FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
A neurotic comedian (Woody Allen) falls in love with an aspiring singer (Diane Keaton), but they’re ultimately too mismatched to last.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Carol Kane Films
• Diane Keaton Films
• Flashback Films
• New York City
• Romantic Comedy
• Shelley Duvall Films
• Star-Crossed Lovers
• Woody Allen Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary notes that “Woody Allen’s first genuine comedy masterpiece is an autobiographical, therapeutic work” in which his on-screen alter-ego, a stand-up comedian named Alvy Singer, “thinks back on his relationship with an equally neurotic” aspiring singer, played by his former girlfriend (Keaton, whose real-life last name was Hall, and whose nickname was Annie). He argues that the “film is very perceptive and romantic in addition to being hilarious” — indeed, it’s amazing how easily we can laugh at and enjoy the proceedings of the film, given that we know from the beginning how things will end for Alvy and Annie. Peary notes that “the two characters are real and we root for them to work out their problems; but, like Alvy, we come to realize that they were meant to be no more than positive influences on each other during difficult, transitional times in their respective lives.” He points out how “sweet” Alvy’s final comment is “at the end” of the film — a moment that’s guaranteed (even on repeat viewings) to bring a lump to your throat.

Peary spends part of his review in both GFTFF and Alternate Oscars — where, like the Academy, he designates Annie Hall as Best Picture of the Year — naming some of the picture’s “so many great moments” (indeed, it’s difficult to resist doing this — my stills below attest to my own challenge in picking just a few scenes to highlight!). These include the classic balcony scene, “during which Allen provides subtitles that reveal what each is really thinking (both worry they’re blowing it with each other)”; “Alvy silencing an obnoxious, self-impressed, self-professed [Marshall] McLuhan expert who talks pretentious drivel in a movie line by pulling McLuhan out of a poster to tell the man, ‘You know nothing of my work'”; “Alvy battling monstrous spiders in Annie’s bathtub”:

… “Grammy Hall look[ing] at Alvy and… see[ing] him as an Hassidic Jew with a long black beard, curls, black hat, and black frock coat”:

… “Alvy “sneez[ing] $2,000 worth of cocaine across a room”:

… and many, many more.

In his review of Annie Hall for his third Cult Movies book, Peary writes that “it’s safe to say that every Woody Allen film has a cult following”, but “only Annie Hall is loved… by every Allen fan, as well as those obstinate moviegoers who still won’t concede Allen is a great filmmaker.” (One wonders what Peary would think at this point about Allen’s most recent spate of lackluster films… But I’m still more than willing to agree with his assessment.) He notes that “it’s actually hard to find someone who hasn’t seen this irresistible movie several times, who doesn’t have a tender spot for it…, who wouldn’t make it the Woody Allen film they’d like to have if stranded on a desert island”. He further notes the historical relevance of the film by writing that it “marked Allen’s transition from a functional and slapdash, though instinctively funny, filmmaker to one who is technically innovative, thematically sophisticated, intent on capturing the beauty of the women and the city (New York) he loves, eager to explore his characters, and passionate about using the storytelling medium to its fullest”. To that end, one little-discussed aspect of Annie Hall is how cinematically creative it is — see Tim Dirk’s Greatest Films site for an overview of the many techniques Allen employs throughout the film.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Diane Keaton as Annie Hall (awarded Best Actress of the Year in his Alternate Oscars)
  
• Woody Allen as Alvy Singer (nominated by Peary as one of the Best Actors of the Year in Alternate Oscars)
  
• Countless memorable scenes
  
  
  
  
• Fine use of New York City locales
  
• Creative cinematic techniques
  
  
• Plenty of laugh-out-loud one-liners:
  

  “You know, I don’t think I could take a mellow evening because I don’t respond well to mellow, you know what I mean? I have a tendency to, if I get too mellow, I ripen and then rot.”

Must See?
Yes, most definitely — multiple times. Enjoy!

Categories

• Cult Movie
• Important Director
• Noteworthy Performance(s)

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Roger Ebert’s Great Movies Review
• Film Site Review
• TCM Articles

Synopsis:
A down-on-his luck theatrical manager (Woody Allen) pins his hopes on a singer (Nick Apollo Forte) who he hopes will soon make the big time; but his plans become complicated when Forte refuses to sing in front of Milton Berle unless his moody mistress (Mia Farrow) is there, and Allen is tasked with convincing her to attend.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Comedy
• Falsely Accused
• Flashback Films
• Gangsters
• Mia Farrow Films
• Woody Allen Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that this Woody Allen comedy about “a former Borscht Belt comedian turned down-and-out Broadway agent for some of the least talented acts imaginable” “never reaches the hilarious heights of Allen’s classics”, but possesses a “truly sweet oddball character” in the title role of Danny Rose. Indeed, Danny is possibly Allen’s most likable alter-ego, given his endearing devotion to “all his clients”, even “a stuttering ventriloquist and an elderly couple who make balloon animals”. The running “joke” of the film — that Allen’s clients inevitably shift to another agent once they’ve achieved any level of real success — demonstrates that Danny’s loyalties may be somewhat misplaced, yet one can’t help cheering him on in his comedically hopeless endeavors. The storyline (efficiently, humorously scripted by Allen) remains enjoyably wacky and fast-paced throughout, as “Farrow and Allen have an exciting adventure together”, and Allen (mistaken for Farrow’s lover) eventually becomes “wanted” by her mob connections.

Though Allen does a fine job playing such a sympathetic character — and Forte is completely convincing in his debut role (he wrote his own songs as well) — Farrow’s performance is the true surprise here: she’s literally unrecognizable at first in her “blond wig and dark glasses”, using a “convincing New Jersey accent”; her character’s cynical, self-preserving approach to life functions as an effectively stark contrast to Danny’s eternally helpful optimism. Meanwhile, Allen’s use of a flashback structure to frame the storyline — involving a group of stand-up comedians who reminisce in a diner about Danny Rose — perfectly establishes the film’s tone and milieu, allowing Allen to pay homage to the performance medium that gave him his start in show business. One may question why DP Gordon Willis chose to film the picture in (admittedly gorgeous) b&w (perhaps to evoke an era of nostalgia?); but while I believe the film could have worked just as well in color, I won’t begin to quibble.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Woody Allen as Danny Rose
  
• Mia Farrow as Tina
  
• Gordon Willis’s cinematography
  

Must See?
Yes, as one of Allen’s (many) “best” films.

Categories

• Good Show
• Important Director

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Roger Ebert’s Review
• Combustible Celluloid Review
• Digitally Obsessed Review
• NY Times Original Review
• DVD Savant Review
• TCM Article (spoiler alert)
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
Three grown sisters — a successful poet (Diane Keaton) married to a struggling novelist (Richard Jordan); a would-be artist (Mary Beth Hurt) in a relationship with a political writer (Sam Waterston); and an aspiring actress (Kristin Griffith) — all deal differently with the increasingly unstable mental state of their mother (Geraldine Page), and with the lively new girlfriend (Maureen Stapleton) their father (E.G. Marshall) has recently started dating.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Diane Keaton Films
• Divorce
• E.G. Marshall Films
• Geraldine Page Films
• Sam Waterston Films
• Siblings
• Woody Allen Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that watching this “unusual Woody Allen film” when it was released in 1978 was “an excruciating experience” for many viewers, given that “ready to laugh, we saw before us a humorless Bergman-esque drama (without Allen in the cast)”. However, he notes that seeing it again later, he finds it a “truly beautiful, painstakingly written and directed, outstanding if… too serious film” about three adult sisters who “all grew up considering themselves failures”. Much like he argues in his review of Allen’s later Hannah and Her Sisters (1986) — which possesses numerous thematic similarities — he notes that Keaton, Hurt, and Griffin are all “emotional cripples, afraid of one another because of the damage each is capable of inflicting”, and “jealous of [each] other’s successes.”

He writes that “what’s most impressive about Allen’s film is that he creates a logic for why his characters respond to each other as they do”; even if we don’t particularly enjoy watching these sisters (and Keaton’s dissatisfied husband) wallow in their sorrows — and find the “snobby pretentiousness” of their “criticism of books, plays, [and] articles” unbearable — they’re indisputably all-too-human.

Indeed, with a mother like Page — who during the film “suffers a breakdown and attempts suicide”, yet was clearly mentally unhinged long before the action begins — it’s no surprise at all to see what a mess Keaton et al. are (nor to question the desire of Marshall to get out of the marriage as gently yet quickly as he can).

Page’s tragic performance is note-perfect, as is Marshall’s — though arguably the most memorable “older” performance is given by Stapleton, “whose bright clothes are a jolt to the picture”, and who “brings life to the drained group”. Peary notes that a final scene involving Stapleton and Hurt (which I won’t spoil here like Peary does) is the “most special” moment for him, in a film filled with “many emotionally devastating moments”. To that end, how well you ultimately respond to Interiors depends largely on: a) your willingness to suspend preconceived judgments about what a Woody Allen film “should” be, and b) your willingness to invest in the outcome of these (mostly) not-very-likable characters. For my part, I was resistant at first (as Peary notes, it’s still far “too serious” a film), but quickly found myself caught up in the power of Allen’s uncompromising vision. Good for him for daring to make a movie just the way he envisioned it, and to foil his fans’ expectations.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Geraldine Page as Eve
  
• Maureen Stapleton as Pearl
  
• E.G. Marshall as Arthur
  
• Fine cinematography by Gordon Willis
  

Must See?
Yes, as an unexpectedly powerful family drama by Allen. Nominated by Peary as one of the Best Films of the Year in his Alternate Oscars.

Categories

• Important Director

Links:

• IMDb entry
• TCM Article
• NY Times Original Review
• Spinning Image Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
In the 1950s, an apolitical cashier (Woody Allen) agrees to act as a “front” for his blacklisted friend (Michael Murphy) and two other television writers, taking 10% of their earnings as commission. Soon he finds himself in a sticky situation, as his activities are monitored by HUAC and he’s asked to “name names”.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Character Arc
• Hollywood
• Martin Ritt Films
• Michael Murphy Films
• Woody Allen Films
• Writers

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary’s clearly an enormous fan of this “excellent, often forgotten little picture” (written by Walter Bernstein, directed by Martin Ritt, and starring Woody Allen) — enough so that he names it the Best Picture of the Year in his Alternate Oscars, and lists no “runners-up”. He writes that it’s “humbly, gently, humorously made”, with “much ironic humor com[ing] from the absurdity of the situation, where a man can be blacklisted if the committee gets his name mixed up with that of a ‘leftist sympathizer’ and he can’t clear himself unless he can name names”. He adds that “despite the film’s friendly tone, viewers get a sense of the paranoia, desperation, and insanity of the period, and come to understand why those who were blacklisted — like Bernstein and Ritt” (and several actors in the film, including Zero Mostel) “still detest those who gave testimony during the fifties witchhunt”. He concludes his review by noting that the “film is a tribute to those who took moral stands during that time”.

While I agree with Peary that The Front remains a powerful and riveting drama — one which all film fanatics should see, simply for its important subject matter — it’s not quite “best picture” material; it eventually devolves into comedically melodramatic fairy tale territory in its final reels, and the romantic subplot between Allen and a beautiful television employee (Andrea Marcovicci) feels underdeveloped. The most affecting aspect of the film is the subplot involving comedy actor “Hecky Brown” (Mostel), whose situation most succinctly embodies the true paranoia of the period. His inability to remain employed after being unable (or unwilling) to “name names” sends him on a degrading downward spiral; Mostel’s performance is both brave and visceral in its depiction of Hecky’s despair and resignation. Allen gives a fine performance as well, playing a variation on his typical character (his “Howie” is “a funny guy, which makes him appealing” to his girlfriend and Hecky), yet one who undergoes a profound shift in political awareness.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Woody Allen as Howard Prince (nominated by Peary as one of the Best Actors of the Year in Alternate Oscars)
  
• Zero Mostel as Hecky Brown
  

Must See?
Yes, as a powerful evocation of a notorious era in Hollywood.

Categories

• Good Show

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Roger Ebert’s Review
• Digitally Obsessed Review

Synopsis:
While attending a retrospective of his films, a beloved movie director (Woody Allen) reflects upon his challenging relationship with a former girlfriend (Charlotte Rampling), reconnects with his current partner (Marie-Christine Barrault), and flirts with the pretty young girlfriend (Jessica Harper) of a film professor (John Rothman).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Charlotte Rampling Films
• Comedy
• Jessica Harper Films
• Mid-Life Crisis
• Movie Directors
• Woody Allen Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that in making Stardust Memories, “Woody Allen takes Fellini’s autobiographical 8 1/2 and applies it, one assumes, to his own life”. He notes that the “picture is [a] daring change of pace for Allen and contains wit and insight into [the] life and thoughts of an Allen-like filmmaker”:

… but argues (somewhat cryptically) that it’s “not a success”, in part because “we don’t really like” Allen’s character, someone “whom we can believe is much like the real Allen”. He concludes his review by asserting that the film “should certainly be funnier”, and notes that “many” (including Peary himself??) “resent the way ‘Allen’s’ fans are depicted.” Indeed, Stardust Memories is a notoriously contentious film in Allen’s oeuvre, though I’ll admit I remain puzzled by this designation. It’s easier to understand critics’ (and audiences’) “resentment” over Allen’s drastic shift away from comedy with Interiors (1978) — but Stardust Memories is drolly amusing enough to classify as a darkly humorous comedy-of-life, even if it’s not as overtly designed for laughs as his “early, funny” pictures (to quote a character in the film itself).

After writing and helming 8-9 full-length films — including such certified classics as Annie Hall (1977) and Manhattan (1979) — and thus revealing himself to be a cinematic auteur of the highest stature, Allen fully “deserved” to make a movie like this, one in which he explores the conflicted nature of his own phenomenal success. One can only imagine the nightmarish existence endured by celebrities of any kind, let alone those (like Allen) who appear to long for a semblance of privacy and normalcy in their everyday lives; in Stardust Memories, Allen is able to show us in satirical detail exactly what it’s like to be confronted on a daily basis by “everyone under the sun who needs a favor”, ranging from a look at one’s fledgling script, to endorsement of worthy causes, to simple yet incessant autograph requests. (And, to Allen’s character’s credit, he handles these requests remarkably graciously, if with an obvious level of underhanded dismissiveness.)

Meanwhile, the bulk of the narrative revolves around the typically tortured romantic existence of Allen’s alter-ego, Sandy Bates, who — much like Michael Caine’s adulterous accountant in Hannah and Her Sisters (1986) — seems to secretly desire a troubled female companion who “needs” him, rather than a confident and mature mother-figure (the latter embodied here by Barrault, and in Hannah… by Mia Farrow).

Barrault, Rampling, and Harper are all fine in their respective roles:

… and Gordon Willis’s b&w cinematography superbly highlights Bates’s stylized existence. (It’s difficult to miss the humorously outsized “portraits” of torture decking the apartment walls of this man who’s “obsessed with world suffering”.)

To that end, Peary rightfully points out the obvious connections between this film and Preston Sturges’ Sullivan’s Travels (1941) in its “conclusion that those who have comic gifts… should present comedy to the world… whereas others should tackle serious themes”.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Gordon Willis’s cinematography
  
• Effectively stylized art direction and sets
  

Must See?
Yes, as one of Allen’s most personal and insightful films.

Categories

• Good Show
• Important Director

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Roger Ebert’s Review
• Spinning Image Review
• TCM Article
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
An accountant (Michael Caine) married to an actress (Mia Farrow) falls for his wife’s sister (Barbara Hershey), who’s involved with an older artist (Max von Sydow). Meanwhile, Farrow’s other sister (Dianne Wiest) struggles to find both romantic and personal happiness, and Farrow’s ex-husband (Woody Allen) — a successful television producer — suffers an existential crisis when he learns he may have a brain tumor.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Barbara Hershey Films
• Infidelity
• Maureen O’Sullivan Films
• Max von Sydow Films
• Mia Farrow Films
• Michael Caine Films
• Sam Waterston Films
• Siblings
• Woody Allen Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary notes that while Hannah and Her Sisters (“Woody Allen’s most acclaimed film”) remains a “sweet” movie in many ways, it’s nonetheless “startling how mean [many of] his characters can be to one another”, given that “they say vicious things” and “betray each other’s trust”, and they “are insensitive, they lie, [and] they are accusatory”. He points out that “every character is deeply wounded at some point, finds himself or herself on shaky ground, and fears the future”. However, given Allen’s structuring of the film to cover three consecutive Thanksgivings in the lives of Hannah and her family, we also see that “within brief periods of time… lives can change to a miraculous degree, people can mature…, [and] sad people can find the happiness that one year before seemed out of reach”.

(As in his review for The Purple Rose of Cairo, Peary’s overview of HAHS oddly contains quite a few spoilers, so I’ll refrain from quoting more specifics here about the narrative arc.)

Peary points out that “Wiest, Farrow, and von Sydow stand out in the wonderful cast” (I agree); however, he notes that he wishes “all the characters were a bit more developed” — though it’s difficult to see how this might even be possible, given the limitations of such an abundantly cast, intricately overlapping script. Indeed, there are so many narrative threads interwoven across HAHS that one wonders at first how Allen will balance it all — yet everything eventually comes together, with all the characters’ lives intersecting in decidedly “incestuous” ways (perhaps no great surprise). Peary concludes his review by stating that “having Mickey [Allen] convert to Catholicism, although funny, is overdoing it a bit”, but I disagree; several of the script’s laugh-out-loud visual gags come courtesy of this narrative jaunt (which feels entirely realistic, given the character’s literal soul-searching).

Note: It’s interesting to learn how much of HAHS was apparently inspired by Farrow’s own life (the film was shot largely in her NY apartment, included several of her actual children, and cast her real-life mother — Maureen O’Sullivan — as her on-screen mother). Being involved with Woody Allen to any extent seems like a guaranteed ticket to creative “exploitation”.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Dianne Wiest as Holly
  
• Michael Caine as Elliott
  
• Barbara Hershey as Lee
  
• Mia Farrow as Hannah
  
• Max von Sydow as Frederick
  
• Carlo di Palma’s cinematography
  
• Allen’s Oscar-winning script
  

Must See?
Yes, as one of Allen’s best films.

Categories

• Good Show
• Important Director
• Oscar Winner or Nominee

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

Links:

• IMDb entry
• DVD Savant Review (spoiler alert)
• Spinning Image Review
• TCM Articles
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
An inept thief (Woody Allen) bungles his way through a series of robberies, while romancing and marrying a beautiful young seamstress (Janet Margolin) and attempting repeated escapes from prison.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Janet Margolin Films
• Mockumentaries
• Satires and Spoofs
• Thieves and Criminals
• Woody Allen Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “Woody Allen’s first film as a writer-director-star is an often hilarious parody of both old-style gangster movies and character documentaries”, complete with “a narrator… who mixes hard-boiled commentary (“He’s wanted for murder…”) with straight-voiced absurdity (“… and for marrying a horse”). He notes that the “picture has less structure than Allen’s later films”, and that Allen “piles on the gags”, though he argues that “the immature humor and the forced humor [are] far outnumbered by comic gems” — such as “[Allen’s] Virgil playing cello in a marching band”:

and “Virgil being foiled in one bank robbery because the tellers can’t read his note correctly:

and in another because rival bank robbers turn up at the same time”.

(I also love the scene in which Virgil attempts to escape from prison by carving a gun out of soap, only to be foiled by a rainstorm.)

Peary complains that “the worst mistake Allen makes is not keeping Margolin’s character normal”, but I actually disagree; while Margolin is lovely and appropriately naive (only a young woman bordering on dumb would fall for a loser like Virgil!), she’s ultimately too “normal” for her own good.

Allen should have persisted in casting his then-wife, Louise Lasser, in the role; her “brief but effective cameo” (“You never met such a nothing; it’s hard to believe there was a mind working in there that knew how to rob banks!”) indicates what a difference this might have made.

(And speaking of Virgil’s family life, where in the world does their infant son disappear to? He’s born, then suddenly reappears years later as a young boy.) Putting such quibbles aside, however, Take the Money and Run remains an enjoyably loopy mockumentary, one of the first in what would become a mainstay subgenre made popular by Christopher Guest et al.

Note: Be sure to read TCM’s “Behind the Camera” article for fascinating background information on the film’s production.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Many inspired and/or chuckle-worthy moments
  

Must See?
Yes, as a cult comedy, and for its historical interest as Allen’s first film as an auteur — not counting What’s Up, Tiger Lily? (1966).

Categories

• Cult Movie
• Important Director

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• TCM Articles
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A nebbishy product tester (Woody Allen) infatuated with a political activitist (Louise Lasser) travels to the Central American country of San Marcos, where he unwittingly joins a group of rebels (led by Jacobo Morales) fighting against the regime of the new military dictator (Carlos Montalban).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Comedy
• Revolutionaries
• South and Central America
• Woody Allen Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that this “early Woody Allen film” is “somewhat dated and contains several scenes so embarrassingly stupid that it’s hard to believe Allen conceived them”; he further complains about “Marvin Hamlisch’s irritating background music for the South American sequence”. However, he concedes that there’s still “much to treasure” about the film, and names a number of its most memorable sequences (including “Allen sneakily buying Orgasm magazine and having the dealer call across the crowded shop to ask its price” and “Allen ordering takeout food for 900 guerrilla fighters”). He notes that “best of all are his meeting and break-up with Louise Lasser”, whose quirky comedic sensibility is given full opportunity to shine here; he points out that “these hilarious and perceptive scenes are quintessential Allen that could easily fit into such later, sophisticated relationship comedies as Annie Hall and Manhattan.” Ultimately, while not as polished as Allen’s later films, Bananas remains an enjoyably gonzo treat for fans interested in seeing the early development of his talents.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Louise Lasser as Nancy
  
• A creative premise with many bizarrely conceived scenarios
  
  

Must See?
Yes, as additional early evidence of Allen’s comedic genius.

Categories

• Important Director

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Qwipster’s Review
• Greatest Films Review
• TCM Article

Synopsis:
A pair of estranged identical twins (Hayley Mills) — one (Sharon) living with their mother (Maureen O’Hara) in Boston, the other (Susan) with their father (Brian Keith) in California — meet each other accidentally at summer camp, and concoct a plan to switch identities temporarily. When Sharon discovers that her father is planning to marry a gold-digger (Joanna Barnes), she enlists Susan’s help in bringing O’Hara out to California to try to break up the impending marriage and bring their parents back together.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Brian Keith Films
• Divorce
• Hayley Mills Films
• Maureen O’Hara Films
• Mistaken Identities
• Summer Camp
• Twins

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary notes that while Disney’s follow-up to Pollyanna (1960) is “a long way from being Hayley [Mills]’ best film… it’s the film her loyal fans feel the most nostalgia for because it really delighted [young viewers] at the time” it was released — both the “boys who had crushes on her and girls who wanted to be her”. He points out that while it’s an “overlong, predictable comedy” without “much humor”, “O’Hara and Keith make a spirited screen couple”, “there are many fine supporting performances by veteran characters actors”, and “Mills is, of course, a delight”. He argues that Mills’ “vibrant energy, wit, imagination and an optimistic view of the world” — in addition to her “mature talent, pretty features, and striking pre-Beatles British accent” — are “what made her so popular”.

There’s no disputing the cult status of this beloved film, the “second [Hollywood] adaptation of Erich Kastner’s [1949] novel Lisa and Lottie.” The first version, Twice Upon a Time (1953), was directed by none other than Emeric Pressburger, but remains oddly elusive; I’ve never seen it, and have no idea how to go about finding a copy. Meanwhile, two other previous non-Hollywood versions were made as well (one in Germany, and one in Japan), and in addition to later being adapted quite a few more times internationally, it was remade by Hollywood in 1998 with Lindsay Lohan in Mills’ roles. Clearly, the ludicrous storyline — Kastner was purportedly inspired by the similar plot device in Three Smart Girls (1936) — resonates with young viewers, who love to imagine that all their divorced parents need is simply a strong nudge towards reintroduction in order to happily reunite. Meanwhile, Kastner added the universally appealing notion that we may have an identical doppelganger out in the world, someone we know nothing about, but who we may run into by chance, and who will quickly become our closest confidante and companion. What’s not to love about this fantasy scenario?

Adult viewers, however, will likely have a terrible time accepting the notion that O’Hara and Keith split up their twin daughters at an early age and failed to tell either one about the other; it not only strains credibility, but leaves a decidedly sour taste in one’s mouth about their parenting decisions. Regardless, O’Hara and Keith do indeed make for an appealing would-be couple:

… especially when contrasted with the cartoonishly evil gold-digger played by Barnes (whose frosted hair and matronly hairdo make her appear much older than her actual 27 years of age).

And Mills’ performances — helped tremendously by fantastic double-exposure special effects — make the film easy to sit through, even when all its other elements fail to inspire.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Hayley Mills as Sharon and Susan
  
• Fine special effects
  

Must See?
Yes, as a cult favorite, and for Mills’ performance(s).

Categories

• Cult Movie
• Noteworthy Performance(s)

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Digitally Obsessed Review
• TCM Article
• Stomp Tokyo Review