Bizarre, challenging, but with elements that make it enormous fun to watch. (. . . Well, to watch once, that is!)
Everything in the film seems either overdone or too cut short. Rushed and erratic. Or not sufficiently explained.
I think it would have been better if they'd cast someone other that Jane Russell in the film. Purely because the casting of Russell makes the whole story confusing. Although viewers are led to believe it is, the film is not a sequel to the 'Blondes' film that Russell starred in with Marilyn Monroe, just two years earlier. It isn't even the same two characters. It's just a story by the same author (Anita Loos).
And as Russell plays the opposite of her character in the first film, the loss of the sassiness that she does so brilliantly is sadly felt in this follow-on movie. I think many viewers would also have been confused by Russell playing the 'ditsy'/amiable type of character that Monroe took in the earlier film.
So a new cast would at least have made the film stand on its own merits. Instead, it ends up being seen as a 'sequel' to a hit film . . . And - as we all know that sequels invariably pale in comparison to the originals - it is indeed a weak film.
Further character muddling ensues. The two female leads also play, in flashback scenes, the characters of their own mother and aunt, only altered to wearing 1920s clothes & with peroxide blonde hair. This made the clarity of characters - who-was-playing-what - even more confusing. Then, at the end of the film, Russell even plays her own mother, greyed up to look elderly. OMG . . .
Russell sings & dances well, but it's not enough to save the film. One or two good dances or songs do not a film make, not even a movie of the musical genre.
Jeanne Crain does well enough in the musical numbers, but surely Hollywood had another actress on their list who could have sung ALL the songs in the role as well as danced?! . . . maybe both the actresses were trying to break away from the stereotyped roles that actors of the studio-controlled era had to play to?
I later realised that this might have been a part-purpose of the film. I found out after watching the movie that this was a film produced by the star, Jane Russell, and her husband, in a brand new production unit. Russell had after all been in the business of show for some time, and would have by that point seen - and put up with - quite a lot of Hollywood's antics. So this was Russell's chance to put her OWN views across. Unfortunately this viewpoint wasn't made clear, and it was lost amongst all the razzamatazz in the film.
And not good razzamatazz, even for a show musical. Attempts to recreate other eras of musical comedy films went too far. The musical numbers are all phenomenally OTT. I only later realised that in some instances perhaps that was the point: the producers were sort of homaging - or half-laughing at - the grandiose Busby Berkeley era of films. For example, the stage songs were set to ridiculously unrelated stories, the performers wear pointless costumes (why a gorilla, for goodness sake?!), and with a huge corps of extras dancing unnecessarily in the background. But this homaging went too far & became insulting rather than flattering. The movie almost seemed at times to be a mick-take of itself, and I don't think it was trying to do so. Shoddy result, then.
As for the songs that are supposed to complement the film's plot, in the age-old way of film musicals: rather than being touching & evocative, nearly all the songs that the stars perform are instead horribly over-orchestrated. The music arrangement of each song is almost unbearably fanciful . . . Oh dear, how to ruin a classic Hollywood showtune. The dance sequences, too, had everything - including the kitchen sink - thrown in!
Too much of most things, and not enough of everything else . . .
As for the way the film was pieced together: in a tale that should have been neatly segued, most of the scenes don't flow into the next, smoothly or indeed at all. So the sequence of events in the storyline is vague.
The best scene & script sequence was when the 2 girls were trying to sell their song-&-dance act to various Parisian nightclubs - without having to agree to strip off, a la burlesque, in the process. Finally, a well-written sequence.
And the best standalone scriptline? When Jeanne Crain's character says, after awaking from a nightmare that viewers had just been shown via a dream sequence: "Dreams?! I'm having nightmares in CinemaScope!" Now that DID make me laugh. And at last, an in-joke that was clearly referenced and on point.
Other than that, the film is, frankly, out of control.
Fortunately a few redeeming factors arise: repeats of lovely Broadway & Hollywood musical songs by Rodgers & Hart, etc (just ignore the OTT orchestration!); stylish 1950s costumes; excellent dancing; and a bit of wit scattered into the script.
Shame the rest of the story is a jumbled plot of inconsequential actions. Unbalanced, is the word . . .
Nonetheless, it has to be seen - if you like 'Gentlemen Prefer Blondes' - just to watch a bit of Hollywood history!
Everything in the film seems either overdone or too cut short. Rushed and erratic. Or not sufficiently explained.
I think it would have been better if they'd cast someone other that Jane Russell in the film. Purely because the casting of Russell makes the whole story confusing. Although viewers are led to believe it is, the film is not a sequel to the 'Blondes' film that Russell starred in with Marilyn Monroe, just two years earlier. It isn't even the same two characters. It's just a story by the same author (Anita Loos).
And as Russell plays the opposite of her character in the first film, the loss of the sassiness that she does so brilliantly is sadly felt in this follow-on movie. I think many viewers would also have been confused by Russell playing the 'ditsy'/amiable type of character that Monroe took in the earlier film.
So a new cast would at least have made the film stand on its own merits. Instead, it ends up being seen as a 'sequel' to a hit film . . . And - as we all know that sequels invariably pale in comparison to the originals - it is indeed a weak film.
Further character muddling ensues. The two female leads also play, in flashback scenes, the characters of their own mother and aunt, only altered to wearing 1920s clothes & with peroxide blonde hair. This made the clarity of characters - who-was-playing-what - even more confusing. Then, at the end of the film, Russell even plays her own mother, greyed up to look elderly. OMG . . .
Russell sings & dances well, but it's not enough to save the film. One or two good dances or songs do not a film make, not even a movie of the musical genre.
Jeanne Crain does well enough in the musical numbers, but surely Hollywood had another actress on their list who could have sung ALL the songs in the role as well as danced?! . . . maybe both the actresses were trying to break away from the stereotyped roles that actors of the studio-controlled era had to play to?
I later realised that this might have been a part-purpose of the film. I found out after watching the movie that this was a film produced by the star, Jane Russell, and her husband, in a brand new production unit. Russell had after all been in the business of show for some time, and would have by that point seen - and put up with - quite a lot of Hollywood's antics. So this was Russell's chance to put her OWN views across. Unfortunately this viewpoint wasn't made clear, and it was lost amongst all the razzamatazz in the film.
And not good razzamatazz, even for a show musical. Attempts to recreate other eras of musical comedy films went too far. The musical numbers are all phenomenally OTT. I only later realised that in some instances perhaps that was the point: the producers were sort of homaging - or half-laughing at - the grandiose Busby Berkeley era of films. For example, the stage songs were set to ridiculously unrelated stories, the performers wear pointless costumes (why a gorilla, for goodness sake?!), and with a huge corps of extras dancing unnecessarily in the background. But this homaging went too far & became insulting rather than flattering. The movie almost seemed at times to be a mick-take of itself, and I don't think it was trying to do so. Shoddy result, then.
As for the songs that are supposed to complement the film's plot, in the age-old way of film musicals: rather than being touching & evocative, nearly all the songs that the stars perform are instead horribly over-orchestrated. The music arrangement of each song is almost unbearably fanciful . . . Oh dear, how to ruin a classic Hollywood showtune. The dance sequences, too, had everything - including the kitchen sink - thrown in!
Too much of most things, and not enough of everything else . . .
As for the way the film was pieced together: in a tale that should have been neatly segued, most of the scenes don't flow into the next, smoothly or indeed at all. So the sequence of events in the storyline is vague.
The best scene & script sequence was when the 2 girls were trying to sell their song-&-dance act to various Parisian nightclubs - without having to agree to strip off, a la burlesque, in the process. Finally, a well-written sequence.
And the best standalone scriptline? When Jeanne Crain's character says, after awaking from a nightmare that viewers had just been shown via a dream sequence: "Dreams?! I'm having nightmares in CinemaScope!" Now that DID make me laugh. And at last, an in-joke that was clearly referenced and on point.
Other than that, the film is, frankly, out of control.
Fortunately a few redeeming factors arise: repeats of lovely Broadway & Hollywood musical songs by Rodgers & Hart, etc (just ignore the OTT orchestration!); stylish 1950s costumes; excellent dancing; and a bit of wit scattered into the script.
Shame the rest of the story is a jumbled plot of inconsequential actions. Unbalanced, is the word . . .
Nonetheless, it has to be seen - if you like 'Gentlemen Prefer Blondes' - just to watch a bit of Hollywood history!