One could easily be led to believe that this was an SCTV parody of a 1950's sci-fi serial. From the overblown intro to the Googie production design to the inane mugging of Space Cadet Happy, everything has been taken to ludicrous extremes. My favorite is when Happy takes the controls and executes a barrel roll. The actors lean and then stand up slightly out of their seats as they so obviously pretend that it's their spaceship and not the camera which is rotating. Even the commercials for tie-in merchandise look like they've been lifted straight off the pages of an early Mad Magazine. And yet this is somehow more entertaining and more unintentionally ridiculous than any modern parody could ever be. There's lots of fun and rarely a dull moment as Commander Corry and Cadet Happy rocket from one life-threatening situation to another, outwitting a variety of nefarious villains along the way.
Reviews
87 Reviews
Mister Universe
(1951)
I'm rootin' for Newton the Teuton
1 December 2022
An ingenuous Mr. Universe contest winner finds himself becoming a professional wrestler with his huckster army buddy as manager. He wouldn't do it if he knew that professional wrestling wasn't a legitimate competition. Wrestling for real, however, he beats his opponents so quickly that his fans and devious but goofy promoter are left disappointed. Things get even more complicated when a slick gangster decides to take an interest in the fetching young man's career.
How can you pass up a film that, in the opening credits, lists as part of the cast such luminaries as Newton the Teuton, Gregorivitch the Magnificent, Delightful Dave, and The Hoboken Turk? As far as I can tell, however, none of them were real professional wrestlers and they are never given the chance to display the showmanship which makes professional wrestling such successful entertainment. That list in the opening credits and the closing scene are memorable highlights of an otherwise humdrum effort. But the predictable plot doesn't drag, and veterans Jack Carson, Bert Lahr, and Robert Alda do their best to make the movie at least a little bit fun to watch.
How can you pass up a film that, in the opening credits, lists as part of the cast such luminaries as Newton the Teuton, Gregorivitch the Magnificent, Delightful Dave, and The Hoboken Turk? As far as I can tell, however, none of them were real professional wrestlers and they are never given the chance to display the showmanship which makes professional wrestling such successful entertainment. That list in the opening credits and the closing scene are memorable highlights of an otherwise humdrum effort. But the predictable plot doesn't drag, and veterans Jack Carson, Bert Lahr, and Robert Alda do their best to make the movie at least a little bit fun to watch.
Heartbeeps
(1981)
Lost in Translation
1 July 2022
Buried somewhere underneath this disaster is an intelligent and well-written movie about two broken robots developing self-awareness and wandering off to form a family of sorts. The retro-futuristic styling, placement of vintage cars, and so-bad-they're-funny jokes of a Borscht Belt robot comedian all add to the good-natured appeal of a movie which doesn't take itself too seriously. There are, however, too many fatal flaws for this to work. Instead of having the actors act like robots, they're almost completely encased in a robot suit of armor which makes any actual acting impossible. Even some of the actors playing humans portray them in a robotic manner. Much of the movie consists of the robots wandering aimlessly through scenes that seem to have no thought put into them. As a final nail in the coffin, Andy Kaufman inexplicably chooses to use an annoying cartoon voice that falls somewhere between Leo Gorcey and Latka Gravas. The quirky nature of the film makes it worth watching as a curiosity piece, but only for film buffs willing to sit through just about anything.
Just Imagine
(1930)
Come for the camp, stay for the style
30 July 2021
I came to this film to enjoy the silliness, but ended up being enthralled by the retro-futuristic production design. The 1930 movie imagines 1980 New York as a city filled with Art Deco skyscrapers. The streets are empty because everyone is now using propeller-driven hover-kayaks. Meals come in pills and babies from vending machines. Everyone is identified by a letter and a number instead of a name. None of the numbers we encounter are above 50, however, so apparently there's only about 1300 people living in modern New York City.
The plot, such as it is, centers on a suitor who's rejected by marriage court as the most suitable mate for the girl of his dreams. The scheduling of the appeal gives him just enough time to make his case by being the first man to travel to Mars. It's on Mars that he must contend with a matching set of convivial and depraved Art Deco martriarchies.
Thrown into the mix are two captivating production numbers, an introduction of the song "Never Swat a Fly", lots of skimpy pre-code costumes, and the occasional clever remark. Marjorie White entertains with her comic singing while El "Yumpin' Yiminy" Brendel annoys with his goofy Swede. The other actors just try not to be too embarrassed by the awful script and ludicrous science-fiction devices. The movie may be as bad as its critics say, but it's also very creative and rarely boring.
The plot, such as it is, centers on a suitor who's rejected by marriage court as the most suitable mate for the girl of his dreams. The scheduling of the appeal gives him just enough time to make his case by being the first man to travel to Mars. It's on Mars that he must contend with a matching set of convivial and depraved Art Deco martriarchies.
Thrown into the mix are two captivating production numbers, an introduction of the song "Never Swat a Fly", lots of skimpy pre-code costumes, and the occasional clever remark. Marjorie White entertains with her comic singing while El "Yumpin' Yiminy" Brendel annoys with his goofy Swede. The other actors just try not to be too embarrassed by the awful script and ludicrous science-fiction devices. The movie may be as bad as its critics say, but it's also very creative and rarely boring.
A Texas Tale of Treason
(2006)
A Hard Lesson in Micro-budget Film-making
20 November 2020
The attempt of a small Texas production company to film Alex Cox's unofficial sequel to "Repo Man" did not end well. Due to irreconcilable differences between the author and the producers, the AntStuie version of "Waldo's Hawaiian Holiday" will never be released. In order to salvage something from their effort, however, AntStuie has created a documentary about the filming of Waldo called "A Texas Tale of Treason".
The audience for this documentary will probably be limited to diehard Repo Man fans and anyone with a particular interest in micro-budget film-making. Created after the fact, it consists mostly of talking heads describing their experience, which is always difficult to put together into an entertaining film. It's a bit short on details relating to the endeavor but very strong on attitudes and feelings about it. There would need to be some significant cutting for this to appeal to a broader audience, but it does have a wonderful punk music soundtrack (originally intended for Waldo) and some excellent clips from the never-to-be-released movie.
As for the details on what went wrong between the author and the producers, things are still a bit hazy. Alex Cox understandably declined to be interviewed for the documentary and, to the best of my knowledge, has never publicly aired his side of the story. What we're left with in the documentary is speculation from the ones who believe they got screwed. It starts out sounding quite reasonable and objective considering the obvious bias, but it becomes progressively more rancorous as you get further into the film. The final 20 minutes consists of little more than a thorough trashing of Cox, which in the true spirit of do-it-yourself punk film-making was probably the entire point of having made the documentary.
The audience for this documentary will probably be limited to diehard Repo Man fans and anyone with a particular interest in micro-budget film-making. Created after the fact, it consists mostly of talking heads describing their experience, which is always difficult to put together into an entertaining film. It's a bit short on details relating to the endeavor but very strong on attitudes and feelings about it. There would need to be some significant cutting for this to appeal to a broader audience, but it does have a wonderful punk music soundtrack (originally intended for Waldo) and some excellent clips from the never-to-be-released movie.
As for the details on what went wrong between the author and the producers, things are still a bit hazy. Alex Cox understandably declined to be interviewed for the documentary and, to the best of my knowledge, has never publicly aired his side of the story. What we're left with in the documentary is speculation from the ones who believe they got screwed. It starts out sounding quite reasonable and objective considering the obvious bias, but it becomes progressively more rancorous as you get further into the film. The final 20 minutes consists of little more than a thorough trashing of Cox, which in the true spirit of do-it-yourself punk film-making was probably the entire point of having made the documentary.
Remember the Night
(1939)
Screwball Comedy Turned Tepid Romance
5 July 2020
The movie starts in typical madcap fashion as a defense attorney spins a tale so ludicrous that even his client (Barbara Stanwyck) can't hide her astonished delight while hearing it for the first time. A sly prosecuting attorney (Fred MacMurray) is just as amused as he immediately recognizes the opportunity to postpone the trial until after the holidays. The scene is classic Preston Sturges with cynical characters delivering tight dialog in overlapping conversations.
This is the last time the movie will resemble anything classic. Feeling guilty, MacMurray posts bail and drives Stanwyck home for the holidays, but the attempts to extract humor from this unlikely situation are ill-conceived and poorly timed. Attempts at comedy eventually disappear entirely as the movie turns into a highly improbable and somewhat sappy romance. Any cynicism or craftiness which made the characters interesting disappears as well. Stanwyck and MacMurray are able to keep the movie entertaining, but it's easy to understand why this has been generally overlooked.
This is the last time the movie will resemble anything classic. Feeling guilty, MacMurray posts bail and drives Stanwyck home for the holidays, but the attempts to extract humor from this unlikely situation are ill-conceived and poorly timed. Attempts at comedy eventually disappear entirely as the movie turns into a highly improbable and somewhat sappy romance. Any cynicism or craftiness which made the characters interesting disappears as well. Stanwyck and MacMurray are able to keep the movie entertaining, but it's easy to understand why this has been generally overlooked.
Band Aid
(2017)
The sum of the parts is less than the whole?
18 October 2018
A constantly bickering couple frustrated with their menial jobs form a band with their weird neighbor when they decide to use music as a creative outlet. The content of their fights is turned into vacuous lyrics and set to mediocre music, but we'll eventually learn that this is just their way of avoiding discussion of the real conflicts tearing their marriage apart. In order to enrich the viewing experience, the movie also provides an educational lecture to inform us that woman tend to be more open then men in expressing their emotions.
You know those commercials where chatty young urbanites engage in fluid conversation while a shaky camera quickly cuts from one intimate angle to another? Insipid music plays in the background to emphasize the drama and in the end it turns out to be a sales pitch for something completely unrelated, like shampoo or an on-line brokerage. Now imagine that the commercial lasts for 90 minutes. The movie does have some very good funny moments when it isn't trying to be serious and it even has a few good serious moments when it isn't trying to be funny, but together it just doesn't add up. I suppose there must be people to whom this style of film appeals, but I'm obviously not one of them
You know those commercials where chatty young urbanites engage in fluid conversation while a shaky camera quickly cuts from one intimate angle to another? Insipid music plays in the background to emphasize the drama and in the end it turns out to be a sales pitch for something completely unrelated, like shampoo or an on-line brokerage. Now imagine that the commercial lasts for 90 minutes. The movie does have some very good funny moments when it isn't trying to be serious and it even has a few good serious moments when it isn't trying to be funny, but together it just doesn't add up. I suppose there must be people to whom this style of film appeals, but I'm obviously not one of them
Psycho Film Students from UNM?
18 October 2018
Imagine an aspiring film-maker/musician has gotten some cool new software, a 3-day weekend off from his day job and a really great name for an intentionally camp low-budget sci-fi movie. With some help from his aspiring actor friends, he'll write and film the entire movie over that weekend. His friends will make sets out of tinfoil and cardboard while he composes and records an original soundtrack using only his computer for instrumentation. They'll do all this while consuming massive quantities of alcohol and possibly some mild recreational drugs, and going all 72 hours without a wink of sleep. The movie they'd make would probably be better than this one.
The Tiger Makes Out
(1967)
Brooklyn Blanket Bingo
15 January 2018
He's a curmudgeonly mailman with a big vocabulary but no social skills or common sense. She's a bored suburban housewife with a bored husband and some children who may or may not actually exist. He hasn't yet figured out that his building was sold 6 years ago and his basement apartment is now being used for storage. She wants only to return to college to finish work on her baccalaureate.
The first half of this movie provides some wonderfully irreverent satire in its depiction of New York City as a benign dystopia. It has the feel of a 1960s beach movie turned into a sophisticated PG-rated urban sex romp. It occasionally falls flat in attempts to imitate the zaniness of Richard Lester films, but this doesn't detract from the clever humor.
The film weakens, however, after the inevitable meeting of the main characters. It's unfortunate that the writers had to resort to a plot device so ludicrous and offensive. The movie becomes mainly dialog driven beyond this point but the dialog just isn't good enough to support that and Eli Wallach's excellent Eric Von Zipper imitation eventually grows annoying. Nevertheless, the movie still has a few surprises to offer and the quick, merciful ending provides an oddly satisfying lack of conclusion.
The first half of this movie provides some wonderfully irreverent satire in its depiction of New York City as a benign dystopia. It has the feel of a 1960s beach movie turned into a sophisticated PG-rated urban sex romp. It occasionally falls flat in attempts to imitate the zaniness of Richard Lester films, but this doesn't detract from the clever humor.
The film weakens, however, after the inevitable meeting of the main characters. It's unfortunate that the writers had to resort to a plot device so ludicrous and offensive. The movie becomes mainly dialog driven beyond this point but the dialog just isn't good enough to support that and Eli Wallach's excellent Eric Von Zipper imitation eventually grows annoying. Nevertheless, the movie still has a few surprises to offer and the quick, merciful ending provides an oddly satisfying lack of conclusion.
Once Upon a Coffee House
(1965)
Worst Movie Ever Made?
28 November 2017
It may not be the worst movie ever made but you'll never know for sure unless you actually see it. My cat has a brain the size of pea and pays no attention to the TV but he was enthralled by this movie. The acting is way over the top and the attempts at humor will make you cringe. Much of the film consists of mediocre folk music, but at least you don't have to pay attention since it does nothing to advance the paper-thin plot. The ridiculous depiction of an early 1960's beatnik coffeehouse is particularly entertaining. The fact that it's been renamed "Hootenanny A Go-Go" for video release lends a special something to the "so bad it's funny" charm of this micro-budget embarrassment.
This movie is also known for being the first film appearance of Joan Rivers. You know how it is when you get to see a big star before they become famous and you can just tell from their talent, energy and focus that they were something special? This isn't one of those occasions.
This movie is also known for being the first film appearance of Joan Rivers. You know how it is when you get to see a big star before they become famous and you can just tell from their talent, energy and focus that they were something special? This isn't one of those occasions.
FDR: American Badass!
(2012)
Fun time for fans of camp
7 July 2015
Gov. Roosevelt, a man's man of a badass if there ever was one, is stricken with polio after being bitten by a Nazi werewolf sent to eliminate him. The plan backfires. With his resolve strengthened by adversity, FDR goes on to become president and takes a hands-on approach to defeating the Axis werewolves in World War II.
This is an absurd film which intentionally shoots for a high level of camp. The mostly juvenile humor, which is not particularly clever or witty, relies heavily on the comic acting ability of the stars to make it work. It does work most of the time because Barry Bostwick is hilarious in his over-the-top performance as a Badass FDR and he gets excellent support from Bruce McGill playing his ever-present right-hand man.
As you might expect, this is a very hit-or-miss kind of humor. This isn't a problem if moving briskly from one gag to the next, but this movie chooses instead to draw out each gag as long as possible. It's fun when the gag is working but tedious on those many occasions when it isn't. The excessive make-up on the Axis werewolves makes it impossible for them to do any acting, which means that every scene with them in it falls completely flat. Several more scenes are weakened by supporting actors who try to out-emote Bostwick rather than playing straight-men for him. On the whole, however, it was a very fun movie to watch and is a must-see film for anyone who enjoys intentional camp.
This is an absurd film which intentionally shoots for a high level of camp. The mostly juvenile humor, which is not particularly clever or witty, relies heavily on the comic acting ability of the stars to make it work. It does work most of the time because Barry Bostwick is hilarious in his over-the-top performance as a Badass FDR and he gets excellent support from Bruce McGill playing his ever-present right-hand man.
As you might expect, this is a very hit-or-miss kind of humor. This isn't a problem if moving briskly from one gag to the next, but this movie chooses instead to draw out each gag as long as possible. It's fun when the gag is working but tedious on those many occasions when it isn't. The excessive make-up on the Axis werewolves makes it impossible for them to do any acting, which means that every scene with them in it falls completely flat. Several more scenes are weakened by supporting actors who try to out-emote Bostwick rather than playing straight-men for him. On the whole, however, it was a very fun movie to watch and is a must-see film for anyone who enjoys intentional camp.
Jour de Fête
(1949)
The Discreet Charm of Jacques Tati
10 April 2015
The arrival of a carnival in a rural French town means a day of fun and adventure, as well as games of chance and skill. The town's bumbling postman, played by Tati, has always been a target for playful mocking by the town. The carnies, who quickly identify him as an easy mark, subject him to a slightly more cruel but still bearable teasing. To add to his troubles, the carnival is showing a short film featuring stunt pilots and drivers, but with a gag narration that describes the stunts as being the modern methods of the American Postal Service. The postman is determined that he will begin delivering mail in the American style, or at least as close as he can come on his old bicycle.
Like Tati's other films, this isn't so much a story as it is a set of thematically related gags and vignettes. It starts off slow and many of the gags are not as clever or well executed as in his other films, but the patient viewer will be well rewarded. As the film progresses, the collection of episodes and characters, along with an excellently chosen soundtrack, gradually build up a very rich and complex atmosphere. By the time Tati begins delivering the mail with "rapidité, rapidité!", the movie has subtly shifted into a faster pace and moves crisply towards its finish. The closing scene wonderfully ties all the elements together and it finally becomes clear that the movie was made as a love letter from Tati to this small rural town. A film critic could write an entire essay on the brilliance of the last shot, the memory of which still gives me pleasure long after having viewed the film.
Like Tati's other films, this isn't so much a story as it is a set of thematically related gags and vignettes. It starts off slow and many of the gags are not as clever or well executed as in his other films, but the patient viewer will be well rewarded. As the film progresses, the collection of episodes and characters, along with an excellently chosen soundtrack, gradually build up a very rich and complex atmosphere. By the time Tati begins delivering the mail with "rapidité, rapidité!", the movie has subtly shifted into a faster pace and moves crisply towards its finish. The closing scene wonderfully ties all the elements together and it finally becomes clear that the movie was made as a love letter from Tati to this small rural town. A film critic could write an entire essay on the brilliance of the last shot, the memory of which still gives me pleasure long after having viewed the film.
The Earth Dies Screaming
(1964)
The Audience Dies Yawning
5 January 2012
Unconscious people peacefully slump over the controls of the trains, planes and automobiles they were piloting. This is naturally followed by the crashes of the aforementioned vehicles. A few lone survivors show up and band together as they try to figure things out. The screaming doesn't actually start until some strange space-suited creatures begin slowly lumbering around town and are eventually joined by those they've recently killed.
The movie perhaps tries a little harder than comparable films in trying to create a dramatic scenario of survivors dealing with the aftermath of a holocaust they don't understand, but not a lot harder. Plot, character development and dramatic tension are mostly absent and the film plods along nearly as slowly as the completely out-of-place zombies. This may be a low-budget sci-fi film with laughable special effects and an over-the-top title, but the camp value is almost non-existent. On the plus side, its short running time does take some mercy on fans of the genre who feel compelled to see this movie in spite of its limited entertainment potential.
The movie perhaps tries a little harder than comparable films in trying to create a dramatic scenario of survivors dealing with the aftermath of a holocaust they don't understand, but not a lot harder. Plot, character development and dramatic tension are mostly absent and the film plods along nearly as slowly as the completely out-of-place zombies. This may be a low-budget sci-fi film with laughable special effects and an over-the-top title, but the camp value is almost non-existent. On the plus side, its short running time does take some mercy on fans of the genre who feel compelled to see this movie in spite of its limited entertainment potential.
Repo Chick
(2009)
No salvation from the boiling blistering fires of eternal damnation
13 December 2011
In the not too distant future of an alternate reality, a Paris Hilton-like celebrity cut off from her fortune discovers she has a knack for the repossession business after joining a firm which not only has cars in its holding yard but also factories, cruise ships and what might be a nuclear power plant. Enticed by a million dollar bounty on a vintage train, she ends up in the middle of a terrorist plot to force the President of the United States to outlaw golf and become a vegan.
This movie isn't so much a "Repo Man" sequel as it is a remake taken to ridiculous extremes at the expense of things like plot, character development and cinematography. It's loaded with references and parallels to "Repo Man" and at least 8 actors from the original (not including Cox) appear here as well. I got a big kick out of this, but it will obviously be lost on anyone who isn't a "Repo Man" fan and won't appeal to many of those who are, so we have a movie that by design has been made primarily for the benefit of a small subset of the small cult following of the original.
The movie is unique, however, in the way it creates the fantasy world in which the action takes place. A surreal environment is produced by being filmed entirely in green screen with the floors and backgrounds added later. Although the opening scenes are made to look almost realistic, the movie increasingly uses obvious toy models and cartoon animations as it progresses. Most of the film's entertainment value comes from accepting this alternate reality as a place which is at least possible in our imaginations even if completely implausible in the real world.
The point of the movie, of course, isn't the thin, absurd plot but the satire which gets leveled at many aspects of modern society. I would assume that the shallow and fictitious nature of the environment created in the film is supposed to represent those same qualities in the targets being satirized. Topics such as celebrity culture, heartless corporations, liberal activists and homeland security all get the Cox treatment. Unfortunately, it's done without the depth, coherence and brilliantly insightful dialog found throughout "Repo Man". Although I very much appreciate all the things Cox was trying to do, I would still find it hard to recommend this movie without attaching numerous qualifications to such a recommendation.
This movie isn't so much a "Repo Man" sequel as it is a remake taken to ridiculous extremes at the expense of things like plot, character development and cinematography. It's loaded with references and parallels to "Repo Man" and at least 8 actors from the original (not including Cox) appear here as well. I got a big kick out of this, but it will obviously be lost on anyone who isn't a "Repo Man" fan and won't appeal to many of those who are, so we have a movie that by design has been made primarily for the benefit of a small subset of the small cult following of the original.
The movie is unique, however, in the way it creates the fantasy world in which the action takes place. A surreal environment is produced by being filmed entirely in green screen with the floors and backgrounds added later. Although the opening scenes are made to look almost realistic, the movie increasingly uses obvious toy models and cartoon animations as it progresses. Most of the film's entertainment value comes from accepting this alternate reality as a place which is at least possible in our imaginations even if completely implausible in the real world.
The point of the movie, of course, isn't the thin, absurd plot but the satire which gets leveled at many aspects of modern society. I would assume that the shallow and fictitious nature of the environment created in the film is supposed to represent those same qualities in the targets being satirized. Topics such as celebrity culture, heartless corporations, liberal activists and homeland security all get the Cox treatment. Unfortunately, it's done without the depth, coherence and brilliantly insightful dialog found throughout "Repo Man". Although I very much appreciate all the things Cox was trying to do, I would still find it hard to recommend this movie without attaching numerous qualifications to such a recommendation.
Too little, too late for W. C. Fields
28 October 2011
The movie centers around W. C. Fields, playing a fictional version of himself, trying to pitch a script at Esoteric Studios. The purpose is presumably to provide a vehicle for Fields' young star-in-the-making niece, but it's actually an absurd story which features Fields himself. As we watch the film within the film, we're occasionally interrupted by producer Franklin Pangborn (an actor also using his real name here) telling us just how ridiculous the movie we're watching is.
With some nice behind-the-scenes shots and a completely irreverent attitude, this movie clearly had the potential to be a wonderful satire of the film industry, but it would've required much better dialog and a younger W. C. Fields to make that happen. Although it's a nice touch to have Pangborn telling us in the film itself just how bad the film is, there is nothing particularly insightful or witty about his remarks, nor is there any indication of satirical intent in the many clichéd and overworked gags seen throughout the film. The fact that there is no real effort to connect the final chase sequence to the plot is no doubt seen by many as part of this movie's charm, but there was no framework created which would let me see that as a positive. As far as Fields himself goes, it's hard to believe that only one year passed between making the "Bank Dick" and this film; he seems to have aged at least a decade. The Fields magic is missing through most of the movie, leaving him looking clumsy and tired.
In spite of these flaws, the movie is nevertheless a fun way to spend an hour and fifteen minutes. Many of the more absurd scenes are quite memorable, my favorite being Fields diving off the open-air observation deck of a luxury airplane in flight so as to retrieve a liquor bottle which fell from the railing. Some of the gags hit their mark, completely unexpected things keep popping up, and occasionally Fields is able to place himself in a situation where he can at least come close to conjuring up the mannerisms and expressions which made him such a brilliant comic actor in the past. The final sequence may have nothing to do with the rest of the film, but it's still an outstanding comic chase scene. To sum it up, this is an entertaining and somewhat memorable film which moves briskly from start to finish, but it's unfortunately not a particularly good one.
With some nice behind-the-scenes shots and a completely irreverent attitude, this movie clearly had the potential to be a wonderful satire of the film industry, but it would've required much better dialog and a younger W. C. Fields to make that happen. Although it's a nice touch to have Pangborn telling us in the film itself just how bad the film is, there is nothing particularly insightful or witty about his remarks, nor is there any indication of satirical intent in the many clichéd and overworked gags seen throughout the film. The fact that there is no real effort to connect the final chase sequence to the plot is no doubt seen by many as part of this movie's charm, but there was no framework created which would let me see that as a positive. As far as Fields himself goes, it's hard to believe that only one year passed between making the "Bank Dick" and this film; he seems to have aged at least a decade. The Fields magic is missing through most of the movie, leaving him looking clumsy and tired.
In spite of these flaws, the movie is nevertheless a fun way to spend an hour and fifteen minutes. Many of the more absurd scenes are quite memorable, my favorite being Fields diving off the open-air observation deck of a luxury airplane in flight so as to retrieve a liquor bottle which fell from the railing. Some of the gags hit their mark, completely unexpected things keep popping up, and occasionally Fields is able to place himself in a situation where he can at least come close to conjuring up the mannerisms and expressions which made him such a brilliant comic actor in the past. The final sequence may have nothing to do with the rest of the film, but it's still an outstanding comic chase scene. To sum it up, this is an entertaining and somewhat memorable film which moves briskly from start to finish, but it's unfortunately not a particularly good one.
The Dybbuk
(1937)
Weak story but fascinating rituals
6 August 2010
Sometime in the past, perhaps in the late 19th century, two best friends make a pledge that their children will marry if they should have a son and daughter. A mysterious messenger warns them against pledging the lives of the unborn, but he's ignored with the observation that Jews have always done this. The two men do have a son and daughter, but not without tragedy falling upon both their generation and the next.
This movie is very difficult to follow at the start, with each scene being little more than a one line synopsis of the events eventually leading up to the main story, the ill-fated romance between the son and daughter. The story has an unusual twist not found elsewhere, that of the son becoming a Dybbuk, but there otherwise isn't all that much of interest in the plot or the way it's told as it slowly plods along to its predictable conclusion.
What is interesting, of course, is watching the unique look and feel of a Yiddish movie made by Polish Jews in the 1930s. Much of the imagery is very striking and it's a rare chance to hear a full dose of authentic religious Jewish singing, something which never makes it into American films because of its lack of commercial appeal. The film definitely provides a rewarding experience to viewers who don't necessarily need the entertainment of a good story to keep them interested in the intriguing sights and sounds found in this film.
This movie is very difficult to follow at the start, with each scene being little more than a one line synopsis of the events eventually leading up to the main story, the ill-fated romance between the son and daughter. The story has an unusual twist not found elsewhere, that of the son becoming a Dybbuk, but there otherwise isn't all that much of interest in the plot or the way it's told as it slowly plods along to its predictable conclusion.
What is interesting, of course, is watching the unique look and feel of a Yiddish movie made by Polish Jews in the 1930s. Much of the imagery is very striking and it's a rare chance to hear a full dose of authentic religious Jewish singing, something which never makes it into American films because of its lack of commercial appeal. The film definitely provides a rewarding experience to viewers who don't necessarily need the entertainment of a good story to keep them interested in the intriguing sights and sounds found in this film.
Don't Touch the White Woman!
(1974)
General Custard Pie in the Face
10 December 2009
Several tribes of Native Americans have taken up residence in a large excavation in the center of modern day Paris. Meeting nearby in an ornate domed room, some wealthy industrialists decide that the savages are impeding progress and must be exterminated. After successfully bribing the head of the army, General Custer is brought in to lead the effort. A portrait of their President, Richard Nixon, seems to watch over them from everywhere.
Made in the early 1970s, this surreal black comedy is usually interpreted as a scathing commentary on America's involvement in Vietnam, but I didn't see it that way. There is nothing in the film which significantly corresponds to the Vietnam conflict, and the few American symbols which show up are so awkwardly out of place and the characters exaggerated in such a ludicrous manner that it had the effect of constantly reminding me that this wasn't really about Americans. I can't claim to know how the European audience for which it was intended would have viewed it, but I saw it as a satirical look at European racism and colonialism (which, of course, would ultimately include both the genocide of Native Americans and the conflict in Vietnam) and a left-wing allegory of capitalism in which the Native Americans represent the oppressed working classes.
As a social/political satire, it achieves it's greatest success in depicting an absolute and brutal racism without being didactic or calling unnecessary attention to it. The most interesting character is Custer's Indian scout. Moving freely among both European and Native American societies, he is detested by both groups and detests both of them in return. The title of the film comes from Custer's constant reminders of the many things which the scout, being an Indian, is not allowed to do. When asked by another Native American why he hates Custer so much, the scout replies "because he treats me like... an Indian". The pause in delivering the line and the comic reaction of both characters afterward is handled exceptionally well.
All in all, the film's success as a left-wing critique of capitalism/colonialism is limited because so many of its clever subtleties get lost in the comedic noise. As a satire on American imperialism it fares much more poorly, coming dangerously close to being little more than a partisan screed. It does, however, achieve moderate success at being an entertaining absurdist farce with excellent comedic performances by the lead actors.
Made in the early 1970s, this surreal black comedy is usually interpreted as a scathing commentary on America's involvement in Vietnam, but I didn't see it that way. There is nothing in the film which significantly corresponds to the Vietnam conflict, and the few American symbols which show up are so awkwardly out of place and the characters exaggerated in such a ludicrous manner that it had the effect of constantly reminding me that this wasn't really about Americans. I can't claim to know how the European audience for which it was intended would have viewed it, but I saw it as a satirical look at European racism and colonialism (which, of course, would ultimately include both the genocide of Native Americans and the conflict in Vietnam) and a left-wing allegory of capitalism in which the Native Americans represent the oppressed working classes.
As a social/political satire, it achieves it's greatest success in depicting an absolute and brutal racism without being didactic or calling unnecessary attention to it. The most interesting character is Custer's Indian scout. Moving freely among both European and Native American societies, he is detested by both groups and detests both of them in return. The title of the film comes from Custer's constant reminders of the many things which the scout, being an Indian, is not allowed to do. When asked by another Native American why he hates Custer so much, the scout replies "because he treats me like... an Indian". The pause in delivering the line and the comic reaction of both characters afterward is handled exceptionally well.
All in all, the film's success as a left-wing critique of capitalism/colonialism is limited because so many of its clever subtleties get lost in the comedic noise. As a satire on American imperialism it fares much more poorly, coming dangerously close to being little more than a partisan screed. It does, however, achieve moderate success at being an entertaining absurdist farce with excellent comedic performances by the lead actors.
My Name Is Bruce
(2007)
How not to Succeed at Self-Deprecating Humor
11 April 2009
Although I'm only a moderate Bruce Campbell fan, the synopsis of this film sounded so hilarious that I could barely contain my excitement when the chance to see it finally arrived. Although I did have a lot of fun watching, I was also very disappointed. Hoping for the intelligent and good-natured satirical humor of Campbell's books "Chins" and "Make Love", what I got instead was a rather crude and mostly unremarkable parody of modern low budget horror films.
The biggest problem, I believe, lies in the way that the Bruce Campbell character is so ridiculously exaggerated as a raging egomaniac and out-of-control alcoholic. It was nearly impossible to generate any sympathy or liking for the character and even more difficult to imagine this character containing any of the real Bruce Campbell. Not only did this completely eliminate the self-deprecating humor which would normally be one of Campbell's strongest comic assets, it also undermined the entire point of the film. Failing to accept the main character as being a real but comically fictionalized version of the actual Bruce Campbell means that the fundamental premise of the film is completely wasted.
A Bruce Campbell fan with the proper attitude can still have a great time watching this movie. Anyone willing to cooperate with the film by ignoring the flaws and pretending to see some of the real Bruce Campbell in his character will be rewarded with many amusing Campbell references, some passable B-movie satire and the occasional well-executed gag. I think it should be obvious, however, that the less willing you are to cooperate in this manner the more likely you are to find this movie a complete waste of time.
The biggest problem, I believe, lies in the way that the Bruce Campbell character is so ridiculously exaggerated as a raging egomaniac and out-of-control alcoholic. It was nearly impossible to generate any sympathy or liking for the character and even more difficult to imagine this character containing any of the real Bruce Campbell. Not only did this completely eliminate the self-deprecating humor which would normally be one of Campbell's strongest comic assets, it also undermined the entire point of the film. Failing to accept the main character as being a real but comically fictionalized version of the actual Bruce Campbell means that the fundamental premise of the film is completely wasted.
A Bruce Campbell fan with the proper attitude can still have a great time watching this movie. Anyone willing to cooperate with the film by ignoring the flaws and pretending to see some of the real Bruce Campbell in his character will be rewarded with many amusing Campbell references, some passable B-movie satire and the occasional well-executed gag. I think it should be obvious, however, that the less willing you are to cooperate in this manner the more likely you are to find this movie a complete waste of time.
Misunderstood, Under-appreciated, and Overrated
7 April 2008
A steady stream of very attractive and nearly identical manikins come to life and march starry-eyed around the block and up the stairs to a flat where they briefly meet the object of their desire before dutifully signing his guest book on the way out. The man they came to see is the suave Lothario who will try to mentor the socially awkward teacher living downstairs in the "knack" of seducing women. As so often happens in situations like this, they will eventually end up competing for the affections of the same intriguing ingénue.
This may sound like an overused cliché likely to result in a formulaic romantic comedy, but director Richard Lester gives us something very different as he presents the story through a combination of exaggerated caricatures, fantasy sequences and zany metaphors. The result is that we are not so much interested in the details of the story as we are in the fun we have reaching the inevitable conclusion and the social commentary we encounter along the way.
Created in 1965, Lester makes a hefty contribution to the creation of a frenetic visual style of comedy which will be imitated with great commercial success throughout the rest of the decade (think "Laugh-In"). With its mod styling, rapid-fire editing, non sequiturs and wacky antics, Lester effectively uses this style to provide some wickedly clever parody of early 1960s sexism, conformity and consumerism.
The film is unfortunately not without some serious flaws. The comic style which may have seemed fresh and exciting at the time has not aged well. The good-natured mood of the film robs the social commentary of any punch or staying power, as does the failure to integrate it into a unifying framework. Also, the four main characters may be wonderfully portrayed with excellent comic acting, but only one of them is scripted such that he ever becomes human enough for us to care what happens to him, something which is essential in a story that is entirely about the relationships between the main characters.
One may find this to be a very enjoyable and memorable film in spite of these flaws, but it clearly requires that you recognize how to accept what it attempts to offer rather than criticizing it for what it doesn't deliver. I'd also think that it's a valuable film for anyone interested in the 1960s mass media image of swinging London and in the trends influencing popular entertainment during that time period.
This may sound like an overused cliché likely to result in a formulaic romantic comedy, but director Richard Lester gives us something very different as he presents the story through a combination of exaggerated caricatures, fantasy sequences and zany metaphors. The result is that we are not so much interested in the details of the story as we are in the fun we have reaching the inevitable conclusion and the social commentary we encounter along the way.
Created in 1965, Lester makes a hefty contribution to the creation of a frenetic visual style of comedy which will be imitated with great commercial success throughout the rest of the decade (think "Laugh-In"). With its mod styling, rapid-fire editing, non sequiturs and wacky antics, Lester effectively uses this style to provide some wickedly clever parody of early 1960s sexism, conformity and consumerism.
The film is unfortunately not without some serious flaws. The comic style which may have seemed fresh and exciting at the time has not aged well. The good-natured mood of the film robs the social commentary of any punch or staying power, as does the failure to integrate it into a unifying framework. Also, the four main characters may be wonderfully portrayed with excellent comic acting, but only one of them is scripted such that he ever becomes human enough for us to care what happens to him, something which is essential in a story that is entirely about the relationships between the main characters.
One may find this to be a very enjoyable and memorable film in spite of these flaws, but it clearly requires that you recognize how to accept what it attempts to offer rather than criticizing it for what it doesn't deliver. I'd also think that it's a valuable film for anyone interested in the 1960s mass media image of swinging London and in the trends influencing popular entertainment during that time period.
Son of Kong
(1933)
A chip off the old block
28 May 2004
It's one month after the King Kong fiasco and Carl Denham can't get a break from the relentless stream of reporters and lawsuits hounding him. Kong might have caused a lot of damage and killed a few people, but don't you think that Denham is awfully sorry about it all? And was it really his fault that the chains weren't strong enough? Well, actually it was, and with a grand jury about to rule against him, Denham decides it's time for a long ocean voyage.
Poor Denham must've done something to insult Poseidon, though, because no matter how much he wants to avoid it, he gets blown right back to Skull Island. This time he's looking for a treasure, but when the ungrateful natives force him to land on a remote part of the island, he immediately stumbles upon the orphaned Son of Kong. He knows this because of the obvious family resemblance. We never do find out what happened to Mrs. Kong.
The original was the greatest special effects film ever made, and for reasons more than just the outstanding effects. Any attempt to duplicate this, particularly in a quickly made sequel, could not possibly have come close and would have been nothing more than a shameless attempt to make some quick cash. In other words, a typical Hollywood sequel. The creators of Son wisely do not make this attempt. Instead, using the original's subtle satire of the film industry as its starting point, "Son of Kong" becomes a broad parody of Hollywood movies in general and of the original "King Kong" itself.
At one hour and 10 minutes, this movie is exactly the right length of time. No gag or idea is drawn out for even a moment longer than it is capable of sustaining. The special effects are still excellent, but are now secondary to the antics of the characters, including the comic mugging of Kong Jr. himself. Make no doubt about it, this film is no "King Kong" - but it's not a typical Hollywood sequel either.
Poor Denham must've done something to insult Poseidon, though, because no matter how much he wants to avoid it, he gets blown right back to Skull Island. This time he's looking for a treasure, but when the ungrateful natives force him to land on a remote part of the island, he immediately stumbles upon the orphaned Son of Kong. He knows this because of the obvious family resemblance. We never do find out what happened to Mrs. Kong.
The original was the greatest special effects film ever made, and for reasons more than just the outstanding effects. Any attempt to duplicate this, particularly in a quickly made sequel, could not possibly have come close and would have been nothing more than a shameless attempt to make some quick cash. In other words, a typical Hollywood sequel. The creators of Son wisely do not make this attempt. Instead, using the original's subtle satire of the film industry as its starting point, "Son of Kong" becomes a broad parody of Hollywood movies in general and of the original "King Kong" itself.
At one hour and 10 minutes, this movie is exactly the right length of time. No gag or idea is drawn out for even a moment longer than it is capable of sustaining. The special effects are still excellent, but are now secondary to the antics of the characters, including the comic mugging of Kong Jr. himself. Make no doubt about it, this film is no "King Kong" - but it's not a typical Hollywood sequel either.
Sing Your Worries Away
(1942)
Are you the doorman? Well, here's a door for ya...
12 April 2004
The NYPD get no answers after pulling up in front of the swank Boathouse Inn to investigate a possible homicide, but Tommy (Buddy Ebsen), a friend of the presumed victim, decides to stay and take a look around. He quickly falls for the cigarette girl, who along with her cousin Chow Brewster (Bert Lahr) is going to inherit millions, but only if the missing person can bring them the news before mobsters give them the business.
The jokes may be old and stale, but Buddy and Bert still manage to pull them off. Ebsen is wonderfully engaging as a good-natured not-quite country bumpkin; Lahr is the standard Bert Lahr persona. They may not seem like the logical choices to pair off in a buddy film, but they share enough good-natured energy to make it seem completely natural. The music swings, the song and dance is a pleasure, and the movie is just plain fun. Definitely worth watching if you get the chance.
The jokes may be old and stale, but Buddy and Bert still manage to pull them off. Ebsen is wonderfully engaging as a good-natured not-quite country bumpkin; Lahr is the standard Bert Lahr persona. They may not seem like the logical choices to pair off in a buddy film, but they share enough good-natured energy to make it seem completely natural. The music swings, the song and dance is a pleasure, and the movie is just plain fun. Definitely worth watching if you get the chance.
The Picture of Dorian Gray
(1945)
SPOILER ALERT: The Final Scene
2 November 2003
Warning: Spoilers
Personally, I don't much understand the high level of praise being given this movie. I don't find any of the actors to be convincing in their roles. The weak script and direction doesn't help, nor do the painful repetitions of the "Gilded Cage" song. What the movie does successfully, however, is to brilliantly stage the final unveiling of the portrait, and this alone makes the movie worth watching.
To set us up for this final scene, the movie creates a progression which directs our expectations for the next step in that progression, but then exceeds those expectations in a shocking manner. I don't know if there is a name to describe this, but the textbook example is when Tippi Hedren is waiting outside of the schoolhouse while "The Birds" amass in the playground behind here. In Dorian Gray, the progression is an extremely minimal one. First we see the angelic looking portrait of the angelic looking Gray. After his first act of cruelty, we see the portrait again. Dorian Gray the person still looks perfect, but the portrait now has the very slightest of sneers. It is not until many years later that we will see the portrait again.
When we arrive at that scene, we expect that the portrait is going to have to be very ugly. Nothing can prepare us, however, for just how ugly it has become. When the portrait is finally sprung upon us in full living color (the rest of the film being black and white), it has become horrible beyond anything we could have imagined.
What really works about this scene, however, is not that initial shock, but the slow realization that the unprecedented grotesqueness of the portrait is in fact a mirror of the grotesqueness of the soul of Dorian Gray. Today's films would make somebody look evil by graphically showing us in detail all of his evil acts, but doing so only turns the person into a psychotic comic-book caricature. In Dorian Gray, we are given a depiction of the extremes of evil which might actually exist in anyone who might otherwise appear as a fine, upstanding member of our community. If the rest of the movie had matched the quality of this final scene, then Dorian Gray could well have been the most realistically evil character in film history.
To set us up for this final scene, the movie creates a progression which directs our expectations for the next step in that progression, but then exceeds those expectations in a shocking manner. I don't know if there is a name to describe this, but the textbook example is when Tippi Hedren is waiting outside of the schoolhouse while "The Birds" amass in the playground behind here. In Dorian Gray, the progression is an extremely minimal one. First we see the angelic looking portrait of the angelic looking Gray. After his first act of cruelty, we see the portrait again. Dorian Gray the person still looks perfect, but the portrait now has the very slightest of sneers. It is not until many years later that we will see the portrait again.
When we arrive at that scene, we expect that the portrait is going to have to be very ugly. Nothing can prepare us, however, for just how ugly it has become. When the portrait is finally sprung upon us in full living color (the rest of the film being black and white), it has become horrible beyond anything we could have imagined.
What really works about this scene, however, is not that initial shock, but the slow realization that the unprecedented grotesqueness of the portrait is in fact a mirror of the grotesqueness of the soul of Dorian Gray. Today's films would make somebody look evil by graphically showing us in detail all of his evil acts, but doing so only turns the person into a psychotic comic-book caricature. In Dorian Gray, we are given a depiction of the extremes of evil which might actually exist in anyone who might otherwise appear as a fine, upstanding member of our community. If the rest of the movie had matched the quality of this final scene, then Dorian Gray could well have been the most realistically evil character in film history.
The Maltese Falcon
(1941)
SPOILER ALERT: The Real Story
2 November 2003
Warning: Spoilers
Film buffs are quick to point out that the Falcon is nothing but a McGuffin (a device that appears in the film and seems to drive the logic of the plot, but which actually serves no further purpose), but nobody seems to be interested in discussing what the plot is really about. The story of "The Maltese Falcon" is the one of Sam Spade solving the murder of his partner. It's an excellently crafted story and one which obeys the basic rules of mystery in that it gives the viewer all of the information available to the detective who solves it (or nearly all of it).
When we see Miles Archer being shot, he is standing calmly with his hands in his pockets. He seems surprised as a gun is raised by an unseen assailant to shoot him, but not alarmed or afraid. At the scene of the crime, the police inform Spade that Archer has his gun tucked away in his hip and his overcoat buttoned. Spade informs the police that Archer had been tailing a guy named Thursby. Later, when Thursby is found shot, the police suggest that Spade had the motivation to kill a guy who had murdered his partner, but Spade does not respond. He only states that he has never seen Thursby, dead or alive. The only vital piece of information we haven't been given is Spade's opinion that "Mile's hadn't many brains, but he'd had too many years of experience as a detective to be caught like that..."
At this point the movie goes off on the Falcon sub-plot, completely taking our mind off of the Archer murder. Spade has never said anything to suggest that he believes Thursby to be the murderer, but we, and the police, fill in that detail for ourselves. We forget about it and move on. It isn't until the final scene that this main plot of the movie re-emerges and we realize that solving the murder of his partner was Spade's motivation all along. "When a man's partner is killed, he's supposed to do something about it. It doesn't make any difference what you thought of him. He was your partner, and you're supposed to do something about it." If there is any flaw in this nearly perfect film, it's that the Falcon diversion is so effective that we still leave the movie not fully realizing what the story was actually about.
When we see Miles Archer being shot, he is standing calmly with his hands in his pockets. He seems surprised as a gun is raised by an unseen assailant to shoot him, but not alarmed or afraid. At the scene of the crime, the police inform Spade that Archer has his gun tucked away in his hip and his overcoat buttoned. Spade informs the police that Archer had been tailing a guy named Thursby. Later, when Thursby is found shot, the police suggest that Spade had the motivation to kill a guy who had murdered his partner, but Spade does not respond. He only states that he has never seen Thursby, dead or alive. The only vital piece of information we haven't been given is Spade's opinion that "Mile's hadn't many brains, but he'd had too many years of experience as a detective to be caught like that..."
At this point the movie goes off on the Falcon sub-plot, completely taking our mind off of the Archer murder. Spade has never said anything to suggest that he believes Thursby to be the murderer, but we, and the police, fill in that detail for ourselves. We forget about it and move on. It isn't until the final scene that this main plot of the movie re-emerges and we realize that solving the murder of his partner was Spade's motivation all along. "When a man's partner is killed, he's supposed to do something about it. It doesn't make any difference what you thought of him. He was your partner, and you're supposed to do something about it." If there is any flaw in this nearly perfect film, it's that the Falcon diversion is so effective that we still leave the movie not fully realizing what the story was actually about.
Stand-In
(1937)
Weak and sappy spoof
2 October 2003
The Colossal Movie Studio is heading for bankruptcy, largely due to the efforts of the leading star and director who are secretly in the employ of the nefarious Ivor Nassau, a financier who wants to shut the studio down. Wall Street analytical genius and male ingenue Atterbury Dodd (Leslie Howard) knows something is wrong and decides he has to go to Hollywood to find out what. The fact that he knows nothing about movies doesn't deter him; his confidence in mathematical analysis knows no bounds. Fortunately for him, he meets up with aspiring actress Lester Plum (Joan Blondell) who eventually manages to convince him of the importance of the human element.
The movie starts off with the promise of being a humorously cynical look at the workings of Hollywood, but it fails to deliver anything but a weak and predictable satire. Humphrey Bogart is unconvincing in his role as a tough producer still in love with the star he created. His talents are wasted here, with the exception of one drunk scene which very briefly gives him the chance to demonstrate his considerable comic acting ability. The very talented and likable Leslie Howard and Joan Blondell make the movie watchable, but not anything to go out of your way for. There is also some social commentary on corporate executives and Wall Street mavens who would enrich themselves without concern for workers or shareholders, but there isn't much meat to it.
The movie starts off with the promise of being a humorously cynical look at the workings of Hollywood, but it fails to deliver anything but a weak and predictable satire. Humphrey Bogart is unconvincing in his role as a tough producer still in love with the star he created. His talents are wasted here, with the exception of one drunk scene which very briefly gives him the chance to demonstrate his considerable comic acting ability. The very talented and likable Leslie Howard and Joan Blondell make the movie watchable, but not anything to go out of your way for. There is also some social commentary on corporate executives and Wall Street mavens who would enrich themselves without concern for workers or shareholders, but there isn't much meat to it.
That's Right - You're Wrong
(1939)
A short course in the Kollege of Musical Knowledge
26 January 2003
The head of a big Hollywood studio is tired of making movies which are artistic successes but commercial flops, so he comes up with the idea of filming the nation's hottest live act - Kay Kyser's Kollege of Musical Knowledge. One of his producers just happens to have 2 writers working on a script about a bandleader, so Kay Kyser and band are brought to Hollywood to become movie stars. Unfortunately, the script calls for the bandleader to be a romantic lead, which Kay Kyser obviously isn't. After a few humorous twists and turns, Kyser and band are back on the radio where they belong.
The movie within the movie which never gets made is actually the movie you're watching, and it is obviously little more than an excuse to get Kay Kyser's act on film. The highlight, however, is Kyser's screen test in which he's a romantic gondolier playing opposite studio star Sandra Sand (Lucille Ball). You have to be familiar with his stage personality to appreciate the absurdity of it, and you will be by the time this comic gem of a scene appears. There are some other good comic moments, but the production is otherwise pretty weak. The musical act itself is dated and not likely to appeal to a modern audience unless they happen to have nostalgic yearnings for pre-television radio shows. Nevertheless, Kay Kyser and his movie have a good-natured attitude and whimsical touch which can certainly lift your spirits if you give them the chance.
The movie within the movie which never gets made is actually the movie you're watching, and it is obviously little more than an excuse to get Kay Kyser's act on film. The highlight, however, is Kyser's screen test in which he's a romantic gondolier playing opposite studio star Sandra Sand (Lucille Ball). You have to be familiar with his stage personality to appreciate the absurdity of it, and you will be by the time this comic gem of a scene appears. There are some other good comic moments, but the production is otherwise pretty weak. The musical act itself is dated and not likely to appeal to a modern audience unless they happen to have nostalgic yearnings for pre-television radio shows. Nevertheless, Kay Kyser and his movie have a good-natured attitude and whimsical touch which can certainly lift your spirits if you give them the chance.
Tell Your Friends