Reviews

I decided to watch this film on HBO because I thought it would be a hoot - one of those catastrophic and pretentious productions which are so laughable. Within 20 minutes I realized that the film was rather important. Michael Douglas captures the late Liberace's mannerisms and voice with astonishing ease. He is quite stellar in his performance, and I see him now in a new light. Matt Damon is excellent as Scott, his protégé. The personages involved are deeply complex, even if one is only familiar with the contemporary "National Enquirer" reports one realizes their is something one can not quite understand about "Lee & Scott's" relationship. Douglas and Damon are brilliant in delving into these characters. They are unrecognizable, at times, from the familiar roles we all know of them. I think the film well worth watching. As a bonus, Matt Damon shows his bum on several occasions, for those who are interested; if not, one cannot help but be interested in the wonderful performances from two of Hollywood's great stars! A courageous undertaking well done indeed!!!

This film should have been SO MUCH better, what with the lavish costumes and scenery (which truly rate a 10)and the obviously huge budget available. I don't know what idiot decided that rockabilly went along with the aristocratic indulgences of the 1780s, but someone should have rolled up a script and rapped him/her sharply on the nose. The music is jarring and would be considered badly sang/performed in a film of any genre. I found myself muting many scenes because of the horrid score. The acting is not below par, it's the script that often fails the actors. It does however show, accurately I think, the detachment of the royals and other assorted nobility from the lives of the ordinary folk who would eventually rise up and have all their heads on a pike. It is worth a watch for those who are interested in the remarkable costuming of the period, and the careless decadence of those who were arrayed in such garments while their nation literally starved.

This is a film that is miraculous in one sense - it will cure sleeplessness. A man and woman lost in a forest, fleeing something, is obviously intended to be a grand allegory of the "struggle" of the French "oppressed" of Quebec against the English "fascists" it comes across as crass, ridiculous and I would say humorous except there is absolutely nothing in this film which will bring a smile. The acting is simply terrible, I truly believe that much of this movie was contrived on the spot moments before the camera rolled - there is no other explanation for the silliness. Do avoid this reeking mess of a film at all costs! A miserable experience.

This film could have been a whole lot better! It has everything going for it in the budget, scenery, special effects and costumes. The older actors are talented and fun. For some peculiar reason the director decided that the children should deliver their lines in the most annoying, raspingly loud voices they could muster. They never shut up for a moment in most of the scenes. Donner's "don't tell it, yell it!" direction makes for a fingernail's down the blackboard effect. The fat little kid, for whom there are not enough meals in the day, is particularly annoying - also because there isn't much funny about obesity, particularly in a 10 yr. old. I'd suggest viewers watching this keep the sound down. Overacted and crass.

This is a film that has resurfaced after 40 years of being stored somewhere. Unless one is a devoted film buff one will likely recognize no-one in the film. Even Jon Hall who made a big splash in 1937 in "Hurricane" is not easily recognized in this 1952 film.

It is a story of an American diplomat who uncovers a plot to kill an important Indian prince (when Indian princes mattered!) by blowing up his train. There are a couple of killings for which the diplomat is blamed, thus preventing him from approaching the police for help. There are a few twists and turns but the film is rather standard.

There are a number of incongruities in the film which will be noticed by many viewers - the film was quite obviously done inexpensively and it shows in the script and much of the scenery. It fits with Ronald Reagan's comment: "They didn't want it good. They wanted it Tuesday." Don't make a point of trying to see it, but if it's on and you want to pass 75 minutes it is probably entertaining enough.

There is absolutely nothing in this ridiculous mess of a film that I find redeeming. From the embarrassingly silly "Hard Rock Candy Baby" number, to the hat-wobbling nonsense-act of Lord Flea, to the pigtails Judy Tyler wears at one point that look like they were braided by a 3-year old. Method acting I suppose - if the method is assembling a cast of remarkable incompetence and giving them puerile lines to deliver without rehearsal. Most of these 1950s films, aimed at teenagers of the time, are not high art, but this is the very worst I have seen of the genre. Watch it if you wish - but to employ the famous BBC radio blooper from eons ago (speaking of the wonderful Jessie Matthews) this is a film that "truly belongs on every British hit list".

This film is really very good and full of suspense. A woman on a train notices strange behaviour from two men who have just boarded her train and the fact that one has a gun under his coat makes her decide to report to the train conductor. There follows a cliff-hanger of a movie involving a young, blind girl who has been kidnapped and will surely be killed by the psychotic kidnapper (Lyle Bettger) if she is not gotten to on time. There is only one jarring note - I don't think I am alone in wanting to strangle the blind girl every time she appears in the film. The director decided that she should shriek, scream and do a nails-scrapping-down-the-blackboard routine at every possible moment. This film merits more than the 7 I gave it for those who can overlook this irritating performance. Worth watching - you may want to keep the remote handy so that you can easily access the mute button.

This film is a lovely find. The story line is not particularly original: selfish-wife-tangles-with-selfless-rival. Ann Sheridan is beautiful and performs wonderfully as the woman who regrets having turned down Dennis Morgan's marriage proposal at the start of the film. Alexis Smith certainly holds her own as the cold, haughty and spoiled woman who stalks and marries the wealthy Dennis Morgan soon after. The story line has Morgan as the publisher of a "liberal" magazine - in the olden days "liberal" had as illustrious a reputation in the U.S. as it continues to maintain in the rest of the world today. Sheridan researches a story involving wartime graft among industrialists which Morgan feels compelled not to publish in his progressive magazine after his wife, anxious to maintain her social standing, lies to him about his own father's involvement and certain prison sentence if the story is exposed. Comic relief in the storyline is provided by Jack Carson as the oft-inebriated pal of Dennis Morgan - who "buttles" for the upper class couple. Well worth a watch!

I was an hour late for the office this morning because this film led me astray this morning on TCM. The film is fast-paced and as well written for the screen as the brilliant Anita Loos could make it. Every acting talent is above par in it, with the possible exception of Ruth Hussey (whom I have never found adequate in any role - just personal opinion I'm sure). It has been mentioned that the role of Susan was played on the stage by Gertrude Lawrence (whose dozen or so film appearances leave MUCH to be desired). She might have been great on the stage, but she couldn't a candle to Crawford in film. That Crawford may or may not have patterned much of her performance after Lawrence's is moot, if she did it is a compliment to Lawrence, nothing more or less. In any event, that controversy is 65 years ago and few people live that remember Lawrence in her 1937 Broadway role: we will eternally have Crawford! In my opinion she is at times brilliant - always engaging. She infuriates, at other times amuses, and in the last scene captivates. A Rachel Crothers play, adapted by Loos, directed by Cukor, with a host of great actors/actresses in supporting roles: what could be better?

I've read the other comments here and I have to agree most of them.

Margaret Tallichet was, in my opinion, excellent in her role. It is unfortunate that she retired from the screen so soon, after marrying the famous director William Wyler - a successful marriage.

John McGuire was eye candy in this film. His performance, while not absolutely terrible, was sadly short of those presented by the grand array of talent about him.

Peter Lorre, who started in silent films, always managed to say as much with his expressions and he ever did with his lines.

It is undoubtedly film noir, and I can't recall any film noir (American) as early as this one (1940). I was a late comer to the appreciation of this genre - it sets a mood that I used to find disturbing when I was young.

Definitely worth a viewing.

I thought I'd seen just about all of the great, dark thrillers made in the late 40s - this little gem was a great surprise! It is well scripted, well acted, fast paced and commands the viewers attention. Walter Slezak is wonderful in his role as villain: fat, sweaty and greedy - what worked for Sidney Greenstreet works equally as well for Slezak. Slezak, who usually played villains and cads, had the knack of winning an audience's affection. Pat O'Brien is excellent in the role, if a little long-in-the-tooth to be courting a 23 year old Anne Jeffrys. Percy Kilbride, of Pa Kettle fame, is fun in his role as a placid yet cunning taxi driver, whose taxi would have been considered ancient, even in 1947. Definitely worth watching if you are a fan of this genre. As an aside, it's great to see that Anne Jeffreys is still very active in acting, and still very beautiful - nearly 60 years after this film was made.

Nazi officer: "The Russian Army is annihilated!" --- Miss V: "What!? Again!?"

This is a quintessential WWII B-grade movie and, being cheaply made, it is fun! These were the days when Soviet Russia was a much admired ally, and Lola Lane plays Vera Marova "Miss V" (a Soviet spy), who resembles a top Nazi female (Greta Heller) who is permanently indisposed. Moscow smuggles her into Nazi Germany where she infiltrates the Gestapo and the Wehrmacht. They set her up in an elegant apartment which is unfortunately staffed by "Minna", the horse-faced former maid of the real Greta Heller. Knowing that she is an imposter, Minna proceeds to try and undo Miss V.

The movie is full of WWII-era zingers against the Nazi war machine, delivered by Lola Lane with an inimitable sense of timing. One of the famous Lane sisters, Lola has a marvellously rich contralto voice.

Miss V comes to the aid of some downed fliers and tries to aid them in escaping. Simple plot. Exciting at times.

One of the funniest things in the film is the hat Miss V wears for the last 10 minutes of the movie. It is a sort of GIANT beret, which is easily twice the size of the diminutive star's head.

Another remarkable thing is how much Soviet Russia resembles southern California... there are a couple of hayride scenes in which this is apparent.

If you're not in a mood for a serious film - this can be fun. For its genre as a B-grade war film - I give it a 7.

Drawn in by an exciting trailer, I made the mistake of seeing this dull, stultifying, exasperating and endless film. Since I knew it was about a British heroine parachuted into Vichy France, I was expecting something along the line of the marvellous "Odette" of the 1950s, Odette being a real-life heroine who endured much hardship while aiding the French resistance. The trailer certainly indicated an action flick.

The plot is absurd. Cate opens her legs for an RAF flier the first night she meets him (slut alert) and, when he disappears in France a few days later, she decides to find him (getting a number of French underground fighters killed along the way).

Cate Blanchard is incredibly annoying. I yearned for her to be machine-gunned by a Nazi! In fact, I ached to have everyone machine-gunned halfway through the film so that I could go home!

It is a true "woman's" film in the classic sense. Few men would waste their time with this, for less than a case of beer and a pizza.

I gave it a "2" out of ten. Largely because it is visually beautiful and very well photographed.

I gave this movie an "8" when I voted for it. It has a tight script and it's extremely well-acted, especially by the closeted gay actor. The ending was thoroughly stupid. It is still worth watching, but be prepared for an ending that is more 1963 than 2003.