Top 50 Actresses, #3 - Ingrid Bergman: "Gaslight" (1944)

Movie Stats:
Released 1944 (USA)
American, in English
Director - George Cukor
Stars - Ingrid Bergman, Charales Boyer, Joseph Cotten

Plot Summary:
Ten years after the unsolved murder of her aunt, Paula Alquist (Bergman) returns to the woman’s home with her new husband, Gregory Anton (Boyer), a man with a secret. Cotten co-stars as Brian Cameron, a police employee who’s suspicious of Gregory. If you’ve ever heard the term “gaslighting,” it comes from this story.

Warnings:
Very minor violence.

Bad Stuff:
[SPOILER]
Gregory’s plot seems overly complicated. Once it was clear that Paula didn’t have the rubies, why all the mind games? Her house was vacant, why did he have to marry her to sneak into it? Who waits around 10 years to get his hands on some jewels? He must be the most patient criminal ever.
[SPOILER]

I didn’t find Brian’s motivation for getting so involved in the situation particularly believable.

Good Stuff:
The acting is excellent. I particularly enjoyed Boyer, Angela Lansbury (as the Antons’ impertinent maid, Nancy), and May Whitty (as the Antons’ nosy neighbor, Miss Thwaites).

I like how intense it is without the use of jump scares or physical violence.

Really enjoyed the costuming, set design & score.

About the Performance:
Bergman’s isn’t my favorite performance of the film, but she’s still very good. It’s rather heartbreaking to see her go from a deliriously happy young woman in love to a person questioning her own sanity, all in the space of a few months. Her confusion and emotional pain are palpable through the screen. I thought she chewed some scenery during the final confrontation scene, but apart from that, it was a fine piece of acting.

Other performances of Bergman’s I’ve reviewed: Notorious; Casablanca.

The Verdict:
This section will contain SPOILERS. I liked this film a lot. It’s not an easy watch. Gregory’s psychological and emotional torture of Paula is as difficult for the viewer to endure as it is for her. I really hated him, which is exactly what I was supposed to feel. I rooted hard for Brian to help Paula, for Paula to realize that Gregory was the problem, and for Gregory to get his comeuppance. I was engrossed. My husband came in partway through the film and, much to my surprise, became engrossed as well. Apart from my issues with the plot, my only problem with the film is I wondered if it was more thrilling before the term “gaslighting” became widespread. For me, it was never a question whether Paula was crazy. I knew that Gregory was the bad guy. Was that obvious back in the 40s? It’s difficult to say. Still, it’s a well-acted, tense movie.

I give it 4 stars.

Out and About: Bernardo Bay Trail (Lake Hodges)

A couple of weekends ago, my husband & I were thinking about taking a day trip but instead ended up choosing to do this hike in Escondido. The route we took was very easy (no elevation) and relatively short (perhaps 1 hour). It was a chilly morning, absolutely perfect for a hike. We enjoyed it immensely.

Beginning of the trail.

Hills in the distance.

Cactus "garden."

Lake Hodges perhaps doesn't look impressive to those of you who live in non-desert climates, but a friend told me recently that every time he's done this hike, there wasn't any water at all:

I loved how green the hills were. Come Fall, nothing will be green anymore. We've probably had just about as much rain as we're going to get this year:

Final shots:

Rocky hill.

A greener view of the lake.

Pretty trail shot.

Afterward, we drove over to Encinitas to ruin all the karma we built up during the hike with a visit to Betty's Pie Whole. If you're ever in SD county, I highly recommend it.

Top 50 Actresses, #4 - Olivia de Havilland: "The Heiress" (1949)

Movie Stats:
Released 1949 (USA)
American, in English (minor, non-translated French)
Director - William Wyler
Stars - Olivia de Havilland, Montgomery Clift, Ralph Richardson

Plot Summary:
In 19th century America, socially awkward heiress Catherine Sloper (de Havilland) seems destined for spinsterhood until she’s swept off her feet by the handsome, suave Morris Townsend (Clift). However, Catherine’s father, Dr. Austin Sloper (Richardson), believes that Morris is a fortune hunter.

Warnings:
None.

Bad Stuff:
The ending is rather abrupt & Clift's acting in that scene leaves much to be desired.

Good Stuff:
I liked that it didn’t try to present Catherine as undesirable because of her looks. I was worried it was going to try to force me to believe that Olivia de Havilland was an ugly woman. While they do make her look plain (quite well IMO), it’s more about how Catherine is shy & “unaccomplished,” one of the greatest sins for a lady back in the day.

It’s a lot more complex than it appears on the surface. It’s not just about whether or not Morris’s feelings for Catherine are genuine. There’s Austin’s contempt for his daughter, the emotional abuse Catherine endures, and her journey to becoming a strong, confident woman.

Everyone is really good, but I thought Richardson was particularly impressive as an outwardly loving father who truthfully loathes his daughter so much that he makes her into the very thing he loathes.

About the Performance:
The story calls for three distinct aspects of Catherine’s personality to be depicted: first, the shy, socially awkward girl who doesn’t know how to relate to her peers; second, the young woman in love; and lastly, the wounded adult, steely with resolve and strength. De Havilland is very believable in each of the film’s acts. I thought she was fantastic & felt a newfound sense of admiration for her.

Other performances of de Havilland’s I’ve reviewed: Gone with the Wind.

The Verdict:
I expected to like it, and it was even better than anticipated because it was far more complex. I thought it would be a simple story of “Is Morris a fortune hunter or isn’t he?” While that is part of the story, and a part that it does well, I think the more interesting stuff is Catherine’s relationship with her father, how she comes to understand that it’s toxic, and how she learns to stand up for herself. The costuming is eye-catching (Edith Head, of course. She won an Oscar for this film). All of the performances are excellent. (I read on IMDB that Clift hated himself so much in the film that he walked out of the premiere. Sometimes I wish I could go back in time & give that man a hug. He was such a tortured soul.) It’s by no means a happy film, or even particularly fun to watch—except for the part where Catherine & Morris are falling in love, which made me smile—but it’s fascinating. I couldn’t tear my eyes away from it.

I give it 4.25 stars.

Top 50 Actresses, #5 - Audrey Hepburn: "Wait Until Dark" (1967)

Movie Stats:
Released 1967 (USA)
American, in English
Director - Terence Young
Stars - Audrey Hepburn, Richard Crenna, Alan Arkin

Plot Summary:
Newly blind Susy Hendrix (Hepburn) is terrorized by a group of criminals—including Mike Talman (Crenna) & Roat (Arkin)—who are searching for a doll that is stuffed with heroin.

Warnings:
Violence.

Bad Stuff:
I thought the criminals’ plan was overly complicated. It was difficult to buy into the idea that they would bother with the theatrics when they were already [SPOILER] involved in one murder. Why wouldn’t they just kill Susy once it was clear she didn’t know where the doll was? Or take her hostage and force her husband to look for it? [SPOILER]

I felt that Talman and Carlino (Jack Weston) fell too easily under Roat’s control. [SPOILER] Once they helped him move the body, they could’ve gone back to the apartment and spent a few hours wiping everything down. They knew no one was there. With no body in the apartment, there was no reason for the police to be in there looking for fingerprints anyway. [SPOILER]

It’s not great at explaining things. For example, why does Roat call Carlino “sergeant” and why does he hate it? (I believe the movie implies here & in other places that he used to be a cop.) There were lots of little unanswered questions like this that annoyed me.

Good Stuff:
While I thought the plot was implausible, I enjoyed the cat & mouse quality of the film.

Really loved the costuming & set design, especially the costuming.

Arkin was absolutely chilling.

About the Performance:
I was skeptical of Hepburn playing a blind character, but I thought she did a good job. (It’s perhaps convenient that Susy is recently blind, so anything Hepburn did that seemed like something a sighted person might do could be hand-waved away.) The underlying message of the film is about Susy needing to learn how to take care of herself, rather than relying on others, and I thought she played it right. Susy is sometimes strong, shrewd, creative, and intelligent, and sometimes helplessly terrified, weak, and too trusting. It felt realistic to me, because in real life everyone is a mix of contradictions.

Other performances of Hepburn’s I’ve reviewed: My Fair Lady.

The Verdict:
For the most part, I liked it. Clearly, I feel that it has plot/story issues. It asks you to suspend a lot of disbelief, and I’m not sure that I’m willing to do that. However, I liked the tension that it created. It’s definitely a film that will keep you on the edge of your seat. The performances are very good. Plus, it’s a feast for the eyes. I’m not going to put it on a favorites list, but I’m glad that I saw this classic once.

I give it 3.75 stars.

Music Love: "Finish Line" by Daye Jack

*Explicit lyrics warning*

I heard this song in the first episode of the Netflix show "On My Block" and pretty much immediately went to iTunes & downloaded it. I absolutely love the funky beat, the cheeky sense of cockiness, and the funny lyrics. Also, Jack has a pretty smooth voice. It reminds me of the hip hop music I liked best from the 90s. He's so incredibly talented. I hope he blows up big, as he so rightly deserves.

Top 50 Actresses, #6 - Jane Fonda: "Klute" (1971)

Movie Stats:
Released 1971 (USA)
American, in English (minor, non-translated French)
Director - Alan J. Pakula
Stars - Jane Fonda, Donald Sutherland

Plot Summary:
Six months after the disappearance of his best friend, John Klute (Sutherland) is hired by the man’s wife to find him. The only lead is Bree Daniels (Fonda), a New York City prostitute.

Warnings:
Sexy times; brief female nudity (breasts only); blue language; drug use (marijuana); violence.

Bad Stuff:
The pace is very slow.

As a character, John Klute is an odd duck. The whole film, he showed almost no emotion. It’s like things happened around him while he simply existed.

I didn’t care for the repetitive use of the audio tape. It got annoying after a while, like, I get it, I heard it 5 times already.

Good Stuff:
I like how it portrayed Bree as a real person with a real life. She has career aspirations (actress/model), she talks to a therapist, her life is a bit lonely. She’s complex and flawed. While I sometimes found it a bit unrealistic, it was a nice change from how prostitutes are normally portrayed.

Fonda is excellent.

It features good, old-fashioned detective work. Klute solves the case through tenacity, determination, and hard work.

About the Performance:
As stated above, I think Fonda is phenomenal in this. In spite of the title, this is really her movie. She’s the main focus, and she carries most of the scenes, whether or not someone else is in them. Bree isn’t an easy person to understand, but Fonda makes her both likable and relatable. I was always rooting for her, even when, by her own admission, she was trying to sabotage things. Fonda really impressed.

Other performances of Fonda’s I’ve reviewed: Barbarella.

The Verdict:
I definitely liked it better than I thought I would. Since it’s a 70s movie, I was prepared to grit my teeth and bear it, but it didn’t annoy me in the way that 70s movies usually do. However, it did have the one fatal flaw I find in all 70s films: slow pacing. Holy cow! When it started, I was really into it. And then it seemed to just drag on and on and on, pulling itself down from a 4-star review into the 3s. I don’t think Sutherland was bad; I think he played the character the way he was supposed to, and I didn’t like the character. Fonda is the bright shining star. I also admire the film for making a prostitute a real, relatable person and for broaching topics that aren’t usually broached with sensitivity and openness. Also, I thought the mystery was pretty good.

I give it 3.5 stars.

Top 50 Actresses, #7 - Barbara Stanwyck: "Ball of Fire" (1941)

Movie Stats:
Released 1941 (USA)
American, in English
Director - Howard Hawks
Stars - Barbara Stanwyck, Gary Cooper

Plot Summary:
With the police on her trail, trying to bring down her mobster boyfriend, nightclub singer Katherine “Sugarpuss” O’Shea (Stanwyck) hides out with a group of professors—including Bertram Potts (Cooper)—who are writing an encyclopedia.

Warnings:
Minor violence.

Bad Stuff:
It’s a little too long.

There’s a fair bit of stereotyping, especially of academics.

One plot line sort of gets dropped/remains unresolved by the end of the film, which annoyed me.

Good Stuff:
I loved the spirit of this film. It’s very wholesome, fun-loving, and positive.

It’s funny & clever.

Everything about it is slick in the best sense. The costumes (especially Stanwyck’s), the set design, the music; all of it makes for a very cool film.

About the Performance:
Stanwyck is great in this role. Sugarpuss is a bit of a rough character. Like stuffy housekeeper Miss Bragg (Kathleen Howard), you don’t want to like Sugarpuss. She’s improper, she’s using the professors, and she leads “Pottsy” on. And yet, even when the character is at her worst, Stanwyck imbues her with a sense of warmth and charm that prevents you from hating her. She’s fun, she’s lively, and she’s on a journey of self-discovery. It’s enjoyable to watch her grow into the good person she’s always been.

Other performances of Stanwyck’s I’ve reviewed: Double Indemnity.

The Verdict:
I fell in love with this movie practically from the opening scene. There’s something about it that’s just so fun. I don’t typically use the word “wholesome” to describe something in a positive manner, but I mean it that way here. This film manages to be thoroughly entertaining, funny, and enjoyable without resorting to any sort of crudeness & virtually no slapstick. There are a few slightly racy jokes that would be considered very tame by today’s standards, but other than that it mostly relies on wit & wordplay. It’s definitely too long for my taste (I prefer my comedies short & sweet) but my other gripes are just that; simply small annoyances. Mostly, I would say that this film is a delight & would encourage absolutely anyone & everyone to watch it.

I give it 4.5 stars.

Up with Geography: Equatorial Guinea

Country Name:
Equatorial Guinea

Capital:
Malabo

Continent:
Africa

Maps:

African continent. Equatorial Guinea is the
small dark mark.

A close-up of Equatorial Guinea & its neighbors.

Neighbors:
Cameroon, Gabon

Water Borders:
Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Guinea, Campo River, Mitemele River

Total Area:
10,830 square miles

Five Largest Cities:
Bata, Malabo, Ebebiyin, Aconibe, Anisoc

Famous Geographical Point:
Mbini River

Famous Person:
Bibiana Martina Olama Mangue, Olympic track athlete

Book Set In/About:
Shadows of Your Black Memory by Donato Ndongo

In the dying days of Spanish rule, a young man in Equatorial Guinea reflects on his childhood, full of conflicts between his African & Spanish roots.

Movie Set In/About:
"Where the Road Runs Out" (2014), directed by Rudolf Buitendach

After the sudden death of a friend, a world-weary scientist returns to Africa to assume his friend's research position. Reviews of this film online are lukewarm, but it's the first-ever feature film to be shot in Equatorial Guinea, so it seemed the best choice.

Headline of the Day:
"Equatorial Guinea: Artist Freed from Prison" on freemuse.org.

He was jailed for six months on trumped-up counterfeit charges, likely because his artwork is critical of the government. Yikes.

Top 50 Actresses, #8 - Deborah Kerr: "The King and I" (1956)

Movie Stats:
Released 1956 (USA)
American, in English (minor, non-translated Thai)
Director - Walter Lang
Stars - Deborah Kerr, Yul Brynner

Plot Summary:
In the late 19th century, widow Anna Leonowens (Kerr) accepts a job as teacher to the King of Siam’s (Brynner) children.

Warnings:
None.

Bad Stuff:
It’s really kind of racist. If I’m to give it the benefit of the doubt, I would still say that it’s rather condescending toward the Thai people.

While I liked Anna, I didn’t find her characterization believable. She was far too independent & outspoken for a British lady of the 19th century. Honestly, even for a woman of the 1950s she came across too modern.

[SPOILER]
The King’s illness & death were weirdly abrupt.
[SPOILER]

Good Stuff:
If I ignore the fact that Brynner wasn’t Asian, I thought he was magnificent.

I loved the play sequence toward the end of the film, where the King's wives showcase their own interpretation of the book Uncle Tom’s Cabin for their British guests. It was absolutely beautiful. Also, I enjoyed how Tuptim (Rita Moreno), who adapted the book for the play, drew the parallel between her own experience & Eliza’s experience.

Underneath all the glitz and glamor, this story is about people learning and accepting each other’s cultures, which is a nice message.

About the Performance:
As I said, I don’t find the character of Anna particularly believable. Given the time period, her station in life, and her age, I don’t think she would be such an ardent feminist. However, that was the material Kerr had to work with, and I thought she did a good job of it. She’s beautiful and graceful, a true pleasure to see and hear. I also admire her ability to effectively act while dressed in such ridiculously large hoop skirts. Plus, her chemistry with Brynner crackled. She’s a large part of what gives the film the charm it needs to work.

Other performances of Kerr’s I’ve reviewed: From Here to Eternity.

The Verdict:
I liked it better than I thought I would. It handles the racial issues with about as much sensitivity one can expect out of a 1950s film, which isn’t much but I’ve seen worse. It’s a feast for the eyes, with its bright costumes and lush sets. The song & dance routines are fun. It’s also funnier than I anticipated (much of the humor is brought by Brynner), with some unexpectedly racy jokes. By no means do I think it was a great movie, but I didn’t think it was terrible either.

I give it 3.5 stars.

Top 50 Actresses, #9 - Vivien Leigh: "Waterloo Bridge" (1940)

Movie Stats:
Released 1940 (USA)
American, in English
Director - Mervyn LeRoy
Stars - Vivien Leigh, Robert Taylor, Virginia Field

Plot Summary:
On the eve of WWII, British officer Roy Cronin (Taylor) reflects on his lost love, ballerina Myra Lester (Leigh), who he met during WWI. Field co-stars as Kitty, Myra’s BFF.

Warnings:
None.

Bad Stuff:
I don’t care for plots that hinge upon a character’s complete inability to communicate properly. It’s a huge pet peeve of mine. If only Myra had been honest with Roy or his mother (Lady Margaret Cronin, played by Lucille Watson) at several key points of the film, she wouldn’t have met her tragic end.

The costuming is surprisingly bad. It’s almost like they didn’t try to make it look like it took place in the 1910s at all.

The racist good luck charm Myra & Roy share is pretty cringe-inducing.

Good Stuff:
I really liked that Myra wasn’t angelic or perfect or quirky or whatever trope you’d like to pick for a female romantic lead. Although she’s a pessimist/realist, she’s still very likable. It’s one of the few times I’ve seen a female lead that felt like a representation of me.

Kitty’s steadfast, unflinching friendship with Myra was very touching to me. She’s a true blue friend.

Loved the score.

About the Performance:
I’m very impressed by Leigh. She’s different in every role I’ve seen her in. As Myra, she has an almost ethereal quality (so different from Scarlett O’Hara). When she meets Roy, she’s already been battered enough by life that she’s not exactly optimistic about the future. Roy inspires that optimism in her again, and it’s a pleasure to watch Myra open up and blossom on-screen. Of course, just as she originally feared, it all comes to a terrible end (perhaps a self-fulfilling prophecy). Leigh is excellent at portraying all the complex layers of Myra’s personality.

Other performances of Leigh’s I’ve reviewed: A Streetcar Named Desire; Gone with the Wind.

The Verdict:
I liked this movie a lot more than I expected to. I thought, like many of the war movies of that era, it would be sentimental and overly dramatic, but it’s not. I wasn’t even bothered by the too-quick romance, because the characters themselves acknowledge that it’s all very rushed (as many war-time relationships were back then). My big problem lies with that old “I’m an adult who’s incapable of communicating” trope. I wish Hollywood would portray people having mature, effective conversations more frequently. I just wanted to shake Myra & tell her to stop being such a dumbass. Other than that, I enjoyed the film greatly. Leigh and Taylor had excellent chemistry. Everything that wasn’t trope-y was great. It was a nice counterpoint to Since You Went Away, showcasing a far less wholesome side of what it can be like for the women left behind during wartime.

I give it 4.5 stars.

Up with U.S. Geography: Iowa

State Name:
Iowa

Capital:
Des Moines

Date of Entry:
December 28, 1846

Maps:

Map of USA. Iowa outlined in dark ink & with
name written on it.

A close-up of Iowa & its neighbors.

Neighbors:
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Missouri, Nebraska, South Dakota

Water Borders:
Missouri River, Mississippi River

Total Area:
56,273 square miles

Five Largest Cities:
Des Moines, Cedar Rapids, Davenport, Sioux City, Iowa City

Famous Geographical Point:
Ocheyedan Mound

State Nickname:
The Hawkeye State. Named after famed Native American chief Black Hawk.

Famous Person:
Esther Pauline "Eppie" Lederer, aka "Ann Landers," advice columnist

Book Set In/About:
What's Eating Gilbert Grape by Peter Hedges

A young man, trapped in small-town Iowa by numerous responsibilities & dreaming only of escaping, begins to see his life in a new light.

Movie Set In/About:
"Field of Dreams" (1989), directed by Phil Alden Robinson

When an Iowa farmer begins to hear voices, he interprets their message to mean that he should build a baseball diamond in his corn field.

Headline of the Day:
"Iowa State May Dodge NBA Darling Mo Bamba When Cyclones Play Texas in Big 12 Tournament" in the Des Moines Register

Top 50 Actresses, #10 - Claudette Colbert: "Since You Went Away" (1944)

Movie Stats:
Released 1944 (USA)
American, in English (very minor, non-translated Yiddish)
Director - John Cromwell
Stars - Claudette Colbert, Jennifer Jones, Shirley Temple, Joseph Cotten, Monty Woolley

Plot Summary:
When her husband enlists in the military during WWII, Anne Hilton (Colbert) struggles to raise their two daughters Jane (Jones) & Brig (Temple) amid hardships. Cotten co-stars as family friend Lt. Tony Willett & Woolley as Col. William G. Smollett, the Hiltons’ lodger.

Warnings:
None.

Bad Stuff:
It’s too long.

Because it came out during the war, it’s very preachy, often exhorting viewers to do everything they can to help the war effort. Also, it occasionally feels like a non-fiction school film, like, “These are the hardships you may face during war time!”

It’s extremely sentimental.

Good Stuff:
The acting is phenomenal.

It does an excellent job portraying how Jane & Brig grow and mature as people.

I liked that it showed how deeply people yearn for connection. People always yearn for connection, but in times of war, it seems more poignant. One of my favorite scenes was when Jane & her love interest Bill (Robert Walker) have a chance encounter with Hal Smith (Guy Madison). They spend an evening together, becoming friends, knowing that they will never see one another again, as Hal is hours away from being shipped out & isn’t from the area. It really touched me, that Jane & Bill would give a stranger that camaraderie he needed before he went off to possibly die.

About the Performance:
Colbert was fantastic! Anne is a woman who’s never had to do a day’s work in her life. She’s a housewife who’s had domestic help (Fidelia, portrayed by Hattie McDaniel), so she doesn’t even really know how to cook or clean. But she’s not a spoiled person. It’s enjoyable to watch her adapt and persevere with strength, determination, and a positive attitude. I found her quite believable.

Other performances of Colbert’s I’ve reviewed: It Happened One Night.

The Verdict:
I will admit that this movie definitely got on my nerves sometimes, mostly because of how preachy and sentimental it was. It’s sickly sweet and wholesome. However, I appreciated seeing the “other side” of war. Most war films are about the soldiers and/or the countries actively affected by the battles. It was nice to see a different perspective: what it was like for people left behind at home, what sort of privations they faced and how they faced them. Really, though, what makes this film is the performances. I can’t think of a weak link in the bunch.

I give the film 3.75 stars.

Top 50 Actresses, #11 - Greta Garbo: "Ninotchka" (1939)

Movie Stats:
Released 1939 (USA)
American, in English (very minor, non-translated Russian)
Director - Ernst Lubitsch
Stars - Greta Garbo, Melvyn Douglas

Plot Summary:
When Russian special envoy “Ninotchka” Yakushova (Garbo) is sent to Paris in order to complete an assignment, all of her ideals are challenged by the debonair Count Leon d’Algout (Douglas).

Warnings:
Very minor violence.

Bad Stuff:
Ninotchka doesn’t seem so much stern and uncompromising as she does robotic.

One of my biggest problems with romantic films is that people fall in love too quickly. I realize it’s a constraint of film making, but when two people who barely have anything in common spend one afternoon together and then start declaring feelings, I can’t help but roll my eyes.

The stereotyping of both the Russians and the French made me uncomfortable.

Good Stuff:
Garbo and Douglas had great chemistry.

If I ignore the stereotyping, I thought it did a good job of portraying with sensitivity the ideals of someone who was deeply committed to Communism. This movie is pre-Red Scare, so rather than vilifying Communism, it pokes fun at it (it pokes some fun at Capitalism too) while actually explaining the tenets of the economic system.

The witty dialogue is fantastic.

About the Performance:
As I said above, I found Garbo’s performance toward the beginning of the film off-putting. Since I’m not terribly familiar with her work, I don’t know if that’s just her style of acting, or if that was the director’s choice for that portion of the story. Once her character “loosened up,” she was a lot more likable and I felt engaged by the performance. Not my favorite bit of acting ever, but not terrible either.

Other performances of Garbo’s I’ve reviewed: Grand Hotel.

The Verdict:
This is a pretty entertaining movie. It’s light-hearted and funny. I like the idea that two people from different cultures can meet and have a positive influence on one another (Leon also changes; perhaps not as much as Ninotchka, but there is change). I really loved the dialogue, and I thought the performances from Douglas and Ina Claire (as Leon’s original love interest, Grand Duchess Swana) were excellent. There are definite flaws, as noted above, but ultimately I finished viewing it with positive feelings.

I give it 3.75 stars.