Reviews

I just watched an old Perry Mason ans was pleasantly surprised to see Constance Ford. So, I looked her up and thought I'd see the reviews for A Summer Place.

I was in the 8th grade when it first played. Looking back, those teen angst movies with sex as the conflict were laughable back then. Even as an 8th grader, they seemed conservative compared to what us kids talked about at the time which was much racier.

There were movies like Susan Slade, Parrish, etc. that are cringe inducing but so entertaining for their dated takes on young love and young sex.

Now, Constance Ford is irresistible; a poor man's Joan Crawford during her Queen Bee and Harriet Craig years. She could be so scary just by giving a look of disdain. I wish I could have met her to see what she was really like because she had that tough, intolerant schtick down and half the time seemed like she was having hot flashes to boot. Even in black and white, it looked like her face would get flushed when she was losing her temper. But, she could steal a scene so effortlessly even if she didn't say a word.

I don't know what movie or TV show I saw Ford in where she was in a vicious argument with another woman or young girl where she took a fireplace poker and swung it and stuck it in the mantel. She was good. Scarier than Dirty Harry.

Poor Troy Donahue couldn't act to save his life. He was a male bimbo. I had a crush on Sandra Dee even though she could be really annoying at times but she had her good moments.

Dorothy McGuire was quite a beauty and a good actress but low key and not showy.

All in all, a fun and entertaining movie with a window to a different time is some of our lives. I know it was a drama but, really, it still has me grinning throughout. And, that's good.

I checked spoiler just in case Ford swinging a fireplace poker was from this movie. I can't recall for sure. She probably could have done that in many of her films with the characters she played.

I knew this was going to be a stinker from the previews, the plot outline and that James Franco and Seth Rogen were going to do a comedy.

I am so disgusted with Sony and everyone involved with this movie including the people who think it's about 'free speech' or something worthwhile. This ain't the film to make that point.

There have been lots of jokes and mocking about Kim Jong Un but having the U.S. government plotting to assassinate him was bound to have repercussions and I hope they hit Sony and the 2 leads hard. When a country with nukes and a super proud dictator doesn't 'get' the joke and retaliates by hacking your computer system, the 'joke' is on you.

Think about it. This movie dragged the FBI and the attention of the President into its stupidity. Sony should reimburse the FBI for any costs it incurred investigating the hacking.

It was plainly irresponsible to make this movie knowing full well what the subject matter is and who we're dealing with.

Free speech doesn't exist everywhere on the planet and if it can backfire on Americans within the country who have spoken unwisely in public, it can do even worse by foreign enemies who have no restraints on their behavior.

It's like pulling on a lion's tail and whining when he rips your throat out. If only it would ruin Sony and end the careers of the 2 leads, it would be worth all the problems it caused.

Oh, I didn't see the movie. Did you have to actually see it to know how bad it would be? Do you have to actually smell a loaded diaper to know it stinks?

How was it possible to make such an compelling and inspiring life story into such a boring movie despite sharks and torture? Go figure.

'Lifeboat' with Tallulah Bankhead was filmed almost entirely in a lifeboat and was much more interesting than the life raft scenes in this movie which felt like twice the length of the other movie.

Bridge on the River Kwai took place almost entirely in a POW camp and same comparison I made above could apply with this tedious hour or more of torture and abuse that was also boring.

And how did the lead character not have a full beard after 47 days at sea. His haircut looked the same throughout his adult scenes except for being messy at times. Did his hair stop growing? The movie seemed flat and 2 dimensional. There were only 2 moments that evoked any spark of emotion or interest in me- when he was in church as a young boy and got slapped upside the head for not paying attention and the epilogue at the very end showing the real Louie running in the Olympics at age 80 but that scene was real footage and not part of Jolie's overdone, overwrought and, yet, uninspiring and yawn inducing vanity project.

I don't know if it was the acting which was flat or the camera not capturing any good acting. Even closeups of Louie's face in excruciating pain or intense emotion stayed right there on the screen and didn't reach the audience. I actually heard laughter during some intense scenes. Huh? I've seen more moving teevee commercials than most of this movie was.

But, Jolie isn't the only one. Many current directors work so hard at 'realism' that it is distracting. The old time directors knew how to create magic on the silver screen without having to put every excruciating detail on film. It's like they want to put a clinical pelvic exam on a video for gynecologists instead of a truly romantic scene with fully clothed actors when romance is the intention.

Bette Davis was scarier as Baby Jane Hudson than the Japanese head of the POW camp.

I just don't understand how Jolie could get it so wrong. Didn't she learn anything from Eastwood's 'Changeling' that left me not caring about anyone in that movie, especially Jolie herself? Even the very short scene of Louie's reunion with his family was so so contrasted to the amount of time spent on the life raft and POW scenes.

It just didn't work and I hate being so critical of a movie based on such a remarkable and extraordinary long life. But, the movie didn't do Louie justice and that's as painful as watching the movie was.

Oh, brother. I am watching it now as I turned on HBO during the chase scene and thought I was watching a Bourne movie. It's amazing how Affleck could make a car chase in the US with a Jeep Cherokee and Ford cop cars look like it was taking place in Europe. I guess Ben decided to copy the look of his friend Matt Damon's hit movies. I hate when people do that kind of cheap imitation.

The interior scenes looked like I had switched channels to one of the many current cop shows, the lighting, the dialog, the clichés, the boredom.

Dontcha love it when pretty boy actors deliberately try to rough up their looks and butch up their acting in 'bad guy' roles? Imagine McCauley Culkin doing a re-make of 'Scarface'. Why don't they just do drugs like Charlie Sheen and let the damage take its own course? The movie isn't over yet. I don't know if I can stay till the end.

Help me!

I can appreciate both Joan Crawford's intense drive over a very long career and her messy personal life as being totally believable in one person. I love watching her 'act' in any movie, whether it's 'Mildred Pierce', 'Whatever Happened to Baby Jane', 'The Damned Don't Cry' or even 'Trog'. Her every move, every look, every word wasn't left to chance for her.

She had something captivating although, except for some of her early 'looks' I didn't think she was as beautiful as she was portrayed in her films. She had a skinny, boyish figure, not at all feminine. Surprisingly, she became a handsome woman in her later years when the effects of alcohol weren't too apparent.

One thing rarely, if ever mentioned, is Crawford's voice. She could sound witchy in one scene and lower it to sound worldly and wise in the next. And those eyes. You knew exactly what she was thinking. She was 'living' those parts she played.

In her interview with the young British guy, I was impressed when she acknowledged that everything she learned in life she got from the movie business. She said that if she didn't know a word in a script, she would look it up. Surprising honesty for a 'big star'.

To me, it was both sad and admittedly entertaining that her alcoholism affected her later years. She still had a hard work ethic and I couldn't understand why she couldn't find roles for an older actress as some others her age did, like Olivia de Haviland and Joan Fontaine, etc. I guess her problem was that she wanted to maintain that 'Joan Crawford' persona from an earlier time and it was the 1960s, after all.

I would have loved meeting her and talking about 'her' and her career even though I can believe that she might have been a real horror as a mother. She was hard on herself and I assume just as hard on her children. After 'Mommie Dearest' came out, I was eating some weird dish made with tofu and said "I think this is the kind of stuff Joan Crawford ate". He deadpanned, "She probably made her kids eat it".

It's a movie about sets, cars, clothes and artifacts from the 1930s, oh, and a divorced woman with 2 daughters who opens a restaurant chain and I felt as though I had done all the dishes in the chain after watching only part of it. Excruciatingly slow and agonizingly detailed.

The original movie had so much more going for it - Joan Crawford in the opening sequence wearing a mink coat with padded shoulders. It doesn't get any better than that. It moved along briskly to tell a story that spans years while this version feels like it's taking years to tell it.

Why do directors go to such excessive lengths to create a particular period? Reminded me of Eastwood's 'Changeling' where the focus was so much on the look of the era that it was a distraction. Directors need to learn how to suggest a period without filling in every single detail. I've seen it done in 'Chinatown'. Less is more. It's an art.

The characters in this one almost fade into the background. I guess I'm being really harsh but the original was so vividly done that it's hard not to compare.

*** This movie may contain spoilage *** I saw this when it came out and didn't care for it at all. The big deal at the time was Liz Taylor made up to look old and frumpy. I think she then did a later film called 'Ash Wednesday' to reverse the procedure.

Anyway, Liz and Dick were married in real life and it was reported that they had similar encounters with Jack Daniels and boisterous 'conversations' at home, so this should have been a walk-in-the-park acting job for both of them.

But, it was awful. The story was repulsive as were all the characters. I feel that trying to analyze drunken behavior in a movie is a pointless endeavor that, for some reason, actors and directors think is a life affirming philosophic inquiry......or something. I would compare this to trying to pass a driving test while drunk. It doesn't work.

Burton does his usual Shakespearean speechifying. Taylor is a caricature of whatever she is supposed to be. Bette Davis's Baby Jane Hudson was more real and realistic than Martha. At times, the lighting and camera work inside the house reminded me of very early 1950s TV soap operas.

All in all, a lousy evening for the 4 of them and me.

I saw the Graduate when it came out and I was about 21, so lucky me. To this day, when I watch it, each scene is so perfectly crafted to evoke a variety of emotions, from anxiety to outrageous laughter to tenderness, etc.

The cast was perfect. Hoffman looking dazed and confused at the beginning to becoming a man about town to a man in love chasing his woman. Katherine Ross was the ideal mid-60s young woman, beautiful, long hair although the false eyelashes are a little jarring in 2011. Her walking across campus with boots was a familiar image from back then. I recall a Life magazine photo of young woman that Ross remind me of. It was classic look. How could Ben not, you know, go for it? That scene at the end of their first date when they are at her door and she's reaching into the bag to get a french fry, then Ben walks away out of camera range and tosses the empty, crumpled bad back at her was one of those tender moments. I know it doesn't sound romantic.

Ann Bancroft is a joy to watch in every scene she's in, the way she can get a waiter when Benjamin fumbles his attempts, taking off an earring to answer the phone in the bar, rubbing a spot off her top while she's undressing in the hotel room, turning on the stereo to a blast of music while 'seducing' Benjamin in the sun porch, smoking and just that sexy way Ann Bancroft is. Her boozy husband is a hoot. Ben's parents are also great in their oblivious way.

I know the plot by heart and I don't try to analyze it much as I just enjoy watching the actors perform the way I enjoy a singer sing. It's artistry. Although the situations may be unusual, it seemed like we knew all of these types of people in our own lives.

I've been smitten and driven long distances for love and although I wasn't seduced by my father's partner's wife, I had friends that did stuff like that or saw single mother's of friends that looked like they didn't stay home alone Saturday nights. I've seen parents like Ben's too.

The movie captured something familiar yet normally experienced privately and took us on a ride as though we were living it.

I like this movie and watch it whenever it's on TV. I fell for Gwyneth's innocent, delicate vulnerability even though she's having an affair. She reminds me of Audrey Hepburn in Charade where there is something appealing about a classy yet helpless woman in distress.

The scene where she goes to the apartment of the man she killed to see if the key fits located in the ghetto accentuates her vulnerability. Angelina Jolie wouldn't work as well in that situation as she much stronger.

However, It was absurd that the same type of key that went with a luxury apartment would also be the same quality as one used in a tenement. I replaced a lock on my front door with a high priced one and the new key doesn't bend like the cheap one that came with the house. Really? Michael Douglas is so satisfying to hate in a movie. What a creep. Yet, I was on his side in Disclosure with Demi Moore.

Two characters that really filled out the cast well for me were David Suchet as the detective and his gentleness with Paltrow was reassuring. Suchet has an appearance that could pass as a bad guy or a terrorist yet the actor was able to communicate caring and trust which says a lot about him. I felt the same way about Michael P. Moran who informed Paltrow of her husband's shady business practices. He looks familiar but I don't know from where and I liked him.

Viggo was an unpleasant character and I didn't much mind his demise.

For a slight, delicate woman, Paltrow's character dispatched, directly or indirectly, 3 men in this movie. Not bad for a non-superwoman.

Do people really expect a dreary, realistic documentary or recreation of actual events when they see a movie about a Hollywood bombshell who dies tragically at a young age? I tend to think a movie about a famous actor who has some out of the ordinary episodes in his/her life should be somewhat over the top to begin with. Maybe a biopic of Fred MacMurray would be a toned down but probably boring movie.

I really enjoyed the beautiful Carrol Baker in this film. She did a good job given that it was an extravagant 'Carpetbaggers' type film but it was entertaining. I didn't expect a true life biography.

The same goes for 'Mommie Dearest' which was fun but Joan Crawford's life did have some bizarre twists and qualities to it especially in her later career.

As for the problems with hairstyles and other things not looking like the 1930s, I suspect that an effort to get every detail 'right' as in the 'Changeling' can be a distraction when viewed in the present day. Miss Baker's look, which was 60s rather than 30s gave the audience the sense of what was appealing, perhaps, in the 60s even if not authentic. If they went to great lengths to give her 30s make up and hair styles, Baker might not have appeared as attractive to us in the 60s and we wouldn't have an appreciation of her sexual attraction.

I recently watched it for the 3rd time and the theme music during the opening credits really moved me with its haunting sadness and foreshadowing of what was to come. Miss Baker actually made me care about the character she played even though the movie was a showy extravaganza.

I sorta enjoyed the movie, seeing it on TV several times. But, what really impressed me was Laura Linney. She is amazing. The scene in the courtroom where she describes to Edward Norton on the stand what she would do if the priest did to her what he did to him and ending with 'But that's me' is awesome. Sometimes, I sit through the movie just to catch that one scene. Miss Linney can be cold, frustrated and testy playing a character and still be very appealing. There is a difficult to describe quality in her that comes across beyond just the dialog. She doesn't work at being lovable or appealing or attractive but she is all the way.

Norton is great and I loved when he reveals that it's he, not Aaron that is the real person with such a delightful wickedness after watching him portray the other character so well. Perfection, Mr. Norton. I can't imagine Matt Damon or De Caprio doing it as well.

Richard, Richard. I don't know what to say. You are so busy, self consciously 'acting' that it is a distraction in nearly every one of your movies. I have rarely seen you do anything naturally that other men might do in real life. I don't know how you can keep up the artificial acting style for so many years and still get work. But, what the heck.

Although there was a surprise plot twist that was good, the movie was more a character study than an absorbing courtroom drama such as 'A Few Good Men' which really had my interest in how the case would go.

"But, that's me".

First. I don't go to the movies any more, just what's on HBO or TCM, so I'm not speaking as a movie connoisseur. But, I like to check out if my initial impressions are accurate when movies come out from the previews, appearance on late night shows by the stars promoting them and even a 'making of XYZ' documentary as soon as the movie is released.

When this came out and I saw the previews plus Cruise and Diaz on The Tonight Show hyping it, especially Cruise's fixation on the motorcycle scene with Diaz as though that was the highlight of the movie, I thought, 'no pass'. As I write this on 9/17/10, the gross hasn't reached the cost of the budget yet. And many reviews claim it's the worst movie ever.

Second. Here's my problem. Two of may favorite movies, 'A Few Good Men' and 'The Firm' star Cruise, who was pretty good in them even though I didn't care for him when he first started and even less so the last few 'post Oprah's couch' years. Those 2 movies had great, interesting stories, good casts and were well made in all the ways that make for good movies; production values, soundtrack, editing etc. It's like someone actually cared about the product. They didn't occur to me as just money making ventures like this mess.

The movie business is kind of mysterious. I wonder if Kevin Costner will ever get funding for another 'bomb at the box-office'. I guess Cruise will get a few more chances but it's full of pitfalls. He may try to compensate by making something really 'significant' or something even more stupendous and expensive with a lot of special effects. Why not simply make a good movie with a good story, characters and cast?

This is one of those movies that once you start watching you have to finish it especially if you're watching on TV.

I loved a Carol Burnett spoof of this movie on her Carol Burnett Show. She was in the jail cell being visited by a priest. She is telling the priest that she is so fearful of, of............. As she struggles to say what it is, the priest (I think it was Tim Conway) says "Fry in the electric chair?".

Anyway, Lana could be really good, especially when she was younger. But, I suspect the alcohol and her scandalous life style affected her acting in a negative way. She would get that fiery look in her eyes so often, it became a little trite. But, she is one of my favorites.

Oh, Joan, That hairdo, those eyebrows, hide the children. Someone said she looked like she was wearing 'warrior makeup'. But, we love ya, Joan when you're as bad as you can be. This was before the Joker in the Batman movies.

Other reviewers have already laid out the plot but there are a few scenes that simply delight me. There's the one where a seated John Ireland has a telephone cord gently wrapped around his neck by Joan while she's on the phone.

In another scene, she is talking to her young niece or whoever she is while semi-reclining on the sofa. Meanwhile Joan has her leg elevated admiring it and pointing her foot in her high heel shoe, somewhat distracted by its shapeliness, I guess.

Then, while the young woman and Betsy Palmer are on the floor looking at blueprints of the house Betsy will live in, they don't hear Joan enter till you see her high heel shoe with its ankle strap stepping on the blueprints and ruining their fun.

Another delightful moment is when Barry Sullivan, 'Beauty' is in his office pacing in front of his desk where Joan is seated out of camera range while he is trying to tell her he wants a divorce. It's a heavy, serious scene. The camera pans over to Joan who is admiring herself in her compact make up mirror in a wonderfully blasé, Joan Crawford way.

These little moments are worth sitting through some of the tedious plot development. There is one scene where Barry Sullivan is having a long dialog with John Ireland in Sullivan's bedroom while he is dressing for a formal dinner. The dialog is one long shot while Sullivan is tying his bow tie, something we don't see in today's movies with all the quick edits. Today's actors don't seem to be able to do a long scene without cuts like in these old movies.

I guess Joan didn't mind playing a character that was so nasty that the audience cheered her demise at the end of the film.

I always enjoy Joan Crawford movies just to watch her acting. She's so, so.......Joan Crawford. One thing rarely mentioned about Joan aside from her eyebrows, her shoulders, her drinking etc. is her voice. She's able to change her voice in a movie to fit scenes when appropriate.

In this one, in the last scene when she is explaining everything, her voice is a little deeper and sounds so reasonable and sane compared to the rest of the movie. It reminds me of one line she said in Whatever Happened to Baby Jane when she tells the maid Elvira "We're sisters, Elvira. We know each other very well". It has such a worldly, knowing quality to it that I enjoy. She's done it in other movies where she delivers a really good line with that deeper, more natural voice.

One of Joan's signature moves in many of her films (I don't recall if it was in Straight jacket) is to walk away from the camera while having a dialog with another actor. She'll walk up to a fireplace with her back to the camera and then make a swift turn to face the other actor and deliver her line. It's always so dramatic.

Another thing I liked in her earlier films in the 40s was the diagonal shadow that shaded the lower part of her face, making her eyes even more expressive. I wondered if that was what they copied in the Addams Family Values film when Angelica Huston's eyes were always lit with an oval shaft of light wherever she was.

Although her films after WEHTBJ weren't the best but still campy and fun, it was too bad she couldn't or wouldn't get parts that mature actresses could play like other actresses her age. I wonder if it was her alcoholism that affected her judgment even though she worked hard and was professional to the end with some really bad scripts, e.g. Trog.

She still fascinates to this day. They don't make 'em like that any more. I tended to believe most of what was written by her daughter in Mommie Dearest as I've seen people behave differently in private than in public all my life. I don't think she was a warm or friendly person but I would have liked to meet her and tell her how much I enjoyed her work. And she did work-hard. In a way, it's sad that such a hard working, disciplined actor had such a downhill direction in her career and personal life in her later years.

I love Madeline Kahn, I love Marty Feldman, Gene Wilder. Then, there's Teri Garr, Peter Boyle and Cloris Leachman. I love 'em all. Every time I see this movie, there is something that I find to delight over that I may have overlooked.

Madeline Kahn singing 'Oh, sweet mystery of life' after being 'taken' by the monster is one of the funniest things I've ever seen in a movie. I love Wilder's turnabout when he's in the locked room with the monster, screaming to be let out. Marty Feldman doesn't even have to say anything to be funny but when he does, it's priceless - 'What hump?'.

You could almost do a 'Rocky Horror' participation with this movie as so many lines are memorable.

The only thing I would gripe about is sometimes Wilder's histrionics can go a little too long and become tedious which is a shame because he is so good at subtlety and has a natural laid back personality.

This is one of those movies like Victor/Victoria which I wish I could have been a stagehand just to be around the fun. How do these excellent performers go on with their lives after having what must have been a blast followed by a letdown when it was over?

I love this movie. Seen it many times and I never tire of it. What is so romantic is that Goldie civilizes Kurt and his kids while he softens up her rich witch personality. Goldie is great playing what seems like several characters, the rich, snobby heiress, the amnesiac who is perplexed by Kurt's deception of having her be his wife and mother of his 4 sons, the Goldie who mellows and surrenders to her 'new' life and so on. She is fantastic.

Kurt is so darn likable, as a PO'd guy seeking revenge on Goldie, as an sloppy, not very responsible father of 4 wild boys and as a tender lover eventually.

I love the segment about the legend of the 2 lovers who drowned and the 3 blasts from the boat's horns to signal to each other and how it ties in at the end. Really touching and romantic.

There are some funny parts when Goldie is cleaning the house and puts out 2 opened cans of dog food, still in the cans, for the 2 mongrel dogs.

The cast is perfect with Edward Hermann, Roddy McDowell and Katherine Hellman plus the kids and others. No missteps.

It's funny, romantic, touching, with a little social commentary by Roddy McDowell about Goldie being able to see life from 2 different vantage points but nothing too significant. Wish there were more films with all of these qualities and that also were well crafted with some good music thrown in. This is one of those movies that I want to just climb into that world and join the party.

I love this movie. The cast is perfect. I wasn't a fan of Julie Andrews till I saw her in this and Le Jazz Hot is one of my favorite musical numbers. Julie was hot and the dancing amazing to watch. James Garner was never more appealing and Leslie Ann Warren stole the movie. Robert Preston is in a class by himself. The rest of the cast were all perfect.

Every scene was a jewel whether for comedy, romance, interesting social commentary done with a light touch, or simply touching. When Julie as Victor is given a cigar by King Marchand, she coughs and then when offered a glass of water he/she casually dunks the cigar in it. I love the scene when the private detective is outside the hotel room window in the rain and lightening hits his umbrella.

The final scene where Robert Preston does The Shady Lady of Seville in drag, for a moment, had me think that it was an outtake and the cast was just having fun. The ending was absolutely joyous and had me wanting to step into the scene to join the cast.

I saw this movie when I was about 12 when it came out. I recall the scariest scene was the big bird eating men dangling helplessly from parachutes right out of the air. The horror. The horror.

As a young kid going to these cheesy B films on Saturday afternoons, I still was tired of the formula for these monster type movies that usually included the hero, a beautiful woman who might be the daughter of a professor and a happy resolution when the monster died in the end. I didn't care much for the romantic angle as a 12 year old and the predictable plots. I love them now for the unintentional humor.

But, about a year or so later, I saw Psycho when it came out and I loved that the star, Janet Leigh, was bumped off early in the film. I sat up and took notice at that point. Since screenwriters are making up the story, make it up to be as scary as possible and not from a well-worn formula. There are no rules.

What a contrast. Stephanie Powers, I think, is perfectly beautiful and very vulnerable looking while Tallulah Bankhead is decrepit and hideous. I love them both. While not a real favorite movie of mine, I loved Whatever Happened to Baby Jane best out of all these type films, it was fun watching Tallulah and a pleasure looking at Stephanie.

Around the same time as this movie, Mad Magazine did a spoof on this genre of old, female Hollywood icons making horror movies. They created a composite film called 'Hack, Hack, My Darling', (This is from memory) starring Bette Devious, Olivia de Hackahand, Joan Clawfoot, etc. My favorite line was from this film and in Mad's version Stephanie stabs Tallulah in the back with a pair of scissors. Tallulah moans 'Why did you stab me with those scissors?' and Stephanie replies 'That's 2 for flinching'. I wish I could find that issue of Mad to see how well my memory has held up.