Reviews

Two people with nothing in common, who would never have met outside of the specific circumstances that brought them together, spend a remarkable day together, a temporary but extraordinary detour from the set, sad trajectory of their lives. This is a slow moving, quiet movie that sneaks up on you with complexity and timeless themes, starting out as what you think might be just a character study but that progresses into a painful look in what can make people lonely and desperate, into the consequences of toxic masculinity and strict, traditional gender roles, all the while standing as a powerful condemnation of ultra patriotism / fascism. Yes, all that, with little dialogue and everything taking place inside an apartment building. And what dialogue there is is biting and insightful. Both actors are outstanding in their roles, but Sophia Loren shows once again that she is so, so much more than a sex symbol.

Dick Powell is at the top of his game as both a crooner and a comedic star. And it's fantastic to see Joan Blondell in a lead role. And Adolphe Menjou in a campy role, singing? It's light, fluffy, charming fun that also provides a terrific glimpse into life in 1934 and 1935 (watch how the window on the cruise ship is opened). It's hilarious that everyone on the street seems to know Opera tunes. Also, for anyone who thinks singers and actors today are selling out by appearing in commercials - singers and actors have ALWAYS sold products via or adjacent to their "art," as this film shows. Yet another film that makes me wish there were still nightclubs and live radio shows (not just Wait Wait Don't Tell Me).

James Cagney's oh-so-bad accent, everyone's oh-so-bad accents, Cagney's over-the-top acting that screams "Look, I am ACTING!", the ridiculous stereotypes, the attempted murder-by-gator scene... this is bad. Really bad. It doesn't look nor feel like the bayou, and it doesn't look nor feel like anything near a good movie. The screen play is as bad as the acting. It's not even campy fun. On the other hand, it's kind of nice to see such a huge star make a huge misstep - Cagney is ALL IN on this. Like Gable with Parnell. It makes the real people, the actors, more real. The only part that I truly, sincerely enjoyed was seeing Ellen Cory on the screen - I love her in anything, whether she has 50 words to say or none at al.

I laughed out loud, I rewound scenes to watch them again, I was delighted! I've never seen Ronald Colman be just flat out hilarious. HIs delivery is delightful and not to be missed ("not you, not you, not you..."). He charms a dog! He makes the movie worth watching. But, then again, I'd watch him be witty with the bulldog in the film for an hour. Some of the supporting cast, like the butler, are fun too. The weaknesses of the movie almost derail it entirely: we never really know why he loves Caroline so much. Anna Lee mostly mugs for the camera rather than being intriguing. The script never reveals why he's so entranced with her. Another problem with the movie: Charles Winninger is so disturbingly miscast as Caroline's father. What a missed opportunity this movie is. A lot more people would know Ronald Colman's name now had it been as good as it should have been.

It would be so easy to overlook this movie: the dialogue is so awful, especially for Josie - her lines in particular are cringeworthy. And the actress playing Josie is cringeworthy as well. But if you can look past that, you will see a sincere look at the PTSD faced by soldiers and alcoholism, and a blunt, unvarnished, blunt presentation of racism - is this the first mention of "white supremacy" in a movie? And there are characters looking down on someone as low class for their racist views - when have you ever seen that in a movie before the 1950s? Thankfully, it's short, because I'm not sure I could stand the bad dialogue longer than that.

It's not in the league of It Happened One Night or His Girl Friday. The story line is nonsensical and the pacing can be slow and ultimately, it just doesn't work. So why 7 stars? Because Ronald Colman is having a ball playing a sexy rogue and every romantic scene works perfectly. He drops some incredibly flirty dialogue and Ginger Rogers reluctantly being proper and locking the door to their adjoining rooms is ALL OF US (whew!). There's a scene that's a precursor to "Pillow Talk" that's just as romantic. This movie just doesn't really work, it should have been better, but it's worth it to watch just for Colman and his scenes with Ginger Rogers.

I like when things get re-imagined, as long as the heart of the classic story and the essence of the characters - all that made the original story - is still strongly there. This adaption isn't that: Phileas Fogg in the book is a cool, mathematically precise, unflappable man, always in control of himself and his surroundings. Passepartout calls him "a machine." But in this, Fogg is an unorganized, scared, scampering bundle of fear - there is nothing of Verne's hero here at all. Jean Passepartout in the book is a curious, pleasant, friendly man who balances Fogg's cool demeanor and who has lead an adventurous life but is ready to settle down and serve as Fogg's domestic help. He's creative and emotional. In this, he's got some sort of violent insurgency in his past, and he's on the run, and lacks most of what made Verne's character so compelling. I was so excited to see this... and gave up after two episodes. So disappointing. Pretty, though.

This movie is fantastic! Pour yourself a cocktail (and have more ready to pour) and sit back and be ready to laugh at what should be a camp classic. It's over the top, it's ridiculous, it's hilarious! The characters are completely over-the-top - it's like everyone's a drag queen. And it's a rarity in that it's a musical where everyone sings live on film. The highlight is Mary Boland, who you probably know as the Countess De Lave from The Women - she's even more hilarious in this.

The perfect movie for a rainy afternoon or a late night. It's worth watching for two scenes alone: the daring pre-Code, charming and lewd sequences between John Barrymore and Karen Morley. Whew! Nothing kids can't be in the room for because they probably won't get it. But this movie drips with spiciness. And some hysterically funny moments as well.

I had never seen this movie prior today, when I'm reviewing it. It is so incredibly under-rated! It's a beautiful, if often dated, celebration of immigrants in the USA, specifically people from China, and their navigation between embracing the various traditions of the USA and modern ways of life while preserving and valuing the culture of their ancestors. Full of stereotypes, some of them ridiculous, with a generous helping of sexism? Yup - just like EVERY movie from this era, and before this era, and after this era... the difference is that this movie has, in its own way, the utmost respect for the cultures its trying to represent. As a musical, it's delightful - the songs are a bit derivative of other Rogers and Hammerstein songs, but that's more than made up for by the choreography, the best Hermes Pan has ever done. An absolute delight.

Such a shame - Tom Hiddleston could have been great in this role, and it's beautifully filmed, but poor direction and an incredibly weak script just could not be overcome. The script is embarrassing - scene after scene of "and then this happened." You can almost see the room where the film creators said, "Okay, let's have an apology scene" and "let's have a nice scene in a car" and "let's have a party scene." No character development, no exploration of "why" anyone does or says what they do, no emotional truth whatsoever. You learn the events of Hank Williams life, but you never get a sense of what inspired him, how he could emerge from the haze of drugs and alcohol to write such amazing music. Hank Williams is portrayed as someone who drinks a lot, but not as an alcoholic, someone addicted to alcohol, someone whose life was dominated by alcohol. His marriage to Audrey Sheppard was turbulent and volatile, but here, it just seems they really annoyed each other. Beautifully filmed, but you never feel like you are really in the era of Hank Williams. Who are these people and why do they do what they do? I have no idea. I guess "Coal Miner's Daughter" just spoiled us all for the musical biopic forever.

If you know only about the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 based on the minute-by-minute accounts of the day, or even the days before, or even the weeks before, you miss most of the story. Those terrorist attacks were decades in the making, and understanding the people and events that lead to the horrors of that day is essential to understanding the mindset of this specific terrorism - so that we can prevent it in the future. This documentary starts with the assassination of New York Rabbi Meir Kahane and eventually goes back even further, to the 1981 assassination of President Anwar Sadat of Egypt. It weaves those events together over the years, along with many others, so you can clearly see just how the movements grew into one that lead to the murder of Ahmad Shah Massoud in Afghanistan on September 9, 2011, and the terror attacks in the USA two days later. Detailed, fact-based, meticulous - outstanding documentary.

I'm not sure I would have been as amused by this movie if had seen it much earlier, but seeing it in 2021, all I could think was, "What's different now? NOTHING!" The film is worth watching for William Powell alone - he's just amazing. But the con by these guys is so much like what you hear about Bitcoin these days - soaring profits, just give a little real money now and you'll be a millionaire soon, no, really! Is it any different than any dot com bust that comes around, where companies pay millions for a tech start up that operates at a loss for years? The side stories aren't that interesting, but the main story, and the execution of the con, is solid. Actually, some of the office decoration is worth watching the movie for - 1930s decoration is glorious!

The story of a middle aged woman who finds herself in an unhappy relationship and feeling her age, and also finding herself attracted to a much younger man, is a story worth telling, but this isn't it. It could have gone in so many directions - and when it ended, I had no idea what the point of what I'd just seen had been. I give it such a low rating for one of the most unsatisfying endings ever, one that seemed to say, "I don't know how to end this, so I'll just end it." Tom Hiddleston is gorgeous and beautiful and perfectly cast in this role, and the other scenery is also gorgeous. But I have no idea what the point of this film was.

Maybe it's because I had such low expectations, but I laughed over and over at this! Edna May Oliver is a gift beyond measure, although her best part is the first 10 minutes of the movie. And according to the TCM pre-talk, there were, indeed, some jurisdictions in the USA where jurors are or were allowed to ask questions of witnesses. The juror room scene is full of hilarious, exaggerated characters/stereotypes - although the religious zealot on the juror actually isn't all that exaggerated... The comments about women were over-the-top even then, obviously, and the use of the term "sugar daddy" may surprise people that think it's a new term. Comments like "Hey, talk American" the insults to the French, all of which were meant then to be so ridiculous as to be funny then, will make you think of your last pre-COVID Thanksgiving with THAT uncle. Why is this not a well-loved much loved classic?!?!?

This was shown on TV on the same bill as The Selfish Giant snd a third story that I van't remember, and I think it was shown at least twice, I think on CBS. Both the Selfish Giant and this version of the Little Mermaid are directed by Peter Sander and have such an other-worldly quality to them in terms of the animation and the story - I don't think you ever see anyone actually speaking, and there is just one voice: the narrator (different for each film). This version of The Little Mermaid is faithful to the original story, complete with the "daughters of the air" concept. This version was so haunting that I've never been able to watch another - THIS is the Little Mermaid story I adore.

Having spent months watching all the shorts with Buster Keaton and being absolutely charmed by Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle's direction, timing and "delivery", as well as regularly laughing out loud, I was so excited to see something earlier. And, wow... this was flat, boring and exactly what most people think silent movies will be: people literally jumping around, doing pratfalls and slapstick, literally kicking each other in the butt, and mugging for the camera. It's like they set up a camera and said, "Go try to do something that looks funny and we'll film it." The rampaging car was just... dumb. What a disappointment. Jump ahead to the later stuff, it's SO much better and really shows Arbuckle's charm and talents and creativity.

I didn't grow up with this movie. As can be seen by the reviews here, many people did, and have very fond memories of it. This is a typical 1970s children's movie, made on the cheap, with bright colors, over-acting, greedy adult villains, cartoon-like bits, hippies, children in peril, really bad wigs and silly dialogue. I can see how children now would still love this, with the sweet and incredibly charming Jack Wild (my first crush - I would have lost my mind had I seen this as a kid - although his wig is horrible) and the adorable girl that plays his little sister and the happy ending. As for me, an adult, seeing it the first time: it's nice to see the Irish countryside in the 1970s. I've seen some reviewers say it's full of offensive stereotypes - it is a CHILDREN'S MOVIE and the characters are bigger than life and completely unrealistic, just like most kids' movies NOW. But the reality is that the only way you'll really like this movie now is if you grew up with it - which I didn't. One moment I did really love: the parade, with the song you don't have to be Irish to be Irish, which celebrates the diversity of immigrants who have contributed to the culture of the isle for a long while - it was refreshing to see in 2021. And it was nice to see Dorothy McGuire having fun.

Jackson Brodie is a very good detective and a not so great boss or father. Loves his daughter, obviously, but put so much into his work his marriage fell apart. Says yes to cases he should say no to. And is haunted by a childhood memory. I fell in love with this show when it was on Masterpiece, and have yet to find anyone who has seen it. Wonderfully atmospheric, stories you really don't know where they are going to go, and always with a song or two playing in the background or over the credits that's perfect for the moment, making you want to settle down in the dark with a whiskey and try to sort things out...

A surprisingly good movie and surprisingly relevant! Expectations about relationships, women not feeling appreciated by their partners (or desired partners), consent, trust, misunderstandings about romantic interests, expectations regarding women's happiness... it all seemed downright timely for a 1941 film. The one liners are hilarious and delivered by pros. Of course Rosalind Russell is going to be good, no surprise - but Kay Francis is JUST AS GOOD! I have never really liked her - but in this, she's got great timing and she fits the part perfectly. She sparkles! Oh how I wish she'd made more comedies! It's the women who shine in this film, though Don Ameche and Van Heflin are terrific too (and crazy handsome).

There is so much to say about this movie: that it is focused on teen pregnancy in a frank way that was never done in 1950s film or literature and portrays the teens in a respectful way, that it has black actresses treated as equal to everyone else in terms of character and a strong, positive black father character, that it addresses the mental health challenges of "troubled" teen girls, that it includes statutory rape by step fathers and on and on. Yes, it's a B movie and has all that comes with that: exaggerated performances, low rent production values and lots of stereotypes. The parents of the main character are almost too horrible and extreme to be believed - unless you are a social worker or teacher and then, yeah, you know these kind of people really do exist, even now (leaving a baby in the back seat of a car, referring to the baby as "it", and on and on). But it's extraordinarily thoughtful for 1957 - that is probably thanks to Dalton Trumbo. Not sure about the title, as this is Betsy's story, not "Green Eyes". Buddy's mom aversion to her son isn't condemned the way it would be in a movie now. The guide to infant care that the girls read from is hilarious - it always has an answer to every question! But be prepared for very, very disturbing behavior by "cuckoo" - if you are horrified by even the mention of animal abuse, don't watch this. As for the ending... no spoilers, but WHAT THE HELL?!?!

Firstly, be careful if this comes on PBS, because some local stations cut certain scenes out, and just like with "Tom Jones", if you got rid of the sexcapades, you wouldn't get the story at all. This adaption re-arranges her sexual liaisons from the book and leaves a few out, drops any themes regarding religious repentance and "sincere penitence" - it's mostly a fun, saucy romp with some feminist undertones. Moll isn't willing to accept her circumstances and powerlessness for long, something unheard of in most fiction of that time or the next few hundred years: a woman's happiness and security was expected to come from marrying into some kind of fortune, period. The story is quite revolutionary for its time in showing a woman who, from a very young age, tries to control her own fate and be in control of her own life. And what option does a woman have to attempt that in this period but sex, blackmail and, eventually, thievery? Anyone who wants to criticize Moll for leaving her latest crop of children is (always in a stable, good home) is, I'm sure, silent when men in stories do exactly the same thing... Alex Kingston owns the character absolutely. She is gorgeous and completely believable at every age and circumstance. This film was my introduction to Daniel Craig back in 1996 - and it's a really good introduction. In this age of beautiful digital clarity, the picture is a bit muddy, but still a beautiful, visual feast.

On the one hand, it's a B movie with cringe-worthy "special effects" (the train model is embarrassing, the "car chases" are just sped-up drives), stock footage and bad editing (in one seen, it's clearly NOT George Raft jumping down from a wall and the jump cut to Raft is so painfully bad it should be studied in film school as what NOT to do), plus Raft is about as good as a wooden board at times and apparently no one worked with Sydney Greenstreet on his German (he ends a phone call with Nazis back in Berlin by saying "Have a good trip!"). On the other hand, Peter Lorre is absolutely delightful and not like his other roles and I wish he had more roles like this, Turhan Bey (Hassan) is truly The Turkish Delight, and there's an Indiana Jones quality to it that I adore. Honestly, it's kind of fun!

What a fascinating film. This movie was filmed before the war ended, but when it was clear Nazi Germany was losing - the hotel feels like a sinking ship. The film is way darker and much more complicated than most studio films at the time about the time during or leading up to WWII, and about Germany. There are some incredibly tense moments, as you figure out who is pro Nazi and who is not. and as the characters figure it out for themselves. The Nazi's murderous anti-Semitism isn't glossed over, as it is in so many films from this era. The character to watch: Peter Lorre as Johannes Koenig. He deserved a Best Supporting Actor nod. All your favorite character actors are here - nice to see them in such an intriguing ensemble piece.

This movie is so much more than a sentimental reminiscence. I'm not much at all for those "I remember..." mom or dad or whatever memory movies. Also, there are so many, many plays and movies about a family's career aspirations for a son, aspirations that get challenged because of what the son wants to do instead. Here we have a story set after the turn of the 20th century, about a working class father's career aspirations for his DAUGHTER - a career that will provide her with financial stability but isn't at all what she wants to do. Spencer Tracy plays a curmudgeon, working-class, not-at-all refined father in a role I've never seen him in before - and he's AMAZING. The dialogue has some one linters that are, at times, hysterical - any person who has every been embarrassed by their parents, or every had a parent say something like, "Why did you ever have to be so different?" will warm to this movie immediately. And the Mary Wickes moment is why she makes every movie better even if she's in it for less than 20 seconds.