Change Your Image
sb-47-608737
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try again- Some of them repel me due to their over-sexuality / manner,
- Some due to stereotype - if you have seen one, you have seen all,
- Some due to affectations/ over theatrics / over acting.
- Some, I don't know why.
Charlie Chaplin almost made the cut - but missed out due to his later movies (in fact the ones which are universally put down - like King In New York). Of course some times I had to watch them - even after the first couple - the ones which had condemned them to this zone. These might be when there are Strong Screen Magnets in the cast (or Director) who overcame these repulsions, but they were too rare.
Reviews
Parineeta (1953)
Not the best
This movie is just loosely based on the original story, with quite a bit of changes, and not really for the best. The closest what I have seen to the original is the Bengali version, of 1969, starring the legendary Soumitra in the lead role, with Mousumi as Lalita. If one gets a chance, one should watch that, just to compare. The sweetness of the story is lost in this version, which the 1969 retained. That was surprising, considering the director, Bimal Roy, was Bengali as was the producer/ hero, Ashok. Probably the over dramatisation was done to cater to the 'audience' and that spoiled the taste, quite a bit. Of course I won't say the 1969 version too did total justice to the original novel, especially with regards to the Male role (of Shekhar), who was weak. But still one would not notice that aberration, unless one has read the novel. The difference was masked by creating circumstances, so that it was not necessary to be weak.
That Night with You (1945)
Not too convincing end.
All the points and a few more, exclusively to Susanna and some credit to Franchot too are in order. But that is as far as Susanna's singing and Tone's characterization was concerned.
The direction, and probably Susanna's understanding of the role left some sort of a vacuum, and by that, at least I am not too satisfied with the ending.
The ending was a fairy tale one - to make all happy - the relevant couples in love all coming together and living happily ever after, the aim of all fulfilled. But that didn't. In fact as the story was told, only two got what they wanted - excluding Blossom of course - Sheila and Penny. The two male leads had to be satisfied with second fiddle.
Johnny wanted a homely wife and six kids of "their own", he insisted. Paul wanted Penny as his star wife, without kids to pull her back. As some where reviewer mentioned - it all boiled down to the motherly instinct of Penny. - and that's where it went wrong. The one who lost the race was more compromising on this aspect.
The choices became wrong due to handling/ direction.
On similar theme (not exactly) is another musical, of a couple of years later "Because of Him" by another superb singer-actress Durbin. She too wasn't an exceptional actress, but the direction and story telling made the difference - the difference between the two there boiled down to love vs worship - and the decision was - though all weren't happy - convincing.
In this case, keeping happy and this same ending would have made me happy if the movie was made as a clash between infatuation+worship against love+ selfless devotion and love - with a pre-condition of not so much talk about homely wife and six kids.. This was a very major flaw.
By the way Tone's character was not too creepy as mentioned - he was just commitment-phobic - and then when he became ready to commit himself, even going out to buy toys for children, even when Penny didn't ask for it, made the ending became even more unconvincing.
Schiave bianche - Violenza in Amazzonia (1985)
Gripping story.
I am surprised at the low score given to the movie, and can't really understand the cause. has it been due to it being against the racial stereotype ?
My score would be about 7.5* despite not having a fairy tale ending. But being true life (supposed to be), it couldn't have one.
The movie, as the story goes, somehow brings more positives in the uncivilised pagans than in the civilised sect. They had their set of laws- some of them might seem brutal, in fact too brutal, but they religiously follow those laws, and even the criminals submit to them without much ado (e.g. in case of the adulterous couple, or even the hero's attitude towards the heroine in the end). Of course I wonder with that level of punishment, why did they dare.
There is an abundance of nudity, especially topless - but somehow it didn't succeed if it was meant to titillate. For that the credit goes to the lead actress. I don't know deliberately or per chance the lead heroine wasn't over-endowed and that killed that chance, and one could watch the movie without concentrating on the biological aspects. And once that is settled, I simply don't see anything which could be negative enough to have this score.
Since it is the autobiography of the girl, i assume the events are almost real, there would be naturally some changes, which she would make while narrating. But if she did, the story didn't really become unbelievable.
Of course not being aware of the culture, I shouldn't comment, but to my knowledge, head hunters take the heads of their victims. In this case the two, the heroines parents, were already dead when the protagonist and his team arrived. In that case the trophies were not justified. And of course the big bonus point is the depiction of the forest. Several websites call it as cannibal - but the tribe wasn't one - in fact they were at war against the cannibal tribe.
Angel (1937)
Having her cake... finally
The initial synopsis of says "Bored wife falls in love..."
Which probably is wrong description,
The neglected wife of a workaholic politician looks for some diversion from boredom by visiting a notorious salon of a nobility - seems to be frequented by the persons-on-pay of both genders. Though, the secrecy is maintained a la belle de jour. She meets a stranger and is attracted, but she despite the utter neglect, is in love with her spouse, and the neglecting husband too adores her, though continues to neglect - taking her for granted syndrome, which she spelt out almost towards the end. With that equation, naturally she has put a line which she won't cross, and backs out at the last moment and disappears. the man has been infatuated with her and per chance comes across - and that too as the wife of an old close acquaintance. She rebuffs his advances quite firmly and even tells in plain words that she isn't ready to sacrifice her home. But he persists and invites her to another soiree in Paris. When her romantic getaway is cancelled by her insensitive husband, she takes a plunge and decides to have the rendezvous. The husband had got clear signals that the mysterious lady of his friend was his wife and he too lands up there and the choice is left to the lady to make - which of the two men she wants.
One would sympathise with the woman in this case and find fault with both the men. One due to his utter insensitivity, and the second, irrespective of her wish, to be left alone, is bent on seducing her, and that too his friend's wife - one really can't call him anything other than cad.
The mindset of the two men are brought out in few seconds - one (the husband) measures the time spend with his beloved (wife) in years and the other (the lover) in seconds... one lives for present, and the moment and the other for the future accumulating bits and pieces and adding up as total experience. Naturally both were wrong and the ideal long-term lover (I mean beloved) falls in between. And on that aspect, the lady made the right choice even if the scales were not so unbalanced in her heart.
Another interesting thing was the husband going to the other room, despite all the forbiddings and forebodings. Anyway by then he should have been more than sure of Maria being Angel - too many circumstantial evidences, acquaintance with the Grand Duchess, being in Paris on the day and then, the icing, tune on Piano on telephone background - which incidentally he had promised to her that he won't play again.
Though the director, I don't know meant it to be, but the act of the husband was right. - not to show to the wife that he believed or didn't believe her, or as she said, to keep that iota in mind permanently. He was by then sure, but the step was necessary to tell her, that the suspicions and lies shouldn't be there for the relation to succeed and thrive. He knows, he tells her that he knows, and then he still doesn't forgive her, but tells her to make choice, not really blaming her, but indirectly accepting his responsibility for the episode that took place - making her task more complex. had he maintained the insensitivity, it would have been easy for her to chose. But still it wasn't difficult or needed time for her to make up her mind.
Et Dieu... créa la femme (1956)
Child woman
This is one thing I had found of Ms Bardot... she had a very effective screen presence when the role required to be of a teenager, with figure (not face) of woman, but having the mischievousness of child of pre-ten - one who need to be spanked once in a while, as her elderly suitor (and in quite a few movies her screen-father or guardian) had said.
With that angle, and as I look at it, the sexuality is a wrong angle to look in. Yes in that figure, face and the acts, one could interpret in that angle, but may be had there been any one else than Ms Bardot. I don't think any one else could mix the sexuality and tone it down by childishness as effectively as she could. I am not a big fan of her, but on this aspect, I have to raise my hats.
The plot is of a girl of 18, who doesn't mind flaunting her assets. She does visit places where good girls don't go - especially nightclubs - and stay late but there isn't even a hint of promiscuity, in fact it looks the opposite, when she doesn't spend the night with Antoine, unless he proves himself to be more than an one night-stander. Circumstances forces her to chose between marrying the playboy Antoine's younger brother. Michel and Orphanage, and despite misgivings, which she points out to Michel, they are married. The thorn in the bouquet is Antoine, but luckily he was settled elsewhere, and when he comes back, permanently, her first crush had to resurface. She had already been fallen in love with her husband, but the memory of the crush overrides and threatens to break up the home, which was happy for the couple, but she was an unwanted member as far as her MIL was concerned, and also Antoine had his eyes on her too, and there was a third person, Eric, the local rich man, who at first wanted to marry her, but wasn't disheartened or felt out of bounds by the married status of Juliette. When Juliette finally submits to her physical attraction to her BIL, the home was to break apart - with almost no one at her side, the MIL strongly against, and the males (except husband) wanting to exploit the situation, by getting her.
I can't imagine any other actress portraying this role which needed sexy but not nymphomaniac - a childish one, whose pranks shouldn't be misconstrued. Though here most of them Rene, Antoine, Eric, her Mother In Law, Guardians and townsfolk, and even her best-girl-friend did. Only two didn't Michel, and the youngest brother in law.
More than watchable, and thought provoking... due to Bardot, on someone else say Monroe or Sophia, it would have been nympho and won;t have made one think.
Blonde Venus (1932)
Soap without Sud
The story is a typical soap story - A cabaret artist falls in love and marries a poor but brilliant chemist and settles in a purely domestic life and has a small child when tragedy strikes- the husband is diagnosed with Radium Poisoning (Curie Family !) but unlike Curies, he is curable - but needs money. The wife goes back to stage and becomes a celebrity - and along comes a playboy with a string attached. To save the husband she volunteers in his net, but gets more than she bargained for. She now has a soft spot for the playboy while the playboy is in genuine love with her, the husband is cured, and that, when he comes to know, through entirely believable circumstances, of her affair, is hell-bent on taking away her only love from her, the child. She runs from place to place, sinking deeper, while the husband hounds her. In the end she gives the child up and after some time, decides to go back to stage becomes a celebrity. The heartbroken playboy lover (who had left the country when she went back to husband and was not able to do anything) catches up and now she has to decide between the two - husband and lover - both seem to have equal space in her heart.
A pure soap story - and it is a real marvel that it was handles so well, that it would be wrong to name it soap. I think that is because instead of tear-jerking, it kept the audience bound by pace.
What I didn't like is the ending - not her decision, it was natural - but the only guilty party in the story didn't seem to be aware of the unforgivable guilt - it seemed more of a forgiving... whereas it should have been sought from. One would thoroughly sympathise with what Helen did, it was all justified, considering the driving cause.
City Park (1934)
Passable
A very difficult movie to judge even by the entertainment value. The movie is entertaining for most of the time, the basic plot, isn't too bad.
A girl, destitute wants to go to jail, where she has been told, by a kindly hooker, that she would get edible food 9in fact she said more than edible), and a place she could say her own, to stay, though not much money. What else could she want? So she chooses the easiest way, to pretend to be a hooker, and get arrested. It goes well, till three kindly old men intervene and gets her out of the clutches of the law. In this endeavour, the only rich of the three old men is evicted by his bossy DIL, son, who after his retirement running the business and is control of finances was in control in turn of his wife. The man goes to his old office, where his old friend is still the boss and draws money from there and takes a boarding place, one room for her, who is to be housekeeper, and another for the three. After the friction with his grandson, who naturally at first, before apologising, assumes her to be his grandfather's mistress, they pair up. But the cupid old men import her ex-bf from town, who was the reason of her eviction from foster home, and give them a job, in the bank. Which he uses for robbing. The end is expected, so nothing to speak of.
The movie becomes a mess for around 10 minutes, before end, and then again comes back to track in last 10 minutes. When the boy is proved beyond doubt to be involved in robbery, there is no logic in the old-gang to get him free, even to the extent of taking the blame of robbery on themselves, so that he could marry the girl, who was more than an adopted granddaughter to them. If they wanted to be rid of her, it is OK, but not by tying to a proven crook. Thankfully, and not much thanks to them, but to the more pragmatic and who had taken almost a maternal interest in the girl, the things sort out. That particular episode could have been far better handled to make it a quite good movie. Anyway, by fast-fowarding that zone, I didn't lose anything of the plot, and saved some ridiculous moments. Could have got a few more stars, but for those 10 minutes.
Charlie Chan in Egypt (1935)
Average Mystery
This is an average mystery of whodunnit - stealing of artifacts as well as the murder of people.
There are a few glaring shortcomings, which unfortunately are too obvious to give it glowing marks.
One of the major plus, of these series of movies, is a non-stereotyping of 'orientals' and that is a major advantage - and rarely attempted at that time - probably not until the Bruce Lee changed the perception.
I could have given it high marks only on that one aspect, but unfortunately "Snowshoes" character was extremely irritating by caricature stereotype - I sometime wonder didn't they had the self pride and refuse to do these ? Here it was much more irritating than in others - the comic aspect which probably the director wanted to show, didn't materialise.
Second negative point is the good story should explain the behaviour of every character, on which, even to create suspense, the suspicious activities are put on. In this case, two innocent character's behaviour remains unexplained, the maid and the doctor - none of whom should have been behaving that way, unless they were involved in the murder or the 'Tomb Preserver' person. The plot didn't even touch upon that, and hence the motive remains unexplained.
Third and most important is the shooting of the lead. he was in fact put into a position where there was a very high probability of being killed. And send there alone. The appearance of the murderer in previous instance has indicated, and Chan knew, that there is likely to be other ways into secret vault. It was a complete irresponsible act, which no good theorist would ever attempt. Had Chan followed him it would have led some credence. may be he would have still been shot, but at least the detective knew of the risk would have been brought out. The other murders were unavoidable, but not this. It was exactly as if Chan has deliberately pushed him into the firing line. Not pardonable, as the heroine later accused.
Well, I could have overlooked a few, but not all, and definitely not the irritation of Fletchit - who, to compound the issue had been given a long screen presence.
The King Murder (1932)
Not too bad
I will transport myself to 1932, and then if I look at, it isn't that bad as some of use have said here. It definitely has more merit than the 5.4 score that is given now.
The mystery is built up quite well, of who-dunnit and being precode, the story could openly say about the pre as well as post marital relation - the fact of life which naturally the codes won't let be brough out. And in those circumstances, the high society blackmailer (Miriam King) is killed - and probable murderer could be any of the three current (should have been more) males she had been sponging on, her own black mailer, or even any of the current girlfriends/ wives of her victims who knew of her existence with their lovers/ husbands.
The method of the murder was very ingenuous and probably unless the murderer hasn't committed virtual suicide, to save some one dear, the case would have remain unsolved.
It is a neat mystery, fast paced, and not too much to find-fault about, even if it wasn't a 'B' movie.
Lady with a Past (1932)
Gentlemen Prefer
This isnother take on the time tested - what mothers tell their little daughters (at least used to) - Gentlemen may prefer Blondes but they marry brunnettes. (in fact in the famous flick too, the gentleman married Russel, the one that went with Marilyn was as blonde (mentally) as her (no disrespect to hair colour)
Here too the Brunette, Venice, makes a mistake and tries to ape the Blonde, Ann, with help from a trainer, Bryson. Naturally Dannie, wouldn't marry a blonde and tries to shy off post the bleaching.
Not a very bad movie, despite the short length, which made things to hurry up a bit more than would have been good. Some times these hurried up things don't seem too much, when they specify "weeks or months have passed like this" but that needs some expertise.
Interesting thing of this is - this flick is very similar to another movie of the same year "Careless Lady". That won't have been strange but for the fact that the female lead in it was Constance's kid sister Joan. Didn't she monitor the roles the Kid sis was being offerred ? (BTW, this one is better than careless lady in almost all aspects).
Une liaison pornographique (1999)
Senitive Subject Brilliantly explored
I wonder why the french name of this movie was coined - on first sight, the serious movie buffs would move it apart with a long pole, and those who are attracted by the name, would immediately share amongst friend of the extreme misnome. I myself would have skipped it, but I don't remember from where I got the basic plot, and after watching it, I don't regret having purchased the DVD. It was quite some time after purchasing though, since these types of movies, this one, or Umbrella of C, or even Beele d'jour need specific 'mood' - that others romcoms or coms or wes don't.
The movie itself is brilliant in its portrayal - of not pornography - but of attraction - love - and realisation of the future together (till death doth type) - which both the protagonists - who remained unnamed - experience through their affair - which turns from a pure physical experience (of what type both, as well as filmmaker refused to divulge, but definitely not anything remotely conventional). That is left to imagination, but really not important to the context, just the knowledge that it was not 'any type of normal', physio-biological activity, which might even be out of syllabus of KS, is enough.
The story moves from that, to slowly conversation, to attraction to love to normal-sex, including playful fore-play (none of which is shown,only hinted) to deep and undying love is the way the relation progresses, may be almost opposite to the romance-stories . At the last stage, it is no more physical, companionship overriding all other aspects, it was as a poignant comment made - first I found her beautiful, after some weeks I started noticing her faults, and then slowly I stopped noticing her beauty or faults, only her.
Not only this is a brilliant depiction of a man-woman relation, but also "Where from here?" thoughts were discussed. The way it unfolded towards the end, one might disagree or agree - but is a very disstinct possibility that people might take this path (though very rarely, it would need a lot of inner reflection)
Probably the most brilliant portion of the whole movie, was in may be only 2-3 minutes. But even those couple of minutes would merit 3 stars. This was from the moment the old man who has suffererd a heart attack - talks to the protagonists and ends the moment the two talk to his wife. Not so much about the acting of the two - the old man and his wife - but it is the sensitive portrayal, which influenced the ending of the movie - that was exceptional.
If I say that I didn't expect this type of movie in this age - that would be enough of accolade. Slow senitive and enjoyable - like french wine. It didn't attempt any 'kick' and in fact that would have taken the charm of it. This is to just sit back, watch and think, self-reflect.
Extravagance (1930)
Quite passable
To contradict with most of the reviews - the heroine, Alice (June) isn't as bad as implied. Probably, as the mother said in the end, she didn't know the best.
Alice is a spoilt girl of a rich family, and after the father has died, and the income has become nil, the mother didn't put any check on her lifestyle.
To be fair on her, she didn't seem to know the ground condition, whether her mother living on pension given by Fred, or even that Fred's business has become bankrupt. When she came to know she rushed to sell her cherished Sable to pay Fred's charities. That's not selfishness, though spoilt, she was undoubtedly. Fred did try to put some check, but he was too much in love to act tough.
The suspicion raising its ugly head was natural, under the circumstances, and one can't fault Fred on that. How would he know that unlike Esther, Alice adored her husband ? The decision to divorce and even go with Morell was the strong indignation and rebound - again justifiable - since till then she didn't so anything against Haye's Code (though Esther did) and she didn't know that the fisrt $2K and later $32K were all advances from Morell, and not really gain from the game of chance. Though I wondered while watching why did Morell change his spots ? His decision to marry Alice after her Paris divorce doesn't go with his character.
Not as bad, since the characters are not as unbelievable or selfish or creepy as hinted in reviews, here as well as elsewhere (in fact that portrayel made me delay watching it). The people were generally believable, with the usual shortcomings, may be a bit more in Morell, but they do exist aplenty in real life.
Probably the movie would have been a bit better if it was stretheched a bit more at least another 15 minutes to preferably half an hour, since some times it went a bit fast and considering the actors, at least as they acted here, they could easily have managed that extra time, without making it an eyesore. This probably is the major negative point.
The Lady Consents (1936)
Divided between Ann and Ellis
To be frank considering their performance it could have been a bit more, but all others except Margaret pulled it all down, and the worst was the direction.
The plot is not too unpredictable - there is a happily married couple in the midts of which thoroughly ruthless- probably cruel and sadist is a correct term to add to that - and scheming woman Jerry lands up and in her first meeting itself alienates the husband from wife. Well with that type of husband, I don't suppose any wife would like to go back for future and likely repetible mishaps of this kind, but being under code and also to have the soap coefficient she does. How to manage the current wife into becoming ex-wife is too silly to think of, as was anyway her scheme to become a wife itself.
The woman is a celebrity (as introduced), a champion sportswoman - and quite definitely socialite - and must be one of means too,, though not told explicitly, but to be mocing around, playing those championships do cost money. And with her media exposure, and popularity, and looks, one could hardly believe when she said "I didn't marry you for money, or looks" is understandable "But you are the best I could get my hands on" is certainly not, and then trying to prove her a gld digger when she left him, for his alimony payments ? Unbelievable of course one have to think of his first wife-about to be third one and her situation, since he would have to still pay alimony to one of the wives, the second one in this case.
It won't have been so bad considering Ann, unfortunately typecast into soaps of this type - there and a couple of good performances by Lindsay and Ellis but all others were quite thoroughly rotten, including Abel as the constant suitor, they weren't convincing, and almost wooden, including Herbert.
Three Guys Named Mike (1951)
Too much of Pulp
Keep the brain inoperative, and then may be one can somewhat enjoy it. Not too much though.
The situations were too contrived to be true, even in 1950s. Can one really imagine a single stewardess in a flight ? Even small ATRs have more and that too a green-horn, on her first voyage ? No airline in their mind would risk it. Then the second part of the same episode - whose job it is to load the food trays ? Definitely not stewardess, the ground staff does it, Stewardess can at the maximum put them in the oven. But failure to load in the craft can't be her fault. And of course ven turning back the flight... was it neecssary ? Cleveland to Nashville would be only a couple of hours (at that time, not now) - and it must have reached the midway till the decision to turn-back was made ! (By the way, though the starting point wasn't mentioned, it is there at the terminus board, about 14:30). Too contrived and pulpy, even at the end to keep the neuronic network active. But keep it shut, and it is almost OK.
Time Out for Romance (1937)
Not that Bad
A different take on the Run away bride - and though the bones were same - the girl makes a mistake, runs away from the groom, meets the hero on the way, who against better judgment helps her, and the end is predictably same, with father's express blessing (only a few didn't manage this last one, in fact all managed, except the very first in this series that I have seen, the Jessie Matthews take of 1932 - from which probably the Night Ride was plagiarised, at least broadly)
But in that skeleton, the flesh had been a bit different, some crime and robbery is added.
This one, as mentioned in the first review, despite a few comic characters, and their attempts, was not really a cemedy, it was much more of a Romantic Drama. To be a ComRom against RomCom - it is necessary that both the main leads should have comic flair, in this case none had, but that doesn't mean they were wooden, they were more of dramatic actors, and hence this couldn't reach the comedy level. In fact the attempts made were somewhat rankling. But even then the movie is quite watchable, despite poor print.
Ekstase (1933)
Great Movie
A Great movie, had to give the 10. Not only for the story, but more the way it is told. The main attraction for the viewrs, Hedy Lamarr (or rather her buff or supposedly orgasm displays) are - well necescessary for the movie, whatever she might have later objected to or told to have been conned in, but are really may be the fly in the ointment to take the focus away from the rest. It is something like another great movie, Salo, where the nudity (there it was extreme) or the Sadism and violence took the focus and probably kept the 'Thinking' audience away. This one fortunately probably due to very short, not too descriptive, at least biologically, exposures managed to get some audience not too focussed on anatomy.
And to add insult to injury (on Ms Lamarr) , she might be the central figure, but she looked, as she was, girlish, not still in womanhood, even when in buff or wedding gown, (if one doesn't get too distracted, and looks at a bit away, at her face). And then despite all the focus, her acting was not too brilliant, understandable of course, it was only her training period. The only brilliant acting came from none of the main leads, but the third Person in this triangle, Rogoz, the husband.
The beauty and the greatness of this movie comes through the pacing, which might seem slow - or even too slow - for modern audience. But that is its charm, one won't gulp in a vintage wine, would one ?
While watching, I found something interesting - not only it had minimal dialogues, it could even have qualified by a silent movie, without even intertitles, and would have told the story as effectively. When ever the dialogues were used, they too almost added to the symbolism and mood, and were rarely inconsequential. For example the inn-keeper asking "Do you
want something else?" and Kogoz responding in negative. naturally not with respect to the hotel service.
The use of symbolism too is brilliant - not only the bee - and flower, where the hero puts the fly/bee on the flower in their first meeting, to indicate his intentions, and she shoos it away. But at a later stage too, when the lone fly, at the hotel, caught in the pane, willing to get away, but unable to, or even Adam putting a flower in the fly-trap. Did it indirectly indicate Adam's denigrating concept vis-a-vis Eva ?
Use of horses and mares were highly symbolic, at various stages, though they were rarely romancing. It probably was used to signify the associated virility and stubbornness when that was the theme of the moment.
A significant, probably missed symbolism (only a couple of seconds) was when when I found even a scene in guest house significant, when Rogoz, the ex husband changes the glass and puts on a pince nez. Symbolising his earlier mind set, trying to be flexible and understanding (the conventional glasses) he had now made a decision (pince nez - associated with power and bureaucracy).
The ending might be controversial, but may be the heroine didn't really have a choice, there was a need and a cry - of despair - which would generate the motherly instinct in her (for the ex-husband) vs the lover, which could be true love/ romance or it could also be the - as the sequences seem to indicate - additionally or may be only - due to his youth and virility ? Can she live with the guilt of a murder? Should she share it ? Will that queer the pitch ? She had to search her own soul, to take the final step.
Symbolism, pace, story telling, and Kogoz easily overcame the minor flaws of the other two main protagonists, Lamarr and Mog. And as foot note, don't over-estimate the nude scenes or even the Orgasm, might have been controversial due to the age then, but were innocuous compared to what we see today on screen, even with A Grade stars. Just the initiation.
Der weiße Rausch - Neue Wunder des Schneeschuhs (1931)
Underrated Beauty
One has to reflect upon - what is a movie, what it is for - is it only a strong story as one reviewer here indicated ?
Not necessarily - it should have something called wholesomeness - it should be something which keeps one glued and in the end, (in my opinion), it shouldn't end up with a wrong message. After all, a movie too is a form of mix between an art (like Mona Lisa) and a story (e.g Les Miserables), or a poem (e.g. Odyssey) - one can enjoy when they are well married, but even if they are not it can still have a lot of attraction, as stand alone.
This one, as mentioned by a reviewer has a very thin plot line - in fact almost no plot. There is a village girl, with a naughty child (brother ?) and a local skier who teaches her the tricks, and then there are a crowd of skiers (and professional, as the starting intertitles mentioned), with two (in role of Carpenters) more professional than the rest. The whole movie is around a chase, where the instructor and girl don the role of Fox, and the rest as Fox-hunters - all on ski.
And despite this thin line, and not much of an action (or accident) on the snow, I found this movie, after quite some time, which stopped me from jumping forward. And that is simply because the art on the snow which the two Foxes and the hounds delineated. That too, when I have no interaction with the sport, whatsoever. But to appreciate a poem, one need not be a poet.
Hovered around 9 and 10, but the cheating at the end by the kid brother was really a bit far fetched. I assume it was introduced to make the romantic angle a bit clearer - who would be the girl's choice, there were three major male characters who seem to be interested - the carpenters and the maestro.
Beautiful movie, and even more considering it was in early thirties. But on other hand at that time Hollywood (except the products of European imports) might have been almost in infancy, but Europe was far ahead then, Sjostrom, Renoir, Murnau, Gad, Pabst, Machaty, Stiller, Becce,... are only few.
And to counter again, of Lena not coming over to Hollywood, may be it was not that bad, after all those who came to Hollywood, either became market-driven, or were thrown out like Stiller. So her staying back might not have been too bad, as far as the art is concerned. And here we are bothered abot art, not who was the patron of it, even if it was Hitler, as far as it didn't transcent in the product. And for the naysayers, well Hitler might have been monster, but what about the other side - who did equal annihilation of the native americans ? And not only that, kept on encouraging it for another 50 years, through Westerns/ Cowboy Movies, ironically, painting the invaders/ killers as heroes, and the actual owners of the Ranch, defending their property as villains ? But ce la vie - the one is left standing, with Gun still in hand is always right.
It is better, we look at art for art's sake, and not bother about what were the ideaology of the humans who went on to make it, as long as the ideology didn't inhumanise the product like Jud Suss did (or scores of Westerns and Cowboy movies too did so)
Holy Matrimony (1943)
Much too inferior to its fore-runner
There was another, ten years back, His Double Life - that of course had a bit more talented lead, in Roland Young and incomparable Lil Gish. Here naturally Gracie was miscast - since it required a dramatic presence, of course not that Gracie was as eyesore as her over-acting male counterpart.
But the major shortcoming of it wasn't much in acting department as - and ironically the one in which it won Academy ! - the conceptualisation. That's where the first one reduces it to pygmy level. I haven't gone through the story from which both were made, so I can't comment on which had been better adapted, but being unbiased on that aspect, naturally all my first as well as optional votes go to the 1933 version. And of course it once again makes one wonder, why are the remakes, even when almost copy, are always inferior ? Only the actors ? Which of course had been on the decline from the golden age, but here it had been much more.
In 1933, the hero was Enochlophobic, whereas in the 1943, he was more of unsocial. The behaviour that were much better explained by the phobia, were not explainable by the just being unsocial. And if the director wanted him to have the phobia, they missed it by large margin. The mix-up which changed the bodies (and identities) were similarly much more plausible - the bed, the dressing gown, and realisation while both alive and deciding to go along, and the logic were much more plausible.
Even quite a bit of story sequences had been changed - later one earlier and earlier one later - and not for good. For example, the first wife arrival - in the 1933, there was alerady a suspicion in Lilain's mind, due to Oxford's visit, and also claim by Lilian that she knew that the husband had been 'virgin' or whatever equivalent, before they married, but here it was a clear proved case of bigamy, and hence protection was not simply understood, nor was the refusal to show moles on very flimsy stand. The Phobia was definitely a much stronger ground.
And the second irony (along with the Academy Award) is the IMDb scores - that was is about a point less than this ! I agree that Young's character was - well one could call sissy - but he was supposed to be like that, and should be a merit than demerit. Even thouh he too kmight have gone a bit overboard, but Lilian was a counterfoil.
As usual - recomemndation, skip it and go for "His Double Life" of 1933.
The Count of Monte Cristo (1934)
Miserable Adaptation
There are two counts - first is the story - the opening screen doesn't say adapted from, based on or anything like that, it says "Alexander Dumas'" and it definitely is no where near the classic. There had been too many and unnecessary changes made, may be to cater to 'local' taste, or box-office, but none of them, in my opinion had been to improve, rather opposite. For example even at the beginning, the poor and orphan Mercedes, is made some sort of a Socialite and a mother imposed upon. That takes a lot of patho out of the decision she was forced to make, after Edmond's death. The story has been, completely destroyed, for no sensible reason, as far as I can see.
Second part is the artists - and there too it scores equally low - especially the main actor, Donat, had over-over-acted. It doesn't even hold a lamp for the 1954 Robert Vernay version, which though with some differences, could more or less maintain the plot faithfully, and of course Donat doesn't come anywhere near Marais.
I wonder still, why did they have to almost completely change the story, including the ending, or the court scene just before that - not only they were different, overacted, over-dramatised, but also much weaker than what happened in the novel.
In the original story, Edmond-Mercedes-Princess ending - might not have been romantic, but did have some sort of being just to the two women at least, of course here, the movie decided to take the Princess out of the equation.
The Barretts of Wimpole Street (1934)
Daddy Demonised ?
It is a true love story, as variously documented, between two great poets - Robert browning and Elizabeth Barret. The second might be not as renowned as her husband, but the poems I read, were very touching, due to their subject and the presentation of them - the heartfelt cry of the oppressed.
The plot starts from the young bedridden Elizabeth. In actual life she was not so young, about 40, and Norma (though in her thirties), didn't look anything more than say early to mid twenties. However those are inconsequential, the movie plot quite faithfully follows the known story - courtship, father's disapproval for any marriage in the family, of his children of any gender, and then rebelling, marriage and self-export to Florence.
One interesting thing in this whole narrative (as well as recorded history) was her father. It would be interesting to know why did he behave so. Records say he did, but why ? After all he himself did marry, as did his other relatives, then what was the harm in his children marrying ?
I wonder had it something to do with money ? The history also mentions that his money, from wife's side, was tied to slave-trade, which had been recently banned, and from his own, it was plantations in Jamaica. Which ,if, with slave embargo might not have been too very profitable, then he might have been living on the border, or beyond his means, to maintain the facade (Which he really was doing).
Naturally in that circumstances, he would not be in a position to give dowry to his daughters, or family-support to his son to set up his family, subsequent to marriage. This seems to be one of the possibility, which made him oppose, and disinherit. Or the other thing may be, he was just a plain Ebenezer Scrooge, and hence he would naturally oppose any money slipping out.
I wonder what this person really was. He can't be that demonic, as portrayed. Over possessiveness sometimes may be expected with one child, but not with a dozen, and not towards each of the dozen.
In fact if one looks at the biographical sketch of the dedicated website, it doesn't put him in that bad light. In fact not only he, all the brothers of EBB were opposed to the marriage - and in fact all the three marriages that took place in the father's life time - since, it is mentioned, that the corresponding spouses were from inferior strata or not enough income to support their family (Cook was a cousin, so must have been from same strata) and not only the 'cruelty' isn't mentioned, but his correspondences with Elizabeth shows a normal paternal care - not the obsessive Electra (or rather opposite) complex. In addition he was also deeply attached with his youngest son (who would sleep with him in childhood), so that also goes against what is shown about him. Probably he is too distorted in the portrayal. He might have been rigid, but not against love, only against what he thought improper, as the site mentioned "he wanted the alliance to be of the type which are permanent "father was kind & tenderly attached to his children, in excess indeed, as he could not bear the idea of a profession or a marriage that would lead to separation." which probably exacerbated after loss of his wife and two sons.
Thieves' Highway (1949)
Pre Dassin Dassin
This probably is the first of the Hollywood dassin I have watched, and I am not very impressed. There are touches, but too rare.
The plot is about market mafia, its extortion of the truckers, and one army-veteran, of course with some help, breaking it up. Thankfully the hero isn't super human, he gets beaten up, thoroughly, when the situation demands, and beats, when the dies are cast on his side.
The movie though well paced, isn't really of any exceptional value, which would make Dassin after a few years. I wonder does it have anything to do with Melina's influence or just getting out of the rot (Hollywood) which made him shine ?
Probably one could thank McCarthy, on both the above counts, since had not he been black-listed, he won't have moved to Europe, not met Melina, and made movies like Never On..., Rififi, Celui qui.. etc.
This movie also brings out some doubts - may be Dassin was left leaning, but this movie especially isn't really left. It is in fact anti mafia, were the mafioso behind the black-listing ? I wonder. Especially when one considers the hold they had on Hollywood as well as Government on those times (e.g. John Handsome Johnny Roselli).
Probably due to the mafia notoriety, the villains are with Italian connection, was it with an advance thought of wooing Melina, the Hero was Greek ?
Woman's World (1954)
Right Selection?
The movie is highly thought provoking and as a management person, I have to think of whether the choice was really right ?
There are three persons, all equally brilliant track record - and are being evaluated for the ultimate (or next to), the CEO of a megalith. The evaluation is done by the President and his confidantes - sister, and nephew. Naturally with equally brilliant performance on line of duty, the line-off-duty too need to be looked at, and for that the best measure considered was to call the wives too and evaluate the wives along with the respective husbands.
Couple #1 - off-duty meek husband and highly ambitious and glamorous wife (Dahl), who would go to any., and I mean ANY extent to further her husband's career.
Couple #2- no off-duty husband. The smart but not too glamorous wife (Bacall) is lonely (though tagging along, since she still genuinely cares), but the husband doesn't have time for wife or children.
Couple#3 - balanced - despite success, family man - deeply devoted couple - though the wife is naive and non sophisticated - a typical housewife who would be fish out of water in high-society gathering.
As a selector, with the men being equal, the selection committee looked at their respective women. Were they looking for the drag coefficient ? As seemed to be from the ending part, as if they were looking how much the wives were handicap to the husbands. Of course that would be one way of looking at the Potential of the candidates - how much they could further, and move away from competition, if the drag was removed ?
To clarify, all these wives were not a drag. In fact they were practically promoting their husbands - one directly, another by being silent and uncomplaining sufferer, and the third through direct emotional support.
The selector had to now decide on the drag these spouses still offered and could their men somehow would be able to neutralize the drag ?
To be frank, I don't know if the selection was right. After all some one, who knew of the major handicap (he said it), but didn't do anything about it, for years, can't be the person who goes to the position where every strategic decision have to be taken quickly.
He could be out of the handicap, but that's not what one looks for, it is the quick and right decision making. On that aspect it was wrong. may eb an excellent movie for HR debates.
Young and Innocent (1937)
Ridiculous
It's not that the basic premise was bad, but the way it was made was simply ridiculously implausible.
An actor is killed - well we know in the beginning by her jealous ex-husband, and a young man, who she knew, the husband suspected though she denied, is framed , he escapes to find the killer, with help of the Police Chief's daughter, in the beginning a forced but later (naturally) willing accessory.
The big mine holes in the plot starts the moment the murder is planned or committed. The big star doesn't have any servants at home, who would have given a statement to police of the proximity of unwanted ex-husband just prior to the crime. The suspect is the first to find the body (OK Chance), but he runs to ? No inform police ? Not bring help ? Where to ? Note that the girls who saw him running away had sufficient time to call police and locals too - despite him having around a mile lead start ! The way he escaped from court custody is equally implausible and from there these are all part of circumstances forced by the movie-maker most of the time assisting, and at some times, just to pick the adrenaline pumping against. And by the way why did the victim leave such a sizeable money to the not-too-well known Hero ?
I have not seen such a badly executed mystery-detective movie - even in Hollywood B.
I wonder why there are so many glowing tributes ? Are the people influenced too highly by the names associated than the product itself ?
Miss it, even more so if are a fan of Hitchcock. I can't recommend anything in it.
Hindle Wakes (1927)
Not really a single standard
The brief outline is
A poor factory worker, with a dominating and ambitious frustrated mother and dominated father goes on a week vacation, with a neighbor friend (girl). On the other side of track is the factory owner's son. The factory owner incidentally is an old friend of girl's father, who had risked and hence gained, the girl's father didn't want to, and remained in the rot. But still there is vibe between the friends and also the owner values the 'Supervisor's dedication and knowledge. The boy is engaged to a girl of his own class (rich mayor's daughter). The fiancee off to London with her father, the boy too heads for the resort where the other of the factory have gone. There the boy and girl meet, and then had an affair. The girl along tries to stop it, but not only couldn't but was convinced to be an accessory (posting later with the postmark of the place, while the two went off to a costly resort). Unfortunately the friend is drowned, and when the protagonists is back, her lie is caught. And the available evidences point to the boy, without her assistance. The greedy mother, hen-pecked father accost the boy's parents, and the friendship and also honor dictate that the two should marry., and the mayor's daughter too, aware of the incidence breaks the engagement. But then the girl makes volte-face against the wish and the imagination of all, not only screen, but also off screen (audience) - telling it was an casual affair, which isn't for marriage but fun. If you as a man can have it, I too, as a woman is equally entitled to that.
This has been equated to the equality of sexes - the single standard way in some movies - especially due to the above dialogue (non-verbatim).
But it really doesn't go that way, it is much more serious and practical than that. It does amount to gender-equality, but not fully so, or may be even more than so.
While watching it, I recalled a later movie, a french masterpiece La Fille du Puisatier (1940) - the well digger's daughter - that too goes in the same way - the rich playboy seduces the poor girl, and in this, in addition, the girl is burdened with a baby of the seduction, while the boy goes off to war.
Here too, in the end boy, with his parents come to the girl, to ask for her hand in marriage. Only the end is different, there the girl accepts. But before the final yes, it goes exact parallel.
The question asked by the girl there, Fanny didn't ask, but probably it wasn't necessary here "Do you want to marry me because of love, or compulsion? If you want the baby, we can go and you will get it, for that you don't have to marry me"
If one closely observed those few seconds especially after she has refused telling "It was mutual fun" or a few moments before, she had practically asked the same question, or rather without asking she got the answer.
In both the cases, one can't claim that she followed the "Single Standard" - both the girls were in love, and allowed the so called indiscretion along with it, they were not the so called promiscuous/ play-girl as both cases the boys were. They went along, since it was with the object of their affection. The marriage was to be considered only if the affection was returned, not due to some duress put on the boy. In Puisatier it was, and once convinced, she agreed to marry. In HW, she knew it wasn't and she refused, even though she was still in love, but she didn't let that override the practicality of an unhappy shot-gun marriage.
Of course throwing the daughter, that too only child, off on roads, was a bit unthinkable, but may be at that time the social conditions were like that.
This movie in fact goes to show almost today's condition - at least from the girl's view point (The boy of course was a Worm). Living together, and then if one finds that the relationship isn't going to endure, break-off.
A Yank at Oxford (1938)
Good Foundation, bad construction
The basic premise of the movie was good. A Narcissist Ego in human form (thanks to his worshiping father) gets a scholarship to Oxford. There he has to learn that not only humans, even if they are exceptionally gifted, but in the end, it is the team and the team spirit which matter.
An excellent and laudable concept but how that change came into the ego-personified into human was poorly made.
Till he was ridiculed and punished by his fello students for his attitude was alright. But his conversion from public-enemy #1 to Public-Hero #1, and reversal of the erstewhile Public Hero, Beaumont is ridiculous.
For what? Lee had punched a guard during raid. Beaumont was declared the culprit. He said he didn't but didn't name who did, and even accepted punishment for assault and lie - which he could have escaped by speaking out the truth. But he didn't. The truth would have in fact certainly expelled Lee, then and there. Who was the hero of this episode ? Why ? Even when the students knew that Beaumont has accepted the punished, and not crawled (escaping rustication only because his records, academic as well as non-academic). Certainly not something for which you can be socially boycotted.
The liaison with Mrs Craddock, continuation of which in the Probation period would was a sure way to get rusticated, was continued for some time with impunity (they were in Boat together) ! He knew of it, having refusing to fight Lee, even when extremely provoked an taunted for refusal.
The visit of Elsa in boys hostel at night ? The grounds were not strong enough to justify, unless it was to clear the way further, for him getting expelled. And even funnier - with an known flirt and unfaithful wife, who even goes with boys on week-ends to do purchases, but doesn't - would the husband relocate the shop to neighborhood of an "Officer's Club" ? Who would buy books there ? An intelligent script would have been to say resort - where the book-curio shop could be there as well as Elsa's needs would be met.
It is ironic to think that what Taylor's character learnt in the movie, he didn't in the real life, being one of the major squealers, in McCarthy Circus.