Tommy-92

You've got the dream pairing of two of the classiest and most charming stars ever to grace the screen, a suspense thriller that IS worthy of Hitchcock, despite what other reviewers would ahve you think, a very witty script by Broadway librettist Peter Stone, some hilarious comedy, sexy romance, direction 'with flair" by Stanley Donen, a wonderful supporting cast, and music that (As in just about any Henry Mancini film score) is almost as entertaining as the film. From the psychedelic opening credits set to Mancini's Bond-esque theme music, you know "Charade"'s going to be an entertaing movie, and it is! Cary Grant is delightful and suave as ever, audrey was probably never sexier or more chic, (Though some individual "bits" of her acting are unconvincing at times, overall she is great), and Walter Matthau (In an unconventional role for him), James Coburn, George Kennedy, and Ned Glass (The one who was allergic to Hepburn's husband) couldn't be better. The two stars have delightful chemistry and a wonderful repartee going, and the funeral sequence, among others, is truly hilarious. There IS plenty of suspense, too, as you never really are sure whom to trust and who not to, and the climatic chase sequence is almost as exciting as anything Hitch ever came up with. Pardon the cliche, but they really don't make 'em like this any more.

I have not seen any of Martin Scorsese or Robert De Niro's other, grittier films, but I definitly enjoyed their work in this under-rated 1977 musical drama. Scorsese certainly came up with a brilliant idea - Contrasting the glitz and glamour of the 1940s and 1950s movie musicals and jazz nightclubs with a harsly realistic story about a can't-live-with, can't-live-without relationship between a charming but abusive jazz saxophonist and a vulnerable but strong singer - and in many ways it pays off. De Niro gave a great performance; he can go from likeable to dispicable in a breath. Really fascinating to watch, and I can certainly see why so many people consider him brillian. Liza Minnelli, as his wife, is also great. Of course, her singing is incredible - in standards like "The Man I Love," the delightful "You Brought A New Kind Of Love To Me," which in true Hollywood fashion she launches into out of nowhere and performs so well (Backed up by De Niro on sax) that they both land a job at a club, and "You Are My Lucky Star" and new songs written for the film by Kander and Ebb like "But the 'World GOes Round" and, of course, the title tune - and her acting is also subtle, shaded, and sympathetic. Not to mention how fetching (And eerily like her mother, Judy Garland) she looks in Theordora Van Runkle's period costumes. She is just as good as, and perhaps even better at times, than she was in her more famous performance in "Cabaret." SHe and De Niro really should have been Oscar-nominated for their powerful performances here, and Scorsese really should've gotten a nod as well. But the film flopped, so the Academy didn't notice. Which is really too bad, because this movie definitly deserves another look, especially in its restored version which includes a fantastic production number cut from the original print, "Happy Endings," performed by Minnelli and Larry Kert, Tony in the original Broadway production of "West Side Story," that does a great job of reiterating the movie's themes. True, the film is a little too long and slow at times, and there's more than a little unneccessary footage that didn't really need to be there, but all in all it's a very interesting, under-rated gem. It certainly has gotten me interested in Scorsese and De Niro's other films...

Except for "Star!", (Which another reviewer understandably considers a "companion piece" to this film), Julie Andrews never starred in a film that was more ideally structured specifically for her many talents than "Darling Lilli." She gets to sing, act, look lovely, even let her hair down and do a striptease in her continuing efforts to get away from her Mary Poppins/Maria Von Trapp image, and much more. Lilli is certainly one of the most interesting characters she ever played; you're never quite sure whether you're supposed to root for or despise this half-English, half-German who is a London music-hall entertainer but also acting as a spy for the Fatherland in World War I and is sent to, um, extract military secrets from American Major William Larabee but falls in love with him and tries to clear both their names for the suspicious French government.

And like "Star!", "Darling Lilli" was released at the wrong time. It had enough "performance numbers" to count as a movie musical, even though it also had elements of drama, comedy, and spy intrigue, and both movie musicals and Julie Andrews were not what critics and audiences were anxious to see in the late 1960s and early 70s, when both films were released. So both bombed at the box office. "Darling Lilli" in particular, judging by the "director's cut" that director Blake Edwards prepared several years later, did not really deserve this fate. While flawed, it is still highly entertaining, and Miss Andrews is utterly radiant, whether acting, stripping, or singing some vintage WW I tunes or some lovely songs written for the film by Henry Mancini and Johnny Mercer. The film should be seen if for no other reason than for the hauntingly beautiful "Whistling Away the Dark" and Julie's tender, achingly vulnerable performance of it.

But as I said, the film itself is not too great. The description of Lilli's character alone is confusing enough, and often it's hard to figure out what is going on. (Perhaps some footage that could've cleared up this confusion is in the original version of the film?) In addition to the rather muddled string of events, Rock Hudson is pretty stiff as Larabee, and the various German, French, and English accents of the supporting characters come and go. The authentic WW I aircraft is cool, but the air sequences, appaarently the ones that took the longest time out of the film's very long shooting period, are the least interesting in the film. And another reviewer also noted the film's uneasy yo-yoing between genres: the "director's cut" is probably the most serious film Edwards (Who happened to have just married Miss Andrews before they started filming this) ever directed, but he can't resist putting in some of his trademark cheap laughs, although several of them are admittenly funny. And all in all, the film is very entertaining, whether as a drama, comedy, musical, or spy thriller, and whenever Julie Andrews is onscreen, all the film's faults seem like quibbles. Obviously, Mr. Edwards is in love with his wife; can you blame him?

Okay, there's the bad stuff. Of course, it can't even begin to touch "Mary Poppins" as a musical, as a film, or as whatever else. And there are all sorts of other litle problems, from the logic of Dick Van Dyke having English kids and an English FATHER but talking in an American accent to the clumsy transistion into the fantasy sequence (Much better handled in "Poppins" and "Bedknobs and Broomsticks") to the overlength to the many irrelevant songs ("Me Ol' Bamboo," "Chu-Chi Face," and the just plain stupid "Posh!").

But still, the film is likeable and enjoyable escapism. Van Dyke has a few more attempts to display his talents at slapstick and physical comedy than he did in "Poppins," and he also proves a fine singer and a decent actor. He recieves great support from the lovely (In looks and voice) Sally Ann Howes, and such British-film veterans as Benny Hill, Gert Frobe, Anna Quayle and Robert Helpmann. The story is delightfully quirky. (Of course; it was based on books by the guy who came up with James Bond, and Roald Dahl collaborated on the screenplay!) As with all the Sherman brothers' post-"Poppins" scores, the songs are not particularly memorable but still pleasent, and there is the irresistably catchy title tune and a couple other charming numbers ("Truly Scrumptious," the lovely 'Hushabye Mountain," and "Lovely Lonely Man," and I actually enjoyed "Me Ol' Bamboo," or "Step In Time II"). And even though the "story-within-the-story" bogs the film down and is clumsily handled, if you want to search for something deep, you can find a parallel between the Vulgarian anti-children prejudices and the Holocuast. Think about it-this madman (The Baron--Hitler) hates a group of people simply because of their "race" and will stop at nothing to exterminate them. He sends out a henchman (The Child-Catcher--Nazis) to capture them and imprison them in an isolated area where they are malnourished and badly treated (The palace dungeon--concentration camps). A few kind souls (The Toymaker, and his real-life counterparts) hide some of these people in "secret annexes" (Remember Anne Frank?) at the risk of their lives if they are caught. This goes on for many years until a group of people (Potts and company--the Allies) "liberate" the children/Jews and overthrow the madman. Interesting parallel, isn't it? But that's probably getting just a little too analytical for such a lighthearted, delightful children's fantasy film. The kids will probably love it and won't (and shouldn't) have to make those kinds of comparisons.

Not exactly brilliant, but semi-enjoyable comedy about a black wannabe comedian who dies too early and gets temporarily reincarnated in the body of a rich, middle-aged, balding, fat white guy. I have not seen the original versions of this story, and I haven't seen Chris Rock in anything else. (Sorry, his show is on WAY past my bedtime) but I had a few laughs. I guess the full force of Rock's usual material has been toned down, if the film has a PG-13 rating, but some of his observations about the stupidness of the racial divide in America were funny and did hit home. But, even though we see Rock as he sees himself throughout the movie, most of the humor from the actual story comes from knowing that other people see him as this balding, chubby, rich white guy who, once a coldhearted "asshole" who mindlessly closes down hospitals, now suddenly taken to spotting "homeboy" catchphrases and bumping and grinding to gangsta rap, and the moments (too few and far between) when we actually see this white guy, as the rest of the people in the film see him, doing all these things are the laugh-out-loud funniest in the film, even if they are cheap and even if we still hear Rock's voice despite the angels telling him that other people see AND hear the white guy in his own voice. (If we heard his voice, it would probably be even funnier.) I am surprised only one other reviewer mentioned Wanda Sykes' performance as the billionaire's maid who mutters obsceneties about her employer behind his back. Aside from Rock and the billionaire himself, she is the best thing about the film. Although she is a more foul-mouthed throwback to the Hattie McDaniel era (Is that intentional?), like McDaniel, she steals every scene she's in regardless of the stereotype. The rest of the cast, except for Chazz Palementari as the head honcho (aside from the Big G, of course) in Heaven, is embarrassing. The romance with Regina King is unneccasary and totally unbeleiveable. We see ROck in all their scenes, of course, but in the back of my head, I kept thinking, "Rich, old white guy, rich, old white guy." So there's something about his eyes; would she really look at him twice? And Rock is not good enough an actual ACTOR to help much. Jennifer Coolidge is embarrassing as the millionaire's trophy wife, but she can't be blamed with the inane stuff she has to do. Nobody else makes any impression. Still, it is amusing to see a Heaven that looks more like Studio 54 (complete with velvet rope that only admits "certain" people) than our usual perceptions of it, and again Rock has some good moments. At least, at less than 90 minutes, it doesn't overstay its welcome, which is more than can be said for a lot of "comedies" these days.

Why wasn't this film more successful, and why isn't it more well known than it was and is? It is an utterly delightful and original take on the Cinderella story in which almost every element is just right. Leslie Caron is completely enchanting as Ella. True, she may not be an amazingly gorgeous beauty in her ball gown, but she is radiant nevertheless. Especially those eyes. Oh, those expressive eyes! They show you the true beauty beneath her outward plainness. She is a wonderful actress and phenomenal ballet dancer, as demonstrated in the wonderful dream ballet sequences in which she dances with the Roland Petit ballet company. These sequences may seem unnecceasry at first, but they turn out to do exactly what the ballet dances in the Rodgers and Hammerstein musicals do: They express the character's emotions in ways that not even dialogue and music can. They are indeed a vital part of the film. Estelle Winwood is charming as Ella's eccentric "fairy godmother." Walter Pidgeon's uncredited narration is pithy and wise. True, Michael Wilding is indeed a bit bland as Prince Charming/Charles (though not really all that bad) and this is one of Kennan Wynn's weakest appearences (except for his reaction when he sees Ella at the ball), but all in all these are tiny flaws in one underrated gem of a film.

Okay, so the film is almost totally witless, crude, vulgar, and silly, and heavy-handed in its treatment of the homosexual subplot. The script could've done better justice to these stars, but the stars, or at least two of them, generally execute the professionalism we have come to admire so much in them. And they do have fun spoofing their reputations and public personas... Debbie Reynolds, in particular, seems to be having the time of her life making fun of her eternally perky, virginal persona. I am not familiar with Joan Collins' other work, but though she looks great 'cause of all those fac... uh, never mind, and can toss off a good bitchy line or three, and the sight of her Italian digs is one of the only funny moments in the film, she really doesn't seem to be that good an actress. Elizabeth Taylor's cameo is generally embarrassing (What was with that accent?), but even she has a good moment, dishing with Reynolds about the husband she stole from her. Is it a coincidence that Shirley Maclaine, who looks embalmed compared to her costars (Or at least doesn't mind not trying to age naturally-in preparation for her next life, perhaps) gives the only truly genuine performance in the film? The USA Today review mentioned that it's weird that, of the three stars of the cult hit movie musical "Boy Crazy," Reynolds is really the only one of these stars to have truly made a name for herself in the real-life golden age of movie musicals, and then usually in supporting roles, (Maclaine made a few movie musicals near the end of this golden age which are forgotten today,anyway, and Collins never made a movie musical and was never a "movie star" in any case, finding her greatest success on TV). This perhaps accounts for why we don't see that much singing and dancing, except in several quick glimpses of rehearsals, until the "grand finale," if it can be called that. And then there's the sight of Reynolds and Collins singing (Well, Reynolds singing and Collins attempting to sing) "Get Happy" in the gay dance club. It's cheap and debasing, and guaranteed to find its way into the Great Camp Movie Moments some day soon. I hope that was intentional. But all in all, these ladies go out there and give their all, or attempt to as long as they can, which is really all we can ask for in such a sorry showcase as this.

Perhaps the most telling sequence in the film is the first run-through of the special that salutes "Boy Crazy," with the network brass and the sponsers watching. The ladies' dance steps are off, their dubbed-in singing goes out of sync, a load of fake snow gets dumped on them, and all the boys, real and cardboard, fly everywhere. But they keep going and attempting to do something with it, until they're finally exhausted and overwhelmed by all the snow getting in their eyes and throats. Maclaine even huffs out a "Yeah!" at the end before collapsing. That is exactly what this movie is about... eventually even these, uh, dames can't get past this mess of a script and finally resort to petty bitchiness because they have no other way out, it seems. But through it all they attempt, professionally, to make something out of this, (Maclaine most of all) and for that they must be commended.

The last line of the film is Taylor's: "Get off your asses for these old broads!" Crude, natch, but the point is certainly taken. They deserve it.

And oh, yeah, Liz really did steal Debbie's husband. "Freddie Hunter's real name was Eddie Fisher, the father (with Debbie) of Carrie Fisher, alias Princess Leia, who was partially responsible for this script. Carrie also wrote a fictionalized memoir, "Postcards From the Edge," (Please God it was better than this!) and in the film version of that, Maclaine played the character based on Reynolds. Collins was one of the actresses considered for the role of Cleopatra, Queen of the Nile, before Liz got that one and began her legendary love affair with Richard Burton... while she was still married to Eddie Fisher! ANd then Liz and Collins both played the same role, Pearl Slaghoople, in, respectively, "The Flintstones" movie and its sequel, "Viva Rock Vegas." See, it's a lot more fun to ponder the various connections these ladies have had to each other over the years than to wonder why, despite their valient attempts to make something of it, they decided to do this.

After years of being withheld because of legal complications, this delightful film has finally been rereleased in a gorgeously restored video and DVD. I bet it will make its longtime fans very happy, and it will make new converts, like me, very grateful to finally get to see what all the fuss is about. Remarkably, none of the infamous production woes this film suffered (If you don't know what I'm talking about, read the other comments) show in the exuberant, highly entertaning final product, which is a generally faithful recreation of the classic Broadway show and features that unbeatable Irving Berlin score in beautfiul and Oscar-winning orchestrations, gorgeous and Oscar-nominated cinemetography and design, and wonderful performances from the entire cast. Betty Hutton is perfectly cast as sharp-shootin' Annie Oakely, combining amazing physical energy, a powerhouse though somewhat odd singing voice, and genuine warmth and even vulnerability in what just might be her best film role. Howard Keel, in what I think is his film debut as her on and offstage partner, Frank Butler, is perfectly comfortable in front of the camera, genial as ever and possessing that robust baritone that would be shown to great advantage in other classic MGM musicals of the 1950s. The rest of the cast is all first-rate, and they all perform the wonderful score extremely well. Yes, the depictions of Native Americans and some of the demeaning things Annie has to go through are not polically correct, but this comes from another era, and as others have noted, the sheer joy in every frame of the film can easily make you forget all that. There truly is no buisiness like show buisiness, and there's no movie like this movie!

After years of being withheld because of legal complications, this delightful film has finally been rereleased in a gorgeously restored video and DVD. I bet it will make its longtime fans very happy, and it will make new converts, like me, very grateful to finally get to see what all the fuss is about. Remarkably, none of the infamous production woes this film suffered (If you don't know what I'm talking about, read the other comments) show in the exuberant, highly entertaning final product, which is a generally faithful recreation of the classic Broadway show and features that unbeatable Irving Berlin score in beautfiul and Oscar-winning orchestrations, gorgeous and Oscar-nominated cinemetography and design, and wonderful performances from the entire cast. Betty Hutton is perfectly cast as sharp-shootin' Annie Oakely, combining amazing physical energy, a powerhouse though somewhat odd singing voice, and genuine warmth and even vulnerability in what just might be her best film role. Howard Keel, in what I think is his film debut as her on and offstage partner, Frank Butler, is perfectly comfortable in front of the camera, genial as ever and possessing that robust baritone that would be shown to great advantage in other classic MGM musicals of the 1950s. The rest of the cast is all first-rate, and they all perform the wonderful score extremely well. Yes, the depictions of Native Americans and some of the demeaning things Annie has to go through are not polically correct, but this comes from another era, and as others have noted, the sheer joy in every frame of the film can easily make you forget all that. There truly is no buisiness like show buisiness, and there's no movie like this movie!

I have yet to see any other Woody Allen films, so I can't say whether this is his "best" or how it measures up to his other work. But when I caught this on Bravo the other night, I found it to be a highly entertaining, occasionally suspenseful flick. Sure, there isn't much substance to the whole thing. Sure, Allen and Diane Keaton, as the married couple whose neighbor may have bumped off his wife, improvise half their dialogue, or give a very good imitation of it, and argue awfully loudly in their apartment at 1:30 in the morning. But there are plenty of great lines and scenes, and yes, just the faintest tinge of tension and suspense at the right moments. I also was struck by Diane Keaton's performance. Despite the apparent improvisation, she was really good, believeable, funny, and even sympathetic as the wife who gets cuaght up in investigating the murder for many different reasons. She does have great chemistry with Allen. And considering all I've read about Allen, it was awfully and atypically (?) generous of him to practically hand her the whole first half of the movie. Not that his performance wasn't good; it was, but he didn't really get going until near the end, when his character finally started to believe it all and got involved. Alan Alda is fine as the man who's "like a girlfriend" to Keaton, and Anjelica Huston certainly made the most of her scenes as the writer who figures out the whole case and its solution in one sitting. Like another reviewer said, this is a movie to kick back, relax, and enjoy. Nothing deep or anything, just good for several laughs, a (minor) jolt every now and then, and pure entertainment.

Marilyn needs no introduction. Suffice it to say that she is perfect in what is probably the best of her "dumb blonde gold digger" roles, looks great, (As if it were possible for her to look less), has plenty of great and funny quotes, and sings the most famous of the Jule Styne-Leo Robin songs wonderfully. But let's not forget the brunette in the picture, Jane Russell, who has plenty of talent, comic timing, and yes, sex appeal herself. Her performance has a great sense of irony, she makes a great foil for Marilyn (Although it certainly is obvious that she really likes the girl), and gets ample oppurtunity to show off her own vocal chops in such songs as the low-key, showstopping duet "When Love Goes Wrong" and the somewhat kitschy "Ain't There Anyone Here For Love," sung while she wanders through a sea of Olympic atheletes wearing nothing but flesh-colored swimming trunks as they lift weights, etc., and then finishes off with a dunk in the pool that wasn't planned but was kept in the film upon viewing the rushes of the sequence. She herself is really great in both. And just how she manages to do a dead-on impersonation of Marilyn in a hilarious courtroom scene, then launch into a take-no-prisoners reprise of "Diamonds Are A Girl's Best Friend" while still keeping her blond wig and hat squarely on her head, I'll never know.

With such as these to hold out attention, the rest of the film doesn't seem like much, with the usual humdrum romantic plotline, the uninteresting supporting cast, and everything. But it's still a great musical comedy, based on the Broadway show that was in turn based on the famous Anita Loos novel. Howard Hawks' direction, while not as inspired as his "Bringing Up Baby" or "His Girl Friday" work, is lively, the costumes are great, the songs (Those that were retained from Broadway and those added for the film) are all great, and the script, while probably not including much of the wicked satire that the novel is praised for, (Unless I missed it), is funny enough. I should also mention the many classic shots of Marilyn and Jane walking side by side. What a contrast! Marilyn gives it all she's got, and Jane is so low-key about the whole thing she's reviting. What a great team these two ladies were! And, all things considered, what a great movie!

"Star!" reunited Julie Andrews with her "Sound of Music" director Robert Wise and producer Saul Chaplin, in an effort to go all-out in showcasing the talents of one great singer and actress (Julie, of course) while telling the life story of another (Gertrude Lawrence). The astronomical costs of the production are certainly evident in the sheer scope of the production, the lavish Donald Brooks costumes and Cartier jewels and the attention to period (1912-1940) detail.

Unfortunatly, by the time "Star!" came out, both movie musicals and Julie Andrews were both on the way down, and the resounding failure of this film, critically and financially, greatly increased the downfalls of both.

So, what went wrong? Well, the story is presented in a rather uninteresting fashion. I don't know much about Lawrence, so I can't say how accurate it is, but it's certainly uninvolving. It also goes on and on, though is never exactly boring, and then ends abruptly with at least one major plotline completely unresolved. But the device of using a newsreel throughout the film to comment on Gertie's life is, if nothing else, original, and Daniel Massey's protrayal of Noel Coward is amusing and effective. And then, there's the question of Julie's performance. Unfortunatly, as great an actress as she is and always was, she hadn't fully developed enough to play a role as demanding and as unlike her established persona as this one, and it shows onscreen. (It's probably also one of the reasons audiences stayed away from the film when it was first released) But, trooper that she is, she manages not to fall on her face somehow.

The reason is probably the great songs in the film, in which Julie naturally excels. Her performances of such classics as "Burlington Bertie," "Parisian Peirrot," "Someone to Watch Over Me," and in the grand finale, "The Saga of Jenny," are all sublime, and her rendition of the title song definitly "makes the ditty seem like a smash." The film is definitly worth seeing for these reasons alone. On the whole, it isn't good drama, but as a musical, it probably is one of the last great ones to come out of Hollywood.

This is considered minor Hitchcock? For heaven's sake, why? Is it because the camera is the only thing there to remind us we're not watching a stage play? Is it that John Dall and Farley Granger, but mostly Dall, unevenly bridge the gap between playing it straight and hamming it up? Is it Jimmy Stewart's self-righteous monologue at the end?

If those are the reasons people give, then they must not get scared very easily. The performances and stage aspect are mere afterthoughts in this film, or at least should be. Although the acting isn't really that bada anyway, praticularly Granger) Certainly they're secondary to the great camera work and the unbearably creepy tension, set up as only the master can do it. Isn't it just like Hitchcock to have a conversation going on in the background but focus the camera on the housekeeper clearing the food off of a chest in which the murdered body has been deposited and then prepare to open the chest to put some books in it? Isn't it just like him to have Stewart question an increasingly nervous Granger as he plays the piano and one of those piano clock things ticks faster and faster, possibly leading to a confession from Granger? He even forces us to feel sympathy for two people who commit murder for fun and because they feel intellectualy superior, and succeeds pretty well. Those touches are further testament to the master's brilliance and knowhow at how to create suspense. If they sound cliched, they weren't then; he INVENTED those cliches, and even today they seem new and fresh in this film. There's also the fact that the movie is (supposed to be) filmed in real time. Yes, it's pretty obvious that cuts are being made whenever the camera pauses on someone's coat, but the shots of the sun slowly setting over the New York skyline as seen from the apartment window also do add clever commentary on the situations. (Bright when the murder's committed, clouded over before the party begins, slowly setting as the suspicion grows, etc.) This is a clever, highly suspenseful, creepy, and tense little film, and quintessential Hitchcock. It should be with his classics, and why it isn't is also a mystery.

With a cast of virtually every comedian from vaudeville, TV, movies, etc. who was alive and in the buisiness at that time thrown together and all given a chance to show their stuff, however briefly, you're going to have plenty of funny moments. And they're there in this film, which should be seen for that reason alone. All the comics are pretty much in top form, with Milton Berle, Jonathan Winters, Phil Silvers, Buddy Hackett, Mickey Rooney, Sid Caesar, Jimmy Durante, and of course, Ethel Merman standing out, and Spencer Tracy in his penultimate film appearence as the police officer following them in their search for the dough buried under the big W is, as usual, the only person around with a brain in his head... until the end! That may be possibly one of the best twists in film history.

But the film itself does go on seemingly forever, and drags in more than a few spots. After a while, you can only take so many more car chases, yelling and purse swinging, but amazingly enough, it's never completely boring. And though it is amazing that Stanley Kramer, otherwise known for his serious, preachy dramas, directed this, I think a lot of the credit for the film turning out so well goes to the talent involved and, if the surviving actors are to be believed in a documentary I saw, the great script that largely kept them from adlibbing, and not unwillingly. Kramer basically seems to just sit back and let everybody do their thing (without bothering to make them stop), and it works. "I'm comin' Mama, your baby's comin'!"

The fact that this Great Performances special, "Cats," was filmed on a stage like a performance of the show, but not before a live audience, offers pluses and minuses. The closeups reveal the actors' facial expressions very clearly, which is a great plus, particularly in the case of Elaine Page's Grizabella. Also, the sound is clearer than in recordings of this show. However, the special is a little weak on conveying the excitment of being in a live theater. Nevertheless, on the whole it was a good show.

For all the theatrical appeal, visual appeal, and the long runs, "Cats" is not the greatest thing to have ever hit musical theater. It's long on the above mentioned theatrics and visuals, but way too short on plot and substance. But it is really not a bad show by any means. The songs (Poetry from a book of T.S. Elliot's set to Andrew Lloyd Webber's music) are catchy and engaging, performed by a very energetic cast. The dancing is good, too. And as for the casting, that is also well-done. I would have loved to see Betty Buckley recreate her Broadway role of Grizabella, but Paige, who played the role in London, is not bad at all; her expressions, as I said, are... well, very expressive, and her rendition of "Memory" is just as good and moving as Buckley's. Ken Page, the original Broadway Old Deutoronomy, is also good. Sir John Mills' cameo as Gus, the Theatre Cat, is exploitive but touching. (And you can see why they cut his character's "Growltiger's Last Stand:" he may not have been able to get through it, unfortunatly)

Having not seen this show on stage yet, I think this special is a pretty good substitute for it. Perhaps you will feel the same way.

Of course, there is Fred Astaire's delightful, legendary, innovative dance on the ceiling and his dance with a hatrack in the gym, both of which are great. But then there are also his delightful partnerings with Jane Powell, playing his Adele Astaire-esque sister and dancing partner. These include the opening number, "Every Night At Seven," their cute little attempt to dance aboard a rocky boat, and the dynamite "How Could You Believe Me, etc." AND "I Left My Hat in Haiti." Powell, known mostly for her operetic soprano that never quite seems to match her speaking voice, (and which can also be heard in a few forgettable songs here) rivals Ginger Rogers in her ability to keep up with Astaire and match him every step of the way. Not to be missed if you love musicals, dancing in musicals, and/or Fred Astaire dancing in musicals.

As for the rest of the film, the plot is thin as expected but breezes along smoothly. The characterizations of the English are silly caricatures. (Alan Jay Lerner wrote the screenplay and lyrics, but remember, this was five years before "My Fair Lady") Keenan Wynn does okay with the double role of an American agent and his British twin counterpart, though. Peter Lawford is Powell's English honey bun. (In real life, Adele Astaire did leave dancing when she married an English lord) And yes, that is Sarah Churchill, Winston's daughter, as about the only romantic partner of Fred's on film that was his own age.

A combination of desires- to top "Mary Poppins" and to capitilize on the then-current trend of big-budget, three-hour musical films playing to roadshow audiences- caused Walt Disney to make this film, the last he personally oversaw. He hired several of the same people to work on it that had worked on "Poppins", including the songwriting team of the Sherman brothers, the chereography team of Marc Breaux and Dee Dee Wood, and supporting cast member Hermoine Baddely in much the same role of the acerbic maid. In addition, he spent freely on costumes and production and hired an impressive cast, including Fred Macmurry, Greer Garson, Tommy Steele, Gladys Cooper, Geraldine Page, and in their film debuts, Lesley Ann Warren and John Davidson.

The result was a pleasent, somewhat entertaining but all-around silly and, for the most part, instantly forgettable confection. Yes, it's fine for the whole family, but it will be hard for the kiddies (and even the adults) to stay awake as the rather simple story is stretched to nearly three hours, with a series of plotlines connected by merely a shimmer all going on at once. Macmurry is at his least inspired, making the title character into a bumbling, blustering idiot; it's pretty hard not to cheer whenever someone shows him up, verbally or physically. The songs are nice enough, but only one or two really stick in the memory, and half of them are totally irrelevant. (I saw the restored roadshow edition; there are a variety of other editions that cut out several of the songs) Still, Tommy Steele is likable as the forever perky Irish butler (He gets a very hummable song to sing called "Fortuosity") and the chereography certainly is lively. The songs, for all the irrelevance of many of them, really move the picture along, as it slows down considerably whenever the screenplay takes over.

It's too bad Disney's last film couldn't have been better, but oh, well. That's life.

I saw a restored print of "Rear Window" at a local movie theater recently. It looks great, especially that shot of Grace Kelly leaning in to kiss James Stewart/the camera. Were it not for its reputation and a few points that give away its 1950s setting, it could easily pass for a modern movie.

It is very good, surely one of the Master's best movies. Highly entertaining, with great performances from Stewart, Kelly, (Actually likeable for once, and very sexy) and the hilarious Thelma "Maybe he put her leg in the East" Ritter, and a great script, the film also does have a great deal of tension and suspense in its last half, created as only Hitch can do it, esepcially in the scene (Possible Spoiler) where Raymond Burr enters Stewart's apartment and he keeps taking pictures of him to distract him. It's also highly engrossing from the beginning; like Stewart's character, we really become voyeurs and get caught up in the lives of the people he watches from his window, most of whom hardly even speak.

A great Hitchcock film, and a great film period.

Well, duh, there'll never be an Audrey Hepburn. She was unique and special and still is inimitable. There'll never be another like her, we all know that. But still, Jennifer Love Hewitt- whom I have yet to see in anything else- actually does a pretty admirable job of pretending to be Hepburn, with the accent and most everything else. It's quite obvious that she's trying very hard, and she is to be commended. She really isn't that bad, though the movie itself isn't quite as good. Yes, the narrative has huge gaps; one minute she's dying of malnutrition, and after the commercial break she's back on her feet and studying ballet. Her films fly by in a flash. The films were more worthwile than the subplot of her undying love for her father, who is portrayed as such a cold fish you just don't see the attraction. And as fine as Hewitt is, since this isn't really Aurdey Hepburn, it's a little difficult to believe that everyone-excpet her father- who knows her immediatly adores her. But other than that,... it wasn't bad.

I did not find Spencer Tracy to be self-righteous, as others did. He was just... well, Spencer Tracy as judge, and fine, I thought. The self-righteous character in this movie, for me, was Richard Widmark's prosecutor. Maybe it was because he had the easy job, (How hard was it going to be to convince everyone that these Nazi war criminals should be convicted?) but he was just too preachy for me. I really couldn't stand him. Apparently all Stanley Kramer dramas have some amount of preachiness to them, and it's there in here, all right. But there are still great performances from Tracy, Burt Lancaster as one of the defendants, Montgomery Clift and Judy Garland as two of the witnesses, and Marlene Dietrich as a German woman who tries to convince Tracy "that we're not all monsters." As for Maximillian Schell, who plays the German lawyer defending the criminals and won the film's only acting Oscar, he's pretty good, too, but doesn't particularly stand out among such a great cast. Yes, the film is overlong and has a few draggy, boring spots, but is also has several effective scenes, such as several testimonies of the witnesses and the scene showing (most of) the greusome details of the Holocaust. That really does get to you, even with Widmark narrating.

As a whole, this film was pretty good. Fine performances from Anne Baxter as Eve, the brilliantly phony schemer, George Sanders as the caustic critic Addison de Witt, (His opening voiceover monologue is hilarious), Thelma Ritter as the cynical maid, Hugh Marlowe and Celeste Holm as the playwright and his wife, and, in an early small role, Marilyn Monroe as a wannabe starlet. The script has great moments of biting humor and all that, yes, and Joseph Mancewicz's direction is pretty good, too. But there are plenty of moments when the film simply dissolves into talkiness, and it gets a little slow and boring. The film is at its best when Bette Davis, giving no doubt her best performance as fading star Margo Channing, really lets loose and lets her costars have it, as in the scene where she fights with Marlowe in the theater. She is also good when being vulnerable and revealing in some of the quieter scenes, but the talkiness factor does override her a little bit. Not quite as scathing and cynical as "Sunset Boulevard," but close.

Alfred Hitchcock made this film in Britain way back in 1935, five years before venturing over to this side of the Atlantic, and yet The 39 Steps is just as suspenseful, exciting, and fun as any of his best Hollywood movies. Amazing.

Fine performances from Robert Donat, (Mr. Chips he ain't here) Madeleine Carroll, and Lucie Mannheim as the woman who's murdered in the beginning. Even Peggy Ashcroft shows up as a Scottish farmer's wife who helps Donat, and she's good, too. Great atmosphere of intrigue, deception, and everything else you'd expect from Hitch, and indeed it is very fresh even today. There's even a clever little shot of a maid seeing the murdered Mannheim's body, as her scream dissolves into a train whistle blowing. And there are some great lines that are still funny. (Donat to milkman: "Are you married?" Milkman: "Yes, but don't rub it in.") The sound is a bit muddy, (Though not very bad) and there are some confusing points along the way, but all in all it's great, classic Hitchcock.

Unfortunatly, I don't get the cable channel that frequently shows this film, I assume, in widescreen. (It's no longer AMC) I missed the chance to see it in a theater when it was presented at a local matinee. So I ended up with the original pan-and-scan video. Therefore, poor Booth Bay Harbor, Maine, (and San Francisco, where the final shot was filmed) was not showcased in all its glory, but you make do with what you have.

Now to the film itself: I have seen this show on stage, and I really liked it. I have listened to several recordings, including the 1994 revival, and I have always been spellbound by the marvelous score, R and H's best and indeed one of the best ever, I think. Unfortunatly, some of that score was cut from the film, which hurts it, especially in the beginning. Maybe that's what was missing; just the deletion of "You're a Queer One, Julie Jordan" takes something away from "Mister Snow" and even "If I Loved You," which also has given up some of the introductory verses to the latter song sung by Julie. Therefore, it's just not as intriguing and entrancing. And yes, it is annoying that the first scene was an added one to take away the pain. (I won't say more) As for the acting, Gordon Mcrae's Billy Bigelow... well, something was missing. Same with Shirley Jones' Julie Jordan and Barbara Ruick's Carrie Pipperidge. I can't put my finger on it, but something was missing. (Though, like I said, it may be the cut part of the score)

But then "along come" the spirited rendition of "June Is Bustin' Out All Over," which finally brings that spark of life that's been missing so far. Director Henry King finally seems to get a hold of himself, and from then on, the film is great. Mcrae's "Soliloquy" is a tour de force, and Jones is perfect in "What's the Use of Wond'rin." Both act just fine, too, from then on, as does Ruick and the rest of the cast, including Cameron Mitchell as Jigger Craigin. (Too bad we don't get to see what the chereographer did with "Blow High, Blow Low," though; that was cut, too) The scenes with their daughter, played by Susan Luckey, are even a little touching. (Unfortunatly, though, the ballet showcasing her starts and ends on the beach, but for the entire middle section makes a jarring transition to an indoor set, which takes away from it a little) So, it regains its footing from a dissapointing beginning to finish off beuatifully, even with the sentimental "You'll Never Walk Alone." See the movie, but better yet, rent one of the recordings, including the film's own soundtrack, which includes the cut "Queer One" and "Blow High" and which I'll listen to right now.

Robert Halmi has made his living since the mid-1990s by making big-budget miniseries based on classic stories that focus on lavish, spectacular special effects. Most of the ones I have seen ("Merlin," "Alice in Wonderland," "A Christmas Carol") were good, though one ("Animal Farm") was pretty bad. Halmi's latest project, "Don Quixote," does not have especially great special effects, but that in no way detracts from the film's enjoyment. Both hilarious and even somewhat touching, this adaptation of Cervantes' famous tale of the madman who fancies himself a knight errant is highly entertaining and fun to watch. John Lithgow is fine as the Man of La Mancha himself, and most of his encounters with supposed giants and other enemies are very funny. Bob Hoskins, as his sidekick Sancho Panza, is hilarious. And plus, we have the beautiful Vanessa Williams to perk things up every now and then as Quixote's fantasy lady, Dulcinea. Yes, most of the Spanish characters speak in British or American accents, but does it really matter? Nothing, not even the lack of brilliant effects, make this film any less entertaning or enjoyable.

I have yet to read the book, so I don't know how faithful this film was to the original novel, but I really don't care. When you have such a fine cast and such a great production overall, who cares about being faithful? Bob Hoskins as the eccentric, debt-ridden Mr. Micawber, the inimitable Maggie Smith as Aunt Betsey Trotwood, and Ian McKellen as the sinister headmaster Creekle head the wonderful cast, which includes other great performances from Trevor Eve as evil stepfather Mr. Murdstone, Claire Holman as tortured Rosa Dartle, Pauline Quirke as the beloved nurse Peggoty, and Nicholas Lyndhurst, truly terrifying as the "'umble" clerk Uriah Heep. Not to be left out, Daniel Radcliffe and Ciaran McMenamin are fine as young and old David Copperfield himself, respectively, though as Russell Baker noted in his "Masterpiece Theater" introduction, David is the least interesting character; the others are whom we remember. The production also looks great, from the seaside to the drawing rooms to the offices. Fine direction, script, everything. The BBC and Masterpiece Theater have done it again!