“I’m sure no one ever had a husband like you.”
|
Synopsis:
A British playboy (David Niven) and his nephew (Robert Wagner) separately attempt to steal a valuable jewel from a princess (Claudia Cardinale)m while bumbling police inspector Jacques Clouseau (Peter Sellers) — whose wife (Capucine) is having an affair with Niven — tries to determine the identity of a notorious jewel thief known as “The Phantom” (Niven).
|
|
Genres:
Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary accurately notes that this “overrated Blake Edwards comedy at least gave Peter Sellers his first chance to play bumbling Inspector Closeau”, and that “Sellers completely steals the film from the other stars, including topbilled David Niven”. He points out that beautiful Capucine (whose personal life was quite tragic) is “surprisingly good doing physical comedy with Sellers”; indeed, the “abundance of sight gags” — primarily between these two characters — are what stand out most in one’s memory. Unfortunately, the “film drags badly when Clouseau isn’t on the screen”, with the forgettable storyline seemingly designed as an excuse merely for audience members to drool at the lifestyles of the rich and famous. Of note are Henry Mancini’s beloved score, and DePatie-Freleng‘s animated opening credits — but this one really can be skipped.
Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
- Peter Sellers as Inspector Clouseau and Capucine as his deceptive wife
- The clever animated opening credits
- Henry Mancini’s score
Must See?
No; stick with A Shot in the Dark (1964) if you’d like to see a reasonably worthy entry in the series.
Links:
|
Posted on November 15th, 2013 by admin
Filed under: Response Reviews | No Comments »
“Confidentially, darling, this is more than a hang-over.”
|
Synopsis:
A headstrong young heiress (Bette Davis) with an inoperable brain tumor falls in love with her surgeon (George Brent), believing he’s cured her — but how will she react when she finds out that both Brent and her best friend (Geraldine Fitzgerald) are lying to her?
|
|
Genres:
Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “famous Warner Bros. weeper features [a] powerhouse performance from a truly lovely, appealing Bette Davis”, who — “in her favorite role” — plays “a kind, strong-minded heiress who has frittered her life away partying, riding horses, [and] shopping”, but must confront her own mortality when she begins “suffer[ing] vision problems” and learns that her “prognosis is negative”. I wouldn’t necessarily choose the words “kind” or “appealing” when describing Davis’s “Judy Traherne”, given that she initially comes across as sullen, brash, and spoiled — “When I tell you to do something, do it!” she barks at her horse trainer, played by a notoriously miscast Humphrey Bogart — but she does indeed later “demonstrate a tremendous reserve of strength that few women in film have shown and it’s quite moving”. As with so many “Bette Davis films”, Davis is truly the highlight of the show here: Brent (her real-life lover) is more or less “stiff and wimpy as usual” as her surgeon/love interest, and while Peary refers to Fitzgerald as “superb”, I find her doting character oddly opaque. With that said, the “direction by Edmond Goulding is both strong and sensitive”, and Davis’s character arc is compelling. As Peary notes, despite the “morbid” subject matter and the “tears caused by the drawn-out finale, the triumph of this woman at the point of death actually has a cheering effect”. Watch for Ronald Reagan in a supporting role as Davis’s consistently inebriated party companion.
Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
- Bette Davis as Judith Traherne (nominated by Peary in Alternate Oscars as one of the Best Actresses of the Year)
Must See?
Yes, as a cult classic, and for Davis’s performance.
Categories
Links:
|
Posted on November 15th, 2013 by admin
Filed under: Response Reviews | No Comments »
“There’s usually one who loves, and one who is loved.”
|
Synopsis:
A club-footed medical student (Leslie Howard) falls obsessively in love with a cold, calculating waitress (Bette Davis) who repeatedly leaves him for other men.
|
|
Genres:
Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that this adaptation of the second half of W. Somerset Maugham’s thrice-filmed novel — directed by John Cromwell — is “static, claustrophobic, and uninterestingly acted by Howard”, but that it’s “worth watching” as “the film which really launched Davis’s career”. In Alternate Oscars, Peary names Davis Best Actress of the Year for her performance as the “mean and menacing” Mildred, a “cold-hearted, money-loving opportunist who treats Philip like dirt” — or, in the words of New York Times film critic Mourdant Hall, “a heartless little ingrate”. In Alternate Oscars, Peary provides more detailed information on how and why Davis came to take on this role, which “no major Hollywood actress would consider playing” — she apparently “wasn’t concerned about image because no one really knew who she was after twenty-one pictures”, and she “figured [this was] her one shot at stardom”.
Peary writes that this role “made such an impression because it was conceived and played in such an original manner” by Davis, given that her Mildred “isn’t especially pretty… or alluring” and “isn’t smart or knowledgeable”. He points out that she “is not a vamp, she is just cheap, stupid, and shallow” — which is precisely why Howard’s relentless obsession with her is so fascinating. As Peary argues, Philip “hates himself for being a cripple… [and] Mildred is his punishment”. Indeed, Davis’s Mildred is a unique variation on a femme fatale: she’s clearly Philip’s undoing, yet he’s almost entirely responsible for their continued dysfunctional “relationship”. She could genuinely care less about him, but — almost to her own surprise — he continues to make himself available to her time and again; and so, as an inveterate manipulator, she takes easy advantage. Theirs is a morbidly fascinating dynamic — not one I find pleasant to watch, but certainly one film fanatics should see at least once.
Note: Peary ends his review by stating he’s “never seen a film in which so many letters are read” — really? That’s somehow hard to imagine.
Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
- Bette Davis as Mildred
Must See?
Yes, for Davis’s Oscar-nominated performance.
Categories
Categories
Links:
|
Posted on November 15th, 2013 by admin
Filed under: Response Reviews | 1 Comment »
“I married the woman everyone else wanted to.”
|
Synopsis:
A narcissistic socialite (Bette Davis) marries a wealthy Jewish businessman (Claude Rains) to ensure that she and her shiftless brother (Richard Waring) are financially secure — but her marriage to Job Skeffington (Rains) remains loveless, and she continues to entertain a bevy of suitors until her looks finally begin to fade.
|
|
Genres:
Review:
Vincent Sherman faced notoriously challenging circumstances during his filming of Elizabeth von Armin‘s historical novel — primarily the death of Davis’s husband one week into shooting, which led to Davis making life miserable for just about everyone on the set (including Sherman himself, her on-and-off-again lover). The resulting film is a sluggish, tonally inconsistent “women’s drama” which never really finds its footing and feels too long by half. Davis, though enthusiastic, is simply miscast as a flirtatiously irresistible beauty who’s never at a loss for suitors (who in turn come across more like a comedic Greek chorus than realistic supporting characters). Rains is as invested as always in the title role — but he’s really secondary to the proceedings; this tale should have been called Fanny Skeffington instead, given that it’s primarily concerned with tracking Davis’s predictably disastrous fall-from-grace, hastened by a convenient bout of appearance-wracking diphtheria. To that end, the final portion of the film — in which the hideously transformed Fanny finally gets her comeuppance — provides the most entertainment value, in a gruesomely baroque manner; one can’t help thinking of Davis’s later Grand Guignol performances when viewing her mask-like visage (see still below).
Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
- A grotesquely baroque tale of feminine narcissism turned sour
Must See?
No, though it’s worth a look simply for its curiosity value.
Links:
|
Posted on November 6th, 2013 by admin
Filed under: Original Reviews | 1 Comment »
“Kindly allow me to choose my own friends!”
|
Synopsis:
A widowed editor (Anna Neagle) reluctantly dates a handsome client (Norman Wooland) while becoming increasingly concerned about her rebellious daughter (Sylvia Syms), who is spending more and more time with a jive-loving hepster (Kenneth Haigh).
|
|
Genres:
Review:
Reportedly made as a British response to Rebel Without a Cause (1955), this collaboration by husband/wife team Herbert Wilcox and Anna Neagle is a competently directed but uninspired teen-angst flick. Neagle’s stoic-mother performance is just a tad shy of Joan-Crawford-territory — but that tad makes all the difference, in the wrong direction; her reactions and expressions are predictable through and through. Meanwhile, Wooland is simply forgettable as her conveniently understanding and handsome suitor. The best feature of the film is Sylvia Syms (in her screen debut) as the pretty young protagonist, who’s torn between a desire to remain her mother’s “good” eldest daughter, and her itch to explore the wild-and-woolly world of soul-corrupting jive. The screenplay becomes needlessly melodramatic in its final third, as Neagle and Syms are provided with further opportunities to explore their complicated mother-daughter dynamic, and the overall tenor of the film begins to feel more like a “women’s weepie” than anything else.
Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
- Sylvia Syms as Janet Carr
Must See?
No; feel free to skip this one. Listed as a Sleeper in the back of Peary’s book.
Links:
|
Posted on October 29th, 2013 by admin
Filed under: Original Reviews | No Comments »
“Your mother is not dead – not really. She’s come back to me!”
|
Synopsis:
A scientist (Boris Karloff) mourning the loss of his beloved wife (Shirley Warde) enlists the help of a corrupt “medium” (Anne Revere) in making contact with Warde through brainwave technology.
|
|
Genres:
Review:
Boris Karloff starred in numerous B-level “mad doctor” flicks during the 1930s/1940s, five of which are listed in GFTFF (see here, here, here, and here for my other reviews). This title — part of a five-film “Karloff series” produced by Columbia Pictures — is, comparatively speaking, one of the best, thanks to a compelling rationale behind Karloff’s obsessive quest: his love for his dead wife (convincingly played by Shirley Warde in just a few minutes of early screentime). Also lifting the film a notch above average is a strong performance by Anne Revere, playing a quietly psychopathic “medium” whose love of money overrides all other concerns, even her own safety. Other elements of the quickie screenplay (just over an hour long) feel somewhat conventional, but there’s certainly enough here — including a typically committed performance by Karloff, and atmospheric cinematography — to recommend this one for fans of the genre.
Note: Read Pop Matters’ review of this film for an insightful analysis of how its themes fit within broader cultural concerns of its era.
Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
- Anne Revere as Blanche Walters
- Atmospheric cinematography
Must See?
No, though it’s certainly recommended for Karloff fans.
Links:
|
Posted on October 17th, 2013 by admin
Filed under: Original Reviews | No Comments »
“I need a way of living that I can rationalize!”
|
Synopsis:
An ambitious law student (Timothy Bottoms) dates the daughter (Lindsay Wagner) of his professor (John Houseman) while joining forces with a handful of his classmates to prepare for final exams.
|
|
Genres:
Review:
James Bridges’ adaptation of John Jay Osborn, Jr.’s novel about a first-year Harvard law student struggling to survive and thrive is perhaps best remembered as the showcase for John Houseman’s Oscar-winning performance as Professor Kingsfield — a larger-than-life instructor who is simultaneously revered and feared by his students. Indeed, in its depiction of Bottoms’ relentless quest to earn Houseman’s respect — and its overall presentation of the rigors of law school, complete with plenty of heady dialogue and ruthlessly competitive interactions — The Paper Chase fully succeeds, and we remain enthusiastically engaged; as Vincent Canby points out in his review for The New York Times, it’s refreshing to see a movie that “acknowledge[s] the existence of a mind”. Unfortunately, however, this focus is interrupted time and again by a poorly developed romantic subplot, one which ultimately feels both contrived and unsatisfying. Wagner’s character, while potentially fascinating, is insufficiently developed to earn our interest; instead, she functions merely as a distraction for Bottoms — someone who happens to conveniently possess an insider’s perspective on the man Bottoms is single-mindedly obsessed with. Meanwhile, Bottoms’ character eventually becomes so callously self-absorbed that we stop rooting for him — a dangerous outcome for a film predicated on whether or not our dauntless protagonist will succeed in his quest.
Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
- John Houseman as Professor Kingsfield
- Gordon Willis’s cinematography
- A fascinating glimpse at the rigors of law school
Must See?
No, though it’s certainly worth a one-time look for Houseman’s performance.
Links:
|
Posted on October 2nd, 2013 by admin
Filed under: Original Reviews | No Comments »
“Corie, if it’s a good marriage, it’ll last until 5:30.”
|
Synopsis:
A newlywed couple — fun-loving Corie (Jane Fonda) and straitlaced Paul (Robert Redford) — struggle to adjust to married life in a tiny New York apartment.
|
|
Genres:
Review:
This early Neil Simon romantic comedy (based on his own long-running Broadway play) remains a surprisingly irritating and dated dud. The primary problem lies with Fonda’s character — an enthusiastic young housewife who’s either clinging rapaciously to her husband’s shirt-tails or petulantly throwing a fit; one desperately wishes she could channel her energies into some kind of career. (Many actresses were apparently considered for the role of “Corie”, yet she’s so poorly written that it’s actually difficult to imagine anyone having better success with her than Fonda.) We’re presumably meant to sympathize with poor Redford’s character (a stand-in for Simon himself) — an every-man who simply wants to go to work and earn a living; but he’s so dull and under-written that we don’t care much for him, either. Another critical concern is that we aren’t given sufficient motivation to care about the ultimate survival of this couple’s sexually charged yet perilously unstable marriage, which suffers from seemingly irreconcilable personality differences (she’s free-spirited and likes to walk “barefoot in the park”, while he’s more conservative). Meanwhile, a critical subplot involving Fonda’s attempt to set up her single mother (Mildred Natwick) with an enigmatic foodie neighbor (Charles Boyer) is simply tiresome — as are the running “gags” about how tiny and elevated the couple’s new apartment is.
Note: Simon would rework the basic concept of conflicting personality types attempting (unsuccessfully) to live together in his infinitely more clever and enjoyable comedy The Odd Couple (1968).
Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
- Mildred Natwick as Fonda’s mother, Ethel
Must See?
No; skip this one.
Links:
|
Posted on October 2nd, 2013 by admin
Filed under: Original Reviews | 1 Comment »
“I’ll see Ms. Eden whenever and wherever I can.”
|
Synopsis:
A man (Cary Grant) unhappily married to a shrewish, gold-digging wife (Kay Francis) falls in love with a young widow (Carole Lombard) — but their desire to get married is foiled by Francis’s deceptive interventions.
|
|
Genres:
Review:
John Cromwell directed this maudlin, implausibly scripted romance about a pair of star-crossed lovers who can’t seem to get an even break, thanks to the evil machinations of a gold-digging wife-from-hell. Grant and/or Lombard fans hoping for anything close to a screwball comedy will be disappointed, given that In Name Only takes itself quite seriously, with no laughs to be had — but the entire affair is competently directed, acted, and photographed (by J. Roy Hunt), making it fairly easy to sit through. Watch for a fun supporting performance by Helen Vinson as a philandering socialite who makes a play for Grant.
Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
- Helen Vinson as Suzanne
- Fine cinematography (by J. Roy Hunt) and direction (by John Cromwell)
Must See?
No; this one isn’t must-see.
Links:
|
Posted on September 10th, 2013 by admin
Filed under: Original Reviews | No Comments »
“So they flipped a coin: heads he’s poor, tails he’s rich.”
|
Synopsis:
The four grown daughters — Thea (Lola Lane), Kay (Rosemary Lane), Emma (Gale Page), and Ann (Priscilla Lane) — of a musician (Claude Rains) struggle to find romantic happiness with the right partner. Emma resists overtures from the boy next door (Dick Foran), while Thea aspires to marry a wealthy banker (Frank McHugh) and Kay remains primarily focused on her career as a singer. Ann, the youngest, is determined not to marry — though she soon falls for a handsome musician (Jeffrey Lynn) whose charms sway her sisters as well; but when his troubled, cynical friend Mickey (John Garfield) arrives in town and falls for Ann, romantic entanglements become even more complicated.
|
|
Genres:
Review:
Based on a story by Fannie Hurst, and designed as a vehicle for Priscilla Lane and her two sisters (Lola and Rosemary), Four Daughters — directed by Michael Curtiz — was originally intended as an “A”-level picture, before Errol Flynn dropped out of the cast and Jeffrey Lynn signed on. It’s primarily notable today for affording John Garfield his memorable screen debut — indeed, Garfield’s Oscar-nominated supporting performance as a philosophizing cynic who plucks Ann’s pity strings is likely why Peary includes this title in his GFTFF, and was enough to make the New York Times’ reviewer take note:
As the most startling innovation in the way of a screen character in years — a fascinating fatalist, reckless and poor and unhappy, who smokes too much, who is insufferably rude to everybody, and who assumes as a matter of course that all the cards are stacked against him, Mr. Garfield is such a sweet relief from conventional screen types, in this one character, anyway, so eloquent of a certain dispossessed class of people, that we can’t thank Warner Brothers, Michael Curtiz, the director; Mr. Epstein and Miss Coffee, the screen playwrights; and even Miss Fannie Hurst, the original author, enough for him.
Otherwise, the film remains a fairly straightforward product of its era — a tearjerking romance full of conveniently implausible twists and turns, all taking place within the idyllic white-picket borders of a happy small-town household, presided over by avuncular Rains (in a throwaway role) and no-nonsense May Robson as “Aunt Etta”. With that said, the script is surprisingly well-written for its genre, and contains quite a few lines of thoughtful and/or amusing dialogue (see examples below) — you’ll likely be pleasantly surprised if you decide to check this one out.
Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
Must See?
No, though it’s of interest simply for Garfield’s debut screen performance.
Links:
|
Posted on September 10th, 2013 by admin
Filed under: Original Reviews | 1 Comment »
