jeffhaller125

Good actors like Wallace Ford. Selena Royle and Shelley Winters cannot save a script that plays as if they made it up as they went along. The main character is psychotic and has not a drop of sympathy. He isn't evil simply because Gladys George was a bad mother. Winters' character is pathetic: a mousy girl still living with her overprotective parents and kid brother. She comes off as semi mentally retarded. There really isn't any understanding of Garfield's behavior since the script gives us only tiny pieces about his past. The movie looks great. Wonderful photography and a very gritty atmosphere, but the 77 minutes eventually feels a lot longer. It's a shame that Garfield's swan song was probably his worst picture.

A masterpiece? No kidding. This is such an unusual and beautiful film. Gene Tierney plays an early 20th century widow who is unknowingly more liberated than any woman of the 21st century. The film is stunning to look at. It is amazing to think that it was made in California, it looks as English as any English movie, so much so that one wonders why so many Hollywood movies set in England look so phony. What a screenplay. It is as if we are reading a book and every dissolve means a new chapter. Tierney was not a great actress but that face is fascinating and the role sits more comfortably with her than any of her others. Harrison is one of the sexiest creatures ever seen in a movie; their scenes together truly do smolder. I dare anyone not to cry during the last three minutes. It is so rewarding to see a Hollywood movie, with a great supporting cast that is all unrecognizable except for Natalie Wood. This is simply one of the very best and it will never date since it is a period piece. That score has to be among the greatest and most effective.

This is a movie without flaws. I hadn't seen it in awhile and forgot how gruesome it can be. But it also is loving towards the frailty of human beings. Thank goodness it gave us a happy ending after all we had been through. Should have won the Oscar for Best Picture but who trusts awards. Dorothy McGuire has a role that requires so much range. She is brilliant. As is Dunne and Garner. Even the actress playing the teacher makes an enormous impact in her short scene. The kid playing Neely was unlike what we expect of cute fat kid actors of the time - stunningly honest. Kazan once said in an interview that this was his finest film. No argument from me. This one will live forever.

This is unlike any film I have ever seen. It actually plays like two different movies and if you see them separately, each feels complete. The city part is probably the most honest and gripping depiction of the police force and its darkness. The film then does an about face in the country, in an entirely different rhythm that is equally dark. It is a character study in which all of the characters earn our sympathy. We can't help but understand why they behave as they do. I often think of the 1950s as a very weak decade for American film. This one stands among the best. Had the French made this movie, it would be talked about as a masterpiece.

I heard that the ending was dramatically changed from what was originally intended. The studio made the right decision. The audience deserves a happy ending to this almost gruesome tale.

The movie is more like a documentary than a movie with a narrative. This has to be one of the worst scripts ever used by such an important director and actors. I found Tracy to be at his most dull. He was never an actor who went over the top, thank goodness, but he can do nothing to make this garbage funny. And he proved in some of the Hepburn movies that he was loaded with wit. Taylor? It's all about posing. Why did this movie need a narration? And there is nothing of any depth to what Tracy's character is saying. Minnelli? Why did they give him something like this, something that didn't use any of his visual magic? Joan Bennett was good, very good. She gave this something that the script sure didn't have. I guess the photography was good. A huge disappointment. I was looking forward to it. It is simply a bad movie. Not a movie that is sooo bad that it is fun. There is no fun here. I thought it would never end.

People often criticize this movie for really not being much more than a filmed play. Yeah! So what's wrong with that when the characters are three dimensional and the actors are brilliant. This movie gets dull only when it moves out of the hotel (the stage) and becomes a traditional action movie. The black and white photography is brilliant (I once saw it colorized and it was dreadful). The production design is perfectly honest. The direction is so clear and unpretentious; when you have faces as brilliant as these, you gotta take advantage of closeups. There is not one less than outstanding performance. Bacall's role doesn't call for her to do a lot of "acting" and as a result, she is very moving. Trevor had tough competition for her Oscar that year and she won because she understood that too much restraint would have been wrong yet she never goes too far. Bsrrymore is unusually tough and commanding, almost heroic against the thugs. Bogart is quiet and direct and when he gives Trevor her drink has the most powerful moment in the movie. Robinson? It is a real showy role, and Edward knew what not to do. He is savage. And he almost is sexy when he gets Claire to sing her song but he can revert to a monster within seconds and give the audience chills. It really is his movie. Gomez and his fellow stupid thugs are funny at times but the script is unusually honest and barbaric. Take away their guns and these guys are wimps. But why didn't they just stay in the hotel? The shootout at the end could have been done that way. The escape to Cuba isn't believable or compelling. Those who call this movie slow, just don't get it. They don't understand that artists use pacing for effect. Today's generation loving special effects and action and over-the-top acting will hate this movie. Their loss. And the loss for the future of film and theatre.

This one really knocked me out. The screenplay is so tight. There is nothing unbelievable. The characters are all interesting and then there is Elsa Lanchester perfectly understanding how to make the most of every second. Ricardo Montalban was such a fine actor. He deserved a much better movie career. Then to see people like Jan Sterling and Betsy Blair in such good roles and offering such solid performances is such a pleasure. We kept saying, "This is Law and Order!" And what complement could be greater only this came about 40 years earlier. Of course you know it will have a satisfying ending but you won't believe the roller coaster ride you are given first. And Boston!!! When has that city ever been given such prominence. The movie is a knockout. Not a wasted second. How did this one get away? Masterpiece is overused but this is one.

I grew up in an era when movies were shown on television with a commercial every 15 minutes. When a movie has a slow pace to begin with, this can be lethal. And "Marnie" isn't a movie for kids. There is a lot of subtle sexual behavior that is way beyond what a kid can comprehend. It was shown on Turner Classic Movies the other day and I thought I would give it a chance again though my memories of it were not good, so I expected to be bored. What I found is that this is now one of my favorite Hitchcock movies. It is a psychological drama not a suspense film. The Hitchcock movie that I would find it is most similar to is "Spellbound" (which I hate). Who knows if Hedren was a good actress. But she is really intriguing here. If that is only because of Hitchcock's direction, so what, Hedren took direction well. Connery was at his most gorgeous and shows such love and compassion for Marnie. Diane Baker is very cool as Connery's love struck sister-in-law who just can't take no for an answer. The movie looks stunning. The fake backdrops in the Baltimore scenes are hypnotizing. And the way Hitchcock so often places the camera high above the action, makes us feel as though we are observing a psychological experiment. Forget what you are used to expecting from a Hitchcock suspense movie and you might find that this is a brilliant movie. Not just underrated but never understood.

It is not a good movie. But it is leaps and bounds more entertaining than "The Jolson Story." I found Brasselle to be grotesque most of the time during the dramatic scenes. The poor guy was directed to do the bulging eyes even when he was not doing a song. That isn't true to what Eddie Cantor was. Just look at him in an interview and he never looks freakish unless he is clowning. Keefe is great in the musical numbers and actually quite believable in the dramatics. Marilyn Erskine is very fine and underrated. "She doesn't look Jewish"??? is a rather insulting comment to make. Aline McMahon is great in a role that is now completely clichéd. She approached every line with complete seriousness. It has that sort of el cheapo Warner Brothers musical look and should have been a lot shorter, but this was a sincere attempt and it really is never boring. Had the approach been original instead of trying to do a scene for scene match of other biographies of the great vaudevillians, this could have been something.

Not even sure why I recorded this but one of the greatest strokes of luck I have ever had. This is a dark movie. Somehow I always find that films before 1932 are quite a bit more rugged looking than what followed. A lot of that might be technology but the script here is downright mean at times. The scene where the group of convicts on the lam compare their erections is even pretty raw by today's standards. And what a gross group of men they are. That makes the whole scene even sleazier. Donald Cook was such a handsome guy. His character doesn't have a lot of depth here but he is always very sweet and so very kind. Dorothy Mackaill is the star and it is a shame that her career never went far in talkies. She had a stunning look and she could really act. What she brought to this role that wasn't in the script showed what an remarkable talent she was. And she had to be on her toes because every time Nina Mae McKinney is on screen as the hotel clerk she nearly steals the movie. McKinney is another one who should have had a major career, but there the circumstances were different. When she sings her song to the men she is serving dinner, I dare you to look away. This has a great degree of Miss Sadie Thompson in it but with not nearly the amount of morality. The main character here is a very good person who sometimes has to compromise for her survival. This movie was WAY AHEAD of its time. I don't think that any movie today could deal with a subject like this was such frankness and compassion.

I ordered this from a rather dumpy company that sells old films they have transferred to DVD. I wanted it because I love Colbert. This is a giant film. I have never seen a Hollywood movie with such an authentic French feel. Colbert's role is fascinating. There is a lot of Camille, Back Street and even Gypsy in the story. Colbert's character goes through a lot of changes and Claudette was so totally in charge; this is arguably her finest hour. Marshall was perfect as a man who could not be more different from Colbert. The secondary cast is magnificent, in particular, Bert Lahr in a serious role. Why this one never became a real classic is hard to understand. The attention to detail and the classy way Cukor unfolds the story makes it fly by. Turner Classic Movies needs to pick it up. This is the sort of thing I could see becoming steady viewing for those who love old movies. I expect to see it a half dozen times more before sharing it with friends. And until a couple weeks ago, I had never heard of it.

After four more viewings I had to amend my rating from 9 to 10. This movie is about as good as it gets.

I saw this when I was a teenager and absolutely hated it. It took me several decades before I gave it another chance. Now it is hypnotizing. The whole thing has a very dreamlike quality. I think what made it unappealing when I was younger is it is basically burlesque. It seemed corny. But as we get older our attitudes about what is funny become different. I remember my mother in hysterics over "Hee Haw!" and I was embarrassed. Last time I saw it I was howling. The look of the film is as if you are watching a stage production. They are not trying to create any reality. There are moments that are absolutely hilarious and in its own way rather sophisticated. The performers are at their peaks. The score is what is disappointing. Cole Porter wasn't the composer for this sort of work. But "Be a Clown" is a terrific number (in both parts of it) and Judy is sexy in "Mack the Black." I never thought I would like this movie. Now it is something I look forward to. I have never seen anything else quite like it and what greater praise can you give a movie.

This is a movie I remember from childhood. It was on TCM last night and I watched expecting it to be really stupid. Some of the parts I loved as a kid were now not so good, but what I couldn't understand then, I see now as truly witty and quite ahead of its time. People can say that it is a cop out on feminism, but Doris's character got a chance at a major career and found out that it interfered with what was more important to her, her family. Is that a cop out? Quite the opposite. I wish that even now the editor could come back and trim some of the bad stuff (those kids were not actors, obviously family members of some producer). The suds gag was pretty neat in some ways but way too much in others. Day? She was such an underrated actress. Here she is so darned lovable, funny and sexy. Garner was an even better match than Hudson. He is gorgeous but less the pretty boy than Rock and found a lot of humor coming from the character's seriousness. This movie has a very good script with a pretty interesting conflict. The sexual talk is surprisingly quite frank even to this day. It is so nice to see a couple who is truly in love with each other. Yet, this is still a family film. A very sexy one but undoubtedly wholesome.

I never read Gaines story but word has it that this movie didn't get it correctly. There was a lot made up to make more drama. Part of the problem with the movie is that the screenplay doesn't really take interest in the real Cecil and his wife until way into the film. It's not easy to feel for them when they are not well enough defined. So what helps is the fine acting which makes up for the lack of craft. (It is insulting to put up on the screen "1974 Nixon's second term;" if any American doesn't know this without being told, then he should be ashamed.) This should never have been a commercial film, there is way too much material to give anything enough attention. And you can see every event coming long before it happens. There is little drama if it is not from a piece of history. The most moving moment is when Louis is bailed out of jail and Charles tells him he is going to Vietnam. It is the first wholly human scene. Still, though it is long and slow, I was never bored. But I wonder if a lot of that is because I had already lived through these moments in history. I wonder what sort of reaction a young person has. And thank goodness Forrest Whitaker never acted cute. I am glad I saw it but disappointed from beginning to end as to what it could have been with more honesty and less attempts at pushing the tears. A little real humor would have helped.

Perhaps one of the greatest movies ever made. Definitely in my top 5 of all time. If you love the theatre, then nothing could be more gripping; you will feel like a voyeur. If you are not a theatre person, then chances are you will be bored. The details, the accuracy of the tales, etc. It's all there. There really isn't a lot to say. Broadbent's greatest performance which says a lot since he has given dozens of great performances. There are those who can simply savor the lushness of the period details, but if you become wholly absorbed in what is happening, it is impossible not to be very moved. There are a few scenes of such deep insight into human behavior that it is almost tempting to look away. The movie must have cost a fortune and I am sure it was not successful at the box office so those of us who love this must be eternally grateful that it was made. And made by people of such intelligence and precision. Give this one ten more years and people will remember it as the last great movie of the 20th century. And it is nothing short of great. A true epic.

This might be the sexiest Hollywood movie, ever! It is fun, and there really are no noble characters in it unlike in the sanctimonious "Casablanca." It is easy now to talk about the chemistry of the stars, but if you can't see, smell and taste it, then you have to be a lousy lover. The plot is believable and never has moments where we would say "Oh, that could never happen." The lack of stars outside of the leads makes the film all the richer so that you don't stop and say, "Oh, Look! There's ..." It is all ambiance that matters. It can appear that the scenes go on too long but they feel so real, so natural that you gotta just enjoy the flavors. Everything to say about Mr. and Mrs. Bogart has been said and none of their films prove it like this one. A neglected performance is Walter Brennan's. He always had the chance to go over the top and when he did, it was great, but here he just plays a lovable guy and gives so much of the humor. The scene where he finds out why Bogart slapped him is remarkably moving. This is not a movie for everyone, but with the great songs it is almost like a musical. And how can you not feel such great appreciation to Howard Hawks for treating us like adults.

I saw this movie for the first time about 40 years ago and loved it. It came on TCM today and I was afraid I was going to be disappointed. NOT AT ALL!!! If anything it is even better than I remembered. The script is really tight; no loose ends. Silly? Of course, but what wonderful silliness. And there is some pretty clever humor. Some serious laughs. The songs for it are pretty bad, but how much fun it was when MGM took classical music and used it as opera arias. Melchior is astounding in that the voice is so huge and so sweet and his diction in English, impeccable. Durante is lovable even when he gets a bit annoying. And Grayson really had a beauty that is unlike anyone else's; her singing style is a matter of taste. But as is often the case, June Allyson steals the show just by being herself. Her soubrette number near the end is adorable and in its own way very, very sweet! This is what they used to call a family musical. Thank God for Turner Classic Movies.

I hated this movie as a kid and decided to see what I would think 40 years later. There is no doubt that it is well-made: well directed, well written and except for Davis and Brent (did he ever act, it was always the same performance)well acted. All the Davis mannerisms are there and it is amazing how unattractive she really was which doesn't work well forthis character. Judith Traherne is abrasive and crude. Davis could give her some sympathy if she would just shut up, slow down and listen for a second instead of divaing it up every chance she gets. I laughed when they went into the explanation of how this contrived disease would progress. But the noble thing about the actors is that they treat the material as if it was all intelligent and sensible.

Fitzgerald was such a fine actress that it is a shame she wasn't used more in leads. Bogart gave a decent Irish accent and his scene where he finally puts the moves on Davis is believable and touching. Reagan's character stays drunk and it is funny how as president, he so much behaved like this guy.

It is too long. But had the lead been played by a good actor, not Davis, I think it would have been easier to buy into the contrivances.

Still, there is nothing on film as fun as the moment when Bette Davis reads the menu.

It starts out great. But then some of the extreme slapstick physical comedy is just not funny today; lot of "falling down or falling in the water" jokes. There is greatness all around this movie, but it never feels focused enough to say what it wants. Still it has to be admired for daring to go someplace no one else could have even imagined back in 1941. And remember, though there were movies about Hollywood afterwards no one went anywhere near this until Fellini. But watching it for the first time today in many years, I was surprised how difficult it was to get involved. It seemed to stop and restart so many times that I got impatient. Still the scene where the prisoners watch the cartoon is undeniably one of the most moving moments in American screen history. And it is also easy to see how many future directors took their lead from what Sturges was trying to do here. Ambition alone can sometimes be quite rewarding.

I didn't have any interest in this but watched because someone else wanted to. I fell in love with it in about two minutes. I have never seen these characters in a sitcom before. Granted I don't watch a lot of them but the richness and honesty here is pretty mesmerizing. The first episode was intriguing as they laid the groundwork, and the next two went beyond it to brilliance. Dawn, Didi and Patsy are characters I have never seen before. Metcalfe's doctor is thrilling because every time she appears we know we are in for some new insanity. But what is so inspiring about this show is the humanity of the nurses. Not just in their care for some of the most pathetic of patients (customers), but in the examination into their own shortcomings in life though I have not yet found any shortcomings in Didi who may be the most loving character I have ever experienced in a television program. Not sure this one is gonna make it. It might be too good for Americans. The honesty and greatness of the acting might be too subtle for us.

Of course this movie isn't for everyone. But for those of us who have lived through these things, it is about the most perfect telling of this everyday story that could exist. Thank God there is not some annoying musical score. America could never make a film this honest and blunt. And leave it to the stupid critics to not realize that it is Jean-Louis Tritignant's movie. I am not taking anything away from her, but the focus is on him. He is in nearly every scene. Just watch how he subtly ages. This is sometimes painful to watch but it is never sad. The fact that a spouse so strongly endures what he or she can is the ultimate love. I didn't cry. But I really felt this one. It doesn't get any better. Enjoy it? Sort of. If you are strong enough.

This really is bad. Very bad. Fanny Skeffington (Davis) is considered the greatest beauty of her era. Once you stop laughing at that you will probably love the rest. It just gets worse and worse. The ending feels like a cross between Sunset Blvd and Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? Davis' high pitched monotone is her excuse for acting this time. Hey, Scarlett O'Hara was a horrible bitch, too but she was at least an interesting and sometimes lovable one. Fanny Skeffington is a bore. At the same time, every moment Rains has on screen is memorable. He had to see that his style of acting would steal this movie from a diva. At the same time, this long and rather slow moving movie is not boring. And it just keeps shocking us with its awfulness that we are on the edge of our seats to see what next horror awaits. It is definitely a freak show.

It is amazingly well done. But it is not entertaining and not particularly gripping because we already know the ending. There is almost Zero Human Element in this movie and without that, I am not interested. I think the movie that comes closest to this in concept is Bridge on the River Kwai. Now that was involving and entertaining. Bigelow? Who cares, it's all technical. I wasn't really bored but I was looking at my watch a lot. Does Jessica Chastain really have much to do as an actor here? It must be great to get in an important movie but there is really little character to establish. The hype for this one is over, but if anyone ever asks me in the future if I would recommend it? Not on your life.

I remember hating this movie as a kid. Of course. This is an adult movie about adults. The dialog is brilliant but it is misleading to refer to it as a comedy. There are some of the most honest moments I ever experienced in a Hollywood movie. That isn't to say that there are many movies as entertaining as this one. But the John Barrymore scenes have a darkness that one is not likely to see topped. Dressler whose work is not seen much today was a towering presence. Billie Burke walks away with the movie with that gracious phony smile trying to cover up the most self centered of women. Lionel didn't have that whiny way of his that is usually annoying; his character is undoubtedly the one we love and pity the most. Harlow and Beery? They live up to everything anyone ever said about them and there is an undeniable love between their characters. I watched this tonight with two people who had never seen it and had been led to believe it was a screwball comedy; they were on the edge of their seats awaiting every line. When you are ready for this one, you will see the absolute genius.

I know of no other movie musical that feels so much like I am watching a Broadway show. Just one great number right after another and they all have something to do with the story or characters. And just think of all the history behind those actors. June? Well, there never was a role she was better suited for and she gives it an enthusiasm no one else could have. Peter? Miscast? Yup, but this isn't Shakespeare and he is so sweet. McCracken? What a shame there is so little of this talent on screen. I remember first seeing this movie when I was a teenager. 40 years later it is better. Now I can appreciate the broad comedy and it is amazing to see how tender it can be. Why they didn't extend the design into 1920s hairstyles for the women I can't understand,but the movie looks great. The DVD I just saw must have been remastered; the colors were brilliant. For some of us this is MGM's best. Certainly its most honest and least pretentious. What a peek into a world that is gone and will never come back. Such innocence.