While watching this amazing series, one learns more about diverse Southern food and culture than any TV program I've ever seen. Vivian and her team produced the most satisfying look into the culture, history and food of probably the least understood portion of the USA.
Decent show but she destroys much of the historic charm
It's swell to save old mansions in Kansas City, but Tamara frequently destroys much of the original historic charm on her projects....many of her projects look too new and trendy than the original property. I'm often disappointed at her choices.
In some ways, this is a rather odd early 1950's movie regarding environmental concerns and big business lobbying. It's nice to Patricia Neal in a real romantic comedy. I'm not a van of Victor Mature, but he does well here. One of the main reasons for this movie is wonderful Edmund Gwenn, who made such a splash for 20th Century-Fox in "Miracle on 34th Street" and "Mister 880". He's wonderful here. Very nicely done comedy and quite a surprising find.
The movie is so bloody serious and ridiculous that at least by 2018 eyes, I think it's a comedy. I laughed at all sorts of absurdities and overwrought situations in the film. Perhaps it was a serious drama back in 1955, but it's a hellava hoot now.
I can't believe that anyone at MGM in 1955 ever green-lighted this absurd drama...and I'm surprised at the cast Minnelli was able to obtain. This is certainly one of the all-time camp classics of the 1950's.
It's a satire, albiet not a particular successful one. Great performances
To see the legendary Ethel Waters at her prime, as well as such an early performance from Sammy Davis, Jr. makes this a must-see. This despite the rather stupid attempt at satire. It did little to advance the mid-1930's plight of Black folks, other than giving the actors paying jobs!
Enjoy it for the historic performances and try to ignore the pretty awful stereotypical goings-on.
Good concept and actors, but dull, screenplay and not very funny
This is a misfire for Gregory LaCava. Usually his movies have that spark and brightness...not this one. Everyone looks so bored and lacking in emergy. It's mainly the fault of the screenplay, not the actors.
It's a low B screenplay for a low-A movie, unfortunately.
I think this RKO melodrama distills Hepburn's strengths in her early years even better than in her celebrated performance of Jo March in "Little Women". Kate was not the kind of actress who could play common or weak (although she was common but strong in the under-appreciated "Spitfire"). During this period, she mostly played strong and independent characters.
"A Woman Rebels" is a very good story about a Victorian woman who dares to be independent at a time when women were expected to get married. A career was considered out of the question. I think it's very well written and directed with good performances, especially from Herbert Marshall and Van Heflin (in his debut film performance).
It's clear that Warners was attempting to repeat the same success they had with "Four Daughters" right down to casting a number of the same actors. Rolland Young and Fay Bainter (along with the wonderful May Robson) are among my favorite character actors of the era.
Priscilla Lane is just fine, but Jeffrey Lynn really isn't a particular good actor. Yes, he was fine in "All This and Heaven Too", but he's dull as dishwater in "A Letter to Three Wives". Joseph Mankiewicz referred to him as a "leaner" - a weak actor. He was right.
All in all, it's a very watchable Warners programmer of the late 1930's. I can think better ways to waste my time.
There's no question that this was a modestly made movie and it wasn't much of a success, either. Totally forgotten, it was rediscovered by TCM and now is considered a Christmas Classic, which is clearly is.
All of the acting is really quite good, other than Wendell Corey's typical one-dimensional style of acting. Since his part is of a rather conventional, dull lawyer, I guess he does what's required.
What most other people seem to suggest that it's a rather thin story, it's well conceived and really quite well written. Janet Leigh's son Timmy in the movie is picture perfect too.
What's really a revelation is to see Robert Mitchum play such a nice, light comedic part. Despite his usually off-the-cuff persona - on and off the screen - he was really a gifted and talented actor and this film really shows how charming he could be.
I agree with most of the other reviews, but there's lots more brilliance that has not been mentioned. James Bridie take a very funny swipe at American 1930's slang (the new maid and a funny reply by the Lord Judge).
I don't think of this as being at all Capra-like. None of his films has this kind of snappy, clever satirical dialog.
I've come to really consider this film of the best British comedies of the 1930's.
The current (2013) DVD issue is part of "The Vivien Leigh Anniversary Collection" and is a really great print. Buy it and you'll see!
Rudy Vallee was rushed into this film before anyone bothered to teach him how to act in front of a camera! He's wooden, looks down instead of looking directly at the person he's talking to, and generally looked extremely ill at ease.
The story is not bad and it does move along well for a sound film of this period. Not much interesting camera movements.
What is the best thing is wonderful Marie Dressler's turn as a society matron. She's just plain terrific.
By the late 1930's and into the 1940's, Rudy really blossomed into a first-rate character actor. His work in the Preston Sturges films are really great. His parts in George Stevens' "I Remember Mama" and the Cary Grant-Myrna Loy comedy "The Bachelor and the Bobby-Soxer" are very good, as well.
Despite many of the other reviews, I find this film (along with her "A Woman Rebels"), one of the best of the films that originally did poorly at the box office and contributed Hepburn's career downturn in the late 1930's.
It IS a precious little comedy of errors, but it's also quite a hoot. Besides Hepburn and Fay Bainter's good performances, there's amusing supporting performances from Cora Witherspoon, Eric Blore, and especially from Estelle Winwood, who made so few films during this era, despite being a seasoned stage actress. Her part is very funny and she plays it beautifully.
Give this film another viewing and you'll enjoy it. The only real issue I have with the film is (in typical 1930's/1940's fashion), Katharine Hepburn's makeup after 10 years is not much different from what she looked like at the start of the film.
Typical for an early RKO production, the screenplay and direction could've been tighter, but I found this to be a very entertaining film.
There's more than a hint of anti-Semitism in that Gregory Ratoff's Abe Ullman character is basically in charge and more than partly responsible for the great success of the store. As Barrymore grows older and his children are less than interested in keeping the business alive, Barrymore is very harsh and unfair to Ullman's expectation that he might be able to receive the partial ownership of the store that his hard work and management has clearly earned. Their showdown scene is touching and very intense.
Brilliant comedy-drama with some real issues about business
I know this is 1936, but this really illustrates how far women have come in the workplace.
Jean Harlow's character, Whitey, really is a first-rate secretary. In a later era, she would've been Van's (Clark Gable) assistance, instead of a secretary. Her affection for her boss is one of respect initially not lust.
Myrna Loy's character is the typical, educated high society wife. She knows nothing about his business, and it never occurs to Van to let her in on the secret plan he has to buy another magazine. So, when he goes to a convention to sell the magazine owner on the proposed sale, his wife knows nothing about this scheme. She assumes the worse when Whitey is called down assist in the purchase procedures.
This is all innocent, but, of course, due to the times, the wife becomes convinced that there's a rendezvous in process.
This is an excellent made film, and it's one of Gable's best performances. Harlow and Loy are perfect and supporting cast including May Robison and a young James Stewart are picture perfect.
I wanted to add this bit of trivia about the show's location and the set design.
First off, I lives in New York for a number of years and the outside of their 'hotel' looks nothing like any building I ever saw in New York! Also, all of the rather high styled furniture used in the Albright's apartment was of California origin; Glenn of California, etc. Much of it was very classic West Coast mid-century modern pieces, yet's it's simply not reasonable to have imagined that this lot of West Coast furniture would've been used in an upscale New york apartment.
Bottom line, the choice of furnishings give this sitcom away as being a West Coast production, unlike "I Love Lucy", which looks like it COULD'VE been shot in New York!
I'm not a big fan of MGM's classic splashy musicals, but this one is really such a load of poorly written crapola. Of course, the basic story is great; a groundbreaking Broadway play that ran 666 performances, and an even better 1939 film.
To my eyes, everything's wrong with this stinker.
And, I'm not the only who feels this way...just read most of the other reviews!
Only Agnes Moorehead gets the chance to give a good performance; a sophisticated type of part she was not offered too much.
This and WB's "Night And Day" are classic examples of how the major studios could distort 1920's and 1930's musical history to what they think was appropriate fact for 1940's audiences.
There's hardly any accurate about this account of Rodgers and Hart's career.
Everyone's dressed in 1947 clothing, even though much of it takes place in the 1920's. MGM was incapable of showing the way things really were (only Minneli's "Meet Me In St Louis" was close to being visually correct.) To top it off, let me be one of the apparent few to consider Mickey Rooney's way-over-the-top typical performance and extremely modest voice. I just don't understand how he became such a huge star.
The program is an interesting premise; Canadian homeowners (probably from Toronto) have a house that no longer meets their needs. So they look for a better one while their current house is updated with funds provided by the homeowners.
The problem is, they have selected some of the most difficult, wining, snotty people living in Toronto. During the whole process, the homeowners bitch and belly ache about every update being done to their house, and they hate each house being showed to them.
I rather like Hilary but real estate David belongs on Selling New York or Selling L.A., because he's even more snotty than the homeowners.
I really dislike every aspect of the program that I've seen thus far...and believe me, I don't expect to see any more episodes!