The Last Time I Saw Paris

What a terrible case of bad casting. Van Johnson has the emotional range of Herbie the Love Bug. There is no chemistry between him and Taylor, who is as gorgeous as ever and makes you wonder why SHE could fall so hard for HIM. Why in the HELL is HE in this movie!!

The rest of the cast is near perfect by comparison. The story... er, well... it's terribly contrived and predictable. Aside from Johnson making his character a big baby, I could follow most of it with my disbelief suspended. This role calls for someone who 1) is loveable, 2) is a rake, 3) is a believeable drunk, 4) is physically at least half as attractive as Taylor, and lastly, 5) can act worth a damn. Needless to say, the person they chose fits none of these characteristics. William Holden would have been perfect in this role. I'd like to hear the back story of how Johnson got the part, because he must have been blackmailing someone.

Lush not terribly faithful rendition of Fitzgerald's Babylon Revisited is hampered by the miscasting of Van Johnson in the lead. There is no way other than script demands that Elizabeth Taylor would pick the vapid Johnson let alone stay with him throughout the increasingly boorish behavior he subjects her too. Donna Reed fulfills the requirements of her part but it asks little of her skill. The film is beautifully shot with that MGM sheen and Walter Pidgeon gives a terrific performance as Elizabeth's madcap father. Fitzgerald is hard to adapt to begin with and the script writers don't have a firm grasp on the material so it becomes a colorful soap opera but little else.

The Last Time I saw Paris

Reviewed by Dan Cooper

This film was made in 1954, and by virtue of its age it becomes an easy target for those who would use it as a vehicle to pump up their own egos with a verbal bashing that will likely go unchallenged. The film has indeed been bashed, here on this database among other places, as unimportant and unworthy of your time as a possible rental choice.

I disagree completely with the uncalled for bashing, and with the judgement that the movie is unworthy of your time. See it for yourself. And if you are young enough to be completely unfamiliar with all of the actors, so much the better for you to judge it fairly on its merits rather than be snowed by the reputations of Hollywood personalities.

The plot has depth and very few weaknesses, the acting is good to very good, and the story has interest value in both historical and social frames of reference.

The plot concerns the uniting of two people whose tragic flaws are not well matched, with the obligatory tragic results. The pair gets together spinning out of a near-miss love triangle. The man (Van Johnson) has no idea of the existence of the triangle, as he is completely taken with Taylor and just as completely forgets his earlier attraction to the other woman (Donna Reed). Reed, the rejected third wheel, is actually not rejected, per se, but becomes the "odd man out" none the less when her sister (Liz Taylor) successfully steers the affections of the duped Johnson in her own direction instead.

Reed adopts the persona of the rejected party to a relationship that never was, and exacts her revenge later in the film.

While the big name actors of the day are no longer influencing moviegoers today, they undoubtedly sold the film in 1954. I find some weaknesses in both acting and directing, but the film is definitely worth seeing if you have never had the pleasure. Van Johnson's role is that of a fairly shallow character with a good heart but no follow-through to carry him to victory until way too late to do much good. Johnson possibly could have done more with the role, but the weakness of the character should not be confused with some partially perceived weakness in Johnson's delivery of the part.

Taylor does a nice job as the sly and experienced older sister, the one with the better looks and the Machiavellian technique to get whatever she wants, again at the expense of little sister Reed. The film is actually carried more by the acting of the supporting cast than by the efforts of the leads. Two very strong performances are put forth by Walter Pidgeon and George Dolenz. Pidgeon plays the opportunistic pretender to wealth and father of the two women. Dolenz is the earnest lover of Reed, who inherits her full-time attentions only after Johnson is fully occupied with Taylor. Dolenz marries Reed and in the end does a very nice job of becoming the film's heroic figure.

Eva Gabor at the peak of her youthful beauty does a good job as yet another love triangle component for the easily side-tracked Johnson after his marriage to Taylor. Another triangle develops with a very young Roger Moore finding the eye of Taylor.

Do yourself a favor and see this movie.

Dan Cooper is a freelance writer/editor. He has been writing for over 30 years and has done book and movie reviews sporadically since the 1970's.

F. Scott Fitzgerald's short story "Babylon Revisted", reworked by three screenwriters (including director Richard Brooks), becomes a well-dressed but chilly, mopey star-vehicle. Americans in Paris find themselves wealthy after striking oil, but the writer-husband's inability to sell a story--coupled with a drinking problem and an attraction to a catty socialite--puts a strain on their marriage. Elizabeth Taylor does what she can with the masochistic wifey role, even getting what actresses like to call "a good hospital scene," but Van Johnson has more of an opportunity as a performer to show range and emotion (the writing is slanted that way). The scenario becomes episodic after the couple comes into money, while the final portion of the plot continues 15 minutes longer than necessary, presumably to 'teach' angry relative Donna Reed about forgiveness...and to show Johnson begging for love, something that apparently humbles every tortured writer's soul. **1/2 from ****

The Last Time I Saw Paris was the second of two films that Elizabeth Taylor and Van Johnson co-starred. What a difference in four years from The Big Hangover where Johnson was billed ahead of Taylor.

Which is odd in this case because the film is really about Johnson. It's based on F. Scott Fitzgerald's story, Babylon Revisited which takes place in Paris after World War I. MGM apparently thinking that the audience would be more amenable to a story taking place after World War II, so the plot was updated for France of the Fourth Republic.

It doesn't quite work though, France of that era was a whole lot different than France of the Roaring Twenties. They partied then also when Paris was liberated and the Germans chased out of their country, but on the whole it was a time for more sober reflection of what France's role in the post war world would be. The Roaring Twenties that Fitzgerald wrote about were not the Roaring Forties.

Van Johnson is a GI who comes upon a family of expatriates who lived in Paris right through the occupation. Walter Pidgeon and his two daughters, Donna Reed and Elizabeth Taylor. They both are interested, but Johnson has eyes only for Liz. And the film is their story.

It's a tragic story, you can see Fitzgerald himself in Van Johnson, the would be writer who becomes a dissolute playboy. Partying right along with him is Taylor who is the image of Fitzgerald's party girl wife Zelda.

MGM did this one on the cheap. There are some shots of Paris, but on the whole the Paris you see is the Paris that was created by the studio for their classic musical An American in Paris. View the films side by side and you'll have no doubt.

Look for Eva Gabor as a divorcée who likes Johnson and a very young Roger Moore as a tennis pro who'd like to be a kept man by Taylor.

It's a nice story, but it could have been a whole lot better if MGM had actually shot the film in Paris completely and really set in the period it was written.