Browsed by
Month: June 2011

Where’s Charley? (1952)

Where’s Charley? (1952)

“I’m Charley’s aunt, from Brazil — where the nuts come from.”

Synopsis:
In Victorian-era Oxford, a student named Charley (Ray Bolger) impersonates his wealthy aunt so that his girlfriend (Allyn Ann McLerie) and the girlfriend (Mary Germaine) of his friend (Robert Shackleton) can be “chaperoned” in their presence — but trouble arises when both Shackleton’s father (Howard Marion-Crawford) and McLerie’s father (Horace Cooper) decide to pursue the hand of Charley’s aunt in marriage, and a woman (Margaretta Scott) claiming to have known Charley’s aunt’s deceased husband suddenly arrives.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • College
  • Gender Bending
  • Gold Diggers
  • Mistaken Identities
  • Musicals
  • Play Adaptation

Review:
This long-out-of-circulation film adaptation of Frank Loesser’s popular Broadway musical (which was in turn based on the Victorian-era play Charley’s Aunt by Brandon Thomas) is notable primarily for allowing Ray Bolger to reprise his Tony-winning role on the big screen. As noted by Bosley Crowther in his review for the New York Times, the original Broadway production “was of such delightful buoyance and frank frivolity that a rhapsodized fan could only wish it preserved for all time in a deepfreeze” — which is essentially what has been done here, through David Butler’s competent if undistinguished direction. What that said, the decidedly creaky mistaken-identity storyline — which centers around Charley’s obvious inability to appear at the same time both in his own form and as his aunt:

— quickly becomes rather repetitive and tiresome, and Bolger’s broadly comedic acting style (which probably worked wonderfully on stage) ultimately is too close to caricature. However, there’s enough here for film fanatics to enjoy to make it worth a look — primarily the opportunity to see Bolger’s inimitable, Scarecrow-like dancing style in action. The tunes are also mostly jaunty and memorable (fans of movie musicals will be pleasantly surprised), and Allyn Ann McLerie (reprising her role from the Broadway production) is an enjoyable — if improbable — romantic partner for the 48-year-old (!) Bolger.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Several enjoyable tunes
  • The opportunity to see the inimitable Ray Bolger dancing
  • Allyn Ann McLerie as Amy

Must See?
No, though it’s certainly worth seeking out for one-time viewing, as a curiosity.

Links:

One Million Years B.C. (1966)

One Million Years B.C. (1966)

“This is a story of long, long ago — when the world was just beginning.”

Synopsis:
A caveman (John Richardson) banished from his brutal, dark-haired tribe stumbles upon the peaceful, blonde Shell Tribe, where the daughter (Raquel Welch) of the chief falls in love with him after he protects her from a dinosaur attack.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Cross-Class Romance
  • Historical Drama
  • Prehistoric Times
  • Raquel Welch Films
  • Ray Harryhausen Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary accurately labels this “Hammer Studios remake of Hal Roach’s 1940 film … among the silliest, campiest, and dullest of the ludicrous caveman genre” — noting that “the major appeal” is undoubtedly “the scantily clad Raquel Welch:

whose poster from this film adorned the walls of teenage boys worldwide back in 1966″ (and earned revived notoriety when it played an essential role in The Shawshank Redemption). It’s also enjoyed by fans of the great Ray Harryhausen, whose stop-motion animation of several different dinosaurs — including a scene in which Welch is “carried off by a pterodactyl” — remains the film’s primary legitimate selling point (though it unfortunately [?] simply adds to the film’s ridiculous ahistoricity).

It’s astonishing to contemplate the fact that producer Michael Carreras rewrote a script that was “conceived by three writers”, given that there’s no dialogue (other than characters occasionally grunting each other’s names) — what could they possibly have been working on??

Despite its many shortcomings, however, at least this campy remake isn’t quite as deathly dull as its predecessor — though that’s really not meant as an endorsement of any kind.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Ray Harryhausen’s stop-motion effects

Must See?
Yes, I suppose so, simply to see the film that launched a (hundred) thousand bedroom posters — but be forewarned that it’s a campy slog.

Categories

  • Historically Relevant

Links:

Bellboy, The (1960)

Bellboy, The (1960)

“There’s an awful lot of kooks in this hotel.”

Synopsis:
A mute bellboy (Jerry Lewis) at a fancy hotel encounters and interacts with a variety of guests — including Jerry Lewis himself.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Comedy
  • Jerry Lewis Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary seems only mildly impressed by Jerry Lewis’s directorial debut, “a series of brief, unconnected vignettes” which was “obviously influenced by Jacques Tati’s Mr. Hulot’s Holiday” (1953). He notes simply that while “most gags fall flat” and “none are hilarious”, overall the “film is amusing”. Given that I’m not at all a fan of Tati’s films (and find Mr. Hulot’s Holiday in particular to be quite tiresome), I was genuinely surprised to find myself enjoying The Bellboy as much as I did. While I wasn’t quite laughing out loud (Lewis’s films rarely provoke that reaction in me), I did genuinely chuckle numerous times — and even the gags that “fell flat” seemed to do so innocuously, and with good, simple grace. I suspect a large part of the film’s enjoyment for me lies in the fact that Lewis’s central character — “happy-go-lucky” bellboy Stanley — doesn’t talk (hallelujah!).

Meanwhile, Lewis pokes some good fun at his own celebrity by appearing in cameo in one of the film’s most genuinely amusing vignettes, as an entourage of assistants clamors around “real” Lewis like a horde of rabid groupies, laughing hysterically each time he opens his mouth to say a word.

(Clearly, Lewis was a tad sensitive about being expected to be “be funny” at all times; this is evident as well in the lengthy and revealing interview he gave with Dick Cavett in 1969 — check YouTube to see this in chunks).

What works about so many of the gags here, I think, is how random and/or surreal they are — and, thankfully, how Lewis rarely lingers too long before moving on. In one of many throwaway scenes, for instance, Stanley is busy sorting keys into guests’ mailboxes, and apparently has been doing such a slow job of it that he’s still not done after an hour. He’s yelled at to finish, and hastily throws the remaining keys willy-nilly into the boxes.

The next shot immediately shows a hallway full of guests wrangling simultaneously with their doors, none having been given the correct key. It’s amusing simply because it defies all rationality — that is, the guests would never all be trying at the same time to open their doors.

Interestingly, in his review, Peary complains about this very fact, noting that “in subsequent films Lewis would learn that his character works best in an otherwise orderly world; here the world he inhabits would be wacky without him”. I disagree. It’s the very “wackiness” of the Fontainebleau Hotel and its inhabitants, I feel, that works in this film’s favor. Just check out the reaction of the entire crew of bellboys when a convention of models walks into the hotel, and you’ll see exactly what I mean… Stanley is not alone.

Note: Be sure to read TCM’s article on the film to learn more about its interesting production, and Lewis’s ground-breaking technique of videotaping alongside his primary camera to get immediate feedback on his work.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Numerous humorous vignettes

Must See?
Yes, simply for its historical importance as Lewis’s directorial debut.

Categories

  • Historically Relevant

Links:

Poppy (1936)

Poppy (1936)

“If we should ever separate, my little plum, I want to give you just one bit of fatherly advice: never give a sucker an even break!”

Synopsis:
A con-artist (W.C. Fields) traveling through a small town attempts to pass off his grown daughter, Poppy (Rochelle Hudson), as the long-lost heiress to a local fortune; meanwhile, Poppy falls in love with the mayor’s son (Richard Cromwell), causing scandal in the town.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Comedy
  • Con-Artists
  • Cross-Class Romance
  • Play Adaptation
  • W.C. Fields Films

Review:
Based on a 1923 musical comedy, and turned into the silent film Sally of the Sawdust by D.W. Griffith in 1925, this W.C. Fields vehicle features the iconoclastic comedian in one of his signature roles, that of Professor Eustace McGargle. Despite being in enormous physical pain during the film’s production, Fields acquits himself admirably throughout, and it’s fun to see him slickly conning his way through several humorous situations: passing off a “talking” dog to a gullible barman:

and ordering lavishly garnished hotdogs he has no intention of paying for. Meanwhile, Hudson does a fine job retaining our sympathy in a tricky role which requires her to exhibit both charming innocence and unconditional love towards a father she knows to be a shyster. Unfortunately, the entire narrative upon which the film is based — particularly Hudson’s “scandalizing” cross-class romance with Cromwell — is both weak and stale; there’s really nothing new under the sun here. This one is primarily worth a look simply to see a few instances of Fields doing what he does best: conning the world, one scam at a time.

Note: I really do believe Fields was at his best in con-man roles, rather than the other archetype he often inhabited: that of a henpecked martyr.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • W.C. Fields as Professor McGargle
  • Rochelle Hudson as Poppy

Must See?
No, but it’s worth a look simply for a few amusing sequences. Listed as a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter? (1957)

Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter? (1957)

“I’m not attracted to her — the whole thing’s publicity!”

Synopsis:
An adman (Tony Randall) hoping to convince a blonde bombshell (Jayne Mansfield) to star in his latest ad campaign suddenly finds himself the object of media frenzy when he becomes Mansfield’s new “Lover Boy”.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Advertising
  • Frank Tashlin Films
  • Jayne Mansfield Films
  • Joan Blondell Films
  • Play Adaptations
  • Satires and Spoofs
  • Social Climbers
  • Tony Randall Films

Review:
Frank Tashlin’s follow-up to The Girl Can’t Help It was this loose adaptation of a stage play by George Axelrod (shifting the storyline to a satire of television advertising but retaining its leading lady). As Peary notes in his review of TGCHI, the satirical theme of both TGCHI and WSSRH? is that “‘success’ [ironically] has nothing to do with leading a personally meaningful life” — though, fortunately, this doesn’t stop the characters in either film from trying for both. In WSSRH?, Randall’s desperation to keep his job leads him to compromise his steady relationship with Betsy Drake for the sake of an elaborate publicity stunt (which boosts his career opportunities enormously). Meanwhile, Mansfield’s ploy to use Randall to make her beefcake boyfriend (Mickey Hartigay, Mansfield’s real-life husband) jealous works extraordinarily well — but she eventually realizes that the true love in her life is one George Schmidlap (appearing in a bizarre cameo at the end). Add Drake’s forlorn attempts to bustify her slim figure (the “lasting” effects of which garner a couple of genuine chuckles), and the admission by Mansfield’s assistant (Joan Blondell, compelling as always) that she’s still pining for her long-lost milkman lover, and the entire film is essentially a tableaux of characters derailed — temporarily or otherwise — from “true” romantic happiness.

Unfortunately, while Tashlin is reasonably effective (as always) at skewering various obsessions of the ’50s (busty blondes, corporate success), the film as a whole isn’t entirely successful. Mansfield’s Rita Marlowe is far less sympathetic than her Jerri Jordan in TGCHI, coming across here as much more of a “pure” caricature — and her shrill imitation of Marilyn Monroe’s squeal quickly gets on one’s nerves. Meanwhile, the film’s denouement is a bit of a disappointment; it appears that Tashlin doesn’t quite know where to take his narrative or his characters. Nonetheless, given that this film was “selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being ‘culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant'”, all film fanatics will surely be curious to check it out at least once.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Tony Randall as Rockwell Hunter
  • Joan Blondell as Violet
  • Betsy Drake as Jenny

Must See?
Yes, simply for its historical relevance as one of Tashlin’s best-known films. Listed as a Cult Movie in the back of Peary’s book.

Categories

  • Historically Relevant
  • Important Director

Links:

Artists and Models (1955)

Artists and Models (1955)

“The not-so-handsome ones — they make the best husbands, you know. Other women don’t want them.”

Synopsis:
An aspiring artist (Dean Martin) and his comics-loving roommate (Jerry Lewis) fall for their beautiful neighbors, the illustrator of Bat Woman comics (Dorothy Malone) and her model (Shirley MacLaine); meanwhile, Martin gets a job writing a new comic book series, based on Lewis’s dreams — but Soviet agents are on their tail when it turns out Lewis has been dreaming secret formulas.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Anita Ekberg Films
  • Artists
  • Cold War
  • Comedy
  • Dean Martin Films
  • Dorothy Malone Films
  • Frank Tashlin Films
  • Jerry Lewis Films
  • Musicals
  • Shirley MacLaine Films

Review:
This Frank Tashlin-directed Martin & Lewis film (their third-to-last together) is considered by many to be their best joint effort, and it does start off with plenty of promise. Full of eye-popping Technicolor and creative sets (see stills below), the film is a visual treat, and the screenplay — which promises an effective skewering of comic books and the effect they have on avid readers — is reasonably involving at first. Less inspired are the romantic subplots between Martin and Malone (she detests him at first, then caves — natch):

and between Lewis and MacLaine (who is surprisingly annoying, rather than endearing, in one of her earliest roles).

Meanwhile, the storyline really begins to falter once a Cold War-era “secret formula” spy plot — with Eva Gabor as a sexy foreign agent — enters the picture.

Ultimately, by its zany slapstick/musical ending, Artists and Models has worn out its welcome — but it’s still worth a look during its first half.

Note: Watch for some interesting homosexual tension between Martin and Lewis (evident in all their films together, but especially prominent here): Martin literally threatens to “divorce” Lewis; Lewis gives Martin a series of kisses on behalf of several people.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Creatively eye-popping sets

  • Vibrant Technicolor cinematography
  • Reasonably clever satirical skewering of the effect of comics
  • Eddie Mayehoff as Mr. Murdock

Must See?
Yes, simply to have seen a representative Lewis and Martin partner-flick.

Categories

  • Representative Film

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

Sad Sack, The (1957)

Sad Sack, The (1957)

“If we can make a soldier out of a man with that kind of a record, it will pave the way for the Bixbys of tomorrow.”

Synopsis:
An army psychologist (Phyllis Kirk) tasks two servicemen (David Wayne and Joe Mantell) with helping a physically inept soldier (Jerry Lewis) to pass basic training. When she discovers Bixby (Lewis) has a photographic memory, she sends him on a secret mission to Morocco, where he falls in love with a beautiful nightclub dancer (Liliane Montevecchi).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Comedy
  • Comics and Comic Strips
  • George Marshall Films
  • Jerry Lewis Films
  • Peter Lorre Films
  • Soldiers

Review:
Based on a beloved WWII-era comic book series by George Baker, this was Jerry Lewis’s second solo feature after breaking with his longtime partner, Dean Martin. I’m honestly not sure why Peary includes it in his book, given that absolutely nothing about it stands out as particularly noteworthy, and in general it’s simply a real mess. Lewis plays yet another variation on his typically bumbling self:

though in this case he also happens to be a savant of sorts, with a photographic memory and the ability to utilize said memory to grapple with complex mechanical concerns — thus leading to the film’s “exotic” second half, taking place in a sound-stage simulation of Morocco where Peter Lorre truly embarrasses himself in a demeaning bit role as an Arab baddie.

Meanwhile, feeble attempts at anti-feminist humor are doused liberally throughout, primarily at the expense of poor Kirk, whose romantic attraction to Wayne is surely one of the least convincing couplings ever attempted.

I suppose fans of the comic book series might be curious to see how its central protagonist is transformed into a flesh-and-blood character — but I doubt they’ll be very pleased.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
I can’t really think of anything at the moment.

Must See?
No; this one is definitely only must-see for Jerry Lewis fans.

Links:

Hollywood or Bust (1956)

Hollywood or Bust (1956)

“Okay, Hollywood — here we come!”

Synopsis:
An in-debt gambler (Dean Martin) cons his way into winning a convertible, hoping to sell it and pay his bookie off — but he must share his prize with the real winner, a nerdy movie buff (Jerry Lewis) whose goal in life is to travel to Hollywood and win the heart of Anita Ekberg.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Anita Ekberg Films
  • Comedy
  • Dean Martin Films
  • Frank Tashlin Films
  • Jerry Lewis Films
  • Musicals
  • Road Trip

Review:
Frank Tashlin directed this final outing by comedic partners Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis, who at this point in their joint career had reached a notorious crisis point (Lewis actually claims he’s never seen this movie, given the negative memories it evokes for him.) Peary labels it a “personal recommendation” in the back of his book, and it was a favorite of Truffaut — but while there are occasional moments of inspired hilarity — including an early hold-up by a deceptively innocent hitch-hiker:

and Lewis “feeling lucky” and winning oodles of money at a craps table):

— it’s ultimately (like the rest of the Lewis and Martin films I’ve seen so far) a mixed comedic bag, one which eventually wears out its welcome. The film’s most inspired moment — (pure Tashlin) comes fairly early, when the duo are driving through the countryside, singing, and see sexy dames every which way who represent the joys of “country living”; it’s truly surreal, and worth the price of a rental alone.

Note: Redheaded Pat Crowley (who I’d never seen before) is a refreshingly wholesome presence as Martin’s romantic lead; why didn’t her silver screen career go any further?

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • The surreal “day in the country” musical sequence
  • Pat Crowley as Terry Roberts
  • Random moments of inspired humor

Must See?
No. Listed as a Cult Movie and a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

Orphans of the Storm (1921)

Orphans of the Storm (1921)

“Help me find my sister — I will do anything you say.”

Synopsis:
During the French Revolution, orphaned young Henriette (Lillian Gish) and her adopted sister Louise (Dorothy Gish) head to Paris to seek a cure for Louise’s blindness — but as soon as they arrive, Henriette is abducted by a lustful aristocrat (Morgan Wallace), while Louise is kidnapped by an unscrupulous beggarwoman (Lucille La Verne) hoping to make money off of Louise’s ailment.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Blindness
  • Cross-Class Romance
  • D.W. Griffith Films
  • French Revolution
  • Historical Drama
  • Kidnapping
  • Lillian Gish Films
  • Mistaken Identities
  • Orphans
  • Play Adaptation
  • Search
  • Siblings
  • Silent Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary is clearly enamored by this “silent epic” by D.W. Griffith, which he labels “marvelous entertainment, as exciting, old-fashionedly melodramatic, and visually impressive — if not as important — as any of [Griffith’s other] films”. He notes that the movie — a “romantic adventure” which creatively “mixes fiction and historical events” — “never drags because Griffith makes sure that one of the characters we care about is always in deep trouble”; indeed, he literally “milks misery” out of the lead protagonists (the Gish sisters, in their final roles together for Griffith). Peary argues that “beautiful, ethereal [Lillian] Gish was never better than in this film”, with her “close-ups… as impressive as [Griffith’s] spectacular crowd scenes”, and he admits that when Lillian and Dorothy “stand together in the ending two-shot”, he gets “the same feeling as when gazing at a priceless painting”.

While I don’t find the film quite as personally moving as Peary, I’ll agree with him that it’s a masterful picture which, unlike the vast majority of silent films, stands up remarkably well today — thanks to the critical conflux of ingredients noted above, in addition to fine historical sets and snippets of surprisingly effective realism (see stills below). Lillian (as Henriette) is memorably nuanced in the lead role, and her relationship with her adopted sister thankfully comes across as genuinely touching rather than cloying. Indeed, their sororal bond remains the glue that holds this admittedly dense narrative brew together, as countless characters and subplots compete for space — including Henriette’s cross-class romance with kind Chevalier de Vaudrey (Joseph Schildkraut); the Countess de Liniere (Katharine Emmet)’s recognition that Louise is her abandoned foundling daughter; Louise’s mistreatment at the hands of evil “Mother” Frochard (Lucielle La Verne, hilariously hideous with her faux mustache); and Henriette’s encounters with various historical figures, including Danton (Monte Blue) and Robespierre (Sidney Herbert). It’s a lot to keep track of — but if you’re in the mood for just this kind of melodrama, you surely won’t be disappointed.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Lillian Gish as Henriette
  • Dorothy Gish as Louise
  • Lucille La Verne as “Mother Frochard”
  • Effective historical realism
  • Fine period sets

Must See?
Yes, as Griffith’s final masterpiece. Available for free viewing at the Internet Archive.

Categories

  • Important Director

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

Sailor Who Fell From Grace With the Sea, The (1976)

Sailor Who Fell From Grace With the Sea, The (1976)

“Morality is nothing more than a set of rules that adults have invented to protect themselves.”

Synopsis:
When his widowed mother (Sarah Miles) falls in love with a sailor (Kris Kristofferson), a troubled young boy (Jonathan Kahn) is pressured by the bullying leader (Earl Rhodes) of his clique to seek revenge.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Kris Kristofferson Films
  • Revenge
  • Sailors
  • Widows and Widowers

Review:
Based on a novel by Yukio Mishima (whose troubled life was so effectively captured in Paul Schrader’s highly unconventional biopic), this relentlessly pretentious adaptation by writer/director Lewis John Carlino — who transposed the story to a seaside village in England — is an unfortunate failure. Carlino clearly has lofty ideals, but the story’s provocative premise — with clear thematic parallels to Lord of the Flies and, to a certain degree, Frank Perry’s Last Summer (1969) — is so poorly executed that the entire affair comes across as merely exploitative and salacious. As DVD Savant sums it up so succinctly, “When The Sailor Who Fell from Grace with the Sea turns to ‘dangerous’ content, we get the feeling that it’s watered-down Mishima. It is as naive as a fairy story — schoolboys punish a man for not living up to their idealized image of the traditional values they’ve decided he represents — and numbingly literal.”

Of the lead actors, Miles is marginally compelling as a lonely, sexually frustrated widow who clearly misses her dearly departed husband on multiple levels — a fact which Carlino ensures that we “get” by cutting his camera back and forth between a photo of said husband and Miles’s forlorn expression as she masturbates, all in clear view of her teenage son Jonathan (who has somehow managed to maintain a creepy peephole from his bedroom into hers for 15-odd years without her finding out — until she finally does, in one of the film’s most melodramatically implausible moments). Meanwhile, the choice to cast stoic Kristofferson in the title role probably sounded good on paper, but was ultimately misguided; while he functions nicely as a buff presence in his notoriously soft core lovemaking scenes with Miles, he never emerges as a viable character (though this could be at least in part blamed on the script, which may have wanted him to come across as simply a sexual “predator” invading Jonathan’s private “affair” with his mother).

Kahn (who apparently never pursued an adult career in film) is serviceable as Miles’s brooding adolescent son, but Rhodes — in a critical supporting role as his domineering playmate — is simply insufferable. His character clearly isn’t meant to be sympathetic on any level, but, as played by Rhodes, he simply comes across as a shrewish caricature of a bully rather than someone we’re intrigued by on any level. Meanwhile, the entire storyline surrounding Jonathan’s involvement with Rhodes’s clique — with its perverse yet provocative philosophical groundings — is handled purely for sensationalism, rather than with any genuine desire to understand these kids and their goals. We get it that Rhodes is a (possibly psychopathic) control freak who has brainwashed his followers into believing that one must strive towards some form of purity in life — but without any additional information (i.e., for those who haven’t read Mishima’s source novel), one is tempted to interpret their actions, in DVD Savant’s words, as simply “pubescent boys expressing their hormonal hysteria in the wrong directions”.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Douglas Slocombe’s beautiful cinematography

Must See?
No; despite its intriguing title and lofty literary origins, definitely feel free to skip this one. Listed as a Cult Movie in the back of Peary’s book.

Links: