From the beginning to end, there were an enormous amount of plot holes and missed opportunities. Lots of the characters' decisions were of the eye-rolling variety such as in the 1980s slasher movies where everyone decides to split up (instead of sticking together) in order to find a serial killing maniac. The same sort of knuckle-headed logic dogged the exposition of this movie. Character development is almost non-existent to the extent that by the finale you don't care who comes out dead or alive. Granted, it has a nice look and good pace but when the story fails to generate enough suspension of belief to make it engaging, there's not enough left to enjoy.
Reviews
36 Reviews
A Weak Episode
10 June 2023
THE WILD WILD WEST is still one of the coolest shows in TV history, but this one has too many flaws. First, the supporting cast who are supposed to be French all speak in a clichéd 'Pepe LePew' accent. Plot-wise, the holes in the story could have easily been remedied by a couple more rewrites. As it is, for once you can actually out-think West and Gordon as they solve the plot (they make some really stupid mistakes in this script, which imho diminishes their hero status). Lastly, the dialogue is very, very predictable. You already have the words in your head that the characters are going to say before they even open their mouths. Even a magnificent series like this has to produce an occasional lemon. Sadly, this episode is way below par.
Four Sided Triangle
(1953)
Desperately needed some rewrites
22 May 2023
The screenplay has so much overstating the obvious and other "throat-clearings" that you're already 15 steps ahead of the movie each time an actor starts speaking his lines. The entire production is presented at a snail's pace with tons of unnecessary material. As others have said on this page, this movie could easily have been a 30 minute drama. HOWEVER, Barbara Payton is hypnotic both in her beautiful screen presence and in giving a layered, intelligent performance that's the best work of the entire cast. See it for her, but don't have high hopes for a thrilling, thoughtful cinema experience.
Well-Crafted and Honest
15 July 2022
There's a misconception that early TV shows were simplistic. Actually when TVs first became widely accessible, like with most new technology they were expensive and were affordable to educated people with good incomes. This TV drama is a good example of how adult and intelligent early TV could be.
Excellent performances by the 3 leads. Wonderfully crafted script with realistic dialog. Great supporting cast such as Nancy Kulp (THE BEVERLY HILLBILLIES) and Gina Gillespie (WHATEVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE?).
A great example of early TV drama.
Excellent performances by the 3 leads. Wonderfully crafted script with realistic dialog. Great supporting cast such as Nancy Kulp (THE BEVERLY HILLBILLIES) and Gina Gillespie (WHATEVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE?).
A great example of early TV drama.
The Andy Warhol Diaries
(2022)
Misses the Mark
9 April 2022
The pacing was very tedious in some episodes. And lots of sound bites were either repetitive, stating the obvious, or just plain bland. The entire project seemed to be screaming for a firmer hand in directing this to a satisfactory experience. The first 2 episodes are the best.
Last Night in Soho
(2021)
Jumped the shark too many times
15 December 2021
Endless scenes of a leading lady freaking out and running wildly down a street, followed by opting to do totally stupid things, makes this a bore that's about 90 minutes too long. Lots of interesting plot threads during the first 30 minutes that could have made the movie more interesting if they'd been developed. Instead each plot point is dropped after a while, the same way spoiled children tire of their toys. A thin, ridiculous script. And too much of a rip-off of Polanski's REPULSION by the end. Skip it.
The Passover Plot
(1976)
Cinema Ambien
5 October 2021
I remember going to this movie on a Saturday night with 3 friends. There were protesters outside, so we were ready for something thought-provoking and controversial. There wasn't an empty seat in the house by the time the lights dimmed. But sadly, this film was so boring that people could be heard snoring at different locations around the theater after the first hour. It's that badly scripted and executed. You haven't missed much.
Goodnight & Goodbye
(2018)
One of the Most Dishonest Movies I've Ever Seen
13 April 2020
It's hard to think of any work of art where the artist deceives himself and asks us to go along on his dishonest journey as this movie does. When the filmmaker repeats that he's matured because he's "learned to use a tripod now," that pretty well summarizes the depth and wisdom of this miserable viewing experience. As a friend who saw the movie with me commented, the filmmaker exploits his subject (and isn't aware that he's exploiting the subject). Badly shot (you can literally see that the cameraman was more interested in the beer he was drinking than he was in looking through the viewfinder because the subjects and focus disappear sometimes while the cameraman's beer bottle remains in the picture), this movie was a horrible waste of time.
Good Performances. Good Script. Good Direction.
12 April 2019
This is the only episode that won an award (Golden Globe for Best Editing) and it is a memorable one. Eleanor Parker gets to have some good chances for fine acting as her character becomes involved in the flawed and tormented director played by Ricardo Montalban. The inside-the-studio stuff is accurate and well-presented, especially in the looping / dubbing session and on-set scenes. Some fine dialogue too. Recommended, if you can find it. Oh, and I looked but I can't find Tom Selleck in this episode even though he's credited as "Roj".
American Gods
(2017–2021)
Amateur-ish
10 March 2019
I'll begin positively by saying Ian McShane was good, as always, but the praise stops there.
Where to begin making a list of everything wrong with Season 1, Episode 1?
Well, the HUGE amount of padding in the script and its execution. After making a big deal of Shadow getting upgraded to First Class in the airplane, and then showing him asleep in his seat and the flight attendant waking him, the first thing out of Shadow's mouth is "I can't believe I slept though First Class!" Well, yes, the audience knows you're in First Class and that you were asleep, and this camera setup to deliver this one line about facts that are already established means nothing, and serves no purpose -- as so do many moments in the show. (As a tangent on this, in AMERICAN GODS it seems that airlines' solution to every passenger problem is to upgrade the passenger to First Class. If you fly a lot in America, this'll make your eyes roll multiple times.) So after sleeping through First Class, Shadow rents a car which prompts a l-o-n-g montage of the car driving down the highway, adding padding on top of padding.
This leads to a scene in a cemetery that shows how badly directed the actors were: just terrible performances.
And not just the actors' skills or their need for good direction, but just the casting itself. For example there's a hookup scene in a bar -- a blind date -- and the man keeps remarking to his date that because he's homely that he never thought he'd meet anyone as beautiful as she was. But to me, they were just about equal in the Looks Department, so again the eyes started to roll.
Haven't read the book. Now wouldn't read it on a bet.
Where to begin making a list of everything wrong with Season 1, Episode 1?
Well, the HUGE amount of padding in the script and its execution. After making a big deal of Shadow getting upgraded to First Class in the airplane, and then showing him asleep in his seat and the flight attendant waking him, the first thing out of Shadow's mouth is "I can't believe I slept though First Class!" Well, yes, the audience knows you're in First Class and that you were asleep, and this camera setup to deliver this one line about facts that are already established means nothing, and serves no purpose -- as so do many moments in the show. (As a tangent on this, in AMERICAN GODS it seems that airlines' solution to every passenger problem is to upgrade the passenger to First Class. If you fly a lot in America, this'll make your eyes roll multiple times.) So after sleeping through First Class, Shadow rents a car which prompts a l-o-n-g montage of the car driving down the highway, adding padding on top of padding.
This leads to a scene in a cemetery that shows how badly directed the actors were: just terrible performances.
And not just the actors' skills or their need for good direction, but just the casting itself. For example there's a hookup scene in a bar -- a blind date -- and the man keeps remarking to his date that because he's homely that he never thought he'd meet anyone as beautiful as she was. But to me, they were just about equal in the Looks Department, so again the eyes started to roll.
Haven't read the book. Now wouldn't read it on a bet.
The Unknown War
(1978– )
Interesting But Not Good
28 November 2017
I started following this series because it was so rare to see archival documentary footage from the Soviet Union and the Third Reich, both of whom were known as creating consummately well-crafted film (and film technology) to be used for propaganda. So the visuals are absolutely stunning. But the short-comings with this series are two-fold: 1) there is the obvious ego-stroking of the Soviet Union in the tone and delivery of information here; and 2) the English-language team that brought this to TV in the USA accomplished their task in a very amateurish way.
To elaborate on the second part, the script was crafted for the written page, not for voice-over, with no sense that the information would be absorbed by listening instead of reading. Many times, the message is lost or becomes muddied -- for instance -- by repeatedly hearing the word "they" while watching footage of two armies fighting each other. Which "they" are they referring to? Sitting down and reading the script, there would be no difficulty following the thread, but the text needed much more work before being used for voice-over. This is not helped by the fact the graphics and maps are badly done, and that frequently the voice-over and image don't match up (e.g., an image of a crying mother while the voice-over is talking about tanks on the move). And when the voice-over and image *do* match up, it is usually (as has been noted in other reviews) in a condescending, knock-you-on-the-head way (as in showing a shot of a tearful granny and telling you this is a tearful granny).
And despite my admiration for Burt Lancaster as an actor, there are certain techniques to voice-over that were not relayed to him. In voice work, one frequently has to make unnatural breaks in a sentence, and unnaturally stress certain words, yet make it sound natural. Lancaster reads well and is in fine voice, but no one outside the audio booth would stop and tell him to read the text in a different way. (Again, I think this is because the English-language creative team which included Rod McKuen couldn't change their points of view to realize this wasn't a written work but a work of audio montage to be comprehended with the audience's ears.) And speaking of audio, some of the music is dreadful, especially some tunes Mr. McKuen "sings."
To elaborate on the second part, the script was crafted for the written page, not for voice-over, with no sense that the information would be absorbed by listening instead of reading. Many times, the message is lost or becomes muddied -- for instance -- by repeatedly hearing the word "they" while watching footage of two armies fighting each other. Which "they" are they referring to? Sitting down and reading the script, there would be no difficulty following the thread, but the text needed much more work before being used for voice-over. This is not helped by the fact the graphics and maps are badly done, and that frequently the voice-over and image don't match up (e.g., an image of a crying mother while the voice-over is talking about tanks on the move). And when the voice-over and image *do* match up, it is usually (as has been noted in other reviews) in a condescending, knock-you-on-the-head way (as in showing a shot of a tearful granny and telling you this is a tearful granny).
And despite my admiration for Burt Lancaster as an actor, there are certain techniques to voice-over that were not relayed to him. In voice work, one frequently has to make unnatural breaks in a sentence, and unnaturally stress certain words, yet make it sound natural. Lancaster reads well and is in fine voice, but no one outside the audio booth would stop and tell him to read the text in a different way. (Again, I think this is because the English-language creative team which included Rod McKuen couldn't change their points of view to realize this wasn't a written work but a work of audio montage to be comprehended with the audience's ears.) And speaking of audio, some of the music is dreadful, especially some tunes Mr. McKuen "sings."
Chamber of Horrors
(1940)
Above Average!
12 March 2017
So many early films of the "Old Dark House" variety are the kind where actors hit their marks, look at each other, and just talk, talk, talk endless pages of dialog and exposition. Not this one! The director knows how to tell the story with a camera, and the movie has a good shot count so there's none of those lock-down shots where two or more actors talk about the situation for an eternity. Quite the contrary: the movie has good pacing, and the actors keep a good rhythm to the delivery of their lines. Lilli Palmer is quite good and beguiling as the female lead, with good support from fellow players. The plot has enough twists to keep things interesting, while the lighting, camera moves, and blocking keep the visuals engaging. For a low budget thriller, it's really one of the better examples!
Serial
(1980)
Skip the Movie. Read the Book.
21 November 2016
Cyra McFadden's novel was deliciously tongue-in-cheek look at the environment of her city, San Francisco. Not as over-the-top as Armistead Maupin's books, but still very humorous and accurate. This is neither humorous nor accurate. It's just mean-spirited and ham-fisted. Bad script / bad cinematography / bad performances / bad direction. It's like a LOVE American STYLE sketch that just won't end. And the entire tone of the film is just hate-spewing at anything that isn't white bread and Father Knows Best. It's also got some really homophobic language and attitudes that were already cultural dinosaur when this movie was made, and now are just appalling.
Barcelona Christmas Night
(2015)
Overdose of Talking Heads
2 January 2016
I don't think very highly of the creative team for this movie because the only way they know to communicate how a person feels or reacts is to have a big closeup of the actor's head while he or she talks (and talks and talks and talks) about how he feels and what he or she feels about the other people. It's rather insulting when a creative person doesn't trust the audience's ability to understand something, and so everything is spelled out like this movie does. Gestures, facial expressions, mood lighting, colors, objects within a scene -- all these ways of communicating with an audience and making the audience curious are seriously under-used. 75% of the dialogue could have been left out; and if the camera had moved in or out more to show detail or give us the bigger picture, it would have been a much richer movie. As it is, it's a series of people's heads with their lips moving ... and saying things that are pretty trite and predictable.
The Age of Adaline
(2015)
Bored Me from the Get-Go
21 December 2015
The movie begins with a lousy, redundant voice-over to explain what we're seeing. (Thank you very much, Mister Narrator, but I have eyes so I can see someone is driving a car, is having an accident, etc.) And from there the condescending force-feeding just doesn't let up. This movie is a great example of a creative team telegraphing to you exactly what you're supposed to feel every second, instead of letting you discover what a movie's about by yourself. After about 20 minutes, I figured the people behind this movie must be rookies, so I looked up on IMDb and saw their list of credits is pretty thin. This movie may have been OK if there had been a LOT more re-writes and a creative consultant was hired. The artistic voice of this movie was too timid and predictable to make this an interesting movie.
Amateurish
22 December 2013
If the filmmaker wants to make a personal video memory of his dad, so be it. But to serve up this documentary as something serious, with dramatic and political context for a wider audience, then the filmmaker totally fails. It has too little structure, tension, and journalistic effort to make an engrossing movie. So many follow-up questions aren't asked, so much nostalgic remembrances by family members that serve no purpose to a general audience, so many digressions, and no real examination of the times. This might make a good present to other members of the director's family, but as something to leave the house and go buy a ticket at a theatre, forget about it.
A Little Gem
5 February 2012
There were so many finely crafted mini-movies in the early days of television, when young hopefuls on the way up and trusty veterans from the golden days of Hollywood studios collaborated on 30-minute stories to feed the ever-growing demand for TV time.
This is one of them. A quirky and charming tale from William Faulkner with a quirky and charming performance by the very talented and overlooked Stella Stevens.
As someone raised in the South, this is one of the few media works I've seen that captures southern rural culture without defaulting into tired stereotypes. Hugh O'Brian as the leading man and the direction by Richard Irving (some shots I can still freshly recall over a half-century later)gave additional strength to this beauty of a micro-movie.
This is one of them. A quirky and charming tale from William Faulkner with a quirky and charming performance by the very talented and overlooked Stella Stevens.
As someone raised in the South, this is one of the few media works I've seen that captures southern rural culture without defaulting into tired stereotypes. Hugh O'Brian as the leading man and the direction by Richard Irving (some shots I can still freshly recall over a half-century later)gave additional strength to this beauty of a micro-movie.
A History of Ancient Britain
(2011–2012)
It's all about Mister Oliver
23 October 2011
I have never gotten so sick of seeing a producer's face in my life. This isn't about Ancient Britain; it's about Neil Oliver. His face is in almost every shot, his words in almost every soundbite, and very little time is given to the experts who know something on this topic.
It is a producer's love fest to himself. We don't see the historic sites; we see a montage of shots of Neil Oliver walking through the sites. His commentary itself is not illuminating, but instead his observations mainly take the form of reacting to various objects he encounters. For example, when Neolithic arrowheads are shown, rather than something we could take away from the experience, Oliver goes off talking about how to him they are beautiful. Yes, that's all very nice, but there's no way I'm investing several hours trying to learn the history of Britain and coming away knowing that he found a certain ancient object beautiful or an historical site thrilling.
Please, Neil, it's not all about you.
It is a producer's love fest to himself. We don't see the historic sites; we see a montage of shots of Neil Oliver walking through the sites. His commentary itself is not illuminating, but instead his observations mainly take the form of reacting to various objects he encounters. For example, when Neolithic arrowheads are shown, rather than something we could take away from the experience, Oliver goes off talking about how to him they are beautiful. Yes, that's all very nice, but there's no way I'm investing several hours trying to learn the history of Britain and coming away knowing that he found a certain ancient object beautiful or an historical site thrilling.
Please, Neil, it's not all about you.
Out of the Blue
(1947)
Brilliant
25 December 2008
What makes this movie so remarkable is that all the actors are cast against their type. Romantic lead George Brent plays a henpecked hubby in this film. Glamor gal Carole Landis plays a prissy mouse of a housewife. Turhan Bey doesn't wear a turban in this film, but plays a cool and wise-cracking New York man-about-town. And drama queen Ann Dvorak plays a screwball drunk lady with more than one screw loose. It's a gem. Then add to this the remarkable supporting cast, a script with some zingers I can still remember after not seeing this for 40 years. And it gets great Cool Points for having legendary jazz artist Hadda Brooks play the piano and sing in this film (she also performed in the Bogart / Grahame film IN A LONELY PLACE; and had one of the first regular TV shows ever broadcast in Los Angeles in the late 1940s).
Too trite for me...
2 February 2008
There is a phrase by the experimental filmmaker Nathaniel Dorsky, who says some films are structured like a camera mounted on the head of a dog who goes down an alley, sniffing everything along the way.
That's how this movie is. The structure is "Kurosawa started out as a baby, then he became a kid, then a young man, then a movie director, then he started making 'masterpieces', then he grew old, The End." The word 'masterpiece' is used a lot in this film to describe Kurosawa's output, without explaining *what* makes his films so good/great. Just because the off-screen narrator reading a script says that a film is a masterpiece, are we supposed to kiss his rear-end and accept that a certain movie is one of the great works of art of the 20th century? And one more point. The voice of Paul Scofield is used as the voice of Kurosawa, when excerpts from the director's memoirs are being read off screen. He brings pear-shaped Shakespearean tones to the text...but why him?? If you were making a documentary about Billie Holiday, would you use Dame Judi Densch as her voice????
That's how this movie is. The structure is "Kurosawa started out as a baby, then he became a kid, then a young man, then a movie director, then he started making 'masterpieces', then he grew old, The End." The word 'masterpiece' is used a lot in this film to describe Kurosawa's output, without explaining *what* makes his films so good/great. Just because the off-screen narrator reading a script says that a film is a masterpiece, are we supposed to kiss his rear-end and accept that a certain movie is one of the great works of art of the 20th century? And one more point. The voice of Paul Scofield is used as the voice of Kurosawa, when excerpts from the director's memoirs are being read off screen. He brings pear-shaped Shakespearean tones to the text...but why him?? If you were making a documentary about Billie Holiday, would you use Dame Judi Densch as her voice????
Dreadfully Dull...
11 December 2007
I'm not going to approach and critique the theories of RAW. I mean, this is a site about movies and whether the movie delivers or is well-made, and not a site debating philosophy.
Having said that, this video really blows. It's one talking-head shot of RAW after another. Some of it is archival video, so you can see how he has aged over the years, and that's pretty cool. But, otherwise, the viewing experience is relentlessly monotonous.
It's a strange comparison, but I kept thinking of the Sunday afternoon when I watched some of the Barbra Streisand star vehicle *Funny Lady* (another really bad movie). After a while, I was so OD'd on Barbra, I kept wishing there would be one scene that she wouldn't appear in: you know, a "meanwhile, other characters in the movie were up to something else..." moment. But it was all about Barbra. Well this video is RAW's *Funny Lady*.
So, if your idea of a good time is to look at multiple takes and angles of the face of RAW while he prattles on with his theories, assembled in a lame structure that doesn't add any interest or insight, then be my guest. For me, I couldn't take it after 20 minutes.
Having said that, this video really blows. It's one talking-head shot of RAW after another. Some of it is archival video, so you can see how he has aged over the years, and that's pretty cool. But, otherwise, the viewing experience is relentlessly monotonous.
It's a strange comparison, but I kept thinking of the Sunday afternoon when I watched some of the Barbra Streisand star vehicle *Funny Lady* (another really bad movie). After a while, I was so OD'd on Barbra, I kept wishing there would be one scene that she wouldn't appear in: you know, a "meanwhile, other characters in the movie were up to something else..." moment. But it was all about Barbra. Well this video is RAW's *Funny Lady*.
So, if your idea of a good time is to look at multiple takes and angles of the face of RAW while he prattles on with his theories, assembled in a lame structure that doesn't add any interest or insight, then be my guest. For me, I couldn't take it after 20 minutes.
Pulp Fiction
(1994)
If you haven't been exposed to much, you may enjoy this film
11 October 2006
I wonder what cops or people living in *really* rough neighborhoods would say about this movie? In working on documentaries, I've been on police patrols and have seen my share of domestic stabbings, cop shootings and drug busts, and to me this movie is some smart-*ss white boy's comic-book imagination of "what it's like out there on the streets". So, I can understand why students at state universities thought this was the coolest movie around when it came out.
Also, if you haven't seen a lot of esoteric and quality cinema, Tarentino may seem like some sort of movie-making genius. But if you've seen movies like *Kiss Me Deadly* or practically anything by Godard, you'll see that QT cuts and pastes a lot. When Pulp Fiction enthusiasts start to debate their theories about why there was an inner light in the briefcase at the diner, I just have to say that it's just an image ripped off from a movie made well before they were born, called *Kiss Me Deadly*.
If you've seen the seedier and dangerous side of life, the movie is lame. If you're a classic movie devotee, this movie is a rip-off. But if you haven't been exposed to much, you may enjoy this film.
Also, if you haven't seen a lot of esoteric and quality cinema, Tarentino may seem like some sort of movie-making genius. But if you've seen movies like *Kiss Me Deadly* or practically anything by Godard, you'll see that QT cuts and pastes a lot. When Pulp Fiction enthusiasts start to debate their theories about why there was an inner light in the briefcase at the diner, I just have to say that it's just an image ripped off from a movie made well before they were born, called *Kiss Me Deadly*.
If you've seen the seedier and dangerous side of life, the movie is lame. If you're a classic movie devotee, this movie is a rip-off. But if you haven't been exposed to much, you may enjoy this film.
Lan Yu
(2001)
the real thing...
11 October 2006
As someone who has had two or three boyfriends in "The New China", this film is very accurate, not just about gay men in China -- but also about China today with its real estate booms, and banking scandals, and drinking lots of Johnny Walker Black Label if you're rich enough to afford it.
And as someone who has been a professional filmmaker, I think the work is well done. I didn't know that Stanley Kwan cited Sirk and Ozu as influences, but I can see them when I look at this movie. It's got a good narrative pacing and intelligent framing, two qualities I associate with Sirk and Ozu. You can't passively consume this movie; if you try, you'll be bored. But by meditatively viewing this film, there are some good rewards that you will feel by the final fade-out.
And as someone who has been a professional filmmaker, I think the work is well done. I didn't know that Stanley Kwan cited Sirk and Ozu as influences, but I can see them when I look at this movie. It's got a good narrative pacing and intelligent framing, two qualities I associate with Sirk and Ozu. You can't passively consume this movie; if you try, you'll be bored. But by meditatively viewing this film, there are some good rewards that you will feel by the final fade-out.
The Neon Bible
(1995)
He Should Stick to What He Knows...
9 October 2006
I really admire the films that Terrence Davies made about growing up in British working class environment after World War II. They're brilliant works.
But this is horrifically off the mark.
The review of Davies' version of Edith Wharton's *House of Mirth* in the NY Times said that the movie was more like Charles Dickens than Edith Wharton. Which is exactly the criticism I had of this movie. These folks are not embodying American Southern farmers, they're acting like industrial working class people. I can understand and be sympathetic to the original story: my people, coming from South Carolina & Georgia, had lives very similar to the plot of this movie. Therefore, I could see where this could potentially be a very good film.
But nothing gets under my skin like an inability to see beyond one's own cultural bias...which is the major mistake of the director of this production. If you take the emotions, the gestures, the imagery of this film and put them in an industrial landscape, it would be an OK movie. But having people interact and react this way and have them being farmers in the Deep South is bogus, phony and w-a-y off the mark. If you want to see true southern Americana, skip this movie and see Elia Kazan's *Wild River* instead...
But this is horrifically off the mark.
The review of Davies' version of Edith Wharton's *House of Mirth* in the NY Times said that the movie was more like Charles Dickens than Edith Wharton. Which is exactly the criticism I had of this movie. These folks are not embodying American Southern farmers, they're acting like industrial working class people. I can understand and be sympathetic to the original story: my people, coming from South Carolina & Georgia, had lives very similar to the plot of this movie. Therefore, I could see where this could potentially be a very good film.
But nothing gets under my skin like an inability to see beyond one's own cultural bias...which is the major mistake of the director of this production. If you take the emotions, the gestures, the imagery of this film and put them in an industrial landscape, it would be an OK movie. But having people interact and react this way and have them being farmers in the Deep South is bogus, phony and w-a-y off the mark. If you want to see true southern Americana, skip this movie and see Elia Kazan's *Wild River* instead...
Stowaway
(1936)
She Had a GREAT Mandarin Coach !!!
4 October 2006
I had been living in China about a year, when I saw this DVD. (It's a very popular title in the People's Republic: there are original dialog versions, Chinese dubbed versions, colorized versions, even a sing-along version where you follow the lyrics as Shirley or Alice Faye warble.
I was humbled that a 7-year-old, under the tutelage of a Mandarin coach, could get her mouth and lips around some of the words she was using. She spoke pretty good Chinese!! Much better than mine was after living for 12 months in the country.
Aside from that, *Stowaway* is a good product of the studio system. The tunes are hummable; Alice Faye is gorgeous and has the dreamiest contralto voice; Eugene Palette is gruff yet lovable; the plot twists are fun. Plus there's a little darkness in it, because Shirley is orphaned and then abandoned after her money is stolen from her. So the first reel is anything but sweetness and light.
A fun movie.
I was humbled that a 7-year-old, under the tutelage of a Mandarin coach, could get her mouth and lips around some of the words she was using. She spoke pretty good Chinese!! Much better than mine was after living for 12 months in the country.
Aside from that, *Stowaway* is a good product of the studio system. The tunes are hummable; Alice Faye is gorgeous and has the dreamiest contralto voice; Eugene Palette is gruff yet lovable; the plot twists are fun. Plus there's a little darkness in it, because Shirley is orphaned and then abandoned after her money is stolen from her. So the first reel is anything but sweetness and light.
A fun movie.
Tell Your Friends