avis de ldeangelis-75708
Cette page présente tous les avis écrits par ldeangelis-75708, partageant ses réflexions détaillées sur les films, les séries, etc.
463 commentaires
The best thing about this movie is the late Victorian costumes. Other than that, it's not all that much. Jean Kent, in the title role, does better with her singing than her acting, which is pretty overacted here. The rest of the cast was less than memorable as far as performances go.
I think this would have been better as a serious drama, about class differences, marrying for money/social position, discarding a suitor for lack of prospects, adjusting to a world very different from your own background, and wondering if you made the right decision. As it was, the movie tries to do this within the format of a musical comedy, and it just doesn't work.
James Donald, as Lord Digby, the man Trottie chooses and Andrew Crawford as Sid, the one she rejects, are both adequate in their roles, but that's all. Neither of them seems to really care all that much about Trottie, and the "happily ever after" just doesn't ring true. (And that wasn't an intentional pun, still I'm rather impressed with myself!)
I'm less impressed with this movie and advise you to skip it.
I think this would have been better as a serious drama, about class differences, marrying for money/social position, discarding a suitor for lack of prospects, adjusting to a world very different from your own background, and wondering if you made the right decision. As it was, the movie tries to do this within the format of a musical comedy, and it just doesn't work.
James Donald, as Lord Digby, the man Trottie chooses and Andrew Crawford as Sid, the one she rejects, are both adequate in their roles, but that's all. Neither of them seems to really care all that much about Trottie, and the "happily ever after" just doesn't ring true. (And that wasn't an intentional pun, still I'm rather impressed with myself!)
I'm less impressed with this movie and advise you to skip it.
This was a love story tempered with reality, or should it be called a story of real life with a little romance thrown in? Either way, you get a story that's neither upbeat nor a downer, but rather one of class distinction, moral ambiguities, dreams in the face of reality, and those who have the guts to make those dreams come true.
This movie's also a soap opera, with secret lives behind respectable facades, illicit affairs, illegitimacy, fights, murder, dueling, true love vs. Family duty, enough to keep you entertained.
You also get some good acting by Phyllis Calvert in the title role, Stuart Granger as the hero of the story and James Mason playing the role he plays so well, that of the villain. Who can forget him answering the question of the woman (Fanny's former employer and also her adulterous stepmother, played by Margaretta Scott) who threw away her comfortable life for him when she asks if he feels any love for her at all? He looks into her eyes, kisses her hand and says, "No." That's James, alright!
The ending is a bit hokey but what the heck?
This one's worth checking out!
This movie's also a soap opera, with secret lives behind respectable facades, illicit affairs, illegitimacy, fights, murder, dueling, true love vs. Family duty, enough to keep you entertained.
You also get some good acting by Phyllis Calvert in the title role, Stuart Granger as the hero of the story and James Mason playing the role he plays so well, that of the villain. Who can forget him answering the question of the woman (Fanny's former employer and also her adulterous stepmother, played by Margaretta Scott) who threw away her comfortable life for him when she asks if he feels any love for her at all? He looks into her eyes, kisses her hand and says, "No." That's James, alright!
The ending is a bit hokey but what the heck?
This one's worth checking out!
This movie shows how far Hallmark has fallen from a decade ago, when their movies may have had the same type of theme but also had enough individually so that you didn't feel you were watching the same movie again and again and yet again!
This is why I haven't watched a new (and I use that term loosely) Hallmark for a long time (with one notable exception, which I reviewed some time ago) and most likely never won't again. Why bother, when their archives are so much better?
This movie, about an aspiring artist helping a busy executive with his Christmas shopping and helping him to rediscover the true meaning of the holidays and reconnect with his family was done well, not hokey or overly cute or dramatic. The couple had some conflict, but it didn't go overboard or take forever to resolve.
And maybe I'm a bit hokey myself, because I found myself thinking that since she has two nieces and he has two nephews, perhaps....
Everyone's entitled to a La La moment!
Nice to watch!
This is why I haven't watched a new (and I use that term loosely) Hallmark for a long time (with one notable exception, which I reviewed some time ago) and most likely never won't again. Why bother, when their archives are so much better?
This movie, about an aspiring artist helping a busy executive with his Christmas shopping and helping him to rediscover the true meaning of the holidays and reconnect with his family was done well, not hokey or overly cute or dramatic. The couple had some conflict, but it didn't go overboard or take forever to resolve.
And maybe I'm a bit hokey myself, because I found myself thinking that since she has two nieces and he has two nephews, perhaps....
Everyone's entitled to a La La moment!
Nice to watch!
This Hallmark movie was probably one of the last quality ones the channel made before it went into clone mode and kept producing the same movies over and over again, with slight differences here and there which don't fool anyone with a brain.
This movie wasn't a romantic love story, it was a family love story, and they young woman who's a stranger at the start then becomes a part of that family in more ways than one.
It's about that same young woman's troubled relationship with her recently deceased mother and her search for the sibling she never knew she had. (I thought I guessed who it was, but I got it wrong.)
Throw in a mother and son missing the husband/father who's a wounded warrior recovering in an overseas facility, hoping he'll be home for the holidays, and the divorced parents/grandparents who may not be divorced in their hearts, and you get a warm holiday story that kind of renews your faith in people, at least for a while.
Worth watching!
This movie wasn't a romantic love story, it was a family love story, and they young woman who's a stranger at the start then becomes a part of that family in more ways than one.
It's about that same young woman's troubled relationship with her recently deceased mother and her search for the sibling she never knew she had. (I thought I guessed who it was, but I got it wrong.)
Throw in a mother and son missing the husband/father who's a wounded warrior recovering in an overseas facility, hoping he'll be home for the holidays, and the divorced parents/grandparents who may not be divorced in their hearts, and you get a warm holiday story that kind of renews your faith in people, at least for a while.
Worth watching!
If for no other reason, watch this movie for Bobby Driscoll, who plays the young Hiram Percy Maxim (who wrote the book this movie is based on), son of the eccentric non-conformist inventor Hiram Stephen Maxim (Don Ameche) and Jane Budden Maxim (Myrna Loy).
The movie's a fictionalized account of their marriage, at least the earlier years of it, as the film stops with the birth of their daughter, their second child. There were a few more to come, but there was also a divorce. What's more, he had an affair with his secretary (whom he later married) and a third woman claimed she was his first wife, whom he was still legally marrieds to when he married Jane, making him a bigamist. True or not, he was hardly the devoted husband and father of the film.
Anyway, the movie has its amusing moments (mostly due to the antics of Percy) but I would have liked it better if more could have been shown of his inventions (like his version of a "flying machine") and less of his being too stubbornly determined not to be like everyone else, which in its way makes him as much of a "my way or the highway" type as conventional conformists are.
Worth checking out, but don't expect too much.
The movie's a fictionalized account of their marriage, at least the earlier years of it, as the film stops with the birth of their daughter, their second child. There were a few more to come, but there was also a divorce. What's more, he had an affair with his secretary (whom he later married) and a third woman claimed she was his first wife, whom he was still legally marrieds to when he married Jane, making him a bigamist. True or not, he was hardly the devoted husband and father of the film.
Anyway, the movie has its amusing moments (mostly due to the antics of Percy) but I would have liked it better if more could have been shown of his inventions (like his version of a "flying machine") and less of his being too stubbornly determined not to be like everyone else, which in its way makes him as much of a "my way or the highway" type as conventional conformists are.
Worth checking out, but don't expect too much.
No wonder Mary Tyler Moore wanted to forget she ever made this film, what a waste of her talent! I'll bet she wasn't told ahead of time that she'd have to pretend to be pregnant with a bird under her dress! Unless they breathed some of that feel good virus o her first???
This movie was like so many from the mid to late 60's: overdone, overacted and underwhelming. The (so-called) message gets lost in all the nonsense. Even the superior acting skills of Mary, George Peppard. Dom DeLouise and (all too briefly) Thelma Ritter couldn't make this film worthwhile.
When the best part is the toucan bird talking with captions, that says it all.
BTW: the significance of the film today, with those masks being worn to prevent caching the deadly virus are ironic, to say the least, though almost 6o years ago, they had no way of knowing.
And as for any "message" in the film, let's put it this way. If people were told today that they could have euphoric happiness, but they'd have to give up social media to do it....
Need I say more?
This movie was like so many from the mid to late 60's: overdone, overacted and underwhelming. The (so-called) message gets lost in all the nonsense. Even the superior acting skills of Mary, George Peppard. Dom DeLouise and (all too briefly) Thelma Ritter couldn't make this film worthwhile.
When the best part is the toucan bird talking with captions, that says it all.
BTW: the significance of the film today, with those masks being worn to prevent caching the deadly virus are ironic, to say the least, though almost 6o years ago, they had no way of knowing.
And as for any "message" in the film, let's put it this way. If people were told today that they could have euphoric happiness, but they'd have to give up social media to do it....
Need I say more?
What a story! A mystery writer named Janet Frobisher (Bette Davis) with a mysterious husband who's also a murderer, who she murders, teams up with George, her late husband's accomplice in a bank robbery (Gary Merrill, Bette's husband at the time), who has no intention of going to jail either for the robbery he committed or the murder he didn't. So, they'll dispose of the body, and he'll take hubby's place. Makes perfect sense!
Meanwhile, Janet's been playing around with Larry (Anthony Steel), the fiancé of her secretary, Chris (Barbara Murray), and now that "hubby" is back, and both Chris and Larry are staying at Janet's place for the time being, you have quite a romantic (term used loosely) tangle!
Add to it, Janet's obsession with her pet horse, Fury, a rather inquisitive (or should I say intrusive) Dr. Henderson, the town vet, who appears and reappears - along with tons of questions - and makes you wonder if he inspired the writers of the "Columbo" series.
And that ending was really something: talk about getting a dose of your own medicine!
Not very probable, but entertaining, nonetheless.
Meanwhile, Janet's been playing around with Larry (Anthony Steel), the fiancé of her secretary, Chris (Barbara Murray), and now that "hubby" is back, and both Chris and Larry are staying at Janet's place for the time being, you have quite a romantic (term used loosely) tangle!
Add to it, Janet's obsession with her pet horse, Fury, a rather inquisitive (or should I say intrusive) Dr. Henderson, the town vet, who appears and reappears - along with tons of questions - and makes you wonder if he inspired the writers of the "Columbo" series.
And that ending was really something: talk about getting a dose of your own medicine!
Not very probable, but entertaining, nonetheless.
It's nothing special, but it is an amusing way to kill some time, and Googie Withers is a riot in the role of Carol, a wife who thinks she's committed an indiscretion with Jackson, the handsome new butler (Griffith Jones), an army buddy of her husband's! Unaware it was all a dream (after a frustrating night alone, when hubby - Guy Middleton - returns home and falls asleep, killing her romantic plans), she can't understand Jackson's casual attitude and - even worse - her husband's when he apparently finds out about it and dismisses the whole thing! (This earns him a few face slaps!)
It all involves garden flowers; I'll just leave it at that.
Agnes Lauchlan was great in her role of Aunt Agnes (loved the look on her face when she thought she lost the flower show award to her upstart niece-by-marriage, then the way it changes when she's given a special award, instead!)
Thdere's more silliness (like Carol's business failures, and a friend of her husband's whose as horny as she wished hubby was) and enough light entertainment to keep you interested.
It all involves garden flowers; I'll just leave it at that.
Agnes Lauchlan was great in her role of Aunt Agnes (loved the look on her face when she thought she lost the flower show award to her upstart niece-by-marriage, then the way it changes when she's given a special award, instead!)
Thdere's more silliness (like Carol's business failures, and a friend of her husband's whose as horny as she wished hubby was) and enough light entertainment to keep you interested.
I've never been a fan of Robert Louis Stevenson's writing and much prefer screen adaptations, and though I never read "St Ives", I'm convinced that would be the case as well, so to heck with the book!
This film was entertaining, combining action and adventure with romance. While the main couple (Jean-Marc Barr as Jacques and Anna Friel as Flora) were both very good, in my opinion the secondary couple (Richard Grant as Major Chevening and Miranda Richardson as Flora's Aunt Susan) stole the show!
I have just two complaints: there was too little time for Jacques to connect with his family, both his invalid grandfather and evil brother (both exiting the story too soon). And they goofed in the costume department, as it was 1813 and everyone dressed in 1790's style.
But other than that, it was fun and entertaining.
This film was entertaining, combining action and adventure with romance. While the main couple (Jean-Marc Barr as Jacques and Anna Friel as Flora) were both very good, in my opinion the secondary couple (Richard Grant as Major Chevening and Miranda Richardson as Flora's Aunt Susan) stole the show!
I have just two complaints: there was too little time for Jacques to connect with his family, both his invalid grandfather and evil brother (both exiting the story too soon). And they goofed in the costume department, as it was 1813 and everyone dressed in 1790's style.
But other than that, it was fun and entertaining.
After seeing this movie, I did some fact checking and discovered (as I expected) that the true love story was fiction. (I knew that part resembled a romance novel way too much). The real Veronica Franco was briefly married (not to Marco) before her courtesan career began but not much else is said about it except that you get the feeling it was not a love match.
That being said, the story of star-crossed soulmates always draws a (mostly female) audience, so it was smart for them to add it to the film and both Catherine McCormick and Rufus Sewell do well in their roles as Catherine and Marco.
What really makes you think is how the flawed social system that first applauds then condemns these courtesans was the same one that brought about their necessity in the first place. Proper women were supposed to be intellectually vacant and sexually unresponsive, so is it any wonder their frustrated husbands would turn to educated, uninhibited courtesans for what they weren't getting at home?
Not to mention the ridiculousness of keeping women ignorant of the world of books and knowledge, so is something goes wrong in the family financially, she has no skills or education to help out and therefore has to resort to her body to fill the coffers? And even if she did, with society's condemnation of a woman (heaven forbid) starting a small business, working as an assistant or apprentice or whatever was available in 16thc Venice would not be acceptable anyway, leaving her with little options, especially if she had the looks that attracted men. Catherine's mother could be looked on as cold and calculating but she was also realistic and practical.
An, being a bookworm myself, the thought that the only way a woman can read and learn and have the pleasures of a library is to give men pleasure in bed is downright crummy!
As for witchcraft accusations: naturally, in past centuries anyone who lived life outside society's norms was accused of that, when I suspect it stemmed from jealousy that some have the guts not to be clones!
Okay, I'll shut up!
That being said, the story of star-crossed soulmates always draws a (mostly female) audience, so it was smart for them to add it to the film and both Catherine McCormick and Rufus Sewell do well in their roles as Catherine and Marco.
What really makes you think is how the flawed social system that first applauds then condemns these courtesans was the same one that brought about their necessity in the first place. Proper women were supposed to be intellectually vacant and sexually unresponsive, so is it any wonder their frustrated husbands would turn to educated, uninhibited courtesans for what they weren't getting at home?
Not to mention the ridiculousness of keeping women ignorant of the world of books and knowledge, so is something goes wrong in the family financially, she has no skills or education to help out and therefore has to resort to her body to fill the coffers? And even if she did, with society's condemnation of a woman (heaven forbid) starting a small business, working as an assistant or apprentice or whatever was available in 16thc Venice would not be acceptable anyway, leaving her with little options, especially if she had the looks that attracted men. Catherine's mother could be looked on as cold and calculating but she was also realistic and practical.
An, being a bookworm myself, the thought that the only way a woman can read and learn and have the pleasures of a library is to give men pleasure in bed is downright crummy!
As for witchcraft accusations: naturally, in past centuries anyone who lived life outside society's norms was accused of that, when I suspect it stemmed from jealousy that some have the guts not to be clones!
Okay, I'll shut up!
Where this atmospheric film messed up was in actually showing the demon, as it would have been much more effective if it could have been thought to be perhaps a demon of the mind? Could it be a manifestation of the power of suggestion, sort of like the bad luck that supposedly follows when someone breaks a chain letter? Though I liked the way the small curl of smoky fog (or foggy smoke, or whatever) enlarges to become that grotesque embodiment of evil and destruction, I still think it would have been more effective if those menaced had been fleeing, glancing back in terror and being overcome, or getting a narrow escape, as in the case of Dr. John Holden (Dana Andrews), with viewers never knowing if the fiend was real or imaginary.
That being said, the movie had some good moments, not all of them supernatural or scary. The beginning, with Dana on the plane trying to get some sleep while being disturbed time and again by the unwitting Joanna Harrington (Peggy Cummins), suffering from insomnia while writing in her travel diary. Her uncle (Maurice Denham) falls victim to the monster. Or was it just a tragic car accident?
The villain of the story, Karswell (Niall MacGinnis), plays his part well and learns his lesson too late: be careful when you curse someone, it's possible the curse may befall you!
Worth checking out.
That being said, the movie had some good moments, not all of them supernatural or scary. The beginning, with Dana on the plane trying to get some sleep while being disturbed time and again by the unwitting Joanna Harrington (Peggy Cummins), suffering from insomnia while writing in her travel diary. Her uncle (Maurice Denham) falls victim to the monster. Or was it just a tragic car accident?
The villain of the story, Karswell (Niall MacGinnis), plays his part well and learns his lesson too late: be careful when you curse someone, it's possible the curse may befall you!
Worth checking out.
I watched this movie out of curiosity, as I heard it was the first pairing of those famous lovers, Sir Laurence Olivier and Vivien Leigh (and supposedly the start of heir scandalous love affair, while both married to others), but I soon forgot all about them, as I found the performance of Flora Hobson as Queen Elizabeth I much more worthy of attention! She was absolutely wonderful, played the part to perfection, without overdoing it, making the monarch human rather than a caricature, as so many monarchs are portrayed in films.
If Flora didn't win an award for this performance (or at the very least get nominated for one) then those Brits had rocks in their heads!
As for the romantic duo, I'll have to say i wasn't all that impressed. In my opinion, Sir Laurence overacted and Vivien didn't act enough. I also thought he had more chemistry with Elena (Tamara Desni), too bad he wasn't playing a Spanish nobleman, instead!
I also liked the battle scenes, learning some history of the Spanish Armada, and Raymond Massey as Phillip of Spain gave his usual good performance.
Worth watching, especially for Flora Hobson!
If Flora didn't win an award for this performance (or at the very least get nominated for one) then those Brits had rocks in their heads!
As for the romantic duo, I'll have to say i wasn't all that impressed. In my opinion, Sir Laurence overacted and Vivien didn't act enough. I also thought he had more chemistry with Elena (Tamara Desni), too bad he wasn't playing a Spanish nobleman, instead!
I also liked the battle scenes, learning some history of the Spanish Armada, and Raymond Massey as Phillip of Spain gave his usual good performance.
Worth watching, especially for Flora Hobson!
I won't go into a lot of detail (as so many reviewers did) but I'll bring up something that others may not be aware of. While the writers goofed by having one of the villagers say that vampires must return to their coffins at night, it wasn't a mistake to have them appear during the day. Anyone who read Bram Stoker's "Dracula" may remember that Count Dracula was able to be out in the daylight. It was only when the story went onscreen that they added this vampire "fact" that they stay in their coffins during daylight. So Mircalla/Marcilla/Camilla/whoever being up and about during the day was not an error.
That being said, I think Yutte Stensgaard was great in the role, playing the sweet student and the vampire killer with equal skill, without overplaying either persona.
Ralph Bates was also good as the schoolmaster/wannabee disciple of Satan whose obsessive longing for Mircalla and desire to serve her doesn't turn out like he'd hoped.
What's really intriguing is the film's reversal of the usual vampire tale, where the young woman is menaced by the male vampire (the bad boy) while her loving suitor (the nice guy) tries to save her from her fate. Here, it's the young man, Richard Lestrange (Michael Johnson, who I think rather enjoyed playing this role) who falls for the female vampire (the bad girl) while schoolteacher Janet (Suzanna Leigh) is the good girl hoping to bring him back to his senses.
And that song "Strange Love" playing while Richard and Mircalla do the deed (no neck biting involved) was haunting, and a perfect choice, as their love is indeed strange!
Despite her wicked deeds (like her penchant for biting and killing off pretty girls), you get the impression Mircalla was really falling for Michael, which gives the ending real poignancy.
And I liked that crusading bishop!
Really worth checking out!
That being said, I think Yutte Stensgaard was great in the role, playing the sweet student and the vampire killer with equal skill, without overplaying either persona.
Ralph Bates was also good as the schoolmaster/wannabee disciple of Satan whose obsessive longing for Mircalla and desire to serve her doesn't turn out like he'd hoped.
What's really intriguing is the film's reversal of the usual vampire tale, where the young woman is menaced by the male vampire (the bad boy) while her loving suitor (the nice guy) tries to save her from her fate. Here, it's the young man, Richard Lestrange (Michael Johnson, who I think rather enjoyed playing this role) who falls for the female vampire (the bad girl) while schoolteacher Janet (Suzanna Leigh) is the good girl hoping to bring him back to his senses.
And that song "Strange Love" playing while Richard and Mircalla do the deed (no neck biting involved) was haunting, and a perfect choice, as their love is indeed strange!
Despite her wicked deeds (like her penchant for biting and killing off pretty girls), you get the impression Mircalla was really falling for Michael, which gives the ending real poignancy.
And I liked that crusading bishop!
Really worth checking out!
Most of the stars in my rating go to Jean Simmons, who played the role of Caroline Ruthyn with her usual good performance, but as for the rest of them; well, let's just say I wasn't too impressed.
I'm not a fan of Sheridan Le Fanu, and this film adaptation of his novel "Uncle Silas" hasn't changed that. While the settings gave the right atmosphere, the acting (or rather, overacting) just grated on my nerves.
I'd never seen Derrick de Morney (Uncle Silas) in a picture before, and after this one, I hope I never do again. It was like nails sliding down a chalk board! The same goes for the nauseating overacting of Katina Paxinou as Madame de la Rougierre. That, along with her looks, was enough to make whatever you recently ate do a flip flop in your stomach.
The rest of the cast was okay, but nothing special. Neither was the story.
Nom big deal if you skip this one.
I'm not a fan of Sheridan Le Fanu, and this film adaptation of his novel "Uncle Silas" hasn't changed that. While the settings gave the right atmosphere, the acting (or rather, overacting) just grated on my nerves.
I'd never seen Derrick de Morney (Uncle Silas) in a picture before, and after this one, I hope I never do again. It was like nails sliding down a chalk board! The same goes for the nauseating overacting of Katina Paxinou as Madame de la Rougierre. That, along with her looks, was enough to make whatever you recently ate do a flip flop in your stomach.
The rest of the cast was okay, but nothing special. Neither was the story.
Nom big deal if you skip this one.