b1b1b1c27
Lifetime Total
1+
IMDb Member
21 years
Reviews
Who's Minding the Store? (1963)
Inspired lunacy; relentless entertainment.
Reasons to watch and enjoy this film have been enumerated by other commentators here. Some others:
1) The way Jill St. John's character, against all reason, is ga-ga over Jerry's. Seems like the fantasy of every dorky guy in the world: Just keep pluggin', and eventually a hot babe will develop an unreasoning crush on you.
2) An early and egregious example of product placement! After all, the flick IS set in a department store, so we're treated to not-so-subliminal ads for Browning rifles (worked into Jerry's scene with Nancy Kulp), Planter's nuts (in the toasted ants scene), MacGregor outerwear etc. And of course, the star of the film (much like the chandelier in the stage musical "Phantom of the Opera") is really the Hoover vacuum cleaner in the famous appliance department scene. It even has the word HOOVER boldly emblazoned across its bag, and the name only gets bigger and bigger as the bag inflates to Thanksgiving-Day-parade balloon size.
3) Already mentioned, but bears repeating: Francesca Bellini is enchantingly gorgeous, and really seems a much more exciting catch than Jill St. John!
4) As mentioned, fine performances by the character actors Agnes Moorehead, John McGiver (one of his more interesting outings) and Ray Walston.
5) The true inspiration of the film is the way each of the many vignettes or set pieces builds from a pianissimo of silliness all the way up to a triple fortissimo of surreality, leaving sense, taste and every other useless item behind. It is indeed a live action cartoon, and in Jerry Lewis it has a cartoon character come to life.
1) The way Jill St. John's character, against all reason, is ga-ga over Jerry's. Seems like the fantasy of every dorky guy in the world: Just keep pluggin', and eventually a hot babe will develop an unreasoning crush on you.
2) An early and egregious example of product placement! After all, the flick IS set in a department store, so we're treated to not-so-subliminal ads for Browning rifles (worked into Jerry's scene with Nancy Kulp), Planter's nuts (in the toasted ants scene), MacGregor outerwear etc. And of course, the star of the film (much like the chandelier in the stage musical "Phantom of the Opera") is really the Hoover vacuum cleaner in the famous appliance department scene. It even has the word HOOVER boldly emblazoned across its bag, and the name only gets bigger and bigger as the bag inflates to Thanksgiving-Day-parade balloon size.
3) Already mentioned, but bears repeating: Francesca Bellini is enchantingly gorgeous, and really seems a much more exciting catch than Jill St. John!
4) As mentioned, fine performances by the character actors Agnes Moorehead, John McGiver (one of his more interesting outings) and Ray Walston.
5) The true inspiration of the film is the way each of the many vignettes or set pieces builds from a pianissimo of silliness all the way up to a triple fortissimo of surreality, leaving sense, taste and every other useless item behind. It is indeed a live action cartoon, and in Jerry Lewis it has a cartoon character come to life.
Captain from Castile (1947)
The three stars are for Jean Peters.
Samuel Shellabarger's novel was not his best (that honor goes to "The King's Cavalier"), but it deserved better treatment than this Hollywood hack job. The only thing that redeems this terrible picture is the irresistibly gorgeous Jean Peters (whose acting is fine, although it can't hope to measure up to her looks).
Major flaws that put this picture beyond saving:
1) Tyrone Power terribly miscast as Pedro de Vargas. He's just way too old! In Shellabarger's book, Pedro begins the story as a callow 19-year-old. He is just beginning to feel his oats as a man; he is completely untried as a soldier and swordsman. He is a virgin who worships Luisa de Carvajal, stuttering as his heart leaps into his throat when he gets a chance to speak to her.
To be fair, it may have been impossible to cast this role in 1947. The character needs to grow from an innocent, impetuous youth, through torture, attempted murder, near-death experiences, war, the loss of a child - until he becomes a mature gentleman, lover and soldier. Even today's young actors, who accept such roles much earlier in life than they would have in Power's day, would be hard-pressed. Perhaps Heath Ledger or Orlando Bloom (with a few extra acting classes for each of them) could manage it. (Pedro is supposed to be slim and light-haired, as well as young.)
2) As mentioned elsewhere, the ending of the picture halfway through the story. This leaves out the comeuppance of de Silva and de Lora, as well as the true return of the Coatl character, precisely when he's needed.
3) The character of de Lora, the evil Inquisitor, is almost completely omitted. Without his presence, much of Juan Garcia's motivation disappears. The auto da fe scene is also omitted - a scene which (along with the causeway battle scene, also left out!) is one of the finest set pieces in the novel.
4) The picture shouldn't have been made in the first place. The novel is mostly episodic; it is perfect for a miniseries - a format that could remedy many of the omissions. I'd suggest four two-hour episodes.
Major flaws that put this picture beyond saving:
1) Tyrone Power terribly miscast as Pedro de Vargas. He's just way too old! In Shellabarger's book, Pedro begins the story as a callow 19-year-old. He is just beginning to feel his oats as a man; he is completely untried as a soldier and swordsman. He is a virgin who worships Luisa de Carvajal, stuttering as his heart leaps into his throat when he gets a chance to speak to her.
To be fair, it may have been impossible to cast this role in 1947. The character needs to grow from an innocent, impetuous youth, through torture, attempted murder, near-death experiences, war, the loss of a child - until he becomes a mature gentleman, lover and soldier. Even today's young actors, who accept such roles much earlier in life than they would have in Power's day, would be hard-pressed. Perhaps Heath Ledger or Orlando Bloom (with a few extra acting classes for each of them) could manage it. (Pedro is supposed to be slim and light-haired, as well as young.)
2) As mentioned elsewhere, the ending of the picture halfway through the story. This leaves out the comeuppance of de Silva and de Lora, as well as the true return of the Coatl character, precisely when he's needed.
3) The character of de Lora, the evil Inquisitor, is almost completely omitted. Without his presence, much of Juan Garcia's motivation disappears. The auto da fe scene is also omitted - a scene which (along with the causeway battle scene, also left out!) is one of the finest set pieces in the novel.
4) The picture shouldn't have been made in the first place. The novel is mostly episodic; it is perfect for a miniseries - a format that could remedy many of the omissions. I'd suggest four two-hour episodes.
Tish (1942)
Great character actors and gorgeous gals.
Okay, it's a little silly. But where else do you get to see three of the finest character actresses in one picture? Main, Pitts, and McMahon are all delightful if ill-served by the very uneven script. In addition, there is the adorable Susan Peters, who at 21 displays a mature talent. And of course, the always funny Guy Kibbee adds his particular brand of stodginess to the mix. It was just a bit after the Pearl Harbor attack, so a bit of overly patriotic war-cheerleading is understandable and excusable. What is not excusable is the maudlin twist in the otherwise comic (and often slapstick) hijinks. Still, all in all a picture worth watching if you like great character actors or gorgeous gals like Miss Peters and Miss Gray.