419. My Fair Lady (1964)

Running Time: 172 minutes
Directed By: George Cukor
Written By: Alan Jay Lerner, from the play Pygmalion by George Bernard Shaw
Main Cast: Audrey Hepburn, Rex Harrison, Stanley Holloway, Wilfrid Hyde-White, Gladys Cooper
Click here to view the trailer

A DOUBLE SHOT OF CUKOR: 2 of 2

From an analysis of Quentin Tarantino's work & an extra long "Pulp Fiction" review to the second part of a George Cukor double shot & "My Fair Lady" - Welcome to 1001 Movies I (Apparently) Must See Before I Die!

Let's see here: Eliza Doolittle (Hepburn) is a "street urchin", a girl with a wicked cockney accent, who sells flowers in the street and was brought up with a less than classy upbringing, to say the least. Her clothes are tattered & torn and her manners are virtually non-existent. Enter Henry Higgins (Harrison), a professor of linguistics who hears Eliza's speech and deems it cringe-worthy and deems Eliza herself a draggle-tailed guttersnipe! Henry, boasting about how good of a professor he is, tells anyone who will listen that, if given the chance, he could turn Eliza from a bum into a duchess and no one would ever be able to recognize the dirty girl with the cockney accent. Everyone goes about their ways, but Eliza thinks about what the professor told her and decides she wants more for herself ("Wouldn't It Be Loverly"), therefore, she takes herself to see the professor and there, she begs him to teach her how to talk properly. Higgins, at first, laughs at the idea, but then accepts the challenge to transform the vagabond Eliza Doolittle and present her at the Embassy Ball, the swankiest of swanky events, which will go down in six months. Can Eliza overcome her own voice or will Henry Higgins and his assistant, Colonel Pickering (Hyde-White) go mad trying to help her.

In "A Star Is Born", George Cukor shied away from the musical numbers and well choreographed numbers and focused more on the story. In "My Fair Lady", Cukor more than made up for that lack of musical flair, by cramming as many songs and numbers into this picture as he possible could. Now, this would usually be a surefire turn off for me, because as much as I like musicals, I like it better when there's not a big Broadway number around every turn. However, despite a staggering FIFTEEN musical numbers in "My Fair Lady", I nearly enjoyed every second of it! I'd attest my enjoyment, partly, due to the high quality of the songs, as I found myself tapping toes and whistling along to over half of them. My personal favorite, you might care to know, was "With A Little Bit of Luck", because for some reason that song just went into my head and refuses to come out. In fact, "Get Me to the Church On Time" is also great, proving that Stanley Holloway knew how to add that extra bit of showmanship to his numbers and really make them pop.

But the real star of the show here is Rex Harrison, who was incredible as Henry Higgins. I won't go so far as to say that Audrey Hepburn shined, because I don't think she really did. However, her flaws weren't too obvious and the talent of her supporting cast helped to prop her up and make her look a bit better. Hepburn's performance was too fake, not genuine enough and I didn't for a second buy her as a "draggle-tailed guttersnipe". She did okay, but we'll leave it at that. Otherwise, the film is GREAT fun and I think even musical haters will find a few songs that they can tap toes too. The story is good enough (supported by the music) and the cast (sans Hepburn) is stellar. I'm really shocked at how well I took to it and I think you'll be to. Give it a chance!

RATING: 8/10  After a super long review yesterday, I decided to keep things short and to the point today. Apparently "Pulp Fiction" got the ball rolling though on what hopefully becomes a nice string of great pictures.

MOVIES WATCHED: 662
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 339

April 21, 2013  4:36pm

275. A Star Is Born (1954)

Running Time: 176 minutes
Directed By: George Cukor
Written By: Moss Hart, from the 1937 screenplay by Alan Campbell and Dorothy Parker, story by William A. Wellman
Main Cast: Judy Garland, James Mason, Jack Carson, Charles Bickford, Tommy Noonan
Click here to view the trailer

A DOUBLE SHOT OF CUKOR: 1 of 2

Having already watched four George Cukor movies (five, if you count "Gone With the Wind") and, at least, liking the majority of them, I decided to clean up the other two - two long ones - with a "Double Shot of Cukor", taking care of his two musicals - one from the 50s and one from the 60s. First up, "A Star Is Born".

Actually, in a way, the plot of "A Star Is Born" resembles the plot of recent Best Picture winner "The Artist". The film tells of the rise in fame of Esther Blodgett a.k.a. Vicki Lester (Garland), a virtual nobody, who is discovered by big time Hollywood star Norman Maine (Mason). During a Hollywood event, in which Maine shows up drunk, he is saved from embarrassment by Esther, as she manages to hold him up long enough to incorporate him into her dance number. Maine, feeling grateful for the saving of face by Esther, tracks her down and when he listens to her with a sober ear, realizes that much talent lies in her voice. Norman convinces Esther to leave the band that she's been traveling with and let him take over her career, promising to shoot her to super stardom or die trying. After a while, Norman follows through with his promises, getting Esther a contract at the studio that handles him and it isn't long before she's starring in her very own picture. Meanwhile, Norman's star is falling, as he continually turns to the bottle, allowing his career to be washed away by the alcohol that consumes him. However, Esther, even as her star continues to rise and she becomes the studio's hottest commodity, never forgets Norman and eventually they get married. Following the marriage, however, the studio decides to drop Norman's contract, citing that they can no longer babysit a drunkard. This only forces Norman even further into the bottle, as he is now jobless and losing large amounts of his pride by the day, living off of the celebrity of his wife.

There, that outta get you up to speed. Now, doesn't that sound awfully bleak for a movie musical? It does to me and by the end of the picture, every time they'd begin another musical number, I'd have to keep reminding myself, "Oh yeah, this IS a musical, isn't it?"  Usually Hollywood musicals, especially those of yesteryear, are so happy that they nearly start tickling your gag reflexes and it gets to be a little too jolly for one to stomach. Here the musical numbers are heavily overshadowed by the plot that is unfolding: a pretty good love story;  the fall of a Hollywood superstar, as he buries himself in the bottle and the rise in celebrity of a young girl. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the music in "A Star Is Born" barely has a voice and by the time the picture finished, I could barely remember a single song from the movie. There are no memorable songs, only memorable choreography. For example, as I sit here, I can remember Judy Garland dancing around her living room, showing Norman her new number and the two actors looking like they were having a blast shooting it, however, I can't, for the life of me, remember the tune that Judy was singing. Forgettable music sacrificed for a strong plot and decent choreography is how I'd sum up "A Star Is Born".

I was more excited to watch this that I would've been had I not watched "Bigger Than Life" and fell instantly in love with James Mason's acting abilities. I actually couldn't wait for another chance to check out Mason in action and it's a shame that I didn't recognize him a little earlier in my journey, for I may have liked "The Reckless Moment", "Odd Man Out" and "Lolita" a little bit more. He was great here, playing a drunken falling star to near perfection. Judy Garland on the other hand didn't really impress me that much and more annoyed me than anything. I could've done with a more talented actress in her role, as I think the picture would've benefited greatly from that...but who am I to doubt Judy Garland? It wasn't a particularly great movie, but it certainly had it's moments. For being three hours in length, I thought it used it's time wisely and honestly, it barely felt like three hours had gone by. I won't stoop to spoiling anything here, but what finally happens to the Norman Maine character took my by total surprise - was not expecting that, at all. I liked how the film ended and all in all, I'd say that I liked the bleakness of the whole affair. Had the music been better and Judy Garland been replaced, I think we could've been looking at a serious TOP 20 contender.

RATING: 7/10  But, as it is, this is barely a Ten Worth Mentioning contender and that '7' is probably me being just a sliver too generous. We shall see...

MOVIES WATCHED: 660
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 341

April 18, 2013  4:21pm

217. Adam's Rib (1949)

Running Time: 101 minutes
Directed By: George Cukor
Written By: Ruth Gordon, Garson Kanin
Main Cast: Spencer Tracy, Katharine Hepburn, Judy Holliday, Tom Ewell, David Wayne
Click here to view the trailer

MAN vs. WOMAN, TRACY vs. HEPBURN

Believe it or not, this is the first Spencer Tracy film that I've watched for THE BOOK (unless I'm forgetting something) and wouldn't you know that it's alongside the lady he made a total of nine films with, Katharine Hepburn. Here, the two play dueling lawyers, in a comedy about the battle of the sexes.

The film opens with Doris Attinger (Holliday) tailing her husband Warren Francis Attinger (Ewell) through the subway, to the apartment of his mistress. When she arrives there, behind him, she pulls a gun from her handbag and fires, albeit with horrible aim, at her husband, striking him in the shoulder and sending his mistress screaming out of the room. We then cut to the bedroom of Mr. Adam Bonner (Tracy) and his wife, Amanda Bonner (Hepburn), as the two wake up to breakfast in bed, served by their housekeeper and a morning paper. As the couple sip their coffee and juice, they read about the attempted murder of Warren Francis Attinger via his wife Doris Attinger and the two split sides, Amanda siding with Doris and Adam siding with Warren. It also turns out that Mr. and Mrs. Attinger are both lawyers and when Adam arrives at work that morning, he finds out that he's been assigned Warren Attinger as his newest client. When he calls his wife to tell her the news, she breaks her neck to represent Mrs. Attinger and the movie is off and running. We then head into the courtroom, as the Bonner's wage war on the floors of justice and head home at night to try and keep their home life more civil than their professional battle.

SPOILER ALERT! 

There wasn't anything particularly wrong with "Adam's Rib", in fact, they got a whole lot of things right. I don't even have to tell you that the pairing of Hepburn and Tracy was a match made in heaven, as the two got along swimmingly and made you believe, for the duration of the film, that they were really a married couple. The chemistry that the two had was uncanny and I couldn't help but smile at the lifelike marriage that the two portrayed. According to THE BOOK, this film is actually based on real events. Apparently, in the real life story, the married couple actually went through with their divorce and ended up marrying their respective clients. After reading that tidbit, I was shocked that they didn't go with that ending. I guess when the filmmaker's thought about the idea of actually splitting up the loveable marriage of Hepburn and Tracy, they knew the audience wouldn't go for it. I bet someone like Preston Sturges could've gotten away with having it end with the couple marrying their clients and I'm sure we would've all been okay with it in the end too.

Anyway, I'm rambling. The film is funny and provides some unusual situations that I can't believe haven't been ripped off more than they have been. With the exception of the Hepburn/Tracy chemistry, there wasn't anything blatantly exceptional about the film. I found myself smiling many times throughout the picture, yet it wasn't anything that blew me away or anything. The situations do get a little bit corny and I couldn't help but think that if they had beefed up the courtroom drama aspect of the whole thing and played it as a half comedy/half drama, it would've worked out a lot better. They could've had strict drama in the courtroom and strict comedy when the couple returned home at night. Anyway, it was what it was and it wasn't bad. I think this is a film where the story matters less than just witnessing Hepburn and Tracy onscreen, together.

RATING: 6.5/10  At this point, I've seen so much good that these final few movies are going to have a really tough time winning me over.

MOVIES WATCHED: 498
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 503

July 7, 2012  5:30pm

169. GASLIGHT (1944)

Running Time: 114 minutes
Directed By: George Cukor
Written By: John Van Druten, Walter Reisch, John L. Balderston, from the play Angel Street by Patrick Hamilton
Main Cast: Charles Boyer, Ingrid Bergman, Joseph Cotten, Angela Lansbury, Barbara Everest
Click here to view the trailer

A MURDER IN THORNTON SQUARE

Finally I get to this one, after announcing I'd be watching about a week ago. I began to watch this one sometime last week, when I fell asleep on it (my fault, not the film's) and for one reason or another didn't return to it the next night. Last night, I started it up again, when again I got drowsy and decided to stop it, as I didn't want my opinion of it to suffer, due to my sleepy state. Tonight I finally made it to the end and it was worth the wait.

The film opens by revealing that a murder has just been committed in Thornton Square in London, as the death of Alice Alquist, famous opera singer, is announced in the newspaper. We then cut to the Alquist residence, where Paula Alquist (Bergman), Alice's niece is being ushered out of her aunt's former home and into a waiting carriage. She's being taken to Italy to focus on her singing career and try and recoup after the death of her aunt, the woman who raised her. While in Italy, Paula meets and falls in love with Gregory Anton (Boyer), a pianist and the two are soon swept away on a whirling romance that ends in marriage. At the insistence of Gregory, the two return to London and the former home of Alice Alquist, which has been willed to Paula and reside there. After arriving back in London is when things take a more unusual turn, as Gregory begins acting stranger by the day, for instance, becoming infuriated when Paula begins to read a letter written to her aunt by a man named Sergius Bauer. However, for the most part the couple seem happy at first, Paula smitten with Gregory and Gregory overprotective of Paula. As the film continues, Gregory starts to suggest that Paula may be losing her mind, citing that she frequently misplaces items and forgets many things. Paula brushes off the notion at first, but is soon convinced that she's going mad. It becomes even more unsettling when Paula begins to hear noises coming from the attic at night and noticing the gas lights around the house going dim, when no one else seems to notice these things. But is there more to Paula's madness than meets the eye?

SPOILER ALERT!

The book notes that the plot of "Gaslight" is very thin and I'd be forced to agree with that assessment. What it really all boils down to is a desperate man searching for missing, valuable jewels and in the process he is forced to murder for them. The whole core of the film, of Gregory trying to convince Paula that she's going insane, is simply so he can have her committed, take control of her property and search for the jewels with freedom. It's as thin as a balding man's hair, but it still manages to work, thanks mostly to the cast and the direction. Charles Boyer is marvelous and I'm left wondering why more of his films aren't included in the book, because to my knowledge this is the only one. In fact, I have to admit that I'm pretty sure this was my first Charles Boyer film, as I was completely unaware of him prior to this evening. Ingrid Bergman grew on me, as I didn't care for her character at first, but by the end I realized that Bergman was really putting on a performance here and was able to give her her credit due. The rest of the supporting players were also fine and the only one that left me scratching my head was Joseph Cotten. Normally I love Joseph Cotten, and it's not that he was bad here, it's just that he was out of place. His role really wasn't that substantial and he was just kind of there, while he waited for his character to really shine in the final fifteen minutes of the picture.

The film does a fine job mixing up the genres of murder mystery, film noir and horror and it all makes for a really chilling little film where the viewer will be sure to have questions galore. In fact, you may even leave with some unanswered questions, as the film does leave a few loose ends untied. Why the hostility between Paula and Nancy? Why did the two exchange that mysterious look when they were first introduced? The film really leads you on, as far as what's actually happening in the film. I thought for sure the movie was going to pull a total 180 on me and reveal that, indeed Paula was going mad and Charles Boyer was the loving, protective husband who was just trying to help her this whole time. That's a credit to the film, that it can get you to convince yourself of two different outcomes and have you satisfied with whichever one actually happens. The film drops in so many different, little details too that your mind is left whirling and wondering what in the hell is going on with Gregory. It's really a whole lot of fun!


RATING: 7.5/10  Very good, but was it good enough to nab a spot on the TOP 20 or is it simply another really good film in a batch of really great films that won't get recognized?

MOVIES WATCHED: 474
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 527

June 6, 2012  2:17am

135. The Philadelphia Story (1940)

Running Time: 112 minutes
Directed By: George Cukor
Written By: Donald Ogden Stewart, from play by Philip Barry
Main Cast: Katharine Hepburn, James Stewart, Cary Grant, Ruth Hussey, John Howard

TIME HEALS ALL WOUNDS...AND SOMETIMES TURNS BAD MOVIES TO GREAT ONES

In my previous post, at the end, I mentioned that upon a previous viewing of "The Philadelphia Story", I wasn't all that impressed with it. Well, this is why I always say, always give a movie two chances, because upon first viewing you may not be in the mood or you may miss things that you begin to see upon a second viewing. I highly enjoyed "The Philadelphia Story", for the most part thanks to Jimmy Stewart, but Hepburn and Grant didn't do a bad job either.

Two years after Tracy Lord (Hepburn) divorces her husband, C.K. Dexter Haven (Grant), she's set to marry George Kittredge, a high society type, much like Tracy, and someone she feels will give her the life that she always wanted and never got with Dexter. With the high society reputation of Tracy and George, Spy magazine editor Sidney Kidd, is eager to cover the wedding, so he sends his top two agents, reporter Macaulay "Mike" Connor (Stewart) and photographer Liz Imbrie (Hussey), along with Dexter into the home of the Lords' family. With the excuse that Connor and Imbrie are friends of Tracy's brother Julius. However, the ruse is quickly uncovered by the quick witted Tracy and Dexter spills the beans regarding the reporters and the real identities of Connor and Imbrie. To keep her father's name, which has recently been tarnished, out of the pages of Spy magazine, Tracy submits to the presence of the reporters, however her and the rest of the family begin their own ruse, making sure that Connor and Imbrie are none the wiser that they're onto them.

The film progresses and as it does Tracy becomes smitten with Macaulay Connor. It also becomes apparent that Dexter has not totally lost all of his feelings for his ex-wife and that there possibly may still be a spark between them. George is, of course, still in the picture and the wedding is never halted, despite the "quadrangle" that seems to be forming.

I can't for the life of me remember what my initial problems with this movie were, but that really doesn't matter now, as another viewing seems to have done the trick and turned me into a supporter of "The Philadelphia Story". My main reasons for enjoying this movie were Jimmy Stewart, who started out as a someone who seemed to have all the expressions and dialogue of any man who had been thrown into such a slapstick situation with Hepburn, which was mass confusion and bewilderment. But Stewart settles in and the scenes where he has consumed way too much wine are absolutely hilarious. I mean, where else are you going to see good old Eagle scout Mr. Smith drunk off his ass and hiccuping as he tries to exclaim his feelings for Tracy Lord. Priceless. I also loved the small bit of banter between Connor and the librarian, which cracked me up big time. This film also made me realize that maybe I've been a bit tough on Cary Grant. He was actually quite good in this picture and played a role that I loved him in, straight laced and always there to give the good advice or set someone straight. This was unlike many of his previous roles where he played a smarmy character, who always got the last word (ie. His Girl Friday, The Awful Truth). Hepburn was charming too, playing an elegant snob, who you couldn't help but think was as cute as a button. It's the performances by the wonderful cast that give this movie a place in history and a place in the book entitled "1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die".

RATING: 8.5/10 I deducted a couple of points, only because a '10' seemed a tad too high. A few days of recollection could change that though.

NEXT UP: The Grapes of Wrath...Did I ever mention that I LOVE Henry Fonda? I've been waiting to watch this one for a long time.

June 27, 2010 5:20pm

126. Gone with the Wind (1939)

Running Time: 238 minutes
Directed By: Victor Fleming, George Cukor
Written By: Sidney Howard, from novel by Margaret Mitchell
Main Cast: Vivien Leigh, Clark Gable, Leslie Howard, Olivia de Havilland

I HOPE I DON'T CATCH TOO MUCH HELL FOR THIS ONE

So finally we arrive at the grand epic, that is "Gone with the Wind". Eventhough this is one long, nearly four hour film, I'm going to bust the synopsis up into two parts, just for the sake of keeping things a bit more organized.

PART I

The film is set on Tara plantation in the state of Georgia, in 1861. Right off the bat we're introduced to the main character of the film, Scarlett O'Hara (Leigh) and her receiving the news that Ashley Wilkes (Howard) is getting married. Scarlett has had her eyes on Ashley for sometime, but she missed her opportunity, as Ashley is all set to marry his cousin, Melanie Hamilton (de Havilland). The following day at an annual barbecue, the news of the marriage is made public and Scarlett, being her usual selfish, spoiled self, proceeds to flirt with every man at the party, until finally, out of spite, accepting a marriage proposal from one of her many suitors, Charles Hamilton. It is also at this party that we're introduced to Rhett Butler (Gable), a suave gentleman from Charleston, who exchanges only few words with Scarlett, when he overhears her quarreling with Ashley and professing her love for him. At about the same time, war is declared and the Civil War begins, with all men enlisting, including Ashley and Charles. Before going off to war Charles ties the knot with Scarlett and in just about as quick of time, Scarlett becomes a widow, after Charles dies of pneumonia, during battle.

Scarlett's mother later suggests that Scarlett go to the Hamilton home in Atlanta, so that she may forget about Charles and hoping to see the return of Ashley, she jumps at the idea. Upon her arrival, Scarlett is accepted with open arms by Melanie Hamilton, a very kind-hearted, unselfish lady, the exact opposite of Scarlett. While attending a charity bazaar, Scarlett once again meets Rhett, and the two share a dance together, despite the fact that Scarlett is supposed to be in mourning for her late husband. The war carries on and the battle of Gettysburg is tough on the confederacy. Ashley is granted a three day leave over Christmas and arrives home long enough to visit his wife and hear Scarlett profess her love for him, yet again.

Eight months pass and the Union soldiers are running roughshod over the town of Atlanta. With Melanie in labor and with all the doctors in town tied up, tending to fallen soldiers, Scarlett is forced to deliver Melanie's baby herself. The baby boy is born, but the Melanie and Scarlett realize that they need to flee Atlanta. Rhett Butler arrives on a horse and carriage to take the girls, along with the baby and Prissy, the house servant, out of town and back to Tara. They travel far, but eventually, once the gang is out of trouble, Rhett leaves the ladies to fend for themselves, stating that he's going to enlist. Scarlett and Melanie make the rest of the trip alone, arriving at Tara, to find that it's surprisingly still standing. She finds her father, two house servants and her two sisters, but is pained to find out that her mother died. With no food and the Union soldiers still in charge of the area, Scarlett goes to the top of a nearby hill and makes her famous exclamation, "As God as my witness, I'll never be hungry again!"

PART II

Following the intermission, the movie picks right up, with Scarlett taking charge and putting her servants and sisters to work in the fields picking cotton. Melanie is still weary from the long travel home, so she's pretty much bed ridden and Scarlett's father has gone a bit mad, after the loss of his wife. Soon after, Ashley arrives home and Scarlett obviously still holds a flame for him, catching him alone in the field and begging him to take her away from all this, so that they can be lovers. Ashley admits that he wouldn't mind doing so, but that he could never break the heart of Melanie. The O'Hara/Hamilton/Wilkes bunch get more bad news when they realize that they must come up with $300 tax money, or they'll lose Tara. Scarlett makes a visit to see the now imprisoned Rhett Butler, who is being held by the Union and begs for the money, but he doesn't give in. Eventually the money is given to Scarlett, by another one of her former suitors, Frank Kennedy, who now owns his own lumber mill and who Scarlett schemes into marrying her, so that she can get at his money.

With the taxes paid and Scarlett now married for a second time, she takes over the lumber mill, also taking over the profits and using them to open up a sawmill, which later becomes a success during the rebuilding stage, after the end of the war. Some time passes and Scarlett becomes a double widow, after the death of Frank during a melee with the Union troops. With Frank's body barely in the ground, Scarlett makes her third marriage, and this time to the recently released Rhett Butler, who promises her a life of luxury, as he is now rich. The two get married and have a baby, which they name Bonnie Blue Butler. When visiting the mill one night, Ashley catches Scarlett alone and they are caught embracing, by two women of the town, including Ashley's sister, India. The embrace was harmless, but the rumor is spread and the reputation of both are in jeopardy.

----

Let me start off by saying that if I were rating this film in sets, costumes, score, cinematography or acting, it'd be a winner. However, I feel the need to rate this film on an enjoyability level and when doing so, I'll have to admit that I didn't enjoy it all that much. Everything pre-intermission was fantastic. The story flowed along well and everything just meshed together beautifully. Scarlett gives her famous speech on the top of the hill, in a jawdroppingly gorgeous scene and BAM!...we're into the intermission. Then part two begins and they lose me. I mean, I'm still able to follow everything that's going on, but there's not a whole lot going on and this movie really starts to wear out it's welcome and get extremely boring. Part one is jam packed with stuff: the whole Ashley/Melanie wedding and Scarlett's protests, the beginning of the war, the birth of Melanie's baby, the trip back to Tara...all great stuff! Part two barely has anything going on, except for Scarlett's final two marriages and the return of Ashley Wilkes. Everything else is just filler and maybe I'm wrong, but it seems that even the cinematography diminishes in part two, as I can remember a lot of gorgeous imagery from part one, but barely any from the second part.

Another complaint, and maybe this is a silly one, but I'm going to try and explain it anyway, is that this movie, in some places, is too GRAND for it's own good. There's a scene with Scarlett and Rhett on the top of a hill, right when Rhett leaves the two girls to continue to Tara on their own. They sky is bright orange, the placement of the actors is perfect, the shot is breathtaking, the dialogue is all crisp and perfect, and then I realize that this is so good, that it's taking me out of the film. I'm finding myself breaking off from the picture and realizing that this is blatantly over the top, and not necessarily in a bad way, but in enough of a way that it's taking me out of the film. It's like all the realism that this picture could possess is lost, because everything just looks TOO good and the film is screaming "I'm JUST A MOVIE!!". I don't know, maybe none of that makes much sense, but bottom line is, that this is a real chore to sit through, ESPECIALLY everything post-intermission. Like I said, the movie really wears out it's welcome, and in my opinion this could've been cut down to right around three hours, and I would've enjoyed it that much more and probably would've actually considered myself a fan of the film. Vivien Leigh was amazing, Clark Gable was great, there were a lot of great things about this film, but when it comes down to it, I was bored out of my freaking skull, and ultimately I didn't really enjoy myself, and really that's what movies are all about...enjoying yourself.

RATING: 5/10 I've never and will never apologize for a rating I give, but I'll understand anyone who wants to come here and put up a fight over that rating. It's just the rating that I thought this film deserved overall.

NEXT UP: Le jour se leve...or Daybreak...Entering the home stretch of the 1930's and with only five films remaining, we begin those five with this one. Review will be up tomorrow night.

March 2, 2010 10:41pm

99. CAMILLE (1936)

Running Time: 109 minutes
Directed By: George Cukor
Written By: Zoe Akins, from the novel and play La Dame aux camelias by Alexandre Dumas fils
Main Cast: Greta Garbo, Robert Taylor, Lionel Barrymore, Henry Daniell

NEVER HAVE I EXPERIENCED SO MUCH BOREDOM...YET SO MUCH SADNESS, ALL IN TWO HOURS

I know I promised this review to be delivered about twenty-four hours ago, but due to a horendous cold, that is currently taking it's toll on me, I didn't get here until just now. I was, however, at least able to watch "Camille" and while it was one of the more boring movies, I've ever had the displeasure of sitting through, I'll admit that some scenes were quite heartbreaking.

Greta Garbo plays Marguerite Gautier, nicknamed Camille, due to her love of the camellia flower. One evening, while attending the opera with a few acquaintances, she spots a young man, who she mistakes for the Baron de Varville. She invites him up to her opera box and they seem to hit it off quite nicely. When she asks the "Baron" to go get her some sweets, he exits and the real Baron de Varville arrives at her box, removing her from it and taking her upon his arm. The man who went to get the sweets, Armand Duval, returns with sweets, but without a sweet to give them to, only finding her misplaced handkerchief, picking it up and leaving. Several months go by and Marguerite is happy being taken care of by the Baron. He's rich and can afford to buy her anything she wants, and he does and she accepts. During an auction, where Marguerite purchases some horses, she runs into Armand once more and they share a laugh about the night, that she mistook him for the Baron at the opera. He returns her handkerchief and she invites him to her birthday party, scheduled for the following night.

While at the birthday party, in which the Baron cannot attend, due to being out of town, Armand and Marguerite find themselves taking seclusion from the rest of the party and chatting it up, in a most romantic fashion. Marguerite tells him to go and get rid of the rest of the party and then return later, so that they can presumably make love. She gives him a key and sends him off for the time being. After everyone has gone and while Marguerite's maid prepares a late supper for the two romantics, the Baron shows back up unexpectedly, dashing all the plans that Marguerite had with Armand. After a while, the two meet up once again and Armand persuades Marguerite to go to the country with him, as he loves her and has always loved her, ever since that evening in the opera box. Marguerite exclaims her love for Armand as well, but has qualms about leaving the Baron. Armand eventually persuades her and the two move together to the country and it's love fest in the nineteenth century.

As you could probably tell from the headline that preceeded this post, I was quite bored during this film. Now, with that being said, I will say this: This may have been one of the greatest love stories I've ever seen put to film. This movie did a great job of producing the amount of passion between these two characters, Marguerite and Armand, needed to make everything work. However, I'm not a real big sucker for a sappy love story, but on the other hand this one really showed me the effect that a love story really can have on a viewer and turn a bored customer, into a nearly weepy one. The final scene of the movie, is absolutely and utterly heart wrenching, and if I wasn't already nursing a runny nose and watery eyes, I'm sure I would've been anyway. Greta Garbo, in my opinion, is noting to write home about and honestly I don't get the appeal and accolades that everyone showers her with. She's an average actress at best and honestly, I can name a dozen actresses from that era, who were much better than her, right off the top of my head. Robert Taylor, however, did a fine job and the two did mesh well together, to produce a really genuine, heartfelt love story.

RATING: 4/10 Boredom mixed with sadness and this is what I come up with for a rating and honestly, I think it's being a bit generous, considering I was bored more than anything.

NEXT UP: Sabotage...More Alfred Hitchcock. I have this one in the other room on an Alfred Hitchcock DVD collection, and I plan on popping it in right after I post this, so (hopefully) I'll be right back with that review.

February 12, 2010 12:26pm