Was she really 46 when this movie came out? She looks much younger. What a great figure!
Macmurray looks the best at the very beginning with his beard.
Macmurray looks the best at the very beginning with his beard.
Reviews
8 Reviews
When Tomorrow Comes
(1939)
Good Pairing but Irene is too old for the part!
7 November 2019
I love Dunne and Boyer and think they are a good match. However, I am constantly amazed at how long Irene Dunne was able to get away with 20-something roles. She is 41 here, and looks it. She is playing a waitress with a roommate who is about to strike for better pay. Her character at most would be 25. Yet producers continued to give Dunne these types of roles even after this movie. I don't really get it. When Lana Turner was in her early 40s, she was playing mothers of teenagers in "Imitation of Life" and "Portrait in Black" and Mary Astor had moved to these roles by the time she was 38. I don't understand why they weren't moving Dunne to more motherly roles by this time; she certainly does not look or act like an ingenue.
Bad Lead Casting
27 August 2019
I have watched the whole series, and the biggest problem for me has been the casting of the lead characters. I simply could not get past it. The girl cast as Heaven was a buxom, healthy looking redhead, when Heaven was supposed to be a dark haired waif. Annie is supposed to look just like Heaven.
Then, in Web of Dreams, Leigh is supposed to have silvery blond hair. She is supposed to be stunningly beautiful in an angelic way. The girl that was cast did not reflect the character in the book at all, and she didn't seem like she would catch the eye of a young Tony Tatterton. She was just kind of an awkward teenager. In the book Jillian knows by looking at her that Leigh is competition for her. Why didn't they cast an actress like this for the movie?
I'm not criticizing the acting chops of any of them, but I felt that the casting directors could have done a much better job. It was distracting to me throughout.
Then, in Web of Dreams, Leigh is supposed to have silvery blond hair. She is supposed to be stunningly beautiful in an angelic way. The girl that was cast did not reflect the character in the book at all, and she didn't seem like she would catch the eye of a young Tony Tatterton. She was just kind of an awkward teenager. In the book Jillian knows by looking at her that Leigh is competition for her. Why didn't they cast an actress like this for the movie?
I'm not criticizing the acting chops of any of them, but I felt that the casting directors could have done a much better job. It was distracting to me throughout.
Best Episode of the Second Season
6 August 2019
For me, the second season was supreme disappointment, as it did away with most of what I liked about the first season - Buck's relationship with Twikki, his revolving door of beautiful women costars, and the view of what earth might be like 500 years from now. This episode gets back to that, with a story about Buck's possible involvement in the nuclear holocaust. By going back to earth, it grounds the story back to its original premise and it's a very interesting episode. Much better than all the others in the second season where they land on some new planet each week and encounter some odd creature like a blue man, gold man, or dwarf.
Terrible Casting for the Main Character!
1 August 2019
Did the makers of this movie even read the book? Why oh why, out of all the young actresses they could choose from, would they choose this one for the character of Heaven? Not that she's a bad actress, but she is not even close to the physical description of Heaven, which is a big part of the story throughout the books. Heaven is supposed to be dark haired and waifish, thin from not getting enough to eat. Instead, they cast this buxom, healthy looking redhead? She almost looks more like the character Sarah is described in the book. I simply could not get past this and cannot understand what the casting director was thinking.
Live, Love and Learn
(1937)
Unlikeable Characters
28 November 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Although I'll watch anything with Rosalind Russell, and I like Montgomery too, I just couldn't get past my dislike of these characters to enjoy the film. Somehow we are supposed to think Bob is living an honest and better life at the beginning because he only paints what he wants. While he also buys everything on credit without a care, stiffs his landlady, and acts like an odious ass to anyone who doesn't share his high ideals.
I kind of liked him when he got noticed and started making what I felt were positive changes in his life. What is wrong with wanting to provide your wife with a real house, not a studio apartment that you have to share with another man? And what is wrong with making a living at something you are good at? If you have talents and skills and can use them to support yourself, I see that as a good thing. But we are supposed to see Bob as having lost his ideals. Maybe he did get a bit carried away, but it's stupid for them to go back to the studio apartment at the end. I guess he'll go back to painting what he wants and buying everything on credit again. I'd hate to be his grocer, tailor, or landlady.
I kind of liked him when he got noticed and started making what I felt were positive changes in his life. What is wrong with wanting to provide your wife with a real house, not a studio apartment that you have to share with another man? And what is wrong with making a living at something you are good at? If you have talents and skills and can use them to support yourself, I see that as a good thing. But we are supposed to see Bob as having lost his ideals. Maybe he did get a bit carried away, but it's stupid for them to go back to the studio apartment at the end. I guess he'll go back to painting what he wants and buying everything on credit again. I'd hate to be his grocer, tailor, or landlady.
The Bad Seed
(2018 TV Movie)
Could Have Been Better
14 September 2018
Warning: Spoilers
I'm a fan of the original "Bad Seed" movie and I was looking forward to this remake. I was interested to see how they would modernize it and totally understood that some of the settings and situations would be different. However, this remake completely eliminates the theme of the original, which is the question of what causes the little girl (Rhoda in the original, Emma in this one) to be a heartless killer.
The original movie features a mom who you can tell is uncomfortable raising her little girl practically by herself, as her husband is away on business. We see in her mannerisms that she is nervous and uncertain. When the little boy dies and the mom begins to realize, to her horror, that Rhoda may be involved, she starts asking questions about Rhoda's parentage. Because it turns out Rhoda was adopted and her real mom is a criminal. So it begs the question of whether Rhoda is a "bad seed" because of genetics or has something in her raising caused her to be this way.
This entire issue is missing from the remake. So while you have an entertaining movie about a nine year old sociopath, there's no deeper introspection as to why she is like she is. The TV movie would have benefited from exploring this theme.
I did find it interesting that in the new movie, Emma gets away with her crimes. I believe in the original they wanted the same for Rhoda, but because of the Hays Code, they were forced to make her pay. So they had to tack on the ending where she gets her comeuppance. I think the original movie would have been better if they could have had smiling Rhoda going home with her unsuspecting dad.
The original movie features a mom who you can tell is uncomfortable raising her little girl practically by herself, as her husband is away on business. We see in her mannerisms that she is nervous and uncertain. When the little boy dies and the mom begins to realize, to her horror, that Rhoda may be involved, she starts asking questions about Rhoda's parentage. Because it turns out Rhoda was adopted and her real mom is a criminal. So it begs the question of whether Rhoda is a "bad seed" because of genetics or has something in her raising caused her to be this way.
This entire issue is missing from the remake. So while you have an entertaining movie about a nine year old sociopath, there's no deeper introspection as to why she is like she is. The TV movie would have benefited from exploring this theme.
I did find it interesting that in the new movie, Emma gets away with her crimes. I believe in the original they wanted the same for Rhoda, but because of the Hays Code, they were forced to make her pay. So they had to tack on the ending where she gets her comeuppance. I think the original movie would have been better if they could have had smiling Rhoda going home with her unsuspecting dad.
Homecoming
(1948)
Was He Self Absorbed?
5 March 2018
I feel like Gable's character gets a bad rap at the beginning of the film. I realize they are trying to show him as self-absorbed to depict his transformation through the war years. But was he really? His character had spent years of his life in school and training to be a doctor. He finally achieves his goal of being a surgeon, and by all accounts is a good one. His patients seem to love him. Is it a bad thing that he wants to have some balance in his life and enjoy time with his family and friends on the weekend? You can't work all the time or you will burn out in a high stress career like his.
I don't know, maybe I just like Gable. But I didn't find him off-putting at all at the beginning. He did a great job at work, loved his wife and tried to make time for her, was friendly with his household staff, helped the delivery boy from Chester Village..I think he was a pretty good guy.
I don't know, maybe I just like Gable. But I didn't find him off-putting at all at the beginning. He did a great job at work, loved his wife and tried to make time for her, was friendly with his household staff, helped the delivery boy from Chester Village..I think he was a pretty good guy.
Tell Your Friends