Ursula_Two_Point_Seven_T Reviews

Liliom (1930)

Jaw-droppingly awful on all counts!

[2/10 · 17 January 2009]

With the exception of about 10 sublime minutes with HB Warner on the celestial train, this was 94 minutes of jaw-dropping horribleness! The acting was atrocious, but the story is what I really found appalling. The acting was wooden and stilted, even by early talkies standards (the exceptions being Lee Tracy and HB Warner, neither of whom can do wrong). Rose Hobart was absolutely horrid and lifeless as Julie (as she likewise was in 1932's Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, an otherwise excellent flick). And the rest of the cast was worse, there being no words to describe their awfulness.

Worse than the acting, however, was the story. For some unknown reason, Julie loves Liliom, a cad and user of women with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. He marries Julie but doesn't support her, instead lying in bed all day or hanging out with his low-life criminal pal (Lee Tracy). And, oh yeah, he never has a kind word to say to Julie and he regularly beats her. Julie loves him nonetheless and continually makes excuses for him, which only seems to make him more abusive. What's even sicker is that this movie presents this story to us as a love story. Somehow we are supposed to see Julie as a noble character whose pure love redeems Liliom. WTF?

The last 1/3 of this movie takes place after Liliom has killed himself (a robbery plot goes awry and Liliom plunges a knife into himself rather than being taken in by the police). As he lay dying, he tells Julie "I beat you all the time, but I'm not sorry for it." When he at last dies, she finally tells him she loves him. (Neither character ever said "I love you" to the other while they were alive.) After his death, God's Chief Magistrate gives Liliom one more day on earth so that he can "do something good" for his unborn daughter. The price for this is 10 years in hell. After 10 years, Liliom is allowed one day on earth to see his now 10-yr-old daughter. He approaches her in the front yard of her home and tries to cajole her into letting him "do something good" for her; he tries to get her to play cards, he tries to give her Gabriel's horn, but she's not interested and rebuffs him. So he slaps her. He. Slaps. Her. And then he disappears back to the afterlife. Looking on, we see his daughter tell Julie about this. The girl says the slap didn't hurt, that it felt like a kiss. This is supposed to be the movie's magical moment. The girl asks her mother if such a thing is possible, and Julie replies that "someone can be beat you and beat you and beat you and not hurt you at all." Then the music swells and Liliom rides up to heaven in the celestial train. BLECH!

There was one saving grace to this film, and that is the interview between the Chief Magistrate (HB Warner was truly magnificent here) and Liliom on the celestial train. The Magistrate had some very profound things to say to Liliom about life and second chances and death. This scene alone made me bump this rating from 1 to 2 stars. Regarding Liliom's suicide as a means for escaping his problems, the Magistrate says "People suppose that when they die, their difficulties are ended for them. You thought that by killing yourself that you would cancel all your responsibilities. It is not as simple as that. On Earth your name is still spoken; your face is still remembered. As long as one is left who remembers you, so long is the matter unended. Until you have been completely forgotten, you will not be finished with the Earth, even though you are dead." Some great sublime transcendental stuff amongst some of the most horrible trash I've ever seen.

By the way, this story has apparently been filmed many times both as "Liliom" and as the musical "Carousel."

The Whispering Chorus (1918)

Interesting psychological tale from DeMille

[8/10 · 5 July 2007]

I recently viewed 4 DeMille silents from the 1918-ish time period -- Don't Change Your Husband, The Golden Chance, Old Wives for New, and The Whispering Chorus. The Whispering Chorus was by far the best.

I liked this film for its interesting editing (which I assume must've been very clever at the time): superimposed heads floating near John Tremble, telling him what he should do in various situations that tested his moral character -- should he gamble the Christmas money he's intended to buy his wife a dress with or not, should he embezzle from his employer or not.

John Tremble makes a series of really bad choices -- so bad, that one has to wonder about his mental health and his intelligence! But no matter, without his bad choices we wouldn't have such an interesting and twist-turning plot! One of these bad choices leads John to switch identities with a dead man -- changing clothes, wallets, etc., and smashing the dead man's skull beyond recognition so the dead body can't be identified by the face. John then goes on the run and is eventually caught and accused of his own murder! Pretty exciting stuff for 1918 if you ask me!

John's wife, meanwhile, has taken a job with a kindly government official (played by Elliott Dexter, who must've been a fave of DeMille's as he was in 3 of the 4 flicks I watched), who goes on to become governor of the state. The governor and John's wife, Jane, inevitably fall in love and get married. Jane has hesitated for a long time, out of deference to John's mother, but John's mother finally makes it clear to the couple that they have her blessing.

There is a really interesting presentation of the wedding -- we see shots of the happy couple getting married, intercut with shots of a bedraggled on-the-run John in Chinatown making love to a Chinese prostitute. It was a very powerful statement on the contrast of these two peoples' lives (John's and Jane's), and where John's bad choices have led him to.

The courtroom scene (John has been caught and is on trial for his own murder; no one believes he's really John Tremble) was rather suspenseful for me -- when Jane walked right by John on her way to the witness chair, and then again when she was asked point blank by the lawyer to look at John and say if she'd ever seen him before, my attention was definitely held captive! She looked straight at John and honestly did not recognize him. Needless to say, John was found guilty of murder and sent to death row.

While in jail, Jane goes to visit him and, looking at him upclose and in the eyes, she does recognize her former husband. She asks her new husband, the governor to pardon him, but John tells her not to go to such trouble, that he deserves to die for other crimes and acts. (John had promised his mother he would save Jane even if it meant he had to die in the process, so I presume that John realizes Jane is better off with the governor than with him and the only way she can remain with the governor is if he's really not John, i.e., if John is dead.)

Very heady, psychological stuff that makes you think both during the movie and even after it's over. To me, that's the mark of good storytelling. I was overall very impressed with this early DeMille, especially after watching the other 3 that I mentioned above, all of which were pretty light and fluffy.

The Umbrellas of Cherbourg (1964)

Powerful, stylized art!

[8/10 · 29 January 2007]

I wasn't planning on watching this movie when it aired on TCM last night. The on-screen TV guide's synopsis sounded dreadful: "a movie with the dialogue entirely sung"? Um, no thanks! But it came on after a movie that I _was_ watching, and I was elsewhere in the house and didn't bother turning of the TV, and on came "The Umbrellas of Cherbourg". About 10 minutes into it, I found myself loving the music. The French was so beautiful, and the voices were so clear and melodic. I went back into the TV room and rewound the movie to the beginning (thank you Tivo!) and watched the entire thing. It was just that captivating!

The music, the singing, the bold colors, the attractive actors, the sweet and sad story ... it all hooked me and reeled me in. I would imagine this is a film that you'd either love or hate, as it's so "out there" style-wise.

The story is told simply -- not simplistically, but simply. Like with a good silent film, we don't need tons of dialogue to understand what's going on -- we can supply the details and the emotions ourselves, and that makes us part of the picture ourselves, not just mere observers. I felt that somewhat with Umbrellas as well -- the singing dialogue briefly touches on the underlying emotions, and we fill that in with our own experience and emotions. And of course helping with this is the music, which has its own language and touches you in places words can't reach or describe. I found the whole "conceit" of the movie to be quite effective, and not gimmicky at all ... it was a genuine, artistic, and powerful means of conveying an all-too common story and making it so much more. It is a beautiful piece of moving art!

A Bill of Divorcement (1932)

Simply heartbreaking

[9/10 · 28 January 2007]

Unlike some other reviewers here, I did not find the acting stagy or over-the-top melodramatic. Then again, most of the movies I watch are from the 20s and 30s, so I am used to this style of acting.

I was surprised by this movie. It breaks your heart, then never lets up. There's no light comedy to offset the drama, and there's no happy ending.

John Barrymore was amazing. My favorite performances of his have for a long time been Dr Jekyll (1920) and Svengali (1931). I've seen many other films of his (including Counsellor at Law which many people claim to be one of his best performances), but after seeing Bill of Divorcement tonight, I think this might be my most favorite performance. Sure, it was hammy, but that doesn't make it bad. Barrymore emoted his heart out, and my heart did literally ache each time he expressed his own agony and pain on screen. I was shocked to find myself in tears over his character's pain.

Billie Burke was a wonderment as well. I know her best from her slightly comic roles, such as the supercilious wife in Dinner at Eight, or her various Mrs. Topper roles (and, yes, of course Glinda the Good Witch). I didn't know she had it in her to do dramatic stuff, but she had me in tears as well on more than one occasion. She really made me feel the agony and conflict she was in, being in love with Paul Cavanagh and yet feeling pity and obligation to Barrymore.

I found the writing and the direction to be superb. One particular scene was almost sublime in its pathos: Billie Burke sitting in a chair, John Barrymore on the floor with his arms wrapped around her, his head in her lap as he cries. He can't comprehend why she doesn't want him, he asks her didn't she vow to be with him through better and worse, through sickness and in health? He asked what he did that was wrong, other than to get sick? He reminds her of what a kind person she is, how he even noticed her once stepping around a "green crawling thing" so as to not harm the creature, and he wonders if she could show pity and compassion to the green crawling thing, then why couldn't she show the same kind of compassion to him? Three-hankie stuff for sure!

Faithless (1932)

Amazing how a 75 yr old film can be so mature and evolved - Faithless restores my faith in true love

[9/10 · 6 January 2007]

I'd seen several of Robert Montgomery's movies before Faithless, and I liked him well enough. But this movie made me fall in love with him. They way his character handles the news of his wife's prostitution amazed me -- it gave me goosebumps and brought tears to my eyes. Movies certainly were mature-minded 75 years ago. In many ways, more mature than even they are today.

This movie tells the story of two people who really and truly love each other, but who have to go through many hardships to realize that their love is strong enough to endure. Sort of like how steel becomes strong only when subjected to high temperatures, Tallulah Bankhead and Robert Montgomery come out at the end of this movie stronger than they went in, because of all the tribulations they've endured. They haven't had enough faith in one another's love, and so they don't fully trust each other and they break up and go their separate ways several times during this movie, allowing the various tribulations that come their way -- the stock market crash, the great depression, homelessness, joblessness, pennilessness -- to be more powerful than their love for each other.

The couple's circumstances become more and more dire as the movie goes on, till near the end it hits what we, the audience, think must be rock bottom. But Robert Montgomery has learned through all the horrific hardships that he and Tallulah have been through, what true love means. And so has Tallulah. In fact, it is she who learns first and who shows Montgomery what true love is by her actions; by doing what is most despicable to her in order to save her husband. And, the true and caring and loving man that he is, he recognizes her sacrifices and returns her faith and love with a huge heaping helping of his own. By the end of this film, Robert and Tallulah (and we the audience) have faith that that they will be rock solid from here on out and that nothing will ever break them apart again.

Strangers with Candy (2005)

Disappointing effort from a talented group

[3/10 · 23 December 2006]

Just watched this last night and all I can say is, "Wow, what the h*ll happened????"

The TV series was outrageously hilarious. The things that came out of Jerri Blank's mouth would make a sailor blush! But the movie? Oh my, it was a completely watered-down, lame version of the TV show -- in fact many lines spoken during the movie I recognized from the TV show. I'm very embarrassed for Amy Sedaris and Stephen Colbert, two otherwise hugely talented people. I'm at a loss to understand how these two could've let this movie hit the streets.

If you've never seen the "Strangers with Candy" TV series, get it and see some really funny, whacked-out comedy. It's available on DVD, all three seasons. Please don't judge SWC by this movie.

If you're a fan of the show but haven't seen the movie yet, then please take my advice and don't see the movie. It will just make you really, really sad. It may even ruin the show for you, and I don't want that to happen to you! I had to watch season 1 of the series last night after watching the movie, as an antidote to the movie. I'll be watching season 2 this evening for further therapy, with season 3 at the ready for further ministrations as needed.

Sunset Blvd. (1950)

Where's that dial that goes to 11 when I need it?

[10/10 · 24 November 2006]

There's nothing I can say to praise this movie enough. This movie is simply the most excellent, perfect movie ever. To give it a 10 is an insult.

I've lost track of how many times I've seen this film ... close to 50 would be my guess. How many movies can you watch that many times and the movie remains just as perfect, just as entertaining, just as enthralling and fascinating each time you watch it? Very few, that's for sure!

Gloria Swanson was simply perfection in this movie. What a brilliant casting move on Billy Wilder's part! And what a performance Swanson gave. Her theatrics and eye movements were so dead-on ... but then what else could we expect from a genuine mega-star from the silent screen era, playing a faded mega-star from the silent screen era? What a totally unself-conscious portrayal. One of the best screen portrayals ever, in my opinion.

Von Stroheim as the butler / former silent director ... again, genius. Erich von Stroheim made some GREAT pictures in his day, I mean VERY GREAT (can you say "Greed"?), but ended up on the outs in Hollywood thanks to his legendary ego and his battles with Thalberg. How perfect to get a dethroned former major silent director to play a has-been silent director! Remember, it may be de rigeur nowadays for actors to play characters that mock their former selves (a la William Shatner and his newfound popularity), but this was half a century ago when Billy Wilder and Gloria Swanson and von Stroheim pioneered this type of tongue-in-cheek, knowing self-referentialism.

And William Holden ... handsome, sarcastic, jaded, sexy-voiced William Holden as the down-and-out writer who turns gigolo. His character is only about 30 years old, but already the Hollywood system has chewed him up and spit him out. He can't even pay his rent or his car loan. His dry, witty, noir-esquire narration of the story adds yet another layer of perfection to this 11-out-of-10 movie.

What else is there to say? How does one adequately describe perfection? One does not.

Now, Voyager (1942)

Super Soapy

[4/10 · 25 September 2006]

I know this is supposed to be an all-time classic, but for me it was just an overly wrought super sudser. This must be the flick from which all major soap clichés got their start. I can imagine if I was a 16 year old dopey girl, I might find this movie deep and meaningful. As a 45 year old woman, I just want to groan.

I'm sure audiences at the time lapped this up (as many still do today with this flick), and it's flicks like this that kept Bette Davis on top. See it for the pop cultural value ("Let's not ask for the moon, we have the stars") but don't expect anything great or life-altering. . . . . . . 4/10

Bring 'Em Back a Wife (1933)

Hal Roach's "Taxi Boys" Short

[5/10 · 25 September 2006]

Mildly amusing. The most humorous was Ben Blue, a lanky, twitchy guy -- kind of like a depression-era Art Carney with all his tics and funky hand gestures. He truly made me laugh out loud!

This story is simple slapstick/comedy of errors type of fare -- taxi boss (James Morton) is jealous of taxi employee (Billy Gilbert) who is seeing lovely young dance instructor Daisy Orchid (Geneva Mitchell). Daisy prefers Billy to the boss, and in fact implies that she is seeing lots of single taxi drivers at her studio. There's an amusing line about Daisy two-timing the boss, and the boss makes note that he counted at least 20 men running over him as they fled her house before he passed out.

As a result of the boss finding out Daisy is seeing so many single taxi drivers, the boss decides to fire all non-married men. Through a little misstep ("All married men step forward", then Ben Blue bumps into Billy and pushes him forward into the married men line), the boss believes Billy to be married. In order to fool the boss, Ben dresses up as Billy's wife, boss brings Daisy to Billy's to prove to her that Billy's married, and a very amusing scene ensues where Ben Blue, in the most hideous drag outfit ever, pretends to be Billy's wife.

More confusion and slapstick hijinks ensue, but in the end the truth comes out and Daisy forgives Billy and marries him. In a scene entitled "Later" (apparently 9+ months later), Billy and Ben are rushing to the maternity ward. Billy's taxi rumbles a little and bulges out at the sides, and enters the hospital garage after Billy parks it. The doc comes out to tell Billy he's had twins, and a moment later we see the taxi emerge from the garage followed by two tiny taxis -- very amusing! And then a third tiny taxi emerges, which confused me! :-)

Cute funny little film. I've never heard of the Taxi Boys, but they were pretty entertaining. Ben Blue most especially, and Billy Gilbert was good too - he reminded me a bit of Oliver Hardy in appearance (physique and facial features).

The Barbarian (1933)

Trashy (and not in the good sense of that word!)

[3/10 · 21 September 2006]

I love lurid, trashy pre-Codes. Love 'em a lot! And I usually love Ramon Navarro. But I hated him in this movie, and I hated this movie.

We are supposed to believe that Myrna Loy's character (Diana) loves Ramon Navarro's character (Jamil), but we are never given any valid reason as to *why* she might feel this way about him. Jamil is a creep, through and through. Not a charming cad. Not a dangerous bad boy. Just a creep.

Jamil lures Diana to a house under false pretenses and lures another man "Pasha" there too, letting Pasha think that Diana is hot for him and wants to meet for a tryst. Jamil then hands Pasha a whip as Pasha enters Diana's room. Off-screen we hear three blood-curdling screams. Pasha has used the whip on Diana. Niiiiiiice. (insert eyeroll here)

Jamil then abducts Diana and takes her across the desert. In the evening he rapes her. OK, there I said it. Do not believe the other reviewers who say that Diana wanted it. She didn't, and the movie makes that clear to us. She rescinds from Jamil's touch and tries to fight him off. In the next scene (after the deed has been done), we see her sitting down with her clothes torn and tears on her cheeks. Jamil approaches her and she recoils and flinches in fear. So you tell me: rape or consensual sex?

And at the end of the flick, she runs out on her own wedding to a fairly nice guy who clearly loves her, and runs off voluntarily with Jamil. Why???? The movie gives us not one good reason why we should root for this couple or feel sympathy for Jamil.

It was just disgusting and vile. And not in a good way, like oh say Kongo or Three on a Match or Sign of the Cross or The Unknown or any other late 20s / early 30s really great lurid films are. This one was just pure trash. Don't waste your time!

Crash (1996)

Just plain bad

[1/10 · 19 September 2006]

Either this is the dumbest movie ever, or I am. I totally didn't get it.

Everyone in this movie was more interested in their genitals than anything else - it's like they had no life outside of finding people to have sex with. And the sex was gross (IMO). Was this supposed to be sexy or provocative???? I'm no prude, but to me it wasn't. Holly Hunter has sex with the guy (James Spader) who killed her husband in a car crash shortly after they both get out of the hospital???? HUH??? It's just sex, car crashes, sex, car crashes, sex, scars, sex, lather, rinse, repeat.

And the ending???? Dumb beyond belief! It's like everyone in this movie was a walking penis or vagina, and all they cared about was getting their rocks off. Even when your beloved wife lays possibly dying underneath a car, your first (only) instinct is to f*** her??? WTF!

DVD features (New Line Cinema DVD): You can watch either the NC-17 version or the R version. I watched the NC-17 version at 1 hr 40 min. I can't imagine what the R version was like. If they took out all the explicit sex scenes from the NC-17 version, I'd imagine the R version would be all of 7 minutes or so!

"Extras" consist of scene selection, language selection, and on-screen static text mini bios of the primary actors. Borrrrring!

Oh, so why did I rent this? I'm in love with James Spader, but this movie did NOTHING for me.

I now need to go add 1 star to all my previously rated 1- and 2-star flicks. However bad they are, they are nowhere as bad as Crash (1996). Crash deserves to be at the bottom of the barrel all by itself.

Lovin' the Ladies (1930)

Mildly enjoyable timepiece -- despite being made in 1930, it lacks a lot of pre-codey goodiness

[4/10 · 15 August 2006]

With a title like "Lovin' the Ladies" and it being made in 1930, and there being a tremendous dearth of pre-codes lately on TCM ... well, I was hoping for some juicy pre-Production Code entertainment, but alas that was not the case with this flick. Nonetheless, at less than 75 minutes, it was face-paced and mildly amusing enough. As with a lot of these really old movies, I found I enjoyed it for the cultural references and peak into the past.

The phrase "make love" was used a lot ... it seems to have *not* meant what we mean by that phrase today. In 1930, that phrase seemed to mean something more along the lines of "pitch woo". At any rate, it was quite funny to hear Richard Dix tell the group of socialites that Jimmy was going to pay him $2,500 to make love to Betty!

A reference was made to "Decoration Day", which from the context I took to mean some sort of patriotic and/or veteran-related holiday, perhaps a precursor to Memorial Day?

The acting was fairly wooden and stagy ... typical of early sound flicks, so having seen many early sounds, I wasn't too bothered by it, but it would definitely be annoying to modern audiences not used to that transitional style of "acting". Richard Dix did quite well with his role. I haven't seen him in a lot of flicks, but my impression is that westerns were more his forte. If so, this movie demonstrated that he could handle light comedy fairly well.

Dix plays an electrician who is talked into pretending to be a society gentleman by Jimmy, a rich ne'er-do-well who makes a bet with his buddy that he can make any two people fall in love given the right circumstances. His buddy, George, selects electrician Peter and snooty rich girl Betty as the two subjects. Predictable plot ensues, where Peter is more interested in Joan (Jimmy's fiancé), Joan is interested in Peter, Betty is interested in Brooks the butler (and Brooks seems to return Betty's interest), and yet a third woman, Louise, is at one point so overcome with lust that she practically ravages a very unwilling and uncomfortable Peter.

The plot was amusing and predictable, and although somewhat racy, not really racy enough to qualify as a genuine "pre-Code" despite its 1930 date.

There were a couple of amusing lines that made me laugh out loud. The premise behind them both is that Peter and Brooks, the working class guys, were more highly educated and knowledgeable than the buffoon "swells" whom they work for. Here's the two lines:

1 - George to Jimmy, "Do you mean to say your butler knows more than you or I do?". Jimmy's reply, "Don't be silly, George. He knows *twice* as much as I do, and a million times more than you do!"

2 - Brooks to Peter, upon seeing Peter for the first time in his fancy clothes, "Why Peter, if I didn't know you were an intelligent man, I'd certainly think you were a gentleman!" (the word 'gentleman' being a derogatory term in this context)

Another interesting timepiece thing: The movie used a couple of silent era-style intertitles to set the scene, for example, "The following morning." From a historical standpoint, it was slightly interesting to me to see this device borrowed by the infant sound picture from its well-established but firmly though recently departed ancestor, the silent film.

Richard Dix fairly acquitted himself. I enjoyed seeing Anthony Bushell (whom I remember fondly from one of my favorite pre-Codes, Five Star Final) as the butler. The other actors and actresses were just so-so ... ranging from occasionally good (the actor who played Jimmy) to downright dreadful (the actress who played Betty).

I wouldn't go out of my way to watch this if I were you, but if you have an interest in old movies from a cultural or historical standpoint, this movie does have a modicum to offer in that area.

Jewel Robbery (1932)

Oodles of pre-codey fun!

[9/10 · 4 August 2006]

Since I just wrote a horrible review of "Comet over Broadway" wherein I recommended seeing "Jewel Robbery" as a much better Kay Francis vehicle, I thought I'd better write a review of JR to say why I liked it so much!

This movie is fast, wicked, naughty, hilarious fun!

Kay plays a spoiled rich woman who is bored with her older husband. One day while shopping in a jewelry store, in comes suave, handsome William Powell, a most elegant jewelry store robber. He holds Kay and the other customers hostage, plays some soothing classical music on a phonograph to help keep them calm and relaxed (he's brought the phonograph and record with him!), and proceeds to clean out the joint, including stealing Kay's own jewels that are on her person.

When the cops come, Powell forces the policeman to smoke a joint (yes, a marijuana cigarette) in order to subdue the cop into submission.

Powell gets away, but Kay is smitten/fascinated. She finds out where he's staying and goes to him to retrieve her jewels. The only thing is, she's not real interested in leaving him. She likes this charming, handsome bad boy. They exchange lots of delicious, naughty double entendres and, if I recall correctly, the movie ends with Kay winking into the camera as she's about to boink Powell.

Armed robbery, drug use, and adultery -- completely sanctioned and unpunished, and even made playful and glamorous! Gotta love the pre-codes! And having Kay Francis and William Powell, two of the 30s most attractive and charismatic actors, play the leads, well that just puts the icing on the cake!

This film is one of my all-time top 10 pre-codes. Catch it on TCM sometime.

Comet Over Broadway (1938)

Ludicrous Tripe

[3/10 · 4 August 2006]

2 stars for Kay Francis -- she's wonderful! And she didn't deserve this horrible tripe that Warner Bros. threw her way!

The two-pronged premise that this movie is based on is ridiculous and unbelievable in the extreme. Kay is a small-town wife and mother who yearns for something bigger: she wants to be an actress. When a big-shot actor comes to town and invites Kay to his hotel to talk about possibilities, Kay tells her husband she's going to the movies. The hubby's biddy of a mother puts a bug in hubby's ear that Kay's not being truthful, and he sets out looking for her. He finds her w/ the actor in the hotel (they are only talking!) and he slugs the guy, who falls over a railing, lands face-first in a pond (lake?), and dies. Now here's the two unbelievable premises upon which the rest of the movie is based:

1) the judge tells the jury that if it's determined that the man died *before* his head went into the water, that they must find the hubby guilty of first degree murder. (Whaaaaa?????? I think slugging a guy in a fit of rage would count for manslaughter or murder 2 at the most, not FIRST DEGREE murder. Give me a break! But the plot required him being found guilty of murder 1 so that he could be sent to prison for life. Whatever.)

2) the hubby's lawyer, after the conviction and sentencing, tells Kay that it's all HER fault. His reasoning is that if she hadn't gone over to the actor's room, then her husband wouldn't have had to go after her and slug the guy and kill him. He tells her that she's the guilty one, not her husband, and she nods and agrees. What. The. Hell?!?!?! The rest of the movie is all about Kay trying to achieve fame and money in order to get her husband released from prison and right the wrong she committed by causing him to kill the actor dude in the first place.

I can't even go on with this review. The movie was just all too painful. Four years earlier, in the pre-code days, you'd never have caught Kay playing such a wimp! In true Kay Francis fashion, though, she did do her best to make us believe that this woman was a believable character. I give her much credit for trying to breathe some life and credibility to this thankless role. This character was a far cry from pre-code Kay roles and real-life spitfire Kay Francis.

Steer way clear of this one! There are much better Kay Francis vehicles out there! (From personal experience, I can highly recommend Mary Stevens, MD and Jewel Robbery; also good are Dr. Monica and One Way Passage. I'm sure there's other great Kay flicks as well, but I'm only mentioning the ones I've seen and can recommend.)

Forrest Gump (1994)

Read the book, avoid the movie

[2/10 · 14 June 2006]

I read the book and saw the movie back in the 90s when both were out and popular. The book was wonderful. The movie was pure junk!

All the darkly sad and darkly humorous parts of the book were completely chewed up and regurgitated into pablum for the masses, so that Forrest Gump the Movie would be the feel-good experience of the year. Which it was, apparently. The masses are stupid.

If I was the author of this book, I'd be pi**ed at this movie.

This review requires 10 lines, but if I were to write more, it would be to give too much of my valuable time to this crappy movie.

But I want to warn intelligent viewers out there who might not have seen this clap-trap yet, to avoid it.

So I will try to accomplish 10 lines via the return key.

Do I have 10 lines yet?

Edited 9/20/96 - adding 1 star to this; I've seen the worst movie ever made (Crash-1996) and it's a true 1-star; no movie deserves to be in the same class as Crash, therefore I am adding 1 star to all my previously rated 1- and 2-star flicks.

Kongo (1932)

Sick and depraved .... so of course I totally loved it!

[8/10 · 19 April 2006]

Every once in a while I see a pre-code that just blows my mind with its strangeness. Previously, Cecil B. DeMille's "The Sign of the Cross" has held the top spot for me as most depraved, over-the-top pre-code. It has now moved down to #2 as "Kongo" rockets to the top!

I was so *not* surprised to find out that this was a remake of a Tod Browning-Lon Chaney flick. No wonder it was so deliciously sick! I can't wait to see the original (West of Zanzibar), which TCM is airing nine days from the date I am writing this recap.

I sat slack-jawed in amazement at this movie as it sunk to deeper and deeper levels of luridness and depravity. First off, I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw good ol' Walter Huston portraying such a sick, twisted puppy. But you know what, he did a damned good job of it! And, whenever I thought the movie couldn't sink any lower (or, to put it another way, get any more fun), it did! Conrad Nagel as a strung-out drug-addict? Loved it! Virginia Bruce as an abused, prostituted, drugged up girl - such debauchery! Lupe Velez getting her tongue tweezed off with wire - gruesome! (True, they showed Conrad stopping Walter from doing this, but notice that Lupe never utters a word throughout the rest of the film -- I believe Walter went through with the tongue-ectomy off camera.)

And if this isn't all lurid enough, the ironic twist towards the end of the film (which I won't give away here, though I believe other reviews may mention it), is what really brings it finally over the top! Step aside, Sign of the Cross, we have a new champion! Kongo is some of the sickest pre-code fun you could ever have!

After the movie was over, I deleted it from my TiVo, thinking it was so gruesome that I'd probably never want to watch it again. Well, two days later, I was wanting to watch it again. And, wouldn't you know, it's not available on DVD. Guess I will have to watch the TCM listings and wait for Kongo to air again. If you haven't seen Kongo yourself, I suggest you do the same!

Menu (1933)

Resistance is futile!

[8/10 · 11 February 2006]

I love these little "one reel wonders" that TCM throws in at the end of their regularly scheduled movies as filler till the next movie comes on. I caught this one at the end of Sunrise, during TCM's 31 Days of Oscar. Seems this little 1933 one-reeler was nominated for Best Short Subject.

It's very amusing. An early technicolor about a man with indigestion, thanks to a wife who's a klutzenheimer in the kitchen. Una Merkel plays the dippy wife -- she utters about 3 words but is told by the unseen narrator that he's the only one allowed to talk! The narrator acts as an omnipotent overseer, putting broken eggs and spilled condiments back together again by the magic of reverse-action filming. He also brings in a chef in a puff of smoke, to come to the housewife's rescue. We are then treated to a mini-cooking show, with instructions on how to prepare stuffed duck and baked apples. It's quite droll, with the narrator getting off such funny zingers as:

"Cook the stuffing for 15 minutes, for that perfect taste that you love to burp up later."

"Now clutch the apple firmly so it will realize the futility of any resistance."

Very funny and amusing. Too bad there's no way to actually know when this will be on again. I don't think TCM lists its one-reel wonders in its programming guide, which is too bad. Well, if you run across "The Menu" at the end of your regularly scheduled program, be sure to stick around and watch it. I think you'll enjoy it!

I Married a Witch (1942)

Do you love Fredric March? Then for the love of god don't watch this movie!

[3/10 · 24 November 2005]

This hurts me to say, but this movie was terrible, and my man Freddie was just painful to watch. I was quite surprised, because I was really expecting to love this film.

Fredric March, though perhaps better known for his dramatic roles, can also handle comedy quite well (e.g., he was fabulous in "Nothing Sacred", and even in the dreadful comedy "Susan and God" he was one of the few who made the film bearable). But in "I Married a Witch", there is just nothing that works in this film. It's not funny, and the story is both convoluted and flimsy. I don't know if the failure of this film is due to bad direction, or to the real-life animosity between March and Veronica Lake (though I do think Lake did a good job of hiding her dislike of March when the cameras were rolling), or what. To further add insult to injury, a young and stunning Susan Hayward is completely wasted in a bit part as an unpleasant, one-dimensional shrew of a woman.

If you are a fan of Fredric March (and I am a huge one myself), please spare yourself the disappointment of seeing him flounder in a horrible story, and take a pass on "I Married a Witch". Really. Trust me. It's *THAT* bad! I have most of Freddie's DVDs, and I have several Freddie flicks that aren't available on DVD permanently stored on my TiVo for repeated viewing (Sign of the Cross, Death Takes a Holiday, Executive Suite), and I even have some ancient flicks of his on video tape (True to the Navy, The Wild Party, Dark Angel), and what did I do after "I Married a Witch"? I DELETED IT! On purpose! That should give you an idea of how bad this movie is!

There are much better witch-themed films out there -- Bell, Book and Candle comes immediately to mind. For a wonderful Fredric March flick involving the supernatural, see Death Takes a Holiday. For Freddie in fine comedic form, catch Nothing Sacred.

Out of Practice (2005–2006)

Bad. Just .... bad.

[10 October 2005]

Nice pedigree (Stockard Channing, Henry Winkler), but completely bad, awful, horrible, unfunny.

I'm stuck in Wisconsin on business and this came on the tube. The jokes were so stale, trite, and clichéd. Anyone with about 6 months of TV-viewing experience could see the jokes coming from a mile away. It was really sad. I think this show will be on the ash-heap real soon. It should be on the ash-heap NOW.

Henry Winkler left "Arrested Development" for THIS?????? Worst. Career move. Ever.

Rating: 0/10

The Kiss (1929)

Pretty good silent flick ... might be more enjoyable if you watch it with the sound turned off

[7/10 · 15 September 2005]

"The Kiss" happens about midway into the movie ... Greta Garbo gives young admirer Lew Ayres a friendly kiss goodbye as he's about to leave town, Ayres, who cannot control his infatuation with the beautiful Garbo, goes in for another, less platonic kiss, at which point Garbo's husband sees them from afar and goes berserk. A fight amongst the three ensues, gets carried into another room where the door is shut to us, the audience, and we hear a shot. Garbo's husband is dead, but who did it?

Prior to the "kiss" moment, we've seen Garbo and her lover (Conrad Nagel) in a torturous romance ... they both love each other madly but Greta doesn't see any way out of her loveless marriage. In the meantime, Lew Ayres follows Greta around like a puppy dog; he's an 18-year-old completely infatuated with the beautiful married lady.

The latter half of the movie deals with the investigation of the husband's death, Greta's arrest, and her trial where she is defended by Nagel who in addition to being her former lover is also a lawyer.

I won't give away the outcome of the trial, but I will say that the jury believes it is Person A who did it and after the trial we learn it was Person B.

The musical score to this flick was absolutely horrible. I especially could have done without the "Romeo and Juliet" theme that was played every time the flick wanted to telegraph Greta's and Conrad's love to the audience.

Despite the score, this was a very enjoyable silent movie. I find some silents tedious, others quite well done. "The Kiss" definitely falls into the latter category. Worth watching.

Upperworld (1934)

Tame, disappointing ... so much pre-code potential wasted

[4/10 · 14 September 2005]

I assume this is a first-half of 1934 release (and, thus, technically a "pre-Code") as there is no Production Code certificate # displayed on the beginning credits. For a pre-Code, however, it is extremely tame and toothless. With Warren William and Ginger Rogers, this movie could've really been fun if only it had been a little more racy.

In brief, Warren William plays Alex Stream, a railroad magnate very much in love with his wife Heddy (Mary Astor) who is more interested in her social parties and dinners than in spending time alone with her husband. This leads Alex to start spending time with Lily Linda (Ginger Rogers), a burlesque dancer whom he happened to meet by chance when he was out in his boat and she was swimming in the river in distress.

Lily is the burlesque dancer with a heart of gold -- she has no interest whatsoever in squeezing the big bucks out of her rich new sugar daddy. Lily's boyfriend cum manager, Lou, has other ideas and steals Alex's love letters to Lily in an attempt to blackmail Alex. Before Lou can leave Lily's apartment with the letters, however, Alex comes in, there is a confrontation, Lou ends up shooting Lily, Alex ends up shooting Lou.

From there, the movie becomes a cat and mouse game with a policeman whom Alex recently had demoted doggedly determined to prove that Alex is the second murderer (the police found Lou's prints on one gun and an unknown person's (Alex's) prints on the second gun).

I expected more from a W.William/G.Rogers pre-code vehicle. For instance, when Alex has kept his secretary and chauffeur waiting on the street for more than an hour while he's been in Lily's apartment, the secretary finally goes upstairs to fetch Alex. What does the secretary see when he opens the apartment door? Warren William dressed in a feather hat and pig snout singing "Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf" while Ginger Rogers plays the tune on the piano. It doesn't get much more wholesome than that, folks. This should've been my clue to turn the danged movie off!

A couple of funny flubs - one big, one minor. Marcus the secretary is waiting in front of Lily's apartment for Alex. He announces it's 2:30, and Alex has a 1:00 meeting. Then up in the apartment Lily cooks a brunch for Alex, they eat it, clear the table, and start singing. Cut back to Marcus and he announces it's 2:45. How did Alex and Lily have time to cook a meal and eat it within a span of 15 minutes? Then, after fetching Alex and dragging him back to the car, the gang gets stopped by a policeman who gives the chauffeur a ticket. Finally, they are on their way again and make their way to the skyscraper "Alexander Stream" building. The camera pans to an upper floor, indicating this is where Alex is. We then see Alex walking past numerous employees who greet him. In the background there is a clock, which reads 2:45! How can it be 2:45 NOW when it was 2:45 back before Marcus ever went upstairs to Lily's apartment to fetch Alex. Then they drove, got stopped by a cop, given a ticket, drove further to the office building, rode the elevator to an upper floor, and it is STILL 2:45!

The tiny flub is Ginger Rogers's character's name is spelled "Lily" in the film -- on the marquee outside the theater where she's performing and in the newspaper headline after she's been killed. However, in the opening credits her name is spelled "Lilly".

I'm guessing the continuity person at Warners wasn't very good at their job. However, that's the least of this tame, tame film's problems.

I wouldn't waste my time with this if I were you. Unless you're a big G.Rogers fan and want to catch an early flick of hers. This one's not even worth it for Warren Williams's fans.

Good supporting roles by Andy Devine as Oscar the chauffeur, Ferdinand Gottschalk as Marcus the secretary, and Robert Greig as Caldwell the butler.

So Big! (1932)

Seeing the inherent beauty of life all around

[7/10 · 13 September 2005]

Well-off, motherless Selina is raised by her father, who teaches her to find beauty and joy in all aspects of life. When the father dies, a friend of the family arranges for Selina to move from the city to "High Prarie", a rural town where Selina is to live with a farm family and teach in the local schoolhouse.

Selina arrives all wondrous at her new surroundings, even commenting on how beautiful the cabbage field is. The boobs in the farm family all laugh at her, except 12 year old Roelf who agrees that the cabbages are beautiful and even makes a drawing of the field for Selina. Roelf is a kindred spirit, and sees beauty all around him, and wants to be an artist. While a teenager, he runs away and goes to Europe where he eventually becomes a well-known sculptor.

Back home, Selina marries local farm-boy Purvis de Jong and has a son with him, Dirk, nicknamed "So Big" (Selina says to little Dirk, "How big is my big boy?" and little Dirk spreads his arms wide and answers "Soooooo big!") Selina is widowed while Dirk is still young, and Selina keeps her little family together by maintaining the farm, even growing a special variety of asparagus dubbed the de Jong asparagus.

Flash forward to Dirk's adulthood. He is bored with his entry-level architect job, ashamed to admit he's *THAT* de Jong of the de Jong asparagus fame, and he hangs out with a married woman (the details of their relationship are not delved into). Selina wants her son to appreciate the beauty in life, much the way her own father encouraged her when she was a child. Dirk, however, has only dollar signs in his eyes, and he quits his architect position to become a bonds-trader in the stock market.

Dirk meets a young (and extremely lovely) Bette Davis, who is making some advertising drawings for his firm. Dirk falls in love with her, but she doesn't return that love. She tells him she can only love a man who works with his hands and appreciates art, someone whose beauty shines from the inside (unlike Dirk who clearly doesn't have any of these qualities). Bette goes to Paris, meets Roelf and returns to High Prairie with Roelf who very much wants to see Selina again. The reunion between Roelf and Selina is sweet and may make you reach for a hankie. While the four of them -- Selina, Roelf, Dirk, Dallas (the Bette Davis character) -- are visiting in Selina's home, Dallas watches Selina and Roelf at the window. Dallas remarks to Dirk how beautiful his mother is (although at this point in the movie Stanwyck is made up to be an older woman with near-white hair). Dallas sees the beauty radiating from within Selina and wants to paint her. It's a beautiful but also sad ending ... sad because of the contrast between Selina, Roelf and Dallas who are able to see and appreciate beauty all around them, versus Dirk who cannot see it even when he's surrounded by it. It made me sad for Selina that her son could not see the things she and Roelf and Dallas could.

Alfie (1966)

Flawless

[10/10 · 13 September 2005]

I recently watched this movie again; it's been a while. I was so pleased to see that it's even better than I remember. In fact, I'd call this movie flawless. Michael Caine was perfect as Alfie; I can't imagine this movie with any actor other than him.

Alfie is a using womanizer (he refers to women as "birds" and "its"), and we see through one relationship after another how this lifestyle is poisonous to him.

Even when he's at his most caddish at the beginning of the film, we see sparks of the decent fellow lurking underneath the character's facade. That decent fellow pops up more and more throughout the film (though almost always overshadowed by Alfie the cad), until at the end you finally have hope that Alfie might "get it" and find true happiness in life. The brutally honest abortion scene seems to be the turning point for Alfie, and the words he utters to his friend after the deed regarding the tiny baby that was eliminated via the abortion will probably shock modern audiences in its frankness. I can't imagine any movie character in 2005 talking about abortion the way Alfie did.

I loved Alfie's addressing the camera directly. Nowadays that technique is pretty "been there, done that" but I'm guessing for 1966 it was fairly new. At any rate, it worked really well. Michael Caine was sheer perfection in transitioning between action in the movie to talking to the audience to going back to the action in the flick.

I loved Caine's Cockney accent and his horrible, slangy English. A couple of fer'instances: the word "mumsy" which he used as an adjective to describe a woman's maternal feelings; the word "lustbox" which he used to describe Shelly Winters's character who had a voracious sexual appetite.

Great acting, great dialogue, a story that's funny and tragic all at the same time, and a lead character who's a selfish bastard and lovable all at the same time. I think this 1966 flick will always be timely and have something to say to the audience, regardless of the decade or century it's said in.

Rachel and the Stranger (1948)

A musical western comedy family drama - you don't see many of those!

[7/10 · 6 September 2005]

Lightweight, predictable fare that's nothing to write home about, but a really enjoyable movie nonetheless that I gladly watch anytime it's on TCM.

William Holden plays a recent widower who realizes his son needs a mother. He goes into town and "buys" a wife (Loretta Young), whom he treats with respect (he's a gentleman) but also quite aloofly (he's still deeply in love with his dearly departed wife and is not ready to move on). Predictably, the boy resents the presence of this new woman and isn't ready for her or anyone else to take his mother's place. (You just know the boy and Holden are gonna come around by the end of the flick and the three of them are gonna be one big happy family.) Add in charming, wandering, singing-and-guitar-playing rogue Robert Mitchum and you've got quite an enjoyable story. Mitchum appreciates Young and strikes up a friendship with her, which piques Holden's curiosity over this woman he's previously overlooked.

Loretta Young is supposedly lovely in this film -- if you like her, that is. Personally, she's never caught my fancy and I've never understood her appeal, though I never let her presence in a movie keep me from watching it; that would be a shame and I'd miss some good flicks if I did! (OK, so ding this review if you're a LY fan and I dissed your lady, sorry! :)

William Holden is ... well, um, drool, pant, sigh ... absolutely gorgeous in this movie. He is reason alone to watch it! Robert Mitchum isn't too bad either, and has a surprisingly nice singing voice (yes that's actually him doing all that singing).

Baby Face (1933)

Delicious fun watching Barbara Stanwyck sleep her way to the top!

[8/10 · 5 September 2005]

I'd love to give this movie a 10/10, but in its existing state I can only go to 8/10 tops. The post-Code editing (read: destroying) of this film warrants a 2-point demerit.

From my very limited knowledge of film history, Baby Face was apparently one of two movies that finally broke the camel's back and brought the full wrath and enforcement of the Production Code into play in 1934. (I don't know what the other movie was.) As a result, the movie in its original incarnation was never allowed to be re-released after 1934. It was chopped and edited to bits, and no original version is known to exist today. The best that we can see today is the version that TCM (Turner Classic Movies) shows, but that is blatantly edited in several scenes, and has a really disappointing "happy ending" slapped onto the end.

All the above being said, the movie is still pretty darned great and lots of fun to watch. Barbara Stanwyck is, as always, absolutely amazing and wonderful. She is so beautiful and powerful; she just owns the whole movie! She plays a woman who's been used by men her entire life, starting with her father who pimps her out to the local Erie, PA steel workers as well as to local politicians in a quid pro quo of 'if you don't shut down my speakeasy I'll let you sleep with my daughter'. When the father dies in a fiery explosion near the beginning of the flick, the smile on Stanwyck's face is priceless.

After the fire, Stanwyck leaves Erie with her maid and heads to New York City. She sets her sights on a skyscraper and starts literally working her way to the top. Starting out with the personnel clerk in the HR department, she sleeps with him to get an entry level position at the bank. From there, she sleeps with man after man after man (including a very young John Wayne) using each new man to help her land a higher paying job on a higher floor of the skyscraper, with increasingly powerful male bosses cum sugar daddies. Stanwyck stops at nothing in her rise to the top. It is great fun to see her and her maid in increasingly fancier clothes and apartments as Stanwyck works her way up the corporate ladder. Stanwyck is the ultimate femme fatale, manipulating, she-vixen in this flick! If you watch this movie, I recommend stopping when you see the George Brent character (Courtland Trenholm) die in Stanwyck's arms. Skip the remaining 3 minutes or so! The "happy ending" slapped on to the end of the movie for post-Code audiences is insulting to the audience's intelligence and lame beyond belief: the bank board members are sitting around a table expositing about Mr. and Mrs. Trenholm's million dollar donation to the bank and how they are living happily but poor in Erie, with former VP Trenholm now working in the steel mills - cut to the exact same footage of a steel plant that we saw in the beginning of the movie - "The End". PUH-LEEZE - HOW LAME! The movie originally ended with George Brent succeeding in his suicide attempt. I think that ending fits the overall mood of the movie much better than the slapped on post-Code ending.

I certainly hope that a print of the original pre-Code version of this flick is discovered during my lifetime (update: the original HAS been found and should be out on DVD and/or TCM in 2006!). Until then, I'll enjoy the TCM version and switch it off before the lame-o post-Code ending.