I don’t feel as strongly against this one – but that doesn’t mean I like it, either.

Nicely produced and photographed, it’s also acted by the cast of old pros with conviction – and they seem to be having fun, at least. There’s some amusement to be had here, mild though it is. I kind of enjoy seeing Price being this awful a person, for example. It’s also nice seeing Karloff being delightfully batty, Lorre being so smitten, and Rathbone endlessly quoting Shakespeare while having extreme difficulty being murdered.

Had Corman directed this (as might be anticipated), the film might not have managed to be as successful as it is. Tourneur does lend a light comic touch that works to a degree, even though the film still feels much longer than its 83 minutes. Matheson affords some nice writing here and there.

I found the cat playing Cleopatra (Rhubarb) rather droll and used to good effect.

First viewing.

I don’t find the storyline all that creaky – I think, at 68 minutes, it moves fast enough (even though the characters don’t reach the jungle for twenty minutes or so; the exposition is engaging). The performances are fine (for a silent), with Beery particularly effective.

Special effects (and ‘monster’) fans will get a kick out of the early style that would soon reach maturity with ‘King Kong’.

Perhaps because the film had a difficult time staying in one piece (and being threatened with extinction), the resolution is a tad abrupt. But it’s a good piece of cinema history which ffs should find intriguing enough for a viewing.

Made in the somewhat-declining period of director Robson’s career, this is a rather forgotten film today – and that’s more or less for the best. I’ll leave it to historians as to what’s accurate and what isn’t – but the film doesn’t hold up as being all that compelling (its final, escape sequences notwithstanding – there is reason to be moved a bit at the end). The story is told in a manipulative manner and, overall, the acting comes off as ‘acting’ rather than the reflection of lives imaginatively lived-in. It could, of course, just be me but, on this first rewatch since childhood, I hardly felt a thing through most of it.

Compare, for example, this sentimental slice of Chinese history with another film about China that really does pack a punch: ‘The Sand Pebbles’.

Simply put, a really really bad movie – nicely directed by Alfred Green, but who cares? The script is an annoying mixture of overly/awkwardly written and too silly for words. Worst of all, not even the great Davis can make this one worth a watch – she puts her all into this ridiculous, often unintentionally funny crap (except when even she seems to be making the little effort the script deserves) but she’s putting her all into something that’s just not there, so she’s not particularly good. Davis’ character’s ultimate-decision sequence (which includes a pale imitation of her role in ‘Of Human Bondage’) is the most laughable scene in the film.

In all honesty, Davis only grabs what little genuine attention she can in the film’s last few minutes. Yes, most everyone believes her Oscar was a consolation prize. What an awful thought – to have an Oscar on your mantel for THIS!

Lindsay gives the best performance (in a thankless role).

Odd thing: In one scene, Tone talks with a guy re: backing the one play Davis longs to succeed in. The potential backer claims to have “great respect for the script” yet also claims that the play would immediately bomb without the proper leading lady. Really? A script worthy of that much respect would still fail without the best available star? How does that work exactly?

I’d probably have to agree this is better than the popular remake, even if it isn’t a great movie. It’s a lot less sappy than most other McCarey pics. Dunne and Boyer have very good chemistry together – which makes the opening and closing sections much more successful (even dialogue-wise), and which makes it a little disappointing when we go through the middle section not seeing them together. They’re an interesting couple so we want to spend more time with them, especially as they grow and change. I’m not a huge fan of either actor but I think they’re both especially good in this.

The script has odd elements indeed. What’s with the agreement to not see each other for six months? Yes, I know it’s agreed to by the main characters, but why? If you compare this film with ‘Brief Encounter’, for example, you’ll see what I mean: in ‘BE’, the would-be lovers are each married but they meet anyway, and we get to know so much about them as a result. As I’ve mentioned, since Dunne and Boyer agree to not meet, we get here a middle section during which we’d like to see them steal away for a lunch together or something – anything! Especially since they’re not married to anyone else anyway!

That said, the film does movie along swiftly. As noted, it is a good early example of the ever-popular tearjerker genre.

As is the case now for me with most classic Disney films, I hadn’t seen this since I was a kid. And, boy, does it not hold up well at all. Not even Hayley (whom I adore in film generally, as being in the top 5 best child actors as well as just having much screen charm) can put this one over successfully (esp. nowadays) – through no fault of her own. I’ve no doubt that the film (and Hayley in it) struck a particular chord with young audiences “at the time” – as Peary notes – but, aside from a handful of moments when the film comes to mildly interesting life, ‘TPT’ doesn’t ultimately pack enough of a satisfying punch.

Director David Swift (and, of course, Hayley) had done such pleasing work with ‘Pollyanna’ the previous year – and that film still holds up today…which makes ‘TPT’ all the more of a disappointment and a slight chore to get through.

Particularly annoying is the opening theme song – which is simply wretched. Annette Funicello must have subsequently been given a vocal coach, cause her singing here is like fingernails on a blackboard. Ick!

FFs will want to make sure to check out ‘Whistle Down the Wind’, released the same year and which contains one of Hayley’s best performances in film.

Fave moment: Keith gets nervous when he realizes he’s going to have to talk with Hayley about ‘the facts of life’. There’s an awkward moment of misunderstanding before Hayley blurts out that she knows all about that!

Gay FFs will get a kick out of seeing ‘our own’ Nancy Kulp in a small role as a camp counselor. She’s an absolute treat here but, sadly, given very little screen time.

Note: The ‘doppelganger’ theme is used to wonderful effect in Kieslowski’s brilliant film ‘The Double Life of Veronique’.

It seems like one of those love-or-hate flicks.

What’s mentioned in the review is true: DP Howe has, in fact, filmed the whole thing beautifully, and a highlight is Holden and Novak doing a very semi-erotic dance together. (I think the two of them give reasonable performances overall.) But, on the whole, this is a rather silly film (its capture of the ’50s in the midwest notwithstanding – or maybe, because I live in the midwest now, due to that reason; the midwest remains very much in the ’50s to this day).

I don’t particularly mind Russell’s performance: it’s a cross between being an absolute hoot and being totally twisted in its repression. I also like O’Connell’s understated performance as her boyfriend Howard. (Is Strasberg supposed to be a stand-in for Inge?, one wonders.)

But this one really can be skipped. It has moments but it’s not that good.

Note for gay ffs: Note the mention of a book Strasberg’s character is reading – ‘The Ballad of the Sad Cafe’ by Carson McCullers – as a banned book at the time.

The review here gets it exactly right. The Dali sequence (short tho it is) is innovative – try and catch it on YouTube, if possible. Otherwise, just skip this one.

I had forgotten what a nothing movie this is. It’s so inconsequential that, halfway through, it simply implodes. It’s tiresome and filled with dull people who say and do nothing interesting. There’s no end to the couple’s yap-yap-yapping about a relationship that apparently was pretty much based on nothing in the first place. The characters played by Bron, Daniels and their daughter are just the nails in the coffin.

Mancini’s theme song is initially lovely in the opening credits – and then it’s played to death in so many different variations that you’re almost sorry you heard the thing.