Reviews
Gösta Berlings saga (1924)
Overlong and boring
First of all, to Garbo fans, though «Berling» is the film that launched Greta Garbo's career, it is NOT a Garbo movie. Indeed, even in the restored full 3-hour DVD version, GG is not seen very often except at the end. Her part, though, becomes a pivotal one as the film progresses.
I must say that, though rarely seen, GG is good in her part and is acting with subtlety compared to most of the other actors. The soulful quality of her acting that she'll be known for is already there. She has a very sensible and touching character to play and we SO wish that her Countess Dohnna will be the one ending with Gösta Berling.
GG is already beautiful though not as drop-dead gorgeous as she would become in future films. But we soon forget her for a long while in that overlong and dull movie (until 30 minutes before the end when the movie suddenly BELONGS to her only), especially because Gerda Lundeqvist is really the one who shines and stoles the pictures.
Gerda Lundeqvist acts naturally and with depths. She does not hesitate to look worn-out, even ugly. She's totally into her part. She's a neo-realistic actress 25 years before neo-realism would be introduced in Italian movies! She really is, to me, probably the only reason to see this movie.
Now, Lars Hanson...he may have been known for his great profile and good looks, but, as an actor, I find him to be a typical actor of that era. Those big dramatic and quite ineffective gestures, this rolling of the eyes, the white face like Valentino as if he's been powdered...Under all of this, he WAS handsome and we can see he has classical features, but, seeing him in that movie, one wonders how women could fall one after another for his Gösta Berling character! See him in «Flesh And The Devil» instead; in it, he's much more handsome and we're even treated with a nice and welcome shirtless scene where we can clearly see how well built and gorgeous he really was.
As for his acting talent, it is impossible for me to have an opinion based on this movie. In it, he's just, to me, another example of a badly outdated performer. Perhaps was he better on stage as he was also a theater actor...Anyway...
The film itself is overlong, boring and hard to swallow today. I watched it 30 minutes at a time over several days! That's the only way I could sit through the whole movie! I usually don't mind silent movies, but this one is simply not good. Period.
It has almost no plot. The little it has in that department goes nowhere. The Winter setting is depressing and rather reminds the early Luis Trenker or Leni Riefenstahl movies WITHOUT the action! It may be beautiful to look at to some, because of the numerous exterior shots and especially considering it's been filmed almost 90 years ago, but one gets bored of beauty very fast when there's nothing else! How could Mauritz Stiller become such a celebrated director in his time if all he did were movies like this one? Tough question...
Anyway, see it if you like epic dramas or if you are a Garbo devotee but, otherwise, you can easily live without it! P.S. Two stars only: one for GG and one Gerda L.
Palmy Days (1931)
Very dynamic pairing of Charlotte Greenwood and Eddie Cantor
How can you NOT like Eddie Cantor? Even after all those years, his charisma is absolutely intact. You look at those big dark sad eyes once and you fall in love with that very generous and charismatic performer. He was a dynamo. And so cute! He spares nothing to please you and it is very effective. He's not that good a singer, though. He had a too high-pitched voice.
And what about the great Charlotte Greenwood! How do I adore that strong performer with her high kicks, her almost frightening physical stamina and energy, her generosity! She's old-school all right and very, very entertaining. She never fails to give you a very great time. She's a scene stealer too. But we love her even more for it! See it if only for her as well as all the other movies she's in! As for the plot, well, it is a pure slapstick comedy. You have to like the genre but if you do as I do, you'll like the movie.
Interesting to see a glimpse of Betty Grable as a teenager. Try to find her! Haha! One wishes she would have at least one scene with Eddie Cantor.
See it, it's good.
The Gay Divorcee (1934)
Overlong and very very slow and dull movie
Oh! Boy! Is it slow! Ginger Rogers really sleep-walks through the whole film. She doesn't even wake up when dancing! Not that she's a bad actress, usually, she isn't. But in this one, sorry Ginger, you simply did not have IT! On the contrary, Fred Astaire is the perfection he always is in dancing, acting, singing, clothing... God Bless him! So far, I've never seen a movie without adoring him completely in it each time. He was a genius in the same category as Leni Riefenstahl, Nanni Morretti, Charlie Chaplin, etc.
Alice Brady should shut up completely - she's not even funny! - while Edward Everett Horton is equal to himself, meaning, good.
Now watch for the bubbling, sparkling, very young and very beautiful Betty Grable in her single scene. One cries, watching this movie, that it is not she who is cast in the Rogers part besides Fred Astaire. A Astaire/Grable pairing would have been a big artistic dream of mine but the only contact they have is a quick mutual nod...and that's it! I could cry over it eternally! At least, she's featured during an entire routine, well executed, well sung and well danced though simple. She literally irradiates! Watch that film if only just for her. That's what I did!
Give Me a Sailor (1938)
So messy it's hard to follow...but not bad.
The problem with that movie is that each scene works well separately but there's no much coherence in the end. It should have been edited some other way.
Martha Raye is featured here and, when you're able to look further than her constant face grimaces, you appreciate her genuine talent. She's a dynamo and appears here in a very sympathetic part, a homely girl being the servant to everybody, the girl-next-door longing for one man who's not interested in her. She ends up with his brother, her real soul mate.
The brother is Bob Hope, very young and good in his part, though not fully himself yet. His brother, the Walter part, is played by the handsome Jack Whiting who's got a mellifluous voice.
Betty Grable, for once well featured in one of the Thirties films, is the selfish, spoiled and unsympathetic sister of Martha Raye. It's great to see her in such a role that gives her an opportunity to act. And, as always, she's very beautiful and such a delight when she sings "What Goes On Here In My Heart?" while swirling around the dance floor in handsome Jack Whiting's arms. God Bless Betty Grable! Though hard to follow, the film is very watchable for other reasons. See it if you can.
College Swing (1938)
A (slow!) showcase, not a movie!
If you happen to catch that movie, see it, otherwise, don't kill yourself! It has no plot at all, but I mean AT ALL! Everybody comes and goes to do his bit for posterity but there's no story to link them all together. And the pace is so very slow! In general, let's say it's a nonsensical movie about a nerd woman not interested in college but who tries everything to be the dean of the boys of that college just to end up forgetting the whole thing. And that lasts the whole damned duration of that movie! In between, every actor, some good, some not, come to dance or to sing once or twice and that's about it for "College Swing". In that way, it's a showcase, not a movie.
Betty Grable sings beautifully and sparkles as always. And it is fun to see her do some steps with Jackie Coogan...who doesn't utter one single line! It's a waste of big talents for both of them. A shame! Bob Hope, usually good, is plain boring in that movie. Just the same for Ben Blue, usually funny but here just plain unfunny and uninspired.
George Burns is very low-key and not very important in the plot. Gracie Allen has her moments but, be careful, her voice gets on your nerves. She does one dance sequence very well executed and funny at the same time...but it fades out before it ends properly! For those who don't know her, she's a strange mix of Mary Pickford and Fanny Brice...though I much prefer those last two than Gracie Allen! Edward Everett Horton is rather good while John Payne, besides being very handsome as usual, is not used very effectively here.
In fact, besides Betty Grable, the only one that fares well and much saves the picture all to herself is Martha Raye, always so game to do anything, not bashful for one penny, energetic, brassy, ugly if required...well, a real entertainer! And watch for her song with her mouth full of banana...it had my only laugh for the entire picture.
That pretty much says it all.
Collegiate (1935)
Entertaining movie despite untalented Jo Penner!
I can't believe some producers in the Thirties invested their money into Jo Penner. He's not one bit funny, he's unattractive to the point of being almost disgusting, has a terribly bad voice that has you shiver in horror...in fact, he got on my last nerve watching him strut his untalented self in this movie! And he has the wonderful Betty Grable as his lover? Now! What a joke! A chance for her, her part is so tiny I think she has 2 scenes at most. They have her play a dumb platinum blonde who speaks in such a high pitch she's almost unrecognizable! At least, she sings and dances a little.
Jack Oakie is very good as usual. He doesn't have much of the looks of his playboy character, but he compensates with personality and assurance. I wonder why he's always goofing when he's singing in his movies because for the first time, in that one, I've noticed that he had in fact a very beautiful singing voice when he sings straight.
My favorites in this movie, though, are Ned Sparks, always very, very powerful and funny, and Frances Langford who sings very good, IS very good and had that little something that could have made her a star. She was so thin she reminds of Audrey Hepburn! The movie, though pleasant, is weak at many points. It is slow to start, the plot is unbelievable and the way the Penner character's search of identity is done is not handled very well.
But the whole is still watchable. See it if you have a chance.
The Nitwits (1935)
Charming, charming comedy with some action!
I didn't know the comedy team Wheeler & Woolsey before seeing this film but, believe me, you must find out about them because they were very effective and good, especially Robert Woolsey who reminds me a bit of George Burns. See them! The wonderful Betty Grable is, as always, very beautiful but one cannot believe, seeing her in that movie, how subdued, poised and almost shy she was at that time. When one knows how much energy she displayed in the Forties and how sassy she was, it is a bit of a curio to see her in the Thirties. She doesn't have much of a showy role but she's good and we have the pleasure of hearing her sing in a duet with Bert Wheeler and do some steps with him.
Fred Keating is very handsome, laid-off and good. He should have been a leading man...why not Betty's? What a stunning couple they would've made in Technicolor! As for the movie, it is very good. Everyone work well together and, besides the comedy business, there's a little action and suspense.
Yeah, though simple, this film reach it's goal in that it is really entertaining. Don't hesitate to see it if you have a chance.
Man About Town (1939)
Messy but classy sympathetic little comedy
A Jack Benny vehicle, this film is very watchable even after all these years. Jack Benny, though not as funny as he's supposed to be here, does his job well. One feels like putting an arm over his shoulders watching him being so kind with no success to win Dorothy Lamour.
Now, Dorothy Lamour...how can someone NOT like her? She's beautiful, exotic looking but at the same time very down-to-earth. She also possesses a beautiful contralto singing voice and has a great acting talent. Her part was supposed to be Betty Grable's at the time, but well, it went to her. So be it...she's great.
The beautiful Betty Grable, unfortunately, is not seen very much here. She has a short song, though, but so short you don't even have time to realize she's on the screen displaying her shapely legs and sparkling personality! A SHAME! Watch for Eddie Anderson! He's the real star in this film and immediately steals the show completely! He's funny, totally into his character and so likable. And he does 2 solo dancing numbers.
As for the plot, well, it is messy. It seems the producer wanted to put as many actors as he could in one same movie and had many parts written on the corner of a table at the last minute to put them in the movie. The result is not, therefore, always effective. But, even with this fault, the movie stays very watchable and sports a classy looks.
See it.
Million Dollar Legs (1939)
Miscasting and not enough story.
Though not very long, about 65 minutes, this film should have been a short! There's virtually no story and the whole thing seems a series of competition sequences in the water. Either the crew practices or competes! Intercut in-between are a few sequences where the leading man, the boring John Hartley, fights with his powerful dad or is seen with Betty Grable.
Now, Betty Grable! Though top-billed, she's not seen very often. She doesn't sing or dance at all and is given absolutely no chance to act or stand out. A SHAME! She's very beautiful as always but one notices the darker hair. For those who love her, don't have too many expectations because she's not even decorative in this film. The director, Nick Grinde, gives her no chance AT ALL! Peter Hayes is there, at least! In a not very (supposedly) sympathetic role, he steals the film the moment he appears. He's full of the energy and the talent John Hartley lacks so much. He was a very charismatic actor and it's a shame we haven't seen him more often.
Unfortunately, we don't see much of the very handsome Buster Crabbe either. HE is the one that should have been the leading man and Betty Grable's partner. As the coach, he has the authority required and is effective, but his part is not very important. One wishes he'd take his shirt off as always in his films to display that superb torso and compete with the boys in order to win that competition but he doesn't. Again, A SHAME! Besides that, it's interesting to see a bit of Jackie Coogan, the former child star (see genius Charlie Chaplin's movies of the 20's!) and first husband of Betty Grable. He gives his best shot but, as it's the case for Betty Grable, he's not given any chance to show-off his talent.
All in all, try to see this film if you can but don't expect to much.
This Way Please (1937)
Not original but good light backstage musical with great cast
One of the few Betty Grable's movies of the Thirties in which she's featured prominently, "This Way Please" offers one song and one tap dance number from the great Betty Grable. Both are very good, especially the dance sequence done with energy and precision. Her famous legs were not just shapely but extremely dynamic too and efficient at dancing, dancing anything. And, contrary to what many people, Betty Grable herself, often said, that woman can act! She proves it in that movie. Of course, the plot is lightweight, but Betty Grable sparkles so, that, combined with some efficient acting, she makes her performance in the film very enjoyable.
All the rest of the cast is great too beginning with Ned Sparks. That man is funny all the way just with the sound of his voice and his non verbal actions. He really steals the show. Mary Livingston proves that she's not just Mrs Jack Benny in a very sympathetic and a kind of unusual realistic role for a musical. Fibber McGee is good but cannot stand besides his wife, Molly, both radio personalities of the time. SHE is so at ease on-screen and so funny while doing all those voices in one sequence that poor Fibber has not a ghost of a chance to stand out. Charles "Buddy" Rogers is effective in his role, good-looking enough to be a leading-man, light enough to play in a musical, good enough to act when it is required in that lightweight film. Very believable in a matinée-idol and he does a really nice-looking couple with Betty Grable! As for Lee Bowman, he has the handsome good looks and talent to be more featured than he is here but, in that film in particular, somehow, his part shifts from austere to the complete opposite during the film! That's weird. Even his infatuation for the Betty Grable character cannot explain such a change in his part's personality! The musical numbers are all well executed and the acting from everybody is very good. As for the script, it's not original (think of any other backstage musical of that era...) but, with such a talented cast and without being too fussy on that department, we forget easily that fact.
See it, it's a surprisingly good and entertaining film.
Thrill of a Lifetime (1937)
Charming beyond expectations but it cries for color!
I dreaded an unpretentious and perhaps a bit silly old low-budget movie of the Thirties but that film entertained me beyond expectations. Everybody, except Leif Erickson, is great in it.
First, the ever gorgeous Betty Grable...her role is tiny in it and, as in most of her movies of the Thirties, it has more a decorative purpose than anything else, but that lady WAS indeed extremely pretty and talented. When on the screen, you look at nothing or no one else. That's star quality! AND SHE SINGS! What a pleasure to hear her sweet singing voice when she sings "Sweetheart Time". And she waltzes too to the sound of Leif Erickson's barytone. This one, who has a great voice, should keep singing and stop acting because he's terrible. And looks terrible.
But, besides that, everybody else is great. Judy Canova, like so many character actors, steals the show many times. She's delightfully homely and funny. Ben Blue does his usual but effective clowning. More physical than talkative, he reminds a bit of Buster Keaton but with even more comical sadness in the eyes. One must see him in Buster Crabbe's bathing suit...while the latter gorgeously fills every fiber of it with tanned flesh and the sculpted body of the professional swimmer that he used to be, the former is lost in it, literally! That'S effective slapstick.
Eleanore Whitney is charming, pretty (she looks a bit like Paulette Goddard) and taps energetically in one dance sequence. The Yacht Club Boys are a real delight. They were seasoned performers and it shows. Their voices blend wonderfully and are a real pleasure to the ears.
Johnny Downs is, again, excellent but not featured enough. Each time I see him I think it's a real shame he never was the first rate star he deserved to be. He's a slight and light dancer that moves with grace. He could have been the Fred Astaire with good looks! Besides his dancing talent, he can act and is very handsome. See him! As for the film itself, it IS light and, though a bit messy, very entertaining. Though low-budgeted, part of it is shot outside. The long camp sequences literally CRY for color because they're very good! Every musical sequences are extremely well produced, directed and filmed. And performed with greatness.
All in all, for a mere 75 minutes, it's a very entertaining movie. Don't hesitate to see it if you can, if only for Betty Grable, Johnny Downs and the Yacht Club Boys!
Campus Confessions (1938)
Not a classic but enjoyable Betty Grable movie before she was famous!
For those used to Technicolor Betty Grable musical vehicles of the 40's, this film has nothing to do with them, yet it was her first feature length movie with top-billing. Unfortunately, top-billing doesn't mean she has plenty to do with her part, which is rather decorative in the thin plot line. But what she does, she does it with her usual zest and charm. Her presence is even more refreshing and welcomed as she is almost the only female character among this almost all-male cast. Though filmed in black and white, one can see that she was very, very pretty and had an expressive face and eyes. We only wish she would toss, at least once in the movie, all those athletes on one side, take the floor and do some tap dance and sing! That, perhaps, is the thing that would have made this film good instead of only enjoyable.
Now, for the film itself, let's say it's very watchable. With its mere 65 minutes, which is more than enough in that case, it's rather fast-paced and that in itself contributes greatly to a certain joy one can feel to see that film if one doesn't have too much expectations.
Though advertised as a basketball movie or a campus caper at the time of it's release, I'd say it is more a movie about friendship among youngsters whatever their activities. Of course, the story evolves around basketball, but you don't have to be a fan of that sport to enjoy the film. Just watch, though, the scene in which all friends do a barbecue; it is quite sympathetic.
As for the other main actors, William Henry is good. It's a shame he's been confined to B pictures most of his career because he's a good actor. I'm sure that with more pushing, he would have been well-known. And about Hank Luisetti, what can be said? His tall presence in the film (his only one!) has it's charm but he was not an actor, rather a real professional athlete very famous in his days. He has more the handsome looks of the perfect leading man for Betty Grable than William Henry has and one thinks and wishes, while looking at the advertisement and posters of the time on which he appears bathing-suit clad with Betty Grable besides a pool that he'd be the leading man and that we'd see more of him in every sens of the word but he's NOT the leading man and, though pleasant to the eyes, he seems camera shy each time he appears before it, clothed or not! In fact, his part is not very important in the movie. Too bad! All in all, the film is worth watching if only to catch a glimpse of the very beautiful and talented Betty Grable only a few years before she became THE Betty Grable.
Enjoy!
The Prince of Tides (1991)
A film that ages well!
Released in 1991, The Prince Of Times, seen recently (2005), ages very well.
It is a waste Streisand made only three films as a director for she is sensitive, attentive to her actors, good for details, especially in that film. In 91, I was 15 so I remember thinking that film was quite boring. But now at 29, more than once was I deeply moved, in particular by the strong bond between southern brother and suicidal sister. It IS true that the ambiance of the movie is a bit depressing and one has to be open to psychology and soul-searching to appreciate that film, but it is a great piece, really well done that ages very well. Not far from a future classic.
Nick Nolte is SO VERY good in his part, giving it his all, that, seeing him, one think THAT'S the true definition of an actor. He's able to convey the many sides of his character to the viewer effortlessly. A great performance, really.
Not so much for Streisand as an actress here! For the first three quarters of the film, she rely more on looks and mannerisms than acting. She DOES look very good and classy in her own movie, but who wouldn't expect more from certainly the most talented woman if not performer of all time? Near the end of the movie, she becomes more credible as an actress, but, overall, she's disappointing in her part.
All the others are just perfect. Even the children. With the exception of Jason Gould. But I must single out the wonderful Blythe Danner here! At last a meaty part for her! But that fabulous woman just can be and that's enough. She's beautiful in a natural way, always without a trace of affectation, healthy, radiant...Thanks to Streisand for casting her and directing her so beautifully.
What else? See that movie for itself. It is good. But for those who aren't familiar with the famous Streisand, perhaps the younger ones, and who are curious to discover what the fuss is all about regarding that legendary performer, don't judge her as an actress by that film. Go rent «Yentl», «Funny Girl», even «Hello Dolly» despite everything bad that has been said about that last movie (including by the lady herself!), and then, just then, you'll know who is Streisand. She HAS to sing to glow! In spite of what she's always sustained for more than 40 years, she is a singer who acts, not the contrary. As an actress alone, she's much too lazy, too self-conscious and...well, how to put it (sorry, my first language is French!), uneven...is it the right word? Unequal...you know, sometimes very good, sometimes just okay...erratic? Anyway, you know what I mean...so she's too much of all these flaws as an actress alone without singing to be a really great actress. She HAS to sing.
On these final words, go see the movie. You won't regret it. Enjoy.
Two-Faced Woman (1941)
Good though silly comedy IF NOT judged as a Garbo vehicle
Just like the duality of the title, one can see that movie two ways: as a piece of the Garbo filmography or as one of the many comedies of the forties.
As the former, it is rather disappointing. Gone is the mystique of the actress, gone are the looks too. Gone is the depth and on and on and on... Garbo is clearly ill at ease in this, and I mean Garbo, not her character! What happened? A bad direction? Impossible with Cukor! A bad script? Not as bad as it has been said. I don't know...perhaps Garbo was really not ready to plunge in another film at the time. All I know is that Constance Bennett stole the movie, period. Good for her. So, it is not that Garbo is bad in it, but she just had us get used to much more from her with all her previous efforts.
As the latter, Two-Faced Woman is a good comedy. When one is able to forget the usual mystique of Garbo in all her previous work, one has a great time watching this movie. Douglas character's attraction and subsequent love for the «sisters» may be irritating to some, but it can also «get you hot under the collar» as the English say! All in good taste, I precise. One only wishes his character wouldn't know the trick his wife is playing on him. More than Garbo uneasiness in her part, THAT is the main flaw of the movie. And one also wishes a more handsome leading man for Garbo! Before that movie, she already have had that Melvyn Douglas twice! Besides his good voice, Douglas was rather plain-looking though not a bad actor.
Anyway, as for every Garbo movie, it is worth watching. And what better way to judge a movie than seeing it for oneself?
Susan Lenox (Her Fall and Rise) (1931)
Fall and Rise...the title says it all!
That film from the thirties, perhaps because of its short length (75 minutes), avoid the too slow pace typical of the films from that era. Then it prevents us from losing our interest in the middle of the story.
Speaking of the story, it touches me for the simple fact that everybody in life has its ups and downs, often because of our own fault, unable are we to deal with the intensity of human feelings sometimes! Love and revenge are certainly the main feelings felt by the principal characters, the former producing the latter here. Both are the reasons for the fall AND the rise just as in real life! Such intensity for someone else may seem old-fashioned nowadays, so that film may appear dated to some, and it is, mostly in its presentation, but certainly not in its themes.
Personally, I relate to both Garbo's and Gable's characters in their way of feeling love for the other to the fullest no matter the toll it may take on oneself! Having risen while being in love at the same time before falling for some years because of that intensity of sentiments before being kind of born again after the healing was done, I certainly relate 100% to that story, dated or not. Even the title alone really touches a really sensible chord of mine each time I hear it simply because...well, been there, done that! As for the actors, Greta Garbo could never go wrong with any part. So here, besides being her beautiful and soulful self, she communicates her intense feelings for Rodney mostly through her eyes and movements, her lines being quite reduced here to great effect. One can see through her movements the uneasiness of her character. Bravo! And Gable is Gable: strong, masculine, credible. As powerful as Garbo in terms of presence and personal charisma, which was rare among all her leading men.
See it. Even done so many decades ago, it is still very effective. Enjoy.