Pitiful acting, a crashing bore. Skip this one. Kane Richmond wasn't what you could call first rate in the acting department, but he was handsome--in this one as in all his films. Poor Audrey Long never had a chance in Hollywood--she was just a nice girl, hardly Hollywood material. In fact Richmond was also a "nice guy"--very boring by Hollywood standards of the time. Anyway this picture is a flop--Richmond left movies after this and so did the director, and probably with relief.
Reviews
10 Reviews
Brenda Starr, Reporter
(1945)
Beautiful faces rescue this silly serial
26 October 2020
I'm a great fan of these old "serials for kids"--the Dick Tracy ones with Ralph Byrd are my favorites for action and plots, also Secret Agent X-9 starring Scott Kolk and beautiful Jean Rogers. And there I go, talking about beauty. Jean Rogers really was beautiful and even more beautiful in "X-9" than she had been in the Flash Gordon and Ace Drummond serials. And all of the afore-mentioned were great serials with engaging stories and action.
Frankly I think "Brenda Star, Reporter" is a silly lot of nonsense with a far below average story, a silly script filled with padding, silly "comic relief" characters talking nonsense that's best fast-forwarded over. But I can watch this silly thing over and over just for three of the most beautiful faces I've ever seen on the flickering screen: Joan Woodbury is a treat for the eyes every minute that she's in view, and she has a great personality too--vivacious and enthusiastic. And her adversary at the Police Department is played by who must have been the handsomest man God ever made--Kane Richmond. Audiences of the 1930s and 1940s who agreed that Robert Taylor had facial perfection probably never noticed Kane Richmond since he only played in "action movies for kids." His face was beautiful from any angle--a stupendous profile--and his beauty wasn't tawdry, leering and sneeringly sexual. It was "God-like."
Another beautiful face in this film is that of Jack Ingram, who played in even more serials than Richmond and was usually a scowling cowboy and nearly always a crook, as he is in this one. But "in this one" he looks downright presentable in his three-piece suit and fedora and his face, too, has a kind of perfection that shows up in close-ups.
Those three faces make this serial a treat, for me, despite the silly script and terrible music (worst music I've ever heard in a serial!) I'm glad the other reviewer enjoyed the story!
Frankly I think "Brenda Star, Reporter" is a silly lot of nonsense with a far below average story, a silly script filled with padding, silly "comic relief" characters talking nonsense that's best fast-forwarded over. But I can watch this silly thing over and over just for three of the most beautiful faces I've ever seen on the flickering screen: Joan Woodbury is a treat for the eyes every minute that she's in view, and she has a great personality too--vivacious and enthusiastic. And her adversary at the Police Department is played by who must have been the handsomest man God ever made--Kane Richmond. Audiences of the 1930s and 1940s who agreed that Robert Taylor had facial perfection probably never noticed Kane Richmond since he only played in "action movies for kids." His face was beautiful from any angle--a stupendous profile--and his beauty wasn't tawdry, leering and sneeringly sexual. It was "God-like."
Another beautiful face in this film is that of Jack Ingram, who played in even more serials than Richmond and was usually a scowling cowboy and nearly always a crook, as he is in this one. But "in this one" he looks downright presentable in his three-piece suit and fedora and his face, too, has a kind of perfection that shows up in close-ups.
Those three faces make this serial a treat, for me, despite the silly script and terrible music (worst music I've ever heard in a serial!) I'm glad the other reviewer enjoyed the story!
The Women
(1939)
A very ugly portrayal of the female sex
30 May 2018
I can't believe how many good reviews this movie has gotten from other people. Anybody who enjoys this film MUST absolutely hate women in general and enjoy seeing them portrayed as mean-spirited scandal mongers. In my 75 years of life I have never seen as many rotten women as I see in this one movie.
The only nice things about the movie are the child and her dog. Skip this unless unless you hate women.
The only nice things about the movie are the child and her dog. Skip this unless unless you hate women.
Mildred Pierce
(1945)
Possibly Crawford's best film performance
20 August 2015
A unique story interestingly told and a classic that everyone should see at least once. I think it's intriguing that Butterfly McQueen, who played that famous role in Gone With the Wind ("I don't know nothing' about birthin' babies) has a major role in this movie--she's in it from beginning to end as Mildred's maid Lottie--but she has no billing at all. But Veda Ann Borg, a minor actress who played mostly in action serials like The Shadow, gets a billing despite her very minor part as a singer in the nightclub where Mildred's daughter works. In fact her role is negligible and takes place in the club dressing room, but she gets a billing while Butterfly McQueen does not. If that isn't racism I don't know what is.
To me that's the only defect in this super dramatic and beautifully acted and directed film.
To me that's the only defect in this super dramatic and beautifully acted and directed film.
Rebecca
(1940)
Outstanding in every way
27 February 2015
This is my all-time favorite movie and I'm 72 years old (making Rebecca three years older than I!) I won't waste space repeating all of the praise that's already been expressed by so many reviewers about the wonderful acting, directing, musical score, etc. I would like to comment, however, on the performance of one actress who never seems to get much credit. It's Florence Bates, who plays the rather short but important part of Mrs. Van Hopper at the beginning of the film. I don't think her performance as the rich, rude, self-centered American traveler abroad could possibly have been more perfect. She interrupts and rudely scolds her paid companion (Joan Fontaine), she pushes herself on Max DeWinter in efforts to scrape an acquaintance with him because of his wealth, she's totally repulsive and she speaks English in the uppity- rich Boston/Philadephia manner. She is rude and insulting at all times.
Now here are some amazing facts about Florence Bates. Born in 1888, she grew up in Texas, was from a Jewish family, and was a talented piano student but a hand injury forced her to give up piano. She was a brilliant student and earned a university mathematics degree; taught math in high school briefly, then studied law and became the first woman licensed to practice law in Texas. She was fluent in Spanish and, after radio was introduced around 1920 she had her own Spanish-language radio program in Texas with the goal of improving relations between Americans and Mexicans. She later ran her father's antique shop, and when her husband lost his fortune in the 1929 crash the couple moved to California and operated a bakery. In California she acted in a few plays and finally in 1939 she landed her very first film role--in Rebecca! She ran into Alfred Hitchcock by accident and he knew she would be perfect for the part and offered it to her--her very first film role.
Clearly a person of immense energy and multiple talents, she was 51 years old when she made this "film debut" (Rebecca was actually filmed during 1939 but not released till 1940.)
As to her acting in Rebecca, the way she uses her voice, facial expressions and general posture and demeanor to create and project the personality of this relatively minor character is, in my opinion, nothing short of genius. If you have a DVD copy of the film, have another look at her brief performance (she is only present in the first half hour of the film.) Watch especially the scene at Max DeWinter's hotel room door as he announces to her that he has become engaged to her "companion." And watch the movements of the camera as it anticipates her glance toward the companion after DeWinter's hand gesture. I agree with reviewers who suggest that Hitchcock should have won "Best Director" because just this scene alone should have won the award for him, in my opinion.
As to Hitchcock's use of the camera, I think it's wonderful the way he has the camera OFF the face of the person speaking and, instead, ON the face of the person being spoken to. Example: the early scene in which Mrs. Van Hopper announces the engagement of her daughter and her sudden decision to sail for New York. We only see the back of her head as she speaks--allowing us to focus on the full facial reaction of Joan Fontaine to this awful news.
These are just a couple of the touches of genius in acting and directing that I appreciate in this wonderful movie. Virtuoso performances by Judith Anderson and George Sanders in addition to Joan Fontaine and Laurence Olivier and, in fact, great work from everybody involved.
Now here are some amazing facts about Florence Bates. Born in 1888, she grew up in Texas, was from a Jewish family, and was a talented piano student but a hand injury forced her to give up piano. She was a brilliant student and earned a university mathematics degree; taught math in high school briefly, then studied law and became the first woman licensed to practice law in Texas. She was fluent in Spanish and, after radio was introduced around 1920 she had her own Spanish-language radio program in Texas with the goal of improving relations between Americans and Mexicans. She later ran her father's antique shop, and when her husband lost his fortune in the 1929 crash the couple moved to California and operated a bakery. In California she acted in a few plays and finally in 1939 she landed her very first film role--in Rebecca! She ran into Alfred Hitchcock by accident and he knew she would be perfect for the part and offered it to her--her very first film role.
Clearly a person of immense energy and multiple talents, she was 51 years old when she made this "film debut" (Rebecca was actually filmed during 1939 but not released till 1940.)
As to her acting in Rebecca, the way she uses her voice, facial expressions and general posture and demeanor to create and project the personality of this relatively minor character is, in my opinion, nothing short of genius. If you have a DVD copy of the film, have another look at her brief performance (she is only present in the first half hour of the film.) Watch especially the scene at Max DeWinter's hotel room door as he announces to her that he has become engaged to her "companion." And watch the movements of the camera as it anticipates her glance toward the companion after DeWinter's hand gesture. I agree with reviewers who suggest that Hitchcock should have won "Best Director" because just this scene alone should have won the award for him, in my opinion.
As to Hitchcock's use of the camera, I think it's wonderful the way he has the camera OFF the face of the person speaking and, instead, ON the face of the person being spoken to. Example: the early scene in which Mrs. Van Hopper announces the engagement of her daughter and her sudden decision to sail for New York. We only see the back of her head as she speaks--allowing us to focus on the full facial reaction of Joan Fontaine to this awful news.
These are just a couple of the touches of genius in acting and directing that I appreciate in this wonderful movie. Virtuoso performances by Judith Anderson and George Sanders in addition to Joan Fontaine and Laurence Olivier and, in fact, great work from everybody involved.
Written on the Wind
(1956)
Unbelievable characters and events; embarrassed actors
17 February 2015
Would the Lauren Bacall character actually marry the Robert Stack character--on day one of their acquaintance? Of course not. Would the Rock Hudson character--year after year--put up with "best friend" Robert Stack's behavior? Is anyone that saintly? Of course not. Given the fact that certain females are "tramps," could any female be as trampy as the Dorothy Malone character? Of course not. Is anything about this movie believable or even interesting? Not much. In fact it's ugly from beginning to end and I'm sure the whole cast was embarrassed by having to play characters who couldn't possibly have existed. Lauren Bacall must have walked off the set every day, poured herself a stiff drink and said "I can't believe I'm doing this!" And if this was Robert Stack's "finest performance," that's unfortunate because he probably had some talent. The same year this was released, Rock Hudson did a beautiful acting job in Giant; in this one he just looks puzzled. What an ugly movie. I don't need to see this one again.
Shroud for a Nightingale
(1984)
an absorbing mystery; large and varied cast
21 March 2009
A very interesting, varied and believable cast including numerous student nurses, their teachers and a hospital surgeon. Wonderful acting performances by the younger actresses and by the actress playing Mary Taylor. Interesting, sometimes difficult interactions between Dalgliesh and Massingham when one or both are experiencing stress, beautifully acted by both men.
The scene with Dalgliesh and the aging widow was not erotic at all but more painful and pathetic; only Dalgliesh's wish for information kept him in the room with this drunken person whose behavior was puzzling if not downright unbelievable. The Australian woman who found it erotic must be very young; it was actually an ugly scene.
A fascinating mystery, otherwise.
The scene with Dalgliesh and the aging widow was not erotic at all but more painful and pathetic; only Dalgliesh's wish for information kept him in the room with this drunken person whose behavior was puzzling if not downright unbelievable. The Australian woman who found it erotic must be very young; it was actually an ugly scene.
A fascinating mystery, otherwise.
The Black Tower
(1985)
A very depressing film
21 March 2009
Compared with other films in the Roy Marsden/Dalgliesh series, this one must have the most unpleasant cast of characters. The acting is unremarkable except for the actors playing the old priest and the old woman named Grace. Ugly interpersonal relationships abound, dialog filled with sarcasm, very far-fetched, unrealistic attitudes and motivations of several characters. Painful to watch all the way to the end. A more normal cross-section of humanity would have been better. There could not be so many unpleasant people all in one place. Of course I don't live in England, so what do I know? Other films in the series are better.
Incorrect portrayal of Miss Marple
5 June 2008
Warning: Spoilers
In the original novel, Miss Marple is justly outraged by the wickedness of this murderer. For nothing but monetary gain, he murdered his wife (who refused him a divorce) in order to marry a woman for her inheritance. Along the way, he murdered two of his "beloved" fiancée's brothers in order to increase her share of the inheritance. At the end of the novel, Miss Marple declares, while "looking as fierce as an old lady can" that if anyone should hang, it is he! And in fact, to persons of normal morality, he does deserve to hang, since he murdered three people for nothing but money.
In this disgusting new film adaptation, Miss Marple has an entirely new attitude toward this murderer's deeds. She smiles sweetly at the murderer's would-be fiancée and consoles her with the comforting words, "He did it for love, dear." No outrage about three murders for gain. After all, "he did it for love." To hell with the fact that he murdered two of his "beloved fiancée's" brothers, not to mention his own wife. Miss Marple's thought's now run to "love" and how "love" somehow makes multiple murders less wrong. And it was never "love," either. It was just money.
In another film disaster in this series, Murder at the Vicarage, Miss Marple has all the sympathy in the world for an adulterous woman who murdered her husband because she craved a more interesting sex life. After all, women who are married to boring, obnoxious men are fully justified in murdering them, aren't they? Just ask Miss Marple, in this new Geraldine Something-or Other version. After all, Miss Marple herself had an adulterous relationship back during World War One, (didn't know that, did you?) so adultery is, like, cool. So the murderess in Murder at the Vicarage deserves our sympathies, according to Miss Marple.
I hate this new series starring Geraldine Someone-or-other. It stinks, not only because the characters are not what Christie intended them to be, but because the ugly morality of movie makers is substituted for the morality of Agatha Christie.
In this disgusting new film adaptation, Miss Marple has an entirely new attitude toward this murderer's deeds. She smiles sweetly at the murderer's would-be fiancée and consoles her with the comforting words, "He did it for love, dear." No outrage about three murders for gain. After all, "he did it for love." To hell with the fact that he murdered two of his "beloved fiancée's" brothers, not to mention his own wife. Miss Marple's thought's now run to "love" and how "love" somehow makes multiple murders less wrong. And it was never "love," either. It was just money.
In another film disaster in this series, Murder at the Vicarage, Miss Marple has all the sympathy in the world for an adulterous woman who murdered her husband because she craved a more interesting sex life. After all, women who are married to boring, obnoxious men are fully justified in murdering them, aren't they? Just ask Miss Marple, in this new Geraldine Something-or Other version. After all, Miss Marple herself had an adulterous relationship back during World War One, (didn't know that, did you?) so adultery is, like, cool. So the murderess in Murder at the Vicarage deserves our sympathies, according to Miss Marple.
I hate this new series starring Geraldine Someone-or-other. It stinks, not only because the characters are not what Christie intended them to be, but because the ugly morality of movie makers is substituted for the morality of Agatha Christie.
Tell Your Friends