Change Your Image
rberrong-1
Reviews
Regain (1937)
A rare improvement over the literary source
Movie adaptations of novels usually leave one regretting things that had to be left out. This movie is an exception. It is, in my opinion, a real IMPROVEMENT on the literary source, Jean Giono's Regain. The novel is sort of like French Pearl Buck: strong silent types working the earth, simple folk with all the admirable qualities: hard work, honesty, etc. In principle, very good, but in Giono's handling, understated to the point of tedium, since his novel is very clichéd. Pagnol, aided by some very fine performers, especially the male lead, who is remarkable in this movie, brings a series of clichés to life. I couldn't sit through The Good Earth a second time, but this I could very definitely see again with pleasure.
Inherit the Wind (1960)
A movie for our times, unfortunately
The last time I saw this movie, which was the first time I saw it, it played on TV when I was a kid, in the 1960s. I appreciated even then that it was a good movie, with fine acting, but it was a history lesson: a story about bigotry and ignorance in a part of the country that had been bigoted and ignorant back in the 1920s. Looking at it from a northern suburb in the 1960s, it was a source of laughter. How could those bible-thumpers have been so ignorant as to have denied science? In 2007, when polls show that 40+ percent of Americans - not just small town Southerners, but Americans in general - believe the story of the creation of the world as told in Genesis, when state after state finds itself debating whether "creationism" should be taught along side science in public schools, Kramer's film is if anything more powerful and prophetic than when he first made it. It demands the right of men to think freely, to be different, and that right has never been more under attack in this country.
This is truly a film that, unfortunately, has gotten "better" with age.
Thrill of a Romance (1945)
An old-fashioned movie musical
This movie does actually have a plot, but you're better off not bothering with it. Van Johnson and Esther Williams do their best with it, but the plot is truly of no interest. They both made much better movies, and probably few others this weak.
That is not to say that the movie is not worth watching, however. But its merits are strictly musical. Tommy Dorsey gets some good numbers with his band, but the true star of the picture, much more important than his billing would lead you to believe, is Metropolitan Opera tenor Lauritz Melchior. At this point, Melchior was winding down his career at the Met - he would be one of the "old timers" to go when Rudolf Bing arrived and did a lot of "house cleaning." And perhaps the performances he was giving there were no longer what they should have been. But in this movie, he really steals the show. He plays an over-weight tenor, a part that fitted him to a T, with an affability and sense of humor that make him seem completely at ease on the screen, unlike too many of his Met colleagues who had taken their turns in Hollywood. He also sings with a voice that is still rock solid. And he has a lot of numbers, from his classical standards like Grieg's "Ich liebe dich" and "Vesti la giubba" to some pop numbers, of which the best is the closing one: "Please don't say no, say maybe." Go out to make popcorn while the plot is advancing, but make sure you come back for the musical numbers!
We're Not Dressing (1934)
Variety show
This movie does have something resembling a plot, but to summarize it would be to waste your time and insult your intelligence. It would also distract you from the movie's very real merits, which can be summed up as 1. Merman, 2. Burns and Allen, and 3. Crosby. Merman is the real star here; she gets one great musical number after the next and performs them with gusto and comedic flair. Crosby gets even more numbers, and performs them well, but they aren't as interesting. Burns and Allen do several comedy skits in their best style (Gracie and daffy is not something that you want to miss). The plot, or what passes for one, gets us from one musical or comedy number to the next, and for that its weakness can be forgiven.
Two notes. 1. Carol Lombard is wasted in this movie. 2. There is a tame bear in this movie that is constantly abused, which gets rather aggravating.
If you can make a copy of this movie, cut out the dialog and you will have some entertaining numbers.
Holiday in Mexico (1946)
Shades of things not to come
This is basically a bad movie, one in which the sum of the parts is definitely less than the parts themselves. It throws together without ever fusing them into one coherent whole 1) José Iturbi, who plays a Hollywood version of Rachmaninoff's Second Concerto for piano and Chopin's Military Polonaise, 2) Xavier Cougat and his orchestra doing what they did, 3) Ilona Massey being very beautiful and singing into the bargain, and 4) Jane Powell. Powell evidently couldn't act - though this script doesn't really provide any opportunity to do so - but she could sing light classical music, and in this movie she was given music to sing that really showed off her voice (Bizet's Les filles de Cadiz, Herbert's Italian Street Song, etc.). It serves as something of an explanation of what went wrong subsequently, when MGM and then RKO put Powell into movies where she was asked to sing the popular music of the era. She never sounded particularly at ease with the popular music, and never did a particularly good job of singing it. Since she wasn't an actress, when what she was singing wasn't interesting, there was nothing to attract audiences. But this movie shows that, had Hollywood continued to give her music appropriate to her voice, her later movies might not have been so forgettable. As it is, this movie is like a vaudeville show: it presents a series of well-done musical numbers connected, feebly, by a script that is best forgotten. If you like Iturbi, or Massey, or Powell, you'll like their numbers. (Did anyone really like Xavier Cougat?) You can go make popcorn during the rest of it and not miss anything.
Rich, Young and Pretty (1951)
Unflattering casting undermines star and sinks movie
The previous reviewer found nothing to like in this movie, and I would agree in all respects but one. It is a typical movie musical in that the thin plot serves only to get from one musical number to the next. But in this case, the musical numbers are all forgettable and not worth getting to. Then there is the casting: it is impossible to accept Vic Damone as a Frenchman. But there is one interesting element: Danielle Darrieux. Darrieux had been one of the great stars of French cinema in the 1930s, making first-rate films like Mayerling with Charles Boyer (1936). By 1951, when this movie was made, she was no longer a young woman, but still a stunning beauty and a great actress. Setting her against Jane Powell, who is cute and perky here (she would be both more attractive and more interesting in other films), makes Powell look weak by comparison. It was another poor job of casting, in a sense, but it provides about the only thing worth watching in this otherwise completely forgettable movie.
The Fighting 69th (1940)
One great movie
This is a remarkable movie, though you might not guess it from the credits. I don't know what George Brent was doing in movies; he certainly couldn't act, and that is painfully obvious here. But Cagney gives a superlative performance, once again going out on a limb, this time by playing a coward. And while he does finally find some courage, he is not rewarded with love and kisses; he dies. In short, it would be hard to imagine Hollywood making a movie like this today, but it is most definitely worth seeing. Sometimes the speeches get a little preachy, but all the sentiments are good ones, and as a realistic study of the difficulties of dealing with the horrors of war, this is one remarkable movie, for any time. A great script and and some first-rate acting.