Reviews

I just watched this film on YouTube; it's there for free in version with very good image quality. It was a box office flop, and has a poor reputation among classic film devotees. But if you enjoy musicals, you might want to give it a chance.

I mildly enjoyed it. Fairbanks Jr. Is excellent, giving a spirtited performance with the right touch of believable emotion and light tungue in cheek playfulness. The sets are opulant. Fredrick Holander's music is lovely, though the song lyrics (by Leo Robin?) are mediocre and banal. There are occasional playfully funny moments.

On the down side, the film overall lacks the charm, subtle sexiness, and light touch that Lubitch would have given it, if he had directed the entire thing, and his capabilities were not greatly diminished by very poor health. Grable is OK in the role, but far from the ideal actress-singer for it. I've read that Fox head Zanick wanted to broaden her appeal and put her in more high class roles, so she made three classy pictures and all of them, including this one flopped. (One of them is excellent, and I highly recommend it, "The Shocking Miss Pilgrim".)

That Lady in Ermine seems to have two endings; and I felt let down by the second one. It should have ended when the Fairbanks character rides away, bidding the Grable character a regretful goodby. But then there's a entirely unnecessary scene, which seems tacked on.

I was really sure that the actor playing Shirley MacLaine's son was in real life, Eddie Fisher's son with either Debbie Reynolds or Liz Taylor ! When I looked him up, I was surprised to find he aparently isn't. But how can the very strong resemblence not have been a strong factor in casting him ?

As for the movie -- as a old move buff, I found it fun to see the old broads still had their performing chops. The barbed dialog is amusing, though not for me, laugh out loud funny.

I see I have to use at least 600 characters, so I'll also note that I find it very hard to imagine Julie Andrews in Joan Collin's role, and am not surprised she turned the role down.

I've watched the first half of this film, and doubt I'll watch more. Very off-putting to me are the over the top, cartoonish, one dimensional performances of Reginald Owen, Burgess Merideth, Fancis Lederer, and Irene Ryan. Also off-putting, the phony looking, soundstage-bound sets where the entire movie takes place.

I did enjoy Godard's performance, and think she did a credable job, something that's reviewers here disagree about.

Another big drawback my strong sense that the story is emasculated and compromised by what American movies could and could not contain in 1946. I don't know what was missing, other than sex, from the source material, but it's obvious that a lot is.

I strongly disagree with those who say why remake a beloved classic film from the 1930's; just watch the original. From a commercial standpoint, the very large percentage of a contemporary audience in the 1970's or now is not going to appreciate this sort of older film; it's in black and white, image and sound comparatively primative, it's acting, filming and editing style very different than what the contemporary audience is used to. From studio or producer's standpoint, why not make an up to date version of an excellent story which already proved itself a commercial success; good chance you'll make money. From a film creator's viewpoint, why not exercise your creative muscles and have a fine time on your own version of a classic story?

OK, so the 1979 version of The Lady Vanishes is not the suspenseful classic that Hitchcock's version was. It's still a fun way to spend a couple of hours, and even improves on the original in some ways (and is inferior in others). Improvements include the beautiful color location production, rather than the studio bound, back projection filled 1938 film. Setting the film just days before WWII broke out hightens the stakes in a way the 1938 film could not. I've not watched the Hitchcock film in awhile, so I may not have this correct, but I don't remember that the heroine makes fun of Hitler, as she does in the newer film; this adds to the danger she's in; the Nazi's are after her as well as Mrs. Froy.

I agree with some of the other reviewers here that the newer film's mix of suspense, humor, and romance doesn't come off as well we'd hope; one reviewer pointed out that the tone of the film is similar to Charade, but it's not nearly as accomplished in any of those story aspects. The large amount of humor in the 1979 film, detracts from the suspense and the romance doesn't ring true, not much chemistry between the leads. Still I enjoyed it.

Other reviewers here have done a good job describing the plot and praising Montgomery's delightful performance as a scoundrel.

The other lead actors are cast unconventionally. Payne handles a realistic dramatic part very capably and believably. Hayward is very surprisingly convincing as a gentle, soft spoken wife -- showing only briefly, when appropriate, a bit of her usual strong, firey, agressive screen presence. Totter gives a fairly capable performance, though she seems miscast; her sometimes strange facial expressions and mannered body language better suited a character more edgy and dark than the one she's playing here.

I wonder how this cast ended up in this Universal International film. Payne, Hayward, Harry Morgan were all Fox contractees. Totter an MGM player. (Montgomery was freelancing by this time, and made several films released through Universal.)

I'll be brief, as several other reviewers here have pointed out some of the flaws with this movie. James Mason is miscast as the criminal gang doctor who finds redemtion in a Mexican village; he doesn't satisfyingly convey the doctor's reformation as a helpful healer. The last act of the movie is illogical, and the very ending a casualty of the Production Code. Why did they cast all of the Mexican roles with Latinos and cast the fairly large role of the priest to an Anglo actor, who unlike the others, speaks with no Mexican accent, and is obvously dubbed when he speaks some brief lines in Spanish? Why are several of the Mexican peasants, living in a very small rural town, fluent in English ? Why is Jack Elam not credited for his brief but important role?

Too disagree with one or another of the other reviews here, Rock Hudson's role lasts maybe ten seconds and consists of one line of dialog, totally unnotable if he were not to become Rock Hudson movie star. The cirematography is just fine, and the sound is in perfect sync, in the version I watched for free on Youtube in Oct. 2023. Dan Durea has a surprisingly small supporting role, and is less nasty, and less impressive than in many of his other films.

Lastly, Mara Toren is compelling and very beautiful in the Ingrid Bergman manner, but it's hard to believe her passion for James Mason, who is his usual emotionally strong but cold self in a role that calls for an actor who can portray some warmth and loving feelings.

There's an excellent quality, high definition, wide screen version of this movie on YouTube.

It's a small scale, multi-character drama. Almost everyone in the cast turn in believable, reality grounded performances. Collins and Mansfield show that they were very good actresses, not just sex objects. Rick Jason is effective as the leading man, and Dan Daily does a very compentent turn as a supporting player (he was always a very good actor, not just a song and dance man).

Given that this was a relatively low budget production, the average special effects, and minor production faults are understandable and little noticable.

Starting to watch this movie, which someone uploaded to YouTube, I was mightily impressed with Elinore Parker's acting chops, as she goes full throtle, yet is believable, as a sadistic, masocistic drunk. One more proof that she was one of the best and most versitile actresses of her era. She also looks impressively younger than her forty something age. Unfortunately, she's only in the first 10 minutes of the movie, and after that it's pretty awful.

I can't compete writing-wise with several of the funny, creative, and dead on IMDB reviews of the film, so I'm not going to try.

I'll just note that the Johnny Mandel title song is a classic, beautiful and moving.

In summer 2022 TCM is showing the recently extensively restored, full Cinerama image version of the film, which just came out on Blu-Ray. The image clarity and color are excellent, with almost no trace of 3 camera Cinerama distortions. But the movie itself is a mixed bag, with more negatives than positives. Anyone who is moderately savvy about film technique will see that the filmmakers were very limited by shortcomings with the Cinerama process. There are no close ups or medium close ups, everything is shot in long shots or medium shots. The large majority of the film is made up of static shots, where the camera does not move. The camera never moves side to side, only in and out. And there is very distracting fish eye distortion in the interior scenes (less noticeable in the outdoor scenes).

Lawrence Harvey is lively and fun in his role, but Karl Bohm is a liability. And how is it that one brother speaks with a British accent, and the other with a German accent ? The film makes good use of Russ Tamblin's tumbling ability and he shows plenty of playful energy. The women in the cast are given little to do and do it merely adequitely.

The music is a highlight, catchy and light, though to nitpick, the choral arrangements are old fashioned for 1962, sounding more like 1940's Disney (composer Lee Harline scored Pinochio and perhaps one or two other early 40's Disney features).

Though a B film, shot in studio sets and the back lot, superior writing and performances from the leads provide a very pleasant time. The story, though pretty predictable, is flawlessly constructed, the dialog witty. Greer, Young, and Lawford give flawless light comedy performances with occasional dramatic moments.

It's a shame that Greer didn't have a more robust film acting career, because she's such a good actress, always natural and believable, and handles the verbal give and take perfectly.

The film has no film composing credits, but the sprited, sprightly music under the opening credits is "Confetti" by Bronislau Kaper, probably written for another movie, which had some life beyond the films, as did some of his other movie theme music.

I want to laud this production for being more historically accurate than most films and TV shows that take place in studio era Hollywood. I'm very knowledgable about the history of classic American film, and am often irritated at historical carlessness or ignorance I see in these sorts of productions. But this one hues closer to the actual people, films, and events of the year or so that it portrays than most. And it's characters and plots impressively utilize what went on in public and private in Hollywood, and in world history, to tell a fictional story. Yes there are inaccuracies, but they are relatively minor.

I agree with many other reviewers that the production values of this series were excellent, as were nearly all of the actors. And I agree it's a shame that the series did not continue, as there was plenty of interesting plot and character developments that could have played out.

Perhaps the most impressively produced war film I've ever seen. The battle hardware used and destroyed--tanks, planes, etc. and realistic special effects do not make an involving story, nor characters I cared about. Too many characters, too many unrealistically handsome movie stars, way too many explosions and unrelenting battle carnage. And a downer ending too boot. No wonder this film failed at the box office.

Exception was the sargent played by James Cann (spelling?). That was perhaps the only character I cared about, who's story was compelling.

The music is first rate, and the main theme is one of the best movie marches ever.

The 1955 film is one of my favorites, so it colors my assessment of this newer version. If the classic film did not exist, this TV movie would be a bit more engaging and commendable. But though competently made on a far less opulent budget, it pales in most respects.

The acting performances in this remake are, for the most part, more true to life, but lack the emotional punch and/or charisma of Holden, Novak, Russell, and all the fine actors of the 1955 version. The TV movie is bland in comparison.

The script is serviceable but unmemorable; the 1955 script is full of memorable moments and dialog.

The TV movie's music is especially inferior, generic small ensemble music, with some obviously synthesized instuments. Compare that to the 1955 film's beautiful and effective big orchestra score, by George Dunning.

The last scene in both versions is instuctive. The 1955 version gives me a rush of elation, a feeling of joyous culmination. The TV movie, ehh.

And though I was very fond of Mary Steinburgen in "Melvin and Howard" and "Time After Time", here she is completely miscast as the old maid middle aged school teacher. She's too pretty and sexy for the role, and lacks the emotional impact Rosiland Russell gave to what should be a pitiful despirate character.

As a film history buff, I found this little known movie most interesting. It's partially a sister film to the innovative classic Love Me Tonight, though inferior to it.

The first segment of This Is the Night seems almost surely directed by Roubin Mamoulian; it's very similar in style, camerawork, and editing to what Mamoulian created in Love Me Tonight. Based on what I've seen of credited director Frank Tuttle's film output, I doubt he had the taste or technique to create something so avant garde and artistic. It uses sound effects as a comic substitute for dialog and singing, and features unusual screen compositions, fast cutting, and a very mobile camera. All clues that Mamoulian created it.

The rest of this comedy film is less interesting, but features witty dialog, and occasional unconventionally staged scenes.

For me, the major flaw is the, impossible to swallow but important, plot conceit that the pretty and rich young woman played by Thelma Todd would cuckhold her studly handsome young husband (Cary Grant) for little,meek, middle aged Roland Young.

Grant is physically is ideal for the part he's playing, but in this, his first film, lacks any charisma or acting ability. However the rest of the cast do a fine job.

This abridged version of "The Fantastics" has strong and weak aspects, but worth watching. I especially enjoyed Susan Watson as the "girl"; she acted and sung the part perfectly (the other Imdb reviewer is crazy to say she sings poorly !). John Davidson sung beatifully, though it was a bit hard to buy him as an innocent "boy"; a bit too much show business personna. Watson and Davidson were both beautiful to look at, if that's of consequence.

Montalban was excellent casting for El Galo. As an actor; he found effective, sometimes unusual ways to act the poetic text. His singing was passable, though inferior to those who've usually played the part.

Fun to see Lahr and Holloway ham it up as the fathers, though they seemed under rehearsed.

Negatives: Using a full orchestra, playing cliche'd, mushy orchestrations, was a mistake which hindered the vocals. All the charming lightness of the original instrumental accompaniment was gone.

A lot of material was cut out of this one hour version of the play. Some I didn't miss, but some I did. It seemed to me that some of the text was new, not necessarily bad, but needless revision to the original.

Best aspect of this mediocre film is Max Steiner's musical score, especially the strirring main theme. Otherwise the movie is disappointing, not terrible, but far from what it might have been.

I've not researched John Paul Jones' actual life, but it's obvious a lot of what is portrayed is contrived fiction.

Some parts of the film seem overlong, such as the battle scenes, which are often confusing. Who is on which side?, since the uniforms of Brits and Americans are similar, and the editing adds to the confusion. Other parts of the film seem pared down from what may have been shot, such as the cursory "love" story between Jones and the French protege of Ben Franklin. Or Bruce Cabot's cifer of a character; he's very quickly introduced as a bad*ss, then briefly glimpsed as one of the good guy fighters in a handful of scenes; what did they cut out?

As others have noted, Stack's one dimensional acting is a pretty big minus, but he is believable as a driven man of action.

I love the comment by one IMDB reviewer about George Washington only being shown from the back (while we hear his godlike words of wisdom), a treatment Hollywood usually reserved for "the son of God" !

I was willing to suspend disbelief in this farfetched Gable-Turner vehicle, until Victor Mature showed up as a Dutch reistance fighter. Where did he get his signiture deep suntan in cool, cloudy Holand? Talk about miscasting, Mature is about as Dutch (or any kind of European) as the Hollywood sign. He makes no effort whatsoever to being anything but a brash all-American wolf. How come his mom and brother speak with thick accents, but he speaks perfect American ?

On the positive end, Turner and Gable turn in credible acting performances, and there's some attractive Technicolor outdoor location shooting, though probably using doubles in long shots for the stars (I didn't pay enough attention to this silly film to really catch it).

One thing I did catch was though shot in the old non-widescreen (academy) aspect ratio, the shots were composed so that the top and perhaps a bit of the bottom of the frame could be cropped so the film could be shown in theaters able to show widescreen (1:85 to 1) movies. This makes sense since the film was made in 1953 or early 1954. In viewing the film on TCM, in I noticed some of the shots and the sets had an unusual amount of irrelevant ceiling, extra tall cabinets, etc.

First, may I point out that the film Holiday Inn was NOT a Universal picture, Universal had nothing to do with it. It was a Paramount picture, created by people at that studio. Just because Universal acquired the rights to old Paramount films doesn't mean it's right for Universal to self-promote itself in the credits for the stage version and in the stage show itself. In this age where the President of the United States habitually lies and willl do anything to promote himself, this is a small matter. But being a classic film buff, I was irritated enough to write this anyway.

Now for the video of the stage production. Very professionally mounted , well performed and staged, but lacking any charm or magic. Pales in comparison with the film version (itself very far from the top eschelon of movie musicals).

Perhaps the biggest reason for the stage video's shortcomings is that was staged for a live audience, not staged with the camera in mind. The actors play their parts too broadly for the screen and they are almost always seen in long shots; this diminishes audience emphathy for them and the characters they play.

The other IMDb reviews, positive and negative, make valid points about the virtues and flaws of this obscure 1947 film. It grabbed my interest immediately in the title sequence. Russell and Douglas, almost always cast up to then in comedies(romantic or otherwise),in a dramatic film. (Easy to know it was a drama from the title and from the title music.)

And the music, all through the film--gorgeous, moving, and like no 1940's score I've ever heard. By George Dunning, it was straight out of the mid to late 1950's. A minor revelation to me, a film soundtrack buff.

Back to the fascinating cast: Betsy Blair (Gene Kelly's surprisingly wafe-like wife, who I'd only seen in "Marty"), Nina Foch (a talented, skilled "serious" actress, who made too few films), Sid Caesar (before his genius TV comic career).

Once into the film,I was grabbed by Melvyn Douglas's masterfully realistic and believable performance, not a hint of acting with a big A.

Can't say the same for Russell--she hit the right emotional notes, but always seemed to be ACTING.

One more grabber was the extended, purposely and artfully artificial trance sequences, playing out the heroine's mind. Very effective though obviously done on a low budget.

As of this writing, in Nov. 2017, the film is uploaded on YouTube in murky but watchable 15 minute segments. Definitely worth a watch.

As far as I can tell, today in 2017, the only way to watch this very pleasant musical comedy is on YouTube. The image quality of the version there is horrible, obviously sourced from an old worn out videotape. Usually I wouldn't put up with the washed out, ultra-low resolution picture, but found myself watching the whole thing and enjoying it.

The big surprise was the very witty dialog, delivered skillfully by O'Connor and the obscure Lew Parker. Of course Donald shines in several comparatively modest dance numbers (this wasn't MGM after all). But Parker, who looks to be in his late 50's, but according to his IMDb bio was about 41, is a surprisingly agile in vaudeville style dancing. And Parker really scores as a fast talking flim-flam man, delivering comic patter with aplomb.

The songs are well crafted but forgettable. For some reason Olga San Juan, a good vocalist, is given almost no singing to do, and her comic skills are underutilized. The production with it's carnival setting would have benefited from color, but it's in B&W.

A treat for those old enough to have grown up with the 1950's TV show, The Adventures of Superman, Lois Lane aka Noel Nell, is a supporting player in this film. She proves herself to be a capable dancer, charming, charismatic, and very pretty too. Too bad she didn't have more of a film career.

I wasn't intending to watch this film when I turned on TCM early this morning to see what was on, but as a classic film buff found it interesting enough to sit down and see. What grabbed my interest was not the hokey, homespun, highly predictable story. It was that unlike most films of it's day, much of the film was shot outdoors with highly mobile and fluid camera-work. The outdoor back lot sets were fairly elaborate, and the scenes at the hero's farm were shot on location in a beautiful rural area (I'm pretty sure the same area was used by Fox several years later for Drums Along The Mohawk).

I strongly suspect that the large supporting role played by Slim Summerville was intended for Fox star Will Rogers, who died in a plane crash in 1935.

In the 1930's a high percentage of Fox films were aimed at rural and small town audiences, unlike most of the films of the other major studios. I've read that this was because a large percentage of the theaters that Fox owned were in those areas, rather than urban ones.

Perhaps the best thing about Centennial Summer is it's story and the way it's acted; it's just a light family drama-comedy and a love triangle, but the characters and plot have a bit of novelty and bite that keeps them fresh rather than cliché.

In the acting department, what's most interesting is Walter Brennan and Dorothy Gish. Rather than his usual crusty old man and/or comic sidekick, Brennan convincingly plays a husband, father, working man. Sometimes I like to conjecture about might-have-been casting choices. I suspect that his role was written with Don Ameche in mind, but Ameche had recently left Fox in a contract dispute. This is the only sound film role in which I've seen Dorothy Gish; she shows she has the acting chops, gravitas, and a nearly identical voice as her film-great sister, Lillian.

What's disappointing about this musical is that most of the songs seem unimaginatively inserted into the plot, rather than integrated as part of the story. After well integrated musical films like "Meet Me In St. Louis" and Fox's "State Fair" this is a backward thing. And Centennial Summer seems about 3 songs short; I noticed a couple of obvious places in the script where songs would be expected but were not there. The song "I Woke Up With The Lark This Morning", used in the early part of the film where it belongs, is also used to end the film, where a more appropriate song is called for. Apparently, Jerome Kern was not able to provide a full complement of songs (due either to poor health or his death) but the filmmakers ought to have adapted and used appropriate songs from his very large catalog.

I viewed this on YouTube in Nov. 2015; someone uploaded a very poor quality videotape of the show. But even a pristine copy, if such a thing existed, would be very inferior in production values of the classic film. The 1959 TV version was shot with that era's primitive video equipment, camera-work was unimaginative and static, lighting bright and bland, sets simple and cramped. The video I saw is in black and white; I'm not sure if the original broadcast was in color, CBS generally did not have color programs in 1959, though they very rarely offered color for special entertainment programming.

Contrary to what the previous IMDb reviewer wrote, the program would have been videotaped, not live, but based on the results it was shot quickly, with minimal time for retakes.

Rather than use the superb musical arrangements from the 1944 film, this version had much cruder, bland, generic 1950's style arrangements, though performed by a full orchestra and chorus. I especially missed Kay Thompson's often intricate, jazz-infused choral arrangements; here often replaced with unison singing.

In my opinion, the only reason to watch the TV version is to compare the acting and singing of the impressive cast to the original performers. Jane Powell sings every bit as beautifully as in any of her MGM musicals, and gives a enjoyable and convincing performance; she plays the role of Esther straight, lacking the delightful comedic touch that Judy Garland brought to the part. Walter Pidgeon as her father is more sympathetic and just plain nicer than Leon Ames tart characterization in the original; both versions are effective. Jeanne Crain and Myrna Loy are given nothing to sink their teeth into in their underwritten parts and do a competent job, nothing more. Patty Duke is a lot of fun as Tootie, and almost as good as Margaret O'Brien in the original.

Tab Hunter, as "The Boy Nextdoor" is Tab Hunter, likable and bland. He gets top billing in the show's credits, over Jane Powell, which is just ridiculous, his is a supporting part, she is the star, but I guess he was a hot property in 1959 and she and Jeanne Crain were sadly not. Tab gets two songs to sing in this version, not in the original; he has a pleasant little voice and sings on pitch. His songs and one other addition to the original score are suitable to the story and the period, but not of the quality of the songs written for the film.

The only acting performance I really disliked was Ed Wynn's. He demonstrates little acting ability as grandpa, and continually uses his standard mannerisms, such as laughing softly to himself. The same year as this TV version, Wynn gave a surprisingly accomplished performance in "The Diary of Anne Frank"; it may have been the greater time and care put into that film vs. this TV show, and it may have been the skill of Anne Frank's director, George Stevens.

I want to say something about Rita Shaw; I always very much enjoy her accomplished light comic turns in the few films I'm aware she made (Pajama Game, Pollyanna, and Mary Poppins). She's just as good here.

This TV version uses the same script as the film, a very good choice. There are a couple of added scenes that I suspect were written for the film but not used, and some very minor alterations.

From the few episodes I've watched so far, The Naked City was certainly one of the most accomplished and sophisticated TV police dramas ever. The caliber of the writing and acting and location cinematography was superior.

In this episode, Dan Durea, Barbara Harris, and a likable semi-delinquent who has an innocent attraction to her (name?) all give compelling believable performances.

I've never seen a TV show with the sort of story depicted here; it's quite a fascinating look at a violent and obsessive father, who genuinely loves his innocent daughter, but all but pimps her out to entice young men, so he can beat the sh*t out of them.

Burgess Meredith and Eileen Heckart give superb performances. Alan Alda is effective in a early role very different from those he's known for. Hershel Bernardi gives a nuanced performance in a role that could have been one dimensional. You can even see the renound acting teacher Sanford Miesner do some acting, though I was underwhelmed by it.

The verbal sophistication and copious amount of poetry used in the script points out how far our popular culture has devolved. There's no way that a TV show or film, made in the last several decades for a popular audience, would dare anything like this.

That's all I have to say, but IMDb requires at least ten lines, so I'm adding this useless verbiage.