Reviews

3 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
A Typical Presley Travelogue
9 January 2005
"Girls Girls Girls" is an early entry in the cavalcade of fomulaic nonsense that serves as Elvis Presley's filmography, a trifle that reveals the usual design features of his routinely drecky movies.

There's Elvis playing the ambitious, yet happy-go-lucky rake on the make, a sorta hybrid of Danny Fisher ("King Creole") and Lucky Jackson ("Viva Las Vegas"). In this one, Elvis typically weasels his way into singing at a nightclub so that he can afford to buy a fishing boat. In other films, it's the same old take, only in other instances he's looking to open a nightclub, buy an engine for his race car, etc. This film sets up the tired, hackneyed plot devices used ad nauseaum by his producers for the following five or six years.

As is common in an Elvis flick, the screenplay is juvenile and moronic, complete with confrontational scenes, childish interaction with his leading ladies, friction with an antagonistic foil (in this case Jeremy Slate) and the presence of either the goony sidekick or paternal well-wisher (Robert Strauss fits that bill in his cultural abortion, as the nightclub owner). Add a score that has maybe two or three decent songs ("Return To Sender" is the stand out tune) and the rest just padded junk, and sunny carefree locals, and you have the makings of the standard EV singing travelogue.

What I find interesting is that the Elvis character in his post-military films is always resolving issues with his fists, assaulting someone or other for the sake of injecting a tad of action in the rather lame proceedings. The stunt doubles used for E in the matching shots are invariably unconvincing. His characters also usually display a condescending or patronizing antipathy towards his love interest, who always comes around to E's rather bumptious attempts at courtship in the final reel.

Also noteworthy in E's flicks is the constant use of back projection. This is a wan approach at making "motion pictures," in that the camera doesn't move, but the background does. Maybe this is because Presley didn't move very well, and the directors didn't want their star getting vertigo and stumbling around, hurting himself, damaging the set, etc. by doing anything physically ambitious.

These aspects are seen constantly in "Girls Girls Girls," which makes it quite typical of this sub-genre. In fact, as it's early on in the cycle, it's the blueprint for much worse films to follow, and since a modicum of effort was expended on this film, an aspect increasingly absent in later Presley flicks, this one is a solid 2-star. Keep in mind that by the time Presley is making "Harum Scarum" three years later, the Elvis picture melts down to a typical 1-star status.

"Girls Girls Girls" is at least watchable, which is more than you can say about 75% of the crap that appears on TV these days.
3 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
One of the Worst Films I've Ever Seen
23 December 2004
Warning: Spoilers
After watching this cinematic abomination, I felt embarrassed for anyone remotely associated with it, down to the Script Girl, Scene Dresser and the Caterer. One of the worst examples of noir as it's a watered-down version of the Genuine Article that makes clumsy, gratuitous use of early Cold War paranoia in a most cartoonish manner.

Because of its weak script and maladroit direction, the performances of several usually competent actors (Ralph Meeker, Albert Dekker, Paul Stewart, Jack Elam, Cloris Leachman) are either sub par or wasted. Meeker tries to make a go of the Mike Hammer character, but he's too pudgy and soft-looking to be convincing in the role of red-blooded, iron-fisted tough guy. Since the script is so lame, ill-focused and full of extraneous padding, the motivations and actions of his character seem vacant or tentative. His brooding doesn't convey a sense of inner struggle, rather, he comes off as blank-looking and a tad dim. Also, as Hammer has his gun license suspended in the early going of the film, the character without the gat is like Jason Giambi off steroids.

The film does not have enough plot or character development to justify its 100+ minute running time: as perhaps 20 minutes of the picture should have been left on the cutting room floor, the pacing of the movie is sluggish and its narrative management is meandering. There are dozens of very long takes in the film where not much is happening narratively: it seems that the characters are just Doing Things and Killing Time, merely fulfilling the duration requirements of a feature film.

Too many of the film's undercurrents and plot twists are left unexplained. Perhaps this was meant to enhance the intrigue of the piece, maybe this was a tip of the hat to design features of the noir genre, i.e., evanescent and nebulous plot lines, contradictory narrative elements, etc., that add to the mystery of the story and suggest the nature of human reality (that matters don't always tie up at the end into a neat bundle). But I think not: this is just a case of a sloppy, wheezy and ill-managed script not delivering on the responsibility of bringing the audience sufficiently into the loop.

What I found particularly annoying was the insistence on including in the cast ethnic types with bogus foreign accents, jabbering away in an over-the-top fashion. This happens in three instances. Equally annoying was Meeker's/Hammer's habit of drinking out of other people's glasses, taking cigarettes out of other people's pockets, etc.

The handling of the "whatsit" (some sort of vague nuclear material) was pretty hokey, too. Naive and magical treatment of the film's central narrative motivation that was laughable in its implausibility. It was never explained how the Cloris Leachman character got tied up with this atomic intrigue, nor was the justification of crime figures' interest in the black market material. We can make assumptions on the second issue, but the first truly exercises the audience's suspension of disbelief.

Extremely lame ending, too. Hammer, with a slug in him, and Velda waltzing about in the surf while maverick nuclear material merely burns down the beach house. Right. No thought of the ensuing contamination, obviously, by the writers, director and producer of this piece of crap. Also what was truly rich in this regard was the scene at the health club when Hammer opens the box for the first time and is left with a burn on his wrist. No radiation sickness ensues. Right. And just what is that magic box made of that it can contain such virulent material? And the film just kinda ends, somewhat arbitrarily, immediately after the big Hollywood special effects finish. No narrative rundown, no suggestion of what would likely to come next. The incomplete feel to the ending makes one think that maybe they just ran out of film stock at that point.

Also, the women in this flick, excepting Ms. Leachman, are pretty beat up looking. If you're going to have starlets in eye candy, window dressing roles, at least get some babes who look like something. That sweaty actress who played Velda was built like Marcel Marceau and looked like she needed a good bath.

The only positive attributes of this film were technical issues and style points. Some of the scenes were very well composed and shot, there was some good camera movement and the lighting was indeed top notch. The art direction did capture that cheezy mid-1950s feel and the flick was indeed atmospheric, but these are ancillary concerns in relation to the primary purpose of film-making, i.e., storytelling. Loved that 1955 (1954?) Corvette Hammer drove, though...

I saw this film last evening at a theater in downtown Manhattan: most of the audience was laughing out loud at how dreadful this picture is, and there was a palpable sense of relief in the auditorium when it ended.

But all these negatives aren't particularly surprising when you consider who directed this fiasco. Robert Aldrich made a career of writing, directing and producing really lame, stupid, unbelievable and unconvincing films, and this tepid attempt is typical of his third rate oeuvre.
35 out of 63 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A Mixed Bag of Good and Bad: Dated, But Still Interesting
21 December 2004
It has been repeatedly pointed out here that SOAD is one of Hitchcock's films most overlooked by contemporary audiences, but it must be remembered this film was highly regarded for 30 years following its original release. Of course, more time has passed since then, so the film can't help but be dated at present, although such a status is intriguing as it shines light on the values and mores of an earlier time in America, and as such, is instructive.

The strong points of the film are obvious: very well shot and attractive looking flick, outstanding job by the very great Joseph Cotten, and Theresa Wright, usually a pretty limp and wan actress, puts forth the best performance of her career. Both principals are well supported by the rest of the cast (particularly the Mother, the younger Sister, and Hume Cronyn as the next-door-neighbor). The film offers a charming glimpse of small town life in an America now long dead, and despite assertions by a poster that the wartime feel of the picture is absent, there are subtle but telling references to this off-screen catastrophic event (i.e., the presence of servicemen in at least two scenes, the notice in Oakley's brother-in-law's bank to Buy War Bonds and Stamps, Oakley's statements (in two scenes) that the world outside is evil, a "sty," and the Mother's insistence that the family "help the government" i.e., cooperate during wartime, when the two "surveyors" come to call). The various types of sexual tension in the film are palpable, and quite advanced for a picture of its time. And the little touches are great: Hitchcock's cameo, the brief bit with the waitress in the "Till Two" club, the assertions made by the clergyman at the family's after-speech party, the comic relief offered by the child actors.

The weak points are glaring: doddering pacing and rather ill-focused editing, a pat and too-convenient explanation for Oakley's violent acts (i.e., head injury), a clumsy handling of the presumed budding romance between young Charlie and the detective, the needlessly dramatized episode of young Charlie in the library which supplies gratuitous suspense and tension that's hardly needed at that point in the picture, and a most contrived and implausible climax, albeit pretty harrowing if one exercises a suspension of disbelief.

There are some plot holes that have been mentioned, and some others that have not. Of course, there's the over-generous openness of the family to the two "surveyors," the quick rise of Uncle Charlie as small town hero, the depositing of $40K at the bank without concern or suspicion on the part of others, the lack of curiosity about and ready acceptance of Uncle Charlie's mysterious past and the eventual disregard of Uncle Charlie's photograph as evidence in regard to several serial murders: these have all been mentioned here. What I found to be an odd episode in the film was young Charlie's near-fatal incident in the garage: despite the fact that she was almost killed, the rest of the family hurries off to Uncle Charlie's speaking engagement, leaving her home alone as if nothing more serious happened to her than a stubbed toe.

All in all, viewing this film in a theater last night (the first time I had seen it in about 15 years), I was slightly disappointed in how it played and felt that it has not held up particularly well since my last viewing. Maybe because this film played as a double feature with "Out of the Past" my perceptions were such. In comparison, the Robert Mitchum-Jane Greer-Kirk Douglas noir classic made SOAD seem dowdy, small and unaccomplished: in the final analysis, I recognized "Out of the Past" to be the superior film.

SOAD is still worth viewing, but with the above caveats in mind.
11 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed