obviously emotional Wagner who appears in the documentary and the monstrous caricature of Wagner that’s been presented by many Wood conspiracy theorists. If I didn’t already think that Wagner was innocent and that Wood’s death was a tragic and terrible accident, this documentary would have convinced me.

Natalie Wood: What Remains Behind is a documentary about the life and, sadly, the death of Natalie Wood. It’s hosted by her daughter, Natasha Gregson Wagner. The film is tribute to Wood and her career, featuring interviews with the journalists who wrote about her, the photographers who snapped pictures of her, the stars who co-starred with her, and finally, the members of of her family. There’s also a good deal of archival footage of Wood talking about her life. One thing you quickly realize, while listening to Wood, is that she knew how to play the PR game. In her interviews, Wood always said enough to be interesting while, at the same time, keeping up enough wall that she remained somewhat enigmatic. Natasha, for her part, describes her mother as being a down-to-Earth person who, when she had to, could play the role of the glamorous film star.

The film examines Natalie’s career, from her time as a child actor to stardom in the 50s and 60s. As the documentary points out, Wood was an actress who literally grew up on scree. The film also takes a look at her semi-retirement in the 70s. (She was making a comeback at the time of her death and Wagner, in fact, admits to getting into a rather loud argument with Christopher Walken about whether or not Wood should have been accepting more film roles.) The documentary candidly discusses her difficult relationship with her mother, along with her occasionally tumultuous private life. The film provides a look at both what made Wood a star and why her performances continue to resonate with so many of us.

(For the record, my favorite Natalie Wood performance will always be Splendor in the Grass.)

But, sadly to say, Wood’s death and the rumors surrounding it casts a shadow over almost every minute of the documentary. Again, that’s the world we live in. It’s a world dominated not only be innuendo and gossip but also a desire to destroy anyone who has ever led a public life. As a result, there’s no way to make a documentary about Natalie Wood without discussing the conspiracy theories surrounding her death and it’s tragic that a few publicity hungry individuals continue to attempt to capitalize on the tragedy of Wood’s passing. The film gives Wagner a chance to tell his story and for that, we should be both thankful. This is film that will inspire viewers to celebrate Wood’s life and to despise those who have exploited her death.

Peeper (1975, directed by Peter Hyams)

Posted on April 1, 2020 by Jedadiah Leland

Peeper gets off to a good start, with a Humphrey Bogart look alike standing on a dark street corner and reading the opening credits in a reasonable approximation of Bogart’s unmistakable voice. It all goes down hill from there.

Peeper stars Michael Caine as Leslie C. Tucker, a cockney private detective who is working in Los Angeles in the late 40s. Tucker is hired by a shady businessman named Anglich (Michael Constantine). Anglich explains that he knows that he has a daughter but he doesn’t know who or where she is. He wants Tucker to track her down. It doesn’t take much time for Tucker to conclude that Anglich’s daughter might be a member of the wealthy and quirky Pendergrast family. In fact, Tucker thinks that Anglich’s daughter might be Ellen Pendergrast (Natalie Wood, who seems to be bored with the role). It should be a simple enough case to solve but there are numerous complications along with two thugs (played by Timothy Carey and Don Calfa) who, for some reason, are out to get Anglich and Tucker.

It’s hard to know what to make of Peeper. It’s meant to be an homage to the detective films of the 40s but it also tries to parody the genre. Unfortunately, Peter Hyams has never been a director known for his light touch and, in this film, his idea of comedy is to have everyone shout their lines. (Michael Constantine is the worst offender.) Michael Caine is also miscast in the lead. The film tries to get some comedic mileage out of Caine delivering Bogart-style dialogue in his cockney accent but it’s a joke that’s never as funny as the film seems to think.

Peeper was a critical and box office failure but fortunately, there were better things in store for both Michael Caine and Peter Hyams. Hyams went on to direct Capricorn One while Michael Caine established himself as one of the most durable character actors around.

Love on the Shattered Lens: Splendor in the Grass (dir by Elia Kazan)

Posted on February 28, 2020 by Lisa Marie Bowman

What though the radiance which was once so bright

Be now for ever taken from my sight,

Though nothing can bring back the hour

Of splendour in the grass, of glory in the flower;

We will grieve not, rather find

Strength in what remains behind…

— “Ode: Intimations of Immortality from Recollections of Early Childhood” by William Wordsworth

The 1962 film, Splendor in the Grass, takes place in Kansas shortly before the start of the Great Depression. Deanie (Natalie Wood) and Bud (Warren Beatty) are two teenagers in love but, as we learn, youthful love does not always translate into adult happiness.

Bud and Deanie are idealistic and in love but they’re from different social classes. Bud is the son of a boisterous oilman named Ace (Pat Hingle) and Ace acts much like you would expect a millionaire named Ace to behave. Bud’s parents are determined that he attend Yale and that he marry someone else from a wealthy family. They don’t want him to turn out like his older sister, Ginny (Barbara Loden), who drinks, smokes, and is rumored to have recently had an abortion. Meanwhile, Deanie is repeatedly told by her mother that she must always remain a “good girl” and not give in to the temptation to have premarital sex with either Bud or any other boy. If she does, she’ll be forever branded a bad girl and she’ll pretty much end up with a reputation like Ginny’s.

(Interestingly enough, Ace doesn’t have any problem with Bud finding himself a bad girl, nor does he have a problem with taking his son to a speakeasy later in the film. As far as society in concerned, being “good” and following the rules only applies to women.)

Needless to say, things don’t work out well for either Deanie or Bud. Bud is so frustrated that Deanie won’t have sex with him that he dumps her and then has the first of several breakdowns. When Deanie’s attempt to win Bud back by acting more like Ginny fails, she ends up going out with a classmate named Toots Tuttle (Gary Lockwood). Nothing good ever comes from going out on a date with someone named Toots Tuttle. That’s certainly the case here as Deanie and Bud both struggle with the demands of a hypocritical society that expects and encourages Bud to behave in a certain way but which also condemns Deanie for having desires of her own. And, of course, the entire time that Bud and Deanie’s drama is playing out, we’re aware that the clock is ticking and soon the stock market is going to crash and change everyone’s lives forever.

It’s kind of a depressing film, to be honest. I’ve always found it to be rather sad. When we first meet them, Deanie and Bud seem as if they’re perfect for each other but, throughout the entire film, the world seems to be conspiring to keep them apart. By the end of the film, they’ve both found a kind of happiness but we’re painfully aware that it’s not the happiness that either one was expecting while they were still in school. The film suggests that type of happiness might be impossible to attain and a part of growing up is realizing that there is no such thing as perfection. Instead, there’s just making the best of wherever you find yourself.

There’s a scene in this film where Natalie Wood nearly drowns and it always freaks me out, both because of my own fear of drowning and the fact that it foreshadows what would eventually happen to Natalie in 1982. (The fact that Natalie Wood and Robert Wagner’s yacht was called “Splendour” doesn’t help.) Natalie herself was also deeply scared of drowning and just filming the scene undoubtedly took a lot of courage on Natalie’s part. But then again, Natalie Wood’s entire performance is courageous. Natalie Wood gives an emotional and intense performance as Deanie, holding nothing back and it’s impossible not to get emotional while watching her. Making his film debut, Warren Beatty is a bit of a stiff as Bud, though he’s certainly handsome and you can tell why Deanie would have found him attractive. (In high school, you always assume that the boring, handsome guys actually have more depth than they let on.) By the end of the film, you understand that Deanie deserved better than Bud. Then again, Deanie deserved better than just about everything life had to offer her. But Deanie survived and endured and made the best of what she was given because, really, what else could she had done? What other choice did she have?

For her performance in Splendor in the Grass, Natalie Wood received her second Oscar nomination for Best Actress. She lost to Sophia Loren for Two Women and …. well, actually, Loren deserved the award. But so did Wood. 1961 would have been a great year for a tie.

6 Good Films That Were Not Nominated For Best Pictures: The 1950s

Posted on February 24, 2019 by Lisa Marie Bowman

The Governor’s Ball, 1958

Continuing our look at good films that were not nominated for best picture, here are 6 films from the 1950s.

The Third Man (1950, dir by Carol Reed)

Now, it should be noted that The Third Man was not ignored by the Academy. It won the Oscar for Best Cinematography and it was nominated for both editing and Carol Reed’s direction. But, even with that in mind, it’s somewhat amazing to consider all of the nominations that it didn’t get. The screenplay went unnominated. So did the famous zither score. No nominations for Joseph Cotten, Alida Valli, Trevor Howard, or even Orson Welles! And finally, no Best Picture nomination. 1950 was a good year for the movies so competition was tight but still, it’s hard to believe that the Academy found room to nominate King Solomon’s Mines but not The Third Man.

Rear Window (1954, dir by Alfred Hitchcock)

Alfred Hitchcock directed some of his best films in the 50s, though few of them really got the recognition that they deserved upon their initial release. Vertigo is often described as being Hitchcock’s masterpiece but, to be honest, I actually prefer Rear Window. This film finds the master of suspense at his most playful and, at the same time, at his most subversive. Casting Jimmy Stewart as a voyeur was a brilliant decision. This film features one of my favorite Grace Kelly performances. Meanwhile, Raymond Burr is the perfect schlubby murderer. Like The Third Man, Rear Window was not ignored by the academy. Hitchcock was nominated and the film also picked up nods for its screenplay, cinematography, and sound design. However, it was not nominated for best picture.

Rebel Without A Cause (1955, dir by Nicholas Ray)

Nicholas Ray’s classic film changed the way that teenagers were portrayed on film and it still remains influential today. James Dean is still pretty much the standard to which most young, male actors are held. Dean was not nominated for his performance here. (He was, however, nominated for East of Eden that same year.) Instead, nominations went to Sal Mineo, Natalie Wood, and the film’s screenplay. Amazingly, in the same year that the forgettable Love Is A Many-Splendored Thing was nominated for best picture, this popular and influential film was not.

Kiss Me Deadly (1955, dir by Robert Aldrich)

It’s unfortunate but not surprising that Kiss Me Deadly was totally ignored by the Academy. In the mid-to-late 50s, the Academy tended to embrace big productions. There was no way they were going to nominate a satirical film noir that featured a psychotic hero and ended with the end of the world. That’s a shame, of course, because Kiss Me Deadly has proven itself to be more memorable and influential than many of the films that were nominated in its place.

Touch of Evil (1958, dir by Orson Welles)

Speaking of underappreciated film noirs, Orson Welles’s Touch of Evil is one of the craftiest and most brilliant films ever made. So, of course, no one appreciated it when it was originally released. This cheerfully sordid film features Welles at his best. Starting with a memorable (and oft-imitated) tracking shot, the film proceeds to take the audience into the darkest and most eccentric corners of a small border town. Everyone in the cast, from the stars to the bit players, is memorably odd. Even the much mocked casting of Charlton Heston as a Mexican pays off wonderfully in the end.

The 400 Blows (1959, dir by Francois Truffaut)

Francois Truffaut’s autobiographical directorial debut was released in the United States in 1959 and it was Oscar-eligible. Unfortunately, it only picked up a screenplay nomination. Of course, in the late 50s, the last thing that the Academy was going to embrace was a French art film from a leftist director. However, The 400 Blows didn’t need a best picture nomination to inspire a generation of new filmmakers.

Up next, in an hour or so, we continue on to the 60s!

Ride Away: John Wayne in John Ford’s THE SEARCHERS (Warner Brothers 1956)

Posted on September 9, 2017 by gary loggins

cracked rear viewer

John Ford’s THE SEARCHERS is without question an American Film Classic. I’d even go as far as saying it’s my second all-time favorite film, directly behind CASABLANCA. Every shot is a Remington Old West masterpiece, every actor perfect in their role, large or small, and not a minute of footage is wasted. The film has also stirred up quite a bit of controversy over time for John Wayne’s portrayal of the main character Ethan Edwards.

The plot is structured like Joseph Campbell’s “Hero’s Journey”, but let’s get it out of the way right now: Ethan Edwards is no hero. He’s a mean, bitter, unreconstructed Confederate who’s been on the shady side of the law since war’s end. When he returns to his brother Aaron’s homestead, he makes no bones about his distaste for “half-breed” Martin Pawley (really an eighth Cherokee). His hatred of Native Americans even extends to their dead, as…

View original post 1,096 more words