Reviews

I watched this film when I was a kid, and I thought it was terrible then. Now that I'm older, I found it just as terrible. Universal could have done better than this. They merely decided to make the most money they could out of using all their monsters at once. To me, that was a cheap shot. These characters were capable of holding their own in their own movies, and the choice of actors was deplorable. Dracula needed to be Bela Lugosi, Frankenstein's, monster needed to be Karloff.

In my mind, it was the Disney squalid sequel sequence done decades ago, and it was not appreciated. Umiversal started out with something great and original, and then thought they could pander to the masses with the schlock which is extremely evident in this film.

In the light of what has been going on with war that we see every single day, and I'm referring to the Iraq war, this film is every bit as pertinent to the idea of war as it was in 1930. It pulls no punches, it certainly doesn't glamorize war as many others have, and it strikes the heart very fervently.

This is the downside of any war we may romanticize about. I honestly feel the truth is being told here. Don't expect it to be uplifting-it isn't! It is horrible, as wars usually are, but the public usually gets a glossed over version of what it's really like.

It's a story that needed to be told, and there is no difference what time frame is encapsulated. It's all the same.

I was very disturbed after viewing it, and I would hope that others, including warmongers would get the gist of the powerful message it conveys.

Excellent movie!

I saw this movie when I was in Junior High School, and for the first time in my life, I found a movie that completely touched my heart. The message it conveyed has stuck with me ever since, and I'm in my 50's! I think it was the first one that made me cry, inside and outside. I too was indoctrinated in the Christian faith, though I enjoyed the interaction with many Jewish friends. I was born and raised in Long Island, so it was a given that I would be a part of this interaction.

I truly believe that this film sculpted my thoughts about tolerance. My career brought me into the garment district where I made even more Jewish friends, and I loved being around the environment.

My thought on the idea of tolerance is that we're all people; we're all the same, and no one should ever judge someone by their religious background-ever! I certainly wish that this film would be put on DVD, and maybe I could cry again, for joy!

This version of the Dickens classic tops them all, if nothing else for the superb acting of Mr. Sim and everybody else. I get a sense of what it may have been like in Victorian England; the period seems to be captured flawlessly.

The film quality is wonderfully grainy, there's hardly any mood music, and there's no pretension in it at all. Black and White photography simply adds to the feeling.

Sim's performance makes me weep. The ending does that to a person. He shows his versatility in being a grouchy old miser turned benefactor. You can't help but love him.

I'm only sorry that this year I wasn't able to catch it on TV during the Christmas season. I look forward to it every year. This is the version everybody should see before all the others.

When this film came out in the mid 1970's, I was more or less interested in its imagery of 1930's decadence. However, I'm not sure, but it probably would have repulsed me had I seen it in my early 20's. I actually thought that I would never get to see this little gem at all since it was so obscure. It was unavailable for years, but just recently I was able to get it on DVD. My more mature outlook on life some 30 years later made me appreciate the movie, though some of the sexually explicit scenes still made me wince. But after all was said and done, it more or less took the eroticism out of the concept of the pornography industry for me, and I was able to appreciate the black comedy of it all, highly sardonic, cynical, and sarcastic.

I began to consider each and every one of the actors in this flick to be pioneers in the independent cinema genre. None of them were afraid to take the risks involved by appearing in something like this, most of all Dreyfuss, considering "The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz" and others. Furthermore, they all became fairly successful afterward. I've seen other actors fall further into obscurity and then out of the picture completely after falling into the sexually explicit abyss.

This movie satisfied my curiosity for the decadence that I was always curious about. I also noticed that it had a "Sunset Boulevard" quality; it projected the same message, the cruelty of Hollywood, where dreams can be made and lost simultaneously. It also depicted misplaced priorities, addiction and its consequences and greed.

I was impressed that this was done simulating the three color process that was a forerunner to Technicolor. Set design was very well done; you only had one set, but there was a lot to look at in every corner, and they took you all over every corner. Costumes, well, there wasn't much there, save Boy Wonder's bathrobe and Rex, the Wonder Dog's infamous ascot.

It's a must see, but maybe not suggested for the faint of heart.

Here's a movie that I've been trying to get a hold of for quite some time. It's probably decomposed in its can. I saw it last when I was about 13 years old. I'm now 51. God love those Late Late Shows in the Summer, when I could watch all these old gems. I must confess that I'm writing this as I'm drawing from whatever memory I have of it, so there may be some inaccuracies.

It was a very funny movie, considering there were a few dark overtones; there was a girl who inherited nothing from her father when he died penniless (this is what I remember, anyway). Her sister takes away the man she loves, and the girl is primarily on her own.

What she does is land a job as presumably a clerk at the Krausemeyer Hat Co., where she befriends the owner. Through bit of perseverance and some talent on her own, she comes up with design ideas to add life to a rather staid company by adding some pizazz to the hat designs. Mr. Krausemeyer takes her under his wing, and she goes on to save the day. The marriage, by the way, of her sister and the man she loved takes some unpleasant terms.

Here, the main character turns adversity into a roaring success. Who couldn't get a kick out of it? Sometimes I think I was born in the wrong era; I loved the humor in this one.

Well now, who are the only two people could pull it off playing Dolly Levi? There are only two: Carol Channing and Shirley Booth! "Shirley Booth??? Who's She?" Or maybe "Ah, come on!!!" Well it's true! Ms. Booth ranks up there right in the same spot with Carol Channing. What a gal! People who don't know who she was should take the time to see this film. It proves her innate talent for playing sappy frumps all the way up to lovable, hilarious, wisecracking characters. Oh, and did I forget conniving? There's a wonderful cast here supporting her as well. The costumes are superb, the timing is excellent.

One thing I must mention here though is, that although I also consider Barbra Streisand a great talent, she seemed to be more or less mis-cast in the role in "Hello Dolly." She merely played herself. Shirley Booth fit the bill as a strong, rather overbearing character. I will repeat though that she had proved previously that she could play just the opposite.

Another SB "must see." Even in black and white and with no music.

First, it must be mentioned that Shirley Booth was a fantastic actress in both film and stage, the latter being her forte. Here was an actress who, despite the fact that she was not Hollywood model material by any means, could run rings around scores of her drop-dead gorgeous contemporaries in the acting department! It's really a pity that she became typecast as "Hazel" in her popular television series, because she could, and did, offer so much more.

That said, now comes the plot of this particular film. A fairly good looking, well to do up and comer in politics, albeit married to someone else, falls in love with Ms. Booth's somewhat frumpy character. Highly unlikely, some people would say, but it happens in this film, and it happens in real life, no matter what the media would have you believe. Robert Ryan rendered a fine performance, and both of them generated the right chemistry. This is where it gets really good. The love that's shared between these two comes across as quite genuine. In fact, it blossoms throughout the film by way of a good plot! No spoiler here! You must see the film in its entirety to understand this.

Yes, the film plays out like a soap opera for the most part, but the idea behind it, the love between these two people, no matter the odds, is very real. There are lots of sub-plots going on throughout, but they all seem to come together perfectly and sensibly in the end. Many facets and foibles of human nature are addressed quite well in the process.

This is a must see, as are all of Shirley Booth's movies, at least in my opinion. It's too bad she didn't make more of them.

This is one of the best! Anything that drums terror into your heart with such subtlety is superb in my opinion. This one had me thinking about it for days. There were no hideous, and as usually was the rule in those days, horribly mocked up space aliens and flying saucers to try to frighten you. These were real ordinary looking people! I also will repeat myself--no special effects whatsoever! There was only a prop or two, namely a seemingly harmless looking seed pod and/or a mannequin.

The emotions displayed in this film by the main characters, namely Kevin McCarthy and Dana Wynter, played out with alarming clarity, almost melodramatic, but thankfully, it falls slightly short of that.

This is scary. This is classy. This will give you the proverbial goosebumps. This will wrack your brain. Modern movie buffs might even welcome the mind games it provokes. It needs no bells and whistles.

The book always is better than the movie, but since Richard Matheson also wrote the screenplay, the movie has been condensed very nicely. I must also admit that I've read the book over and over about 10 times in the last three decades. With what I knew from having read the book, I could blend my thoughts in with what I saw, giving me a pretty darned good movie viewing experience.

The story itself had me scared out of my wits, what with the atmosphere, the characters with their external and internal conflicts, the subtlety, meaning that special effects were at a minimum, and fabulous acting. In addition to this, the film is timeless. Needless cliché from the 1970's was totally absent, and the costuming also was also generic to a point where the time frame could be almost indistinguishable, save for Roddy McDowall's glasses, but oh well...

The in-depth references to psychic phenomena were also thought provoking, with a statement at the beginning warranting the possibility that incidents such as what were seen in the movie might actually have some truth behind them. My thought is that parapsychology, though it has yet to be totally proved, might indeed have merit.

All in all, it's a good bit of entertainment for fans of the "darker side" of literature and cinema.

Although I enjoyed this movie a lot, I found some interesting flaws in it as well. For instance, Fred MacMurray seemed to try too hard to be a bad guy. I adore Barbara Stanwyck, but who did her hair? It looked like a poorly styled wig. This film certainly was fodder for a Carol Burnett parody, if for nothing else, her hair. The only believable character I found was that of Lola, the victim's daughter. Edward G. Robinson was great, thus I felt that the part was written for him. Now the part of the casual observer on the train from Oregon seemed to be terribly stereotyped, and the racist overtones as with Mr. Galopus and the "colored woman who comes in twice a week" didn't excite me either, but I guess that was what it was like in those days.

Now for the clipped part. The dialogue seemed very quick and unnatural. It sounded like everyone was reading from the script while they were acting. This may have something to do with Wilder's penchant for "tight" scripts, especially in his early films. I must say that he improved later on in such films as "Sunset Boulevard." I did enjoy the scenes of Los Angeles in the 1940's though. It's a period piece to be admired.

The jokes and the slapstick are still outrageously funny, even after all these years. And what piece of history! Here we have a time capsule of tail end of the flapper era, with sound, no less! The "Monkey Doodle Doo" number gives the viewer a hint of how the flappers danced, but we also have the benefit of sound to accompany it, offering a glimpse of the singing style as well. The movements, though probably considered crude, compared to Busby Berkeley's later refinements, are full of energy, or should I just say pizazz! And those wonderfully garish monkey costumes! You have to love 'em! No matter how corny the whole thing was, there was a lot of work put into it, and it shows. It truly ranks as one of my favorite Marx Bros. movies.

Margaret Dumont was a real trooper, and Kay Francis in my opinion was good in everything she did, whether they were A, B, C, D, or Z movies.

Harpo and Chico shine, as always, in their instrumental renditions, but I would have liked a longer performance by Chico. I loved his piano playing. All in all the brothers were a hotbed of talent!

The plot of this film is one of the most original that I've ever seen! The great thing about it is that it can be taken in so many ways. Was it evil? Was it supernatural? Was it pure science? Take it as you will! If nothing else, it has you in suspense while you're watching it, and well afterward.

Granted, the acting in some respects turned out to be a bit trite, but there was a lot of that in the era that this flick was made. Nowadays it tends to add to the fact that it is a period piece. However, any attempts to try to remake it in my opinion would be a waste of time. Computer generated effects would cheapen it. I've said this before that the story is the main concern, and this one shines! Here we have something very very old and hitherto unknown, but as the characters gather more knowledge of it, we find that it could be something intrinsic to the very being of mankind. Or not! These days, everybody wants the entertainment to be laid at their doorstep-they don't have to do anything. With this one, you may have to let your mind work a little bit at achieving it. That's what makes it so much fun.

Poor Shirley Jackson is rolling in her grave! I started with an open mind to watch this turkey, and after 15 minutes I had to end the insanity. Why on Earth would anybody try to remake the 1962 classic in this manner? It was just stupid! The first one didn't need special effects at all, and this computer generated farce made a mockery of the good work that was done by Ms Jackson and Robert Wise. I even wrote to the distributor from which I bought the flick, and they were going to give me credit for it if I sent it back. I didn't take them up on it however; I merely wanted to register my distaste for it.

Owen Wilson was atrocious as Luke Sanderson; how could someone be so obnoxious? Lili Taylor was good as Nell Lance, however, and I felt sorry that she had to deal with this tripe. Catherine Zeta-Jones was good too, but I felt the same about her as I did about Taylor.

The really stupid part was the carnival room scene. Who dreamed that up? They shouldn't have! What a waste of precious money on a really good story!

I really wasn't that familiar with Harold Lloyd until I saw this silent. I wasn't going to watch it at first, but I got immersed in it almost immediately! What glorious and successful use of slapstick! I'm not even into slapstick that much, but this one had me "rolling in the aisles," or should I say my living room chair.

Mr. Lloyd had a knack of making fun of himself, which to me is the essence of anything comical. I guess that's why I don't watch anything too recent, since so much comedy these days is either at somebody else's expense, or just plain stupid. Here we have the hero, Lloyd, trying to do something nice for someone else, while having absolute perseverance throughout impossible trials and tribulations. That makes it even better. No violence, thank goodness!

Mr. Lloyd was a genius, and he ranks with Buster Keaton in bringing timeless laughs.

"In Name Only" was a product of wonderful chemistry between Cary Grand and Carole Lombard. Kay Francis also figured into this chemistry. What I liked about Miss Francis was that she was absolutely beautiful, and she could be extremely sophisticated, and likable, even in this movie, but she also could carry out a dark side, as was evident in some of her other movies, again, as well as in this one! She could also play someone on the wrong side of the tracks, and sometimes a downright floozy. That to me is the sign of a good actress. But don't get me wrong. Not only was Carole Lombard drop-dead gorgeous, her acting ability matched her physical beauty and wit.

Trivia comments on this website refer to Kay Francis as being virtually forgotten, but in my mind, her role in this movie certainly made me sit up and take notice-and I saw it for the first time when I was in my 30's! I'm only 51 now.

In the movie I'm reviewing, I found that I had to take sides with both of the females interacting with Cary Grant. That's what made it so interesting. These days, the subject matter is obviously timeless as well, though it wasn't so much in 1939.

Ginger Rogers had that combination of dinginess and likability in this film. Only "The Major and the Minor" may rival this one. She certainly could turn on the charm.

Another interesting note about this one is that Burgess Meredith, who always tended to be typecast as somebody love-ably, slightly (depending on the film) unstable, managed to garner a bit of sex appeal in this one, and given the idea that he was the nonconformist in this film, he actually does live up to his usual reputation. The sex appeal was a rarity for him, but that's not badmouthing him at all about his "stage" presence. He was great in just about everything, and who could forget that voice?

I wish I could purchase this one!

This is just as good as the first one, with some current characteristics thrown in. Both Donald Sutherland and Brooke Adams were fabulous.

It still had the same subtlety as the the 1956 version, but other horrifying scenes had been added, at least for the 1978 audience, to maybe answer some questions about the whole phenomenon. This thing crawls into your psyche and, again, as I've said before, makes you think about it for a long time. Blatant horrificness (is that a word?"} ran rampant through the last one, which even sets it apart from its ancestor. There really was a perfect balance between the sublety and blatant "horrificness." The one nudity part seemed to be necessary, if nothing else for a sort of realism.

San Francisco was a good normal backdrop that almost everybody could identify with, instead of a fictional town. Tat makes it even scarier. The ending differs from the first one, but it does nothing to detract from the story as it exists, 22 years later...

This movie almost surpasses any other one in the horror genre.

I find that the less computer generated special effects a film has, the better the content and the better the experience.

This film has absolutely no computerized special effects at all. It all relies on the story. No effects necessary! I can't say the same for the remake of this one - I got about a quarter of the way through it and I had to turn it off. Never went back! Shirley Jackson is praised, and rightfully so, for her novel of the same name. Robert Wise in the first film is also praised for his work in transforming this eerie tale into a very disturbing cinematic experience. Some of the best horror comes through your own brain, and not so much from what the movie is showing you. "The Haunting" merely guides you into and through what you may already have sensed in the back of your head somewhere. Imagination takes you to heights that modern special effects can only hint at! I suppose moviegoers are afraid to go that far into their heads these days.

I suspect that moviegoers have become a bit lazy these days, mainly with having all their horror presented to them on the screen with the computer taking care of the experience. It's all right out there in front of you, and fake! These older horror films take you through the whole story, and when it's over you get disconcerted for sometimes days on end thinking about what you just saw. That's when you know you've been scared almost out of your wits!

To me, this movie strikes horror right into my heart, insidiously!

I found this movie to be even scarier twenty nine years after seeing it the first time. It's unusual, considering its age, that it's just as contemporary now in 2005 as it was in 1976, except for maybe the fact that the age of 85 doesn't appear to be as old as it seemed to be back then. The ending, which I hear mixed views about, actually adds the benefit of some sort of closure that the book doesn't seem to do. People who criticize the movie's ending should read the book as well and compare the two. However, they will find that the movie's screenplay fairly faithfully sticks to the book's plot in most cases.

If I were to write a horror novel of my own, even with the somewhat odd ideas some people say I have, I don't think I'd be able to accomplish something as original as this. Obviously, the author, Robert Marasco, had a very vivid imagination, incorporating almost all human shortcomings into one book, and within one family, and while doing that, they're being taunted by the supernatural aspect as well.

This little piece of fiction proves to me, in the horror picture genre, that a house doesn't have to be merely haunted, if you could believe that! I find it surprising that other viewers refer to the house featured in the book and the film as being "haunted." There were no ghosts or "spirits." It more symbolically aimed at greed, sloth and general human failure. The film and the book do make the viewer/reader ask several questions; that one characteristic makes a horror movie even scarier, especially because you're thinking about the whole thing afterward and maybe being a bit disturbed.

This movie went to great lengths to impart the true meaning of the word laughter and how important it is. It takes us on a whirlwind cruise through what's funny, and what's not so funny, to make us appreciate fully what laughter can do to enrich our lives and how much we all need it.

Another interesting feature of this story is that laughter comes not at the expense of somebody else, but the joke is actually on the hero himself. In essence, he calls the shots, realizes his own shortcomings, and in his own way laughs at himself after all he's been through.

Here's a story all about comedy that actually makes me cry! It's that poignant! What a lesson!!!!