Following the example of my Sci Fi Movie Project, I thought I would wrap-up the Top 50 Actresses Project with some final thoughts. Before I started the project, I guessed what rating I would give each movie. So first, here are a few stats related to those guesses.
Out of the 50 movies reviewed for this project:
4 movies, I guessed my rating accurately
15 movies, I was within a quarter star (plus or minus)
15 movies, I was within half a star (plus or minus)
9 movies, I was within three-quarters of a star (plus or minus)
3 movies, I was within 1 star (plus or minus)
4 movies, I was within 1+ stars (plus or minus)
Biggest difference in the positive: It’s a 3-way tie between The Country Girl (I guessed 3, gave it 4), The Killers (same as Country Girl), and Ball of Fire (I guessed 3.5, gave it 4.5).
Biggest difference in the negative: The Quiet Man, which I guessed I would give 4 stars. I gave it .25 star. I still really hate that movie. Even remembering it makes me angry.
I was more likely to guess low than high. Of the movies in which my guesses were inaccurate, I gave 26 a higher rating than I guessed. That means I gave only 20 a lower rating than I guessed.
I feel that I was more accurate than not. I think guessing within half a star is pretty good. 34 of my guesses were either spot on, or within a half star. Only 16 were wrong by more than half a star.
I enjoyed this project and felt that it was very successful. In fact, out of 50 movies, I gave 27 a rating of 4 stars or higher. That means I felt that 54% of the movies were excellent. That’s far better than any other movie project I’ve undertaken. The Oscars project is a distant second, with a current percentage of 43% of films rated 4 stars or higher.
I attribute this huge jump in enjoyment to the fact that I got to choose which films I watched, and I gave myself a lot of flexibility in those choices. While I tried to watch Oscar-winning performances, if there was a film I simply didn’t feel like watching, I chose something else. I do feel that there were some actresses who didn’t belong on the list (ex: Barbra Streisand, Marilyn Monroe, Julia Roberts). Since it was a publicly generated list, it was, to some extent, a popularity contest.
However, in a general sense, I thought it was a pretty solid list. I liked the aspect of watching the films in order to focus on a specific performance. In the end, I felt like I got to see a lot of great films & become acquainted with some performers with whom I was previously unfamiliar.
I’m looking forward to doing the same for the Top 50 Actors, which will be my next project.
Showing posts with label Top 50 Actresses. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Top 50 Actresses. Show all posts
Thursday, September 20, 2018
Wednesday, September 12, 2018
Top 50 Actresses: Master List of Reviews and Scores
Here it is, my full list of scores and reviews. The list goes from my favorite to my least favorite. In cases where films share the same score, I’ve listed them based on personal preference. Special weight was given to how I viewed each actress’s performance in her respective film, so these rankings have more to do with that than with how much I enjoyed the film as a whole. For example, the first 4.5 star review you see is my favorite of the 4.5 star performances.
Note: As I was compiling the list, there were some movies/performances that I could no longer recall very well, which led to me placing them lower on the list, even though I may have really liked them when I originally wrote the review. I figure, if I don't remember it, it couldn't have been that great of a performance.
1. Marlene Dietrich - Witness for the Prosecution, 4.5
2. Judi Dench - Philomena, 4.5
3. Halle Berry - Monster’s Ball, 4.5
4. Judy Garland - A Star Is Born, 4.5
5. Barbara Stanwyck - Ball of Fire, 4.5
6. Vivien Leigh - Waterloo Bridge, 4.5
7. Mary Pickford - Stella Maris, 4.25
8. Susan Hayward - I Want to Live!, 4.25
9. Olivia de Havilland - The Heiress, 4.25
10. Shirley MacLaine - What a Way to Go!, 4.25
11. Angelina Jolie - Changeling, 4.25
12. Meryl Streep - Sophie’s Choice, 4.25
13. Joan Fontaine - Suspicion, 4.25
14. Sandra Bullock - The Blind Side, 4.25
15. Julia Roberts - Erin Brockovich, 4.25
16. Elizabeth Taylor - Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, 4
17. Kate Winslet - The Reader, 4
18. Cate Blanchett - Blue Jasmine, 4
19. Bette Davis - Jezebel, 4
20. Reese Witherspoon - Legally Blonde, 4
21. Grace Kelly - The Country Girl, 4
22. Ingrid Bergman - Gaslight, 4
23. Natalie Wood - Splendor in the Grass, 4
24. Myrna Loy - The Thin Man, 4
25. Joan Crawford - Mildred Pierce, 4
26. Carole Lombard - To Be or Not to Be, 4
27. Ava Gardner - The Killers, 4
28. Audrey Hepburn - Wait Until Dark, 3.75
29. Greta Garbo - Ninotchka, 3.75
30. Claudette Colbert - Since You Went Away, 3.75
31. Jean Arthur - The Devil and Miss Jones, 3.75
32. Rita Hayworth - Gilda, 3.75
33. Nicole Kidman - The Hours, 3.5
34. Jane Fonda - Klute, 3.5
35. Katharine Hepburn - The Lion in Winter, 3.5
36. Deborah Kerr - The King and I, 3.5
37. Lauren Bacall - To Have and Have Not, 3.5
38. Doris Day - Pillow Talk, 3.25
39. Mae West - My Little Chickadee, 3.25
40. Ginger Rogers - Kitty Foyle, 3.25
41. Sally Field - Norma Rae, 3
42. Natalie Portman - Black Swan, 3
43. Sophia Loren - Two Women, 3
44. Marilyn Monroe - The Misfits, 3
45. Barbra Streisand - Funny Girl, 3
46. Jodie Foster - Inside Man, 2.75
47. Diane Keaton - Reds, 2.75
48. Julie Andrews - Thoroughly Modern Millie, 2.75
49. Jean Harlow - The Public Enemy, 2.25
50. Maureen O’Hara - The Quiet Man, .25
Note: As I was compiling the list, there were some movies/performances that I could no longer recall very well, which led to me placing them lower on the list, even though I may have really liked them when I originally wrote the review. I figure, if I don't remember it, it couldn't have been that great of a performance.
1. Marlene Dietrich - Witness for the Prosecution, 4.5
2. Judi Dench - Philomena, 4.5
3. Halle Berry - Monster’s Ball, 4.5
4. Judy Garland - A Star Is Born, 4.5
5. Barbara Stanwyck - Ball of Fire, 4.5
6. Vivien Leigh - Waterloo Bridge, 4.5
7. Mary Pickford - Stella Maris, 4.25
8. Susan Hayward - I Want to Live!, 4.25
9. Olivia de Havilland - The Heiress, 4.25
10. Shirley MacLaine - What a Way to Go!, 4.25
11. Angelina Jolie - Changeling, 4.25
12. Meryl Streep - Sophie’s Choice, 4.25
13. Joan Fontaine - Suspicion, 4.25
14. Sandra Bullock - The Blind Side, 4.25
15. Julia Roberts - Erin Brockovich, 4.25
16. Elizabeth Taylor - Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, 4
17. Kate Winslet - The Reader, 4
18. Cate Blanchett - Blue Jasmine, 4
19. Bette Davis - Jezebel, 4
20. Reese Witherspoon - Legally Blonde, 4
21. Grace Kelly - The Country Girl, 4
22. Ingrid Bergman - Gaslight, 4
23. Natalie Wood - Splendor in the Grass, 4
24. Myrna Loy - The Thin Man, 4
25. Joan Crawford - Mildred Pierce, 4
26. Carole Lombard - To Be or Not to Be, 4
27. Ava Gardner - The Killers, 4
28. Audrey Hepburn - Wait Until Dark, 3.75
29. Greta Garbo - Ninotchka, 3.75
30. Claudette Colbert - Since You Went Away, 3.75
31. Jean Arthur - The Devil and Miss Jones, 3.75
32. Rita Hayworth - Gilda, 3.75
33. Nicole Kidman - The Hours, 3.5
34. Jane Fonda - Klute, 3.5
35. Katharine Hepburn - The Lion in Winter, 3.5
36. Deborah Kerr - The King and I, 3.5
37. Lauren Bacall - To Have and Have Not, 3.5
38. Doris Day - Pillow Talk, 3.25
39. Mae West - My Little Chickadee, 3.25
40. Ginger Rogers - Kitty Foyle, 3.25
41. Sally Field - Norma Rae, 3
42. Natalie Portman - Black Swan, 3
43. Sophia Loren - Two Women, 3
44. Marilyn Monroe - The Misfits, 3
45. Barbra Streisand - Funny Girl, 3
46. Jodie Foster - Inside Man, 2.75
47. Diane Keaton - Reds, 2.75
48. Julie Andrews - Thoroughly Modern Millie, 2.75
49. Jean Harlow - The Public Enemy, 2.25
50. Maureen O’Hara - The Quiet Man, .25
Monday, September 10, 2018
Top 50 Actresses, #1 - Bette Davis: "Jezebel" (1938)
Movie Stats:
Released 1938 (USA)
American, in English (minor, non-translated French)
Director - William Wyler
Stars - Bette Davis, Henry Fonda, George Brent
Plot Summary:
In 1850s New Orleans, headstrong Julie Marsden (Davis) likes to play games with her suitors, resulting in both personal disappointment & shared tragedy. Fonda co-stars as Julie’s suitor, Preston “Pres” Dillard & Brent as another suitor, Buck Cantrell.
Warnings:
Minor violence.
Bad Stuff:
I could’ve done without the racist slave caricatures.
The story is a bit inaccessible. There’s a lot going on. There’s southern social dynamics, the north/south divide (already contentious in the 1850s), and a yellow fever epidemic. Little of that is relatable to a modern audience.
The constant insinuations that all Julie needs is a good beating raised every one of my hackles.
Good Stuff:
Julie is a complex heroine. On the one hand, she’s mean & genuinely awful to everyone around her. On the other, you kind of get why. I mean, [SPOILER] her fiancé breaks up with her because she wears a red dress (instead of virginal white) to a party, which is pretty stupid. [SPOILER] She’s a woman ahead of her time, and that frustrates her, which makes her lash out.
Henry Fonda is very good.
Loved the costuming. Gorgeous!
About the Performance:
Davis is great, of course. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a performance of hers that I haven’t liked. She’s so expressive. Even when Julie is behaving her worst, Davis plays her in such a way that you can feel the inner pain & frustration that cause her to act like that. It’s very masterfully done.
Other performances of Davis’s I’ve reviewed: About About Eve
The Verdict:
I didn’t particularly care for the subject matter, but I thought it was well done. Most of the acting was excellent. I particularly enjoyed how Fonda played it — you could practically feel him seething with rage, rage that he never expresses because it’s not the gentlemanly thing to do. Also, shout out to Spring Byington, as Davis’s aunt, who alternately amused and annoyed me with her fussing and nitpicking. Although I didn’t find the ending believable, I liked it. It felt very poetic, and as open endings go, it seemed right. I liked that I could decide how it inevitably played out. [SPOILER] I’m a realist, so I think they both died of yellow fever. [SPOILER] There’s a lot of nuance to this film, in the dialogue, the subject matter, and the performances. The more I think about it, the more I liked it.
I give it 4 stars.
Released 1938 (USA)
American, in English (minor, non-translated French)
Director - William Wyler
Stars - Bette Davis, Henry Fonda, George Brent
Plot Summary:
In 1850s New Orleans, headstrong Julie Marsden (Davis) likes to play games with her suitors, resulting in both personal disappointment & shared tragedy. Fonda co-stars as Julie’s suitor, Preston “Pres” Dillard & Brent as another suitor, Buck Cantrell.
Warnings:
Minor violence.
Bad Stuff:
I could’ve done without the racist slave caricatures.
The story is a bit inaccessible. There’s a lot going on. There’s southern social dynamics, the north/south divide (already contentious in the 1850s), and a yellow fever epidemic. Little of that is relatable to a modern audience.
The constant insinuations that all Julie needs is a good beating raised every one of my hackles.
Good Stuff:
Julie is a complex heroine. On the one hand, she’s mean & genuinely awful to everyone around her. On the other, you kind of get why. I mean, [SPOILER] her fiancé breaks up with her because she wears a red dress (instead of virginal white) to a party, which is pretty stupid. [SPOILER] She’s a woman ahead of her time, and that frustrates her, which makes her lash out.
Henry Fonda is very good.
Loved the costuming. Gorgeous!
About the Performance:
Davis is great, of course. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a performance of hers that I haven’t liked. She’s so expressive. Even when Julie is behaving her worst, Davis plays her in such a way that you can feel the inner pain & frustration that cause her to act like that. It’s very masterfully done.
Other performances of Davis’s I’ve reviewed: About About Eve
The Verdict:
I didn’t particularly care for the subject matter, but I thought it was well done. Most of the acting was excellent. I particularly enjoyed how Fonda played it — you could practically feel him seething with rage, rage that he never expresses because it’s not the gentlemanly thing to do. Also, shout out to Spring Byington, as Davis’s aunt, who alternately amused and annoyed me with her fussing and nitpicking. Although I didn’t find the ending believable, I liked it. It felt very poetic, and as open endings go, it seemed right. I liked that I could decide how it inevitably played out. [SPOILER] I’m a realist, so I think they both died of yellow fever. [SPOILER] There’s a lot of nuance to this film, in the dialogue, the subject matter, and the performances. The more I think about it, the more I liked it.
I give it 4 stars.
Monday, April 2, 2018
Top 50 Actresses, #2 - Barbra Streisand: "Funny Girl" (1968)
Movie Stats:
Released 1968 (USA)
American, in English (very minor, non-translated French)
Director - William Wyler
Stars - Barbra Streisand, Omar Sharif
Plot Summary:
A biopic, of sorts, of famed Ziegfeld Follies comedienne Fanny Brice (Streisand), specifically focusing on her relationship with Nick Arnstein (Sharif).
Warnings:
Implied sexy times.
Bad Stuff:
I’m sure I’ve complained about this before, but there’s something about the way many 1960s movies were filmed or produced or whatever that they always feel like 1960s films, no matter the time period they’re portraying. I find it super distracting.
I was really disappointed that the film focused so heavily on Fanny’s relationship with Nick. I was more interested in her career. I particularly disliked how it romanticized that relationship (in real life, he was a con artist & a crook). Also, he was her second husband. The film not only fails to mention that, it implies that Nick took her virginity.
I watch a lot of old films, so it’s not as though I’m unused to seeing misogyny, but it seemed particularly rampant in this.
Good Stuff:
It has some genuinely funny moments.
Streisand is a delight.
I loved the big musical numbers set in the Ziegfeld Follies.
About the Performance:
As I said above, Streisand is so much fun to watch in this. She truly commands the screen. However, at no point does she actually “feel” like a woman from the early 20th century, especially not when she wisecracks. I never forgot that I was watching Barbra Streisand playing a character. I’ve only seen a few of her films, but I don’t recall getting that impression of her from the others I’ve seen, so I’m not maligning her as an actress in general. However, I’m not convinced this was her strongest performance, and I certainly don’t consider it worth the Oscar she won for it. (IMDB tells me she tied with K. Hepburn for her performance in The Lion in Winter. K. Hepburn was robbed.)
Other performances of Streisand’s I’ve reviewed: none.
The Verdict:
I had a lot of problems with it. Most of them are listed above. I’ll add another: it’s way too long (nearly 3 hours). Look, I like Streisand. She’s funny, she has a commanding presence, she lights up the screen, and her singing voice is phenomenal. But I didn’t find her believable as Fanny Brice, and I didn’t find the film believable as a portrayal of early 20th century America. I’m glad I saw this in a “got that famous film checked off the list” sort of way, but I doubt I’ll ever feel compelled to watch it again.
I give it 3 stars.
Released 1968 (USA)
American, in English (very minor, non-translated French)
Director - William Wyler
Stars - Barbra Streisand, Omar Sharif
Plot Summary:
A biopic, of sorts, of famed Ziegfeld Follies comedienne Fanny Brice (Streisand), specifically focusing on her relationship with Nick Arnstein (Sharif).
Warnings:
Implied sexy times.
Bad Stuff:
I’m sure I’ve complained about this before, but there’s something about the way many 1960s movies were filmed or produced or whatever that they always feel like 1960s films, no matter the time period they’re portraying. I find it super distracting.
I was really disappointed that the film focused so heavily on Fanny’s relationship with Nick. I was more interested in her career. I particularly disliked how it romanticized that relationship (in real life, he was a con artist & a crook). Also, he was her second husband. The film not only fails to mention that, it implies that Nick took her virginity.
I watch a lot of old films, so it’s not as though I’m unused to seeing misogyny, but it seemed particularly rampant in this.
Good Stuff:
It has some genuinely funny moments.
Streisand is a delight.
I loved the big musical numbers set in the Ziegfeld Follies.
About the Performance:
As I said above, Streisand is so much fun to watch in this. She truly commands the screen. However, at no point does she actually “feel” like a woman from the early 20th century, especially not when she wisecracks. I never forgot that I was watching Barbra Streisand playing a character. I’ve only seen a few of her films, but I don’t recall getting that impression of her from the others I’ve seen, so I’m not maligning her as an actress in general. However, I’m not convinced this was her strongest performance, and I certainly don’t consider it worth the Oscar she won for it. (IMDB tells me she tied with K. Hepburn for her performance in The Lion in Winter. K. Hepburn was robbed.)
Other performances of Streisand’s I’ve reviewed: none.
The Verdict:
I had a lot of problems with it. Most of them are listed above. I’ll add another: it’s way too long (nearly 3 hours). Look, I like Streisand. She’s funny, she has a commanding presence, she lights up the screen, and her singing voice is phenomenal. But I didn’t find her believable as Fanny Brice, and I didn’t find the film believable as a portrayal of early 20th century America. I’m glad I saw this in a “got that famous film checked off the list” sort of way, but I doubt I’ll ever feel compelled to watch it again.
I give it 3 stars.
Friday, March 30, 2018
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 27, 2018
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.
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.
Friday, March 23, 2018
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.
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.
Monday, March 19, 2018
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.
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.
Friday, March 16, 2018
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.
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.
Monday, March 12, 2018
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.
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.
Friday, March 9, 2018
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.
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.
Monday, March 5, 2018
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.
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.
Friday, March 2, 2018
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.
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.
Monday, February 26, 2018
Top 50 Actresses, #12 - Jean Arthur: "The Devil and Miss Jones" (1941)
Movie Stats:
Released 1941 (USA)
American, in English
Director - Sam Wood
Stars - Jean Arthur, Charles Coburn, Spring Byington, Robert Cummings
Plot Summary:
When the employees of a department store he owns begin agitating for unionization, wealthy John P. Merrick (Coburn) goes undercover in the shoe department in order to pinpoint the organizers. Soon, however, he becomes enmeshed in their lives. Arthur co-stars as shoe department employee Mary Jones; Byington as store employee/Mary’s friend Elizabeth Ellis; and Cummings as former store employee/Mary’s boyfriend Joe O’Brien.
Warnings:
Very minor violence.
Bad Stuff:
Once again, I’m not terribly pleased to see a film that includes the message to women: “it’s okay that he lies to you as long as he’s rich (and/or handsome).”
The “reaction scene,” where Mary, Elizabeth, and Joe discover J.P.’s true identity, is so ridiculously over-the-top that it nearly ruined the whole movie for me. It’s probably meant to be funny but it didn’t have me laughing.
At only an hour and a half, it still feels too long.
Good Stuff:
I was very relieved that it went with a father-daughter type relationship between J.P. & Mary, instead pairing J.P. with the much more age appropriate Elizabeth.
I enjoyed its sweetness. Ultimately, this film is about overcoming one’s own biases.
I really liked the score and the costuming.
About the Performance:
Arthur is an actress that I feel rather lukewarm about. I’ve seen a handful of her performances. She hasn’t wowed in any of them. I felt the same way about this one. She’s not bad, but at the end I didn’t have that, “I love her!” feeling I have about the actors I like best. One thing I will say about her is that she definitely isn’t one-note. In this, she’s sweet and bubbly. In Mr. Smith, she’s cynical and brash. In Shane, she’s tough as nails. So I do admire that she had range.
Other performances of Arthur’s I’ve reviewed: Shane; Mr. Smith Goes to Washington; You Can’t Take It with You.
The Verdict:
To be honest, I thought it was pretty simplistic and naive. It’s total fantasy in that no wealthy man would actually do what J.P. does and even if he did, I don’t think he would have the total change of heart that J.P. has. Also, it definitely romanticizes the “common man” and his plight. However, it was nice to watch something light, fun, and good-hearted. It’s a sweet little film. The performances are all satisfactory. I particularly enjoyed Coburn, Byington & S.Z. Sakall (as J.P.’s butler, George). I liked the gentle fun it pokes at the ultra wealthy & its exploration of class issues, even if that exploration was simplistic.
I give it 3.75 stars.
Released 1941 (USA)
American, in English
Director - Sam Wood
Stars - Jean Arthur, Charles Coburn, Spring Byington, Robert Cummings
Plot Summary:
When the employees of a department store he owns begin agitating for unionization, wealthy John P. Merrick (Coburn) goes undercover in the shoe department in order to pinpoint the organizers. Soon, however, he becomes enmeshed in their lives. Arthur co-stars as shoe department employee Mary Jones; Byington as store employee/Mary’s friend Elizabeth Ellis; and Cummings as former store employee/Mary’s boyfriend Joe O’Brien.
Warnings:
Very minor violence.
Bad Stuff:
Once again, I’m not terribly pleased to see a film that includes the message to women: “it’s okay that he lies to you as long as he’s rich (and/or handsome).”
The “reaction scene,” where Mary, Elizabeth, and Joe discover J.P.’s true identity, is so ridiculously over-the-top that it nearly ruined the whole movie for me. It’s probably meant to be funny but it didn’t have me laughing.
At only an hour and a half, it still feels too long.
Good Stuff:
I was very relieved that it went with a father-daughter type relationship between J.P. & Mary, instead pairing J.P. with the much more age appropriate Elizabeth.
I enjoyed its sweetness. Ultimately, this film is about overcoming one’s own biases.
I really liked the score and the costuming.
About the Performance:
Arthur is an actress that I feel rather lukewarm about. I’ve seen a handful of her performances. She hasn’t wowed in any of them. I felt the same way about this one. She’s not bad, but at the end I didn’t have that, “I love her!” feeling I have about the actors I like best. One thing I will say about her is that she definitely isn’t one-note. In this, she’s sweet and bubbly. In Mr. Smith, she’s cynical and brash. In Shane, she’s tough as nails. So I do admire that she had range.
Other performances of Arthur’s I’ve reviewed: Shane; Mr. Smith Goes to Washington; You Can’t Take It with You.
The Verdict:
To be honest, I thought it was pretty simplistic and naive. It’s total fantasy in that no wealthy man would actually do what J.P. does and even if he did, I don’t think he would have the total change of heart that J.P. has. Also, it definitely romanticizes the “common man” and his plight. However, it was nice to watch something light, fun, and good-hearted. It’s a sweet little film. The performances are all satisfactory. I particularly enjoyed Coburn, Byington & S.Z. Sakall (as J.P.’s butler, George). I liked the gentle fun it pokes at the ultra wealthy & its exploration of class issues, even if that exploration was simplistic.
I give it 3.75 stars.
Friday, February 23, 2018
Top 50 Actresses, #13 - Katharine Hepburn: "The Lion in Winter" (1968)
Movie Stats:
Released 1968 (USA)
American & British, in English
Director - Anthony Harvey
Stars - Peter O’Toole, Katharine Hepburn
Plot Summary:
Based on historical events, at Christmas time in 1183, King Henry II (O’Toole) and his wife Eleanor of Aquitaine (Hepburn) scheme against one another; each of them wants a different son to inherit the throne upon Henry’s death.
Warnings:
Violence; very minor gore.
Bad Stuff:
All the arguing & scheming gets pretty tedious after a while.
They don’t really talk to one another like I suspect people talked in the 12th century. It’s not like I wanted to listen to a whole bunch of “thou hast forsaken me” or what have you, but I don’t want to hear a bunch of people in medieval garb talk like they’re from the 1960s either.
It’s quite melodramatic at times.
Good Stuff:
The love-hate relationship between Henry and Eleanor is fun to watch in a schadenfreude sort of way.
There’s a lot of delicious verbal sparring.
Loved the costuming and set design.
About the Performance:
I don’t think it’s any great secret that I’m not a fan of K. Hepburn. There’s something very snooty tooty about her that she brought to a lot of her roles (in fact, she played a lot of snooty tooty characters). I find her off-putting and one note. That being said, I thought she was excellent in this. Her character is conniving, vicious, and manipulative, but only because she’s a deeply wounded, lonely creature. Hepburn conveys that very well.
Other performances of Hepburn’s I’ve reviewed: Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner; The African Queen; The Philadelphia Story; Bringing Up Baby.
The Verdict:
This film had all the hall marks of a movie I would hate. It’s from the 1960s, stars an actress I don’t like, and covers a topic I have little interest in (old school British royal succession). Surprisingly, however, I thought it wasn’t that bad. While I did find it somewhat tedious/boring, and occasionally melodramatic, it was a lot more interesting than I expected. All of the performances were great (except I didn’t care for Nigel Terry as Prince John). O’Toole & Hepburn were particularly good. I also appreciated that it assumes its audience is intelligent, that we know who these people are and what their history is. My knowledge of this time period is somewhat limited, so it encouraged me to look things up, which I liked.
I give it 3.5 stars.
Released 1968 (USA)
American & British, in English
Director - Anthony Harvey
Stars - Peter O’Toole, Katharine Hepburn
Plot Summary:
Based on historical events, at Christmas time in 1183, King Henry II (O’Toole) and his wife Eleanor of Aquitaine (Hepburn) scheme against one another; each of them wants a different son to inherit the throne upon Henry’s death.
Warnings:
Violence; very minor gore.
Bad Stuff:
All the arguing & scheming gets pretty tedious after a while.
They don’t really talk to one another like I suspect people talked in the 12th century. It’s not like I wanted to listen to a whole bunch of “thou hast forsaken me” or what have you, but I don’t want to hear a bunch of people in medieval garb talk like they’re from the 1960s either.
It’s quite melodramatic at times.
Good Stuff:
The love-hate relationship between Henry and Eleanor is fun to watch in a schadenfreude sort of way.
There’s a lot of delicious verbal sparring.
Loved the costuming and set design.
About the Performance:
I don’t think it’s any great secret that I’m not a fan of K. Hepburn. There’s something very snooty tooty about her that she brought to a lot of her roles (in fact, she played a lot of snooty tooty characters). I find her off-putting and one note. That being said, I thought she was excellent in this. Her character is conniving, vicious, and manipulative, but only because she’s a deeply wounded, lonely creature. Hepburn conveys that very well.
Other performances of Hepburn’s I’ve reviewed: Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner; The African Queen; The Philadelphia Story; Bringing Up Baby.
The Verdict:
This film had all the hall marks of a movie I would hate. It’s from the 1960s, stars an actress I don’t like, and covers a topic I have little interest in (old school British royal succession). Surprisingly, however, I thought it wasn’t that bad. While I did find it somewhat tedious/boring, and occasionally melodramatic, it was a lot more interesting than I expected. All of the performances were great (except I didn’t care for Nigel Terry as Prince John). O’Toole & Hepburn were particularly good. I also appreciated that it assumes its audience is intelligent, that we know who these people are and what their history is. My knowledge of this time period is somewhat limited, so it encouraged me to look things up, which I liked.
I give it 3.5 stars.
Monday, February 19, 2018
Top 50 Actresses, #14 - Kate Winslet: "The Reader" (2008)
Movie Stats:
Released 2008 (USA)
American & German, in English (minor, non-translated German, Greek & Latin)
Director - Stephen Daldry
Stars - Kate Winslet, Ralph Fiennes, David Kross
Plot Summary:
Michael Berg reflects on Hanna Schmitz (Winslet), the older woman with whom he had a sexual relationship as a teenager & who later went on trial for WWII-era war crimes. Fiennes plays Berg as an adult; Kross plays the young Berg.
Warnings:
Full nudity of both men & women; sexy times (most of it would be considered statutory rape in a modern setting).
Bad Stuff:
Kross is the weak link of the cast. I thought he did a fine job as a naive 15-year-old, but later in the film, when he’s college-aged & the script called for heavier, more serious acting, he wasn’t good.
This is nitpicky, but it drove me nuts that this is set in Germany but instead of speaking German they spoke English with German accents. I understand why studios don’t want to release foreign-language films (lots of people don’t like watching subtitles), but these are the kinds of things that disappoint me. If it’s set in a certain country, they should be speaking that country’s language.
[SPOILER]
I don’t think I believe that a person would rather go to jail for life (or potentially be sentenced to death) than admit they can’t read.
[SPOILER]
Good Stuff:
I like how it subtly draws the parallel between Hanna’s actions in the war and her actions with Michael; both are symptoms of her central problem as a person.
Relatedly, I like that Hanna isn’t evil. She’s a bad person but it’s not borne out of any maliciousness. She’s just selfish and lacks the capacity to see how her actions affect other people. I think that’s a lot truer to life than most movie villains.
It’s nice to see a time period of German history that isn’t WWII/The Holocaust portrayed in film.
About the Performance:
I’m a Winslet fan. She’s very good in this. She makes no attempt to make Hanna likable because she’s not. The scene that impressed me most was when Hanna was on trial, where she doesn’t seem to understand that her candor will land her in hot water because while her own actions make sense to her, they seem reprehensible to others. I thought Winslet portrayed Hanna’s confusion and irritation with the proceedings well. She’s one of the most breathtakingly selfish characters I’ve ever seen in film and yet it’s played so well that you don’t truly see it until the end.
Other performances of Winslet’s I’ve reviewed: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind; Titanic.
The Verdict:
I had a difficult time with this film because of all the statutory rape. Even though I knew that in the 1950s no one would have considered it that & also knew that the actor wasn’t actually that young, it made me very uncomfortable, particularly given the extensive sex scenes. It took me a while to get over it. Once I did, I grew to admire this film. Hanna is exactly the type of adult who would have sex with a 15-year-old because she herself is emotionally immature. No one her own age would put up with her. When, later, you find out what she did during the war, it makes perfect sense. That's just who she is. This is an unpleasant watch. At the same time, it’s sort of fascinating. It’s an intriguing film. I don’t know that I’d ever want to watch it again, but it was good for one time.
I give it 4 stars.
Released 2008 (USA)
American & German, in English (minor, non-translated German, Greek & Latin)
Director - Stephen Daldry
Stars - Kate Winslet, Ralph Fiennes, David Kross
Plot Summary:
Michael Berg reflects on Hanna Schmitz (Winslet), the older woman with whom he had a sexual relationship as a teenager & who later went on trial for WWII-era war crimes. Fiennes plays Berg as an adult; Kross plays the young Berg.
Warnings:
Full nudity of both men & women; sexy times (most of it would be considered statutory rape in a modern setting).
Bad Stuff:
Kross is the weak link of the cast. I thought he did a fine job as a naive 15-year-old, but later in the film, when he’s college-aged & the script called for heavier, more serious acting, he wasn’t good.
This is nitpicky, but it drove me nuts that this is set in Germany but instead of speaking German they spoke English with German accents. I understand why studios don’t want to release foreign-language films (lots of people don’t like watching subtitles), but these are the kinds of things that disappoint me. If it’s set in a certain country, they should be speaking that country’s language.
[SPOILER]
I don’t think I believe that a person would rather go to jail for life (or potentially be sentenced to death) than admit they can’t read.
[SPOILER]
Good Stuff:
I like how it subtly draws the parallel between Hanna’s actions in the war and her actions with Michael; both are symptoms of her central problem as a person.
Relatedly, I like that Hanna isn’t evil. She’s a bad person but it’s not borne out of any maliciousness. She’s just selfish and lacks the capacity to see how her actions affect other people. I think that’s a lot truer to life than most movie villains.
It’s nice to see a time period of German history that isn’t WWII/The Holocaust portrayed in film.
About the Performance:
I’m a Winslet fan. She’s very good in this. She makes no attempt to make Hanna likable because she’s not. The scene that impressed me most was when Hanna was on trial, where she doesn’t seem to understand that her candor will land her in hot water because while her own actions make sense to her, they seem reprehensible to others. I thought Winslet portrayed Hanna’s confusion and irritation with the proceedings well. She’s one of the most breathtakingly selfish characters I’ve ever seen in film and yet it’s played so well that you don’t truly see it until the end.
Other performances of Winslet’s I’ve reviewed: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind; Titanic.
The Verdict:
I had a difficult time with this film because of all the statutory rape. Even though I knew that in the 1950s no one would have considered it that & also knew that the actor wasn’t actually that young, it made me very uncomfortable, particularly given the extensive sex scenes. It took me a while to get over it. Once I did, I grew to admire this film. Hanna is exactly the type of adult who would have sex with a 15-year-old because she herself is emotionally immature. No one her own age would put up with her. When, later, you find out what she did during the war, it makes perfect sense. That's just who she is. This is an unpleasant watch. At the same time, it’s sort of fascinating. It’s an intriguing film. I don’t know that I’d ever want to watch it again, but it was good for one time.
I give it 4 stars.
Friday, February 16, 2018
Top 50 Actresses, #15 - Susan Hayward: "I Want to Live!" (1958)
Movie Stats:
Released 1958 (USA)
American, in English
Director - Robert Wise
Stars - Susan Hayward, Simon Oakland
Plot Summary:
Based on a true story, petty crook Barbara Graham (Hayward) finds herself on the path to the gas chamber after she’s accused of participating in a murder. Oakland co-stars as Edward S. Montgomery, a journalist covering Graham’s case.
Warnings:
Violence; very minor gore; very minor blue language; implied sexy times; implied drug use (there is one brief scene where two men smoke what appears to be a marijuana joint but it’s never spoken of).
Bad Stuff:
Hayward’s performance, and the film in general, are occasionally melodramatic.
It’s too long. There are many scenes that could have been tightened.
Good Stuff:
I liked that it subtly explored the idea that—whether or not one believes in Graham’s guilt*—the jury and press viewed her more harshly because she wasn’t a “good” girl. I was frankly surprised to see that sentiment in a film from the 1950s.
Thankfully, it kept the trial portion to a minimum and focused instead on Graham’s life both before and after it. I particularly enjoyed the extensive “death watch” scene. It’s very intense. As someone who’s done a lot of true crime reading, it rang very true-to-life to me.
The jazzy soundtrack is fantastic!
About Performance:
While I did think that Hayward was sometimes too much, overall it was an excellent performance. Barbara Graham is a person who shouldn’t be likable. She’s brash and crass and rude. She’s her own worst enemy. So many times, I wanted to grab and shake her, but that’s only because it takes her far too long to realize just how serious the fix she’s in is. Hayward does a good job of portraying the vulnerability underneath Graham’s hard exterior. I never even heard of her before doing this list. I liked her enough that I would like to see more.
Other performances of Haywards I’ve reviewed: none.
The Verdict:
I expected this to be a solid film & it is. The story is told well, the performances are good, and the score is out of this world. Seriously, I’m not even the biggest fan of 1950s jazz but something about it really fit with the film and gave it extra panache. I don’t have any complaints other than what was posted above. This is probably one of the better films you’ve never seen.
I give it 4.25 stars.
*There are still a lot of questions as to Graham’s involvement in the murder. Depending on which source you read, she was either the killer or she wasn’t even at the murder scene. The film falls on the sympathetic side.
Released 1958 (USA)
American, in English
Director - Robert Wise
Stars - Susan Hayward, Simon Oakland
Plot Summary:
Based on a true story, petty crook Barbara Graham (Hayward) finds herself on the path to the gas chamber after she’s accused of participating in a murder. Oakland co-stars as Edward S. Montgomery, a journalist covering Graham’s case.
Warnings:
Violence; very minor gore; very minor blue language; implied sexy times; implied drug use (there is one brief scene where two men smoke what appears to be a marijuana joint but it’s never spoken of).
Bad Stuff:
Hayward’s performance, and the film in general, are occasionally melodramatic.
It’s too long. There are many scenes that could have been tightened.
Good Stuff:
I liked that it subtly explored the idea that—whether or not one believes in Graham’s guilt*—the jury and press viewed her more harshly because she wasn’t a “good” girl. I was frankly surprised to see that sentiment in a film from the 1950s.
Thankfully, it kept the trial portion to a minimum and focused instead on Graham’s life both before and after it. I particularly enjoyed the extensive “death watch” scene. It’s very intense. As someone who’s done a lot of true crime reading, it rang very true-to-life to me.
The jazzy soundtrack is fantastic!
About Performance:
While I did think that Hayward was sometimes too much, overall it was an excellent performance. Barbara Graham is a person who shouldn’t be likable. She’s brash and crass and rude. She’s her own worst enemy. So many times, I wanted to grab and shake her, but that’s only because it takes her far too long to realize just how serious the fix she’s in is. Hayward does a good job of portraying the vulnerability underneath Graham’s hard exterior. I never even heard of her before doing this list. I liked her enough that I would like to see more.
Other performances of Haywards I’ve reviewed: none.
The Verdict:
I expected this to be a solid film & it is. The story is told well, the performances are good, and the score is out of this world. Seriously, I’m not even the biggest fan of 1950s jazz but something about it really fit with the film and gave it extra panache. I don’t have any complaints other than what was posted above. This is probably one of the better films you’ve never seen.
I give it 4.25 stars.
*There are still a lot of questions as to Graham’s involvement in the murder. Depending on which source you read, she was either the killer or she wasn’t even at the murder scene. The film falls on the sympathetic side.
Monday, February 12, 2018
Top 50 Actresses, #16 - Elizabeth Taylor: "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" (1966)
Movie Stats:
Released 1966 (USA)
American, in English (some minor, non-translated Latin & Spanish)
Director - Mike Nichols
Stars - Elizabeth Taylor, Richard Burton, George Segal, Sandy Dennis
Plot Summary:
Toxic middle-aged couple George (Burton) & Martha (Taylor) spend an evening tearing one another down, much to the horror of their guests, young couple Nick (Segal) & Honey (Dennis), who get caught up in the drama.
Warnings:
Blue language; violence; heavily implied sexy times.
Bad Stuff:
It’s basically just 2+ hours of people yelling at each other.
I don’t find the premise believable. If I was at someone’s home and they began to repeatedly bicker with & tear down their spouse & call them names, I would leave.
I thought Dennis was terrible. I’m genuinely perplexed by her Oscar win for this performance. My husband watched part of the film with me. At one point, he turned to me and said, “Is she supposed to be mentally disabled?” That’s how strange she was in the role, even before her character got drunk.
Good Stuff:
I really enjoyed the opening scene, where George & Martha are strolling home from a party. It’s visually lovely. That and the soft music lull you into a false sense of security as to what the rest of the film will be like.
Apart from Dennis, the acting is very good.
It does a good job of showing all the small ways—and some of the big ways—a relationship can go terribly, horribly wrong.
About the Performance:
Taylor is great. Most roles I’ve seen her in, she’s dignified, refined, and beautiful. In this, she’s a crass, bitter, awful, shrieking mess of a human being. I absolutely loathed her. And that’s the point. You’re not supposed to like Martha. You’re not really supposed to like any of the main characters, except maybe Honey. At the same time, Taylor gives Martha just enough vulnerability that you can feel a little bit sorry for her. I was duly impressed.
Other performances of Taylor’s I’ve reviewed: Giant; A Place in the Sun.
The Verdict:
This is one of those films that I understand why it’s considered good & why it’s a classic. It’s specifically designed to make you uncomfortable. You’re not supposed to like it in the sense that you’re having a good time during it. You’re supposed to watch it with a wince on your face, feeling grateful that you’re not currently experiencing anything like this. It’s like watching a car crash in slow motion. When it was over, I told my husband, “That movie was awful.” I hated it. And yet, as I’ve taken the time to really think about it while working on this review, I recognize how masterful it was. I’m torn between giving it a rating based on how much I enjoyed it (not at all) and how much I admire it (greatly). But I feel magnanimous, so I’ve decided to give it a good rating. Definitely not a film I’d ever watch again, though.
I give it 4 stars.
Released 1966 (USA)
American, in English (some minor, non-translated Latin & Spanish)
Director - Mike Nichols
Stars - Elizabeth Taylor, Richard Burton, George Segal, Sandy Dennis
Plot Summary:
Toxic middle-aged couple George (Burton) & Martha (Taylor) spend an evening tearing one another down, much to the horror of their guests, young couple Nick (Segal) & Honey (Dennis), who get caught up in the drama.
Warnings:
Blue language; violence; heavily implied sexy times.
Bad Stuff:
It’s basically just 2+ hours of people yelling at each other.
I don’t find the premise believable. If I was at someone’s home and they began to repeatedly bicker with & tear down their spouse & call them names, I would leave.
I thought Dennis was terrible. I’m genuinely perplexed by her Oscar win for this performance. My husband watched part of the film with me. At one point, he turned to me and said, “Is she supposed to be mentally disabled?” That’s how strange she was in the role, even before her character got drunk.
Good Stuff:
I really enjoyed the opening scene, where George & Martha are strolling home from a party. It’s visually lovely. That and the soft music lull you into a false sense of security as to what the rest of the film will be like.
Apart from Dennis, the acting is very good.
It does a good job of showing all the small ways—and some of the big ways—a relationship can go terribly, horribly wrong.
About the Performance:
Taylor is great. Most roles I’ve seen her in, she’s dignified, refined, and beautiful. In this, she’s a crass, bitter, awful, shrieking mess of a human being. I absolutely loathed her. And that’s the point. You’re not supposed to like Martha. You’re not really supposed to like any of the main characters, except maybe Honey. At the same time, Taylor gives Martha just enough vulnerability that you can feel a little bit sorry for her. I was duly impressed.
Other performances of Taylor’s I’ve reviewed: Giant; A Place in the Sun.
The Verdict:
This is one of those films that I understand why it’s considered good & why it’s a classic. It’s specifically designed to make you uncomfortable. You’re not supposed to like it in the sense that you’re having a good time during it. You’re supposed to watch it with a wince on your face, feeling grateful that you’re not currently experiencing anything like this. It’s like watching a car crash in slow motion. When it was over, I told my husband, “That movie was awful.” I hated it. And yet, as I’ve taken the time to really think about it while working on this review, I recognize how masterful it was. I’m torn between giving it a rating based on how much I enjoyed it (not at all) and how much I admire it (greatly). But I feel magnanimous, so I’ve decided to give it a good rating. Definitely not a film I’d ever watch again, though.
I give it 4 stars.
Friday, February 9, 2018
Top 50 Actresses, #17 - Judi Dench: "Philomena" (2013)
Movie Stats:
Released 2013 (Italy)
British, American & French, in English
Director - Stephen Frears
Stars - Judi Dench, Steve Coogan
Plot Summary:
Based on a true story, cynical journalist Martin Sexsmith (Coogan) helps elderly Philomena Lee (Dench) search for the son who was taken away from her by a convent when she was a teenager.
Warnings:
Blue language; minor gore.
Bad Stuff:
I don’t find Coogan especially believable in this serious role.
I’m not a fan of big, dramatic confrontation scenes in film, especially when they occur between strangers. For example, the “dogged-journalist-stick-a-foot-in-the-door” scene or the “yell-at-nuns” scene. Maybe I’m naive, but I don’t believe that people do those sorts of things in real life, so it tends to take me right out of the movie as I think to myself, “That would never happen. They would call the police!”
Good Stuff:
It shines a spotlight on a topic that is woefully ignored across all media.
Apart from the slight skepticism I’ve thrown in Coogan’s direction, the acting is very good.
I enjoy the friendship that forms between Martin and Philomena.
About the Performance:
Dench is great. Her performance is really what sold the film for me. She’s entirely believable as a woman with a long-ago wound that has never healed. Most of her role calls for her to be understated, but Dench does an excellent job of portraying what’s underneath the “stiff upper lip” exterior. You can feel what she feels, even when she’s not actively expressing it.
Other performances of Dench’s I’ve reviewed: Shakespeare in Love.
The Verdict:
I watched this film on a whim last year. My intention was to watch bits and pieces of it again to “refresh” my memory before writing this review, but when I went to do so, I sadly discovered that it’s no longer available for free on Amazon Prime. So this is all from memory. I absolutely loved this movie. It’s very emotional; I cried like a baby. One of the things I admire most about it is that there’s an obvious direction the Philomena/Martin relationship could have gone (mother/surrogate son) that it didn’t go in. I truly appreciate those rarely portrayed platonic relationships between women and men, especially ones with such a large age gap. It’s nice to see some age diversity in film. I do think that the movie occasionally gets overdramatic, but for the most part it’s a lovely little story about grief, loss, perseverance, and friendship.
I give it 4.5 stars.
Released 2013 (Italy)
British, American & French, in English
Director - Stephen Frears
Stars - Judi Dench, Steve Coogan
Plot Summary:
Based on a true story, cynical journalist Martin Sexsmith (Coogan) helps elderly Philomena Lee (Dench) search for the son who was taken away from her by a convent when she was a teenager.
Warnings:
Blue language; minor gore.
Bad Stuff:
I don’t find Coogan especially believable in this serious role.
I’m not a fan of big, dramatic confrontation scenes in film, especially when they occur between strangers. For example, the “dogged-journalist-stick-a-foot-in-the-door” scene or the “yell-at-nuns” scene. Maybe I’m naive, but I don’t believe that people do those sorts of things in real life, so it tends to take me right out of the movie as I think to myself, “That would never happen. They would call the police!”
Good Stuff:
It shines a spotlight on a topic that is woefully ignored across all media.
Apart from the slight skepticism I’ve thrown in Coogan’s direction, the acting is very good.
I enjoy the friendship that forms between Martin and Philomena.
About the Performance:
Dench is great. Her performance is really what sold the film for me. She’s entirely believable as a woman with a long-ago wound that has never healed. Most of her role calls for her to be understated, but Dench does an excellent job of portraying what’s underneath the “stiff upper lip” exterior. You can feel what she feels, even when she’s not actively expressing it.
Other performances of Dench’s I’ve reviewed: Shakespeare in Love.
The Verdict:
I watched this film on a whim last year. My intention was to watch bits and pieces of it again to “refresh” my memory before writing this review, but when I went to do so, I sadly discovered that it’s no longer available for free on Amazon Prime. So this is all from memory. I absolutely loved this movie. It’s very emotional; I cried like a baby. One of the things I admire most about it is that there’s an obvious direction the Philomena/Martin relationship could have gone (mother/surrogate son) that it didn’t go in. I truly appreciate those rarely portrayed platonic relationships between women and men, especially ones with such a large age gap. It’s nice to see some age diversity in film. I do think that the movie occasionally gets overdramatic, but for the most part it’s a lovely little story about grief, loss, perseverance, and friendship.
I give it 4.5 stars.
Monday, February 5, 2018
Top 50 Actresses, #18 - Marlene Dietrich: "Witness for the Prosecution" (1957)
Movie Stats:
Released 1957 (USA)
American, in English
Director - Billy Wilder
Stars - Charles Laughton, Marlene Dietrich, Tyrone Power
Plot Summary:
Recently returned to work after a heart attack, barrister Sir Wilfrid Roberts (Laughton) takes on a criminal case against the wishes of his doctors, that of accused murderer Leonard Vole (Power), whose wife Christine (Dietrich) is playing an angle Roberts doesn’t quite understand.
Warnings:
Sexual harassment; minor violence.
Bad Stuff:
I’m not a big fan of courtroom dramas. I usually find them simultaneously boring and histrionic/overblown.
I didn’t care for the soundtrack. It didn’t fit the film.
Good Stuff:
The acting is out of this world. Everyone is so good that it’s impossible to single any one person out.
I loved the “big twist.” Quite frankly, it makes the film.
I enjoyed that none of the main characters are who they seem to be on the surface. They all have depth that is slowly revealed through the course of the film.
About the Performance:
Dietrich is so good that it’s impossible to understand how good she is until the twist is revealed. For most of the film, I resented her representation. It seemed such a standard, BS portrayal of a German woman in the wake of WWII: the aloof, unfeeling ice queen. Then the twist happened and it was like, “Ohhhh, that’s exactly how I was supposed to feel!” There is no amount of praise I could heap on her that would be enough. This is a truly excellent performance.
Other performances of Dietrich’s I’ve reviewed: Judgment at Nuremberg.
The Verdict:
Truthfully, I spent most of the film feeling so-so about it. I really liked the beginning, which showcases powerhouse performances by Laughton and Power, but then it got to the trial part. As I said above, I don’t really care for courtroom dramas. They often rehash details that were discussed earlier in the film/show/book, hence making them boring, while at the same time featuring a bunch of grandstanding, which doesn’t happen in real-life trials, hence making them both overblown and unrealistic. So I was suffering through that part of the film. And then came the twist and everything clicked into place and I thought to myself, “This is one of the most masterful stories I’ve ever seen.” I was completely snowed; never saw the ending coming, and that’s a rare feat. The trial portion of the film is Dietrich’s time to shine, and shine she does. This is one of the best films I’ve seen in a long time.
I give it 4.5 stars.
Released 1957 (USA)
American, in English
Director - Billy Wilder
Stars - Charles Laughton, Marlene Dietrich, Tyrone Power
Plot Summary:
Recently returned to work after a heart attack, barrister Sir Wilfrid Roberts (Laughton) takes on a criminal case against the wishes of his doctors, that of accused murderer Leonard Vole (Power), whose wife Christine (Dietrich) is playing an angle Roberts doesn’t quite understand.
Warnings:
Sexual harassment; minor violence.
Bad Stuff:
I’m not a big fan of courtroom dramas. I usually find them simultaneously boring and histrionic/overblown.
I didn’t care for the soundtrack. It didn’t fit the film.
Good Stuff:
The acting is out of this world. Everyone is so good that it’s impossible to single any one person out.
I loved the “big twist.” Quite frankly, it makes the film.
I enjoyed that none of the main characters are who they seem to be on the surface. They all have depth that is slowly revealed through the course of the film.
About the Performance:
Dietrich is so good that it’s impossible to understand how good she is until the twist is revealed. For most of the film, I resented her representation. It seemed such a standard, BS portrayal of a German woman in the wake of WWII: the aloof, unfeeling ice queen. Then the twist happened and it was like, “Ohhhh, that’s exactly how I was supposed to feel!” There is no amount of praise I could heap on her that would be enough. This is a truly excellent performance.
Other performances of Dietrich’s I’ve reviewed: Judgment at Nuremberg.
The Verdict:
Truthfully, I spent most of the film feeling so-so about it. I really liked the beginning, which showcases powerhouse performances by Laughton and Power, but then it got to the trial part. As I said above, I don’t really care for courtroom dramas. They often rehash details that were discussed earlier in the film/show/book, hence making them boring, while at the same time featuring a bunch of grandstanding, which doesn’t happen in real-life trials, hence making them both overblown and unrealistic. So I was suffering through that part of the film. And then came the twist and everything clicked into place and I thought to myself, “This is one of the most masterful stories I’ve ever seen.” I was completely snowed; never saw the ending coming, and that’s a rare feat. The trial portion of the film is Dietrich’s time to shine, and shine she does. This is one of the best films I’ve seen in a long time.
I give it 4.5 stars.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)