Reviews

This definitely is one of Shirley's three or four best, mostly because she is not required to perform a tearful treacly scene as in some other films, those which tug at your heart but later seem somewhat embarrassing. This is one in which she comes across as a young actress, and not simply as a personality. The musical numbers are unusually effective; probably because they are shared with Alice Faye and Jack Haley and not strictly solo. (You have to smile over the final number, when the military band number, well done though it is, is done with full costumes and choreography, even though the performance is taking place over a radio hookup.) Shirley conveys an innocence and trustfulness and joy in life which is a universe removed from portrayals of children in contemporary film and TV. One more remark: I was truly surprised to see the appearance of a pedophile in a film of that era, and to see Jack Haley confronting and fighting him as he is about to lead Shirley away from the apartment house.

If you can accept the premise: that an out-of-work crooner can be nominated for governor of a state on the basis of a single speech, there are some attractive moments in this film. Dick Powell moves beyond his ingenuous Warner Brothers musical style, and seems on his way to becoming the actor he later showed himself to be. Fred Allen replicates his sharp-tongued radio persona, and is able to provide most of the humor, even though he clearly did not have a charismatic screen presence even as real as that of Jack Benny or Eddie Cantor. The satirical treatment of small-state politics is rather heavy-handed, suggesting that there is nothing but self-interest involved. The songs are nothing special, but Powell delivers them in his usual off-hand yet convincing manner. For me, the most interesting and surprising episodes in the film were the two song and dance numbers by Ann Dvorak and Patsy Kelly. Having known Dvorak only as a performer in melodrama, from Scarface to Rebel Without a Cause, I looked closely, to see whether there was a double; but there were enough close-up shots to let one see that her dancing wasn't faked.(Whether the singing was dubbed is another matter). She was always an actress whose work I found compelling, though she never achieved top stardom at Warners; perhaps because Bette Davis was slated for some roles Dvorak might have played. Probably not a "gem", but a film many will enjoy.

I was prepared by Maltin's comments not to expect very much, yet decided it would be interesting to see some star performers of the 1940s and 1950s in their relatively advanced age. I suppose did expect too much, since some first-rate actors, including the iconic Katherine Hepburn,my all time favorite, were submerged by a leaden script, which made them seem as though they were swimming against the tide in a river of mud. When I saw the original Broadway production, starring Martita Hunt, which as I recall took place exclusively in the madwoman's basement, I was taken by how delicately the author Giraudoux balanced a serious theme with the humor generated by a group of eccentrics and street people. The film takes the serious theme, beats it over the head until it becomes at the very least repetitive; with very few touches of humor, save perhaps the scenes in which the madwoman inveigles the conspirators to walk into her net, when a touch of the old Hepburn edginess appears. If you are looking to see some old favorites at career's end, DON'T; you will almost certainly be disappointed.

Last night I watched this film for the first time in several years, though it has always been a favorite. Why did it suddenly come to my mind? Because I knew that it would be a great remedy for cynicism and could lift my spirits. It worked: this minor masterpiece is heart-warming without being sappy-sentimental, primarily because so much of the actions and portrayals is hilarious; especially the early scenes in Paris, when the tradition-bound valet Ruggles learns that he has been the stakes in a poker game and that his "master" has lost him to a rugged millionaire from far-west America and his social-climbing wife (both parts played to perfection). What had never impressed me quite so much before is the subtlety of Laughton's portrayal. He could convey more humor with a simple twist of his lips or lowering of his eyelids than a Jerry Lewis or Jim Carrey can with their overdone mugging. Brilliant! And of course he had one of the great recital voices of all time; he was called on to repeat his recitation of the Gettysburg Address over radio many times, especially during World War II. Anyone who wants to take a course in acting would be advised to view Laughton's performances in a wide range of roles over a 20 year period. He even pulled off a potentially weepy "It's a Wonderful Life" type ending, simply by standing before the "He's a Jolly Good Fellow"-singing crowd with a broad smile that radiates joy, then reverting to his innate reserve and heading back into the kitchen of his restaurant. No pretty wife and cute kids to hug: only a former servant who realizes he has come into his own as a man in a new country where (ideally) class structures do not exist and a man is valued for what he is, not who.

The overall achievement of this what was once (but not now)called "the "last black and white" film to win Best Picture), is so well established, for instance in most viewer comments, that I have little to add there.One feature of director Wilder that has fascinated me is his ability to cast stars against type; certainly seeing some possibilities that had escaped others. He must have seen in Fred MacMurray's earlier light romantic comedy portrayals the sinister potential demonstrated first in Double Indemnity and (in a somewhat less corrupt vein) in The Apartment. Similarly, William Holden's traditional "boy-next-door" charm was manipulated and put to new use in Sunset Boulevard and Stalag 17. Only viewers who recall the earlier, and mostly forgotten, films of these two actors from the 1930s and 1940s can fully appreciate either Wilder's acumen in looking below the surface or his skill as a director, or both. For Holden it meant virtually a new career. Unfortunately (except financially) for MacMurray what followed was Disney and My Three Sons. (Not bad, but not in a class with his Wilder performances)

A look at the medical profession today will convince anyone that this narrative of the conflict a sensitive young physician experiences: whether to serve the not-especially-appreciative poor or the hypocond- riac and over-appreciative wealthy, if he caters to their whims. (At the end one wonders how great a difference there is between these two constituencies.) How many medical school graduates today choose to into small-town or rural general practice, as opposed to pursuing lucrative specialist careers? Robert Donat's effective performance is, as usual, understated; while Rosalind Russell easily matches him in a portrayal that makes one regret that she later became typed in comic roles as a result of superb performances in that genre. A supporting cast that includes the youthful Rex Harrison, Emlyn Williams and Ralph Richardson, all early in their careers and all with perfectly formed characteriza- tions, gives the film depth that one might not have anticipated. This is one of those films that makes one regret the loss of the old studio system, which enabled MGM, with its guaranteed bookings, to make a prestige film on a serious social issue with relatively few melodramatic excesses; and to offset probable box office losses by the studio's many box office bonanza romantic, comic or musical star vehicles. And today??

Having read some earlier user comments and Maltin review, I wasn't expecting Citizen Kane; rather, that this was one of those "so bad it's good" films. I would comment rather: "so bad it's incredible". It makes Reefer Madness and its like appear as cinematic art. I couldn't take my eyes off the screen, since I was sure that matters could not get worse. The futuristic earth scenes from 1980 (!) were not bad despite a trite story, since the sets must have seemed impressive at the time, and are about as good as those in the British film Things to Come. El Brendel was not as poor a performer elsewhere as he was here, given the poor material he had to work with. His hat sequence, probably perfected over years in vaudeville, is the most entertaining moment in the film. Who thought up the Mars sequence? A number of silent filmmakers had already done the alien or primitive world with much more sophistication, and not unbalanced between comedy (Brendel) and adventure (the heroes). To do justice to the cast: they were attractive performers doing their best.

Maltin's assessment hits the target exactly: if anything, this tops the entertaining first outing of Buzz and Woody. The first had as its focus a rather contrived rivalry and reconciliation between the two, which seldom made one forget these were only inanimate toys; this one somehow makes one almost suspend disbelief in the stronger characterizations of the two "leads" and the supporting cast; and in the development of the symbiotic relationship between toys and their owners, much like that of pets and owners. The rapid alternation of the toys between movement/speech and stasis whenever a human looks their way was very impressive. The garage sale signs and the box dumped behind the Goodwill type truck I found very touching. A particular "kick" for me was "Guide Barbie" in the toy store and the chorus line of Barbies behind the penguin in the last number. Perhaps it's my male bias, but I found it rewarding to note the Barbie shallowness as compared with the lifelike personalities of the other toys.

Disregard the plot and enjoy Fred Astaire doing A Foggy Day and several other dances, one a duo with a hapless Joan Fontaine. Here we see Astaire doing what are essentially "stage" dances in a purer form than in his films with Ginger Rogers, and before he learned how to take full advantage of the potential of film. Best of all: the fact that we see Burns and Allen before their radio/TV husband-wife comedy career, doing the kind of dancing they must have done in vaudeville and did not have a chance to do in their Paramount college films from the 30s. (George was once a tap dance instructor). Their two numbers with Fred are high points of the film, and worth waiting for. The first soft shoe trio is a warm-up for the "Chin up" exhilarating carnival number, in which the three of them sing and dance through the rides and other attractions. It almost seems spontaneous. Fan of Fred Astaire and Burns & Allen will find it worth bearing up under the "plot". I've seen this one 4 or 5 times, and find the fast forward button helpful.

It has been reported that Eugene O'Neill maintained that this was his favorite among films which had been based on his stage successes. Having seen many of the others, it is easy to believe this. It may be sacrilege to claim that Blanche Sweet's performance surpassed Greta Garbo's("Garbo talks"), but it seems so to me. Garbo comes across as mournful and somewhat pitiful, while Sweet conveys the kind of toughness one would expect from an "experienced"woman. Russell is more convincing as a rather immature "he-man" than is Bickford. The great Marie Dressler arguably brings too much of her own persona to the Marthy role; Besserer conveys the shrewdness that an aging woman survivor, and one can see her struggle over whether to unite Anna with her father, or to take care of herself first. The weakest performance is that of George Marion, who overacts the role of Chris. The production values and photography are serviceable; though expectedly not up to those from MGM, they give perhaps a more realistic view of a run-down waterfront scene.

This is the film I use in my Film History and Technique course to demonstrate to students accustomed to sound and color that these are not necessary for drawing an audience into the screen to share in the joys and sorrows of strongly drawn characters and scenarios, and in some instances may be a distraction. The class reaction is always positive. This ranks with Sunrise and The Last Laugh: filled with sentiment but managing to avoid sentimentality. King Vidor always gives us finely drawn human drama, but I regard this as his masterpiece. He shows us how humans like ourselves, seemingly crushed in the maelstrom of city life can endure both disappointment and tragic loss, to go on because it is necessary to do so. The performances are fine, but it is the hand of the director and the work of the cameraman that carry us along for two hours. The final scene, the first time I saw it, left me somewhere between relief and tears; and after four or five viewings that reaction is still there; it takes me a few minutes to shake off the spell.

I have taught Great Gatsby for many years, and always been disappointed in the film (and lately opera) dramatizations. The plot of the novel is rather sordid and simplistic when deprived of Fitzgerald's presence as narrator (through the character Nick). The vital essence of the novel is the author's mastery of phraseology and vocabulary, which, since they are not directly part of the plot, but comment on the plot, are not easily translated into dramatic form, despite efforts in past versions to utilize some of the author's dialogue. This new adaptation is exceptionally faithful to the text. The finest feature is that the adapter has chosen to use Nick as an over-voice, (as in the novel), so that much of Fitzgerald's gorgeous language has been preserved. The flashbacks are handled so as to blend naturally into the action, and not much is added to the original except some transitional dialogue. The performances are above average, especially the three women leads, but all are good (though Gatsby need not have smiled quite so much).

The thesis of the film seems to be that, though opposites may not attract, two individuals with real but complementary needs can make their way toward a fulfilling relationship. As Beau tells Cheri at the end: If I have no experience with love and you have too much, maybe we can meet somewhere in the middle. The viewer is intended to feel humor toward and sympathy for both the cowboy and the saloon singer; and I at least do, even after having seen the movie 7 or 8 times. The cast is uniformly excellent. As often noted, Monroe has never been better in subtly conveying a range of emotions. It is difficult to avoid comparing Cheri's history and needs with her own pursuit of success as an actress. Murray is hilarious as the naive cowboy in the first sequences, until the unattractive side of his innocence appears and must be subdued before the finale. For an old timer like myself, it was great to see Betty Field playing against the fragile character she created in a few films from the 40s.

The earlier title: The Hazing, was more appropriate. There is no bloodshed in the film except that dripping from the opening title. It is difficult to categorize this film. It's not a comedy, because there are only the faintest hints of humor. The classification as comedy fits only if one takes the entire film as a practical joke, indeed a kind of hazing of the viewer. I agree with an earlier critic who says the ending is rather hokey, but it does largely explain some of the inconsistencies and unbelievable turns of the plot. Anyone who is expecting a typical slasher movie will be a victim of the joke/hazing that may have been the intent of the producers. For me, it is one of those films I know I should hate for its manipulation, not to mention the low production values, but in fact I was manipulated and drawn into the dilemma of the "hero" who was being hazed without even realizing it, after the first several set-up sequences. Not in a league with Rocky Horror or Living Dead, but will live as cult film or not at all.

The MGM high production values are the "stars" of this film. The role of Annie is a challenge for any performer. She must dominate the show, as Ethel Merman did on stage, even when I saw her in a 60s revival when she was in the 60s herself. Hutton did not have the star power to do this. But the outtakes from Garland, in which she appears rather listless,with "health problems" suggest that her performance would not have been among her best. Hutton does her best work in the novelty numbers, which were previously her stock in trade. Her athleticism could not have been matched by any other performer of her time. But when delivering a ballad or serious dialogue she simply was not up to the task. Who would have been a better choice, to combine some of Hutton's and Garland's strengths? Maybe Debbie Reynolds, who was not a major figure at that time. Frank Morgan was missed. His brief outtake as Buffalo Bill calls to mind his Wizard: a lovable fraud. Howard Keel was always dependable as a leading man. Here he is the strongest presence on the screen, which is in itself a comment on the remainder of the cast.

I had high expectations for this film, which were only minimally met. For a pseudo-documentary it seemed more stagey than real. The characterizations were obvious, for the most part embodying stereotypes of the military, the judges and the militants themselves: the last (pure good) against the others (pure stupidity, if not evil). It was as much a biased piece as a commercial for the NRA. One question: How did they interview the militants in the middle of the desert, when, by the decsription of conditions from the narrator, they should have already been dead from dehydration? They weren't even panting!

Unlike some of his films in which Lloyd plays an underdog until his final self-assertion, here Lloyd plays a would-be Horatio Alger type who nevertheless is fired from one job to another, yet who is ingenious in handling every minor problem that arises, such as finding seats on the subway while still failing at every job. Highlights: The taxi ride with a terrified Babe Ruth; the old geezers defeating a bunch of hired toughs; a dog who comes close to stealing the show; a climactic mad dash across New York in a horse-drawn trolley; a tender not mawkish romance; and always the Lloyd charm and calculating innocence.

The film is called College Humor, but there are very few truly humorous incidents. Some of the situations are downright poignant, especially those involving the two older football stars. The Burns and Allen appearance, predictably, is probably the lightest moment in what resembles melodrama with music. The frequent repetition of two songs suggests that many components of the film were just thrown together. All this being said, I have come back to the film four or five times and am engaged by it. The Old Ox Road sequence is terrific. (Crosby once commented that it was his personal favorite among his recordings.) Perhaps what draws one in is the attractiveness of the performers. In a "college musical" can one expect much more?

It is difficult to evaluate this or any other comparable film of the early sound era in terms that one might use for ordinary film commentary. At times there is almost a desperation, as many film personalities of the silent era try their wings at sound, surely fearing that they will be left by the wayside (as did happen to some), Rin-Tin-Tin. however, was pertfectly natural. In such a vaudeville of unrelated sequences, some were sure to stand out John Barrymore's soliloquy from Richard II is a moment certainly worth preserving. By and large, only those with earlier stage training exuded confidence. However, this is over all reasonably entertaining, and a must for "film buffs" especially interested in the silent to sound transition

Claude Rains always adds gravitas to any role in any film. What an actor! The production itself is adequate if not impressive. The powerful familiar "Phantom" plot is much diluted by the addition of the silly rivalry subplot between the baritone and the officer. Of the acting in other lead roles, one is reminded of the comment of one of Nelson Eddy's directors: when Eddy entered on a horse, the director was able to get a better performance from the horse. Moreover his makeup only accentuates the passage of years. Susanna Foster is little better, mostly looking pretty but not sure of what she was doing in a star role.

The plot is thin, the premise even thinner. However, Grace Allen is her usual ebullient self, somehow even in her "dimwittedness" suggesting that some shrewd insights lie beneath the surface, and that everyone else is only a fall guy. The scenes with father and sister are sometimes extremely amusing, but the primary distinctive feature of the film is that it gives the viewer the opportunity to see many of the old vaudeville acts in their pristine form, as Gracie the heiress opens her home to the out of work performers. Probably these were performers who appeared in vaudeville with Burns and Allen themselves.

Try again: interrupted. Certainly this film lacks continuity apart from the thin thread of the million. However, the Laughton and Fields scenes are class; and with the Ruggles sequence they reflect frustrations that many of us feel. The Cooper and Raft scenes are too cliched to be compelling, but are well performed. The contrast of the Frances Dee and May Robson sections is notable, though both are probably over-sentimentalized. It is difficult to imagine that any film lover would not find anything in this film to make the time for viewing a waste. I personally come back to it regularly, and would wish for a commercial video to replace the off-TV copy I have.

Anyone who (reasonably)expects to see Marilyn Miller dance, other than two brief ballroom partner dances, or to sing more than a few lines, is bound to be disappointed. It's difficult enough to imagine her as a bartender in a 1920s Berlin cabaret. The script falls somewhere between romantic comedy and soap opera. Miller, charming when she does her own thing, has limited talent for either comedy or drama not alleviated by musical sequences. Not surprisingly, the liveliest and strongest cast member is W.C.Fields, who does his familiar turn of shocking the "snobs" of high society. Clarence Wilson is also effective.

The play has been updated many times into contemporary or historic environments, often successfully as in West Side Story. The setting in southern California and once again conencting it with contemporary conflicts was a legitimate approach to the play. The language should have been updated as well, as has been done by a number of scholars. Using what was essentially Shakespeare's original text, while well-intentioned, created what I saw as the film's downfall. The young actors were just not up to the demands of Shakepearean dialogue. The production values were outstanding. It was a pretty good idea gone sour.