Change Your Image
tpanebia
Reviews
Doll Face (1945)
Not much of a Carmen vehicle
I came across this movie only as an inclusion in the Carmen Miranda Collection, and I am commenting here for those in the same situation, who are wondering if this is worth having.
As for Carmen: she sings one number, "Chico Chico (from Porto Rico!)", which features a lot of dancing with the chorus. The main drawback as far as Carmen is concerned is that the film is in black and white, and we are deprived of some of the gaudiness and festiveness that we expect from her participation in a movie. I know that Technicolor was expensive, but it seems bizarre for Fox to have made black and white musicals after the public came to expect color, and to cast the colorful Carmen Miranda in them! A better number was excised from the movie, but included in the Special Features --- Carmen wears her famous outfit with the phallic lighthouse atop her head (which lights up on the downbeats at the end of the song), and the number is done in a burlesque style on a runway. Carmen gets quite a bit of dialogue in this movie, and is actually integrated into the plot, not just a nightclub performer as in some films (like "Down Argentine Way"). I wish she were given more musical numbers to do, though. One funny bit (five seconds long) has Carmen's character, "Chita," disparagingly mimic Carmen Miranda!
The movie itself is watchable and has some fun moments, but on the whole suffers from a bland cast. Vivian Blaine lacked the spark of an Alice Faye or Betty Grable, the other Fox stars of the day, and came across as brittle and not particularly likable. The leading men, including Perry Como, were also uninteresting, and there is even a misogynistic undertone to the movie, with male characters bragging about beating their girlfriends to keep them in line. There is something wince-inducing about seeing bland Perry Como threaten to beat his girlfriend, who gets turned on by it! As for the music, there are a couple of serviceable numbers, but they are reprised to death -- I found myself muttering "oh no, not this one again" by the middle of the movie. Como and Blaine's "Hubba Hubba" duet was the only number which for me was fresh and fun, and not overdone.
In general, this is not a terrible or unpleasant film, but is not one many would want to rewatch. As another commenter noted, the melodrama seems to take over at times, and for me, the characters are not sympathetic or likable enough for me to get drawn in by the non-musical aspects of the plot. If you are wondering whether this adds anything of value to the Carmen Miranda collection --- in my opinion, it is only a very minor addition.
Pride & Prejudice (2005)
Did anyone read the book???
The many comparisons in these comments to the far superior 1995 mini-series with Ehle and Firth are quite apt, but I would also add that this adaption has little resemblance to Austen's book! What is present here is a lovely setting and a mushy romance, but that is not what Austen wrote. This version eliminates all the satire, all the wit, that are the hallmarks of Austen. Almost every character is likable in this film! Judi Densch portrays Lady Catherine as appropriately imperious and snobbish, but her portrayal misses the humor: Lady Catherine is an idiot, a higher-class Mrs. Bennet, full of nonsensical observations and overtly stupid, though no one tells her as much. The Bennet family is erroneously portrayed as endearingly eccentric and lovable, but again, that is not consistent with Austen's novel. Mr and Mrs Bennet are horrid parents: one is detached and neglectful and the other is selfish and a miserable role model for her daughters. Blethyn and Sutherland's benign Bennets are far from the creations of Jane Austen. This movie portrays the Bennets as good folks, but a bit on the trailer-trash side. Mrs Bennet was loud and vulgar but did not have animals running through her house nor would she have allowed her daughters to eat like pigs at a trough, as they do in this movie: she put on airs and lived above the family's means. You'd never get this impression from this adaptation.
The DVD's interviews of several cast members are quite telling. The actor playing Darcy says that Darcy isn't proud, but shy. Did anyone tell him what the name of the novel is? It wasn't "Shyness and Prejudice"! The actress playing Mary Bennet gushed about how wonderful it would be to be a Bennet in real life, as though this were "Little Women." She had no sense that her character was intended to be offensively moralistic and foolish. Similarly, Blethyn and Sutherland went on about what good parents the Bennets were, Blethyn remarking that Mrs Bennet was a good mother to have married off three daughters! Brenda dear: Elizabeth and Jane married IN SPITE of Mrs Bennet's repulsiveness to their suitors, not BECAUSE of her, and Lydia's marriage to Wickham, which WAS the result of Mrs Bennet's poor influences on her daughter, is a disastrously bad marriage! In short, this is a poor movie because it took all the wit and humor and social commentary of Austen and made it into a cheesy romance flick. The first Darcy proposal was a gem: it looked more like Wuthering Heights than Pride and Prejudice, with the characters out in a storm, their emotions being tossed about with the wind. Where did Austen write such a scene? Elizabeth despised Darcy at this point of the story, but in the movie, she seems ready to jump his bones. Knightley was badly miscast here --- she is a raving beauty, and her beauty seems to be what makes Darcy interested in her. But again, that is not what Austen wrote. It is supposed to be Elizabeth's wit and character that attract Darcy, not her looks, which on first impression he has no difficulty resisting.
I was prepared to dislike this movie before I saw it, but convinced myself that it probably wasn't so bad and to give it a chance. It was much worse than I imagined, however. How sad that moviegoers unfamiliar with Austen will see this film and conclude that Jane Austen wrote sappy romances!
Summer Stock (1950)
"Bye bye, Auntie Em! Show Biz is Calling!"
Parts of this movie are terrific, and I'll mention them first. Despite some comments grousing that Judy looks frumpy or that her hair is weird, I thought she looked great -- on the plump side, but healthy looking and wholesome. She looked like a farmer, which is what her character is. And Gene Kelly is, in my view, at his best here. I like Kelly, but sometimes find him to be a bit smirky or hammy, and in this movie, he is more vulnerable and sympathetic --- less of the usual bravado. Judy's opening numbers on the farm were very appealing, both her "shower" number and her joyful song on the new tractor. And Kelly is at his best in the barn number, "improvising" with bits of newspaper and a squeaky floor board. Top rate performances from both of the stars.
Now for the negatives: The minor characters' parts are a bit bland and/or unappealing: GloriaDeHaven plays a selfish brat, Carleton Carpenter barely registers despite his talents, Hans Conreid was creepy as the star of the show within the show, and Eddie Bracken and Ray Collins as Judy's wimpy fiancé and his overbearing dad are more annoying than funny. It's the writing more than the actors that's the problem, except for the biggest problem: I found Phil Silvers unwatchable. He starts off with an egregiously, jaw-droppingly offensive "Negro" accent on the "Dig Dig Dig" gospel type number, and then to make up for it, he does a white-trash hillbilly number with Kelly that would be too cheesy for Hee-Haw. Throughout the movie, he was grating without having the redeeming qualities of being funny.
The end of the movie was a bit of a let-down for me and it took a while for me to figure out why, but I think I have it: The best parts of the film for me were the farm scenes. Judy was fresh and vibrant, and the farm life was portrayed as extremely appealing --- like Dorothy Gale grown up, having realized that there is indeed no place like home. Then, by the end of the movie, Judy falls in love with Kelly and stars in his show, which is destined to be a hit. (If anyone thinks this is a spoiler, he needs to see more movie musicals.) And this is a bit sad for me, because the show biz types in the movie seemed either bland or selfish; when they registered at all, they were being recklessly destructive on the farm, or condescending toward the farmers. And the "show" itself, doesn't seem all that wonderful. More like a vaudeville montage. So while we are supposed to cheer that Judy is likely to leave the farm for show biz and run off with Kelly, I thought, "Well this is a damn shame!"
One final comment: this is the movie with Judy's "Get Happy" number in her fedora, tux jacket, black stockings and heels. And she looks 20 pounds skinnier and 20 years older in that number compared to the rest of the movie. It is vintage Judy and she does a great job --- but it doesn't seem like it fits the movie or her character. (Even the chorus boys in the number were not in the rest of the show.) I understand that the number was plopped in after the rest of the filming, to add some dazzle to the ending, and while it is dazzling, it didn't much help the cohesiveness of the movie and we do not believe for a second that Judy's farm spinster is the character suddenly creating this sophisticated persona.
So, while I liked the movie, a few parts of this film fell flat for me. But if you like Judy and Gene, then it is well worth seeing for that reason alone --- because they each do some of their best work, and are at their most appealing and attractive.
Madame Bovary (2000)
This movie is appropriately sexually explicit.
I don't think this really has a spoiler in it but I am just being careful! This is mostly a comment on commenter Lori's objections to the nudity in this version (she asks, where is there a reference to sexual techniques in the novel?), and also her objection to Rodolphe making Emma bleed during the rough sex. In fact, Flaubert suggests that Emma loses her virginity (not literally, but figuratively) to Rodolphe, not her husband Charles. By that I mean that after her wedding night, she is bored and unimpressed, while Charles is jaunty and energized the next morning. Then, after Emma has sex with Rodolphe, Flaubert notes that it is her turn to be newly energized, as she gallops around jauntily with her horse, and Rodolphe "mends his bridle", a sly figurative reference to her broken hymen, I believe. I think the bleeding suggests that Rodolphe has gone places that Charles never reached before, both sexually and emotionally for Emma.
Flaubert himself was prosecuted for writing explicit (for the day) sex scenes, as one where Emma strips naked for Leon and pounces on him, and another in which she uses words during sex (apparently "Oh God Oh God") that she previously had reserved only for prayer! Making this movie sexually explicit, therefore, is certainly in keeping with what Flaubert did.
Finally, several comments objected that this Emma wasn't very sympathetic. I don't believe Flaubert's Emma was intended to be very sympathetic. She was understandably bored and disappointed with the hand life dealt her being a woman and a peasant who was romantic at heart, and then stuck in a one-horse bourgeois backwater town with a clueless oaf for a husband. But she was selfish, dishonest, shallow, stupid and had God-awful cheesy taste in everything. This is realism, not romanticism, and Flaubert created no heroes --- just a cynic's view of real folks.