A Look Back

Fame

Sat, 16 Mar 2013 01:37:00 -0400

What: a musical drama from 1980

Starring: Eddie Barth, Irene Cara, Paul McCrane, Barry Miller, Maureen Teefy

General Plot: auditions and 4 years of high school at a performing arts school in New York

My Thoughts: While it’s a fairly decent film I wouldn’t call it a musical. There a total of maybe 4 songs and none of them are all that inspiring, catchy or adding to the movie.

There’s a lot of plot that happens outside of the movie that doesn’t get explained in the movie. For instance the title song “Fame” apparently two of the characters from the high school wrote and recorded it, but how did they get together? Earlier when Coco is trying to convince Angelo to form a band, Angelo doesn’t seem interested then all of a sudden they’re best friends and writing songs together. When did that happen? Musical gold and it’s not even in the movie?? Why not?!

Near the end of the movie Coco is asked if she’s that girl in the chorus line, she says yes, no it’s fairly obvious she’s just saying yes to impress the guy, but there’s so little information going on in the movie its hard to tell.

Leroy is illiterate yet some how makes it to graduation. If they knew he couldn’t read in his freshman year how did he make it to the next grade, let alone graduate?! Why is no one helping this kid? And when he finally does ask for help he has a bonding moment with his teacher and then…
….nothing. Does she help him? does he learn to read? does he make it into the dance academy that wants him so long as he can read? The world will never know.

What about Lisa who was a dancer and wasn’t good enough so she moved onto drama? What about Doris, Montgomery and Ralph?

How about Hilary who only has a couple scenes. She says she’s going to steal Leroy from his ballerina girlfriend, and some how does? When does this happen?! HOW does this happen. And then all of a sudden she needs an abortion?

Did the person who wrote this forget how to write an actual story?! There is no ending, no conclusion to this story. Perhaps that was why they had the TV show after.

Again, it’s billed as a musical and there’s a grand total of 4 songs in it.

I feel like each character line should be it’s own movie, and they’d all be along the line of after school specials.

I don’t recommend it, perhaps the remake is better, but i kind of doubt it.

Fun Facts:
Original title for the movie was to be “Hot Lunch,” but because an X-rated movie on release at the time had the same title, the production opted for “Fame” instead

I'm a bad tumblr-er

Fri, 22 Feb 2013 04:41:30 -0500

I’m a bad tumblr-er, that is all.

I hope to change this soon….

starting tomorrow (maybe)

Marilyn Monroe

Tue, 28 Aug 2012 15:12:00 -0400

This year marks the 50th anniversary of Marilyn Monroe’s tragic death. Many magazines have come out on the subject of her death. Some say suicide, some say murder plotted by the Kennedy’s others say accidental drug OD. Whatever it was it’s safe to say she went too soon.

I was never a huge fan of Ms. Monroe, thinking she was just another dumb blond. but i have recently learned a lot about her. She was a pioneer for feminists. She started her own production company. She’s rumoured to have had an IQ between 163 and 168 (Albert Einstein’s IQ score is 160). As well as many other facts. So now I’d say I’m, not a fan, but an interested party in the life of Marilyn.

I noticed the other day going into my local HMV that more of Marilyn Monroe’s movies can be seen on the shelves, all at $15. Unfortunately I’ve only seen one of her movies and I already own it. Its too bad Netflix doesn’t have any of her movies for me to “preview” before buying. Seems everyone is getting into Marilyn Mania as her memorial approaches and passes.

So I guess what I’m getting at is that this lady was a complex one, getting herself lost in the character she created so she could deal with the world. I wish we saw more of who she really was. Perhaps if she felt the ability to be herself in front of the spotlight she would have lasted longer than her short 36 years.

The Dirty Dozen

Tue, 15 May 2012 12:45:00 -0400

What: War dramady from 1967

Starring: Lee Marvin, Ernest Borgnine, Charles Bronson, Jim Brown, John Cassavetes, Richard Jaeckel, George Kennedy, Trini Lopez, Ralph Meeker, Robert Ryan, Telly Savalas, Clint Walker, Robert Webber, Donald Southerland.

General Plot: Major Reisman (Lee Marvin) is assigned a dozen army convicts to train and send on a mass assassination mission behind enemy lines in World War II.

My Thoughts: I LOVE this film! Its sooooo good (rotten tomatoes gives it a 96%). It’s full of comedy and tragedy and action drama. What I love most about movies from this era is that no matter what they are, musical, drama, sci-fi there is always a healthy dose of comedy in the mix.

I really enjoy the ensemble cast; it reminds you of Oceans 11 (the original or the remake). However Lee Marvin is definitely the main character and many of the dozen don’t really get showcased. I’ve seen this movie many times and I still can’t remember which one Jiminez is.

One character that I don’t understand at all is Telly Savalas’s character, Archer Maggott. I suppose I’ll just have to assume he’s a psychopath. He certainly comes across that way. For instance *spoiler alert* the entire mission almost gets blown when he decides to maliciously go after a German fraulein.

This was one of Jim Browns movie debuts. His roll is small, but not unimportant. I like when a celebrity of a different profession wants to get their feet wet in acting they chose relatively small roles, so as not to embarrass themselves like Dwayne Johnson in “The Scorpion King”.

Donald Southerland seems to play a little bit of a retard in this movie, im not being insensitive to the handicapped people in the world, I’m being serious. His character seems to have some sort of mental retardation, but that doesn’t stop one of our favorite canucks from stealing the show.

Over all its fantastic, I can’t think of anything besides Archer Maggott that I don’t like about this film. It may be a money grabber, according to Lee Marvin, but that doesn’t make it any less good (i.e. Iron Man). It’s more funny than action packed or dramatic, but it’s a good boys film. The ensemble casting is great. I think it works because “the dozen” is a character unto itself rather than each one being highlighted. However there are about 4 characters from the dozen who you get to know and learn to love.

Watch it, I own it, I love it. It’s my secret weapon to get my hubby to like classic films.

If you liked this you’ll also like “Kelly’s Heroes”, you make recognize some faces.

Fun Facts:
George Kennedy, Clint Walker, Ernest Borgnine and Jim Brown reunited in 1998 to play voices in “Small Soldiers”.

Charles Bronson’s characters says that his father is a coal miner from Silesia, Poland. In real life Bronson’s father was a coal miner from Lithuania.

The Scene where one of the “Dozen” poses as a General was supposed to go to Clint Walker. However Walker was a little bit too much like his character and felt uncomfortable doing this scene. So it was given to Donald Sutherland. This scene got Sutherland the role in M*A*S*H.

Singing In The Rain

Tue, 07 Feb 2012 13:07:02 -0500

What: Musical Comedy from 1952

Starring: Gene Kelly, Donald O’Connor, Debbie Reynolds

General Plot: The Talkies have just come out and Don Lockwood is a famous silent movie star along with his co-star Lina Lamont. Everyone is excited for the new innovation in film, that is until Lina opens her big mouth. Hilarity ensues.

My Thoughts:
This is a visually stunning movie. One of my favorite musicals. I love the way the movie opens with Don Lockwood telling the audience a skewed version of his history. I love all the songs, but one, as usual. I find “Lucky Star” near the beginning of the movie to be really boring and doesn’t convey any emotion. It’s supposed to be the love song between Kathy and Don but it falls flat and isn’t very memorable.

The rest of the songs however are generally fabulous and again, visually stunning. However some dance sequences don’t make a lot of sense. For example the “Moses supposes” song, the dance doesn’t quite make sense, especially at the end. “AAAAAAAAAAAA”, WHAT?! All the costumes are bright and happy and of course it wouldn’t be a Gene Kelly movie without a fantasy number. For me the “Gotta Dance” number is great but tends to go on just a tad long. Especially near the end when it turns into a ballet, which just drags. I don’t really buy into the fantasy within a fantasy scene.

The story line is great too. Not only is it entertaining but it’s historical fiction. Many movie lots went out of business or had to change radically and quickly when the first “talkie” came out. More than one silent movie actor lost their jobs. Which makes Lina Lamont even better with her squeaky voice and dumb persona. “What am I dumb or somethin’?” well Lina, yeah!

I recomend it. If you want a more historical view of the invention of the talkie and how it effected the silent movie stars watch “The Artist”.

Fun Facts:
In the movie Kathy Selden (Debbie Reynolds) is dubbing the singing and talking of Lina Lamont (Jean Hagen). In reality Jean Hagen did her own talking and we are seeing Debbie Reynolds being dubbed dubbing for Lina. Lina’s singing voice is provided by Betty Noyes, so once again we’re seeing Debbie being dubbed dubbing for Lina.

Gene Kelly is not known for being the nicest guy in Hollywood even though he comes across as such on screen. Gene criticised Debbie for not being able to dance. Fred Astaire found her crying under a piano and offered to help her.

Debbie Reynolds was 19 during filming. At the time she was living with her parents and had to get up a 4am and take 3 different buses to get to the set. Sometimes she would just sleep on set.

Donald O’Connor was asked to revive an old trick from his youth for the “Make ‘em Laugh” number, which was running up a wall and doing a somersault. O’Connor at the time smoked 4 packs of cigarettes a day and was in bed rest for a week. Unfortunately the film was destroyed and O’Connor had to shoot the number all over again.

The Nun's Story

Sun, 18 Dec 2011 01:37:00 -0500

What: A Drama from 1959

Starring: Audrey Hepburn

General Plot: Gabriel (Audrey Hepburn) is a doctor’s daughter in 1930. When she’s a young woman she decides to enter into a convent. By entering the convent she hopes to travel to the Congo to help the sick. Instead the reverend mother sends Sister Luke (aka Gabriel) to an asylum for the mentally ill and deranged. Eventually she is sent to the Congo where she meets a dreamy “non-believer” doctor. Eventually war breaks out in Europe and she returns home (to Belgium) where much has changed and she finds it hard to maintain her religious ethics.

My Thoughts: If you liked “The Sound of Music” and are looking for another feel good Nun’s during War movie, this wouldn’t be it. This is a more realistic view of nun’s during war. This movie is based on a book that was written based on the life of an Ex-Nun who lived during the Second World War.

This is apparently one of Audrey Hepburn’s favorite movies. From an actor’s point of view I can see why, from an audience’s point of view I’m not entirely sure. It’s a well-directed artful movie and it takes a little bit of patients to get into it.

This is slightly backwards, but it reminds me of the book, not the movie, “Memoirs of a Geisha” where nothing much happens, it’s not all that dramatic but it’s absolutely captivating. It takes a little to get into the movie but if you’re patient and wait it’s very good.

Something that I find frustrating with the movie is that there’s no real sense of time passing. How long is she at the asylum? It’s only a few scenes! And how long is she in the Congo? What year is it when she comes back to Belgium?

A popular criticism of the film is that in the book there is no sexual tension between Sister Luke and Dr. Fortunati. My criticism is that I don’t know what they’re talking about. Maybe in 1959 that was considered sexual tension but today that’s called good friends and colleagues.

I’d like to point out that for the majority of the movie Audrey Hepburn doesn’t wear any makeup and she still looks damn good. Except that is at the end of the film when she takes off her habit and she looks soooo old!

It is indeed a fantastic film; subtle in its brilliance and hard to peel your eyes from, once you give it the patience of the first little bit.

Fun Facts:

This movie was filmed on location in Rome, Bruges, Stanleyville and the Congo, including a real leper colony.

Members of the Rome Opera ballet corps were hired to play some of the nuns, and complex convent rituals were literally choreographed for them.

Ingrid Bergman was the first suggestion to play Sister Luke. Ingrid believed that she was too old for the role and suggested Audrey Hepburn instead.

A famous rumor surrounding the movie is that Audrey Hepburn demanded to have a bidet on location in the Congo. Audrey has constantly denied this rumor, wondering how such an extravagance could even be hooked up in the Congo.

Sorry (again)

Sat, 17 Dec 2011 23:39:23 -0500

Once again loyal followers (all three of you) I have to apologize for my tardiness. Please know that the month of November was ridiculous! All my days off were accounted for due to bridal showers and other stuff to get done for my wedding. Including getting married! That’s right loyal followers (all three of you) I’m married, going on 1 week now.

I hope you’ll excuse my tardiness. After the holiday season (I recommend “White Christmas”) I plan on trying to watch all the Cary Grant movies I can get my hands on. It’s bound to be fun, that or I’ll ruin Cary Grant forever; which would be a shame considering he’s my #1 favorite actor.

Breakfast at Tiffany's

Mon, 17 Oct 2011 00:27:00 -0400

What: a Dramedy from 1961

Starring: Audrey Hepburn, George Peppard and Mickey Rooney

General Plot: Holly Golightly is a socialite in New York who meets Paul when he moves into her building. They become fast friends when Holly breaks into Paul’s apartment one evening. Paul a sensible man gets caught up in Holly’s flighty ways and finds himself in love and having to stand by while watching Holly live her life in an unconventional way.

My thoughts: When I first saw the movie when I was 14 or so I hated it. I thought Audrey’s character of Holly Golightly was flaky and I hated seeing Audrey Hepburn in such a stupid role, I thought it was too bad Marilyn Monroe wasn’t able to accept the role. Re-watching it I think Marilyn would have ruined the movie. It’s a fun light hearted movie and I think it makes fun of every other drama happening at the time.

Had Marilyn taken on the part of the Holly the character would remain one dimensional, there would not be the depth in character that Audrey brings to Holly. Audrey as Holly is flaky because she doesn’t want to have to deal with reality. Running away from a husband who’s old enough to be her father, running away from a possible career, trying to make enough money to support her slow brother who’s coming home from the army and many rats and super rats. She belongs to no one and no one belongs to her and that’s the way she likes it, it’s how she’s able to deal with her life.

One thing that’s hard to watch is Mickey Rooney as Mr. Yunioshi. OMG offensive. Offensive to the Japanese, to any one from Asian countries, to the movie industry to Mickey Rooney.

Another thing that I don’t like, but shows what time the movie was made in is *spoiler alert* Paul falls in love with Holly, and therefore suddenly he believes she belongs to him. I don’t think so buddy. No wonder the feminist movement started. But I love how strong Holly is in saying no. I don’t belong to you and no one belongs to me. You said it sister!

One of the best parts of the movie is the scene where Holly and Paul decide to spend a day doing things they’d never done before (awesome idea by the way, I think everyone should do this at sometime) and they go into Tiffany’s, and want to buy something for $10. The man behind the counter was sooo good. The things that i love about movies from this era are the very small supporting roles because for some reason they are always fabulous.

I was happily surprised by this movie; I’d almost say I loved it. Watch it, perhaps you may need to watch it twice.

Fun Facts:

The movie is based on a novella written by Truman Capote who originally wanted Marilyn Monroe as Holly. However Marilyn’s agent thought the role would be bad for her image

The novella that Truman Capote wrote is far removed from the movie. Holly is a prostitute, had an abortion, smoked weed, was a bisexual, swore like a sailor and Fred was a homosexual. (It would be interesting to see a remake of the movie that followed the novella more closely).

Audrey Hepburn primarily only wears 3 different outfits throughout the whole movie, the only thing that changes are her accessories.

The King and I

Tue, 20 Sep 2011 20:13:00 -0400

What: Musical/Drama from 1956

Starring: Yul Brynner and Deborah Kerr

General Plot: Anna Leonowens goes to Siam to teach King Mongkut’s heir Prince Chulalongkorn. Somewhere along the way she manages to displease the king and as a punishment he demands that she then teach all (or in this case a small amount) of his children and wives and concubines. Eventually Anna and Mongkut have a deep respect for each other.

My Thoughts: meh. This story has been told quite a few times and for some reason it always causes controversy. Anna Leonowens’s story reminds me a lot of Margaret Mead. Anna Leonowne’s journals of her life in Siam are often disputed and put down. Basically people say of her life story that she’s a silly woman who didn’t fully understand what was happening around her. Just like Margaret Mead is criticized for falling for the native people of Samoa jokes and tricks of how they lived. I’d like to thrust those same scholars who doubt and criticize these women’s works into the same situation and see what happens. On the other had I find it hard to believe that Anna a widowed school teacher and the King of Siam could fall in love with each other, I blame that on Hollywood story telling.

Over all this retelling of the famous tale falls short. It’s a 2 hour movie with very little action or plot development. The whole movie Anna complains of not having a house of her own. Eventually the king gives in and grants her a house, however she never actually makes it there. She never actually does anything but whine about wanting to have her own house. I prefer the Jodi Foster, Chow Yun-Fat version of the story myself and could never understand why Anna would want to live outside the palace until i rewatched the King and I. Anna makes a good point that she needs her own house because she doesn’t wish to bring up her son in what is essentially a harem. Most boys i know would love this.

This movie lacks real emotion. There are no points that make you laugh out loud, or feel empathy for any of the characters. The songs in the musical don’t make you want to sing along. Over all it’s kinda boaring. The best parts about the movie are King Mongkuts mannerisms and fast talking.

I recommend watching the Jodi Foster, Chow Yun-Fat “Anna and the King” movie.

Fun Facts:

During the filming of “shall we dance” Deborah Kerr and Yul Brynner often had to take breaks due to the fact that Deborah’s hoop skirt would constantly bruise her shins and Yul had to take oxygen because of his heavy smoking habbit which had previously cost him a lung.

Rita Moreno who plays Tuptim is Puerto Rican and Yul Brynner, who plays the king, is Russian.

Warner Brothers were given permission to create an animated version in 1999. The movie got such poor reviews Rogers and Hemmerstein declared that no more animated features are to be made based on their musicals.

Cinderella

Sat, 27 Aug 2011 18:02:00 -0400

What: A Disney Musical from 1950

Starring: Cartoon people voiced by no-one you’d know. Although you may recognize Lady Tremaine’s voice if you watch “Sleeping Beauty”

General plot: A widowed man remarries to secure a future for his daughter. After he and his new wife marry he dies. The step-mother jealous of her step-daughters good looks and personality forces her to become a slave in her own house.

My Thoughts: This is the most iconic telling of Cinderella. But then again when anything is done by Disney everything else is then compared to it and generally found wanting.

As a child I didn’t realize that the whole story takes place within 24hrs. When I finally realized that I also realized that in almost every other kid’s movie the time line is rarely longer than a few days. It really drives home the message that “Enchanted” pushed in that you can’t fall in love in 3 days. Although this movie thinks you can. I’d worry what kind of message this sends kids if it didn’t take me until I was a tween to figure it out myself.

What I like about this movie is its “just rewards” way of justice; in then end everyone gets what they deserve. I also enjoy that even though these are cartoon characters they are all fairly believable. Cinderella is a generally kind person. She doesn’t go out of her way to help anyone but she can’t just sit by and watch. She’s not OVERLY nice or sickly sweet, for instance Snow White. Watching that movie gives you tooth decay. She is very believable as a character. As are her ugly step-family. Deceitful and mean in a sneaky conniving way that girls are; especially sisters.

The only character development we miss is the Prince, not that we need it. In the movie with the clock strikes 12 and Cinderelly has to leave, and she tells the prince she hasn’t met the prince. I didn’t realize, again for a long time, that she honestly didn’t know that this man was the prince. For the longest time I thought she was lying to the guy so she could leave. This brings us to the part I don’t like. When she’s leaving and everyone is trying to stop her, it used to scare me as a kid. Not a fan. They’re chasing her like she’s an escaped convict, not an enjoyable piece of cinema for me. But then again “The Hunchback of Notre Dame” gave me nightmares.

All in all this is one of my favourite Disney movies, tied with “The Little Mermaid” and just behind “the Beauty and the Beast”.

Fun Facts:

(Now I’m not sure if this is really true, it’s just something I realized one day in my Roman history class) the mouse Gus’s full name is Octavius. However Gus is not short for Octavius. Octavius in early Roman history was re-named Augustus when he became emperor. Gus is easily short for Augustus. Therefore in a roundabout way Gus is short for Octavius.

Ilene Woods, who voice’s Cinderella, didn’t know she was auditioning for the part of Cinderella until Walt Disney contacted her. She sang clips of songs for the movie for a few friends who secretly sent them off to Walt.

Sorry

Thu, 11 Aug 2011 14:02:58 -0400

Hello my humble followers.

A) thank you for following my Tumblr. I didn’t think anyone would actually be interested in what i had to say about movies most people of my generation had no idea excisted.

B) sorry for the delay in posts. I recently moved and am preparing for an up coming wedding. I’ll do my best to have another movie up and reviewed by the end of next weekend.

Thanks again for reading my crazy ramblings

How To Steal A Million

Thu, 21 Jul 2011 23:35:00 -0400

What: Heist Comedy from 1966

Starring: Audrey Hepburn, Peter O’Toole, Hugh Griffith

General Plot: Nicole (Hepburn) is the daughter of an art forger, in a semi long line of forgers. A piece of art that her grandfather made is on display and it is going to be tested, which means prison if they’re found out. Simon is a burglar whom Nicole happens to find trying to steal from her and her father one night. She convinces him to help her steal back the piece of art.

My Thoughts: Delightful. However if you’re looking for a “who did it”, or a “how did they do it” movie this is not it. It is however delightfully funny and cleverly done.

This is one of those movies that I really enjoyed because of many small cute and funny insignificant moments but as a whole I can’t think of many positive things to say about it.

The whole movie is, as I said earlier, a delight. Peter O’Toole is, as always, wonderful and suave; it will be a sad day when he passes away. Hugh Griffith is scary looking as ever however he brings the absurdity that the movie needs. Audrey is classic as always.

One thing I didn’t enjoy was the love story. It came out of nowhere. There was no inclination that there was a love spark there and then suddenly they’re making out in a broom closet. And like any good flick from the 60’s the main characters know each other for about 24hr and decide to get married.

But again it’s the small moments that make the movie. It is cleverly done.

Watch it and you may recognize one of the smaller supporting actors from another fantastic Audrey movie.

Fun Facts:

George C. Scott who was suppose to play Davis Leland was fired by the director on the first day for showing up late and was replaced by Eli Wallach.

Philadelphia Story

Thu, 23 Jun 2011 22:12:00 -0400

What: Romantic dramdey from 1940

Starring: Katharine Hepburn, Cary Grant, Jimmy Stewart

General Plot: Tracy (Hepburn) is heiress to one of the oldest and richest families in Philadelphia and is getting married for the second time after a whirl-wind marriage to Dexter (Grant). Connor (Stewart) is a journalist who wants to be taken seriously but is being used as a tabloid reporter who ends up falling for Tracy too. Dexter apparently wants to get even with Tracy over his squashed heart with hilarious results.

My thoughts: Philadelphia story is one of those classic movies that everyone should see, however I think it’s one of those movies that few actually really truly enjoy. I wouldn’t bill it as a comedy, however it is entertaining, it takes a little bit to get there, but it gets there. It’s not a bad movie however it’s not all that great either. But when it comes to Cary Grant and Jimmy Stewart it’s always worth it. Their play off each other is brilliant and I wish there was more of it.

I feel there’s a bit of a disconnect between the story and the audience. What’s going on? Who’s she marrying? Why did the previous wedding break up? Why doesn’t anyone like the fiancé? Why does know one not hate the ex-husband? If everyone hates Tracy’s stuck-up-ness how and why does everyone fall in love with her? Something that confuses me a lot is the secondary plot line. Who’s Kittredge and why does he matter? What does he have to do with this? Is he the same person as Sidney Kid? Why is he important? And poor ol’ Liz.

I also totally and completely don’t understand why everyone is trying to hide EVERYTHING from the reporters. Perhaps I need to watch this movie a few times before I really get it.

One tough thing to watch is a slew of scenes where everyone breaks Tracy down (not that she doesn’t deserve it in some ways). But Tracy takes it as only Katharine Hepburn would and could. Brilliantly acted.

The scene that makes the movie all worth it is when Connor sees Dexter at his house after a party. It makes you understand why Stewart won an Oscar for his role. And then all the drunk scenes afterwards. After this point in the movie it picks up, with many funny quips, one liners and almost pratfalls.

One thing that confuses me is the about face that Tracy does at the end of the movie. She spends 95% of the movie hating Dexter and then poof…..I’m sure you can guess. But it wraps up nicely.

I’d watch it again. You should too.

Fun Facts:

Carry Grant demanded $100, 000 salary, as well as top billing. It turned out that Grant donated his entire pay cheque to the British War Relief Fund.

James Stewart never believed he deserved the Best Actor Oscar for his role in this film. In fact he never intended on going to the ceremony until he received a phone call the night of the Oscars advising him to “slip into a dinner jacket and attend the ceremony”.

Easter Parade

Mon, 30 May 2011 23:47:00 -0400

What: Musical comedy from 1948

Starring: Judy Garland, Fred Astaire, Ann Miller

General Plot: Fred Astaire, Don, and Ann Miller, Nadine, are a ballroom dancing couple until Nadine decides to leave when a better offer comes along. Don was in love with her and now feels scorned but his supposed love. So in an angry slightly drunken stupor he vows he can make anyone as good a dancer as Nadine, enter Judy Garland, Hannah.

My Thoughts: This movie is a rare gem for its time. There are no lies, there’s no hidden agenda everything is laid out on the table. Hannah knows she’s being used to make Nadine jealous and to help Don make good on his drunken vow that he can make any girl dance as well as Nadine, and for the most part she’s ok with it. Hannah is secretly in love with Don but that’s a minor plot in the grand scheme of things. The love story is not the important story line. Also Hannah is so innocent in some scenes you just want to hug her. For instance she gets a basket of roses and asks so sweetly if she can take them with her to dinner.

It’s refreshing to watch a movie where the girls aren’t constantly scheming; the men aren’t constantly lying and no-one ends up hurt. At one point Nadine does try to be vindictive and Hannah does take the bait because as always in these movies the new woman is easily hurt by the “old” woman. However the problem is easily solved and we carry on again like normal. What else is refreshing about this movie is that is seems like the male and female lead are close in age. Most movies of this kind from this time, the men are usually 20 years older than their love interest. However that’s all perception, for in reality Fred Astaire is 23 years older than Judy Garland.

This movie has quite a few of my all time favourite pieces of cinema. One near the beginning is when Don is talking to Mike the bar tender. Apparently all of life’s problems boil down to women and their mothers. Too true Mike, too true. The other great part of cinema history is when the maitre d at the restaurant mimes making a salad. Cinema gold! If you don’t want to watch this movie, at least try to find this one part. One of the other great parts of this movie is when Hannah is explaining to Don why she gets her left and right mixed up. And the last but not least is when Hannah is walking down the street trying to prove to Don that she can get men’s attention. This movie is full of comedy nuggets.

This movie is also the start of Dogs as accessories, well it’s probably not the beginning of it, but when Nadine gets a new pug, as a gift, her response is she knows exactly which dress to wear him with.

Something I find distracting about the movie is that it’s set during the early 1910’s however the costuming tends to be all over the place. At points it’s vary obvious that we’re in the 1910’s however many costumes seem to be from the pages of Vogue from the day, i.e. from the 1940’s.

Another thing I didn’t enjoy about the movie is the opening number. It’s completely out of Fred Astaire’s character, but seems to be in Don’s character. I just feel it’s an ill-fitting number, and it’s all to trick a little boy out of his new Easter bunny. It just doesn’t feel like it’s part of the movie or the main character or Fred Astaire.

Over all I really enjoy this movie, it has nothing to do with Easter, not that that matters.

Watch it, it’s fabulous.

Fun Facts:

Ann Miller had been thrown down the stairs by her husband, had pinched nerves in her back and was also pregnant when filming her biggest numbers; therefore many of her scenes were shot with her wearing a back brace.

Ann Miller was taller than Fred Astaire; therefore she had to wear flats when they danced together. This is obvious in the “It Only Happens When I Dance With You” number near the end of the film.

Vincente Minnelli was the husband of Judy Garland and was suppose to direct, however their psychiatrist advised them against it.

Arsenic and Old Lace

Fri, 20 May 2011 23:09:00 -0400

What: Comedy from 1944

Starring: Carry Grant, Peter Lorre, Priscilla Lane

General Plot: It’s Hallowe’en and Carry Grant and Priscilla Lane are getting married, but first Carry Grant has to stop at home to say hi to his aunties and brother with a few screws loose. When he goes home though he finds his aunties arn’t as sweet as he thought they were. And soon its a family reunion when a long lost brother comes home, whose lost his moral cumpass as well.

My Thoughts: Like most movies from this time, this movie is based on a stage play. Unlike many movies however it embraces this. This movie takes place in one location, the aunt’s house on one stage but it is performed so well that you don’t really notice. This movie goes from hilariously funny to “please don’t let me watch this alone in the dark”. Carry Grant has said that he felt that he over acted too much in this film, but really that’s what makes this film amazing!

This film has many plot twits which can make it hard to follow and at some points it seems to move a bit slow, but i granuntee you’ll laugh your socks off the first time you see it.

perhaps i should rewatch this movie and review it then……

The Great Race

Thu, 12 May 2011 01:26:00 -0400

What: Comedy from 1965

Starring: Tony Curtis, Jack Lemmon, Natalie Wood

General Plot: A race around the world to promote a new automobile ;) and the Great Leslie, a turn of the century dare devil. The great Leslie is constantly the rival of Professor Fate, his arch nemesis, who tries to out-do the great Leslie and foil all his plans to make himself look better. On the “amazing” race Natalie Wood, the first female reporter ever, tries to keep up with the boys and report on their ups and downs along the way.

My Thoughts: Though this may be billed as a family or a kids movie today it is still a classic and it is classically good; it is also amazingly entertaining and very funny. I honestly don’t have anything bad to say about this movie, it’s one of those fantastic movies I grew up with and still love today. The movie is centered on 2 main characters, with a third less important lead.
The first main character is The Great Leslie who is played brilliantly and swavly by the amazing Tony Curtis. This character is perfection, and I don’t mean the acting. The character himself is actually the idea of a perfect man. He is always in spotless white even during one of the messiest scenes of the entire movie, and he comes complete with the eye twinkle and tooth “ting”.
Professor Fate, who is almost the complete opposite of Leslie is also done well by the legendary Jack Lemmon, his laugh alone is hilarious. Professor Fate does his best to outdo the turn of the century dare devil that is The Great Leslie, but always manages to fall flat (on his ass). This is usually due to his side kick. These two actors are comedic gold, and have proved that at least once before in “Some Like it Hot” another amazing movie.
Natalie Wood is the third main character who plays Maggie Dubois, however she is less important but she is neither unappreciated nor over used. She proves that she can be a good actress and does well as an “emancipated” woman. This movie is set during the suffragist movement and that plays a big part in the movie. Natalie Wood plays the first female reporter ever and does her best to prove herself every chance she gets. The character itself may try a little hard sometime, however the actress does a very good job. And after all we all know the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

Not only are the main players great, the supporting cast is also fantastic and very well cast. Professor Fate’s side kick who is really the bane of his existence, besides the Great Leslie, is the great Peter Falk, aka Max (to those of you out there who don’t know he’s also aka Columbo). The Great Leslie also has a great side kick in Hezekiah played by Keenan Wynn. One of the great things about Hezekiah is the hate-hate relationship he and Maggie Dubois have.

Like most classic movies this one also has a few musical numbers, and they are all very well done; mainly because they don’t take themselves seriously. Most of the musical numbers are farcical.

This movie has so many plot twists turns and story lines. They may only be driving New York to Paris but it seems that they drive the entire planet… Come to think of it they do go the longest way round to get to Paris. At the end of the movie you find yourself exhausted. However that’s not a bad thing.

Please enjoy, and if you have kids of any age please show them this movie, it’ll become a staple of joy in your house hold.

Fun Facts:

Natalie Wood took fencing and side-saddle lessons and practiced smoking cigars. However she said learning to drive the Stanley Steamer was the most difficult. The steering was “like turning a tractor I suspect” and going into reverse was impossible

In 1908 there was an actual race from New York to Pairs which this movie is (very) loosely based on.

Funny Face

Wed, 04 May 2011 21:31:00 -0400

What: A musical from 1957

Starring: Audrey Hepburn, Fred Astaire and Kay Thompson

General Plot: A magazine looking to revitalize themselves discovers a no body in a book store who they make their new “it girl”. At first she’s resistant to becoming a model because she has a brain, but soon we discover she’s a natural model. And of course there’s a romance between an older man and a younger woman in there somewhere.

My Thoughts: The best part of this movie is Kay Thompson’s character of Maggie Prescott. She is one of those spit fire women who gets what she wants and takes no prisoners. Kay does an absolute wonderful job in this movie and steals the spotlight from Audrey Hepburn who unfortunately falls flat. It’s hard to believe that this movie comes half way through her career and not her first film. Audrey seems to overact in some scenes and under act in other, all in all its disappointing.

This movie torments me as I believe there are many fun scenes in it which make it incredibly entertaining to watch, and the plot itself is also amusing. However I’ve always found it hard to believe movies where there man is over 50 and the woman is under 20 (in this case Audrey is 28 and Fred is 58). The romantic scenes between the two of them are awkward and hard to watch, they’re good as a friendly duo, but their attraction to each other doesn’t come off.

On scene that I find off putting is Audrey’s first song in the film. Audrey has a love sick song right after Fred gives her a peck for the first time and she seems to forget and leave behind her philosophical ideals in 10secs. In other words she sounds like a teenager with a crush, and it’s unappealing. It’s all in all an underwhelming song. However unfortunately it’s the best Audrey can do. Now don’t get me wrong public, I love Audrey Hepburn about as much as a sane person can, but I find this whole movie to be a poor job on her part, and Fred Astaire doesn’t help much.

However the rest of the music is delightful, s’wonderful even ;)
Fred Astaire as always does some wonderful dancing, and Audrey is quick to keep up. The songs from this movie, for the most part, are catchy and a pleasure to listen too.

When I watch this movie I usually stop it half way through due to boredom and difficult scenes that make me uncomfortable to watch them, such as Audrey Hepburn’s interpretive dance scene. However there are many fantastic scenes and songs that make the painful scenes worth it.

Despite my negative review all in all it’s an enjoyable movie and very much a new take on Cinderella (new for its time).

I’d watch is again (in fact I own a copy of it).

Fun Facts:

In order to secure Audrey Hepburn and Fred Astaire on the cast, producers told each the other was already signed, figuring they would not pass up the opportunity to work together.

Many of the production staff usually associated with MGM musicals went to Paramount especially to work on this film, so it is, essentially, an MGM musical made at Paramount.

ON A Clear Day You Can See Forever

Sun, 01 May 2011 18:58:00 -0400

What: Musical from 1970

Starring: Barbra Streisand and Yves Montand (with appearances by Bob Newhart and Jack Nicholson)

General Plot: A 22 year old women, Daisy, seeks the help of a professor, Dr. Chabot, to help her stop smoking for the sake of her up-tight fiancé; she hopes the professor can help her through hypnotism. Along the way the Dr. Chabot discovers that the 22 year old woman can sense when phones are about to ring, when people are thinking about her, where lost objects are and eventually the professor discovers that Daisy had at least one past life.

My Thoughts: All in all I found this to be a fairly slow paced boring movie with no real plot to keep the viewer interested. Even though it is slow paced, in the present plot point, the movie seems to run a-long at a quicker pace than is necessary to tell the story in the past plot point. At many points in time, during the present plot line, I was confused about what was happening. For example Dr. Chabot reveals to his class at one point that he believes Daisy to have had a past life. This leaks out to the media and the university wishes to fire Dr. Chabot for these hypothesis. However they don’t seem to go into much detail about why there is such controversy over this, I suppose the viewer has to take into account the time in which the movie takes place. Which confuses me more! It’s from the 70’s a time of free love and peace and anything is possible. Many key elements of the story seem to be left out leaving it up to the audience to hash out what is happening.

The romance in the movie is very much not there, not that every movie needs a love story. However the movie plays with a love story but doesn’t explore it as it should be. There doesn’t seem to be chemistry between the two many characters. Dr. Chabot is more interested in Daisy’s past life than in her. He also seems to disdain Daisy for the most part, where as Daisy seems to be head over heels for Dr. Chabot.

This movie is also lacking is decent tunes. Barbara Streisand’s first movie break was “Funny Girl” a movie that has many iconic songs and many of Streisand’s most famous and popular. “On A Clear Day…” seems to lack in this department along with the writing. The songs are not catchy and don’t seem to have the proper flow that you would expect in a musical. At least Yves Montand is a fabulous singer, unfortunately they doesn’t utilize this enough.

“Come Back To Me” is a great song but that may just be due to Yves Montand. The title song “On a Clear Day” is also fabulous; however it’s not until 1.57 into the movie. Also Yves seems to perform this song much better than Streisand.

Someone on rottentomatos.com compared this movie to Gigi or My Fair Lady, even though Minnelli directed many wonderful movies this one is far removed from Gigi or My Fair Lady.

I’m not sure I’d watch it again.

Fun Facts:

The film’s soundtrack was the worst selling album in Streisand’s career.

Paramount offered Yves Montand $200,000 for the role of Dr. Marc Chabot. Uneasy about playing another Latin lover, Montand made a counter-offer of $400,000, “just to see what they say”. To his surprise, Paramount accepted.

WHAT IS YOUR EARLIEST HUMAN MEMORY?

Sun, 01 May 2011 18:04:40 -0400

When I was but a child of 1, my family and I moved into a new house. That house had a chimney fire, luckily no one was hurt and the house was fine. My earliest memory is of being held by my mother in my blanket with a fire engine outside our house and all our new neighbors coming out to see if we were ok.

bythegods: The Ninth Labour of Heracles What could be worse...

Wed, 28 Apr 2010 19:33:38 -0400

Hippolyte never had a chance.

bythegods:

The Ninth Labour of Heracles

What could be worse than being obligated to accomplish suicidal tasks for an unstable king who wants nothing more than to dance la cucaracha on your grave? Having to go shopping for his teenage daughter. That’s just insulting.

King Eurystheus’ daughter Admete had it in her mind that she needed to accessorize, and she had her eye on Hippolyte’s girdle. It’s not clear why she wanted it exactly, it might have been because it was a gift from Ares that marked Hippolyte as queen of the Amazons, or maybe it just went with her new sandals. Eurystheus was not about to go ask the proud Amazon for it himself, so he made it Heracles’ ninth labour.

Despite the demeaning nature of his errand, Heracles must have been pretty pleased. This was a nice change of pace from man-eating horses and cow feces. “What’s that Eurystheus? You don’t want me to bring you back a ridiculous monster? You want me to go undress a woman? You’re the boss!”

When Heracles put in at the harbour of Themiscyra, Hippolyte herself was there to meet him and inquired after his purpose. The story goes that she was actually so intrigued by Heracles’ bodacious demigod-bod and stylish lion skin that she gave him the girdle without a fight. Meanwhile the goddess Hera had seen how many high fives Heracles’ bros bestowed on him for obtaining the queenly garment, and disguised herself as an Amazon to spoil his fun. She spread a rumour that Heracles was here to kidnap the queen, and that stirred up the Amazons something fierce. Heracles saw the advancing warriors and believed that Hippolyte had betrayed him, which left him only one choice really: Kill Hippolyte before hearing her side of the story, kill the Amazons, and take the girdle back to Admete.

Another happy ending for Heracles, wrapped up with his favourite moral: “Murder solves everything.”

I just want to point out the Hippolyte is not really the feminine form of this name, the Amazon queen it more widely known as Hippolyta, but thats just me being picky :D