Reviews

One has to admit that this is a stylish romp-- the scenery is seductive, the characters are either sexy or quirky or both, the story sufficiently complex to make you pay attention and with moments of devilishly dry humor.

However, all this finally pales and is lost due to the unrelentingly gratuitous violence. People don't just get killed, places have to be shot up and a lot first. And sometimes the humor-- such as the elderly man in the BnB sitting watching tv unaware of the shoot-'em scene going on around him until he is suddenly made part of it. For this unnecessary juxtaposition ruins the moment. (And, btw, how does a deaf man watch tv without his hearing aids turned on?) Others deficiencies include cliched characters and a predictable script.

I wanted to like it, but one can only stand just so many mangled faces.

This so-called murder mystery has enough holes in it to march the entire Fifth Army through it. For example: If the murderer finds out he killed the wrong man very early in the picture, why doesn't he try to cover his tracks? Similarly, our hero, Philo Vance, advances the theory that the killer had to come from the apartment house across the court-- no way. These examples come and come and yet... this movie still is a winner. I enjoy watching it over and over. Why? Well, for many reasons. It's got great actors doing a wonderful job-- so many clever characters: Liang, the cook, Miss Delafield, the mistress, the NYC coroner! On the tip of the top are William Powell and Mary Astor-- two people who shine because not only are they head and shoulders above the rest of the cast, but they also pull off making this an ensemble of success--- they work with the rest of the cast so well. Perhaps that's what I love about this film, its oxymoronic construction. In addition to our two spotlight-eluding stars, there is top notch direction-- the best example of which is holding off the screams at all the shenanigans until the very end when they are very effectively delivered by Ms Astor. So, do not watch this movie as a murder mystery-- it doesn't work-- watch if for the lessons it delivers on acting and direction.

I wanted to like this film-- I have great regard for Sylvia Sidney and a young Leif Erickson is pretty easy on the eyes-- however, the longer I watched it the more I regretted my choice.

The fault is mostly in the writing which veers joltingly from "message" to "love story" to "horror," and none of them work. The message gets sledgehammered into our brains-- characters keep making the same observations followed by the same speeches. The love story might have been interesting, but Sidney and Erickson spend so much time smiling at one another: Her brother is horribly injured-- smile, smile, smile. His sister is threatening to ruin his plans-- more smiling. They look good smiling, but there's no substance in it-- why should they love each other? It's actually more interesting to imagine Erickson's character is more interest in Sidney's boyfriend as the movie goes along. And it's never clear who gets who.

The horror is deep in this film with the "disturbed" injured brother having morose conversations with the tenement in which he and his sister move after a horrific fire at the other one they lived in-- this gets repeated even more horrifyingly. And what's up with adding horror to message and love story? As I say, to me it just doesn't work.

This is not to say there aren't parts that work-- the secondary characters-- who do much less smiling-- are for the most part well drawn and add well to the film. And, except for the endless smiling, the direction is good and the movie well constructed. But it is no where near enough.

Watch if you must-- but I warned you about the smiling.

Here's a sweet, little movie, looking to prove nothing, just wanting to entertain-- and entertain it does-- there you have it.

I won't ponderously go over the plot (as so many reviewers do despite the plot summary already being part of an IMDb listing-- what gives with that?) except to say that there are NO surprises; the film is rather formulaic-- but it's a good formula.

Rather, the thing to focus on here is the Pre-Code ethics dramatically underscored by the female lead's need to get married! Additionally, the bit parts are delicious! We have a rascally Wasp party planner, a sympathetic Jewish impresario and, in top form, Nigel Bruce NOT playing and English dotard. There's even a gay florist-- well, fay at least.

There's a guilty pleasure side to the party-- which is costing astronomical sums while people starve, not that the starving masses are allowed in to this movie, but WE are! And the thing is wonderfully directed with interesting angles and lots of entering doors that seem to draw you in to the action. Want to see a debutante's bedroom? Wait for it... ah, there you go!

Give this little gem a try. Despite its overly virginal heroine and plasterboard hero, there is a lot worthwhile here.

I thought it would be good to actually see the play from which the 1939 movie was made and it was a good exercise in better understanding adaptations. Other than that it was a big disappointment! I understand the mediums of stage and TV and movies are profoundly different, but, in the end, they all need to entertain us and this version was about as entertaining as watching an embroidered tea towel dry-- you can admire the stitching, but it's still only a tea towel, and a wet one at that.

I found myself longing for the movie version which had better acting and, surprisingly, better lines. The play was overly long and poorly constructed and, with few exceptions, the acting was either one-note-- and a shrill, breathy note at that from our lead, Mary Haines-- or one-gag (Edith might have been tired of being pregnant all the time, but not as tired as we were!) Even the minor characters with one moment to shine were dull and, again, with a few exceptions, forgettable.

The one bright light in this time-waster was seeing how handily Jay Sandrich directed the TV filming of a stage play-- just the right combination of group scenes to closeups. And the stagecraft, too, was topnotch! But neither of these could raise this version beyond "adequate."

Everyone gives it their best try, but the movie seems to be trying just a tad too much. Should you watch it? A qualified YES -- it depends on what you're looking for. George Brent as rugged and wronged-- nope. Joan Fontaine as beautiful and brave-- not really. A well-paced, well crafted film-- hardly. However, if you do decide to watch it, PAY ATTENTION; it has dialogue that does sparkle (at times) physical humor that's very funny (at times) and it has Mary Field (at times.) If you watch this movie, watch it to see how Mary Field presents Susan's maid to the audience. It seems no one really knows Susan. Well, her maid does! Watch Field interact with each of the main characters, heck, just watch the way she opens the door. She IS someone and she does it right and saves this bedroom farce from banality (at times.)

This is just to add to the negative reviews and warn the uninitiated away from this twisted travesty of Conan Doyle. I suppose it's too much to ask someone to go read the originals-- which are uneven, of course, but which are generally a good read-- but when they are good, they are superb! Rather, just compare one of these later Holmes projects with any of the earlier ones and see just how atrocious the newer ones are. In this piece of claptrap, we have at one moment Holmes running around Baker Street in his bedclothes in the rain then jumping in front of a hansom cab and ending up rolling around in the gutter. It's not just that it's a contrived piece of nonsense, it simply isn't good viewing. And then there is the downright boring nature of Holmes dreams/prescience which are pounded on our heads until, when we see them in "real" life, we just don't care. Unless you need a lesson in bad screenplays or are horribly addicted to lush Victorian sets, keep away!

This movie begs the question-- is the question-- what went wrong?

I generally enjoy "cerebral" movies-- I even recommended "My Dinner with Andre" to my friends (most of whom no longer pay any attention to my movie musings) but by the middle of "Phantom Thread" I decide this movie had more to do with cerebral palsy, but I went on until the bitter end regardless and was little rewarded.

And parts of this movie will stay with you, such as Leslie Manville (accent on "man" in this flick with her character's masculine name and severe haircut-- and to what purpose?! None) standing up, al beit quietly and without physicality (indeed, there are almost NO gestures in the movie) to her overbearing (well past the point of annoying-- he's a dyed-in-the-wool jerk!) brother. Because there is so little that happens in this movie and every and all reactions are beaten down into leaden moments, you do learn to feel the words and to pay attention to tone of voice-- but that doesn't help the movie any. And there's other pleasant touches, like the escort of one of the dress-buyers subtly congratulating her on making a grand entrance at an event (but, again, to what purpose? None) The ancillary characters are fascinating-- the sewers, the buyers, the wait-staff-- but this, too, doesn't help the movie, it just makes film as aggravating as the characters-- they are self-absorbed mumbling manakins, but you can't look away.

And speaking of manakins, because so little happens and no one reacts to anything of importance, it would seem viewers are invited to project their own motives and desires into the film. People who describe our ingenue as "sly" or Manville's character as "acidic" are not watching the same movie I am.

It's rather like the dresses that our antihero creates. Now, I know very little about haute couture, but I know an ugly dress when I see one, and it's the same with the movie as a whole: most of the "star" outfits of the movie are downright hideous-- yes, yes, I know this is set in the '50s, but when the bride's dress looks like a colorless superhero costume-- no, thank you. Like these dresses, the movie is stylish and fetching but ultimately superficial and unattractive (as is the premise that chic clothing makes the unattractive acceptable.) While the camera does not follow our main characters to any "physical" moment-- doors close before vomiting and sex-- for some godawful reason we get to see one of the creations removed from the body a passed-out patron as the movie suddenly becomes Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead." What was that all about? Again, no real purpose or message underlies the action.

Oddly conceived, poorly scripted but then beautifully filmed and feelingly acted, this seriously flawed film finally falls flat . This movie is a pair of stylish, expensive pumps that don't fit!

I saw this when it was in theaters and then owned the VHS and now have just watched again. This movie ages really well!

It is cleverly put together and beautifully filmed and features solid acting, so it is great entertainment. But what really sells this movie is the way it builds slowly and methodically to the point of Chevy Chase's and Goldie Hawn's comedic voyage of Ulysses across San Francisco to save the day! Even knowing what is to come next does not diminish the level of hilarity of this sequence intercut with scenes of the Mikado-- sound impossible? Watch the movie. It is a rare thing that movie can essay being a romance, a comedy and a thriller AND succeed so well at all three. I dare you to witness the farcical scenes with the elderly Japanese couple and not scream with laughter.

Yes, a little too long, finally, but who cares? "Kojak, bang-bang!"

This is a fascinating movie with a truly stellar cast and stylish look yet it fails almost completely. I think the problems are far too deep and complex for an IMDb review, but boiling down the mess and examining the dregs, it seems to me the fault rest equally with the adaptation and the direction.

I have not read the original book, but I can only surmise that the attempt to convey its plot and characters was heroic, but unfortunate. The story needed to be seriously pared down and, more importantly, the main characters had to have more-- or at least some-- redeeming qualities.

All kinds of characters come and go and I must say there are superb cameos-- Ruth Warwick, Roman Bohnen even William Conrad-- walk-ons that will stay with you because for their one moment they shown like supernovas of style and understatement. But our two leads are drab, quarreling, immature oafs that you cannot build a movie around. This isn't to say that Boyer and Bergman don't deliver-- they do their best to get across the angst and confusion of their star-crossed love, but it doesn't work, it still angst and confusion. They LOVE each other, but WHY?!

One winner is Louis Calhern, he delivers his character with sense and panache and makes him interesting and understandable in an otherwise senseless melodrama. And so many delightful little touches, like the chef and sous-chef hugging during the after-hours party. But then it's back to Dysfunctional Relationships 101-- been there, done that.

Another daunting problem is that this movie didn't and doesn't exist in a vacuum. There is history here-- and I don't mean WWII. Boyer and Bergman were magnificent in "Gaslight" and no one could forget Bergman in "Casablanca" nor Boyer in "History is Made at Night." But these antecedents work against "Arch of Triumph" because they offer us succinct plots and understandable characters. And finally, one more nail in the coffin: what the heck was Millestone thinking by pumping in endless, loud musical drivel during the important scenes?! Not only that, but the background noise of crowds and traffic often makes listening to the dialogue so much of a challenge that you question listening at all.

Watch Arch of Triumph, by all means and enjoy its stylish look and fantastic walk-ons, just don't expect a good movie.

I noticed that almost all my reviews on IMDb-- not that there are that many of them-- are negative. I thought I should, therefore, come up with a positive one for a change and here it is: This episode of "Sherlock" is not only the best of the series, but it is the best that TV has ever had to offer-- how's that for positive? It has everything going for it: genius writing, great casting, topnotch direction and excellent production values. It celebrates the original stories while giving us a great romp of present-day entertainment.

Out of all this, the acme is the writing; it takes Conan Doyle's originals and melds them with the present day in such a way to result in making them better. We not only get constant allusions to Conan Doyle's work, but it's done magnificently, making the viewer delight in comparing the past with the present-- moreover, you do not have to know the original to follow the present. E.g., Irene Adler is a standout in Conan Doyle's work, the one female with whom Holmes is smitten. In the past she was a beautiful and cunning adventuress and in the present she's all that and so much more-- dominatrix, flirt, conniving beast.

The direction give us many 360 shots that dizzyingly draw us into the action-- E.g., Holmes and Adler examining the car at the "backfire" death scene. The pacing of the show is never too much nor too little with long takes for exposition and short ones for action, delightful closeups for intimate sections and sweeping vistas for settings.

And the humor is delicious, too. Characters from Doyle are given more depth but in seemingly crazy ways, like Mrs. Hudson's revealing remarks about her late husband. Another standout is Holmes describing the American CIA agent's injuries (he had it coming) before you see him flash past Mrs. Hudson's window to the sound of trashcans being crushed. Just the use of cellphone rings is worth the price of admission!

If I have to put in one caveat, it's that the character of Moriarty is not a success. I, for one, tire quickly of arch fiends who are insane. In the original, Moriarty is a devilish fiend, but one who is out for a buck. The present version has him as a no-holds-barred sociopathic maniac-- it wears thin very quickly.

So, there you have it-- my homage to the best that television entertainment has to offer-- would that there were more of it!

Most of the reviewers seem to have got it right-- this is not a good episode of a truly great series. However, what they don't get right is just how bad it really is-- this episode should be part of any study on how not to do an adaptation.

They took an average to above-average Conan Doyle story and turned it on its head; they frankly degraded it making Jeremy Brett do all sorts of things Sherlock Holmes would never do-- liking dressing up like Dracula and hissing at Watson-- unforgiveable tripe! The direction picks up on this claptrap and exacerbates it with the male characters being all swagger and swarthiness and the females alternating between panting vixens and screaming maniacs. Most of the story makes no sense due to the ineptness of the "adaptation" with the solution and ending being especially dreadful and totally not in keeping with the original story. The only undead in this feature is Conan Doyle, who surely must be turning over in his grave!

It HAD to be a good movie, just look at the people involved. And when it was so not a good movie, I felt it had to be my fault, that I just didn't GET it. Perhaps its badness was exacerbated by my wanting to like it. Perhaps I should have had more belief in the poetry-babble incessantly coming out of these people. Perhaps I should have brushed up beforehand on notions of art and performance. I wondered and worried but then upon more reflection, no, this was simply a BAD movie, a bad movie on a grand scale.

It does not work as psychological thriller-- the main characters are too over the top in love-- him with himself and her with him (and WHY?!) This last bit is why it doesn't work as a romance. And it doesn't work as a dance film because so many of the dance sequences are cut short-- despite their being good-- as though the movie wants to stress that dance is secondary... but to what? I ended up with the feeling that the only person in the audience applauding was Ben Hecht, the sap.

The final thing that convinced me that this was simply a bad movie was that I was glad when the film was over and that I would never have to watch it again-- unless there is a hell.

I agree wholeheartedly with the reviewers who said they wanted to like this film but came away disappointed-- this was my experience, too. Perhaps being a gay man of a certain age and having gone through my own version of this story, I wanted to see something more, something genuine; and this was not delivered.

At the root of the movie's shortcomings was what had to have been a directorial decision to dampen down the actors' emotions-- these are exceedingly emotional events and the actors remain uniformly wooden in their actions and especially in their reactions. There is no depth to their feelings, it is as though we, like they in the museum, are looking at a two-dimensional work of art-- powerful, yes, but not real. Isn't it the job of movies like this to seem real?

Also, the movie was a little too pretty-pretty and, given the theme, this was not appropriate. We see the Brighton seashore, the Royal Pavilion, gorgeous countryside. Why do we not see a landscape more evocative the emotional upheaval these people are living?

Pacing and music were also a little off-- too much filler of people driving and too much "mood music" from the '50s. You don't realize how intrusive this is until later in the film when it's no longer there and you think, "Well, that's good."

Finally, even considering all these points, I do recommend the film-- it's about secrets and lies, but they are interesting secrets and lies we all have experienced in some form-- but I don't recommend it highly.

Anyone who considered this to be a "good adaptation" needs to repeat fourth grade. It is atrocious. Avid readers of Agatha Christie should shy well away from this mess as most of their favorite characters from Saint Mary Meade are either missing or poorly envisioned. Moreover, the plot is rushed through to give us more time with Liz and Kim being "clever" and "catty" with each other (not that they particularly succeed.) And the cast? Angela Lansbury miscast? Yes. Elizabeth Taylor wooden? Oh, yes. And all I remember from Kim Novak's performance is her bosom. Rock Hudson has one good scene and that puts him one up on Tony Curtis. Add to this maelstrom of mediocrity a poor score, bad editing and an oddly unattractive English landscape. If you're desperate to waste some time, okay, have a look-see, but why not do yourself a favor and read the book instead?

How can it be that this movie has only 124 reviews (as of July, 2022) and trash like "Crazy Rich Asians" has 1,200?

I need to have more characters to meet the limit, so I will posit an answer: It's because most people these days will not/cannot watch black and white movies. I remember someone somewhere once saying, "Do your children a favor, get them used to watching movies in black and white." Think of the brain-engaging power of "Intolerance" as a remedy for the endless computer-generated action and violence in today's movies.

But if you're reading on this site I'm just preaching to the converted.

I have to agree with the reviewers who think the bumbling cops spoil an otherwise good murder mystery romp. What was the director thinking? However, there is one director's moment that shines, if you're paying attention, hilariously. This movie should have had more moments like this and a lot less of the cops doing one schtick over and over and... It is when the mute housekeeper, played in a wonderfully creepy manner by Virginia Howell, uses sign language to talk to Vivienne Osborne. Osborne's character says, "I don't understand." And Howell signs again only much more slowly.

The ONLY good thing about this so-called movie is reading the reviews. There are some great lines like "Timeless, pointless.." To call this "the worse movie ever made" is to insult bad movies. It wasn't like an effort by Ed Wood, it was by Ed Wood's hamster! Anyone who sees anything of value in this execrable piece of drabness needs to watch it again... and again until, as one reviewer says "your heart shrivels like your brain."

This "documentary" is very much about how not to inform the public. It is long on beautiful images and short on hard information. You marvel at the diversity of nature but get no closer to understanding it. It is like splashing around in a psychedelic kiddie pool when there is a whole ocean just an arm's length away. Moreover, and most unfortunately, you see the exact same images over and over again while rather banal, if not downright annoyingly "new age," music repeats itself over and over. Did the director think we wouldn't notice? I'm all for time-lapse photography and computer-generated images, but not when they are constant and not when they muddy the reality of the world. Clouds don't really look the way they do in time-lapse as they do in real time-- and it's the same with mushrooms. We get a lot of PhDs talking at us, and there is actually an interesting segment on the history of the medicinal use of psycho-tropic drugs in the US as well as a brief look at urban fungi entrepreneurials, but we still walk away with little more than a smiley-face saying "Mushrooms are good." We deserve better-- so do the mushrooms.

I like this movie-- I liked it when it came out and I still enjoy it today-- however, many people watching it nowadays have no idea it's been vandalized-- censored-- edited for "family" consumption.

I remember well the fantasy sequence at the "Hoedown for AIDS" benefit party when the "cowboys" and "indians" dance; it was a completely over-the-top burlesque romp with the square-dance caller announcing positively obscene moves. This blast of color and action was in counterpoint to the rather staid, boring benefit party and it was marvelously conceived and executed.

It is now a drab remnant of its former self with all its verve and hilarity removed-- as though someone had cut off parts of a man's anatomy.

Why?

We get fairly explicit material verbally during the movie-- like the hilarious fantasy phone call Jeffrey has with his parents-- but for some reason we no longer are allowed to see suggestions of gay sex-- even those presented in the spirit of fun and fantasy. This is wrong.

I just thought people should know.

This movie is, like many Disney films, full of good and bad-- good cast, bad direction, memorable visuals, forgettable dialogue. But one thing that separates it from many other Disney films is how unrelentingly dark it is. If parents think this is going to be a good "babysitting flick" for their little ones, they are terribly-- horribly-- mistaken. This is VERY much an adult flick with nasty moments of murder and attempted murder as well as complicated, conflicted characters that may engross an older more agile mind but will most likely confuse younger ones.

Emma Stone is wonderful to watch and will reward your time well, and Emma Thompson is head and shoulders above her as Evil personified. However, the director tries very hard to make us like both of them and their one-ups-manship of nastiness. No, they simply end up being nastier and nastier. Moreover, the director gives us wonderful moment of possible mayhem and then delivers very little-- all those cakes at all those posh functions and hardly one is destroyed. Even the people at various fiascos scream and scramble with almost no energy.

Watch it if you will, but do not share it with your young ones.