Everything Wrong With "The Last Jedi" | PITCH MEETING

The Last Jedi (2017)

Plot: Rey develops her newly discovered abilities under the reluctant guidance of Luke Skywalker, Meanwhile, the Resistance prepares for battle with the First Order.
Stars:  Mark Hamill,  Daisy Ridley, Adam Driver

Best Quote: Luke Skywalker: Amazing. Every word of what you just said was wrong. The Rebellion is reborn today. The war is just beginning. And I will not be the last Jedi.

I'll have to admit the critics are mostly right. Overall, is TLJ a disappointment? Yes.  Does it needlessly break with Star Wars traditions? Yes.  Is it "Diverse" to the point of insanity? Yes.  Is "Rey" a MarySue, to end all MarySue's? Yes. Did "Jake Skywalker" show up instead of "Luke Skywalker?" Yes.

But is The Last Jedi a bad movie? No.  Its a good movie - just not a great one.

You still have the wonderful John Williams music, thrilling battles and explosions, imaginative (if highly commercial) alien animals,  and great special effects and set design. All the TFA actors, especially Adam Driver, are better this time (Did everyone take acting lessons?) And unlike others, I thought Luke's death was well done. Nor did the "Humor" bother me.

My only real criticism?  Its too damn long. Almost every scene, especially at the end is strung out about 5 minutes too much. Illustration?  The ending.  It should have ended on the M.Falcon when the camera pans and we see everyone is safe and ready to continue the fight. It should be cut/print/cue Star wars music. *Instead* we cut to a slave kid on the Casino planet, see him sweep up the "stables" and then look up to the Stars while the camera pans down to his "Resistance ring"  Completely unnecessary - but then Disney is probably selling kids "Resistance Rings" at $20 a pop.

Summary: If you're a die-hard Star Wars fan you're going to hate it. If you're expecting it to rival the original trilogy, you're going to be disappointed.  If you're just a casual fan, you'll be happy.

The Man Who Would be King (1975)

Stars: Christopher Plummer, Michael Caine, Sean Connery
Plot:  Based on the Kipling short story, two British India ex-soldiers set out to make themselves Kings of  "Kafiristan".

Kipling, Caine, Connery, and Epic Adventure, all in a critically acclaimed movie. This should have been Woo Hoo -Great movie! Instead, I felt sorta "meh" about everything except the last 30 minutes.  I'm not sure why.

Partly, its the slow start - it takes "Peachy" & "Danny" 20 minutes to start off for Kafiristan. Partly its the mediocre script. And  the dull action scenes.  All the battles consist of "our Lads" shooting down  clay-pigeon Natives. The Kafirs don't put up much of a fight. They mostly mill about in a big crowd and get shot down. Yawn. And  Kafiristan society isn't that interesting. The Kipling story is a "Tall Tale" and Kafiristan needed to be an Epic place,  full of magic and mystery.  Instead Huston shows them  -in semi-realistic fashion - as a bunch of poor, backward characters.  (Why they would have a room full of Gold is inexplicable). Where was David Lean when you needed him?

Finally there's the casting.  As an American, I had a hard time deciphering Caine's cockney accent and Connery isn't really a "lovable Rogue"

A Note on Casting
According to his Biography, Huston originally wanted Bogart/Gable as the leads, but both men died before he could start filming.  In the 60s,  Huston wished for Peter O'Toole and Richard Burton. In the 70s, he finally got the movie financed & approached Paul Newman and Redford.  Newman turned him down - and suggested Caine/Connery.  Thank goodness, since Newman/Redford would've been an absolute disaster.

Summary:  I'm definitively in the minority, but I couldn't warm up to this adventurous tale of British India.  I'd rather watch Gunga Din. Too bad.

Ray Bradbury on Godard

Jean-Luc Godard is such a bore.  Judas Priest, he puts me to sleep.  He is not creative. He doesn't know how to use the camera.  He's an amateur in the worst sense of the word.  A lovely amateur, I would maybe put up with, if he were in love with what he was doing.  But Godard is obviously bored with himself.  He has such second-rate, sophomoric, ideas.  Its like going to a boring Friends house.  You get a little lecture on Sartre and Camus, think "Oh, God give me a drink fast."

The way you judge a Godard film is how often you meet friends in the lobby during the film.  Well, he's an eight-candy bar man.  I go out in the Lobby eight times and I meet all my friends there buying popcorn. That's the giveaway...

Everyone goes because they're bullied into going. That's one hell of a way to go to films.  To hell with servicing directors. I don't want to go out of obligation to anyone.   I want to go because I want to have a good time.  That's the only reason to go to a film. I don't go for a social message.  I don't go to be made better.  To hell with that.

The Hill (1965)

Plot: In a North African military prison during World War II, five new prisoners struggle to survive in the face of brutal punishment and sadistic guards.
Co-stars: Sean Connery, Harry Andrews, Roy Kinnear, Michael Redgrave, Ozzie Davis, and Ian Bannen (Harris)

Well-acted movie that kept me interested from start to finish. Connery is good -as is Kinnear as the cowardly,selfish "Monty"-  but the real star is Harry Andrews as the Sargent Major. Well photographed and directed.  The best thing in the movie is the acting and the North Africa setting.

Despite winning critical acclaim and winning awards it was a box office bomb when released. Its an above-average movie and not a GREAT one, due to the flaws in the screenplay. Namely:

1) We can start with the Ozzie Davis character, one of the five prisoners we follow. He's a black West Indian - which is quite surprising given the British Army was 99.5% white in WW2. So why is he there?  For anti-racism propaganda of course. Its 1965, and Hollywood wanted to help the Civil Rights movement.

Its a noble motive, but hurts the movie since Davis is not a real-life person but a racial symbol. All the other characters (except Williams) are a mixture of good and bad, but Davis is just plain good - all the time. Even his crime, stealing 3 bottles of whiskey, is harmless. Later, when Connery needs help, the two cowardly white prisoners refuse but Davis steps up and bravely supports him. And in terms of physical/ mental strength Davis is the equal of Connery- but accepts a subordinate role.

And of course, being a racial symbol and not a realistic character - Davis declines to be segregated and then accepts all the racial abuse with humor (scornful and otherwise), dignified silence, or knowing sarcasm. At the end, when the abuse becomes unbearable, he doesn't lash out but knowingly "goes crazy" and "quits the army".

2) The movie starts out well, but about half-way through degenerates into a stereotypical "Sadistic Guards vs. Rebellious prisoners" trope. The guards - especially Williams and Andrews - are the baddies. Connery and Davis the good guys. And the ending is unnecessarily bleak and unrealistic. After taking Williams' abuse for the entire movie, and then hearing that Williams is going to be sent up for trial, McGrath and Davis - for no reason - attack Williams while Connery tells them to stop. THE END. Really?

3) Clocking in at two hours, we get too much repetitive "marching up the hill" and sadistic violence.

4) Seemly "realistic" - its really not.  Except for Williams every other non-prisoner from the Commandant on down is living a bleak unhappy existence.  Only two officers exist, the Commandant who spends all his time in a depressing Egyptian brothel sleeping with a fat prostitute, and the Medical Officer, who drinks and appears to be a closeted Gay.  Where are the 2nd second lieutenants?  Meanwhile, Andrews and Harris drink themselves into a stupor every night. I'm sure that being a Guard in an isolated military prison wasn't a walk in the park, but millions had even worse jobs in WW2.

5) According to movie, Andrews has "reformed hundreds" of prisoners and has been running the prison for the quite some time.  Yet when a "newbie" guard comes on board, Andrews gives him carte blanche and backs him over Harris who's been there forever, and is shocked when Williams screws up. And when a prisoner dies of sunstroke, Andrews acts like  he's never dealt with a sadistic guard or prisoner death before. Really?

6) Finally, the "big show down" between Connery and Andrews is absurd. In the middle of WW 2, Connery, a 20-year regular army soldier, talks about how he "only joined the army because he couldn't get a real job" and is tired of "being a puppet and following regulations" and "killing and dying when ordered". This is 1960s anti-military talk being put in the mouth of a WW 2 soldier.

Summary See it for the acting. Harry Andrews over-the-top performance is worth the price of admission. But with a better script it would've been a great movie. It coulda been a contender" - too bad.

Raintree County (1957) - Dymtryk.

Stars: Montgomery Clift, Lee Marvin, and Elizabeth Taylor
Plot:  Based on the best selling novel A graduating poet/teacher (Clift) falls in love with a Southern Belle (Taylor) and then her past and the Civil War create problems. 188 minutes
Pros: High production values, score, photography supporting cast, Elizabeth Taylor,
Cons: Monty Clift after his accident, too long, unfocused script.

Unfairly compared to GWTW, Raintree is a lush historical drama/romance with a few good Civil War scenes thrown in. While it held my interest, overall it was disappointing. Too many good-looking but slack scenes and not enough memorable ones. Given the talent involved the movie should have been much better. Rating ***

Face in the Crowd (1958) - Kazan

Plot:  A Southern drifter (Griffith) is discovered by Neal and becomes an overnight media sensation. As he rises to the top, he becomes drunk with fame and power.
Stars: Walter Matthau, Patricia Neal and Andy Griffith

An interesting but flawed movie. Griffith is supposed to be charming yet he's usually so obnoxious and over-the-top its puzzling why Neal is attracted to him. The movie would have been better if Griffith had showed more low-key charm, been more likable off-stage and shown his change to power-mad demagogue in a more realistic, gradual fashion.

As for the other actors. Neal is great and Lee Remick is incredibly hot in a small role. However, Walter Matthau is barely adequate as the bespectacled liberal conscience. Finally, the movie's message is too predictable and obvious. Even in 1958, Lonesome Rhodes' heavy-handed and obvious manipulation had been abandoned by politicians, in favor of humor, subtext, omission of certain viewpoints, and associating the correct political beliefs with "coolness". Rating **1/2

Up Periscope (1959)

Plot:  In early 1943, a Navy Lieutenant is sent by Sub to photograph secret Japanese radio codes.
Stars: Alan Hale Junior, James Garner, Edmond O'Brien.

A passable time waster, Up Periscope is notable for its high-powered cast and some excellent Submarine cinematography.  We get real submarines and destroyers (thanks US Pacific Fleet) filmed in beautiful technicolor.

Unfortunately, the plot is predictable and doesn't make much sense. How would the US Navy know where the Japanese kept their code books or whether they were left unattended and not locked up? Even more silly: the Sub commander (O'Brien) tells Garner his mission will save "thousands of lives", but then puts obstacles in Garner's way because "he's responsible for the sub".  So I guess those "thousands of men" weren't  THAT important!  Acting-wise its mostly a two man show, and both Garner and O'Brien (somewhat old and flabby for a Sub commander) do well.  Alan Hale is adequate comic relief.

The Cardinal (1963) Preminger

Tom Tryon stars as an Irish-American Priest who rises through the Catholic Church Hierarchy and tackles abortion, racism, & Nazism. Some critics thought the movie was too "respectful" towards the Church. I think the opposite -  it a vulgar, political movie, uninterested in Christianity.  All we get is Liberal talking points, with some sex on the side.  Preminger comes off as a German Stanley Kramer. Other flaws include a boring lead, few interesting or life- like characters, flat direction, a soap opera script, use of studio backlots, and a mind-numbing 175 minute run-time. On the plus side, Houston is excellent in a supporting role.

Summary: Simply awful. I'm not surprised this was a box office "disappointment" in 1963. Rating *

Beckett (1964)

Plot: Historical drama based on the conflict between Henry II (Peter O'Toole) and Thomas Becket (Richard Burton).

Pros: Beautifully photographed and full of kingly ostentation and pageantry. Both Burton and O'Toole were justly nominated for academy awards. The script is intelligent and full of witty lines.

Cons: The movie is almost 3 hours and bogs down a little in the 2nd hour. And I wish the film had been more focused on Beckett and less on Henry II. Further, the movie seemed historically inaccurate to me. I doubt English kings ran around raping peasant women or forcing Ladies-in-Waiting to sleep with them - there's never been a shortage of women willing to bed the King. And O'Toole is so sad, scared, and irrational and has such a "man-crush" on Beckett, you wonder how he ever ruled as King and whether he was "playing for the other team" Per the history books, Henry II was an intelligent, forceful monarch and a strong, handsome, athletic man. As for Burton, he has trouble playing his characters piety which comes off as cold rigidity. Rating ***

42nd Street and Gold-diggers of 1933

Gold Diggers of 1933  Millionaire songwriters Dick Powell rescues some unemployed chorus girls (Keeler and Blondell included) and helps put on a Broadway show. Uses the same WB sets and supporting characters in 42nd Street. But Gold diggers has more and better songs and the Berkeley choreography shines. Best Song? We're in the Money.  OTOH, the script isn't as good, and the slangy 30s New York Wisecracks got annoying. Ruby Keeler gets more screen time and amazes with her Clunky dancing and naive charm. Rating ***

42nd Street (1933). Risque -if cliche - comedy about putting on a Broadway show. A few good songs at the end. Ruby Keeler goes from chorus line to stardom, when Bebe Daniels breaks an ankle. Ginger Rogers is the comedy relief and Dick Powell has a minor role. The main attraction is a script that crackles with wit and one liners. Further, Keeler is adorable, and Baxter shines as the hard-charging producer. Its Pre-code - but I was still surprised at the explicit T&A shots and constant reminders that the Chorus Girls use sex for their advantage. Quite enjoyable Rating *** 1/2

Cradle will Rock (1997)

Stars: John Cusak as Rockefeller, Emily Watson as a starving actress, Bill Murray a right-wing ventriloquist, Saradon an Italian-Jewish art dealer, and Vanessa Redgrave and Phillip Baker Hall as rich swells.
Pros: Energetic direction, stylish sets, Good acting, Bill Murray subplot.
Cons: Disjointed, Portrayal of Welles and Houseman, uneven script, unrealistic story and characters, awful music by Marc Blitzstein.

Tim Robins wrote and directed this story about a New York City WPA theater group performing Rock The Cradle in 1937. I enjoyed half of “Cradle will rock” especially Bill Murray's performance. But the movie is blend of the good, the bad, and the ridiculous. The direction is excellent and the acting good, but the script and story are very uneven, and the actual “Cradle will rock” music is awful. The main flaw is the script. Too many banal lines, too many subplots, and too much left-wing propaganda. Of the 6 major subplots, only two or three are well done or interesting.

On the plus side, Bill Murray steals the movie as a bitter, anti-communist comedian and Cherry Jones is excellent as the head of the theater group. OTOH, Phillip Baker Hall and Redgrave are wasted as cartoonish “Rich Swells”, and the whole Diego Rivera-Rockefeller subplot was pointless. Finally, the movies view on 1930s NYC, communism, Orson Welles, and the WPA, theater group is one-sided and historically wrong. Robins actually shows the 1930s Stalinists as the “good guys”! An offensive and incredible viewpoint in 1999.

Summary - A historically inaccurate, Left-wing propaganda piece, made bearable by Bill Murray and some excellent performances. Rating **1/2

Northwest Passage (1940)

Spenser Tracy shines as Major Rogers head of the famous "Rodgers Rangers" in this stirring French and Indian war adventure story. The Rangers, including Robert Young and Walter Brennan, go on dangerous raid to attack St. Francis and wipe out the Abenaki Indians.

Filmed in 1940, Hollywood was helping to prepare America for WWII and "Northwest Passage" goes out of its way to show the English-Americans united against a common enemy. Beautifully filmed in technicolor in Idaho, the scenery is fantastic and action scenes well done. Highlights include, the Rangers forming a human chain to cross a fast moving river, the attack on the Abenaki Indian village, the march through the Swamp, and the ending - Redcoats to the rescue. Tracy proves he can play the macho leading man with the best of them. Young is surprisingly good, Brennan is excellent (as always).

Summary A very good war/adventure movie despite some historical inaccuracies. Rating ***

The Flim-Flam Man (1967)

Charming comedy about a rural con-man (George C. Scott) and his new protege (Michael Sarrazin). Beautifully photographed in Kentucky with an excellent score by Goldsmith. Notable for Scott's jubilant performance and the excellent supporting cast including: Slim Pickens, Harry Morgan, Strother Martin, Alice Ghostly and Albert Salmi. Flaws: The film drags at times - the Sarrazin-Sue Lyons romance is a low-point.

Summary - A slight, easy-going comedy made enjoyable by Scott and the other actors. Written by William Rose, who scripted "Genevieve (1953)". Rating ***

The Shootist (1977)

Stars: John Wayne, James Stewart Lauren Bacall and Ron Howard.
Plot: In 1901,  an aged gunslinger (Wayne) learns he has terminal cancer and when word gets out, some old enemies want to settle some old scores.

Pros: This is John Wayne's movie from start to finish and he does a wonderful job (helped by some very good lines). Wayne, of course battled cancer in real life, and brings real pathos to the role. Also, good are the old pros who show up in bit parts, Richard Boone, John Caradine, Hugh O'Brien, Moses Brown, and James Stewart. Boone as usual steals every scene. Its unfortunate his role wasn't expanded. Ron Howard is well cast as the teen-age son.

Cons: On the downside, Bacall and comic relief Harry Morgan are barely adequate. In Morgan's defense he's given some bad lines, but his scenes with Wayne show why he ended his career supporting TV stars like Jack Webb and Alan Alda. As for Bacall, her acting talents were always very limited and the film shows them up. The part calls for personality & warmth and Bacall simply can't deliver. She's too bland, stone faced, and remote. Its sad Geraldine Page or some better actress couldn't have played the part. As with many 70s movies, the movie seems over-lit. 

Casting:  Per Don Siegel's autobiography, he didn't want John Wayne for the lead role because he disliked Wayne's politics (sounds like a blacklist, no?) but after George C. Scott (his first choice) and several other big names turned him down, he finally went with the Duke. The two got along well, although Siegel had to put his foot down, since Wayne wanted to direct his own scenes.

Summary:  The script is quite good but Siegel's direction is competent, nothing more. See it for the Duke's excellent last performance. ***

West Side Story (1961)

Plot:  A variation on Romeo and Juliet. Two NYC gangs fight over turf, while two youngsters (one White, one Puerto Rican) fall in love.
Stars:  Natalie Wood, Richard Beymer,  Rita Moreno,  George Chakiris

A box office smash in 1961, West Side Story was considered new and exciting.  Critics were bowled over by the location  shots, singing/dancing Gang members, and  its serious treatment of race and juvenile delinquency.  The only thing "old hat" was the standard musical love story between Beymer and Wood. And that's the major problem.

When the movie stays with the Gangs, its fairly interesting.  But when it switches to the "love story" its deadly boring. Neither lover, (Beymer or Wood) has much star presence, both are dubbed, they don't dance much, and they don't fit their roles. Russian-Jewish Wood, despite the pancake makeup, isn't a credible Puerto Rican, and Beymer is too soft to be a Gang leader. The fiery Rita Moreno - a Puerto Rican - would have been a better lead.

The Songs -  Considered one of the greatest musical scores ever,  I found the songs a mixed lot.  The two "gang numbers"  Cool and The Jet Song were great. OTOH,  America and Gee Officer Krupke set my teeth on edge with their phony, unrealistic lyrics.  Bernstein didn't seem to understand that Puerto Ricans are Americans - not "immigrants".  And Krupke has to be the most annoying "'Teenage snark" song ever recorded.

The Romantic songs  Maria, Tonight, I Feel Pretty, are OK, but derivative.  Did Bernstein sneak into Rogers & Hammerstein houses and steal some sheet music?  Kael puts it this way: "When I left the theater, someone remarked "I could listen to that music forever", to which I replied "We have been listening to it forever".  Having Marnie Nixon dub the songs didn't help.

The Dancing -  This is the highlight of the movie, assuming you can accept Singing/Dancing Gang members and ballet-like  knife fights.  Deservedly, Robbins received a special Oscar for the choreography.

The Direction - One of the best directed film musicals, ever. Things move at a quick pace. And Wise does a tremendous job in transforming a play into a movie, its definitely not a "filmed play." Occasionally, you notice the phony sets, but for the most part it looks very realistic.

The Script - Based on Romeo and Juilet, the story has more plot holes then a New York City street. The dialog is pedestrian. Not one witty or memorable line. And the liberal moralizing! Samples: "When will you kids stop? You make the world lousy" and "You all killed him, not with your guns or knives, but with your hate. Well, now I can kill too. Because now I have hate"  ( I love the "have" in there).

Casting - The leads have been discussed. The supporting players are much better. Moreno and Chakiris are standouts. You can quibble about the gang members.  The Jets, should be Italian/Irish but look like they came out of an Iowa cornfield.  Meanwhile, the Sharks, instead of being Puerto Rican, are Anglo/Italian/Greeks with pancake makeup.

Summary:  Not really my kind of musical.  I prefer musicals with a witty script and some amazing Gene Kelly/Fred Astaire dancing. I don't mind a serious musical if it has an excellent book and characters I care about - but West Side Story had neither.  But that's  a minority view.

The Naked and the Dead (1958)

Literally one of the worst war movies I’ve ever seen. It’s full of flat, uninteresting, and unlikable characters, a meaningless plot, and mediocre direction. The producers throw in some “That wasn’t in the book” good looking strippers, but it still drags on for an interminable 131 minutes. Clift Robertson and Aldo Ray aren’t bad but they can’t breathe life into their superficial characters. Based on the uneven, overrated and overheated Norman Mailer novel, it keeps most of the novel’s weaknesses and none of its strengths. Boring, boring, and boring! Zero Stars

The Crowd (1928)

Considered one of the finest American silent films, The Crowd follows a young man from arrival in NYC, his marriage, and the subsequent ups and downs. Well acted and with some fantastic shots of "old NYC", it has none of the "Hammy" overacting that mars other Silent films. Some of the shots have been become classics and were ripped off by other film-makers (the row of work desks was used by Wilder in The Apartment). I agree its a great film, but its a little too bleak for my tastes. The American public seems to have agreed, since it was a critical success but did only middling box office. ****

Day of the Outlaw (1959)

Plot:   In the dead of Winter, a small Western Town is taken over by an Outlaw Gang.
Stars:  Robert Ryan, Burl Ives (as the Outlaw leader),  Tina Louise

Well done, if low-budget and derivative Western. The first act gives us rancher (Ryan) vs. small town farmers ala Shane. Ryan even makes a "Ryker" like speech about the "men who got here first and ran the risks"  getting pushed out.  In the 2nd Act, Ives' gang shows up & holds the town hostage, like a Western version of Desperate Hours/The Wild One.  The last act gives us a Key Largo ending with Ryan leading the gang out-of-town on a supposedly "safe" trail over the mountains.

Living aside the derivative nature of the script, its well directed and the final 20 minutes shot on location (in snow and freezing temperatures) is beautiful & compelling. The acting?  Well, Burl Ives is Burl Ives. As for Ryan, he lacked the necessary charm/likability to be a leading man - but here, he's a good fit since there's no romance and he's mostly cantankerous. The various supporting players (including "Ginger" from Gilligan's Island) are more than adequate.

Summary:  Historically, its all balls. No real western town would've put up with Ives' Gang for a second, and no Western Gang ever acted like the "Burl Ives Gang".  But its a well done film,  with a great last 20 minutes. An unjustly forgotten 'small picture' Western.

Nothing Sacred (1937)

Plot:  A Newspaper reporter brings a woman dying of radium poisoning to New York City for a Grand Farewell - only to find she's perfectly healthy.
Stars:  Carole Lombard, Frederick March

Probably Carole Lombard's funniest role,  Nothing Sacred breezes along and is only 77 minutes. I'm not really a big Lombard fan but she's great in this one. Written by Ben Hecht, its a somewhat cynical, somewhat affectionate, satire of newsmen out for a story at any cost, small towns, and the sentimental American public.  The Fred March character is a much nicer, more gullible, version of the reporters in Front Page or Ace in the Hole.

In addition to Lombard, we get some good supporting characters including Frank Fay, Margaret Hamilton, Sig Ruman, and Walter Connolly.  Troy Brown is hilarious in his few scenes, including a bit as a phony "Sultan" outed by wife Hattie McDaniel. There's not much to criticize, although a more extroverted/energetic leading man (say Gable or Powell) should have been cast.  March is a little too intellectual and passive - but does well enough.

Summary: Notable for being the first technicolor comedy, I'd highly recommend it - but its a definite cut below the Awful Truth or Bringing up Baby.

Some Came Running (1958)

Plot  Based on the James Jones Best Seller. Dave Hirsh (Sinatra) a writer and WW II vet comes back to his Indiana hometown in 1946 and becomes involved with a "Ginny" a sad-sack tootsie (Shirley MacLaine) and a gambler (Dean Martin).

Better than I expected - yes, its kinda of a Soap Opera/Melodrama but the cast - and the 50s Indiana location make it interesting. Just misses being a classic due to (i) being too long (137 minutes), and (2) miscast actors in the lead roles.

Sinatra does a good job at portraying Hirsh as a tough, hard-drinking combat vet, with a talent for writing, but he's incapable of displaying any real in-depth emotion or conflict. He's supposed to be deeply in love with an unattainable school-teacher and be crushed when she spurns him - but "old blue-eyes" just can't convincing act that. He always seems on the verge of saying "dames are a dime a dozen" and leaving for the nearest bar. The part really called for Brando, Dean ( had he lived) or Clift (before his accident).

The same is true of "Ginny" -  MacLaine  is good at portraying her as a goodhearted girl - but she's incapable of expressing the vulnerability and sweetness needed. And like most Hollywood movies they mistakenly equate ignorance or lack of education with intelligence. MacLaine over-emphasizes the characters stupidity. You wonder what Geraldine Page  - or a truly great actress - would have done with the role.

Summary:  Despite its flaws, a strangely compelling movie.   Rating **1/2

Bye, Bye Birdie (1963)

Plot: Based on the Broadway play,  "Birdie" (an Elvis-like Rock & Roller) is about to be drafted into the Army - to the dismay of Ann Margret.
Pros: Ann Margret (who definitely has "it"), some good songs, Paul Lynde, Dick Van Dyke**.
Cons: Overlong and mediocre script, sluggish, unimaginative direction, Various subplots that belonged in a sitcom.  Uneven score with too many mediocre songs.
Best Songs: Bye Bye Birdie, Kids, Put on a Happy Face

 An almost plot-less movie or rather a movie with so many subplots the main theme, satirizing Elvis and the Rock and Roll "fad" -gets lost. Most of this movie was dull, unfocused, and difficult to watch.  The story is simply awful.  And why Janet Leigh wears a black wig, and Dick Van Dyke's Mom is Jewish (without being Jewish) is anyone's guess. Too bad, because the cast is excellent.

Summary:  Except for a few songs and Ann Margret - completely forgettable.

** = Amazingly, Dick Van Dyke was going to be fired from Bye, Bye Birdie (the Play) during the out-of-town tuneup .  However, Gower Champion demanded he be kept, and the rest, they say, is history.

Singin in the Rain vs. West Side Story - Kael vs. Kauffman

An extract from New Republic Film Critic Stanley Kauffman's review of West Side Story. He wrote it in response to Pauline Kael's attack on the film (she's the unnamed "Popular Cultist"):

No one is more jealous of the purity of the popular than the intellectual.  These commentators prefer musicals in which credibility of plot and the quality of the acting are irrelevant (which they are not for West Side Story) and beyond criticism, which exist for their music and dance. But it is in those very terms that these pictures seem to me inferior to the  Robbins-Bernstein-Sondheim work. 

A favorite of the popular cultists is Singin in the Rain (1952);  it contains several bright numbers but apart from the fact that, compared with Robbins' dancers, Gene Kelly is only a hoofer, there are dance routines in Singin in the Rain,  which are indistinguishable from  some of the film's parodies of the early 1930s  dance routines.  On their own terms then, these films of the popular cultists are inferior to films like West Side Story.

Kauffman had christened West Side Story "the best film musical ever made".  Meanwhile, Kael had called it "Frenzied hokum" and stated:

West Side Story begins with a blast of stereophonic music that had me clutching my head.  Is the audience so impressed by science and technique, and by the highly advertised new developments that they accept this jolting series of distorted sounds gratefully—on the assumption, perhaps, that because it’s so unlike ordinary sound, it must be better? Everything about West Side Story is supposed to stun you with its newness, its size, the wonders of its photography, editing, choreography, music.  It’s nothing so simple as a musical, it’s a piece of cinematic technology.

The irony of this hyped-up, slam-bang production is that those involved apparently don't really believe that beauty and romance can be expressed in modern rhythms, because whenever their Romeo and Juliet enter the scene, the dialogue becomes painfully old-fashioned and mawkish, the dancing turns to simpering, sickly romantic ballet, and sugary old stars hover in the sky...

Christmas Holiday (1944)

Plot: Film Noir about a young woman who marries a charming wastrel and gets more than she bargained for
Stars: Gene Kelly, Deanna Durbin

It'd been interesting to know why Durbin and Kelly were cast in a movie called "Christmas Holiday" - because its no "Christmas Movie" and while Durbin sings - its always unhappily and Kelly doesn't sing or dance at all.

So, how did come about?  Well, Durbin was tired of playing sunny girl singer roles, and requested a change - so Universal gave her this bleak film-noir role as a girl who marries a charming wastrel (Gene Kelly) with  an overbearing mother (incest, hint, hint). After six months Kelly kills a bookie and is sent up the river.  Durbin feels responsible so she "punishes" herself by getting a job as singer/hostess in a low rent bar (Prostitute, hint, hint).  She tells her story after a Christmas Mass to  a TDY Air Force officer.  Kelly shows up, after an escape from prison, and per the Production Code meets a sad end.

Its a well done, if twisted, and convoluted Film Noir.  Durbin does quite well in a serious part, and probably could have done more serious roles, if she'd been interested. OTOH, Kelly is fine as the "weak wastrel" but incapable of being menacing or psychotic. He's not bad, just adequate in the role. Its the kind of role that say, Richard Widmark, would've gone to town on.

But make no mistake, Durbin is the star, Kelly only shows up at the 25 minute mark & has to share time with his "Overbearing mother"  (Gale Sondergaard).

Summary:  Above average  Film Noir with some off-beat casting (Deanna Durbin and Gene Kelly) and good direction.  However, it suffers from some structural plot problems.  90 minutes long, it doesn't start to tell Durbin's story until 25 minutes in (that's a hell of a prologue) and comes to an abrupt halt.

It's Always Fair Weather (1955)

Stars: Gene Kelly, Cyd Charisse, Dan Daily and Deloras Gray. 101 minutes.
Plot: After WW II GI’s who vow to reunite 10 years later - when they do, they find their friendship has faded until a TV hostess brings them together.

Comden and Green wrote the script/lyrics - Previn the music. Positives include a few good song & dance numbers: Kelly dancing on roller skates, Charisse in "Baby you knock me out" and Gray in "Thanks but no Thanks". But the remaining songs are forgettable and the script/story lacks sparkle and humor. Further problems include a boring brawl at the end, and a lack of star power and chemistry between the 3 GI’s, (Kelly, Daily, and Kidd). The professions of friendship at the start seem unconvincing while their dislike of each other at the reunion seems far too real. Rating **1/2

The Good Shepard (2006)

Plot:  A Yalie CIA agent played by Matt Damion recruited by the OSS, during World War II. We follow his family life and career at the CIA during the 40s and 50s.

Pros: Good history lesson, supporting actors, good set design, costumes,, camera work,, intelligent story 

Cons: Matt Damion, lack of intrigue and suspense, too long, too slow, boring lead character.

I really wanted to like this movie but its inert and dull. The long 160 minutes was made even longer by the slow, deliberate pacing and lack of intrigue.. Its probably the dullest spy story ever. An amazing amount of padding, with endless shots of people walking, staring out into space, or making small talk. Most conversations are deliberate, somber and, full of pauses. There are a few excellent scenes but they get lost in the ponderous, mediocre sludge. As for the acting, Damion dominates the movie but was emotionless and disinterested – just like me. To be fair, the script gives him little to work with. Note to Hollywood – WASP does not equal boring. However, many of supporting cast are excellent, especially Pesci, Baldwin, Gambon, John Turturro. Jolie is wasted in a standard neglected wife role.

Summary: A missed opportunity – given the story and talent it should have been much better.. Rating **

Left Handed Gun (1957) Harper (1965) & Murder My Sweet (1944)

Left Handed Gun Penn (1958)

Stars: Paul Newman and Lita Milan. B&W 102 minutes.

Plot: In 1880s New Mexico, Billy the Kid vows revenge on the 4 men who killed his boss. 

Should be renamed "Billy the Kid - misunderstood Juvenile Delinquent." The story is melodramatic and historically inaccurate. People ride horses and fire six-shooters but the dialogue and characters are straight out of 50s Hollywood. Newman is in full "method acting" mode complete with pauses, grimaces, and smirks. He works way too hard in the role. The supporting cast is forgettable except for Denhner and Milan. For Newman Fans only Rating *

Harper (1965) - Paul Newman. Newman is "Harper" a Ross MacDonald type LA detective investigating Bacall's missing husband. We couldn't finish this, the movie seemed plotless and just a series of scenes strung together. Lots wisecracks that were less than wise. I remember episodes of Cannon and Rockford Files that were better. Newman's constant gum chewing didn't help.Rating **

Murder, My Sweet (1944) 

Stars Dick Powell and Claire Trevor - B&W 95 minutes.

Plot: Adoption of Chandler's "Farewell my Lovely. Private eye Philip Marlowe is hired to look for 'Velma' a client's former girlfriend. 

While Bogart is the premiere Marlowe, and Mitchum was tougher, Powell runs a close third. Powell utters the wisecracks with excellent timing. The supporting cast is above average. The movie stays true to the novel and uses a lot of Chandler's dialogue and characters. Enjoyable Rating ***

Inglourious Basterds (2009)

Stars Brad Pitt, Mélanie Laurent and Christopher Waltz 152 minutes.
Plot; In Nazi-occupied France, a group of Jewish-American soldiers known as "The Basterds" join with forces with British commandos to kill the Nazi High command at a Paris Movie theater.
Pros: Acting - especially by Watlz and Laurent, final hour, black humor, Fake Nazi movie "Nation's Pride", basement scene, well drawn characters, movie references
Cons: Brad Pitt, unnecessary gore and brutality, slack pace, too much dialogue.

One the most uneven movies I've ever seen. Brilliant scenes alternate with static/boring ones. One minute Walz is having a tension filled interrogation, the next, Brad Pitt's basterds are stupidly scalping someone. As stated by "Hancock the Superb" over the years QT has grown as a director and regressed as a writer. "IB" really needed a rewrite to pick up the pace and shorten and sharpen the dialogue. But QT is now too big to be edited. And on re-watch the black comic nature of the movie came to the fore. In almost every scene Tarinto drops large boulder-sized hints stating"Don't take this seriously, its a comic book fantasy".

Summary: An uneven effort with some parts that I never will watch again and others I want to see over and over. Recommended only for QT fans, those with a strong stomach, and those with a strong liking for fantasy and/or movies about movies. Rating ***

Cabaret (1972) - Fosse

Plot:  In Wiemar Berlin,  a free-spirited cabaret singer romances two men while the Nazi Party rises to power.
Stars:  Liza Minnelli,  Michael York,  Joel Grey
Best Songs:  Heirat, Cabaret,  Money, Tomorrow Belongs to Me 

Cabaret is one of those disappointing musicals that has a passel of great songs, a great singer, and an utterly boring book.  When the movie is in the Kit Kat Klub with Joel Grey as MC, and Liza on stage, its magical.  When it goes outside the club, and concentrates on the un-compelling love triangle and York's antics, its meanders and  loses its way.

The Script tries to jazz the story up by throwing decadence, Nazis and Bi-sexuality at us, but to no avail.  Part of the problem is Liza.  A great singer (side note: how often does a great singer have a great singer as a parent?), she's not much of an actress, or a great beauty.  Her character "Sally Bowles" is supposed to be a charismatic "Wild and Crazy Girl" who knocks the socks off the staid  York character. But Liza can't really play that.  Meanwhile, York is passive/dull in a passive/dull part. And none of the other actors make an impression.

But there are some great songs. The best isn't by Liza, but Heirat, sung by Greta Keller in the background.  Amusingly, the two Jewish composers were criticized for writing a "Nazi Anthem" (Tomorrow Belongs to Me) !

Summary: I found Isherwood's Berlin Stories a bore, and same goes for Cabaret's book. My recommendation - watch it for the production numbers or skip the  movie and buy the soundtrack.

The Happy Road (1957) - Kelly

Plot: 2 kids, (one American, one French), escape from their Swiss school and head to Paris, with their two very different single parents (one American, one French) in pursuit.
Stars:  Gene Kelly, Barbara Laage,  Michael Redgrave.

Produced and Directed by Gene Kelly, as part of his 2-picture deal to end his MGM contract,  The Happy Road is a low-budget, whimsical, Family picture. The two child actors are cute and well directed.  The various shots of the 50s French Countryside are enjoyable.  Most of the humor comes from the silly French Automobiles, the eccentrics met along the way, and the children outwitting the police.  Redgrave shows up as a farcical Monty-Python type General.

On the Downside
Laage (a popular French Actress) and Kelly work well together but Gene Kelly is miscast.  Playing an "Ugly American" Businessman constantly complaining about "French Inefficiency", the character's exasperation needs to be expressed in a charming/comical manner - which Kelly doesn't do.  He's far too serious and strained in the role. Gene Kelly was a handsome guy with a winning smile  but he always had an "edge" to him.  Too often he came off as smug, arrogant, or insincere.  Kelly knew this, and both he and MGM usually tailored his roles to soften his personality.

Other faults?  The movie should be 10 minutes shorter and needs subtitles.  Naturally, we get a lot of dialogue in French but without subtitles either a character has to translate or we have to guess. Its awkward, either way.

Reception
According to Kelly's biography, critics were positive but The Happy Road died at the Box Office, earning less than a $1 Million.  Later, Gene Kelly said "We made a sweet family picture, that won all kinds of awards, but no one saw it".   America just wasn't interested in rural France and the large hunks of French dialog probably didn't help.

Summary:  The IMDB rating of 5.9 is way too low.  This is a sweet, often charming, view of 1950s rural France with a couple good kid actors.  Its forgettable - but enjoyable. I'd give it ** 1/2 

Easy Living (1937)

Plot:  An average Girl becomes involved with a Rich Banker when his Wife's expensive Sable Coat lands on her.
Stars:  Jean Arthur,  Edward Arnold, Ray Milland

Hat-Tip to the great website,  Caftan Woman, for bringing this film to my attention..

Written by Preston Sturges, this is a delightful, 88 minute screwball comedy that never lets up for a moment. The cast is pitch perfect. Arnold shines as the blustery "Bull of Broadstreet", the "3rd Richest Banker in the World" who thinks he controls everything - but controls nothing.  Jean Arthur is outstanding as the bewildered young woman who has her life turned upside down. An impossibly young Ray Milland and some great character actors lend fine support. Highlights include: An Automat Free for All, Arnold's frustrated attempts to explain compound interest, and  a hilarious ending that ties up all the loose ends.

From a 2017 perspective, the prices in the movie are amazing.  Arthur pays $30/month rent, a cup of coffee is 5 cents and a "Beef Pie" 30 cents.  Meanwhile, Milland's second-hand foreign car is $11,000 and the sable coat is $58,000!

Summary: Highly recommended, Jean Arthur with her wonderful voice is a delight. My only criticism: too many pratfalls for my taste.

All that Jazz (1979)

Director: Bob Fosse
Stars:  Roy Scheider,  Jessica Lange
Plot: Based on Bob Fosse's own life, a Broadway Choreographer (Joe Gideon)  has a heart attack, while juggling a film, a musical, an ex-wife, daughter, and numerous mistresses.

I originally saw All that Jazz in the early 1980s and hated it. As a young man,  I had zero interest -or liking - for the "pervy",  middle-aged, Broadway Dance King and his heart trouble, obsession with death,  and women problems.

Re-watching it,  35 years later, I'm more sympathetic with Joe Gideon's heart problems and interest in death. And in the age of legalized MJ, Harvey Weinstein and Clinton-Lewinsky, caring about Joe Gideon's adultery, and prescription drug abuse seems absolutely quaint.

The first half is pretty good.  We get some nice production numbers, and excellent scenes between Scheider and his love interests.  But after the heart attack, the movie turns pretentious and repetitive -making the same points over and over.  And Damn, the 70s were REALLY the age of ugly.

A perfect encapsulation of the problem, is a  "Comedy Clip" about death that Fosse keeps playing over and over in the movie.  Modeled on a remark by Lenny Bruce, Fosse seems to think its funny or "deep" - which to someone born in 1927 and  raised on Bob Hope and Jack Benny it probably was. But to someone like me, its just dull & obvious.

Summary:
Despite some touching honesty, occasional inventiveness and good acting/singing, the movie is very uneven and too often repetitive, shallow, and dumb.  Designed to "shock the bourgeois" in 1979, its now just another failed, Fellini-light, 1970s movie.

Its amazing what time accomplishes.  There's no Business like Show Business (1954) was released 25 years after Broadway Melody (1929).  Technically Show Business is light years ahead of  Broadway Melody - but morally and artistically they aren't much different.  All that Jazz was made 25 years after Show Business - but might as well come from a  different planet.  Did we evolve or devolve? You make the call.

There's no Business Like Show Business (1954)

Plot:  We follow a Show-biz Family “The Five Donahue’s:” from 1919 to 1941.
Stars: Ethel Merman, Dan Dailey, Donald O’Connor, Mitzi Gaynor, Marilyn Monroe, Johnnie Ray
Best Songs:  “There’s no Business like Show Business.”, “Heat Wave”,  A Man Chases a Girl

Do you like Ethel Merman, Dan Dailey, and upbeat Irving Berlin songs like Alexander’s Ragtime Band ?  If so, this is your kind of musical - because despite what your lying DVD Cover may say - this is NOT a Marilyn Monroe movie. She plays a supporting role and doesn’t appear till the 30 minute mark and is AWOL the last 30 minutes.   Meanwhile, Dailey and Merman (seemingly joined at the hip) appear in one half the production numbers and two-thirds (at least) of the “straight” scenes.  The first 17 minutes consist solely of Merman and Dailey singing, dancing, and engaging in some mild comedy.

The Book
There’s not much to it - Show Business is a 2 hour “family picture” with 55 minutes of musical numbers. However, the dialogue is sometimes witty, and it turns surprisingly serious in the last 30 minutes. Ray becomes a Priest, “boozer Son” O’Connor runs off, and Merman frets over everything.  But, the O’Connor and Monroe romance is a bust.  The same age in real life, Monroe complained that Donald made her “look like a Teacher dating her pupil.” An exaggeration - but not by much.  The two just don’t belong together.

The Songs
Mostly old Irving Berlin songs, out of 14 songs, we get two new, forgettable, ones.  Alexander’s Rag time Band is played six times (ten minutes total), twice with the entire cast, and four times with Scottish, German, French, Concerto variations.  Even worse, When the midnight choo-choo is played twice (oy vey). On the upside,  O’Connor has a nice 6 minute dance solo, Monroe sings Heat Wave,  and Merman belts out No Business like Show Business.  Gaynor and Ray get the short end of the stick.  Ray caterwauls “We believe” and then heads off to be a priest.  Mitzi is very good, but has to share the spotlight with Merman, O’Connor, and Monroe.

Direction
Considered an “Old fashioned” Musical even in 1955, Director Walter Lang exhibits little inventiveness or originality.  Almost every production number is set on a vaudeville stage or nightclub.  The Camera never moves, it just points  to the stage, and the actors perform. The songs are rarely integrated with the plot or exhibit a character’s thoughts or attitudes.  The only exception?  O’Connor’s dance number where the statues come alive and Donald dances in the hotel’s fountains.   Seeing this movie, made me appreciate the MGM Freed unit.

Reception and Back Story
Produced by 20th Century Fox, Show Business was the 2nd of what was to be three Merman-Berlin Films  (the 1st was Call me Madam).  Despite sneers from sophisticates, it did good business,  earning $5 million (almost twice that of Brigadoon).  But its production costs were also high and it was considered a “Box office disappointment”.  Accordingly, the 3rd Merman-Berlin movie was cancelled.

There were tensions on the set.  The screen-writers were pressured  into doing the film (Phoebe Ephron stated “I don’t want to write a script, for a film I don’t want to see”) while Monroe thought the movie was “boring” and her part “just another dumb blond”.  She only did it when promised the lead in The Seven Year Itch.

Adding to the backstage drama, Director Lang didn’t want Johnny Ray, and uber-professional Merman was livid over Monroe’s lateness and aloof attitude.  On the plus side,  Donald O’Connor considers this his favorite performance and he, Gaynor, and Merman became fast friends.

My Thoughts 
Kael called it “Garish and Square” and that’s about right.  Its amazing I’ve written so much about a movie I really didn’t like that much.  Yes, Berlin was an amazing songwriter, but I don’t need 10 minutes of Alexander’s Rag time Band!  And while no can belt out a song better than Merman, a little of her goes a long ways – and you can say the same of Dan Daily and Johnnie Ray.  But Gaynor, Monroe, and O’Connor are pretty good, and “Heat Wave” and O’Connor’s fountain dance aren’t to be missed.

Fit As A Fiddle: Steve Martin

Paint Your Wagon (1969) Logan

Plot:  Based on the 1951 Broadway Musical, two prospectors share a wife during the 1849 California Gold Rush.
Stars:  Lee Marvin, Clint Eastwood,  Jean Seberg

Satirized by the Simpsons, Paint Your Wagon has gone down as one of the biggest turkey's of the 1960s. With 3 stars who couldn't sing or dance, a weak story, and score that only has two good songs, its  been the butt of jokes for almost 50 years.

Sadly, I can't offer a revisionist opinion.  It's as bad as most reviews say.  And you can't blame the casting.  Marvin, by a maniacal comedic effort, almost makes it worth watching. And Eastwood is Eastwood. Even their singing isn't that bad.  Clint has a light, pleasant voice, and Lee Marvin's croaking is charming when you get used to it.  Nope, the problem lies *behind* the camera.  The script is awful, the score is mediocre, and the direction is slack and dull. Lets take them one at a time.

Story: The book for the Broadway Play was a mess.  Accordingly, Paddy Chayefsky (Marty) who knew nothing of comedy, musicals or westerns, was brought in for a re-write.  Why? I don't know.  Lerner then, supposedly, re-wrote most of Chayefsky's re-write.

Anyway, the whole "book" is a piece of crap.  Its so diffuse and meandering its difficult to summarize, but I'll try.  Eastwood and Marvin meet, become partners and help find a Gold Rush Mining town. Marvin buys Seberg at an auction, but ends up sharing her with Eastwood.  And that's gets us through only 1/2 the move!  After that, various unimportant things  happen until tunnels beneath the mining town cause it collapse.  Marvin moves on, Eastwood and Seberg stay to farm.

And there's zero character development. There are no funny lines. And no one has a significant part except the "Big Three".  It sorta dumb and sometimes sleazy without being bawdy or fun.

Score:  Well,  you got They call the wind Maria  and  Wandering Star, otherwise its just a bunch of mediocre, forgettable songs like Hand Me Down That Can Of Beans (really, that's the title).  What's odd is they could've replaced every song except the first two mentioned, with old out-of-copyright songs like Home on the Range or My Darling Clementine and they would've had better music.

Direction:  We're talking Josh Logan. Which means it *looks* great, but lumbers along at a snails pace for 158 minutes. Every crowd scene has 100 extras milling around,  every comedy scene is milked for all its worth, every action scene is made into a cartoon.  Never does Logan ever show any cleverness or improve the material. And for some reason, instead of hiring good comic western actors like Edgar Buchanan or Slim Pickens, we get odd, old, Ray Walston and a bunch on nondescript nobodies. Finally, Logan lets Lee Marvin go over-the-top, but given that's Marvin's the only thing giving life to the movie, I forgive him.

Summary:  You can turn off Paint Your Wagon at Intermission.  Except for Marvin croaking out "Wandering Star"  you're not missing anything.  Another puzzling 1960s musical failure.  Was everyone out for a paycheck or was there something in the water back then?

Les Girls (1957) - Cukor

Plot: The four members of the Musical Group "Les Girls" all tell different versions of their last night together.
Stars: Gene Kelly, Kay Kendall, Mitzi Gaynor, Taina Elg

This was Gene Kelly's last MGM musical and while enjoyable its quite different than his previous MGM films (Singin' in the Rain, American in Paris, etc.).  First, the three "Girls" are the real stars, Kelly plays a supporting role. Second, Les Girls has a score by Cole Porter. Third, its not really a "Musical Comedy" but a Comedy with some musical numbers. Les Girls has only five songs, and six production numbers (four with Kelly, two without) - compared to the 10 or so of Singin' in the Rain. There are no long ballets - the longest production number is 6 minutes. 

However, the music we get is quality stuff. The best two songs are Les Girls with Gene and the 3 Girls, and Why Am I So Gone an amusing Wild One satire with Gaynor and Kelly.  We also get the witty, off-color, Ladies in Waiting. As for the comedy, its low-key and humorous, but perks up when Kay Kendall is on-screen.  Kelly has a tailor made role: his character is demanding, arrogant, ambitious, and comically insincere. On the outs with MGM, he was unenthusiastic about the movie, but it doesn't show on-screen.

Finally, some prominent Internet critics have attributed a "darkness" and seriousness to Les Girls that isn't really there.  While the film deals with "What is truth?" and includes talk of attempted suicide, its all done in a light and comedic manner.

Summary:  Les Girls looks marvelous and has a great story line (stolen from Rashomon) but despite all the great talent involved its no more than a pleasant comedy with some good Cole Porter Songs. Everyone did better work elsewhere.  But so what? Its still a good movie.

The Window (1949)

In a variation on "The Boy who cried Wolf",  this is a well-made, 73 minute, thriller about a boy witnessing a murder while sleeping on the fire escape.  Bobby Driscoll is wonderful as the little boy,while Arthur Kennedy and Barbara Hale (looking very different from Della Street) shine as the tough - but loving - working class parents. The last twenty minutes are especially good,  with the killer chasing Driscoll through a condemned NYC tenement building. Nominated for a 1950 BAFTA "Best film" award, its a forgotten gem.  The only criticism? The middle part drags a little.  Sadly, Driscoll's adult life was troubled and he was found dead in an abandoned NYC tenement building -age 31.

I Love To Go Swimmin' with Women

Final Comments on Judy Holliday

Judy Holliday is one of those actors beloved by critics and a small portion of the Movie audience - and no one else. IMDB is full of hysterical praise for "Judy" - and the prominent Critics aren't much better. Adjectives like "Genius" "Hilarious" "Brilliant"  and my favorite:  "the greatest comic actress of all time" are tossed around.

Fortunately for Holliday,  she had powerful friends who agreed.  Writer Garson Kanin gave her the Broadway role in Born Yesterday after Jean Arthur dropped out, and later revised Adam's Rib to specifically highlight her talents.  Altogether,  Holliday starred in 4 movies written by Kanin. Another pal was George Cukor who directed 5 of her first 5 movies.  And when Holliday went back to Broadway, she found a leading role in Bells are Ringing written for her by good friends, Comden and Greene. And I haven't even talked about the undeserved 1950 Academy Award for her third picture and first starring role.

All the praise mystifies me - I just don't see the greatness - and find her "dumb blond" persona somewhat annoying.  I agree she was a good actress, but nowhere in the same league with Lucille Ball, Marilyn Monroe, or Doris Day.  And I think Jean Hagen was just as funny. And that's pretty much what the American public thought. Despite all the high-powered support, and an Oscar, her movies were only moderately successful and mostly forgotten.

Phfft (1954) - Solid Gold Cadillac (1956) - Full of Life (1956)

These were four movies Judy Holliday made under her Columbia Movie contract.  Except for The Marrying Kind,  none was written by Garson Kanin or directed by George Cukor.  They're all pleasant, forgettable, B&W comedies (but Marrying Kind and Full of Life are more Dramedy), that will occasionally have you smiling.  I wouldn't recommend any of them unless you're a fan of Judy Holliday and/or the leading men.

Phfft - Has a powerful supporting cast of Jack Lemmon, Jack Carson, and Kim Novak.  Story? Lemmon and Holliday are happily divorced but keep running into each other and eventually.... This was Jack Lemmon 2nd movie and he finds his comic timing & is very good.  Everyone else is good too, its just the story doesn't amount to much & the gags aren't that funny.

Solid Gold Cadillac -  Holliday replaced Broadway Lead Josephine Hull in this filmed version of the George S. Kauffman play. She's a small shareholder who takes on a crooked Board of Directors and wins.  Friend Paul Douglas  plays the CEO/Love interest. Somewhat stagy and predictable. Douglas is unbelievable as a romantic interest.

Full of Life - In a change of pace, this is a nice "small picture" domestic comedy/drama co-starring Richard Conte as Judy's husband. When Conte needs help with a major home repair, his religious immigrant father moves-in to help-out.  Hi-jinks and drama ensue.  Holliday drops her "Dumb Blond" voice and plays it straight.   Conte struggles - his comedic skills are minimal.

The Marrying Kind   Directed by George Cukor, she and Aldo Ray play a struggling NYC couple on the verge of divorce. Holiday and Ray have good chemistry and convincingly play both comedy and tragedy. Here she seems  funny and attractive than in Born Yesterday. Notable for the two leads, the story is somewhat dated & gets bogged down with idle chatter, needless pathos and a low budget.

It should happen to You (1954) - Cukor

Plot:  Looking for fame, a woman plasters her name on billboards all over town & is bombarded with attention.
Stars:  Peter Lawford, Judy Holliday, Jack Lemmon

This was Holliday's 4th film with George Cukor and her 3rd film with a Garson Kanin (screenwriter).  (It certainly helped an actress to have "friends in high places"). Its a placid, droll, comedy that tackles the issue of fame and celebrity.  Holliday re-plays her Born Yesterday "dumb blond"persona  but with more charm & realism.  Lawford and Lemmon add adequate support. This was Lemmon's first big role, and it shows, his comedic timing seems a little off.  Pleasant enough time-waster, with nothing to justify Bosley Crowther's over-the-top praise in 1954:

The Foundation for the Perpetuation of Garson Kanin, George Cukor and Judy Holliday as a comedy film-making combination should receive another million or two on the strength of their latest creation, "It Should Happen to You." This lark, from the workshop of Columbia, which opened yesterday at Loew's State, is a neat piece of comic contrivance that will contribute to the joy of man. Neat, you will note we say; not gaudy. In the simple, old-fashioned movie size, it is a tickling and touching entertainment with intelligence, compassion—and lots of gags.

Born Yesterday (1950) - Cukor

Plot:  Based on the 1946 play, a Business tycoon hires an etiquette tutor for his girlfriend and finds she's smarter then thought.
Stars:  Judy Holliday, Bill Holden, Broderick Crawford

A Box office smash in 1950, today its often remembered for Holliday winning the Best Actress Award over the more deserving Gloria Swanson (Sunset Blvd) and Bette Davis (All about Eve).   Seeming to run much longer than its 100 minute run-time, its a dated, one-note drama/comedy, that didn't engage me.  Its surprisingly serious, and there's a lot of Crawford bellowing.  In fact, no one seems to have told Crawford that he was in a comedy. OTOH, Holden is charming,  but his character just exists to advance the plot and play straight-man.  So, all the laughs come from Holliday, & the whole thing dies when she's off screen.   And while she is good,  she's  not "Brilliant" or "Hilarious" .  She's often more annoying than funny, and Jean Hagen does the "Dumb Blonde" thing better in Singing in the Rain.  

Summary: Its heresy to "Judy fans", but I think Lucille Ball, Jean Hagen, Rita Hayworth, and above all Marilyn Monroe could've done as well in the role.  But no matter the leading lady, Born Yesterday is too serious, dated, and  repetitive for my tastes.  But all comedy is subjective.

Anchor's Aweigh (1944)

Plot:  Two sailors on leave in Los Angeles look for fun and romance
Stars: Kathyrn Grayson,  Gene Kelly,  Frank Sinatra,  Jose Iturbi
Plus:  Technicolor, Production Numbers, Kelly dance with Jerry
Minus:  Too long, Corny story

I feel guilty about criticizing Anchors Aweigh, because so much of it is so good.  This is the first of the Sinatra-Kelly pairings and the two play off each other very well.  Grayson is very attractive, but  Gene Kelly dances with Jerry Mouse, not her. The movie also has some "high culture" with  Jose Iturbi playing Liszt & Grayson singing Operetta. The main problem? Its too long -143 minutes.  By comparison, Singing in the Rain and American in Paris are about 105 minutes.  It easily could have been 2 hours, by cutting down some of the lesser numbers/corny lackadaisical plot.  Summary:  A 1945 Box-office smash,  its the movie that made Gene Kelly a Star. He probably made 5 better musicals, but its still very good.

Back-story on the Kelly - Jerry Mouse Dance Number
As usual, there are different stories of how this came about.  Donen's biography credits him for originating the idea, getting Kelly on-board, and pushing it through.  Meanwhile, Kelly's biography talks about "our idea" and only credits Donen for the camera work.  In any case, the original idea was to dance with Mickey Mouse, since Disney** was already working on something similar (real actors/animated figures for the 3 Caballeros). It seemed like a natural fit but MGM wouldn't give Disney film credit or enough compensation, so MGM's Jerry Mouse was used.  The eight minutes of animation took Kelly two months, and the animators almost a year.  But it was worth it.

** Donen talks about meeting Disney and how nice and helpful he was, but can't resist smearing him as a "reputed anti-semite" and "Terrible Right-winger" (aka a Republican).  Kelly simply compliments Disney.

An update on Citizen Kane (1941)

Brilliant film reviewer, CinemaScope Cat, has a new review of Citizen Kane up. After praising the film, he states:

"Attempts have been made in certain quarters that KANE is overrated or that it's boring but I've invariably found that those who claim it's boring are usually boring people."

Well, I don't know about that.  In addition to Igmar Bergman, I've known any number of  *interesting* film buffs who think Citizen Kane is NOT the Greatest film of all time.  Personally, while I respect the film and think its incredibly well-made, I don't find it that enjoyable - the number of unlikable characters is rather high, and Kane's rise/fall has never touched MY heartstrings.  The problem (best delineated by NR Critic Otis Ferguson, read it online) is the STORY isn't that good. Between the dramatic highlights, there's a lot of talk, but not much plot.  That doesn't make it bad film, just one I wouldn't include on my "100 Films for a Desert Island" list.

But it does have some great lines/scenes including:

• Kane takes over the Newspaper 
• Opening scene: In Xanadu did Kubla Khan a stately pleasure-dome decree.
• The song and dance number - Good Ol' Charlie Kane
• Kane: You're right, I did lose a million dollars last year. I expect to lose a million dollars this year. I expect to lose a million dollars next year. You know, Mr. Thatcher, at the rate of a million dollars a year, I'll have to close this place in... 60 years.
• Bernstein: A fellow will remember a lot of things you wouldn't think he'd remember. You take me. One day, back in 1896, I was crossing over to Jersey on the ferry, and as we pulled out, there was another ferry pulling in, and on it there was a girl waiting to get off. A white dress she had on. She was carrying a white parasol. I only saw her for one second. She didn't see me at all, but I'll bet a month hasn't gone by since that I haven't thought of that girl.
• Bernstein: "Girls delightful in Cuba. Stop. Could send you prose poems about scenery, but don't feel right spending your money. Stop. There is no war in Cuba, signed Wheeler." Any answer?Kane: Yes. "Dear Wheeler: you provide the prose poems. I'll provide the war."
• Bernstein: Well, it's no trick to make a lot of money if all you want is to make a lot of money.

Moulin Rouge - 1952 - Huston

Plot:  An account of  4 foot 8 inch Toulouse-Lautrec -the gifted  French Post-Impressionist and his relationship with a beautiful countess and a common prostitute.
Stars: Jose Ferrer,  Zsa Zsa Gabor,  Colette Marchand

A critical and box office success, Moulin Rouge is a lavish, beautifully photographed, look at the life of Toulouse-Lautrec.  The supporting actors, Direction, Set Design, and even Zsa Zsa (who never looked more beautiful)  are very good.  Everything is great, except the story and the leading man.  The story suffers from a conventional "Tortured artist" plot-line. Its artist debases himself by loving a troubled prostitute, gets over it, is rejected by a beautiful Countess, then dies from drink.

However, the major problem is Jose Ferrer as Toulouse-Lautrec. His Academy Award Nomination for "Best Actor" is a complete mystery.  Extremely wooden, he's unable to express any change in emotion, facially or vocally. Quips/Romance/Anger - it all sounds the same.  Even worse, he also plays T-L's father and is completely unbelievable.

Summary:  A beautiful looking art biography, you may enjoy it if you can get past Jose Ferrer's awful, wooden performance.

Give a Girl a Break (1953) - Donen

Plot:  3 Girls compete for the starring role in  a Broadway Musical
Stars:  Debbie Reynolds, Gower Champion, Bob Fosse, Marge Champion
Plus:  Technicolor, Dancing, Debbie Reynolds, Fast paced
Minus: Slight story, mediocre songs,  very little comedy/romance

This is an enjoyable 82 minute "dance musical" with some great production numbers and dancing talent.  Bob Fosse and Gower Champion (who I'd never heard of before) were great dancers and choreographers (the two earned 16 Tony nominations).  Highlights include: "Applause, Applause" with Champion/Reynolds and "The Balloon Dance" with  Fosse/Reynolds. The Direction is fine and everyone plays their role well. But the Gershwin/Lane songs are forgettable (MGM never released a soundtrack album) and the story slight and un-engaging.  It's also surprisingly serious - and doesn't really merit the label "Musical Comedy."  That aside, the  movie should be better remembered, if only for the production numbers and back story.

The Backstory - Reynolds vs. Donen

Part of the fun of watching Give the Girl a Break was seeing how Donen puffs up Bob Fosse's supporting role. Donen had an eye for talent and decided that Bob Fosse would be the next Fred Astaire, or - as stated in his biography - "Fosse was as good a musical performer as ever lived".  Accordingly, he so favored Fosse in his scenes with Debbie Reynolds, that Reynolds complained and had several scenes re-shot.  Evidently from then on, Reynolds never liked Donen and the 2 never worked again**.

But despite Debbie's efforts,  the final film constantly favors Fosse over Reynolds in their scenes together.  The most hilarious example occurs when the 3 girls go up for an audition, with their 3 male benefactors in the the audience. With two of the girls (Marge Champion, Dolly Sharp), we get a quick shot of their admirer & then go directly into their musical number.  But when Reynolds auditions, we see an enormous close-up of Fosse's  head, smiling and full of admiration, while a miniature Reynolds dances and sings!

Donen does other tricks to puff up Fosse's supporting role.  We get a completely unnecessary one minute opening which consists of Fosse's character getting coffee and donuts & passing them out.  In other scenes, Fosse lingers alone on-screen after the others have left, or wears a bright red sweater when the other wear drab clothes.  Anything to keep the eyes on Fosse.

Fosse Film Acting Career a Failure

Unfortunately, all this attention did Fosse little good in his movie career - as an actor. As a *dancer* Fosse was in the same league as Kelly/Astaire.  But his singing voice is lighter/higher then Kelly's & he lacked the necessary leading man charisma.  Even Gower Champion outshines him. Nor was he charming/ funny enough to compete with Donald O'Connor, Danny Kaye or even Dan Daily as the supporting "best friend".

** Which seems to have been a pattern with Donen.  The list of actresses who disliked him is quite long and includes:  Kathryne Grayson, Esther Williams,  Marge Champion,  Jean Hagan, and Jane Powell. Not to mention Elizabeth Taylor's non-actress mother who considered him a "Homosexual and a Communist"

Deep in my Heart (1954) - Donen

Plot:  The fictional biography of Sig Romberg, the Viennese born composer of 1920s popular music and Broadway Operettas.
Stars: Jose Ferrer, Merle Oberon, Helen Taubel,  Doe Avdon

MGM pulled out all the stops for Deep in my Heart -  lavish production values, 12 musical numbers, & numerous guest-stars. Among the highlights: Gene Kelly and his brother dance "I love to go swimming with Women", Howard Keel belts out "Your Land, my Land", Ann Miller is an "It Girl", sleek Cyd Charisse heats up the screen with "Desert song",  and towering  Tamara Toumanova sings "'allo 'allo".  Donen keeps things moving and Oberon/Avedon look lovely. That's the positive side.

 On the negative side, in-between the guest-star production numbers, we get the standard, mediocre, Hollywood bio-pic.  The real Romberg is ignored, and instead we get fictional Romberg - a friendly, slightly dull fellow, who meets-cute, courts, and finally marries Doe Avedon.  His only flaw is his desire to write "serious music" that the public doesn't want.

Even worse, Romberg is played by the charmless Jose Ferrer.  Whether its romancing Ms. Avdeon, cutely denouncing pop music, or expressing a desire for success, Ferrer sounds the same. Sporting a dodgy German accent, his foghorn voice only has one note. Incredibly, he's given a 10 minute production number and numerous chances to sing and dance, all which show he can't do either.  Imagine E.G. Marshall or Lee J. Cobb tap-dancing and singing. Its sorta of like that.

Summary: Like Sig Romberg, Deep in my Heart is almost completely forgotten. Despite the excellent Donen direction and lavish production values "the Book" portion is, like its leading man, charmless and dull.  At 132 minutes, its a long haul. However, the guest-star production numbers are worth seeing.