Reviews

(spoilers) Leatherpuss. Stupid. Hot-head. These are but a few of the many insults traded by Jim Cagney (as Seaman 2nd Class Chester `Chesty' O'Connor) and Pat O'Brien (as Chief Petty Officer Biff Martin) both on and off the U.S.S. Arizona.

The film follows their tumultuous association as civilians (before ironworker Cagney joins the navy) and then as military colleagues thrust upon each other on a peacetime vessel.

James Cagney looks great in a tux, and gets to dance a little before the real fun starts. The ironworkers have thrown themselves a dance, and first prize is a big silver cup. Chesty's pristine, crisp rented tuxedo doesn't last very long, as Gladys Hawkins, his girlfriend, literally waltzes off with Biff Martin. Chesty doesn't take kindly to this, and the two men, who have previously locked horns (Cagney and the ironmen antagonize the passing sailors by shouting conflicting commands at them), come to blows. O'Brien wins the fight, and the dance crowd simply walks over the prostrate form of poor Chesty, who can only lie there in a heap. To add insult to injury, O'Brien and Gladys win the 1st prize for the waltz contest! The following day, things get even worse, as Chesty is laid off from his job and Gladys dumps him, preferring Biff's company.

Vowing revenge, Chesty decides to join the navy to get even with Biff. First stop is the San Diego naval training station, where Frank McHugh (always top-notch, and extremely funny in this movie) as Wilbur `Droopy' Mullins enters the picture. He and Chesty become fast friends who cover for each other and who borrow money back and forth so fast all throughout the film, forget trying to keep up. Droopy's reason d'etre seems to be to try to send his poor mom enough money for her to buy a decent pair of false teeth, ones that will enable her to keep up with her job as choir singer AND allow her to eat meat. This is a VERY funny running gag, with an excellent pay-off at the end of the film.

After training, Chesty and Droopy are assigned to Biff's ship, the U.S.S. Arizona, as hoped. The moment Chesty claps eyes on Biff, he attempts to punch him. Needless to say, this is not encouraged, and his efforts are immediately curtailed. Biff then decides to make naval life very difficult for his nemesis.

While Chesty has supposedly given up on `dames' because of his experience with Gladys, enter Dot, Biff's sister (played well by Gloria Stuart). Of course, Chesty is unaware that she's also a Martin, and chases her until he wrangles a dinner invitation out of her. On liberty for the evening of the dinner, Biff pays a visit to Dot, and in seconds, the boys are at it again.

After a series of misadventures, Chesty actually escapes duty by bribery and sneaking off the ship in disguise (to see Dot), and is admonished by Biff, who reports him as AWOL. Chesty is a prisoner and cannot leave the ship. He degrades the other sailors, who avoid him at all costs. He and Dot also split, in a dramatic, well-played scene, in which they are both terribly disillusioned. Later Chesty proves his courage during a mock battle, but he denounces the officers, the medal he receives, and the navy as a whole. He is then granted a transfer to a naval aircraft (a zeppelin). The crew of the Arizona must then act as ground crew for a mock maneuver Chesty's aircraft is involved in, Biff gets in trouble, and Chesty ends up saving the day and getting the girl. Droopy's infamous mom is finally seen at the end of the film, and we even get a glimpse of her new false teeth!

Very entertaining and lots of fun, with all the stars in top form. Cagney and O'Brien argue and fight all through the film in some great comic scenes – yet they were best friends in real life!

Recommended!!!

This film is already so spoiled, spoilers can't spoil it!

Animal lovers, DO NOT WATCH THIS MESS. There are very few redeeming values to this film. Good are about three scenes amongst the countless, choppy, ain't-we-clever-with-the-camera-three-minutes-or-less-shots.

The Dr. Frankensteinish husband isn't a good actor. The wife and would-be lover are better. Animals are literally thrown away, caught in traps, mutilated, cut in half and sewn back together, but not with their original counterparts. Two or three lines made me chuckle (one of these non-intentionally), and the wife has nice hair.

The credits were distasteful in that: a) the film-makers put an offensive disclaimer at the end of the standard `no animals were harmed in the making of this film' disclaimer and b) they sought to philanthropize their sloppy effort by name-dropping and appealing to the viewer to donate, conserve, preserve, blah blah blah. These pretentious jerks seemed to think of their film as a harsh indictment of what it depicts - that is to say, the evils of science. WHATEVER. Skip it - you'll be glad that you did. Godawful.

(Spoilers) The First Hundred Years is part comedy, part drama. It is uneven, to say the least. There seem to be 2 movies happening at once here, leading to a serious lack of cohesion. Taken as it is, however, it's still not too bad, as both the comedic and dramatic aspects have their merits.

The comedy is found only on the periphery of the central characters. Alan Dinehart gives a great comedic performance as family friend/lawyer Sam Walker, well-meaning but semi-inept. Dinehart is ever dependable, and is well cast here. Warren William, dashing as usual, plays Virginia Bruce's co-worker/partner-in-crime, Harry Borden. He's very good as the slimy though somewhat nervous theatrical agent, and also lends some levity to the film. There's a very funny drunk scene with William and Dinehart, celebrating the central couple's impending parenthood, whereupon they emerge from an elevator carrying baby toys, dolls, and a small umbrella. Stumbling to the doorbell, William rings it (with umbrella tip) with overly-cautious drunken precision. They look very pleased with themselves as they accost angry and depressed Bob Montgomery, to chat about his wife's pregnancy, whereupon Dinehart proclaims, `He's drunk,' as Bob (who was unaware of the baby) bolts past them for the door. There's also a lively turn from Lee Bowman as George, an aspiring writer who takes fondly to his American Indian roots insofar as to invite friends over to play his native drums whilst wearing a full Indian headdress. Binnie Barnes excels as an earnest pantschaser extraordinaire, and Harry Davenport, as drifty Uncle Dawson, complete the lighthearted aspect of the film.

If only writer Norman Krasna had made the central couple, Lynn and David Conway (Virginia Bruce and Bob Montgomery), a little more vulnerable throughout instead of leaving it to the ending, the dramatics would have fit in better with the rest of the film. As it is, it's played as though the audience is a voyeur into the couple's lives, complete with a very well done but surprising camera angle that while physically distancing the viewer from the couple, actually pulls back to reveal that so much is going on with them, it's hard not to care, even though you wish you didn't. This occurs in a cerebral scene in which the Conway living room (during a thunderstorm, symbolic of their stormy relationship), is inhabited by estranged relations playing nice-nice for the benefit of others, with maps of foreign countries and itineraries – again symbolizing distance and estrangement --lying strewn all over the floor. The camera pans away and the very next scene (the best in the film) is especially touching, with Montgomery, holding tightly onto Bruce, ending up in tears, remorseful for the way things have turned out. This peace between them doesn't last long, however, and the couple almost immediately reverts back to their troubled ways. It seems that the crux of their relationship is their need to be petty, stubborn, jealous and judgmental. Their frequent scenes of bickering and outings at the organ playing old favorites reminiscent of happier times are depressing, too. Now wouldn't all of this have made a compact little drama all on its own?

(Spoiler) DATED!!!!: Not to give away any more of the plot, but the film, with its forward-thinking woman-wears-the-pants-in- the-family theme, is completely thrown out the window (resulting in Bruce's character losing all credibility), as she gets pregnant and gives up her money, career, happiness, social standing, etc. to live in New Bedford, NY (middle of nowhere) to be with hubby for his new job – so he gets his way after all. The film was released in 1938, an obvious product of its times.

So we are left with this smarmy, antagonistic couple, still playing mind games with each other (each not telling they know of the pregnancy), driving off to New Bedford to most likely live miserably ever after.

An odd film, indeed – but see it for the performances, all of which are uniformly excellent.

(Spoilerific)

PLOT/SUBJECT MATTER: Firstly, I'd like to comment on an issue in the film that some reviewers found objectionable – that of the suppression of the Welsh language and culture for British ideals and the English language. I think the film needs to be looked at as is – a commentary, a reaction to this. Knowing but a little about the Welsh way of life in those times, I cannot say for certain, but I think most people, especially the lower classes depicted in the film, had very little opportunity or means to fight the acquisition of the British culture, language and influence. This does NOT make the argument correct. It is merely a sad fact. The film's inhabitants represent a microcosm of this sector, and the audience is meant to see how they were forced into assimilating into a new way of life, regardless of whether or not they wanted to. This is what the film depicts, and it should be judged accordingly.

PERFORMANCES: John Dall – Let me say that after watching this movie how surprised I am that John Dall (Morgan Evans) didn't become a major star. He is wonderful, and does a good job with the accent. Dall is another actor who conveys so much with just his eyes or a turn of the head. Watch his reactions to Bette Davis in their big confrontation scene – damn, he's good. Amazingly, The Corn is Green was his first film. I keep missing Gun Crazy whenever it's on, but can't wait to catch it someday. Dall was excellent in Rope as well. Too bad he only made a few films. Here he is formidable as coal miner turned Oxford-bound student, playing the unglamorous role with both subtlety and ease.

Bette Davis – gives an outstanding performance here. Once you get past the makeup (she's supposed to be older than she was at the time), the feisty Davis can be seen. She plays the determined teacher with pure conviction. Another strong-willed role for her to sink her teeth into – Davis' forte.

Joan Lorring – This was Lorring's first movie, and her reprehensible character, Bessie Watty (what a name!) is one you love to hate. The venom in her eyes! She makes the false, `Oh! I've hurt my knee!' and `I'm in a coma!' lines unforgettable. However, I did feel a little sorry for Bessie because of her mother's comments about never liking her. It's easy to see why she was so cold-hearted. Lorring is great in Three Strangers with Peter Lorre, Geraldine Fitzgerald and Sidney Greenstreet, too. Check that one out.

CHARACTER ANALYSIS: Lilly Moffat (Bette Davis) is a flawed character indeed. She is a take-no-prisoners powerhouse. When need arises, she plays both the bull* artist (innocent, helpless woman-folk, to gain the squire's benefaction) and cautious, dangerous protector (threatening Bessie's life to shield Morgan from what she perceives as harm). She stands behind her convictions, rightly or wrongly, 100%. Miss Moffat's motives are often questionable. In the film, she explains them all away, yet this viewer was left with quite some mixed feelings about her character. This is a good thing, mind you, as the film as a whole certainly left a big impression on me due to several unresolved issues. That's one sign of a good movie.

Morgan Evans (John Dall) is also a flawed character. Has he sold out, given in, given up, or done the best thing? The film seems to say his choice was correct (he did not waste his potential), yet it is up to the viewer to decide. Dall plays the whole spectrum of the character's conflicts so believably that it is easy to sympathize with Morgan, who is torn between two worlds and two completely different sets of ideals.

Davis and Dall have great chemistry together, and all of their scenes ignite a spark. As Lilly and Morgan, it is great to watch two stubborn rams lock horns, then reach a difficult arrangement that perfectly suits no one. An appropriately bittersweet ending to a visceral film.

Irving Rapper's direction is superb. The sweeping shots of the countryside and the miners going to and from work, the claustrophobic atmosphere of the tiny school, and the hostile environment of the local public house (great fight scene!) all lend the film a sense of realism.

Nigel Bruce is very witty as the Squire (`the impertinence!'), and Mildred Dunnock and Rhys Williams as the hapless Miss Ronberry and Mr. Jones are also very good.

One final note: I love the song the coal miners (and Bessie) sing, even though I do not understand the words. A very nice song – I would love to get my hands on a copy. Diolch and goodnight.

(spoilers herein)

Sirs Michael Caine and Laurence Olivier make great foils in this most entertaining movie. Olivier is in his self-effacing, natural-acting mode in this one, thank heaven, and Caine gets to use his superior skills in moments of both daffy comedy and high drama.

Sleuth is intricately plotted, yes, but not confusingly, so, and is therefore a joy to follow. It is a constant case of cat-and-mouse, who-done-what and why/how and one-upmanship that never gets boring, even after many viewings. Each time I see the film, there is something `new' to enjoy about it – something I didn't notice or fully appreciate before.

CORKING DIALOG! The Brits prove that they do it best. Here are just a few choice adjectives to describe the dialog and script (which is, in turn): clever, mature, offensive, hilarious, scintillating, pejorative, lyrical, depressing, surprising and original. It is not – even once – common. All this, and it includes lines from the great Cole Porter song `Anything Goes!'

ACTORS BEST SCENES: Laurence Olivier (mystery writer Andrew Wyke) – has a very funny speech about killing Caine (Wyke's wife's lover) with the `traditional blunt instrument – the mashie niblick,' which must be heard and seen to be believed. At the end of his fantastic, fiendish fantasy, he tosses the golf club aside, claiming that the whole thing is `too bloody elaborate,' and that he must think of another way to do it. Also, the line about hiding the knife behind the bell pull like they do in all the old movies is great. This is his best scene in the film, in my estimation. A true laugh-out-loud moment!

Michael Caine (Milo Tindle) – his best scene is very different in tone -- one of drama and terror, as his life is threatened by Olivier, whom he calls a maniac and a `bloody madman.' He is forced to beg and plead for his life to be spared, and the audience can strongly identify with his predicament. Here Caine never lets his vanity overcome his craft for a second. I know of few actors that would have agreed to play the scene in this startlingly realistic way, and there are few who could have pulled off this difficult scenario with the same aplomb. Simply magnificent.

A minor plot quibble: Why Wyke is taken in so easily by Inspector Doppler I will never know. This aspect of the film rings false, and compromises the character's believability as a supposed mystery writer.

Other than that, the plot is great and makes excellent use of the house, its surroundings and furnishings. Very clever is the use of the various gadgets (puzzle jar, turnstiles to the bedrooms, wheel of fortune) and the many toys and games scattered throughout the house.

The ending with Olivier finding the clues is quite suspenseful. I always end up sitting on the edge of my seat – and new viewers will most likely be surprised by the denouement.

Performing the play version must have been exhausting for the actors, as the pace and action are both so quick.

Interestingly enough, the wacky cast credits do NOT include the house itself, which I think is an oversight, seeing as how it played such an integral part in the film. Go figure.

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.

First, the cast:

Robert Montgomery - one of my all-time favorites, does a serviceable job here, although at times, he plays it too flat. This psycho character is very different from the one he played in Night Must Fall (see that film instead), yet at first, he downplays it too much, even when he is supposed to be upset or angry. As the film goes on, his performance gets much better (he pulls off the paranoia and obsession with ease). Montgomery looks a little tired and haggard, but this befits the character, and he works well with both Ingrid Bergman and George Sanders. Montgomery is always interesting to watch, whatever the role, due to his very nuanced performances. Pay particular attention to the way he moves his eyes to convey so much. His role as Philip in Rage in Heaven is no exception.

Ingrid Bergman - wow, is she great! Bergman is a very natural actress who rarely puts a foot wrong. Unfortunately, this role is kind of a waste for her, because it mostly consists of reacting to the two male leads. Despite this, every emotion is played to perfection, and her beauty in this film is outstanding. To me, she got a little masculine looking as time went on, but I adore her looks here - it is very easy to see why the men, Philip and Ward, fell in love with her character Stella. To be punny, it is a Stellar performance. Simply but, Bergman is like a breath of fresh air.

George Sanders - this is one of the earlier films of his that I have seen. God, he was handsome! I love his voice, too. It was nice to see him in a decent-guy role for a change. I like the fact that both he and Montgomery were playing against type in this movie. He is another actor that never ever gives a bad performance.

Plot problems:

Too sketchy in some areas, and WAY too `convenient' in others. The ending was particularly guilty of contrivance. A previous reviewer claims that the ending negates the rest of the film - this is not so, but it certainly does it no favors, either. Another problem - WHY was Philip SO SO SO obsessed with and jealous of Ward Andrews (Sanders' character)? The extent of this was not really explained. Also, the `mob scene' was laughable. A three year old would not fear this group!! Oscar Homolka as the doctor might as well have been wearing a clown suit - a farcial, downright silly performance that the director should have reigned in not a little bit - although his scene in the bookstore was very cute.

Bottom line: watch it for the acting, but check your faith in a coherent plot-line at the door.

p.s.: CATS, beware: Bob Montgomery abuses YET ANOTHER feline in this film!!!!!

(Some spoilers) So, this is what all the furor was about, huh? Well, I'm sure that the novel, for its time, was in fact as scandalous as I've heard. Of course, due to Code restrictions, the movie version was watered down, although it still manages to deliver its message. I must say that the film certainly does not lack plot points – there are many plots to the story, yet when it was all over it still felt somehow anticlimactic, due to the unrealistically up-beat ending. It's as though, having gone through so many trials and tribulations (very well portrayed by the entire cast), all is right with the world again. Did the novel end this way? I'll have to read it and find out.

I would have liked to have seen more of the character of Norman Page (played fabulously by Russ Tamblyn). His was such an interesting character, yet was given limited screen time. This is a shame, as I wanted to know more about him each time he appeared on the screen. (SPOILER>>) This lack of depth in the script was probably due to the taboo nature of his relationship with his mom. A very fine performance by Tamblyn nonetheless.

Hope Lange was heartbreaking as Selena Cross, a girl from the wrong side of the tracks. Her meek demeanor and then the cracks in that façade made for a powerful performance. You just knew that someone was going to end up having to take control over the sickening situation of her family life, and I cheered when (her fear still paralyzing her to fight completely) the doctor (a superb Lloyd Nolan – extremely believable as a caring physician) came forward to help rectify the situation and clear her name.

Lana Turner was great as Constance MacKenzie, although she too did not have enough screen time. In fact, as averse as I usually am to longer films, I feel as though Peyton Place could have benefitted from another half hour at least. Turner's conflicts with daughter Allison (Diane Varsi in a strong performance) were very realistic, and the viewer can easily identify with both characters and their development throughout the film. Very well done.

Lee Philips was pretty good as Michael Rossi, the handsome new school principal. His is the first character to challenge the town's usual way of thinking. In the end, he gets his way, but not until after several struggles with the community, his love interest and himself. The only drawback here is the actor's voice, which is really squeaky. In fact, if you look closely, some of his dialog seems to be dubbed – what it must have sounded like originally, one can only guess!

A more minor sub-plot was that of Rodney Harrison, the Harvard-bound high school graduate facing scandal due to his love for the infamous loose-living high school girl, Betty Anderson. This aspect of the story also had a lot more potential that what was seen, and again, its (sad) resolve was too pat – although truer-to-life than some of the plots. Both Barry Coe as Rodney and Terry Moore as Betty were believable in their roles, and this viewer was saddened by their fates –which, given the times, was unsurprising – a `you play, you pay' attitude.

Peyton Place as a character itself also goes through a metamorphosis in the film. An excellent narrative device of Allison MacKenzie's voiceover describing the changing seasons perfectly represented the changing attitudes/times for the town and its people. In effect, the passage of time and the seasons serve to illustrate the townspeople maturing and adapting to life as the world and its ideals evolve. The mechanisms of this transformation was the strong point of the story, and was quite effective, indeed.

So – a somewhat dated film with a social conscience and not without its merits.

(Some spoilers) I have not read the James M. Cain novel (`The Postman Always Rings Twice') on which this movie was based, so I cannot compare this film version to it, but I have seen and love the 1946 US version (also entitled `Postman').

Even better is this gem from Italy, which, I have read, was `mutilated' in editing because of too many blatant references to the Fascist regime. Well, no matter – what is left is a fine piece of cinema, apparently the forerunner of the neo-realist movement in film-making. One can certainly see why – despite whatever harsh editing did go on, a pervading sense of societal and cultural, as well as personal oppression remains, hanging heavy over the protagonists, who therefore face many limits in life.

Consider Gino, the young drifter, not well educated, unemployed, and resorting to stowing away, stealing and conning people in order to get by, his one pair of shoes so threadbare as to be virtually useless.

In Giovanna, he sees a way out, yet he should have kept going, as Giovanna is oppressed by her loveless marriage to an older man with some money, her job (working at the trattoria for her husband, slaving away behind the bar and in the kitchen), and her sex. In the past, she had limited options, and decided to marry the restaurant/gas station owner (Giuseppe Bregana, played by Juan de Landa) anyway, knowing that he would not make her happy. She tells Gino that she feels sick every time Bregana touches her.

On the pretext of helping Bregana fix his car and sending him into the village to buy a needed part (which he has in fact pocketed), Gino wins Bregana's favor (promising also to fix the broken water pump – water symbolizing life, or lack thereof) and is left alone with Giovanna. They immediately start a heated, passionate, yet volatile love affair.

Gino soon feels stifled by the relationship, and feels the need to move on again when Giovanna proposes that they dispose of her husband. Wanting no part of it, Gino leaves town on a train ride that he cannot afford, kindly paid for him by another gypsy-type man named Spagnolo, a fellow train passenger. To Gino, Spagnolo represents a sort of freedom, and they become friends (Spagnolo also symbolizes Gino's morality and conscience), traveling and finding work at a carnival together. Finally Gino has steady employment. To his dismay (he is not yet over his love for Giovanna), a month has passed when Bregana and his wife go to the carnival and Bregana persuades Gino to go `back home' to live and work with them again, as he is handy to have around.

Too weak-willed to resist, knowing this will reunite he and Giovanna, Gino agrees and goes back to stay with the couple. After a while he gives in to Gina's demands to get rid of her husband. Once the evil deed is done, Giovanna becomes more cold-blooded than ever, seeming to have very little conscience, while guilt and shame eat away at Gino for hurting a man who never did him any harm. As much as he wants to leave her – he does again briefly, they are now inextricably linked, and must face the consequences.

I liked the way the Spagnolo character came back into Gino's life to act as a judge of his misdeeds – that was very good, and interesting, adding another dimension to the story.

While the '46 U.S. version with Lana Turner and John Garfield gets a bit lost in a quagmire of peripheral characters, especially the cops and the lawyers, Ossessione does well to concentrate much more on the psychological effects of the crime on the lovers alone. This gives the final outcome even more potency, and makes a powerful statement reinforcing the helplessness inherent in the society in which the characters must live.

A minor quibble: The amount of time (hardly any) that elapses before undying love is pronounced by the lovers, how quickly they kill the husband (there is no botched first attempt as in the U.S. version); Gino's very quick-to-escalate relationship with the dancer/hooker – they quickly profess their love as well, and she is willing to risk a great deal for a man she just met! – all rather unrealistic, isn't it? I found this time-frame problem quite distracting – it made me think that I must have missed something somewhere. Otherwise, well worth the viewer's time. The acting and direction were both uniformly good throughout. Recommended.

First, the few bad points: 1) Paul Stewart's accent – I think he picked it up when it rolled out of a gumball machine. He's a fine actor, and his character (Julio) was interesting, but only half of his dialog is decipherable. If anything, it's even worse than his accent in Citizen Kane, and that's saying something! 2) I normally don't mind character-tinged period lingo, but this film has way too much of it. Don't even try to count all the ‘dames,' ‘doughs,' and ‘suckers.' After a while, it becomes tiresome. 3) Johnny hardly ever refers to his girlfriends by name; instead repeatedly calling them `sugar.' How annoying.

That said, there is much to recommend Johnny Eager. It is one of my favorites of all time.

THE LEADS: Robert Taylor (Johnny Eager), although slightly too young to play this big-boss gangster character, gives a convincing performance, making a great sociopath. He manages to turn that perfect face into a menacing sneer, staring both friends and enemies alike down with a furrowed brow and an icy, cold-blooded glare in his eyes. It is easy to dislike his character, which is rare for Taylor. I have heard that he pushed for the role in order to break out of his pretty-boy mold and expand his range, and Eager is the perfect vehicle for this. I just which he didn't have that silly moustache! GAH!

Van Heflin deserved his best supporting actor Oscar for his role in this film (a rare win for a pathetic character). He plays Jeff Hartnett, the very complex best friend of Johnny -- a self-loathing, alcoholic homosexual -- in an abusive, co-dependent relationship with Johnny. Heflin is the best male crier I've seen in filmdom (see also The Three Musketeers ('48), Madame Bovary ('49), 3:10 to Yuma). He excels in conveying sympathy for his characters and their various plights. Here, as Jeff, his expressive eyes alone speak volumes, as well as do his many philosophical, psychological speeches. (Still, some of his dialog is bizarre, to say the least.) An outstanding performance.

Lana Turner, as Lizabeth Bard, Taylor's love interest, gives a wonderful performance as well. Her character runs the full gamut of emotions, all of which she handles beautifully. (She and Taylor made a great pair -- the posters screamed T-N-T. Unfortunately, they were never paired again.) Her

beauty is so striking, that whenever she is onscreen with others, you find yourself drawn to her. It is a very mature acting job for the tender age of 21.

The homosexual element in the film is extraordinary for 1941. I think the Production Code people must have been on autopilot when they read the script. If this didn't tip them off, then you'd think the finished product would. (SPOILER) The scene where Taylor cradles the dog's head in his hands after fighting with Heflin is mirrored at the end of the film with the two actors, and that's the least of it! (I won't give any more away.) Hello? How it passed, I will never know, but it makes the characters, even that of Johnny, so humane and multi-dimensional. Very impressive, and well ahead of its time.

SUPPORTING PLAYERS: Edward Arnold: Ever dependable, again he does not disappoint. As Turner's step-dad, Arnold, too, expresses a wide range of emotions with ease and total believability as the law-enforcement element of the story. His conflict over Turner's lifestyle is portrayed fabulously. One of my favorite character actors ever! Robert Sheridan: Great as the noble and selfless Jimmy Courtney, Turner's `other man.' I wish his film career would have gone further. Glenda Farrell: Lovely, but wasted in a very small role. Patricia Dane: Her character is unsympathetic, but she manages to inject a high level of humanity into it, evoking concern nonetheless. Barry Nelson: in his very early twenties, and already a decent villain. Paul Stewart: (see above)

Special Mention goes to Gypsy Prince, the retired greyhound dog with such a sweet face, endlessly chasing the squeaky toy!

DO NOT MISS THIS FILM!

(Spoilers) Misogynistic, yet emasculating serio-comedy from the great Buñuel. I have just seen this one for the second time, and enjoyed it even more than before. Although it has misogynistic implications (actually rather more explicit than implicit), the fact that Archibaldo (perfectly played by Ernesto Alonso)never does succeed in carrying out his daydreams of harm to the various women in his life, this fact emasculates his character. The women are not victorious, however, for for every Archie and his failed attempts, the ladies all suffer at the hands of the other men in their lives. Therefore, the misogyny prevails.

I was a bit offended by this film the first time around (when I saw it about 3 years ago), but having seen more of Buñuel's work and more films, both foreign and domestic (US)) of its ilk since, I decided to give it another chance, and am glad that I did. The movie's ironic nature saves it from being too cruel to enjoy. That and the fact that, after the talk with the doctor, Archibaldo seems to reform at the film's end, drowning (in effect burying or suppressing) the music box (the symbol of his deranged desires, and the object to which he attributes dominance, power and virility), throwing away his cane (another crutch), and walking off with Lavinia, who seemed to make him happiest during the film (as opposed to the other women).

The characters of Particia and Carlota (and Lavinia, to a slightly lesser extent) are seen as shrewish and scheming – they certainly all have their own agendas and never come across as wholly innocent – which lends feelings of sympathy towards Archibaldo (who is being used by all of them).

Themes of Catholicism pervade the film, although not in a heavy-handed way. The symbolism, typical of Buñuel, was strong and put to good use, i.e.: the mannequin (represents Lavinia), the music box (see above), the straight razor (a phallic symbol and violence), the cane (a `crutch'), the pottery wheel (goes around and around and no way out, representing Archie's situation), the flaming drink (foreshadows his fantasy for Lavinia), her tour guide/interpreters job (language barrier miscommunication/repression of the true feelings of the characters).

It is interesting to note that Alejandro, the married man with whom Carlota is having an affair, is often addressed as `Architect' instead of by his name. An architect creates and builds, whereas his character destroys – another great touch in a movie full of them.

Some thoughts: 1) How long will Archie's reformation last – if it is genuine at all? 2) I felt sorry for Archie for not being able to actually carry out one of his dastardly fantasies – instead, in each case, he was `saved' by circumstance. This was surely the filmmakers' intent. Well, it worked! 3) Archie is guilty, in his mind, of actually committing the crimes – hence his `confession' to the doctor. This is why he throws the music box (he thought it was partially responsible) in the pond. Good character development/insight into his psyche. 4) I think the writer(s) and director did a an excellent job of conveying to us Archie's early life at home with his mother (who didn't seem to care about him), the hated Nanny (whose death started the chain of events), and the (absent) father. In including this glimpse of his early life, we gain a better understanding of Archie's character (his up-bringing plus this event) and can perhaps conclude that these may be contributing factors to why he did what he did/why he was who he was.

RECOMMENDED!

I did enjoy Westward Passage on the whole, but the film has quite a few flaws: 1) Olivier's Nick Allen character was unlikeable for the most part, capable of very wide mood swings within a matter of seconds. (Having dated someone like this for 2 ½ years, I can tell you, it's no picnic). It was hard to have any sympathy for him, or to identify with the character. 2) Ann Harding's performance was serviceable, but way too low-key for Olivier, getting lost in their many scenes together, making virtually no impact. 3) By the time ZaSu Pitts returns in the middle of the film, her whining has become so annoying and unecessary, you will feel like punching her lights out. 4) Harding's other love interest is seen as a schemer from the start, and it was difficult to want the two of them to stay together, so he was not really a good foil for Olivier.

Bonita Granville, who played the protagonists‘ daughter, was very good in her small role, and one of the most beautiful children I have ever, ever seen. WOW!

AN EXCELLENT MOMENT: (spoiler) After being slapped in the face by Harding, Olivier, definitely a cad, but no woman-basher, takes his anger and frustration out on Ralph the giraffe (a symbol of his wife) by slapping it across the face. This is such a small thing, yet this little touch, so matter-of-factly played, added both humor and poignancy at a pivotal point in the film. Without a doubt, this was one of the best little pieces of action I have ever seen in a movie, and the filmmakers should be proud.

The film's ending is left open to interpretation as to whether or not there will be a reconciliation between the two, which I thought was good. Lots of nice piano playing of lovely songs throughout the film was also a plus, however the film was too episodic in structure, and therefore never really took off.

Recommended for its good points and for Olivier's performance.

I must first say that, although I have read that Cary Grant was unhappy with his role in this film, he should be well proud of himself. Yes, he overplays it a little, but when you consider the material and the fact that the movie is a comedy, it is just such a perfect performance. The fact that Mortimer is afraid that he will also end up as nutty as all of these relatives of his only adds to the poor man's neurosis, and makes him paranoid on top of being afraid and bewildered by the day's events, and Grant is magnificent in portraying all of these emotions and conflicts at once. I can't see anyone else in the role - it belongs to Grant completely.

THE BEST RUNNING GAG IN MOVIE HISTORY: What can I say about the `he looks like Boris Karloff' gag except that it's so damn funny that I laughed every single time, or when Jack Carson says, `hey look at that puss,' or when Grant calls him `handsome.' And Jonathan's baby photo and talk of it scaring children at Halloween .!!! All of this was just hilarious. Hats off to Massey, and as much as I like Boris Karloff, and I'm sure he'd have been great in the role, it's simply funnier that the guy LOOKS LIKE KARLOFF!

Another fun and oh-so-true-to-life running joke: People in all sorts of situations barraging Mortimer with their play/novel ideas because he is a writer -- even, a couple of times, when their lives clearly were in danger.

I love the many, MANY throw-away lines that were tossed off so matter-of-factly by the stellar cast (especially Grant), but my favorite must be when the cat comes out of the body-strewn basement and Grant remarks, `even the cat's in on it.' Oh, man, I'm laughing just typing this.

John Alexander was delightful as President Roosevelt, and it was funny to picture that `he wouldn't be anybody' when the aunts persuaded him to be George Washington, and simply hid under the bed.

Priscilla Lane was great as always, even though her role was pretty thankless for the most part. James Gleason was terrific as the cop, Jack Carson was funny beyond compare, Everett Horton was his usually silly self, and the aunts wonderfully underplayed their roles.

Peter Lorre, one of my favorite actors, was such a trip as the `short, balding bug-eyed' Dr. Einstein, and Raymond Massey was an absolute hoot as Jonathan.

Hands down, my favorite comedy ever. DO NOT MISS THIS ONE, folks!!!

As you can see from my ID name, this is one of my top 10 movies of all time. Yes, it is basically a filmed stage play, not really opened out, but the performances of the 3 leads are so magnificent, it doesn't really matter.

Dame May Whitty plays a woman you love to hate very well in this one. Mrs. Bramson, her character, is so nasty, smug and self-satisfied, that you can't help but cheer when Bob Montgomery's Danny smothers her – good show! My friend and I laughed our heads off when she went into hysteria when left alone and had to drag her butt off the wheelchair and actually stand up on her own. A very good performance. I have seen her in several other films, but in smaller and less showy roles than here, and I think she carried it off beautifully– and she was 72 at the time. WOW! -- Impressive!

What can I say about Robert Montgomery's performance, except that I thought it was fantastic, and such a large step away from many of his roles, especially up to that point. Apparently the studio was mad at him for defying some rule, or whatever, and gave him this role as punishment. Well, he showed them. Aside from him being slightly restrained in a couple of earlier scenes (he could have been a bit more menacing, although I suppose the objective was to build the suspense at a slower pace), his performance hit fever pitch at the film's end. The arrest scene (my friend's favorite) and the psychotic breakdown speech (my favorite – the church/evil monologue was great also) were excellent. Who knew the man had it in him? And all the while keeping the spot-on Welsh accent. BRAVO!!!! As good as Montgomery was in comedy, I would love to have seen him in more roles similar to this (as in The Big House and A Rage in Heaven).

Rosalind Russell was the perfect choice for the role of Olivia Grayne, Whitty's niece, as we see her blossom from a backward, repressed, shy woman into a more self-assured, no-nonsenser unafraid to speak her mind by the movie's end -- both types of roles that Russell has always been able to pull off with ease.

The lengthly scene in the kitchen between Danny and Olivia (the actors make a good pair) is very sexy, yet does not even contain a single kiss. Boy, they knew how to make ‘em in the old days!

My little quiibbles: the script could have delved a bit more into Danny's psyche, and could also have relied on less conveniently-placed exits/entrances for the characters. But these are minor points.

A film not to be missed for the fab performances, esp. Bob Montgomery tossing cats around and menacing old ladies.

HIGHLY RECOMMEMDED.

Aside from the fact that Damita cannot act her way out of a paper bag, I found this little gem highly amusing. Add one practically unrecognizable Adolphe Menjou (that's a good thing, mind you) in prissy mode, A young, gorgeous and very sexy Laurence Olivier in even prissier mode (nice lisp, Larry), the archetypically silly British dogsbody (Hugh Herbert, who is great), add one seriously hilarious over-the-top-but-perfectly-so performance from Erich Von Stroheim, and you have got one hell of a cool flick here!

The fact that they were all fighting over this woman was lost on me - surely it wasn't for her acting skills.

SPOILER (this paragraph only) My favorite part was when Olivier finds Damita and Menjou in a clandestine clutch and screams "I oughta kill the pair of ya!" while firing a revolver at them. Also, each time they mentioned the fact that Von Stroheim's character "collected porcelain," people would glance at each other slyly, as though this trait was highly taboo. Very funny!

A great piece of acting by Larry before he became the "Laurence Olivier entity," if you know what I mean. A superb early performance by him that should not be missed. Recommended.

I saw this last night for the first time since I was about 7 or 8. Maybe it's sacreligious, but all I could think of during the entire film was how hot Victor Garber and David Haskell looked, regardless of the fact that they were supposed to be Jesus and Judas. So shoot me.

Slight spoiler (this line only): I thought the whole hanging-off-the-gate scene was quite sexual. Well done!

Still, most of the songs were quite good. I remember my sister and I watching this as children, and begging mom to buy us the soundtrack, which she did. I bet she was sorry, too, because we drove her insane singing every damn song over and over. And we were so young, that instead of singing "Turn Back, oh Man," we sang it as "Tobacco Man."

Question: Why were there only 8 apostles (not including Judas)?

I liked the roller-skates, too. VERY 70's, but in a good way. The clothes left MUCH to be desired (don't miss that about the 70's, I can tell ya now!).

A sad note - seeing the World Trade Center towers when one number was being played out on a NYC rooftop.