Reviews

5 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Boom! (1968)
10/10
A film rich in its vulgarity - I love it
18 December 2003
When this film opened in 1968, most patrons at the cinema either walked out or stayed and scratched their heads. I came back to see it several times. Everything about it is delightfully overdone. Elizabeth Taylor, while too shrill, is wonderful to watch. I am not sure she understood the role she was playing, but she attacked the film with a lot of gusto. This signalled the end of the big Taylor-Burton films of the 1960s, and would be the death knell of Elizabeth Taylor as number one at the Box Office. In the 1970s, I managed to see this film several times on television, and I remember finding additional delights on re-viewing. I recommed this to all Elizabeth Taylor fans.
17 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
You didn't eat your dindin, Blanche
17 October 2003
I have seen this movie at least two dozen times, and I will see it at least that many times again. It's such a Bette Davis feast. Of course, she was nominated for an Oscar. And she should have won it! There was a lot of 'history' between Miss Davis and Miss Crawford going way back to the 1940s, when Crawford was let go from M-G-M and went to work at WB where Bette Davis was Queen of the lot. The stories behind the making of the film are as interesting as the movie, with Miss Crawford demanding the set be kept at a breezy 55 (but preservative) degrees causing all kinds of problems with Miss Davis's bronchitis. One only wonders how much 'acting' was involved as Miss Davis tortures Miss Crawford emotionally and, later, physically. Miss Crawford suffers grandly and has her mandatory telephone scene, big eyes tremulous with fear. She is great, but it is a Bette Davis tour-de-force and she wipes every other actor off the screen. Full 10 of 10 for this one, and recommended to everyone who wants to see what the great actresses of the 1930s and 1940s could and would still do, albeit in minor-A productions, as the requests for their services dwindled, but wanted to keep on working.
83 out of 96 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Another triumph for Bette Davis
7 August 2003
Another Oscar nomination for Bette Davis, and why not? Nobody did as much as Bette did with the little she was often given. Nobody probably could have. Not a particularly good film, but oddly enough it's interesting, with some compelling moments, based on sheer Bette Davis star power alone. It's great to see the beautiful young Bette as a young Fanny Trellis turn into a hideous Fanny Skeffington as a result of a serious bout with diphtheria. The transformation is quite wonderful, every slightest gesture carefully orchestrated. Unfortunately for Bette, she grew into her Fanny Skeffington look in real life. If you love Bette Davis or the early movies of the 1940s, you will want to see this.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
In 2003, it's tame now; but, in 1959 this was daring stuff
15 June 2003
I saw this film as a young teen and really had no idea what the film was about. I recall having been impressed with the dialogue, the sumptious overripe photography and the beauty of Elizabeth Taylor. When I grew up and saw it later, it became one of my favourite films. The film was adapted by Gore Vidal from Tennessee William's novella. The whole story revolves around cousin Sebastian Venable who had been using his mother, Violet (Katharine Hepburn), to attract the company of men. When her charms waned, he chose to use his cousin, Catherine Holly (Elizabeth Taylor), for the same purposes. Sebastian meets a gruesome end witnessed by Catherine. This sets up the story whereby Violet wants to have Catherine lobotomized for the strange tales she has been telling about the circumstances of Sebastian's death. Katharine Hepburn is never so strong as when she is antagonized. Everything about her performance suggests imperial corruption. Her clipped, monotome line readings are hypnotic. It is one of her great performance, and she was nominated for an Oscar for it. Elizabeth Taylor is even better. Here she has never been photographed more lovingly, nor has she ever looked as ravishing. Miss Taylor's strength as an actress favours roles where she is on the defensive. Here fighting for her sanity, she drawns upon all her instinctive resources. She went up against Katharine Hepburn for the best actress oscar and split the vote (although Elizabeth Taylor won the Golden Globe.) Montgomery Clift is painful to watch, after his disfiguring car accident. Mercedes McCambridge, always good as a sycophant scores as well. The best of the movie is the dialogue which is absolutely resonant, either breathily uttered by Tayor or crispily by Hepburn. This is not a film that will win a lot of fans because it deals with themes of homosexuality, cannibalism, incest, etc., and it has to do so with a 1950s sensibility. Fans of Taylor and Hepburn (this is the first time Hepburn ever took second billing to another actress) must see this. Anyone who is interested in films that deal with ideas rather than action might love this. I did.
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
From where I'm standing, I could spit...right in your eye
11 June 2003
And spit, Bette Davis does in this would-be follow-up to WHATEVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE? Joan Crawford came down with lung problems and her role was offered to Vivien Leigh. (I could just about stand working with Joan Crawford, but to get up every morning and look Bette Davis in the face, uh uh.) Old Warner's pal, Olivia de Havilland subbed for Joan Crawford in the end. Throw in Agnes Moorehead as Miss Davis's slightly feeble-brained maid and Mary Astor (who worked with Bette Davis in THE GREAT LIE and won an Oscar for it) and you have the makings of lots of fun. No it is not the wonderful film that BABY JANE was, but it is an important film any way. This was an unusual time for the great actresses of the 1930s and 40s who wanted to work. The only thing available to them at that time was lead roles in this horror/slasher genre. The first half of the movie is excellent for this type of thing, but the second half submits to gimmicks that only partially succeed. Nevertheless, the actresses are all memorably watchable, if not excessively over-the-top. Also on hand, the great Joseph Cotten, as well as George Kennedy, Cecil Kellaway, Ellen Corby (they're dropping like flies), etc. Should you see it? Definitely! They don't make them like this any more (they don't have that kind of talent any more!)
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed