Roberta (1935)
“John, everyday you act worse — but today you’re acting like tomorrow.”
|
Synopsis: |
|
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Response to Peary’s Review: Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
Must See? Links: |
Shall We Dance (1937)
“We’re about the only two people in the world who don’t think we’re married.”
|
Synopsis: |
|
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Response to Peary’s Review: Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
Must See? Links: |
Carefree (1938)
“She’s untapped… Why, she’s got everything wrong with her!”
|
Synopsis: |
|
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Response to Peary’s Review: Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
Must See? Links: |
Flying Down to Rio (1933)
“What have these South Americans got below the equator that we haven’t?”
|
Synopsis: |
|
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Response to Peary’s Review: Indeed, while “Rogers and Astaire are the main reason this film” has remained in film lovers’ consciousness (most know of it simply as the movie that sparked Astaire and Rogers’ lengthy onscreen partnership), it’s ultimately more “bizarre” than “innocuous”, and offers some unexpected pleasures here and there — such as the use of shadowy silhouettes (accompanied by an unforgettably wonky musical theme) to represent the three “evil” bank members, or the surreal outcome of Del Rio and Raymond’s overnight island stay. Meanwhile, the culminating aerial sequence (complete with one chorine nearly falling to her death!) is certainly worth a look for curiosity-value alone — though it’s not quite enough to raise the film as a whole to the level of “must see” viewing. Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
Must See? Links: |
Some Like It Hot (1959)
“Now you know how the other half lives.”
|
Synopsis: |
|
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Response to Peary’s Review: Peary argues that SLIH features “Marilyn Monroe’s most delectable performance”, and names her Best Actress of the Year in Alternate Oscars, where he notes that while she “plays a character who has been pushed around in life… [she] doesn’t try to win audience sympathy or pass herself off as lovable, as she does in other films”. Instead, he posits, she “concentrated on comedy”, and comes across as “truly funny in this film”. Indeed, there’s truly no evidence of the infamous inter-personal conflicts between Monroe and others that plagued the film’s production. Meanwhile, Peary names Jack Lemmon Best Actor of the Year in Alternate Oscars, where he notes that Lemmon is “howlingly funny” playing a “character who is excitable, frantic, flustered, argumentative, cynical, sarcastic, curious, horny, and slightly mischievous”. What’s most impressive about Lemmon’s characterization is the way he “jumps into the zaniness [of his “insane predicament”] and allows himself to become screwy and happy”. Peary notes that “as in all of his most successful comedies, he’s appealing here because, in addition to his immense talent, he seems to be enjoying himself so much”. In his analysis of the film for GFTFF (elaborated upon in his more extensive reviews for Cult Movies 2 and Alternate Oscars), Peary notes that “in Wilder’s screen world, people are identified by what they wear, carry, or own, but by [the] film’s end, [the] characters will be identified by who they are”. He notes that “interestingly, Jerry and Joe don’t become silly movie females when they don women’s clothing”, instead becoming “tough, smart, fun-to-be-with broads who take guff from no man and are loyal friends to other women”. He points out that “like Sylvia Scarlett, [the movie’s] theme is that when a person lives as the other sex, he or she has the opportunity to explore previously latent aspects of the personality”; to that end, he argues that “Daphne and Josephine aren’t the alter egos of Jerry and Joe” so much as they are “more (extensions) of the two men”. Ultimately, SLIH remains the best and smartest of countless cross-dressing comedies to come out of Hollywood, offering an enduring treat to both first-time viewers as well as those returning for repeat visits. Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
Must See? Categories
(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die) Links: |
Lady From Shanghai, The (1948)
“Everybody is somebody’s fool.”
|
Synopsis: |
|
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Response to Peary’s Review: I’m in complete agreement with Peary’s assessment of this convoluted yet consistently enjoyable and creatively filmed noir, which — like most of the titles in Welles’ oeuvre — never fails to keep one engaged on (at the very least) a visual level. Welles-the-actor has been criticized for his attempt at an Irish brogue here in the lead role, but I find it convincing enough, and a nice change from his typically sonorous boom. It’s remarkably easy to buy his characterization as a chump who’s fully aware he’s being taken advantage of by Hayworth and her crew, yet can’t seem to find a way out of the nightmare he’s pulled into. The screenplay (co-written by Welles) is full of zingy one-liners (“I’ve always found it very sanitary to be broke”), and will certainly keep you on your toes throughout — though I actually don’t find it quite so difficult to follow as others claim. Meanwhile, Hayworth is as gorgeous as ever, easily convincing us that she’s someone Welles would lose his head over. Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
Must See? Categories
(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die) Links: |
Becky Sharp (1935)
“She’s hard, she’s selfish — she’ll take advantage of you!”
|
Synopsis: |
|
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary points out that while “in the book she is ruthless”, the “script eliminates her many unforgivable acts”, leaving us to “see only her virtues”. He notes that she possesses “charm, wit, intelligence, resilience, [and] vitality” — and that while she “is selfish”, she “wants the best for her social husband… and best friend [Dee] as well as for herself”, and is “willing to sacrifice her own happiness so that they will be happy”. Peary ultimately argues that while this film “may not be Thackeray”, it’s nonetheless “an enjoyable, if flimsy, period piece, with a likable heroine and a dynamic performance from Hopkins” (who he nominates as one of the Best Actresses of the Year in his Alternate Oscars). Unfortunately, I can’t quite agree with Peary that Becky comes across as a “likable heroine”, and I’m not overly impressed with Hopkins’ performance, in which she seems to indulge her worst tendencies towards shrillness and hyperactivity.
With that said, her Becky remains a clever, savvy heroine to be sure, and one can’t help sympathizing with her position in a society which so roundly rejects her from the get-go; meanwhile, her marriage to Mowbray demonstrates that she is capable of true love, even if her designs on men are always and forever calculated to help her maneuver her way out of poverty. As Peary notes, however, the film is really “best known for being the first to use three-color Technicolor process”, and represents a “remarkable job [done] with [early] color experimentation”. He points out that director Rouben Mamoulian (with assistance from DP Ray Rennahan) “decided to use color thematically to express character mood, and added more and more color as the film progresses and the plot thickens”, with “every shot look[ing] color-coordinated”. He notes that his “favorite shot comes [early] in the film”, as “Mowbray and another red-jacketed soldier stand in the foreground in front of a hanging white sheet, through which we can see the black silhouettes of Hopkins and Dee — so within the frame Mamoulian contrasts color with black and white”.
He’s right to note that this is “very clever”, as is the film’s most famous sequence taking place “on the eve of Waterloo”, as the guests at a gala ball “leave according to their color group so only the ones in red remained in the ballroom”.
Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
Must See? Links: |
Follow the Fleet (1936)
“Gosh, you’re glad to see me.”
|
Synopsis: |
|
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Response to Peary’s Review:
While the “plot has been criticized for making Astaire and Rogers into the comedy team”, I agree with Peary that this is “okay for a change because they’re funny” — at least up until the unexpectedly somber final number, Berlin’s “Let’s Face the Music and Dance”, which takes the characters completely out of their storyline but remains an “elegant and romantic” finale.
Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
Must See? Links: |
Gay Divorcee, The (1934)
“Chances are that fate is foolish.”
|
Synopsis: |
|
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Response to Peary’s Review: Ultimately, of course, the storyline in any Astaire-and-Rogers film matters much less than its dancing, songs, and humor. To that end, it’s too bad that most of Cole Porter’s original songs were axed (leaving only his iconic “Night and Day”), but Astaire’s song-and-dance performance of “A Needle in a Haystack” is quite memorable, and 17-year-old Betty Grable’s rendition of “Let’s K-nock K-nees” (sung to Horton) is pleasant as well. I’m much less a fan of the “famous, extravagantly produced 17-minute song-dance ‘The Continental’,” which goes on for far too long — but it is fun to see how Astaire and Rogers manage to “slip past Rhodes and onto the ballroom floor”, courtesy of a clever (if patently obvious) ploy using a silhouette on a record player. Meanwhile, playing “the ridiculous Italian co-respondent (a union man), Rhodes is absolutely hilarious” — he steals the movie whenever he’s on screen, whether he’s bungling his line-of-code (“Chance is a fool’s name for fate”) in an infinitely creative number of ways, or “calling his wife long distance” and boasting “that his nine-year-old son, whom he thinks he heard in the background, already has a voice that’s becoming deeper” (!). Alice Brady is effective as the ultimate ditzy socialite, and Horton is well-cast as a bungling lawyer struggling to live up to his father’s reputation — though Eric Blore (fresh from the stage play) is unfortunately given too few funny lines to make much of an impression. Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
Must See? Categories Links: |
Boy Who Could Fly, The (1986)
“Sometimes we need to believe in a little magic, especially when there’s so much pain.”
|
Synopsis: |
|
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Review:
… Deakins longs from afar to be part of the predictably hip “in crowd” at school:
… and Bedelia (predictably) struggles to adapt to working life after 13 years away (she’s absolutely flummoxed by the introduction of computers into the insurance business).
The major selling point of the film is Deakins’ relationship with Underwood, which is touching, but leaves one with too many questions left unanswered about Underwood’s situation and supposed special abilities.
His character is referred to as “autistic”, but doesn’t necessarily display characteristic signs of this, instead apparently suffering from selective mutism and emotional disturbance after his parents’ untimely death. (Could this gaffe be a function of autism only recently being better understood?) Meanwhile, his alcoholic caretaking uncle (Fred Gwynne, playing his role as a caricature):
claims to have seen his nephew fly, but he’s clearly about as unreliable a witness as one could muster. Underwood’s number one fan appears to be a kind and understanding English teacher (Colleen Dewhurst):
but her role is severely underwritten, and we never understand exactly how or why she’s come to play such a critical part in his welfare. Eventually, writer/director Nick Castle chooses to turn Underwood’s situation into an actual fantasy rather than an exploration of his troubled inner fantasy-life, which may have thrilled audiences at the time (the special effects enhance the film’s romantic potential) but is ultimately the less satisfying choice.
While I hate to be a grinch, I can’t agree with Peary’s assessment of this one as a Personal Recommendation. Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
Must See? Links: |
