Reviews

This is quite a nasty little movie masquerading as a romcom. Its plot is based on the irony of 2 people having an online, anonymous relationship as well as knowing each other personally. There is nothing remotely dramatic about this irony. We are not uncomfortable about it; we are just willing it to be resolved as quickly as possible so we can get on with our lives. And the nastiness? The male protagonist is a big business owner - stack 'em high, sell 'em cheap - who puts the admirable small business owner (the female lead) out of business. There is no contrition; there is no admonition for the destruction and impoverishment wielded by the free market capitalist machine. Then the male lead becomes aware of the identity of his erstwhile anonymous female correspondent and we are treated to the boke inducing spectacle of him manipulating the relationship. Again no downside for this abuse. And finally we are asked to believe in a woman totally lacking in resentment for any of this. This could be the little wifey who keeps house from the 1950s. And don't get me started on the implausibility of the representation of the personal and financial impact of a small business owner being crushed. She just breezily carries on without a care in the world. Just a terrible movie.

When a plot that doesn't hang together, it's most likely to be butcher-like editing. I don't believe anyone turned in a screenplay in this state. But that is only one of the problems with this. Whose idea can it possibly have been? Connery? Hepburn? Lester? It really feels like someone said "Let's put Connery and Hepburn together as a middle-aged couple. I tell you what, there's always room for another Robin Hood. Let's do a Sherwood Forest for the oldies." Suspending disbelief is one thing, but this requires surgery to remove any sort of need for a coherent story. Hepburn looks like and portrays the character of a 1980s neurotic New Yorker. Who would follow Sean Connery's Robin anywhere? A charisma-free performance. The best performance I think is Ronnie Barker's Friar Tuck.

I so admire Meryl Streep's acting and as I make my way through her entire output, I am bewildered that every now and then she got involved in really awful projects. Having said that I recognise that there may be a cultural difference here. So many Americans claim to "get" this comedy but for me it's skin-crawlingly bad. In my book, grotesque over acting and caricature do not make for humour. Production values matter!

Watch the British TV adaptation and you will see the difference.

I honestly believe I have a sense of humour. I have been known on a few rare occasions to laugh out loud spontaneously in a public place while reading humorous literature. Do you have to be American to find this funny? I love John Updike and I am prepared to believe there is a dark enjoyable novel behind this film. But it has been turned into a humourless, grotesque film. Nicholson has made a raft of poor films offset by some of the finest performances of any actor. One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest and As Good As It Gets outweigh any number of duds. Polansky extracted a wonderful performance in Chinatown. But wide-eyed wildness does not make humour. The set pieces are just embarrassing most especially the pink balloons and the tea trolley. I have to be honest the 80s hairstyles really do not help.

In my rankings of Newman's output, this is rock bottom. I'm a big fan and my heart goes out to the man, retrospectively, because he will have known from day one that he had become embroiled in the turkey of all turkeys. Almost every aspect of the film is woeful. The set, the melodrama, the 2-dimensional characters, the frankly appalling acting from almost everyone. Newman stands head an shoulders above the others, but even he looks uncomfortable the whole way through as cliché is piled on cliché. Do you know, the climax is an interminable crossing a wooden bridge over a lava flow with people falling through slats and every other predictable event you can imagine. But the funniest moment is after that when the survivors are in a cave and one of the female bit parts is standing there as if she's at a cocktail party. They must have all have been giving up by then.

Nicholson is odd. Unlike, say, Alec Guinness or Paul Newman, he was a poor actor at first. But "at first" went on for a very long time. Have you seen Ensign Pulver, The Terror, The Raven (omg), The Broken Land, The Little Shop of Horrors, The Wild Ride? And this, I'm afraid is, oh dear, another Nicholson dud. Just the slightest glimpse of the actor he can be. I've still to see anything prior to Chinatown that's worth watching. But I'm told 5 Easy Pieces is the one. So far then I think we have Roman Polanski to thank for the actor who would one day be able to deliver the performances in One Flew Over..... and As Good As It Gets. If, like me, you're a bit compulsive, by all means watch this, otherwise don't wast your time.

I don't often comment on films I hate, but I'm prepared to make an exception for this piece of horse-****. Overacted, sexist, puerile trash. I loathed every minute. The only positive thing I can think to say is that it makes me realise that during my lifetime society has developed for the better in some respects. The fact that anyone in 1963 could find this entertaining is truly disturbing. But it tells me that despite all that is wrong now, we have left behind these Neanderthal attitudes to women. If anyone can find me someone born since 1963 who finds this funny, I will eat my gorilla.

I'm desperately trying to find something positive to say. Even though Hollywood was making some great movies at this time (e.g. Cat on a Hot tin Roof) with great production values, this is just cheap and tawdry. The set is horribly artificial. The dialogue is banal. Oh yes, there was one display of great comic timing towards the end as Lemmon is chased out of the door protesting and the door slam was perfectly timed. There you are, I'm not biased.

There is really nothing good to say about this film. Once more, Hollywood can find nothing more imaginative to write about than its own entertainment trade. It's almost musical; but absolutely no music worth listening to. I suspect it was intended to be a comedy; but I defy anyone to laugh. I have no doubt the Cagney tribute was sincere and that the real Foy was a generous supporter of young actors, but nothing about the character portrayed keeps audience attention for very long. Bob Hope is competent, but really, this script is complete rubbish. The only moment it strikes a confident chord is when Cagney starts his Yankee Doodle Dandee reprise. It's confident, but am I the only person who finds the Cagney duck walk embarrassing?

Betty Grable extracts the maximum seductive charm out of "I've Got a Crush On You". The Gershwins really could write. Worth watching the film up to that point; but don't bother thereafter. Does Jack Lemmon have a pianist double for the early part of the song or could he play? The dance sequences are tedious, especially the show within a show's finale. The plot is ridiculous, the use of classical music for attempts at comic dance was a flop. It was all just a bit embarrassing. Ironic that one of the plot lines is a musical that is in danger of bombing. Ah well. Only watched this because Jack Lemmon was in it, but now I'm wondering if that's enough of a reason to watch a film.

This isn't the worst Cagney movie, but it is a good example of the problem with his acting. He was an amazing screen presence, demanding to be watched, a wonderfully versatile performer and an incredibly successful professional, but (and I know it's almost sacrilege to say this in the company of nostalgia-hungry Americans) he brought far too much of his dancing to his straight acting. The result is so often irritating, jerky physicality producing an uncomfortable caricature rather than a believable character. Hank Martin is one of many Cagney performances that needs the melodrama turning down a notch or two. This isn't the worst culprit; for that see "What Price Glory", "Blood on the Sun" or "The Fighting 69th".

One of the reasons I didn't know this film must be the terrible, forgettable title. However, it's a lovely film. What a debut for Jack Lemmon! Assured, slick, great timing. Pete Sheppard was the only character that didn't verge on caricature.

Judy Holliday is great as the scatty, crazy, fame-seeker, and just about convinces as Gladys' character develops.

Flimsy plot, but a subject worth dealing with: the pointlessness of fame for its own sake. Current generation of kids, take note!

Nice shots of 1950s New York and portrayal of the excitement of live TV broadcasting.

So many Scottish films have an amateurish tinge to them. Thank goodness for this example that sets a standard for all that come after it. The production is full of care, except for the overly smart clothing for Lizzie. The acting by Jack McElhone is almost spooky, it's so mature. The story has a few weaknesses, but who cares when the acting is all so persuasive? No-one could fail to be touched by this portrayal of obsessive love and protection. Even if you cry or shriek at the mistakes Lizzie makes you will still feel she deserves something so much better than life has delivered to her.

Scotland is a great and beautiful country. It's so refreshing to see that it can portray itself as something other than self-pitying and hard done by. And so refreshing to see it can produce entertainment of the highest order.