Reviews

I was a huge Flash comic fan during the Silver Age of D. C. comics. Also all the other D. C. comics. After I grew out of that juvenile age I lost it interest in comics. I've seen a few of the movies and TV revisions over the years. Some have been good, some not so much purely as self contained stories.

I still am bemused that so many older people take comics (and their film representations) so seriously. The genre is escapism, fantasy, imaginative story telling. Not heavy, deep mythos with existential meaning or depth psychology archetypal symbology. Taken as such is a facile shortcut to a deeper philosophical understanding of the patient subject matter.

Of course, comic and script writers have posed as mythologist, but the results are often shallow and superficial. And treating these comic and film writers as more than financially motivated story tellers is simplistic. No doubt they do their best and have pride in their work. But the intent is to sell.

The comic derived films are best as pure entertainment. As much as the Indiana Jones type franchises. Reading reviews here, so many are obsessed with connecting the dots between all the other comic and film iterations of these characters and their previous stories. A pure linear, analytical approach. And nit picking at the technical minutiae of the presentation rather than focus on the evolving action as it embodies the story arc. If a visual glitch or blurred image detracts too much then you have lost focus on the story.

A captivating story should be enjoyable as it is shown not in how it does or doesn't relate to other stories and characters of the same franchise 'multiverse.'

I think that the movie taken as such in isolation was good. Not great. It got bogged down too much with quasi scientific babble intended to connect the dots with other iterations of the franchise. Meant purely to satisfy the hard core comic fans of the franchise.

There were some interesting twists and unexpected plot turns. The comedy element was ok but maybe overdone. Having two Flash characters at the same time interacting and with opposite personalities was a clever premise, and the transition from slacker Barry to responsible Flash was a solid plot point.

The Batman story and the rationale for the team up was set up solidly. But the Lebowski-esque Bruce Wayne suddenly reverting back into the grim crime fighter was overdoing the credibility of the idea.

Maybe I'm way out of the loop. But what happened to Kryptonite? How was the imprisoned Kryptonian girl kept enslaved? That vulnerability had always been a critical element in the Superman/Kryptonian stories. .

The family dynamics storyline grounded the movie, but seemed a little too soap opera-ish.

I was entertained enough watching the movie on it's own without having to check off how it did or didn't conform to franchise criteria. Obviously the multiple Batman actors and clips of previous Superman and other franchise actors was intended to close the multiverse loop. I think it did so adequately enough, though possibly it could have been done a bit longer.

I still have hundreds of vintage D. C. Silver Age comics. I would love to see an authentic recreation of that part of the multi verse. Not as retroactively re-envisioned, with a ton of revisionist political correctness. Just the pure imaginative stories and characters living authentically in their own era. Without the compelling urgency to make them 'relevant' to whatever demographic is chosen to be the target audience.

To me, these comic adaptations are taken way too seriously. Too much emotional investment and commitment to the comic genre, looking for purity and conformity and evaluating the movie based on those criteria.

The casting director for Elvis movies in the sixties must have been impressed by this movie!

The next year, 1964 Cesare Danova was featured in Viva Las Vegas as Count Elmo Mancini. The race car driver/ playboy competing in the race and off the track for Ann Margret.

Peter Brooks and Joby Baker appeared in Girl Happy the next year. 1965. Brooks as a nerd around the motel (who morphs into Nita Talbot's date in the finale). And Baker is a buddy who played in Elvis's band. And shares in the hijinx.

The Gidget movie was intended to show the character as more mature and growing into a young adult. Beach scenes and family interaction were quickly disposed of in the first ten minutes. And the teenage romance/courtship dynamics of the earlier films was pretty much suspended as each lead pursued other potentially romantic partners for the bulk of the story.

The reunited ending was totally predictable. What else could it have been given the light comedic theme of the plot.

James Darren was in his prime then. On the charts in the early sixties he had a number of hit singles. Including Goodbye Cruel World and Her Royal Majesty amongst many others. He was in a handful of teen oriented films. And in a couple of years would star in the Time Tunnel sci Fi TV show.

All in all it was a nice enough bright, vivid time capsule of an early sixties milieu. And a view of a fun stereotypical tourist first visit to Rome. Hardly a memorable or captivating movie, but it did what it was intended to. Move Gidget off the beach and appeal to a familiar demographic.

Simple, innocent fluff that does build on the earlier Gidget mythos. The TV series actually is the best representation but has more time to expand on character and stories.

And as a footnote. Noreen Corcoran had just finished playing the teen daughter in the sitcom Bachelor Father.

I give credit to the writers and ideas people for a careful treatment of a franchise that began decades ago. It would have been easy to stay mostly retro, or overdo with contemporary technology. I think they found a nice balance. Some loose ends were cleared up, and a nice final scene fitting an age appropriate summation of the past and hints of a well earned retirement.

I think the length was a bit excessive though. As if they wanted to throw everything they could into the mix to make sure there were enough twists, turns, chases and surprises to go out with a bang. And having to tie up all the franchise loose ends meant some detours from the dominant story line. But all in all, still a captivating narrative.

The Archimedes storyline was interesting. Rather than imply a purely supernatural threat they constantly referred to it as science and math based. Precisely along the lines of classic scifi. Yet ultimately the time rift was even more explicitly sensationalistic in a conceptual sense than the effects of the artifacts of the earlier movies. Where the climax came in the present day and world of the film environment. In fact time travel brought the franchise somewhere different than where it went to previously . And in theory, would be an interesting angle to pursue if there were more sequels or spin offs.

For this genre of film the acting was respectable. Give credit to Ford for making his age an occasional reference. But without overdoing it or using it as an excuse. Brains compensated for less braun though obviously he still was primarily pushing the limits of his strength and endurance.

So many expectations make it hard to please everyone. Yet I think it was about as good an overall production as could be expected.

The 'history' obviously by the title, seems cribbed from Kenneth Anger's Hollywood Babylon books. Sensationalized fragments of certain events shown in the most lurid and unsubstantialized ways. But that's the foundation of the mythology of this movie.

From the first sight of the first person you can see that any attempt to actually capture an authentic period appearance and ambiance are casual at best. It was rare to see grossly overweight men with full beards in that locale and era. Throughout this movie multiple men sport full beards.

And where are the hats!

Men and women rarely were seen in public without hats. You hardly see any here. And the hair. Where are the bobs and bangs! The Marcel wave? The dances obviously don't reflect the realities of the time either.

The silent films usually had chamber music trios or classical ensembles accompanying filming. Not jazz. Obviously a compromise for one of the subplots, but artificially forced.

So many other movies have done better recreating the look and feel of period pieces. But that clearly wasn't considered important. A subtle thing that subliminally adds a degree of immersion.

Something that maybe younger audiences would be interested in. Rather than being afraid that they couldn't empathize beyond their own familiar expectations.

The main protagonists are exaggerated characterizations of real people. With a few lines dropped for reference.

Clara Bow obviously as the lead actress. With the most lewd stories referenced. Sex with the entire USC football team for instance. The fact that she settled down with Rex Bell into a rural ranching life wasn't sensationalistic enough for the story arc.

Jack was a synthesis, though John Gilbert seems most probable. The real actor had an entirely different history. His big romance was with Greta Garbo. The polar opposite of Clara Bow personality wise. And his downward spiral was largely a result of Louis B Mayer sabotaging his career.

My favorite character was Elinor. She was written as a Hopper or Parsons gossip columnist. But her name was a combination of Elinor Glyn and Adela Rogers St John. Both were popular novelists and popular magazine writers.

Appearance wise, the look is totally based on Glyn. A flaming redhead with exotic taste in style. She was a British best selling novelist of Three Weeks and other risque novels, married into minor nobility. She moved to Hollywood in her mid fifties and reinvented herself as an expert on culture and etiquette. She worked at MGM and elsewhere as an advisor and writer as her books were turned into films. Her magazine articles shaped opinion, and were where she announced Bow as the 'It Girl.' and did become her personal advisor for a time. But she moved back to England before talking pictures became dominant.

The best scene in the movie is her pontificating about fame and legacy with Jack. An actual serious, subdued, quiet scene. Maybe the only one.

The vignettes about film making were exaggerated but generally ok in the context of showing the changes over time from silent to sound. A little more explicit reference to pre code issues might have added depth to the story.

The parties and debauchery were modern interpretations of Hollywood Babylon's versions of history. The excessive over the top pornographic ensemble scenes look like choreographed calisthenics rather than anything erotic.

The torture and vomiting scenes seem intended to evoke shock. Nothing more. Gratuitous.

The trumpeter saga as a subplot seems a concession to modern sensibilities rather integral to the world of old Hollywood as it actually was. Popular mainstream music did not have thumping bass lines or the blaring tonality of this soundtrack. More Paul Whiteman, who actually was in early sound pictures. A nice story for a different context.

Irving Thalberg begging an actor to star in an acknowledged crappy movie? That really is a deviation from history. Thalberg fought for quality and prestige films. A bit irreverent to gratuitously use his name for a cheap reaction.

The movie itself was far too long. It should have been more about character development than imagery and cliches. More focus and fewer subplots.

The stories about unknowns becoming stars and then fading have been around forever. Show People came out in 1928. What Price Hollywood, and A Star is Born in the early thirties. Amongst so many more over the years.

The ending seems very artificial. As if they realized that nothing was cohesive and tacking on historical clips somehow meant that Babylon too was part of the cutting edge historical stream.

I was originally excited about the premise. I bought the 4k video and watched it in my theater room with a big screen and sound. Quality look, disappointing result. But credit at least for actually trying to deal with an era many are unfamiliar with. Maybe it will get some to delve further into the actual sources.