Jessica-65 Reviews

The Magnificent Seven (1960)

Worth watching

[22 June 2004]

I'd heard about "The Magnificent Seven" for years, but only recently watched it on DVD along with its interesting "Making Of" documentary. I'm one of those who never saw the original "Seven Samurai", so I won't be comparing the two. Naturally I loved the music from TMS! It was interesting to hear what the documentary had to say about how competitive the "seven" were about getting noticed on-screen, especially Steve McQueen. I did wonder why he was always putting his hat on and off, for no obvious reason! Apparently, Yul Brynner told him that if he didn't stop it, he (Brynner) would remove his own hat, and that would be the end of it! ;-)

Another interesting story was the one about the censors. Apparently, Mexicans were so insulted by the way they were portrayed in a previous Hollywood film shot in their country, that the Mexican government sent along minders on this one to see that Mexicans were shown in a more favorable light. IMO, the villagers in this film were still shown as fearful, helpless, brown-skinned people, looking to the brave, strong, benevolent white Americans to solve their problems, but it *was* an improvement over previous Hollywood offerings. At least the smaller roles were played by actual Hispanics, though the main "Mexican" roles were played by white actors, including a Russian and a German(!). Actually, I didn't even realize Horst Buchholz was supposed to be Mexican, despite his brown eyes and hair, until I watched the documentary! I can't complain too much about Eli Wallach, because he did such a good job, but these days the non-Mexican-ness of Chico and the Old Man are glaringly obvious.

I did notice a sign of early-sixties liberalism when Yul Brynner and Steve McQueen's characters offered to see to the transport of a dead man who was being denied burial simply because he was Indian. As per usual for the era, the actresses had little to do except show fear and weep over their fallen husbands' bodies, with one as the rather boring love interest (though at least the actress who played her was Mexican).

I liked Yul Brynner, the good guy dressed all in black, and quite sexy at 45 (or 40, depending on what source you go to). He did a good line in inscrutable and mysterious, as did James Coburn, though it got to be a bit much in the end. Everybody was so terminally cool (with one exception) that it started to feel a little two-dimensional. Just once I would have liked to see Brynner's character relax and let out a real laugh, even if he went straight back to being inscrutable and mysterious a minute later. Somebody mentioned the economy of the script - it's true, it conveys a lot with few words. The plot of the movie seems rather predictable now, but that may be because it's been copied so many times since! I appreciated the fact that the opening credits admitted straight out that this film was based on "The Seven Samurai". I wish this rule were enforced for all remakes!

Captain Blood (1935)

A classic pirate movie (some spoilers)

[18 June 2004]

Having watched Captain Blood (1935), The Sea Hawk (1940) and Against All Flags (1952) all in a row, I was a little surprised to find that I liked CB the best, despite its limitations. It's obvious why Errol Flynn became a star with this movie - his good looks, charm, humour, athleticism, irreverence, sexual magnetism and sheer joie de vivre all shine through despite the awful, awful wig they gave him to wear, which was too much like the one he had in Robin Hood. It wins the prize for worst wig in a movie full of bad wigs for men. The only two who didn't look *too* bad in theirs were Lionel Atwill as Col. Bishop, and Henry Stephenson as Lord Willoughby. I really wonder if people found those wigs attractive back in the 1930s, or if they were simply used to them! Obviously, the wig-makers were not used to the way genuine long hair might look on a man.

I'd like to congratulate whoever wrote the dialogue for this film - it's witty and *interesting*, and one of my favourite things about the movie! It must have been Casey Robinson, because I'm guessing that the film script doesn't have much to do with the book on which it was based. The dialogue is excellent, fleshing out the characters and furthering the relationship between Flynn's character and Olivia de Haviland's.

Another thing I like about this film is the way de Haviland's character, Arabella Bishop, was written. She comes across as kind-hearted, quick-witted, and three-dimensional, and OdH at 19 was undeniably a beautiful young woman, as well as a surprisingly good actress. Her costumes were a bit over the top, as you might expect from that era, but at least she looked good in them, and in the hairstyles and makeup they gave her!

I agree that Flynn and de Haviland had good chemistry together. The only trouble with Flynn was that with all the life experience his character supposedly had, his face was too boyish and unlined. Realistically, he would have suited the role better the way he looked in 1940's "Sea Hawk", but I'm not complaining! I read a comment somewhere that not everybody can urge on a pirate crew without sounding silly, but Errol Flynn could do it.

Basil Rathbone did his usual fine job as Flynn's rival (except for his attempt at a French accent!), and Lionel Atwill was good as the other villain. Some of the props and sets are obviously fake-looking by today's standards, but I found the shots of the ships and the battle scenes not bad, especially for the time. The only thing I wasn't too crazy about was the very end - the way EF and OdH get together, but I certainly recommend this movie! With the 70th anniversary of the making of this film coming up next year, I'm hoping that someone will finally make it available on DVD, with good extra features, the way they did for "The Adventures of Robin Hood"!

Against All Flags (1952)

Enjoyable pirate movie (some spoilers)

[16 June 2004]

I just finished a mini-marathon of Errol Flynn pirate movies: Captain Blood (1935), The Sea Hawk (1940), and Against All Flags (1952). Strangely, I'd never heard of AAF, though I knew most of Flynn's other films. It was interesting to see Flynn's face change so dramatically over the years, and listen to his accent become more American. I've never heard anyone mention this before, but I find that in his 40s, Errol Flynn looked a great deal like John Wayne. In fact, I had to blink more than once during AAF to remind myself that this was *not* John Wayne!

I enjoyed this film, mainly thanks to the three leads, as others have said. I had read a previous review about how sexist this movie is, so I was prepared for the worst, but I didn't find it *that* bad (comparatively speaking), except for the stupid ending. The insistence of Maureen O'Hara's character that she will only kiss a man when she feels like it, instead of the other way around, her intelligence, confidence, honesty and her kindness to her "rival" all seem pretty feminist to me. On the other hand, apparently it's quite all right to sell the Indian princess's nine companions into marriage, as long as the princess herself is saved!

Overall, though, I found this film more racist than sexist. The villain is once again the olive-skinned Hispanic (Anthony Quinn), and the "Indian" princess in her harem outfit (played by a white actress, naturally) is so stupid she shouldn't be allowed to cross a street by herself!

I wasn't that thrilled by the sword-fighting, but that might be due to an overdose after watching three movies' worth! I don't know whether it was the soundtrack, but Errol Flynn spoke so softly throughout this film that often I had trouble understanding what he said. One little question: if you'd just stabbed someone, wouldn't the owner expect to see a little blood on his knife when you returned it to him? The technicolor shows to good advantage, and I'd like to know where they filmed the outdoor scenes! All in all, an enjoyable pirate movie for an evening's entertainment.

Seabiscuit (2003)

Worth seeing

[29 March 2004]

Though I enjoyed this film, I have to agree that it doesn't quite make it - it feels a bit too much like a documentary with some rather familiar melodramatic moments thrown in. Having just read the book and watched the movie back-to-back, I especially noticed where they over-simplified the story (I know - it can't be helped when transferring a story from page to screen), where they changed the facts, and where they over-simplified the *message*, too. I know it's nit-picking, but I just want to mention the following points:

1) Red Pollard's parents did NOT in any way abandon him, despite losing their money. *He* was the one who wanted to try to make his way in the world. It was the family friend who was supposed to be looking out for him who abandoned him.

2) Charles Howard's son was 16, not 12, when he died in a car accident going fishing, and *not* because his father pressured him in any way.

3) As I understand it, Red Pollard never told anyone except his wife that he was blind in his right eye, and Charles Howard and Tom Smith both went to their graves without realizing that their former jockey could only see out of one eye.

4)The movie turns Tom Smith into a kind of clichéd "horse whisperer", which was true, but it left out his very marked ornery side - the mind games he was always playing with reporters, the fact that he cared more about horses than people, to the point of not even noticing when one of his underlings was very sick.

5) The movie does not show the extent of Red Pollard's injuries - he had not one but three serious riding accidents before winning the Santa Anita (including the one where he lost his sight). Yes, his leg was shattered, but that was only part of it. He paid for his success with his health, and suffered chronic pain for the rest of his life from the injuries he sustained. Of course, that doesn't play very well in a "You can do anything if only you believe and work hard" kind of movie, but IMO, sometimes the price of achieving a particular dream *is* too high.

6) The movie also mostly leaves out the "class struggle" that Laura Hillenbrand depicts so clearly in her book. One of the reasons Pollard suffered so much was because nobody (especially the horse-owners) cared about the safety or welfare of the jockeys (Howard being an honourable exception). This might have been harder to show on film, but I think it would have made a more complex and more interesting movie.

7) Just my opinion, but I didn't much like the actress who played Marcella Howard. MH seems to have been a unique and interesting person, and this actress seems rather generic to me. Plus, I gather that MH was Mexican or at least Hispanic. I don't know whether she did or not, but I pictured her speaking with a slight Mexican accent.

I Know Where I'm Going! (1945)

One of my all-time favorites! (some spoilers)

[7 February 2004]

I can only agree with the other fans of IKWIG here in praising this movie. A few corrections: Joan Webster, the heroine, does *not* have a private income, she got to know her fiancé because he's the owner of Consolidated Chemical Industries, where she works. It's not clear from the film, but apparently Powell and Pressburger said she is supposed to be a chemist (not a receptionist) at CCI. Also, the money her father gives her is not an allowance from him, but her own savings - she's cleaning out her bank account. The reason he has the money is because he's a bank manager, and presumably her account is with his bank.

Also, her fiancé, Sir Robert Belinger, a rich industrialist, was probably knighted for "services to the crown", but I don't think he's a lord, and I don't think that Torquil MacNeil, the hero, is "descended from royalty", just the local aristocracy.

Somebody mentioned a "witch's curse". A family curse certainly is part of the story, but the woman who started it was not a witch, and no one ever had a better reason for cursing someone than she did (and in the end, of course, it turns out not to be a curse at all)!

I read a review saying that the film is great, but Wendy Hiller is too unsympathetic as Joan. Where??? If I had to decide what I love best about this film (after the whole atmosphere), it would be Wendy Hiller's performance. She starts out as a sophisticated, slightly brittle city girl, but as the story unfolds, you can just feel the vulnerability and deep emotions under the brittle shell, as if it were happening to you. Now, that's acting!

I always look forward to the scene at Port Erraig, when Joan arrives expecting the boat that will take her to Kiloran, and the islands start to cast their "spell" on us. In the fog, all you can see is the mysterious outlines of the people waiting there, and the music fits the scene. I especially love the "seals singing" - I wonder if seals really do "sing" like that? The Gaelic contributes to the atmosphere, too - I'd love to ask someone who knows Gaelic if they're speaking the real thing, and if the accents of the actors are right!

Other favorites: Pamela Brown's luminous performance as Catriona MacLean, the eagle-training Colonel, the chemistry between the two leads, the on-location filming, Roger Livesey's voice (especially in the scene at Moy Castle where he begins "I'd better introduce myself" - I'm a sucker for that one!), and the underlying message of the film. Others have mentioned Petula Clark's small but notable performance as Cheryl. I think Powell and Pressburger did a fine job of showing Cheryl as a real child here, not as a sickeningly sweet Hollywood child. Cheryl is different from her affectionate but oblivious parents, and different again from Joan.

Has anybody else noticed that the timing is off in this film? The story works both dramatically and emotionally, but the timing *is* wrong! The most obvious slip is that Torquil announces at least twice that he has eight days' leave from the navy. On the second full day (at Achnacroish), he says that he has six more days, which is about right, but the next day they attempt to cross to Kiloran, and the day after that he's headed back to his ship, which leaves at least three days unaccounted for! A small thing: at Catriona's house, Torquil tells Joan that he's known the island of Kiloran for 29 years, and she replies "I shouldn't have thought you as old as that". I'm sorry, Roger Livesey looks good, but he looks his age (late 30s, early 40s - I believe he was 39 when he made the movie), not under 29!

Anyway, this is a quiet but wonderful movie. Watch it, more than once if necessary, and give it a chance to work its magic on you - you'll be glad you did!

That Darn Cat! (1965)

Surprisingly good!

[7/10 · 2 November 2003]

I have fond memories of watching this as a child, but I thought my memories might be too rosy, so my expectations were not high as I got ready to re-watch this film. However, it was surprisingly entertaining throughout, except near the end, where I agree that the scene showing everybody trailing everybody else went on a little too long. You can tell the plot was taken from a novel - there are several funny lines, there is more telling detail, the bad guys are convincingly threatening (as others have said), and the characters are more three-dimensional than usual for a 1960s "family" movie. The teenage heroine (played by Hayley Mills) is resourceful and actually has a steady boyfriend(!), though of course she never kisses him, even at the drive-in! I also like the actress who plays the hostage - she *looks* like an older woman who might actually work at a bank - not like a Hollywood glamour girl! I haven't seen the 1997(?) remake, but I suspect it isn't as good as the original. All in all, an enjoyable movie for a Saturday night at home!

Manhattan Melodrama (1934)

Quite a movie

[25 October 2003]

They didn't name this "Manhatten *Melodrama* for nothing - it's classic melodrama! If you can get past the first fifteen minutes or so, what saves this film is the three leads: William Powell, Clark Gable, and Myrna Loy. As a Myrna Loy/William Powell fan, I love the whole scene from their first meeting, as she flings herself into his taxi, and he thinks she is out to wreck his career by pretending he assaulted her! Clark Gable is great as the charming bad guy, too. Of course, in this story about unpunished crime vs. betraying a friend, nobody ever considers the third way, but then it wouldn't be a melodrama anymore, would it? Anyway, if you enjoy golden oldies or any of the three main actors, it's worth watching.

Evelyn Prentice (1934)

Some good points, but ...

[24 October 2003]

... not what it could have been. I'm always willing to check out a Myrna Loy/William Powell pairing, which is why I chose this one. William Powell is surprisingly good in a serious role, while Myrna Loy makes what she can of her dutiful-wife-and-mother character. The first half of the movie is quite promising, but it gets both clichéd and unbelievable in the courtroom scene in the second half. I was disappointed, because I think they really could have made something of this movie, and they didn't. As someone else has said, Una Merkel is great as Loy's best friend, while Cora Sue Collins as the couple's precious little daughter mostly makes me grit my teeth (I know, good child actors are hard to find at any time!). If you're an ML/WP fan, go for it, if not, there are other golden oldies you should probably see first!

Down with Love (2003)

OK but not great

[21 May 2003]

First the good things: somebody obviously put a lot of effort into the sets and costumes, and it shows. David Hyde-Pierce was great in a variation on his Niles Crane role (and for a Niles Crane fan, watching him was no hardship!). There were some funny lines and good moments.

On the down side, I thought a lot of the humour was just too crude, especially the split-screen phone call scene (though I know some people consider it one of the highlights of the movie!). A lot of people have compared this to the Austin Powers movies, which I haven't seen, but it sounds as if they might be right.

After all the good things I read about Sarah Paulson's performance, I was rather disappointed in it.

Ewan MacGregor did his best, but he is no Rock Hudson, and I have to agree with another reviewer that he was just too scrawny for the role (though he looked fine in the shirt-free scenes!) His "fake" Southern accent worked better than his mid-Western one, where his natural Scottish accent kept breaking through. Normally I love a Scottish accent, but he was supposed to be American here, wasn't he?

Someone else said that Renée Zellweger's "sexy" walk got old very fast, and I agree with that. There was something about her voice that bothered me too.

I think the main problem with the movie was that by the end, I had only a lukewarm interest in whether the two leads got together or not. Along with others, I didn't think Zellweger and MacGregor had much chemistry, and they spent too much of their time winking at the audience. Rock Hudson once said that the most important thing Doris Day taught him about comedy was to play each scene dead seriously. The audience should think that the situation is funny, but the characters shouldn't! I think this movie could have been a spoof while still making us care about the characters.

Maybe I wasn't paying attention, but I didn't quite get "Barbara Novak's" explanation about what she did and why.

One more good thing, though: at the end Zellweger and MacGregor sang together, and IMO sounded very good!

Annie Get Your Gun (1950)

What an embarrassing movie!

[4 May 2003]

Warning: a few spoilers

Several reviewers have written about how racist this movie is, so I was prepared for that, but nobody mentioned how sexist it is, too! The whole plot is based on the idea that a woman should do anything to get married, including deliberately losing a contest to a conceited jackass who won't even suspect that that's what she's doing. It's interesting to note that this movie appeared in 1950, towards the beginning of the "back to the home" movement for women that started after WWII, and this movie is certainly a blatant example of that kind of "encouragement".

Also, I think the real Annie Oakley and the real Frank Butler would have cringed if they had been able to see this movie. Annie Oakley didn't have much schooling, but she was *not* an illiterate hillbilly, either, and I think Frank Butler had the good sense to be proud of his wife, rather than threatened by her. A few years into their career, he actually let her take star billing and became her manager, the opposite of what's shown in the movie.

Apart from all this, I found that I really didn't enjoy the music in this film. I love Broadway musicals, and Irving Berlin's music from this one is wonderful, but for some reason I couldn't really get into it here. The only one I really enjoyed was "Anything You Can Do, I Can Do Better". I sympathize with Betty Hutton, but as far as singing ability went, I think Judy Garland might have done a better job, even though I know she was in poor shape at the time.

Pride and Prejudice (1980)

Not up there with the A&E version, but it has its points

[6 February 2003]

This version of "Pride and Prejudice" should definitely be seen for the first time *before* the 1995 A&E version, not afterwards! Anybody who has seen the 1995 mini-series will be spoiled by its infinitely superior production values, and disappointed in this one for that reason alone. However, I agree that Elizabeth Garvie captures the quicksilver *spirit* of Elizabeth Bennett better than Jennifer Ehle, though Ehle does a reasonably good job. As another reviewer put it, Ehle is just too mellow in the role, though I find Ehle is better in the scenes that are really *supposed* to be serious. Someone else I like better in this version is Emma Jacobs, who has a small role as Georgiana Darcy. In her novel, Jane Austen says "(Miss Darcy) was less handsome than her brother; but there was sense and good humour in her face". The young actress who plays Georgiana in the A&E version (I'm sorry I can't remember her name)is just too candy-box pretty for the role, though she does a fairly good job of showing Georgiana's shyness. I also rather like Irene Richard as Charlotte Lucas. In the A&E version, Charlotte's lack of physical beauty is achieved by means of a severe hairstyle and no eye makeup, while Richard's looks are convincingly ordinary - it's Charlotte's intelligence and "superior understanding" that are supposed to shine! On the negative side, David Rintoul as Mr. Darcy is just painfully cold and stiff. Colin Firth manages to give the impression that there is more than meets the eye going on behind his reserved manner, while Rintoul spends almost the whole movie expressing as much emotion as a cardboard cutout. He unbends near the end, but it's just not enough to thaw out the impression he made earlier! Another disappointment is Moray Watson as Mr. Bennett. Yes, he's eccentric, rather reclusive, and is not the nicest person in the world, but he's also supposed to have a genuine sense of humour. Here he merely comes across as a grouch! However, if you are a diehard fan of Pride and Prejudice (like me), you'll always be interested in seeing a new version of it!

The Cat's Meow (2001)

Not as good as "Gosford Park", but worth watching

[25 May 2002]

Possible spoilers: I was looking forward to seeing this movie, since I can always go for a 1920s/30s period piece, especially one about Hollywood history. However, I was a bit disappointed, despite the excellence of the main actors, especially Kirsten Dunst as Marion Davies. The film seemed rather flat, and the ending was surprisingly undramatic.

There is an interesting piece by Nick Langdon at www.decofilms.com/mariondavies/news.htm comparing this film to the known facts of the case, and it's obvious that though the main characters were real enough, the plot of this movie bears only a coincidental resemblance to reality. Langdon points out that Charlie Chaplin was a close friend of both William Randolph Hearst and Marion Davies long after this incident happened, which would hardly have been likely if Hearst had suspected him of trying to steal his girlfriend. As I found out from IMDb's own database, though Chaplin definitely seems to have been attracted to teenage girls, the age difference between him and Davies was only eight years (compared to the twenty years between Eddie Izzard and Kirsten Dunst), and in 1924 Davies would have been a reasonably mature 27 (not 19 like Dunst!).

On the pro-conspiracy side, though, it's clear that there *was* a cover-up about Thomas Ince's death, whether to cover up a murder or just on general principles to prevent the inevitable bad publicity. Also, Langdon claims that Louella Parsons could not possibly have been on the yacht, since in 1924 she was still solidly based in New York. However, what was to keep her from paying a visit to her boss on the West Coast? Last, I have seen a couple of websites claiming that Ince really did die of "indigestion", as was claimed at the time. Come on - nobody ever died of indigestion, even in the medically vague and inaccurate past. A heart attack, yes, or even a perforated ulcer causing heavy bleeding, but not indigestion! However, see the movie and judge for yourselves!

Dinner at Eight (1933)

considered a classic for good reason

[19 May 2002]

Caspian1978 is right: this is NOT a comedy, it's a drama (sometimes verging on melodrama) with a few priceless comic scenes, and anybody who thinks otherwise hasn't been paying attention! Spoilers: It's easy to tell that this movie was made before the production code came into effect: a 19-year-old girl in love with a 47-year-old man, an adulterous gold-digger who can stand up for herself very well, thank you, a couple admitting that he is chronically unfaithful to his loving wife just because he is, and someone clearly preparing to commit suicide. All in all, it's quite a dark and depressing movie, but the quality of the acting, the dialogue, and the psychological realism are so wonderful you just have to find out what happens next. I especially love Marie Dressler - this is the only movie I've ever seen her in, but you can certainly tell why she was a top actress, despite that almost frighteningly ugly face. Despite being almost 70 years old, this movie stands up very well for modern viewers.

Bridget Jones's Diary (2001)

some good things, but not as great as everybody says

[4 May 2002]

First, the good things: the funny scenes really are funny, Renée Zellweger is radiant and her English accent is as good as any I have ever heard from an American actor, her list-making and urge to self-improvement almost made me cringe with recognition, Colin Firth is fine (though not as overwhelmingly perfect as some people seem to think!), Hugh Grant is good as the cad, and I wish we could see more of Bridget's "urban family", à la "Notting Hill". Now the bad things: I haven't read the book, but is this really how far we have come? Nothing else in life matters if you haven't got a man? Also, at Bridget's publishing house, dealing with routine sexual harrassment is obviously still a matter of "grin and pretend it's not happening". I just finished watching this movie and "Someone Like You" with Ashley Judd, back to back, so the next item struck me especially forcibly: I heard several times how Zellweger gained *twenty pounds!!!* for this film, and a constant theme is how Bridget needs to lose weight. Also, one reviewer talked about how no rich, uppercrust lawyer like Mark Darcy would realistically be interested in a plain, somewhat overweight woman like Bridget. HAVE WE ALL LOST OUR COLLECTIVE MINDS? Renée Zellweger is gorgeous, and the world is full of women who would kill to have her figure just the way it is in this movie! What she has is the body of a woman rather than a teenaged boy (which, despite her charm and wonderful smile, is just what Ashley Judd has). Has our mass media brainwashing really gone so far that Ashley Judd is considered to have the perfect body, while Renée Zellweger is considered overweight, and plain to boot? By the way, did anyone else notice that Zellweger seems to spend half the movie half-dressed (and I'm not even talking about the so-called "sexy" outfits she wears to the office to seduce her boss). In the final scene where she runs out into the snow after her man, does she not hang her winter coat by the door like most people? If a male actor consistently showed as much skin as she does throughout this film, there would be comments from all sides, but since she's a woman, it's all right. Two more things: everybody in the movie smokes all the time, another throwback to an era I thought we had outgrown, and there are a lot of obscenities, which I personally didn't enjoy, and took away from my pleasure in the story.

Pride and Prejudice (1940)

a fine movie in its own right

[14 April 2002]

If you are looking for a faithful adaptation of Jane Austen's wonderful novel, check out the 1995 BBC version, but if you are willing to enjoy a Hollywood historical romance on its own merits, try this one too! Aldous Huxley (author of 'Brave New World') worked on the script for this film, and I think it shows. The scriptwriters managed to modernize Austen's sometimes rather inaccessible English without losing the period flavour, and add some pleasant touches of their own. Greer Garson, an often wooden actress, gives one of her best performances here. As other reviewers have said, the fashions in this movie are Hollywood-style 1860s rather than 1810s, but that doesn't interfere with the story! Apart from that, I always like to see a Hollywood golden oldie where the heroine is unapologetically strong, principled, and witty. I quite enjoyed the added scene where Elizabeth (Garson) beats Darcy (Olivier) at archery! The supporting actors are fine, especially Edmund Gwenn as Elizabeth's father, and the always wonderful Edna May Oliver as Lady Catherine. Small spoiler: Yes, the ending is completely changed from the book, and I didn't think much of it, but a friend who has also read the original said she actually preferred the changed version, where Lady Catherine secretly likes Elizabeth all along, so chacun à son gout!

Strictly Ballroom (1992)

Every few years we need a good dance movie, and this is it!

[13 April 2002]

I really think this is one of my favorite movies of all time, and I'm a movie buff. Besides the romance and the satisfying reconciliation between father and son, the movie's basic message is just inspiring (A life lived in fear is a life half-lived!) The dancing is wonderful and should really be seen on the big screen for best effect. The only trouble, as one reviewer wrote, is that Paul Mercurio only has one solo dance number. He is an excellent dancer, giving a smouldering, very sexy performance, and Tara Morice is terrific as the "ugly duckling" who is still willing to stand up for herself and her dreams. The scene where she nervously suggests that she, a nobody at his parents' dance studio, should team up with the golden boy, is a great piece of acting. When I first saw this movie, I found the comedy sections annoying, and felt that they interfered with the story and the romance, but they have grown on me over the years. This is a great sendup of the ballroom-dancing world without denying the ultimate power of dance. There are several ways you can tell that this is not a Hollywood movie: in the beginning Fran(Morice) actually looks convincingly ordinary, and even has *acne*! The only disappointing part is when she takes off her glasses halfway through the movie, in the old Hollywood tradition, and never puts them on again! Why is it that movie characters never ever seem to wear glasses out of necessity, and couldn't possibly be considered attractive while wearing them? Fran's family's little convenience store right under the highway overpass and next to the railway tracks is convincingly shown. Armonia Benedito is real and terrific as Fran's grandmother, and in a Hollywood movie you would never find a woman her age commenting appreciatively on the body of a man young enough to be her grandson! Pat Thompson and especially Barry Otto do a good job as Scott's (Mercurio's) parents. (I heard that Thompson was sick with cancer during the filming of this movie and sadly died soon afterwards, but it certainly doesn't show in her appearance.) The two kids who play Scott's sister and her partner also do a nice job. Peter Whitford as Scott's dance coach plays a man who despite his ambitions is genuinely fond of his pupil. The only one who is not really believable is Antonio Vargas as Fran's immigrant father. A dancer so good would be out there performing or teaching in his own right, despite language limitations, not barely making ends meet on the wrong side of town! In fact, one of the things I like best about this movie is that there is no completely unsympathetic character in the whole thing. In the end, everyone pitches in to give Scott and Fran their big chance, even his ex-partner who can't for the life of her understand what he is trying to do. In the last scene, everyone has a dancing partner, and even the arch-villain of the piece has somebody to pick him up and dust him off, in a satisfying but very un-Hollywood way.

Ball of Fire (1941)

Long live Barbara Stanwyck!

[13 April 2002]

I love Barbara Stanwyck, but Gary Cooper never did anything for me (except in "Along Came Jones"), despite his handsome face. However, Barbara Stanwyck is great in this movie, and it's worth seeing for her performance alone. (Small spoiler) A detail: has anyone else noticed that the picture that falls on the gangster's head in this movie is the exact same one that hangs on the guest-room wall in another Stanwyck movie, "Remember the Night"? It looks like somebody was saving money by reusing props!

Bluebeard's Eighth Wife (1938)

yes - a misfire

[8 April 2002]

I have to agree with other reviews I've seen of this movie - despite some funny scenes and good lines, as a whole it just doesn't get off the ground, and Gary Cooper is wrong in the role of the much-married millionaire. Having said that, I love the scene where Claudette Colbert's character, talking about her financial difficulties, says: "Have you ever had a waiter look at you with untipped eyes? And when I ask the elevator boy for the fourth floor, he says 'Yes, Madame' and takes a detour through the basement." A small detail: in one scene Colbert is looking at a book called "Live Alone and Like It" which was an actual best-seller at the time.

Pillow Talk (1959)

wonderful escapism!

[3 February 2002]

A deeply sexist movie, but I love it anyway! Doris and Rock are great together,the dialogue is witty, and Tony Randall is just terrific in a supporting role. Doris actually looks *good* and often convincingly sexy in this movie (as opposed to Lover Come Back, where the fashions and hairdo make her look matronly). One of the things I appreciate about this film is that Rock Hudson (even in his country hick role) comes across as a grown man behaving with restraint rather than an asexual half-child who hardly knows what to do with a woman, a character all too popular in old Hollywood comedies. Of course, knowing Rock Hudson's story, it makes me cringe to listen to his character in this movie (and also in Lover Come Back) making insulting cracks about gay men! Despite the limitations of her role, Doris Day comes across as the woman holding out for true love, not just society's approval. You remember her as the glamorous working woman with a serious career, not just as a submissive would-be housewife. She certainly had a talent for comedy - the expression on her face in the piano scene says it all! I have to admit I also like the music, especially the title tune and "Roly Poly Baby". If you want to forget your troubles for an evening with a great romantic comedy, choose this one!

Father of the Bride (1950)

terrific film of its kind

[9/10 · 13 January 2002]

This is a very well-made *light* comedy. One of the things I like is that you feel it shows the way real (albeit very idealized!) people actually lived, with telling details that make it ring true. On the other hand, the 1991 version with Steve Martin just seems to show a Hollywood Never-Never-Land where everyone has a huge house and never *really* has to worry about money. Another thing I like about the 1950 version is that it shows that rare thing in Hollywood movies, a believable happily-married couple who have been together for many years. If you're interested in that kind of thing, you could also take this movie as an (again, idealized) sociological study of life among the American upper middle class, circa 1950! Unusually enough, the sequel "Father's Little Dividend" is just as good.

The Lady Eve (1941)

no wonder it's top of the charts!

[10/10 · 13 January 2002]

I have to agree with everybody - this movie is just top of the charts! (Watch out, I do give away a bit of the ending in this review, so skip it if you don't want to know!). I once read that at the time, part of the humour of a screwball comedy was supposed to be in seeing a woman (so unnaturally!) strong, smart, witty, and in charge of the situation. Well, Barbara Stanwyck certainly is all that here. Some of my favorite scenes: Barbara's running commentary in the dining room, the stateroom seduction scene (I still don't see how they got that one past the Hayes Office!), the discussion about breakfast, the big card game, the meeting with "Pearly", and of course Lady Eve's confession on the train. The only two things wrong with this movie are the "from meeting to engagement in three days" routine common in old Hollywood movies, and the male-bashing that makes Charles (Henry Fonda)so stupid that even in the final scene, he still doesn't know exactly which woman he's holding in his arms. However, Fonda is so handsome and is such a good actor that his final "I don't care who you are, so long as we're together," (or words to that effect), is really quite moving, and he almost carries it off. As other reviewers have said, the great thing about this movie is not just the comedy and the dialogue, but that Preston Sturges and the actors get the emotion right, too. The list of amazing supporting actors is terrific, too!