Calysta Reviews

Cinderella (1997 TV Movie)

Proof remakes can't live up to expectation

[4/10 · 25 December 2000]

I'm probably one of the greatest suckers for a Rodgers and Hammerstein musical in existence. THE SOUND OF MUSIC is my all-time favourite movie. Each day I probably unconsciously hum half a dozen of their legendary show tunes. And if there's one type of movie that I need in my staple film diet, you betcha it's a musical.

That probably makes me a suitable candidate to be enchanted by this remake, in a current modern day tundra of literally no musical films in production, right?

However, as much as I'd like to see the genuine musicals of yesterday back into production bringing out more Freed units, Busby Berkleys and Judy Garlands, I might as well keep on dreaming. This not only embarrasses the genre, it throws a giant obstacle into the path of the musical making a comeback into mainstream popularity.

The cast of CINDERELLA may have big names to back it up, but what is Brandy, Whitney Houston, Whoopi Goldberg, Jason Alexander and Bernadette Peters without a decent screenplay which not only doesn't fit together, but isn't in the slightest bit funny? And although I appreciate a movie that runs under two hours, I also happen to like something called believability. The costumes and sets bog down the production in a syrupy mess, in a village that looks like something like a candy factory and successfully removed all the whimsy, and added all the pitifulness with the wishes and dream message.

The only performance I enjoyed was Bernadette Peters, but her image which has made her difficult casting in movies, only proves too well why she should stick to Broadway, where she has not forged a brilliant career with material worthy of her talent, but is able to show why Broadway audiences have loved her for over three decades.

Shirley Jones, the star of the film versions of OKLAHOMA! and CAROUSEL stated once when asked if there was a way to sing Rodgers and Hammerstein, she said, "Yes, *exactly* as it is written". Watching the cast attempting to defy the perfected combination of lyrics and music by adding obvious sounds of R&B music to those tunes and turkey new offerings is somewhat stomach churning. In fact, I couldn't make it through the first hour before I got up from my chair and ran terrified from the TV set. As much as I wanted to like an offering from Rodgers and Hammerstein, I don't think the current production was really what they had in mind.

Perhaps I'm being too judgemental on a family movie, but I didn't really go into watching the movie expecting the standard of THE SOUND OF MUSIC. The only thing that saves the film remotely from complete doom are the wonderful, romantic songs, like "Ten Minutes Ago", "In My Own Little Corner" and "Do I Love You Because You're Beautiful".

Rodgers and Hammerstein's only foray into TV is probably best seen left in the hands of professionals, like Julie Andrews. Tailor-made for her role, she is undoubtedly the quintessential Cinderella. If her 1957 version of the classic was ever made available publicly, it'd probably be extremely popular.

As a result of this forgettable and disastrous film, are Rodgers and Hammerstein turning over in their graves?

I wouldn't be at all surprised if they are.

Rating: 4/10

Charlie's Angels (2000)

A fun blockbuster

[8/10 · 28 November 2000]

CHARLIE'S ANGELS is the type of no-substance movie that guarantees an audience regardless of when the film debuts at the box office or whether the opening is marred with somewhat widespread critical panning. With the infamous stories of spite, jealousy and rivalry that emerged from the set during the past year, along with the three stars vying to wear the best scantily clad attire possible, this has in part fueled an increased awareness among the teenagers. Everyone else probably went along to compare the faithfulness of another TV/film adaptation, or to sigh at the possible ruin of yet another classic TV series.

The movie seems to be built around stereotypes of the stars type cast persona, and surprisingly the screenplay seems to be doing all it can to back this up. If this film doesn't get Lucy Liu beyond her `Ally McBeal' credibility, or at least in terms of box office figures, it is hard to say what will. Her performance is definitely enjoyable, but once again, she seems to struggle past the dominatrix bitch that has probably influenced her film work since day one as Ling Woo. Yet she is the only Angel that can convince one of her suitability to the role. Cameron Diaz's transition to an action style flick hasn't allowed her to leave at home the familiar tricks of goofiness employed in `My Best Friends Wedding' with equally cringe-worthy scenes in both films and Drew Barrymore's heartfelt sincere moments seems to retread everything from `Ever After' to `Never Been Kissed.'

Despite the comic implementation of Bill Murray, he seems to have few funny things to do, let alone lines to proclaim. While I enjoy Matt LeBlanc's performance on `Friends' for many weeks throughout each year, is it not possible to allow Joey Tribianni resting time during the film release season? If LeBlanc continues to reprise the dim actor in film appearances, it is likely that his movie career will become washed up after the comedy series comes to an end. It is probably Tom Green, Drew Barrymore's real life boyfriend delivers the goods in his hilarious and very welcome performance. The remainder of the film's characters seem to be hurriedly stolen ideas and spoofs of the quintessential film villain, which the screenplay makes no attempt to develop except in a abrupt change of pace that doesn't really work when culminated with false dramatics.

Music video director McG has a somewhat coveted film debut with the popularity of the film at the box office. However, the surprisingly well executed action of the first thirty minutes of ANGELS begins to sag after this point, and never quite redeems itself even at climax. The opening credits of the film are in itself slotted together like a music video. Unfortunately, the light-hearted elements of the film are often a major let down, and are unfortunately few and far between, while I questioned whether or not I was obliged to laugh dutifully. This is merely the fault of the screenplay and its seventeen writers, in which its flaws are covered up with the obviously big-budgeted and purposefully, planted action sequences. It is quite difficult to believe that such a large pool of writing ability was unable to come up with a stronger story.

The film's sound track is a mixture of 70s, 80s and 90s music, along with a few new additions. There's nothing too special here, but the music is often used at unnecessary moments in many sprinkled handfuls throughout. Obviously the biggest treat of the film was the Matrix-like action style effects. Sadly enough, I don't think they know what they're doing in there either.

CHARLIE'S ANGELS the TV series was big, loud and cheesy. Merely it was all about the look of the show, and at the end of the day, what people thought of it. The film probably does credit to this factor. I enjoyed the film, and it definitely can't be taken seriously, but I hope it won't be necessary to alter my opinions if a string of sequels released for the sake of it follow.

Rating: 8/10

The Greatest Show on Earth (1952)

A colourful, light hearted and entertaining epic

[8/10 · 13 September 2000]

It would validate this film best if I state outright at this point that I am a great fan of the movie SINGIN' IN THE RAIN, also released in 1952 and generally ignored by the Academy, seemingly due to the shower of accolades handed out to AN AMERICAN IN PARIS. THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH did not win many Oscars beyond the coveted best picture award, but even this fact has poisoned my viewpoint of the justification of the Academy's decision, and that this in itself displays the incomprehensible factor that the statuette ended up at Paramount, not MGM.

However, my eventual purpose of viewing this film was threefold: to see Jimmy Stewart, Dorothy Lamour and one of the final best pictures of the 1950s, which I had not seen. All my SINGIN' IN THE RAIN prejudices aside, I was very pleasantly surprised.

Cecil B. DeMille's opinions of the circus as a ‘human machine made up of many parts' is interesting as it evokes the assemblage of any motion picture, and certainly, an enormous production such as this one. The script, generally convincing in its theme, can deliver on its expectations and bring to life a drama-comedy-epic-action-romance-musical that actually works, all elements and sub-plots played alongside. Even if these aspects make for melodramatic story lines, I have assumed that the purpose of the film is generally basic entertainment. And the basic story…the dramatic lives of circus performers culminating and reaching their peak underneath the glamour and colour of the big top isn't too bad either. DeMille's well-handled direction is intriguing and always expectantly, a job well done.

There are many good examples of an all-star ensemble cast, but this one ranks close to the top…Betty Hutton, Cornel Wilde, Charlton Heston, Jimmy Stewart, Dottie Lamour, Gloria Grahame…each may bear no resemblance to their character's personalities, but play their parts interestingly well. Generally, I found Stewart's portrayal as Buttons the clown, masked behind a multiple personality, to be the best performance in the film. It is difficult also not to mention the many great and entertaining real-life circus performers that truly made up the spirit of THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH, and continue to do so in their differed entertaining medium today, so it is really quite a nice tribute to their dedication.

To satisfy the varied genres of the film, each character is where they are to fuel the particular element. Angel (Grahame) enhances the comedy with her natural talents, and Phyllis (Lamour) and Holly (Hutton) to fill out the musical aspects with an extensive musical program, including `Jumpin' Jack' and the title song. Romance is demonstrated in a series of different love triangles involving five of the six lead characters. Drama is seen with the integration of all these aspects, involving Buttons (Stewart), tension between Sebastian (Wilde) and Brad (Heston), and the case of post ANNIE GET YOUR GUN competitive one-upmanship between Holly and Sebastian on the trapezes. Finally, in the case of action, the sensationalism of the train scene brings all these emotions to a halt…to create one of the biggest epics of 1950s Hollywood, and to destroy some of the colourful and glamourous illusions of circus life.

Despite the fact the film definitely exceeded my original expectations of it and the fact that it filled its three-hour plus running time certainly impressed me. However, I would like to continue to retain my position on the unfair juxtaposition of SINGIN' IN THE RAIN, and it is doubtful my opinion will swing to favour THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH any time soon.

Rating: 8/10

It Happened in Brooklyn (1947)

A flawed, but entertaining piece

[7/10 · 12 September 2000]

There are many examples of classic film that have mistakenly been filmed in a garish process of technicolour, often when artificial sets are fiendishly evident. In the case of IT HAPPENED IN BROOKLYN, it would have been far more beneficial otherwise, even if the studio-bound Brooklyn sets were lacking in realistic qualities…simply to merely awaken the audience and poignantly show what could have been a greatly livened and exciting musical in MGM's top ranks. The faded shades of black and white had me continually straining to find any signs of life, especially when the whole thing would have photographed and run more smoothly in colour.

Despite the treat of a star-studded cast featuring Frank Sinatra, Jimmy Durante, Kathryn Grayson and Peter Lawford, only the stellar performances of Durante and Sinatra are worth the running time. Lawford as the grandson of an English duke is too stuffy to fit in within the movie and is too pompously intolerable to put up with for the common audience member, although one can eventually like him a little more by the film's end. Kathryn Grayson's nightingale operatic soprano voice is pleasant, if not fiendishly good, and her performance charming, but despite early flashes of temperament, her effort proves to be wasted in a film that seems to retread every other film of hers except for KISS ME KATE. Gloria Grahame also makes a small appearance as a nurse at the beginning of the film who would have been a better substitute for both Lawford and Grayson had it not been for her singing inability. Her few performances under contract to the studio are demonstrative of talent and beauty at the studio that did not fit into the general mould of performers which is reflected because they did not know what to do with her by relegating her minor parts.

However, the story line of BROOKLYN is somewhat interesting and can almost justifiably be credited for this factor, in comparison to the continuous output of films from the studio which lead the viewer through the tiresome back lot tour. Sinatra, Grayson and Durante take at least forty five minutes to succeed in doing to Lawford what only took Judy Garland twenty seconds to do to Jose Iturbi in THOUSANDS CHEER. The screenplay seems to specialise in prolonging epic delays in its events and lacks the rousing comedy of a Comden and Green script, but in general is not too bad an effort, even if some of the most important scenes are either rushed or haltingly abrupt. There is a general message of kindheartedness which in turn makes the film cheerful and pleasant even though `everyone is miserable in Brooklyn', and the fact that the director is almost screaming at his audience to love the film and the people in it.

As always with the majority of many films of the genre, the musical program intentionally exceeds the plot's importance, which can be expected. In MGM's case, this method often produced a hit song. Despite some lovely music and lyrics by Cahn and Styne, I strain to remember any song. This may have been because opera was strongly integrated in a film of style clashes and thus I couldn't remember any of the songs since opera is generally a painful experience, or because they lacked the entertaining passion of many other MGM's songs. In addition to this, Andre Previn's piano solos are thrown in. Gene Kelly is missing but since none of the lead actors are good enough dancers, a pre-teen kid is pushed into the mix to pick up where Kelly's athleticism left off.

Because of these haphazard factors, IT HAPPENED IN BROOKLYN can be best compared to a jigsaw of innovative elements virtually impossible to put together. None of the factors are able to complement each other, but the film is demonstrative of a well-handed routine musical that could have stood out with others had Busby Berkley or the Freed unit been at the helm. It is an enjoyable entertainment piece that showed great promise, but I'll be damned if I know why.

Rating: 7.5/10

Gladiator (2000)

One of the year's highlights?

[10/10 · 2 June 2000]

Any movie not plugged for mass hysteria and advancements of special effects that seem to occur with every movie released promising unique and original experiences is literally a must-see. Although the film currently co-incides with the release of "Mission Impossible 2", this is definitely the more intelligible and less senseless of the two. "Gladiator" proves that an epic can be good, produced on a massive scale and not run over three hours. Sometimes two and a half hours however, is still not enough to finish a large popcorn and drink.

One of the most noticeable elements of the film is its breathtaking cinematography, much of it possible by the special effects and beautiful European locations, not reliant on exploding helicopters, let alone the flaming city of the Rome. Spectacular battle sequences, a glimpse into an interpretation of the afterlife and even the employment of the simple slow motion technique provide handsome treats for the eyes.

Russell Crowe is the general turned slave, turned gladiator, turned risen hero, turned Hollywood star. His rugged, reluctant performance is naturally the centrepiece of the movie, although almost the entire cast turns in good performances, enhanced by an above average screenplay.

The only disappointing performance is from Joaquain Phoenix, whose pompous Commodus evokes a road company Peter Ustinov as Emperor Nero from "Quo Vadis", only no one will be handing any Academy Award nominations or nods of any sort to him. In terms of the possible bouquets handed out to "Gladiator", come February 2001, it looks like the film will be receiving a whole lot of them.

"Gladiator" evokes the classic epics of the Golden Era, "Ben-Hur", "Spartacus" and the definitive biblical epic, "Quo Vadis." Although the latter was filmed under more strained, theatrical-like conditions now almost fifty years ago, "Gladiator" is reminiscent of the film, albeit a more attractive looking one. Its plot line even seems to be similar, Ancient Rome, corrupt authorities, handsome hero falling for the forbidden fruit...a woman, even if Crowe's has a sense of partial fidelity amid faith and personal devastation.

The success of "Gladiator" has been enjoyed, primarily because the current generation has yet to see such a grand, lavish epic. Since I am fifteen, I can truthfully state this is the only large scale, true historical epic I have ever seen, made in the current day. Since there's enough historical accuracy, heroes, special effects and gory battle violent sequences, which insures box office and something for everyone, there's enough in this film to convince me that, for now, Hollywood may be capable once again of occasionally making films like they used to.

Rating: 10/10

Road to Singapore (1940)

The beginning of a great series

[8/10 · 17 May 2000]

Bing Crosby, Bob Hope and Dorothy Lamour may never have been the Nelson Eddy and Jeanette MacDonald of the 1930s and 1940s Hollywood musicals, but anything they ever recorded during this period was better than any of the painful operetta stuff of the latter screen duo. Brilliant songs are featured once again, including `Too Romantic' and `The Willow and the Moon'.

ROAD TO SINGAPORE essentially is a romantic comedy with mass complications of playboys with serial patty-pan punching techniques, cheating people with soapsuds cleaner and both falling for Dottie. The slapstick gags featured are not as hilarious as the definitive film of the series, ROAD TO MOROCCO, but due to the enormous success of SINGAPORE, the trio's comedy skills allowed for a continuing series in which the progressing films became zanier.

Generally good direction, an agreeably funny script and a supporting cast headed by Charles Coburn only amounts to part of the fun.

However, once again Paramount, and in a more generalised context, Hollywood itself, displays its lack of understanding for foreign culture. Singapore, or the island in question, which isn't actually Singapore, looks like an extremely undeveloped Malaysia. The natives don't actually convince one of being native, nor do any of the ceremonial activities trick for one second.

Dorothy Lamour, although an exquisitely beautiful actress, does not resemble an islander native, although it isn't exactly her fault.

In the same manner, some people may find this film offensive, or any of the ROAD films because they are not a true representation for any culture. But most movies made during this period simply didn't have much regard to exact details of foreign lands. And in such a brilliant comedy, it doesn't really matter.

Rating: 10/10

Till the Clouds Roll By (1946)

One of MGM's best star studded extravaganzas!

[8/10 · 6 May 2000]

The only biopic less truthful than TILL THE CLOUDS ROLL BY is probably NIGHT AND DAY based on the life of Cole Porter and played by...of all people, Cary Grant.

Maybe Robert Walker is no more convincing as Jerome Kern, but it hardly matters. After all, at least MGM's greatest interest in the presentation of the spectacular musical numbers did avert the possible deadly insignificance of overwhelming life detail of the great composer, a huge financial risk due to the big budget and the public ever hungry for a spectacular musical from MGM.

Jerome Kern died during the production of the film, so in all, it became a tribute to his life and his impact on music for four decades, rather than the supposed dramatic life story. However, with romance, tragedy and plenty of glamour, colour, songs and anyone contract star with a reasonably minor name not already involved in more than two projects at the studios, MGM proved as the king of the Hollywood musical, they could get any story to boot.

As with the majority of musicals, the actual story was the second priority. Despite knowing nothing about Jerome Kern other than his great music contribution, the most part of it is not believable other than the creation of fictional conflict, and all in the controlled environment of the studio. Yet the songs, musical direction and all the other elements are first rate. Perhaps the only complaint could be that Gene Kelly is missing.

And in the grand MGM manner, the musical highlights make up for it all, and there are plenty of them.

Beginning with the opening of the first 'real' musical of the American theatre, SHOW BOAT, Kathryn Grayson, Tony Martin, Virginia O'Brien, Caleb Peterson and Lena Horne perform the superb musical within the musical, also allowing a glimpse of the superb Lena Horne as Julie, had she not lost the role to an unconvincing Ava Gardner in the actual 1951 film remake.

Judy Garland as the legendary Marilyn Miller, performs her two numbers "Who?" and "Look for the Silver Lining" brilliantly. Frank Sinatra, Dinah Shore and June Allyson are also memorable performers within the musical.

With the inclusion of approximately two dozen musical numbers and additional dancing sequences, TILL THE CLOUDS ROLL BY, despite its faults with the facts of the concerned subject matter, is a prime example of MGM's creative musical grandeur and brilliance.

TILL THE CLOUDS ROLL BY is extremely likeable viewing entertainment, similar to sitting down at a soda fountain for a couple of hours with Judy Garland, Robert Walker, Frank Sinatra, Lena Horne, Tony Martin, Kathryn Grayson, June Allyson, Cyd Charisse, Virginia O'Brien, Gower Champion, Lucille Bremer, Van Johnson, Angela Lansbury, Van Heflin and in short, any employee at the MGM studios, and enjoying the sight.

Rating: 8/10

The Bells of St. Mary's (1945)

Smiles left on all faces and hearts!

[8/10 · 6 May 2000]

Only after hiring THE BELLS OF ST. MARY'S did I realise that it was in fact a sequel and that I may have problems with understanding some of the events of the previous film. It was probably the result of learning about the film as it was the movie that appeared on the display board at the cinema momentarily in IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE. Yet it has a captivating charm and likeable flavour that doesn't seem to require GOING MY WAY to continue its story or for newcomers to understand.

Due to the overwhelming success of GOING MY WAY, it was an impossible task for ST. MARY'S to live up to with an immediate public demand for a sequel, but on all accounts this particular sequel is in fact on the better side as sequels are concerned.

It was therefore not possible for ST. MARY'S to win best picture since in contention with the brilliant THE LOST WEEKEND at the 1945 Oscars, but it holds the special distinction for Bing Crosby as the only person in the Academy's history to be nominated for the same role twice. In fact, the film is worthy and deserving of all the nominations it received.

Leo McCarey once again delivers with a light hearted, wholesome, more than enjoyable story and with his own special touch of direction, with a touch of humour and the ever continuing throes of church dilemmas.

Bing Crosby, without the feisty support of the great Barry Fitzgerald, faces Ingrid Bergman in the run-down St. Mary's school/convent and her entire congregation against his free spirited priest ideals, and the always brilliant Henry Travers with a few plans of his own.

Highlights include Ingrid Bergman's study into the unknown world of boxing and anything sung by Bing, in particular "Aren't You Glad You're You?" and the title song. The film may have benefited even more greatly with the inclusion of more musical sequences, but since the film was the highest grossing movie at the box office in 1945, little can be asked for.

Like most film series, the first is usually always the best, and GOING MY WAY certainly has a lot going for it, but in comparison, so does THE BELLS OF ST. MARY'S.

Rating: 8/10

On the Town (1949)

Kelly's best after SINGIN' IN THE RAIN!

[9/10 · 27 April 2000]

"Oklahoma!", the first modern musical, conquered the audiences in search of a differed non-Ziegfeld glamour tone. In turn "On the Town", Adolph Green and Betty Comden's masterpiece little creation, proved the fact that audiences were ready for a new kind of musical entertainment...a show carried by a small, intimate group of principal performers.

In retrospect, Gene Kelly and Frank Sinatra have matured as sailor characters in the four years since "Anchors Aweigh", clearly evident through the fact that this time the men search the town no strings attached...no young boys, operatic singers and the entire MGM studios...and they're fancy free. Although they're in search of girls again, this time it is without Jose Iturbi on their backs...and there's only twenty four hours to do it in as they scour the big apple, ambitious to find love and see it all in a day.

In tow with the brilliant Kelly and Sinatra, is Jules Munshin, who played a food enamoured waiter in the 1948 Judy Garland/Fred Astaire vehicle "Easter Parade" and now responsible for destroying a dinosaur. The delightful singing and dancing cast is headed by Betty Garrett, a determined taxi driver responsible for ferrying the group around during their all too short stay, Ann Miller, the anthropologist and Vera-Ellen, the beautiful subway 'celebrity' Miss Turnstiles.

"On the Town" became a musical pioneer in itself when Kelly rallied for filming to occur in New York itself when most filming was done previously in the controlled conditions of an indoor sound stage. However, it provided a whole lot of firsts for the Freed department besides another practice run with Kelly. It marked Stanley Donen and Gene Kelly's co-directorial debut. Comden and Green excised their wise cracks and humour in their witty, amusing New York tale. And Gene was allowed to choreograph another serious ballet which killed the humourous and youthful-like story and revived it with great songs.

MGM, the champion of musical production and its legendary Freed unit this time didn't have to recreate "Ziegfeld Follies" or "The Great Ziegfeld" to achieve a successful musical, nor did they have to hand out as many paychecks. Perhaps they finally began to realise that.

Unfortunately musicals were coming to an end, as was the pairing of Howard Keel and Kathryn Grayson, possibly the musical team to follow Nelson Eddy and Jeanette MacDonald. The work that followed of the great actors in "On the Town" became scarce. What followed next was Kelly's legendary career topping performance in "Singin' in the Rain", Sinatra winning an Oscar in "From Here to Eternity" and Miller in "Kiss Me Kate". Yet what followed for the others, and everyone else specialising in musicals, is questionable.

Despite all that eventually happened to the mostly forgotten musicals of Hollywood's Golden Days and this being one of the last, the fact that they don't make them like they used to is not a worry because this is such a brilliant musical example.

Rating: 9/10

Road to Morocco (1942)

One of the best I've seen in a while

[10/10 · 27 April 2000]

Talking camels that manifest falsehood in moments of battle. Best friend rivalry over a beautiful princess in another distant time, in another exotic setting. Unconvincing sets of desert and sea make viewing a bit of an eyesore for those wary of its artificial conception. However, the interiors are done with just the right touch incapable for MGM to create with over doing the sets entirely without a hint of Ziegfeld. Nor is anyone overdressed inappropriately.

Even better, "Morocco" has a hilarious and brilliant script directed by a Paramount director that obviously has an important asset essential for the trademark mix of these films, a sense of humour. Some of the most memorable scenes from any of the "Road" films occur in "Road to Morocco". And they certainly couldn't belong anywhere else.

Perhaps today the third film of the series is unjustly best remembered for some of the hit songs it spawned, "Moonlight Becomes You" and the title song. However, other songs featured in the score should not be forgotten, despite the loveliness and catchiness of the other two.

However, this film has something brilliant going for it that is sometimes missing in other screwball or highly comic films of the era. There is no Cary Grant, and no Carole Lombard. Yet all the actors manage successfully with zany screwball antics typically capable of the above at the highest of standards. The best thing the film has is Bing, Bob and Dottie and the teaming of the trio should not be forgotten as possibly one of the best in comedies.

What this film must have done to wartime morale is amazing in a solemn era difficult to forget post Depression era. Yet today it remains as fresh as ever and anything else featuring Crosby, Hope and Lamour should not be passed over. It was certainly an unexpected gem of a surprise, and probably one of the few movies where the same jokes can get away with working twice.

Whatever its flaws, "Morocco" is one of my twenty favourite films of the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s, and the fact it's got a short time is even a greater bonus.

Yet once the all too rare movie magic of the film sets in, you never want the road to end.

Rating: 10/10

Stuart Little (1999)

A credit to live film animation

[9/10 · 23 April 2000]

Considering myself too grown up to face the terrifying throes of cartoon animation at age fourteen, I found myself mortified and aghast at the possibility of being reminded of the painful movie excursion to see "Pokemon" so soon, even if the little critter looked cute in the preview trailer.

Later I was reminded by the meaning of unwanted neck pains as a result of choosing a deliberately badly positioned seat in the theatre in order to see as little of the picture as possible.

Michael J. Fox performs a beautiful voice over characterisation of the witty, amusing Stuart, as does Nathan Lane as the non-scary cat villain, Snowbell. The best thing about the actual actors is that they are at least doing their best not to be obvious as second features of interest, and aren't too bad in the process. After all, it is hard to blame Stuart for stealing his own show.

One of the most interesting non-screen elements I found interesting was the fact that M. Night Shyamalan was the author of the amusing and well written screenplay. Having the writer and directorial credit of "The Sixth Sense" to your name is definitely not too shabby. Although relatively a new comer to mainstream film production, his ability to pen appropriate writings in two far differed genres is evident and I hope he returns to write a sequel to the film should one be produced. However, I did learn some all important lessons:

1. Never conclude anything about a film until AFTER seeing it. Unfortunately, I will never be able to have the same optimism for Pokemon.

2. Not a good idea to view "Stuart" with those less than ambitious about mice, in particular those with fears ranging from high to major phobia category. The idea of family bondage with rodents, in particular those with the ability to speak has turned some unsuspecting people I know off anything with mild animation forever.

3. Siamese cats are a good complement with pet mice because their daily activities consist solely of dining in style and mass exposure to nature's warm elements.

4. Children will always mostly love animation, good or bad. At least this is a more than pleasant example.

5. Hollywood can still make a good film without computerising the whole thing entirely.

6. No one has to die, be injured or violently advanced upon to produce good, subtle special effects.

Despite all skepticism, it is difficult to resist the irresistible, ageless appeal of any film featuring a form of animation. Not everyone is going to be thirsty for this particular cup of tea, but it has a sort of undeniable aroma about it anyway.

Perhaps if we wait another sixty years, Stuart Little, mouse extraordinaire, may achieve fame and lasting legacy as great as that of Mickey Mouse.

Rating: 9/10

Citizen Kane (1941)

Do we all think it is the greatest motion picture?

[8/10 · 23 April 2000]

A brilliant cast, with Joseph Cotten serving brilliantly as the right hand man of Welles. In turn, Orson Welles in his most famous role, or perhaps one of the most famous characters in all of Hollywood's history. Screenplay of Academy Award calibre was penned by the leading man and the director.

RKO studios, although doomed against the fatale of other Hollywood competition, was so confident about the picture that it was released with the promotional tagline "Everyone's talking about it!" And although RKO became defunct, not every studio goes down with nine Astaire-Rogers films, let alone "Citizen Kane".

Indeed people are still talking about the film with good reason. But ask the typical teenager about my age the most famous film ever made and they're more likely to come out with "The Wizard of Oz" or "Gone With the Wind". That is, if they don't come out with "American Beauty" or "The Sixth Sense" first.

In 1941, "Citizen Kane" received its accolades, but Orson Welles was an ignored and underrated Tinseltown figure, which justifies "The Third Man" never being nominated best picture. "How Green Was My Valley" may have been the winner of the coveted Best Picture that year, but it didn't take out the number one spot on the AFI's controversial list, and it wouldn't take the Oscar today if the Awards occurred again.

The underlying problem is that even "Citizen Kane" itself may have been blown too much out of proportion for its own good.

As a fourteen year old, I am more inclined to pick the AFI's number 98th listed film on the Top 100 "Bringing Up Baby" as my favourite film of the 1930s and 1940s.

"Citizen Kane's" theme is certainly a powerful, compelling and thought provoking one. The idea that death comes at a moment of dissatisfaction probably rings true for humans, the idea of never finding what is lost and never understanding fully exactly what was lost is all probably true as well.

And if "Citizen Kane" is that good, why is there such a problem with it being stated as the best film ever made?

The underlying answer is likely to be that mainstream audience, and the fewer who indulge in classic film, cannot take heavy, intense drama as easily screwball comedy. As I would classify myself as one of those people, I would never leave "Citizen Kane" off my personal greatest films list, but I could never speak of it as the best movie of all time.

Film professionals may state "Kane" is without a doubt the best movie ever made, but more people would be able to recognise the tune "Over the Rainbow" than understand the irony if someone dropped dead smashing a crystal ball uttering "Rosebud".

Rating: 8/10

Oklahoma! (1955)

Revolutionary for more ways than one

[8/10 · 20 April 2000]

Hammerstein and Kern's "Show Boat" may have been the first musical of the American theatre, but "Oklahoma!" can take the credit for being the first 'modern' musical. Far from the revues, burlesque and Ziegfeld Follies style of musical extravaganza entertainment, the teaming of Rodgers and Hammerstein gave birth to eras of change and perfection to one of the most popular art forms of the 1940s.

Despite the enormous popularity of "Oklahoma!", the musical took twelve years to make it to the big screen. FOX, the eventual producers and distributors of the film had already handled the 'little Oklahoma!' "State Fair" and MGM, Hollywood's musical champion used Judy Garland in 1946 to duplicate the simple Western style musical and created a naive, strong minded character to rival Laurey.

The popularity of the musical was enhanced richly by the still brilliant musical score, featuring such Rodgers and Hammerstein greats including "Oh, what a beautiful mornin", "The Surrey with the Fringe on Top", "People will say we're in love", "Out of My Dreams" and the title song, all of which are beautifully sung by a charming and entertaining cast headed by the competence of Gordan MacRae, Shirley Jones, Gloria Grahame, Charlotte Greenwood, Rod Steiger and James Whitmore.

Most of the Agnes DeMille dances are in good shape, but the film is abruptly bogged down by the entire essence of the serious toned "Out of My Dreams" ballet in a foriegn musical comedy setting, which looks out of place in all sets, costumes and technical elements in a slim plotted story.

For all its triumph in 1955, "Oklahoma!" seems to be a case story of what the film became and a lot more of what it could have been. Fred Zinnemann cannot bring the same types of emotion to the characters in "High Noon" or "From Here to Eternity" manner, which is mainly due to the fact "Oklahoma!" was the only musical the veteran ever directed. Despite this, the film is still definitely enjoyable, fun entertainment, even if the colour process and cinemascope make it look terrible.

It cannot be in truth be described as the best filmed version of a Rodgers and Hammerstein musical, because after all is said and done, it is only really about who gets to take Laurey to the dance. But for the legendary charisma and sheer genius brilliance it radiated and shaped for the future of Broadway, we should all be forever grateful.

Rating: 8/10

Anchors Aweigh (1945)

ON THE TOWN'S HOLLYWOOD PREDECESSOR!

[7/10 · 20 April 2000]

For such films like `Anchors Aweigh', few have been bestowed with as many Academy Award accolades in a warm up for happy hour. Either 1945 was a beleaguered year for good film or they were still suffering advance shock by Billy Wilder's `The Lost Weekend' that they wrote anything starting with A on the ballot for best picture to please the still musical picture faithful public. Since Gene Kelly was nominated for this performance instead of his role in `Singin' in the Rain', then there had to be something wrong with the behind the scenes rigging systems at MGM. Of course, the studio is on its best behaviour during this much lauded tour of the great studios and of Hollywood itself, handy for those stuck on the other side of the world.

Yet a sailor suit musical with the brilliant talents of Gene and Frank Sinatra is certainly an enjoyable farce, despite the need for more people to yawn at the previews for the musical so today's audiences wouldn't be slapped with an unnecessary runtime. There have been many longer pieces before and since, but in this case all of the charming Kathryn Grayson's scenes could have been eliminated. Until the viewing of `Kiss Me Kate' it may have been necessary non-opera enthusiasts to watch any of her films with remote control in hand.

If there was a need to practice picking up women for 1949's `On the Town', then perhaps the shore leave lucky sailors did not have to promise an audition with Jose Iturbi and strike up the piano for a whole hearted `Susie' rendition. Few are lucky to get a screen test at the golden studios of MGM. Then few are even luckier to be attended to. There are no regrets to be had about the successful screen tests of Susan Abbot or Kathryn Grayson, but it makes the continual non-opera enthusiast hope for the eventual pink slip to be handed out to both.

But for all, the star talents are good shape and an above average score thrown in with a slight, but fun great navy story intertwined with young ambitious navy boys good for late bursts of wartime morale, makes `Anchors' at least doesn't question picking the wrong MGM film. The direction holds up as the cast carries the story in lovely colour cinematography. Whenever anyone bursts into music or song, the film makes for a joyous occasion.

The natural highlight of the film is Gene Kelly's cartoon adventures in a fantasyland, climaxing in a brilliant dance with Jerry the mouse. This is a well-deserved masterpiece number of Kelly's career, and it's nice to know he thought of it before Fred Astaire started taking to dancing on walls and ceilings.

It's not exactly sitting down to a triple flavour, rainbow sprinkled, chocolate wafer, cream and cherry and banana split sundae, but it is a square solid lump of sugar that somehow eventually melts in your mouth and despite the guilt, is still a pleasant feeling.

Rating: 7/10

Broadway Melody of 1938 (1937)

A nice tribute to Clark Gable

[8/10 · 20 April 2000]

My suspicions are running high that the lavish budget and extravagance of "Broadway Melody of 1938" were practice made in order to disguise the age old Judy Garland and Mickey Rooney premise "Come on, let's put on a show!", away from the typical country town backyard setting, for Broadway itself in a dressed up version of a simplified recyclable plot.

It's hard to believe that Judy Garland, a dark brunette starry eyed fifteen year old as a supporting novelty prop, hence the almost non-explained entrance into the "Melody" movie, later became a threat to Eleanor Powell, the female equivalent of Fred Astaire. Despite her lack of purpose, as the daughter of a boarding house proprietress for struggling actors, Judy manages to sing up a storm with her first big hits, "Dear Mr Gable", originally sung to the King himself before its inclusion in the film, "Everybody Sing", so popular that one of her films the following year was renamed after the song, sing a bit of "Yours and Mine" in the opening credits, and a dance in a toilet roll crinoline white dress with Buddy Ebsen.

However, "Broadway Melody of 1938" was Judy Garland's earliest feature film foray at MGM, and not surprisingly for a dynamic triple threat performer of her talents, steals the show.

Horses, gambling bets, sneezing experts, owners of a frighteningly large number of dogs and simply a hell of a lot of people with budding talent all contribute to the movie's conflicting story and the famous show business line, "The show must go on" in order for Robert Taylor's Broadway producer character to finance his latest hit production, called ironically enough, "Broadway Melody".

As a dancing spectacular showcase for the brilliant talents of Eleanor Powell, the routines featured are no disappointment, notably "Follow in my footsteps", in the company of the champion racehorse on a traveling train, and the sensational George Murphy/Powell dance "I'm Feeling Like a Million". Finally, the charismatic cast is rounded up by Sophie Tucker, as Judy's mother, singing a great rendition of her special song "Some of these days".

In all, like all the movies in the "Melody" series, this isn't exactly "Singin' in the Rain", but it certainly did a lot for the audiences of the Depression era, hungry for the lavish, fun musicals, and is certainly quite a surprising pleasant musical piece for your own enjoyment.

Rating: 8/10

To Kill a Mockingbird (1962)

One of the best films of the 1960s

[8/10 · 2 April 2000]

The film explored could only be possibly left undisturbed in all its proud, grim glory, in black and white cinematography, rather than using inferior colour processes. The 60s remains the peak of time in which the moral certainty and controversially challenging racial themes were most strongly implied, although the classic story of innocence and a black man charged with the rape of a white girl is still alarmingly relevant today, even to a lesser extent.

Could “To Kill a Mockingbird” be able to survive a modern day movie re-make, miniseries or television film?

Remaking “Mockingbird” as a feature film in a sense would almost be as bad as a sequel to “Casablanca” or a remake of “Gone With the Wind”. It is to morals as what “Citizen Kane” is to its own powerful themes and what “Singin’ in the Rain” or “The Wizard of Oz” is to musicals. In other words, any sign of a duplicate could do no justice to its predecessor, without undoing the original’s power, which had first debuted on the screen in celebrated style almost forty years ago.

Unfortunately, incidence had to be compromised with cinematic length, and some of the novel’s key events were not filmed. I saw “Mockingbird” some months before I studied the novel, which happens to be the text currently being studied at school, and despite its excellence, it has not been entirely helpful. The question remains as to whether even some of the film’ s darkest themes were deemed unfilmable. Apart from that, the screenplay of Horton Foote remains largely faithful, and retains most of the literary brilliance of Harper Lee’s original Pulitzer Prize winning work. In turn, the director has done the same.

No actor of the day could have played Atticus Finch better than the great man, Gregory Peck himself. Any sign of the comic, cynical newspaper reporter he played previously in “Roman Holiday” is far removed. The dignified symbolism of human idealism was a well-deserved Oscar win, played to the upper core of conviction.

The usage of literal unknown actors, including Mary Badham as Scout, has therefore not compromised some of the all-important supporting creations by bastardising the film with big names. Finally, Kim Stanley’s narration of the older Scout is fitting and appropriately convincing.

Technical elements for this 60s film are generally above average. Visibly rugged sets and costumes have been well created. The musical score is not an intrusion, but rather a befitting haunting melody that becomes increasingly better with each viewing of the film. It’s a relief to know a lousy, irrelevant theme song does not accompany the film.

Against “Lawrence of Arabia”, David Lean’s masterpiece epic, the fact that the underdog “Mockingbird” won any Oscars at all is truly a wonder. Named by the AFI as one of the top 100 films of all time in 1998 only further proves why this film has been one of the most successful adaptations and perhaps the best film of any year in the 1960s. Unfortunately, 1962 was simply not one of them.

Rating: 8.5/10

Ziegfeld Follies (1945)

More stars than there are in the heavens!

[7/10 · 2 April 2000]

The MGM stables at a time prior to Olivia de Havilland suing Warner Brothers over contract feuds were looking lovely, but just a year prior to the latter occurring, the studio looks in need of an alarming lift. Howard Strickling’s favourite campaign, “More stars than there are in the heavens” may have been true in comparison to other studios, but a lot of them were burning out, and too few were shining amongst the rest. "Ziegfeld Follies" is certainly dazzling and lavish to look at, but little else. It certainly is on the whole, enjoyable, light musical and comedic relief, and has some brilliant highlights, but I am only thankful that "Follies" had plenty of production problems and therefore someone had the intelligence to keep a stopwatch handy as the revue could have run well into three hours.

William Powell, who is not featured in enough footage himself, explains his purpose, by using Fred Astaire as a puppet on strings to help us understand the purpose of the show, that the Follies “never had a plot”. That may be the case, but the legendary showman could have drafted his dream show a little better than by pooling into the talent pools at MGM alone. Hasn’t he forgotten about his favourite, Marilyn Miller? Perhaps on all accounts the stars were a little exhausted by their better show effort of 1946, “Till the Clouds roll by.”

Of course Esther Williams smiling and swimming through a seabed of imaginary coral couldn’t actually have been incorporated into the life story of Jerome Kern so she has been badly slotted within a roster of another two dozen or so people. The first comedic sketch is somewhat a disaster and a painful reminder of what national telecommunications systems are like in Australia. Lena Horne’s so-called brilliant number “Love” is forgettable, and Lucille Ball is a painful reminder of what never to include in a musical.

Those who are psychically prone to suffering nausea and with weak stomachs are best advised to skip Kathryn Grayson in another cotton candy pink outfit singing “Beauty”, first in a kaleidoscope of bad colour, then in a massive bubble bath. Why anyone gave her the all-important finale remains a mystery, although she executes her operatic range routinely well, despite another diabetic causing sugary, wholesome performance.

However, the most disappointing of all is Judy Garland. As always, she is a welcome presence, but the number is a parody of the First Lady Greer Garson and is merely an eyesore for a person who wasn’t anything like prescribed. Her singing pipes and dancing stems are in good order, but it can’t recapture the stronger numbers from “Clouds” like “Who?” and “Look For the Silver Lining”. It’s quite alarming to think that she had to go back to the 1890s to wear a nicer looking gown than the one worn in “The Interview”. “Madame Credamante” is certainly amusing, but generally, like the whole musical, lacking in style. The worst part remained was sitting through eighty minutes of the musical waiting to see possibly the worst Judy Garland number in eight movies.

The definitive piece of work is always stated to be Fred Astaire and Lucille Bremer in the beautiful “This Heart of Mine”, definitely one of the top three performances in the film. Not so good, but again enjoyable is the other Astaire-Bremer pairing, “Limehouse Blues” which is a better story than the film itself. Red Skelton puts forward the best performance of all the comedy sketches, but also great is Fanny Brice and to a lesser extent, Victor Moore in the “Pay the two dollars sketch”. Cyd Charisse and Virginia O’Brien appear briefly, and for the better.

The best number was the delightful “The Babbit and the Bromide” performed by the Jimmy Stewart and Cary Grant of dance, Fred Astaire and Gene Kelly, and the only actual film in which the two greats met for a tap dancing match. As always, both dancers radiate brilliance, wit and charm, and make everything they dance, pure magic. Their quips, “Rita Hayworth” and “Ginger” are just perfect. Forget everything else. This is definitely a masterpiece of musicals.

Behind “Follies” was probably the entire writers department at MGM, who couldn’t even come up with one decent story. At least eight directors of all sorts were involved, and music and lyrics from at least four musical teams. Lavish costumes and a generously huge budget, and all of it couldn’t compensate for the “Follies” having some at least orderly fashioned plot and planning.

All this almost makes one wish back to the days of teenaged Rooney-Garland. At least their eager approach to “Come on, let’s put on a show” seems more naturalistic than Ziegfeld imagining his life as a puppet show on the life of his stage. “Follies” is one of those musicals that wants to be a part of the greats at MGM with “Singin’ in the Rain”, “The Wizard of Oz” and “An American in Paris”, but cannot get past the stages of longingly pressing its nose up against a glass palette window. Too many flaws unfortunately overshadow some of the great mastery of some of the elegant pieces, some of which could command a better audience, if only there were placed in the right film.

Rating: 7/10

An Inspector Calls (1954)

Average standard British Film

[7/10 · 11 March 2000]

The film soundtrack crackles horribly at the wrong moments, bringing reminders of sharpened fingernails having a scrape at a black board. Screeching musical score intends to capitalise on intense cinematic moments, sending all eighth grade students within the confines of a darkened class room, literally under their desks.

By the viewing of 1950s British films, I believed England had come a long way, after seeing "Black Narcissus" and "Genevieve". Unfortunately, this screen version of an extremely well written play by a George Bernard Shaw-like J.B Priestley does not amount to much good on film. What was a powerful and stirring play in the theatre, seemed to be a light hearted romp about a girl swallowing disinfectant.

It could simply be the actors failed to carry crucial plot elements, even with well-endowed sets in the background, although most of them at least carried their parts in a somewhat competent manner. "Inspector" is supposed to be a moral feasting for the old fashioned type with its piercing social commentary on the rigid social classes in 1912 England, cynical and superior views of the world all in tact.

Despite a solid literary publication to cling to, the screenwriter fails to bring forward some of the most vital turns of the script, by seemingly change parts of the play, probably to please his wife. The strongest element was the use of flashbacks to fill us in on some of the mysteries, although it destroys the exclusive setting within the dining room and the character's feelings of being entrapped.

Unlike in the play, I failed to find my faults within the movie, which was something the play successfully unearthed. The whole point of the play was lost with the changing of the Inspector's last name, which was originally 'Goole' in the play. And instead of realising the translation of this name change had the sounding of the word 'Ghoul', the director seems to happily go along with it, as well as everything else to spoil the entire movie.

Alfred Hitchcock's part talkie experiment "Blackmail", which was later plugged for sound after production began in 1929, looks like a filmic genius in comparison to this. At least the German star spoke better pretense mouthed English than the entire legion of this particular production company.

However, I could have studied the text to the point of seeing the play beyond. In all, it still is an amusing movie, although there is so much of a case of what this film could have been. What a blessing the Americans didn't do anything with it to spoil a purely English exclusive play any further.

Rating: 7/10

Babes in Arms (1939)

Berkley's test movie with Garland

[8/10 · 10 March 2000]

The only purpose of "Babes in Arms" is to prove with the unlikely gathered support of the whole neighbourhood which happens to be manifested by budding vaudevillians, the war battle cry not to be upheld is 'Come on, let's put on a show!'

Yet what an interestingly talented field of teenage talent, not to mention an interesting case study of youth rebellion, pre "Rebel Without a Cause" period. It proves how easily Hollywood could provide ample entertainment in the Golden Era, and with all its simplicity, all the reasons in the world as to why Hollywood simply cannot do this today.

Although the predominance of Mickey Rooney is obvious throughout over Judy, he was nonetheless a delight to watch, comic, charming, musical and repressed talents and all, receiving a well deserved Oscar Nomination up against some of the biggest names of Hollywood in its greatest year. Judy, with little mention required, was once again brilliant in one of her earliest starring vehicles.

The supporting cast seems to be in need of a desperate stretch in order to keep up with a gold mine of talent. Usage of expensive looking dresses amongst the backyard setting doesn't assist, and neither do seventeen year old operatic divas. The older members of the cast, however, seem to be doing alright, despite the fact their competition is superseding them in real life as well. Otherwise, the rest of the supporting actors in unconvincing scenery settings, seem to be able to only follow Busby Berkley's direction with certain lines on repeat.

Music dominates within the Rodgers and Hart play, although much of the original score disappeared, leaving two songs contributed by the duo, including the title song. The highlight of the program is "Good Morning", which is probably also remembered for being reused with different lyrical arrangements in the MGM musical masterpiece "Singin' in the Rain". This, and most of the other songs remains the high point of the musical.

It is obvious that the intent of the movie, is not, plot. I can now pride myself on being successfully able to predict every occurrence ahead of time for the first time in my life, a fact I am usually oblivious to even in the most screamingly awakening of circumstances. What puzzled me was the reason as to why they didn't attempt "Broadway Melody of 1939". Or was there such a thing?

However, this continued to pave the way with gold for two of the best Hollywood stars. All in all, this is a great pleasure to watch. And for an evening in, it is great fun for the young at heart.

Rating: 8/10

To Catch a Thief (1955)

Enjoyable Hitchcock

[8/10 · 1 March 2000]

Being Hitchcock, three things are featured. Cinematically extended chase sequences, brilliant suspense and a leading lady as the epitome example of Hollywood glamour of the period.

It does not feature the best writing. "To Catch a Thief" is a film which is unlikely to feature as a Hitchcock masterpiece. Cary Grant playing a common, yet somehow sophisticated mastermind thief is not the most convincing of characters, even if the character comes packaged with being debonair, suave and a tux worn from time to time.

Yet the film is inviting. It has sameness and flaws later perfected in "North by Northwest", including protective Mothers, false accusations relating to suave, debonair men and great chase sequences over the extensive region of either Europe or the Americas. Although neither Grant or Grace Kelly perform at their highest levels, their glamorous, romantic roles are intimate and a whole lot of fun.

By no means is the Oscar winning cinematography the best point of the movie, although quite a breathtaking marvel for its time. The classic line spoken by Kelly in relation to chicken, "Do you want a leg or a breast?" is hilarious! To keep the girls satisfied Hitchcock threw in a brilliant screen kiss.

It's no "Rear Window", and Jimmy is still Hitchcock's best actor. But it's still good work from the master of suspense, even though we have to adjust ourselves a bit in order to believe some of the plot's opening and closing twists.

Rating: 7/10

All About Eve (1950)

All about showbiz!

[7/10 · 1 March 2000]

It deals with the novice exceeding the star in the theatre. Yet "Eve" isn't just a reflection of any particular genre of show business. We don't see it happening, but the wisdom of people like Eve keeps sneaking up on us all the time...and bringing us down when we least expect it.

Therefore, "All About Eve" still couldn't be extended to be just the entertainment industry, although the movies and "Sunset Boulevard" seem to take it all in their stride. It remains a wonder how a film made half a century ago still can retain a lot of its thought content value. THIS is a movie about the throes of human nature...and all in disguise of film epitome glamour, other lives and Bette Davis.

At the time of release, it was viewed as provocative. In other words, Hollywood, still in the Hayes Code era but heading dangerously close towards the end of the Golden era, basically didn't like the truth. "Eve" is not made in the obscene sense of being provocative, but it is perhaps more for Joseph L. Manckiewicz's crisp writing and direction. "A Letter to Three Wives" is my personal favourite of his films, but it was that film which paved the way for his glory days at the FOX studios.

It is not my favourite Bette Davis movie, but deserving credit, she brings home her strongest performance here by stealing the show. Anne Baxter, George Sanders and Celeste Holm, some of the strongest FOX studio supporting actors, all turn in respectable performances. Finally, Marilyn Monroe features in a small role, but noticable role, pre-exploitation period.

Despite this, the film dipped a fair way short of my expectations. It has been more than a year since I viewed this film, and since it was during the period of early classics days, I could provide a better judgement of the film. This could be an indication that "Eve" is a film that I should have another viewing of. Perhaps bitchy soap opera type films don't always entice me...or perhaps "Eve" still pales to a more compelling "Sunset Boulevard" which remains more worthy of taking out Oscar's top golden statuette for 1950.

Rating: 7/10

Down to You (2000)

The worst teenage film ever!

[4/10 · 19 February 2000]

For reasons of box office success, teenage films often become smash hits due to movie injustice or a drought of the particular genre which sends the desperate adolescent audience in an incomprehensible scramble for the nearest cinema.

Marketing gimmicks aimed at my target audience rarely work on me unless films have prominent industry awards to go hand in hand with it, but with the promise of Julia Stiles from "10 Things I Hate About You", and Freddie Prinze Jr, I sat through the most horrendous and mentally painfully teenage romantic comedy experience of my movie going life. This forgettable movie again features the nocturnal habitants who float about the genre exclusively, and another string of mid twenties wannabes who should rethink about returning to their ordinary day jobs.

High school days absent, using the less frequently treaded stomping ground of college, it does not assist a highly evident flawed script with characters so wooden and hollow that they are less interesting than swiss cheese. By having both lead characters taking turns to tell their respective sides of the story, it only shows the screenwriter's inability to deliver on the already low standards expected from teen romantic comedy.

"Down to You" features a soundtrack fortunately not ear shattering. What a bonus for finding the comforts of your own bed right before the action. There aren't many movies in release that will allow, for eight dollars, to find the most therapeutic sleep enriched slumber away from home.

Rating: 4/10

Drive Me Crazy (1999)

Cash investment funds at its very worst

[5/10 · 15 February 2000]

The undernourished genre of teenage romantic comedy does not benefit from one of the latest of its type to open in Australia, "Drive Me Crazy". Although there has been an apparent drought of these films in recent months, this has been an unwelcome reminder as to why the majority of these are unappealing outside its strict target age group.

However, "Drive Me Crazy" has its comedic moments, despite its simply structured and flawed screenplay. Though without a doubt predictable, cliched and even a little too rich in sugar goodness, too much of "10 Things", "Clueless" and "Can't Hardly Wait" remains evident.

As usual, the same familiar ghosts whose acting abilities are in a genre the equivalent to a high school stage, again prove their limitations. None of the newcomers manage to make much of a show for themselves, and Melissa Joan Hart, of "Sabrina" fame, proves that squinting eye expressions cause a more harmful movie going experience than no acting ability at all.

Whatever its problems clouding a completely enjoyable, the movie is a cute movie for those simply looking to have a good time, but those with a higher brain capacity should definitely be looking elsewhere for entertainment.

With an overhyped soundtrack, featuring Britney Spears to entice the need for painkillers, "Drive Me Crazy" just proves to be a below average teen movie, with sporadic amusements. However, we can't be too ungrateful for under the standard adolescent love/problem themed movies. There's still the forever scarring horror of "Down to You" to cope with.

Rating: 5/10

Dawson's Creek (1998–2003)

Stop! No more!

[30 January 2000]

I can resolve the answer to most questions in a short period of time. The point remains there has been a nagging thought for the past two years since this casualty to the rising graveyard of T.V wasteland as to how it is realistic T.V, as to why this remains on the air, and as to why it remains necessary to stay far away on Thursday nights when this T.V show takes to the screen for another week.

It is unsurprising this show has hit an emotional chord with teenagers. "Dawson's Creek" has remained one of those shows which is either worshipped by teenagers or absolutely loathed. As a teenager falling into the minority of the two categories, this genre of T.V has remained an ongoing nightmare. Furthermore, teenage targeted shows have remained one of the industry's least demanding creations. Therefore, whatever flaws it may have, have not become evident.

The characters are either planks of wood or cardboard cutouts stuck against the pretty views of the creek, thrown in for good measure. Pale, unexplored in depth and most of all, annoying. It doesn't help when an emotionally challenged writer such as Kevin Williamson has created such a series with the only credits to his name are teenage horror flicks which I continually find putting up on my top ten worst movies of the 90s list.

Teenagers may be able to relate this, but if that is supposed to be my life, I don't know if I lived it.

Friends (1994–2004)

Brilliant!

[30 January 2000]

Since its debut in Australia in 1996, imitations of "Friends" have been strewn all along the Australian T.V schedule. It has remained the country's highest ranked T.V show ever since then. This proves the creators MUST be doing something right.

The half hour sitcom provides a hilarious insight into the lives of six now thirty somethings living in well furnished apartments with terrible jobs and equally worse love lives. Its excellence away from the standard pack of comedies is that it doesn't need to try very hard to be funny. Instead of trying to create a fantasy world, the creators wrote exactly about what they knew when they were in their twenties.

All the characters, funny, smart and sexy, are loveable people that we want to know, who we have come to know over the years. Chandler, Joey, Ross, Monica, Phoebe and Rachel have in a sense, become a part of every day life. In its somewhat miraculous conception, the writers have averted the deadliness of favouratism within the ensemble.

In embarrassing ways, the situations these people continually find themselves trapped within the throes of imagination, can be related to on some other level. This remains one of the many reasons "Friends" has deserved success.

As the premiere of the sixth season in Australia dawns, one can only wonder how much longer the freshness and creativity of the sitcom can be sustained. Some of the hilarity in the fifth season has diminished and it will be far better if the sitcom is ended on a high note.

With as much ability and comfort a T.V set can provide, "Friends" is a welcoming, sympathetically moving half hour into another world.