elefino-912-408457
Joined Feb 2014
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges3
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews30
elefino-912-408457's rating
Go, Johnny, Go! Suffers from a number of problems, some forgivable, others not-so-much.
First off all, the reason to watch GoJohnGo is the music. It's interesting to see the state of Rock'n'Roll at the time this movie was made. My takeaways: 1) R'n'R had not yet evolved much beyond the earliest days some 5 or 10 years before. 2) In some ways this early form of R'n'R bears more resemblance to Swing, or at least an offshoot of the jitterbug era, than what we think of as Rock now, some 60+ years later. Though there's certainly more emphasis on vocals than was the case with Big Band. And, of course, the bands were smaller even though horns were still a big part of the sound. 3) A lot of the acts featured are pretty much lost to history now, with Chuck Berry and Ritchie Valens being the only names much remembered now (and Valens mainly because of the La Bamba movie). Maybe Eddie Cochran too, at least a little bit among Rockabilly fans. 4) The industry was driven more by radio promoters like Alan Freed, who plays a central roll in the movie, than in later years.
Now for the deductions. First there's the acting. Pretty terrible. Downright wooden in all roles except a few. But that's forgivable in this case, because most everyone in the movie were actual musicians, not actors. All but playing themselves, except possibly Jimmy Clanton (depending on how you look at it).
No, the big problem is the script and the film making skills (or lack thereof). The concept itself has a lot of merit - "unknown nobody rises to fame and fortune through Rock'n'Roll (never mind that they all did). A little trite, but most stories are, fundamentally.
But the way the plot is constructed really doesn't build the story the way it should. It's choppy and amateurish. But, like I said, the music is the only real reason to watch this... and no doubt, was in 1959 too.
One last thought. Jimmy Clanton, who plays the main character, kind of got screwed. GoJohnGo should have been a vehicle to promote his own name and singing career, but it falls a little short. Oh, he's great - kid could really sing. But instead of playing himself, he's saddled with being a fictional character whom Alan Freed is going to make even more fictional by renaming him "Johnny Melody", a stupid name if I ever heard one (well, John Legend comes close). And the only reason they did that was to cash in on the notoriety of Chuck Berry's song the movie was named after.
First off all, the reason to watch GoJohnGo is the music. It's interesting to see the state of Rock'n'Roll at the time this movie was made. My takeaways: 1) R'n'R had not yet evolved much beyond the earliest days some 5 or 10 years before. 2) In some ways this early form of R'n'R bears more resemblance to Swing, or at least an offshoot of the jitterbug era, than what we think of as Rock now, some 60+ years later. Though there's certainly more emphasis on vocals than was the case with Big Band. And, of course, the bands were smaller even though horns were still a big part of the sound. 3) A lot of the acts featured are pretty much lost to history now, with Chuck Berry and Ritchie Valens being the only names much remembered now (and Valens mainly because of the La Bamba movie). Maybe Eddie Cochran too, at least a little bit among Rockabilly fans. 4) The industry was driven more by radio promoters like Alan Freed, who plays a central roll in the movie, than in later years.
Now for the deductions. First there's the acting. Pretty terrible. Downright wooden in all roles except a few. But that's forgivable in this case, because most everyone in the movie were actual musicians, not actors. All but playing themselves, except possibly Jimmy Clanton (depending on how you look at it).
No, the big problem is the script and the film making skills (or lack thereof). The concept itself has a lot of merit - "unknown nobody rises to fame and fortune through Rock'n'Roll (never mind that they all did). A little trite, but most stories are, fundamentally.
But the way the plot is constructed really doesn't build the story the way it should. It's choppy and amateurish. But, like I said, the music is the only real reason to watch this... and no doubt, was in 1959 too.
One last thought. Jimmy Clanton, who plays the main character, kind of got screwed. GoJohnGo should have been a vehicle to promote his own name and singing career, but it falls a little short. Oh, he's great - kid could really sing. But instead of playing himself, he's saddled with being a fictional character whom Alan Freed is going to make even more fictional by renaming him "Johnny Melody", a stupid name if I ever heard one (well, John Legend comes close). And the only reason they did that was to cash in on the notoriety of Chuck Berry's song the movie was named after.
Mr. Deeds Goes to China. I'm afraid that's not too far from being a fair assessment of this stinker.
The casting is awful. Gary Cooper, much as I love him in the right role, is terribly miscast as the title character. Cooper is his usual laconic self; not very apt for the 13th century Italian adventurer Marco Polo.
Aside from Cooper, the most laughable miscasting is Alan Hale as some Tartar warlord, chuckling and wisecracking his way through what may be one of the worst scripts to come out of Hollywood during its legendary Golden Age.
Basil Rathbone is probably in the most fitting role. He does make for a very convincing villain. And Sigrid Gurie and Binnie Barnes are both quite decorative as love interests, though still a little disconcerting in that they're playing exotic Asian beauties.
Perhaps the worst aspect of this movie is it's total lack of acknowledgement for language barriers. Well, that and the trip from Italy to China taking all of about 5 minute... on foot!
All in all, not really worth your time. There's absolutely no historical interest in it, nor is there much in the way of entertainment value.
The casting is awful. Gary Cooper, much as I love him in the right role, is terribly miscast as the title character. Cooper is his usual laconic self; not very apt for the 13th century Italian adventurer Marco Polo.
Aside from Cooper, the most laughable miscasting is Alan Hale as some Tartar warlord, chuckling and wisecracking his way through what may be one of the worst scripts to come out of Hollywood during its legendary Golden Age.
Basil Rathbone is probably in the most fitting role. He does make for a very convincing villain. And Sigrid Gurie and Binnie Barnes are both quite decorative as love interests, though still a little disconcerting in that they're playing exotic Asian beauties.
Perhaps the worst aspect of this movie is it's total lack of acknowledgement for language barriers. Well, that and the trip from Italy to China taking all of about 5 minute... on foot!
All in all, not really worth your time. There's absolutely no historical interest in it, nor is there much in the way of entertainment value.
Ace of Aces (1933) was really a chick-flick disguised as an action movie so girls of the era could get their boyfriends to take them to it. I doubt it was the other way around.
Anyway, too much love story, not enough action, at least for what the film professes to be. And the special effects for what little action there was were terrible, even for the time period.
Flying scenes were ridiculous. Aerial victims were portrayed as having no choice but to fly straight ahead and allow themselves be shot down anytime one of their enemies got on their tail... except, of course, for our "hero" 2nd Lt. Rex 'Rocky' Thorne (Richard Dix) who need do nothing more than a simple loop to turn the tables whenever a "Heine" got on his six.
Worse yet, Richard Dix couldn't act his way out of a paper bag. He's as wooden a pile of lumber. I guess being considered handsome was enough for audiences of the time. Either that, or like the actor, they were still having a hard time making the transition from silents to talkies, and couldn't quite figure out when exaggerated "emoting" was needed and when to deliver monotone lines like a talking statue.
The one saving grace for Ace of Aces, garnering 3 stars from me instead of one, is Elizabeth Allan. She's absolutely gorgeous. And she can act... so much so that if she could time-travel her style would seamlessly fit best roles of our time.
My advice? If you must watch Ace of Aces, just fast-forward through any scenes that don't feature Elizabeth Allan, and skip the rest.
Anyway, too much love story, not enough action, at least for what the film professes to be. And the special effects for what little action there was were terrible, even for the time period.
Flying scenes were ridiculous. Aerial victims were portrayed as having no choice but to fly straight ahead and allow themselves be shot down anytime one of their enemies got on their tail... except, of course, for our "hero" 2nd Lt. Rex 'Rocky' Thorne (Richard Dix) who need do nothing more than a simple loop to turn the tables whenever a "Heine" got on his six.
Worse yet, Richard Dix couldn't act his way out of a paper bag. He's as wooden a pile of lumber. I guess being considered handsome was enough for audiences of the time. Either that, or like the actor, they were still having a hard time making the transition from silents to talkies, and couldn't quite figure out when exaggerated "emoting" was needed and when to deliver monotone lines like a talking statue.
The one saving grace for Ace of Aces, garnering 3 stars from me instead of one, is Elizabeth Allan. She's absolutely gorgeous. And she can act... so much so that if she could time-travel her style would seamlessly fit best roles of our time.
My advice? If you must watch Ace of Aces, just fast-forward through any scenes that don't feature Elizabeth Allan, and skip the rest.