Jimtoday
Joined Apr 2006
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.
Badges9
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews10
Jimtoday's rating
I'm confused by the negative reviews posted here, as I was basically on the edge of my seat from almost the very start, once I realized the dynamics of the lead characters.
The basics of the story will of course be familiar to those of a certain age, and the flash forward to 2015 is a fascinating one. We rarely ask ourselves about the mundane daily lives of those who at one time had their lurid circumstances splashed prominently in the tabloids and national awareness, yet here we are forced to look with the compassion time may supply.
Julianne Moore is excellent as the unsettling protagonist and is as compelling as I've seen her, but she is matched by Natalie Portman who has no end of surprises in her character and performance. I did not know Charles Melton's work before this film, but he is superb as Ms. Moore's far younger husband and father to their children. All three are flawed yet heartbreaking, and I found the slowly divulged story absolutely compelling. Cory Michael Smith is also excellent as Ms. Moore's troubled and troubling son.
Apparently, Ms. Portman was the first to discover the script and brought it to director Todd Haynes who undertook directing the film. It is not a sweeping melodrama this time, but a somewhat spare, emotional character study of three people and the upheaval of their interactions. I saw this with a full audience and I cannot express who how silent the entire room was during some of the unpredictable scenes.
If any of this sounds like your thing, I'd suggest giving "May December" a look. I immediately wanted to ask the other people in the audience if they noticed certain details and how they perceived the story, especially the wild card, who I think is Ms. Portman's character Elizabeth.
The basics of the story will of course be familiar to those of a certain age, and the flash forward to 2015 is a fascinating one. We rarely ask ourselves about the mundane daily lives of those who at one time had their lurid circumstances splashed prominently in the tabloids and national awareness, yet here we are forced to look with the compassion time may supply.
Julianne Moore is excellent as the unsettling protagonist and is as compelling as I've seen her, but she is matched by Natalie Portman who has no end of surprises in her character and performance. I did not know Charles Melton's work before this film, but he is superb as Ms. Moore's far younger husband and father to their children. All three are flawed yet heartbreaking, and I found the slowly divulged story absolutely compelling. Cory Michael Smith is also excellent as Ms. Moore's troubled and troubling son.
Apparently, Ms. Portman was the first to discover the script and brought it to director Todd Haynes who undertook directing the film. It is not a sweeping melodrama this time, but a somewhat spare, emotional character study of three people and the upheaval of their interactions. I saw this with a full audience and I cannot express who how silent the entire room was during some of the unpredictable scenes.
If any of this sounds like your thing, I'd suggest giving "May December" a look. I immediately wanted to ask the other people in the audience if they noticed certain details and how they perceived the story, especially the wild card, who I think is Ms. Portman's character Elizabeth.
Oddly, "Dancing Lady" was released just a couple months after the far superior "42nd Street", so I imagine they were both in the works simultaneously. MGM would have had to have been reading tea leaves to get a copycat backstage musical melodrama in the works s quickly if it were indeed a case of jumping on the bandwagon, rather than more of a coincidence. "Dancing Lady" actually did better at the box office, it was MGM's highest-grossing film of 1933!
Although watchable, "Dancing Lady" doesn't have a single memorable musical number and Joan's reputation as a dancer is almost laughable. Here, Joan displays the dancing chops of someone who has mostly danced at weddings, and her fans can see her relying upon (and recycling) what few dance steps she seems to have memorized in her earlier films (like "Dance, Fools, Dance").
Still the starry cast hurls themself into the melodrama with vigor and works hard at delivering their all. The whole thing is easy enough to enjoy with the charismatic Clark Gable and indefatigable Joan Crawford as the leads. It is also great fun to see a young Fred Astaire and the Three Stooges in their earliest efforts. Watch "Dancing Lady" and then go watch "42nd Street" to see a real classic.
Although watchable, "Dancing Lady" doesn't have a single memorable musical number and Joan's reputation as a dancer is almost laughable. Here, Joan displays the dancing chops of someone who has mostly danced at weddings, and her fans can see her relying upon (and recycling) what few dance steps she seems to have memorized in her earlier films (like "Dance, Fools, Dance").
Still the starry cast hurls themself into the melodrama with vigor and works hard at delivering their all. The whole thing is easy enough to enjoy with the charismatic Clark Gable and indefatigable Joan Crawford as the leads. It is also great fun to see a young Fred Astaire and the Three Stooges in their earliest efforts. Watch "Dancing Lady" and then go watch "42nd Street" to see a real classic.
It's not that "Dance, Fools, Dance" is remarkable, but it manages to cram in almost every element we've come to think of in classic film melodramas all in one fast and furious film. The movie has it all from the riches to rags leads, the crime-riddled big city, speakeasies, guns, violence, smoking and drinking and the added bonus of lots of old school big city newspaper scenes and its denizens with their crackling dialogue shouted into their classic candlestick telephones!
The plot is as predictable as they come, but it's impossible to take your eyes off of Joan Crawford even though with her enormous blue eyes she gives a rather hammy, silent film performance. She's a bit all over the place, but it matters not, she's compelling because she's a star, and a beautiful one. Clearly she had lots of room to grow as an actress but see later performances like "Mildred Pierce" and "The Women", and see how she eventually relaxes on-camera and knows her craft.
A young Clark Gable plays the bad guy (as he does in the even more lurid "Night Nurse" that same year), and he is already a commanding screen presence. He is excellent in his large supporting role and hints at what is to come in his stellar career. He and Joan are great in their scenes together. The supporting cast is excellent too, especially young William Bakewell as Joan's ethically-challenged brother. He likely gives the best performance in the film.
The montages, camerawork, fantastic sets, brisk editing and incredible sense of a time and place make the seemingly throw-away potboiler "Dance, Fools, Dance" a lot of fun. I think fans of early talkies or of the leads will find a lot to enjoy.
The plot is as predictable as they come, but it's impossible to take your eyes off of Joan Crawford even though with her enormous blue eyes she gives a rather hammy, silent film performance. She's a bit all over the place, but it matters not, she's compelling because she's a star, and a beautiful one. Clearly she had lots of room to grow as an actress but see later performances like "Mildred Pierce" and "The Women", and see how she eventually relaxes on-camera and knows her craft.
A young Clark Gable plays the bad guy (as he does in the even more lurid "Night Nurse" that same year), and he is already a commanding screen presence. He is excellent in his large supporting role and hints at what is to come in his stellar career. He and Joan are great in their scenes together. The supporting cast is excellent too, especially young William Bakewell as Joan's ethically-challenged brother. He likely gives the best performance in the film.
The montages, camerawork, fantastic sets, brisk editing and incredible sense of a time and place make the seemingly throw-away potboiler "Dance, Fools, Dance" a lot of fun. I think fans of early talkies or of the leads will find a lot to enjoy.