Change Your Image
Dolly_Lo
Reviews
His Secretary (1925)
Not a Review
I'm not reviewing this film because I can't view it; it's been lost for decades. Apparently this obstacle doesn't stand in the way of some reviewers, who will happily dump all over a movie they've never even seen. What's worse, the one reviewer of "His Secretary" openly equates the quality of the film with the perceived unattractiveness of Norma Shearer's face and figure. Millions of moviegoers considered Shearer attractive enough to be a successful film actress, even before her marriage to the powerful Irving Thalberg.
The only reviews worth reading would be contemporary reviews from 1926, by critics who had actually watched the complete film. Exhibitors Herald from July 3, 1926 wrote: "It's a delight just to look at Norma, she's so pretty." Motion Picture News from January 2, 1926 called the film "crisp, bright comedy shot through with winged arrows of satire," and observed that "Miss Shearer shines brilliantly as the stenographic heroine, creating quite a sensation among the onlookers."
Our only hope is that someday this film we be found, and we can view it for ourselves. In the meantime folks, don't pay any attention to any reviews by know-it-alls who actually know nothing.
The Girl Most Likely (1957)
Anyone Who Thinks This Movie Is Terrible...
Is regrettably viewing it through a 21st century lens. It was not made in the 2000s. It was made in the 1950s, and should be judged accordingly. For its time, it was witty, clever, whimsical, and sharp, with inspired choreography by Gower Champion and direction by screwball comedy master Mitchell Leisen. The cast is giving it their all. Una Merkel, Jane Powell, Cliff Robertson and supporting cast go a long way toward overcoming the modest budget and not-entirely-original story. It's a romantic-comedy-musical that's fun and full of life. How on earth anyone could expect it to conform to a politically correct standard of the 2020s is beyond comprehension. Yes, Howard Hughes had run RKO into the ground by the time this film was made, and it shows around the edges. But if you let yourself be swept into the fifties fantasy suspension of disbelief, there are riches galore and enjoyment on a grand scale to be had. I love this movie.
A Woman Under the Influence (1974)
Don't Accept It!
Cassavetes was clearly an intelligent, sensitive man with bold new ideas about making films. He wanted to be an auteur, to break away from the confines of the system and bring a new realism to the American cinema. For that, I applaud him.
Unfortunately, as a member of his audience, I cannot applaud A Woman Under the Influence. Cassavetes took what could have been a fascinating topic (an insane woman) and somehow managed to craft a dull film, filled with lengthy, ad-libbed ranting and drawn-out scenes. He seems to have had a gift for capturing the dullest moments of a person's life on film, and it often appears as though he simply turned the camera on his family and let the motor run and run. This tactic would be acceptable if Cassavetes had captured something devastatingly REAL -- or even a kernel of something so real it touched the heart in ways a conventional film could not. Yet I found the performances, particularly Rowlands', to be artificial. I never believed for a moment that she was really insane. I have met people who are truly mentally disturbed, yet I've never seen any of them act quite like Gena Rowlands in A Woman Under the Influence. She played it like a very obnoxious, uninhibited woman who drinks a lot, and even that was confusing because we only see her drink once (at the beginning), but she acts drunk for the remainder of the film. There are some moments in which she taps into something real, but those moments are few and far between; she fails to sustain a seamless mentally disturbed character. Again, I applaud her efforts, but effort alone is not enough to make the performance ring true.
Novice audiences who happen upon this film and see its high IMDb rating will no doubt feel compelled to love it and rate it highly, just to prove that they 'get it.' But don't be brainwashed by the hype -- judge for yourself. You don't have to pretend to like it.
Like Woody Allen, John Cassavetes could be accused of solipsism in his film-making, seeming to find his own psyche and his own life experiences so endlessly fascinating that he couldn't imagine that to others they appeared presumptive and tortuously self-indulgent. But Woody Allen at least has demonstrated a gift for keeping an audience entertained -- he knows that a compelling story structure and a good dose of humor are essential to any movie. If Cassavetes had employed some self-discipline (and a sharp pair of editing shears!), A Woman Under the Influence could have stood a chance. But what's the point of making a 'realistic' film if the only people who can stand to sit through it are the art-house devotees and film students who worship Cassavetes as some sort of anti-establishment deity? Without dumbing anything down, I believe Cassavetes could have made A Woman slightly more accessible by keeping the pace moving with an actual plot, instead of presenting a string of 30 minute-long scenes of ad-libbed arguments. If you just make films for yourself and a few of your fans, you're just reaching the already converted. Watch this movie with your own set of eyes and make your own decisions about it. If you are truly moved and fascinated by it, good for you.
Applause (1929)
Wow...
Applause is without a doubt the best early talkie I have ever seen. The inventive camera angles, the location shots (the Brooklyn Bridge!), the more realistic acting style, and even some pre-Busby Berkeley overhead shots of dancing girls put this film in the 'ahead-of-its-time' league.
Technical achievements aside, I recommend this film to anyone interested in early 1930s culture, backstage drama, hard-boiled slang, or New York City circa 1929 -- it's a great slice of history. Just seeing the Gothic Woolworth building when it was still the tallest structure in the world or hearing Tony's reaction to meeting a girl named April (an unusual name at the time) is a priceless history lesson in itself.
Even if you aren't interested in any of those elements, it's a touching, timeless, well-told story ... and it's available now on DVD. What more could you want?
Mantrap (1926)
Clara in Top Form!
I'd been wanting to see Mantrap for years and finally got the chance to see it recently. What a rare treat -- being able to see Clara Bow in one of her early hits, aided by A-list talent such as director Victor Fleming and cinematographer James Wong Howe, with a snappy script based on original material by Sinclair Lewis. If you're a fan of Miss Bow, it's worth it to seek out this title -- she really shines here! You will not be disappointed.
From the moment she enters the scene as Alverna, a bubbly doll of a manicurist with a severe flirting problem, she steals every scene she's in. Alverna falls for Joe, a simple backwoods "he-man" who quickly makes her his bride and snatches her away to his rustic cabin up north. Take Alverna's boredom and flirting addiction, add in Ralph, a New York divorce lawyer running away from city women ... and you can see where the story is headed. But it's oh so much fun to watch it unfold.
Clara's manic energy makes the movie (watch the scene in which she feeds Joe and Ralph chocolates and bops around the room like a sexy little Muppet), but the dialogue on the title cards keep the comedic energy up as well with clever quips. When Joe threatens to send Alvy away to his aunt in Minneapolis, she retorts: "Minneapple - sauce!" A great slice of mid-1920s vernacular, and this movie's full of them.
Unfortunately, B.P. Schulberg at Paramount threw Clara into practically any picture that came along, which means she racked up dozens of roles in mediocre, forgettable titles in her day. (The reason is clear: Clara had such -- well, "it" -- that she would have been watchable in a film about drying paint. So why seek out top material when your star makes you money even when the material is crap?) Mantrap is the kind of vehicle Clara should have always been given. An adorable little film, a wonderful showcase for Clara, and a silent I highly recommend.
Hollywoodland (2006)
Well-acted Mediocrity
I saw Hollywoodland at an advance screening last night and I must say it's a little weak in the plot department and stretches a minor story into a two-hour film by adding lots of slow filler material. However, the performances by the actors made it a worthwhile experience. Diane Lane in particular is completely convincing as the wealthy older woman who tries to buy her protégée's affections. She eerily channels both Jane Wyman and Gloria Swanson's Norma Desmond alternately without taking her character too far over the top. Adrian Brody is perfect as the struggling third-rate detective, and even Mr. Affleck creates an affable character based on the real Mr. Reeves.
I guess my major complaint about the film is that there just isn't much to tell about the mystery surrounding the suicide of George Reeves. I kept waiting for juicy new information to come to light, yet no juice is ever squeezed out. Someone seems to be ransacking "Hollywood Babylon" for film ideas instead of coming up with original stories. Not a very promising trend. Furthermore, the title doesn't fit this film at all. It takes place in the mid and late 1950s, yet the Hollywoodland sign had dropped the "land" portion in 1949, and from then on it simply read Hollywood. "Hollywoodland" would be the perfect title for a picture about Peg Entwhistle, but has little relevance to the death of George Reeves. If this True Old Hollywood Stories trend continues, I'm sure a movie about Peg can't be very far away.
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)
Pointless Sequel
I knew this film could not possibly live up to the original, but I enjoyed the first Pirates of the Caribbean so much I thought this one would at least hold my attention. Sadly, I wasted two hours and six dollars on this pointless excursion into the realm of idiocy.
In The Curse of The Black Pearl, a touch of the supernatural was cleverly and naturally woven into the plot in the form of the Aztec curse that turned the crew of the Black Pearl into living skeletons by the light of the moon. That made sense; we believed it and its presentation--after being discussed, hinted at and skeptically dismissed as impossible by some of the characters--was a shocking and creepy payoff. In the sequel however, right form the start we are supposed to accept all manner of zombies, slimy undead monsters, sea dragons...I don't remember what else because it was all forgettable. Is this Harry Potter? Have Captain Jack and Co been transported via the Hogwarts Express to a magic world? In the first film these characters scoffed at ancient curses, now they are positively overloaded with fantastic legends and no one bats an eye??? Yo-ho-ho indeed.
This film also regrettably suffers from the insidious disease of senselessly regurgitating dialogue that was cleverly used in the previous film. The second time around it just reeks of a desperate attempt to recapture the success of the original. I suppose the audience is expected to be delighted by the sheer familiarity of hearing the old lines. I wasn't. Silly me, I was actually expecting NEW clever lines instead of the same ones.
I could go on, but basically if you're the type who would enjoy watching Johnny Depp and Orlando Bloom grocery shopping or filing their income taxes, you should see this film. Otherwise, don't bother. I like watching them too, but there's a limit to what I can tolerate. Dead Man's Chest goes way beyond that limit. I think it was essentially an excuse for the cast and crew to get a tan in the Caribbean and waste some money on grand effects. The only positive comment I have is that it looks as though it was fun to film. But not to watch.