Reviews

I've watched Barefoot Contessa twice. The first time several years ago. I could barely get through it. The second time was recently. I appreciated it more this time for the cinematography and the acting. Despite these, the film (told in flashback narrative) gets bogged down in uninteresting dialogue that still makes it a snoozefest. As an Oscar completist, I watched it for Edmond O'Brien, who won Best Supporting Actor award for this. His character is the only interesting one in the film, ironically named "Oscar." If you're a big Bogart, Gardner, or Brazzi fan, you may enjoy it for their performances. If you're a casual fan of theirs, don't bother unless you're caffeinated.

Rating: 5.5 or 6/10... or a C (meh!)

The good: Atypical western, complex story, solid acting with Judith Anderson and Gilbert Roland in standout supporting roles. The tension between Anderson and Stanwyck is a highlight. Very good cinematoraphy (Oscar nomination).

The weak: Stanwyck, in yet another tough as nails woman role (typecast), and Huston's (his last flm) father-daughter characters are insufferable with no redeeming qualities. I simply didn't care about either one of them. The ickyness of their relationship doesn't help. Wendell Corey is wooden at times and arguably miscast.

Overall, worth watching. It's just not a "classic."

Given the hype around this film, I wanted to love it. I didn't. Stanwyck, Lancaster, and the supporting cast give solid performances It's a treat to see William Conrad early in his career. There are moments of suspense (including the ending), along with camera angles and cinematography common in film noir, there's an overuse of flashbacks and character relationships that are murky and distract from truly connecting with the characters.

6/10 or C+

Color, special effects, and great costumes are the best things about this film. This can be expected in a DeMille film. With Unconquered it pretty much stops there. The screenplay starts off well with the story of an Englishwoman (Paulette Goddard with no English accent) being sentenced to indentured servitude in the American colonies for murder. The trip across the Atlantic with other sentenced criminals introduces us to the male leads Gary Cooper and Howard DaSilva and a supporting character played by Cecil Kellaway. Boris Karloff is introduced much later as an Indian Chief.

Once they reach America the story goes down hill and becomes a cliched good guy (Settlers)/bad guy (Indians) film that drags on for close to 2.5 hours. Cooper, of course, is the hero. Goodard, the damsel in distress, and DaSilva as the villain. The fact that Goodard doesn't once use an English accent is distracting in itself, but DeMille's direction falls short in guiding her through expression and line delivery. I just couldn't buy her as an indentured servant.

I've not seen any of Goddard's films, so I regret this being my introduction to her. As for Cooper, this definitely isn't one of his strongest performances. Blame the director/DeMille.

Rating: 6/10 or C.

Given the hype around this film and Welles in general, I wanted to like this film. First the positives.. it's technically well-made. Beautifully shot, great camera angles. That's where the positives end. The screenplay is a mess. I won't give the story away here, but it's unbelievable. Welles and Hayworth in the lead are meh. The supporting cast's performances are actually stronger than both Welles and Hayward.

The value in the film is in the technical aspects. A film student will likely enjoy it for that alone. Folks who watch films for storylines and prioritize screenplays may be disappointed.

Rating: a generous 6/10.

The screenplay starts out strong and then meanders and drags with the second half of the film. Excellent performances. A tighter screenplay would have made this an outstanding film 7/10 or B-

Ove the years, this film and it's name has enjoyed hype. I finally got around to watching it and was disappointed. Some strong performances, mainly from Ladd and Bendix, but the "whodunit" story itself loses intensity halfway through. The ending is not a good payoff for the time spent watching. Good to watch one time for the historic value of the film's reputation and mostly for Alan Ladd's performance, but overall it's a meh for the noir genre.

I'm glad this was not the first Garbo film I had seen. Camille, Ninotchka, and Grand Hotel are better vehicles for her talent. I found myself waiting for Anna Christie to end. The mellowdramatic dialogue, especially between Garbo and Bickford, makes it difficult to take them seriously. In fact, I was annoyed with Bickford's style throughout, not sure if it's him or the direction he was given.

Marie Dressler, always wonderful, is the saving grace in the film. Too bad Supporting Actress Oscars were not given out in 1930. She was wonderful but unfortunately, she couldn't keep Anna Christie afloat.

Rating: 5/10

I didn't see this movie when it first came out but I've always liked Maggie Smith so I finally rented it. I wish I had read some of the user comments prior to spending the money.

This is one of the most overrated movies I have ever seen. The multiple plot format that has become popular (Magnolia, Sunshine State) is arguably hard to follow. However, at least the screenplay of those films hold your interest. This is one of a few movies I've seen where I actually welcomed distractions.

Despite the talents of Maggie Smith and Helen Mirren, I could have spent 2 hours and 18 minutes doing laundry and had a better time.

Bette Davis' performance in this film is outstanding. However, what detracts from it are some scenes that just could have been left out. For example, that whole scene with the cab driver in Rio served no purpose. Also annoying was the child who played "Tina." She illicited not sympathy but irritation from me. Wasn't there a child actor that could have done a better job? These are just a couple of things that kept this movie from a nine or ten rating. Bette's performance 10/10; Overall rating for film - 7/10.

I had never seen Love Story nor read the book. However, I vividly remember its popularity when I was a child. Now that I'm "all grown up" I cannot believe that 1970 America got mesmerized by such schmaltz.

For Love Story to garner a Best Picture nomination must mean that 1970 was a weak year for films. Others have panned O'Neal and McGraw's acting. I thought it was adequate... nothing to do backflips over, but adequate...certainly NOT Oscar winning. I've always liked Ryan O'Neal's acting. Someone else should have played Jenny

I can take the romance, the young love, grievous feelings. I've been there but what's most irksome about this film are the gaps in the story line. I had NO IDEA what the hell Jenny was dying from. Out of nowhere Oliver graduates from law school... did we ever see him crack a book. The screenplay is lacking in my opinion. This is certainly not the greatest love story ever told... at least not on film anyway.

Still, it's enjoyable and worth seeing if nothing else than to see Tommy Lee Jones in an early role and also for the beautiful winter scenery.

Rating: 7/10 or **1/2

Laughs, chuckles, and guffaws. It's silliness at its best! My favorite scene is the umpteen girls having a party in that tiny train berth drinking Manhattans. Hilarious!! Outstanding performances from Jack Lemmon and Tony Curtis. Monroe is her usual self.

Rating: 9/10

The only thing significant about THE MISFITS is the fact that it's both Gable's and Monroe's last film. I now realize why that's the only thing significant I had ever heard about it. There are obvious flaws in the film such as revealing at what point Gable and Monroe fall in love. They met in a bar and the next scene they were in love... no development. The biggest disappointment is the underdevelopment of Montgomery Clift's character. We were led to believe something was going to happen with him and it didn't. This is one of the few films I've seen where I felt the urge, while watching, to rewrite the story. It begs for better writing. Nevertheless, I found the film entertaining.

I never thought of Monroe as a "bad" actress the way many others have. Breathiness notwithstanding she was decent but she, Gable, Clift, Wallach were not enough to save it. Ritter, however, should have been Oscar nominated. She outshines the film's stars in every scene she's in.

Rating: 7/10

Bing Crosby's performance is what makes this movie worthwhile. I never knew Crosby had acting skills of such high calibre until seeing this movie. William Holden was good too, however, I would rather have seen someone else casted rather than Grace Kelly. Her performance does not measure up to that of her co-stars. Was her performance really Oscar worthy... I don't think so. In fact, I find her performance to detract from the movie, causing me to rate it a 8/10 rather than 10/10.

Enjoyable film that gives you romance, women-on-the-verge psychodrama, work place sexual harassment, adultery, and fashion. It's all there. Typical characters found in corporate America. Joan Crawford is the usual long time employee bitch executive who feels the need to be such because she's with the big boys. Hope Lange is the entry level ambitious employee whose determined to get to the top by using her mind and not her body. Their personal lives is the subplot.

Wardrobe for the film is great but someone forgot to tell Stephen Boyd's hairstylist that "a little dab will do ya!" The amount of Brylcream in Stephen Boyd's hair is distracting at times. His character's relationship with Lange's character was never fully developed which I found disappointing. Overall the movie is enjoyable.

Rating: 8/10

Unlike everyone else who has raved over The Philadelphia Story, I found myself disappointed by the end of the film. It's funniest moments were in the first half of the movie when the plot is unfolds. As the movie continued I found myself less amused and getting a bit bored. The acting is excellent but the story line started to wane. Hepburn, Grant and Virginia Wielder are the films highlights. James Stewart winning the Best Actor Oscar for this film and Cary Grant not being nominated at all is very questionable.

Rating: 7/10

Long but well worth hanging in there for. Luise Rainer gives an outstanding well-deserved Oscar winning performance as Anna Held. The first half of the movie which covers the period of Ziegfeld's marriage to Held is the better half of the movie. Great re-enactment of stage Follies productions. 9 out of 10.

Rented this movie to see what all the rah-rah was about. Poor character development weakens the film greatly. Mae West's one-liners are at times funny but do little to rescue the movie. The producers and director DID US WRONG! Hard to believe the film got nominated for a Best Picture Oscar! 4 out of 10!