Grand Hotel** (1932)

Hard as I try to put older films in their proper context, sometimes I’m left feeling as if I missed something. Such is the case with Grand Hotel. It’s one of those early Oscar winners that no one really talks about anymore. Depending on what you look for in a film, you might feel that this fact is either a real shame or perfectly understandable.

Set in the Grand Hotel in the heart of post-World War I Berlin, this ensemble feature plays out a series of interconnected storylines. Having blown away his wealth and living as a charming but petty thief, Baron Felix von Geigern (John Barrymore) moves in on an all-too-trusting Otto Kringelein (Lionel Barrymore). The terminally ill Kringelein is dying and has come to the Grand Hotel to spend his last days in luxury. Sure enough, Kringelein’s cold-hearted employer, General Director Preysing (Wallace Beery) is at the Grand Hotel as well. Using an attractive stenographer named Flaemmchen (Joan Crawford), he seeks to close a very important and lucrative business deal.

The Grand Hotel is also abuzz over a celebrity guest. The Russian ballerina sensation Grusinskaya (Greta Garbo) does her best to keep up appearances while suffering anxiety over the decline of her young career. All of these characters and their motives intertwine over the course of 48 hours. Friendships are made, tempers flare, and romance is in the air, resulting in events that will change attitudes and outlooks on life forever.

While doing a little background research on this film I found that it was among Hollywood’s first star-studded ensemble films. To be sure, of the five main characters, Wallace Beery is the only one who lacks instant name recognition for me. The rest are obvious A-listers from Hollywood’s Depression era. This almost certainly worked in the film’s favor when drawing audiences in. Who wouldn’t want to see several of the best actors in the business on screen together?

This hodge-podge of the acting elite also works against the film in unexpected ways. Nowadays ensemble films are commonplace and many of the finest actors have been in one or two. Top billing on a film was everything back in the day, however, so being part of an ensemble cast must have been a little awkward for this group. At times it seems as if each of these five stars overacts a little, especially when sharing moments with one or more of their co-stars.

Perhaps the members of the Academy saw this unspoken competition to be the audience’s favorite for what it was. Despite all the star talent, Grand Hotel received zero acting nominations. In fact, it has the dubious honor of being the only Oscar winning film to receive no other nominations besides Best Picture. The acting snubs I can understand but I am astounded that this film failed to earn any technical nominations.

Five main characters and a number of interconnected storylines add up to a lot of editing. The icing on the cake comes with the cinematography though. A large lobby set was constructed, allowing crane cameras to swoop up, down and around to follow characters or move seamlessly between them. A conversation plays out between two characters by the railing and we pan a few feet away to see another character listening in on the conversation. Then the camera cranes up to join another character as they head back to their room. It’s these clever techniques that really give the film a sense of flow and hammer home the interconnectedness of the hotel patrons.

Does the story hold your interest? That depends on how much you love old Hollywood acting. A number of plot elements had been done before and have been done since. This familiarity of the plotlines makes it difficult to fully immerse yourself into the film. I would hope, however that viewers take note of all the intricate camera work for a film made in 1932.

If you like ensemble films, this one should be on your list simply because it’s one of the first. Comparing it to more recent ensemble productions shows you how far we’ve come in this interesting sub-genre but it will also show how much current all-star vehicles owe to their predecessors. Grand Hotel is more of a thrill for those who watch film for the technical aspects. Those who watch for entertainment and performance might come away underwhelmed.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

The Sword in the Stone (1963)

After a jazzy romp through modern London, Walt Disney jettisons us back in time for a medieval fantasy. Tales of King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table are ripe for film adaptations. The House of Mouse takes a kid-friendly approach by adapting the first installment of T.H. White’s series The Once and Future King. By doing so, Disney finds plenty of ways to dazzle the eyes but they come up short in the quest to dazzle the mind.

When King Uther Pendragon passes away a sword appears in a London courtyard. It pierces both an anvil and the stone beneath it. An inscription on the sword declares "Who so Pulleth Out This Sword of this Stone and Anvil, is Rightwise King Born of England." Centuries pass and the stone is forgotten about by most. Forgotten, that is, until a young squire pulls the sword out without realizing what it is.

Did I just give the ending away? If you know nothing about King Arthur, then I apologize. For the 98% of you who already know this tale, you should know that this film has almost nothing to do with the titular sword. It merely bookends the tale of young Wart (Arthur), a peasant boy adopted as a student by the roaming wizard Merlin. Wart balances Merlin’s creative lessons with being a squire for his foster brother Kay, a wannabe knight.

Maybe it’s because I never read the book it’s based on. Maybe it’s because I’m not an aficionado of British fantasy literature. Maybe it’s because I’m an American. Whatever the reason, The Sword in the Stone just doesn’t do it for me. There are a number of cinematic weaknesses present but it’s all the style missteps that hurt it the most.

The Xerox animation technique that Disney started with One Hundred and One Dalmatians still looks rough. It helps the Middle Ages setting look appropriately grim and gritty but the sketch lines inside the animated characters are still distracting. The outlines of the characters flow well but the lack of consistency and continuity inside those lines makes the final product look a bit sloppy. That is not a word that should be used to describe a Disney product.

While One Hundred and One Dalmatians contained very few songs, this film tries to inject a little musical whimsy in its reels. The end result leaves a lot to be desired. None of the tunes are memorable and the most noteworthy song "Higitus Figitus" feels like a poor imitation of "Bibbidi-Bobbidi-Boo." This is an even larger detriment than it initially appears, given that this movie is geared more towards kids. If the kids don’t come away humming the tunes, you’ve missed the mark.

Very few Disney films up to this point have focused so sharply on children. Peter Pan was the last production to do so but that was released a decade before The Sword in the Stone. Disney films have always played well with younger audiences but they have always worked for adults as well. This film marks the first sharp divide between content directed at children and content directed at adults. Merlin drops references to a number of people, places and ideas that will go over younger kids’ heads.

On the flipside, parents might not be as mesmerized with the colorful animation, especially not if they’ve seen plenty of Disney films before this one. That’s not to say that the animation is inferior. The Xerox technique is still heavily flawed but the animators pull off a few neat tricks throughout. Merlin’s lessons all involve turning himself and Wart into animals. When they transform, they still retain some kind of identifiable characteristic to provide a reference point. This is also the case when Merlin engages in battle with Madam Mim. All of their transformations flow seamlessly.

Despite its highly regarded source material, the story feels incomplete. From the beginning it’s obvious that Wart will be the one to pull the sword from the stone. There is no central conflict driving the story from Point A to Point B though. Merlin’s lessons are little more than fanciful vignettes to provide Wart with wisdom before he realizes why he needs it. These lessons have nothing to do with Wart’s reason for pulling the sword from the stone, so these sequences could, cynically, be viewed as candy-coated time killers.

The only magic in The Sword in the Stone lies within what Merlin conjures up on the screen. For whatever reason, none of the pieces typically found in the Disney ‘formula’ click this time around. While it still showcases plenty of skill by the animators, this is one of the few truly passable Disney films. It might keep the kids occupied for an hour twenty but if you have any favorite Disney films, my advice is to stick with them.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5

The Descent (2005)

Movies like this really bug me. Why spend the first half of a film building up real character development and legitimate tension if you’re going to squander it on cheap scare tactics and an antagonist that is utterly unbelievable? I enjoyed much of this horror film but try as I might, I just can’t give it the benefit of the doubt.

A year after losing her husband and daughter in a car accident, Sarah (Shauna Macdonald) is taken on a spelunking trip by her friends Juno (Natalie Mendoza) and Beth (Alex Reid). They hope the trip will help their friend recover from the depression she lives with. Along with three other women, they head into the heart of the Appalachian Mountains to explore what they think is a well-marked cave system.

Not long into their expedition, a tunnel collapse cuts off their only way out. Juno comes clean with the group and informs them that she thought it would be exciting to explore an unknown cave. With no way of calling for help, the women are forced to move deeper into the caverns in search of another way out. Claustrophobia and the dark soon become the least of their concerns when they realize that silent predators are stalking them in the shadows.

I’d like to sing a few of praises before laying into the failings of this film. First of all, I found it refreshing for a horror film to have an all-female cast. Is it a potentially manipulative move? Sure, but for the first half of the film there is no manipulation to be found. We learn a little about each of the characters and they are all likeable in one way or another. I’ve said it ad nauseam but it bears repeating- people are hard-wired to be concerned about women in danger. The fact that the script backs up that automatic concern with likable characters places it well ahead of most horror films.

One other ‘triumph’ is that, despite a cast of young women, The Descent never succumbs to lesbian hookups to appease the largely male-centric horror audience. There are subtle glances and non-verbal cues that suggest one of the girls might be a little bi-curious but the restraint employed saves the film. There is also no nudity in the film, which is a major accomplishment for a horror film featuring six beautiful women. All of this comes during the first half of the film, which builds it up into something that seems both plausible and acceptable.

The cinematography during many of the early spelunking scenes is quite good. You’d never know that the caves and tunnels are all set pieces. I especially liked the lighting. All too often you’ll find movie scenes in dark places are, remarkably, lit to the point that the audience and the characters can still see much of their surroundings. Not here. Tight camera shots and lighting based mostly off of the girls’ helmets and flashlights really build up the tension of claustrophobia.

The convincing woman-vs.-nature conflict plays out well, as the ladies struggle past a number of daunting obstacles. In fact, there is very little horror in the first half, which is a good thing. Sane horror fans never ask for the carnage to begin right away. This film might have been better had it just been about their struggle through the cave. It was convincing enough and would have afforded more opportunity to taut filmmaking.

But no, this is a horror film! Knowing that Sarah sees something lurking in the shadows is creepy enough. Hearing their strange noises in a dark, foreign cavern as the creatures follow our characters is doubly creepy. Seeing the freakish creatures? Not so scary. You would think that the legacy of Jaws and Alien would have convinced people that less is more. Sadly, we see too much of these baddies and far too often. They look like Gollum on steroids and are capable of crawling on the walls and ceilings like Spider-Man.

We are meant to believe that these creatures are humanoids that evolved over years spent in the dark, cold environment of the caves. What’s not clear is whether these creatures evolved from explorers that got trapped in the cave a century or more ago or if they pre-date those poor souls. Either way, anyone with a shred of common sense (or even a basic understanding of micro-evolution) will shake their head in bewilderment. Everything else about this film is so right on- why throw something so out there into the mix? Just make them inbred hillbillies or a satanic cult that uses the caves for sacrifices. Anything but zombie-esque humanoids!

The more I think about it, I shall show some remorse on The Descent. I was going to give it a lower rating but thinking about all that it did right makes it seem unfair to punish with low marks. That being said, this film could have easily scored a full point higher. That’s how much damage one heinous decision can do for a film. The first half? Pretty awesome. The second half? Formulaic nonsense. Pick a direction and stick with it. Until then, count me out.

RATING: 2.5 out of 5