BoYutz

This 1931 'documentary', acclaimed in its day, is nothing more than a ham-fisted, banal, and unremarkably filmed piece of propaganda. The editing is jerky; the shots frequently undisciplined and poorly composed; the pace glacial; the script naive and stilted in its crass deification of Lenin. Oh yeah, it's dour and humorless, too.

It might hold some interest as an early example of the 'tractors and dams' approach to agitprop, but it holds little interest on its own merits. It is worthwhile, however, to see Lenin threatening to defeat 'the landowners and capitalists' around the world!

Keep an eye out for this in your film history class, and be ready for your indoctrination.

Caught The Kiddie Revue on TMC, which plays it as a One Reel Wonder. This is a really fun short. The tuxedoed tyke who introduces the acts looks like a tiny adult and has real style. The highlight is a group of four girls who sing the 'Poop-a-Doop' song, which is amazingly cute, adorable and hilarious, and let me say, those gals really sing it well. There's dance acts and various weirdness, like a tap-dancing contortionist, and some of it's kinda dull, but it all ends in a rousing finale where almost all the little kiddies dance and belt out the catchy 'Poop-a-Doop.'

The film is sepia tone and seems to have been reconstructed, since there are several frame drop-outs which may indicate a re-splicing. I'm glad this one was saved. It's well worth the ten or fifteen minute investment of your time.

What an inane effort, one of the worst movies ever made. Horrible acting. Dumb story with Lili Taylor as some kind of psychic sleuth. The interior of Hill House looks like some carnival funhouse. An insult to the original Robert Wise masterpiece and to Shirley Jackson's fine novel.

Joe Bob Briggs mentioned how great Rue McLanahan (Golden Girls) looked in this early-'60s exploiter. Don't believe it! There's nothing much to see, no nudity or anything else that would make an exploiter interesting. The storyline and acting are horrible, as one might expect, and it's very, very boring. If you're curious about how the young Rue McLanahan looked, check out HOLLYWOOD AFTER DARK instead. It's no cinema classic, either, but at least it delivers.

Ramon Navarro and Ralph Graves are two young Navy flyers vying for lovely Anita Page. They are also training for carrier landings and competing for the honor of piloting a large flying boat to Honolulu.

The story is pedestrian at best, puerile at worst, with a few moments of high drama. What makes this film truly memorable is the awesome aireal photography of cinematographer Charles A. Marshall. It's amazing that work of such quality was done at this time. There's also very good footage of the USS Langley, the Navy's first aircraft carrier, not to mention all the first generation naval aircraft. This lends great historical importance to this otherwise trivial film.

George W. Hill directed, and seems to have taken elements of this film and grafted them onto his later (1932) 'Hell Divers.'

Wallace Beery hams it up mercilessly as a 'loveable slob' of a Navy Chief Petty Officer on the USS Saratoga. His lofty position is soon challenged by a hard-nosed and far more competent young chief played by Clark Gable. Beery, rather than bring his own standard up, seeks to sabotage Gable, leading to several confrontations where Beery is ultimately outclassed. The film concludes with a sentimental but well-played ending.

The movie has many charms to offset its drawbacks. There is a lot of footage of the USS Saratoga, the Navy's first big carrier, built on the hull of a cancelled battlecruiser. The Saratoga footage alone, along with that of other circa-1932 warships, makes this a must-see for naval buffs. This is also an early starring role for Gable, who plays his part well and looks every inch the young, dashing, competent CPO. Beery himself exudes charm despite overplaying his part. Look also for the ex-Mack Sennett bathing beauty Marie Prevost as the worldly Lulu.

Despite its uneven mix of comedy and drama, not to mention a boatload of Navy cliches, this movie is well worth watching, especially for Navy buffs.

A group of dancers gets stuck in a brooding old castle that, naturally, has thirsty vampires who are thrilled to see them. That said, the film is basically just a dull, glacially-paced exercise in routine plotting. The only redeeming feature is the beauty of the actresses.

Louise Brooks gives a wonderful performance in this well-made French melodrama. She plays a typist named Lucienne who, despite being in love with a man named Andre, dreams of rising above her position in life. She sees opportunity in a beauty contest for Miss Europe, but Andre is furious when he discovers that she's entered, then demands that she withdraw. She tries to take back her entry only to discover that she's already been chosen as Miss France and will now go on to the main pageant.

This is a story of love, loss and decision played out to its passionate end. The movie is very energetically filmed by director Augusto Genina and cinema tographers Rudolf Mate and Louis Nee. The filming style is more like modern movies than the Hollywood flicks of the '30s, and shows the different style employed by Europeans. There are many fast cuts and traveling shots, mostly done with great skill and verve. The high energy of the movie's first third dwindles a bit in the middle but picks up again in the last 15 minutes.

The performances were very good by all the principals, but that of Louise Brooks is especially memorable. Louise leans heavily on her silent screen skills even though this is a talkie, but because her silent style had a surprisingly contemporary, understated feel, she makes the transition to talkies very well. The long early scene at the fair was especially poignant as Louise used her remarkably expressive eyes to convey her growing sense of misery and alienation, of being trapped in a life she no longer wants. I doubt it's ever been done better.

The film builds to a superb finale, artfully shot, powerful and stylish. This is really some of the best stuff of the early days of film. And the tragic storyline only underscores the greater tragedy that this is the final starring role for Louise Brooks. She wasn't just a great beauty who looked fantastic in a swimsuit, she really was a major acting talent who basically threw it all away. We are all the poorer for that.

This movie is less well known than her German films with G.W. Pabst, but I think it's a better one. I think this crew is just better at storytelling than Pabst, and while Prix de Beaute may lack the deep moral complexity of the Pabst films, it's much easier to follow and is overall a more streamlined, focused piece of work. And it doesn't hurt that Louise's singing parts are done by Edith Piaf, either.

Bottom line, this is a classic Louise Brooks film well worth looking for.

Plot? Who cares about the plot? Something about a guy with several attractive girlfriends, including the incendiary Louise Brooks and the magnetic Joan Blondell. We should all have this problem. ;>

The main action involves the classic situation of juggling three women in different bedrooms. We've all seen this a million times and always wished the juggling act would fail, the women would encounter each other, and a catfight would ensue. Guess what? This time it happens! It may not be a classic catfight, but the brawl between Louise, Joan and another attractive brunette is worth the price of admission.

This movie will appeal mainly to fans of Louise Brooks. Her part is relatively small and she appears sans her famous Dutch-bob hair helmet, thus revealing a rather high forehead. You will still be in love with her, guaranteed. The real irony here is that several other actresses appear with the hairstyle she made not only famous, but possibly immortal. The Louise Legion will also be interested in her voice acting. Her voice is fine, but the role gives her no real opportunity to display her ability. As we all know, things never really got better on that front, either.

So don't expect much out of this, just kick back and enjoy one of the great beauties of film history, the incredible Louise Brooks.

Goldie Hawn tackles a surprising role here, as a mom from the hard side of the tracks, and carries it off with notable success.

The setting is Key West in 1969. In the film, Goldie plays a single mom who's reduced to working in strip clubs after her husband, a former Navy pilot played by Keith Carradine, succumbs to PTSD, descends into drunkennes and eventually goes off to live in a monestary. At first, Goldie just slings drinks at the strip clubs. But in order to fulfill the dream, shared by her and her son, of once again living in a house rather than a run-down hotel, she graduates to bump 'n grind to bring in more money.

The son, played very well by David Arnott, is a 12-year old who is naturally wounded by his father's absence. He also becomes deeply upset when he discovers his mother is stripping. In addition, a new man enters her life, a writer played by Arliss Howard. This generates some resentment from the son.

The son, Chris, has a busy life beyond this. He hangs out with his good friend Buggs and goes out with his sister Termina. He also does many side-jobs to help out with money. One of his jobs involves delivering fish regularly from a ship at sea to the hotel cook. On one of his delivery runs he discovers that the fish are filled with cocaine. Thus begins the true plot of the movie, as Chris devises a scheme to sell drugs in order to save his mother from stripping.

This was the most unfortunate aspect of the film. While the basic concept of the plot wasn't bad, it culminates in a scene that fails to make sense. Since the screenplay was by Scott Sommer, based on his novella, one imagines he had it this way in the source material, but then again it may have been added for cinematic effect and structural closure. Basically, it didn't work.

Aside from this, the movie was well-played and largely enjoyable. The Key West locations are beautiful and sunny. You can almost feel the heat and humidity. Goldie looks great, and she drives a '59 Chrysler Imperial that's pretty cool even though it's seen better days. The overall milieu and characters are believable. David Arnott, in his first and, unfortunately, last role, gives an understated performance that should have launched a successful career. The soundtrack was actually cool enough to include Count Five's 'Psychotic Reaction.'

The pace of the film is slow, even lazy at times. This usually serves the film well but does lead to some leaden areas that shoot the boredom factor way up. There is also a lot of voice-over narration by Arnott. While it's nice to know what's in the character's head, they go overboard with it.

In the end this is a flawed film of small scope. It won't land on your list of classics but, despite its flaws, its earnestness, emotional complexity, good performances and great locations make it a pleasant way to spend a couple hours.

Strange as it may seem, the soundtrack is the coolest part of this skinfest. The songs seem to be by a number of indie/alternative bands, who go uncredited. Very annoying, as I'd certainly like to get some CDs by these acts.

The movie itself tries hard for the artsy/fartsy weirdness of some European sex films, but good old-fashioned American sleaze comes shining through, along with a smattering of violence, though unfortunately not in the form of catfights.

The movie earns points for having a large number of natural-breasted women, a welcome change from the flesh-covered rocks so common in films of the '80s and early '90s. That said, the casting agents could have looked harder for really primo breasts. Oh, I sound like a pig, don't I? The plot involves a cab driver searching for his missing sister in the stripper underground. Sounds familiar, huh?

Watch this one for the music, a few really good-looking women, and a little bit of weirdness.

This movie has the famous 'shocking' opener where skinhead Constance Towers (a bald hooker with her wig torn off), beats her john to a pulp with her spike-heeled shoe. She never again goes hairless, nor does she wield her deadly spike-heel evermore. The only other violence she engages in is a short catfight with dance-hall madame Virginia Grey, whom she pulverizes with a purse.

After the big opening, the storyline basically concerns Towers' journey to a small town, where she acts as a force to uncover some of its nasty secrets. It's a pretty ho-hum plot, made notable mainly by several horrible scenes. For example, she visits an orphanage, where she reveals her soft-side in interminable and embarrassingly sappy scenes of little rug-rats gazing at her adoringly, singing inanely repetitive songs. It's enough to make your teeth curl backwards! Equally awful is leading man Anthony Eisley as Griff, laying hokum film-noir macho dialog on Hatrack, played by the lovely but talentless Edy Williams.

This movie is basically a mess. The story is dumb, the acting very erratic and the dialog often repellent. It's hard to believe Maltin gave this film three stars. What it does offer is some impressive '60s babeage in the bar scenes, a couple of lame catfights and ... well, nothing else, really.

But then again, compared to another Fuller film, 'Dead Pigeon On Beethoven Street,' this one is a veritable 'Citizen Kane.' In short, Fuller is highly overrated.

This movie tries so hard to pull your heartstrings that it mainly succeeds in embarrassing you. You know you're in trouble at the start when you get a sentimental narration by the family's dead father. You are then bludgeoned by one feelgood scene after another as this family of saints nukes the world with good vibes. Many of these scenes don't make any sense and can inspire roaring laughter, particularly in Tobey's twisted 'homecoming' to a place he'd never been and a family he'd never met.

The film has a few redeeming moments, such as the encounter between little Ulysses (Butch Jenkins) and a store mime, but poor Butch is also dragged into the town library by an odd and seemingly disturbed child who can't read but says, over and over, "Just look at all these books, hundreds and hundreds of 'em." That must last a good five minutes before they have a stiff encounter with a librarian, who doles out another helping of good vibes.

Despite the acclaim this film received it is very rarely shown. There's a reason for this: it's awful. Don't read the book by William Saroyan either. Both the film and the novel are so sugary you'll end up needing insulin before you're done.