Tag Archives: Edward G. Robinson

The Cincinnati Kid-1965

The Cincinnati Kid-1965

Director Norman Jewison

Starring Steve McQueen, Karl Malden

Scott’s Review #1,138

Reviewed April 29, 2021

Grade: B

I suppose anyone who is really into poker playing or similar casino games might be partial to The Cincinnati Kid (1965) especially if they are a die-hard Steve McQueen fan.

But for those with no interest in the ‘sport’ and who think that McQueen is a royal douche who received a modicum of film success the film is a marginally decent effort.

For those who don’t know, Steve McQueen, the actor and not the British filmmaker, was nicknamed the “King of Cool” and played the anti-hero in most of his films.

His heyday was the mid-1960s through the early 1970s and he garnered success for playing the same role over and over again. He was notorious for insisting his hair was just perfect and for being selfish and a royal prick.

He died of cancer in 1980.

An earlier film of his, The Cincinnati Kid (1965) is set in Depression-era New Orleans, though it’s almost impossible to determine it’s not the 1960s since the film has a severe 1960s look.

Eric Stoner (Steve McQueen) is a cocky poker player nicknamed the Cincinnati Kid who challenges longtime champ Lancey “The Man” Howard (Edward G. Robinson) to a showdown at the table, where a war of persistence and luck ensues.

To add energy, Rip Torn is cast as Slade, a villainous man who seeks revenge against Howard and tries to help Stoner best him.

In addition to the inevitable final poker game, Stoner is immersed in a romance with good girl Christian Rudd (Tuesday Weld) as he tries unsuccessfully to fend off the seductive advances of his best friend Shooter’s (Karl Malden) girlfriend (Ann-Margret) who is also a close friend of Christian.

Romance and double-dealing are in the air in this film.

The main draw is McQueen because he is charismatic and carries the by-the-numbers film. The story point appears to be a battle between youth (Stoner) and seasoned wisdom (Howard) but other than the fantastic finale involving (what else!) a tense game of cards I didn’t find the main story experience all too interesting.

There are other impressive aspects, however, such as the trimmings.

How the actors handle the playing cards, speak the game terminology, and smoke a fat cigar is realistic and adds some good authenticity to the film. The New Orleans flavor provides some culture and many black actors appear in small roles that at least provide some representation of the real southern city.

Despite the talented cast only McQueen shines.

Weld and Ann-Margret are extremely one-note characters and opposites (good girl and bad girl) with little development. Malden is the moral compass of the film but otherwise has little importance to do.

Interestingly, Norman Jewison replaced original director Sam Peckinpah shortly after filming began. He described The Cincinnati Kid as his “ugly duckling” film that enabled him to transition from the light films he had previously been making and take on more serious films and subjects.

Cinema lovers know that he directed the 1971 masterpiece Fiddler on the Roof, a completely different film altogether.

I wonder if Jewison’s heart was in this film or if he simply did the best he could with a subject that was not close to his heart.

I also wonder, knowing Peckinpah’s brilliant work, if he would have made The Cincinnati Kid darker and more violent.

One scene that turns my stomach is a gruesome and violent cock-fighting scene. Any sort of animal cruelty makes my blood boil so I turned my head and refused to watch the scene or the group of merrymakers sitting around cheering the bloodbath.

For poker lovers or fans of Steve McQueen The Cincinnati Kid (1965) is an enjoyable watch and not bad either for the casual fan.

Though I have not seen it my understanding is that The Hustler (1961) is a similar-themed and better-made film.

Soylent Green-1973

Soylent Green-1973

Director Richard Fleischer

Starring Charlton Heston, Leigh Taylor-Young

Scott’s Review #943

Reviewed October 8, 2019

Grade: B

Soylent Green (1973) is a rather obscure offering starring then big-named star Charlton Heston in a dystopian science-fiction film.

The story is futuristic and eerily reminiscent of Planet of the Apes (1968), though not nearly as compelling nor as layered.

The result is admirable for its progressive message, cool colors, and sets, but feels dated and of its time and treats female characters more like props than characters, leaving an uneven result.

It’s a one-and-done sort of film.

The year is 2022 and because of the Industrial Revolution, forty million people live in New York City, suffering year-round from extreme humidity because of the greenhouse effect and shortages of water, food, and housing.

Only the wealthy are afforded necessities and residents of the rich (mostly female) are referred to as “furniture” and used as slaves.

Detective Frank Thorn (Heston) is tasked with investigating the murder of an affluent and prominent man, which leads him to dire details surrounding Soylent Industries and the food they produce.

The film seems like someone’s visionary idea turned Hollywood.

Loosely based on a 1966 novel entitled “Make Room! Make Room!” by Harry Harrison, Heston is cast as the lead while his career was slowly declining, but he is still the star and quite hunky for an older gentleman.

He plays a role similar to the character of George Taylor in Planet of the Apes, especially during the final climactic reveal, which will make viewers question what is contained in what they are eating for dinner.

Heston carries the film well and mixes wonderfully with character actor Edward G. Robinson, who plays Sol Roth in his final role. The old character decides to “return to the home of God” and seeks assisted suicide at a government clinic.

The final scene between the actors is poignant and heartfelt as they say goodbye to each other. Eagle-eyed viewers will spot a young Dick Van Patten in a tiny role during this scene.

Any romantic chemistry is lacking in Soylent Green as a potential love match between Frank and Shirl (Leigh Taylor-Young) strikes out. Mismatched and having little thunder together, the couple does not appeal well.

Making matters worse is that Shirl is mere “furniture” limiting the character’s potential. She is reduced to assisting with Frank’s investigation.

The main detraction is that the film does not feel very futuristic or authentic. The characters look like actors from the 1970s dressed up to look like they are from the future always with a tint of Hollywood thrown in.

The story loses its way halfway through and teeters about between pure science-fiction and a standard detective story, seen nightly at that time on network television.

Still, the film does contain a robust amount of potential but is not reached. The progressive slant and social commentary are admirable, and the bright green nutritious synthetic canned food is almost a character.

The final scene will shock the viewer with horror and I wish more scenes this jaw-dropping existed within the entire experience and not simply at the end.

A film that attempts to do something different or provide a provocative message is worthy of a certain amount of praise.

Soylent Green (1973) carves a bit of thought provocation but seems more relevant for the 1970s than containing much interest decades later.

Heston is dazzling as the main character and the trimmings are impressive but Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) or The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951) resonate more as similar genre films.

Double Indemnity-1944

Double Indemnity-1944

Director Billy Wilder

Starring Fred MacMurray, Barbara Stanwyck

Scott’s Review #847

Reviewed December 26, 2018

Grade: A

Double Indemnity (1944) epitomizes the classic film noir genre perfectly. All the necessary elements exist, from intrigue, suspense, and unpredictable thrills, to schemes and dastardly deeds by the major players.

The on-screen chemistry between leads MacMurray and Stanwyck provides enough romantic flair and provocative moments to entertain all as developments progress when a smitten man meets a femme fatale and a devious plot is hatched.

Director Billy Wilder was one of the most influential directors of his day with this picture being his first effort resulting in fabulous critical acclaim.

The accolades put him firmly on the map for years to come culminating in an Oscar win in 1950 for The Apartment. Wilder uses a clever insurance “double indemnity” clause as its title making it one of the best and most influential crime dramas of the 1940s staking ground for other similarly themed films.

The story is told via flashbacks as a wounded Walter Neff (Fred MacMurray) scrambles to record a confession to his colleague and best friend, Barton Keyes (Edward G. Robinson).

The action rewinds to an average, ordinary day when Neff makes a routine stop to sell insurance and meets flirtatious Phyllis Dietrichson (Barbara Stanwyck). She brazenly inquires how she ought to go about taking out an insurance policy on her husband’s life without his knowledge.

When Neff deduces Phyllis’s intention to kill her husband he declines any further help but cannot forget the ravishing beauty and her charms. He ultimately succumbs to her whims and aids her in a wicked crime.

The adventure the audience is taking on is the most fun aspect of the film. We already deduce that Neff is involved in shenanigans but most of the fun occurs after the murder has been committed and Phyllis and Neff’s scheme begins to unravel.

The added component of Neff’s colleague and close friend, Keyes, being in the mix as he starts to suspect foul play is equally compelling.

Will he finally figure out that Neff is involved in the plot? Will Keyes cover for Neff if discovered? Will Phyllis’s history catch up with her and twist events?

These questions make the film a great picture.

A debate among viewers can ensue whether Neff is sympathetic as this point continues to cross my mind with each viewing. One can safely say that he is seduced by the charms of an eager and aggressive woman, but if he is to blame for the crimes is she not even more to blame?

As events unfold sides can be drawn and characters can be more focused, particularly after Double Indemnity’s startling conclusion.

Neff is not a strong, heroic character but is rather weak, easily manipulated by the cagey Phyllis. It is interesting how little time it takes to succumb to her plot and willingly do the crime for her.

In the final act, Neff does show some needed muscle, but this is only because his “goose is cooked” and he finally realizes the dire nature of Phyllis’s character, but shouldn’t he have discovered this sooner?

MacMurray and Stanwyck have smoldering chemistry and is a major success of the film keeping the audience invested in the plot. The added measure of the murder victim being rather unknown to the audience adds a macabre rooting value to the pair.

Wilder never presents the plot as a romantic triangle or Neff and Phyllis having any other romantic entanglements, and the only roadblock is the insurance company and their suspicions surrounding Phyllis.

Wilder adapted the screenplay from James M. Cain’s novella of the same name and spins a potent film noir from these pages. Double Indemnity (1944) is intelligent, sexy, and mysterious mixing in as much sultry poise as witty dialogue.

Thanks to the allure of fine actors and a stunning adventure on a train, the film is a measured success and a highly influential cinematic story.

Oscar Nominations: Best Motion Picture, Best Director-Billy Wilder, Best Actress-Barbara Stanwyck, Best Screenplay, Best Scoring of a Dramatic or Comedy Picture, Best Sound Recording, Best Cinematography, Black-and-White