Reviews

It isn't my favorite Puccini but it is his best. He agreed. It feels so tight and so complete. Minnie is a truly great heroine. Imagine this; the audience at the first performance knew probably less about the West than they did about Egypt when they saw Aida. The premiere was 1910; there were no movies yet, forget 50s American television.

You won't hear many arias but Puccini had moved on. The music sounds and feels richer. And oh those Pucciini orchestrations! The plot is solid and you get one of those great second acts that only Giacomo and his librettists could deliver. And an opera with a happy though not overly sentimental ending. A middle-aged woman falls in love for the first time; when did you ever see that in opera. Voigt is okay, Giordani less so. Find the Barbara Daniels - Placido production. It is far richer.

One of my very favorite movies. I watched it today for the first time in years. Never loved it as much. In truth it is really a spiritual movie: Don't ever give up. Things might turn out better than you ever anticipated. And let's not forget in the 75 minutes you will have some of the greatest laughs you have ever experienced. And that score! It is like listening to an opera. It can take a great scene and send it soaring. It isn't easy for us today to judge silent movie acting but Chaplin and his troupe only inspire. There is a lot of tough things in this movie. The characters endure some tough stuff. Then watch Chaplin savor that shoe.

There is a lot of honesty here. Never boring and explores in depth the life of a kid from leaving school to juvenile delinquency. Circumstances took him to a very unpleasant end. What makes it so compelling is that he was a really good kid. And he does a lot of kind things trying to regain his humanity. There are very fine respected actors. The script understand about realistic and human motivations. In two scenes, songs are used that heighten the moods. Lots of creativity with an unfortunately weak ending. Patricia Ellis is a true beauty and makes a rather strange compliment to Wallace Ford but there is something particularly. Real about how we often find ourselves attached to someone who though is perfect for us, does not look quite right. Thrilling.

I loved to see Judy in a non-American movie. The songs are nothing. The script is nothing The actors are great. Judy plays herself and we get tremendous insight into her troubled world. And it is very creepy. Way too personal. The film looks great, great locations. When Judy finally sings the thing that came to my mind was how lousy Liza was always doing an impersonation of her mother. Judy is not well costumed and when onstage looks out of place; sort of like a munchkin. By the end I was depressed having looked into this trouble life yet again. Judy, you were so loved and sadly missed. This was a reminder I didn't need.

Diane Keaton, William Atherton, Tuesday Weld, Richard Kiley, Richard Gere (before he became a narcissistic bore) all in one movie. Real actors confronting a very serious subject. And don't forget this was pre-AIDS. People seem to hate this movie because it moralizes sexuality. Wrong. It presented how unchecked promiscuity can end up in violent tragedy. Keaton's character may be sad and confused but what makes it so unpleasant is that she is a good person. Her harsh father is a good person who has experienced tremendous sadness also. It is a tough story, but there are rewards in self-discovery. Al the characters are flawed and all but Gere get our pity.

I was born in the 50s. I was too young to have experienced this sort of lifestyle but this lingered well into the 60s. But one thing that can never end is the way that the older generation can affect the younger. In this movie there are no good adults except for Sam the Lion. Yet we sympathize with these bad role models because their misdeeds only result from their missed opportunities. It is a very depressing movie, yet every scene is painfully honest. Bogdanovich really concentrated on the details. Some might criticize his devotion, but when the script is so strong, it makes for a great movie.

I didn't know this was about "the theatre." It seems very upfront about the struggles of an dedicated actor who completely respects and loves his chosen field. And "chosen" is the word. Franciosa doesn't become an actor simply hoping for the external rewards, though how could anyone not savor the applause. The script covers at least ten years between probably 1946 through 1959. Interesting to see Martin and MacLaine in supporting roles; very interesting roles. Jones is a marvel as always. Without her the film would have been much less interesting. This is so gritty, it is almost a film noir. Even the ingenue role of Barbara is honest and gritty with a very happy ending. The film ends with the hero's success but we all know that this could be fleeting A gutsy movie.

Atypical Hitchcock. The payoff doesn't really come from something external. A very private suspense film. The subject matters (frigidity, child murdering adult) explored here were pretty daring for 1964. The answers cone slowly and are never easy. You can feel Hitchcock's respect for his audience. The camera work is as stunning as always; look at how the camera is often high, looking down on the activity, like a voyeur. Connery was probably the hottest looking male ever (Cary Grant, another Brit, come close). Hedren (the American Catherine Deneuve) has a sort of air-headed quality that works so well for this role. There are times that the screenplay makes her as cold as a stature. Diane Baker (she deserved a bigger career) is cold but so likeable, and beautiful as the story's red herring. This one makes the audience do a lot of thought in order to be involved. The discoveries are tremendous.

Okay, it's crap. But entertaining crap. What is hard to understand is why there is no roaring 20s feel. This is a movie, regardless the possibilities for opulence, that should have been made in black and white.

Dexter is really good. He makes the character romantic, sexy, touching, kind, all of those things we have heard about him. Calleia. Was as classy as ever. Parker, always lovely, always good, has a role that doesn't use her talent.

The story is just that, a story, it doesn't feel like a biography.

I haven't seen Ryan's Daughter in many years. I remember at the time being stunned by the physical beauty. Even at 12 I was stunned by what I felt from Miles, Howard and especially Mitchum, none of whom I had ever heard of. David Lean? His name was all over the posters but it meant nothing. I remember being hypnotized by the beauty, the cruelty and jealousy of the townspeople, a beautiful score and such gorgeous color. For a 12 year old there was also an explicit sex scene.

Even as a kid, the story seemed to get overwhelmed by the grandeur of the visuals. But thinking back it wasn't about the story but such powerful dynamics among many different relationships. I can't remember exactly what it was but I remember Leo McKern's character doing something horrible to his own daughter.

I just resaw it. Everything I remember I still feel. The interesting relationships are powerful. But the script doesn't have a story..

Never boring, often thrilling. It is not a movie but a mini-series.

It is understandable that audiences didn't know what to make of it.

Regardless, don't miss it if you get a chance. To see what Lean could do without a script, is absolutely breathtaking..

There are times i love Davis (All About Even, The Letter) and times I can't stand her (Mr. Skeffington, Dark Victory, Jezebel).

When the vehicle really fits her hysteria, everything is magic. Marked Woman has a great script, Even Katherine Hepburn could not have destroyed it.

The closest we can come to it today is the bluntness on TV's Law and Order. The photography scoring and editing are the foundation of film noir.

One of Hollywood's least known great movies.

Where to start! Of course it's the best movie adaptation of a Broadway musical. The question is why was no other director ever able to match its quality. The movie dares to go to the horrifying. Listen to some of the bigoted comments that are made; a number in blackface, the treatment of a couple in a mixed marriage; somhow it all rings totally honest.

Those who love the play will be disappointed that some of the great songs are dropped but two brilliant ones were added.

They seemed to understand which songs though good on stage were not suitable for a film.

Watch the brilliant camera angles on Julie as she sings "Bill," Joe's face as he says goodbye to Miss Julie, and Frank and Ellie's New Year's Eve number.

The ending in the play never worked. In this film they don't really get it either. Kim's role is simply not well conceived yet the return of Gay is more realistic and moving than it was on stage.

This is an Epic. There are some minor problems but GIANT achievements. The storytelling is what keeps it so solid.

I don't know why I was interested in this movie. Watching it looks like a movie with not very polished technical elements, but that sure doesn't matter. This is a movie with heart. "American Graffiti" was the inspiration, but this is innecity style. Yet the characters are just as loveable, the music is so essential to the atmosphere, the episodes are just as silly and fun and eventually dangerous.

The serious turn it took in the last 15 minutes didn't really work but it was handled with committment.

As much good as one can credit this movie, it is also quite evident that without actors as great as Lawrence Hilton-Jacobs and especially Glynn, Turman, this could have come off as crap.

I have always heard about this movie but had noo idea. The technigue felt so contemporary. Mamoumilian had a firm had from the start, Early talkies are usually very static. Not this time. The ending is a shocker and could have been depressing without a screemwriter who understood human beings. The only Helen Morgan perfirmancen I had see was her 1936 Julie LaVerme. She was a perfor,er way ahead of her time. A knockout.

Gutsy movie. Way offbeat for early 50s Hollywood. Reallg good plot with interesting cast. Imaginative irony. Tierney and Ford are hot together. Never even imagined a setting like this one. It is a great looking film. Dvorka always makes an impact. The character of Clyde gives something very intriguing. Much better than a simple way to pass the time.. Ethel Barrymore is there to play Ethel Barrymore. Ruth Donnelly's sassiness also has some tenderness.

Stumbled on this one today. Plot is very good, very realistic. Always fascinating to see what were once considered glamorous fashiones. The acting is top notch from names one would never consider important. The parts of the characters' lives might have seemed insignificant but here they were given real irony. Very frank 1950s violence . So much more fun to see fists used in unexpected places. All of this on a low budget, the only way film noir can be done.

Don't you hate when people call something dated because the costumes and cars are not what we have today? Shallow thinking.

Today was the first time I got the chance for this movie. It is outstanding. Characters and motivations are well defined (perhaps a bit too unsubtly). Anyone who has had an interaction with an alcoholic or addict has experienced a lot of these hopes and failed promises. There is no letup and the damage it does and resurrected horrors are only too familiar.

This movie has the best kind of ending. Not happy but a bit hopeful. Actors are excellent particularly Francioas whose character lives with so much undeserved guilt.

What is of interest is how universal is this experience. Fascinating to see the reactions of the parents of both the victim and he boyfriend. The film implies that when raped she was a virgin. A pretty and sensual young woman looking to learn about life meets a very unpleasant experience. The fact that we do not see the rape makes it all the more powerful. Bring back censorship, it made things much more artistic and forced us to use our imaginations.

I think the narration was used because there were no subtitles. Today what would be remedied.

Acting is excellent and Kirk's failed attempt to help the victim is very thought provoking.

Weak ending hurts the film's power. But perhaps this better emphasizes the title.

Today's Law and Order episodes are far more graphic.

Saw this when I was eight. At that time, I could tell I didn't get the sexual things, but I felt like I was an adult. I saw it a few years ago. What a piece of Crap!!! But classy crap. Looks great. There are some great moods. It has a 1930s period flavor even though black and white would have worked better. Redford is gorgeous, Ruth Gordon does her schtck. Plummer's brilliance makes it seem as if he is doing Shakespeare. It is long, never boring, and we care about the characters. I understand Natalie was very hurt by its reception. But, it does hold up as a fine piece of entertainment. Big screen is very important here; this was a big movie. So movie snobs, take the sticks out of your asses and have fun. Granted, it is a piece of crap.

Thought this would be entertaining and interesting to see because of the 1950s Communist hysteria? WRONG!! It was a bore, in spite of great actors and a very fine director. The very middle class everyday American family felt the way it did (phony). But the evil character, Walker, is so unpleasant, after all he is a commie. But of course he is like a heathen who accepts Jesus at the last minute. As he is dying, he find patriotism. The movie is like a comedy sketch parody of American ideals. Scarily in 2020s idiotic United States, there are those who would see this as what happens as a result of electing those commies, the Demorats.

The movie is gripping and well constructed. Some of it may seem obvious but look at what is going on in 2021. There are family conflicts, racial lies and exaggeration, horrifying legal maneuvers; the movie is smarter than it ever intended, they couldn't have known. I found the movie to be rather sad to think that my country has sunk back to this. The movie is a wake up call to today.