Reviews

Ten teens in our family (including extended family) went crazy over this movie!! After the first four girls hounded me about how great it was I bought DVD's for all the family girls (young and old) and every single one of them were wild about it. Being a Grandfather I thought that it would be just another "teenybopper" flick... After our first viewing my wife and I decided to have a surprise movie night for friends (most all are our age). What an excited group with the most used comment being "It's a shame that really great movies like this are rarely produced anymore!!

A really good movie to watch.....

The movie has the typical 1930s-1950s Monogram flavor. Simple theme, made mostly for the kiddies Saturday matinee's. Whip Wilson fits the role quite well, stern jaw, deep voice, slow moving, slow talking. When they put Wilson up on a horse they did so with style putting him up on a HUGE white horse (for effect no doubt). When you look at what the picture was meant to be it's OK...It's nice to see Phyllis Coates before she played Lois Lane to George Reeves' TV Superman. For an "oater", Coates is a pretty fair rider, too. Other charactors of note are Rand Brooks, Fuzzy Knight, Lane Bradford, and Stanford Jolley - all familar western actors of the period. This movie is probably mostly nice today for all us "ancient" persons that were kids in the 1930s, through 1950s that sat through all those exciting, nail biting, Satuday morning movie "thrillers" watching so intently. Have a heart. Watch the picture from the point in time it was meant to be.

I was a teen when this film was released and most teens at the time did not like it very much.. Mainly because of the corny way James Dean portrayed his role. And over the years it seems that the viewpoint of people that were in their teens in 1955 have gradually come to dismiss the movie as either "trash" or "an embarrassment to their youth", because almost every part of the script is overplayed and didn't even start to reflect the reality of post war 1950's... I've have lived and worked in most parts of the U.S. (and much of Europe) and found that viewpoint to be universal. The film is totally a tribute to Ray Stark and his fantasies, not to quality movie making!!

After all the build up to this movie it turns ot to be poorly written, poor dialect. childish presentation and a host of actors that act like they are raw rookies to the industry. HOWEVER - the CG is good, busy, and complex.

I watched the movie with my 15 year old Grand Daughter and three of her friends. They barely laste past the half way point of the movie leaving in disgust - all commenting how "lousy" the movie was.. To which I had to agree!!

I've seen plenty of war movies over the years. If this isn't the most pathetic, it's second to the worst. I doubt if any of the actors have ever been near the real thing. As a U.S. Army combat veteran I detest pathetic movies like this as they dishonor my friends that never made it back home. This film should be destroyed!!!!

SURPRISE!! Loved it!! The trouble is you have to have a reasonable intelligence level to appreciate it. Yes, it's a somewhat typical Hijack movie. Yes, Dolph Lundgren way, way under acted (or maybe not even aced at all). Half of the supporting cast was rank amateurs. Also, the dependence on the "F" word when not even remotely appropriate to the scene indicated the writers were probably high school dropouts. The sound was not up to decent standards; because of this much of the dialog is difficult to understand. The photography is dim and bad throughout the film (seemingly on purpose). However, the directing is better than average and Denise Richards does well by not depending on her well known figure and face; but on doing her lines in a most realistic manner. The most interesting way the movie ends is great – in that the audience has a choice in determining the final outcome as they would see it!

This movie should be a mandatory viewing for all students in the various theatrical curriculum in Universities. The directing is very, very poor (to say the least) having Murphy, Anders, and others perform in a stilted, confined manner. The "tough guy", Ted de Corsia, constantly overacts to the point of being obnoxious at times. Most of the extras look like they were recruited from the home for the aged just prior to filming, with some seemingly enjoying their first time as an actor/actress. What I find amazing is that at nights the entire "town" has more lighting then in any normal sunny day. The clothes everyone is wearing appears to have been cleaned and pressed just prior to that scenes filming. Perspiration drenched clothes are dry and well pressed in what is supposed to be the next scene a few minutes later. The close up camera work is OK, but there are far too many wide shots that don't fit the action of the time. Merry Anders is a beautiful person; but the outstanding hairdo could not possibly have been accomplished during the time frame the movie represents. And on and on and on… Unbelievable!!! I like both Audie Murphy and Merry Anders very much as performers. They certainly didn't deserve to be displayed in this shoddy film. The movie could have been excellent, but it was just the opposite, I'm very sorry to comment.

A typical fast paced Pat O'Brien movie that includes the alluring Deloris De Rio, the normally befuddled Edward Everett Horton, Leo Carrillo - popular 1930s talent, and much music and dancing. Watch for Judy Canova doing a great scene as "the Lady in Red" with Edward Everett Horton!!

One error that is repeated in both the IMDb cast listing and a number of viewer comments, is that the "Sally" De Marco in this film is actually "Renee" De Marco (Tony's second wife/dancing partner). Sally didn't start dancing with Tony until 1941, this film was made in 1935! Also, Sally and Renee had very different dancing styles, with Sally always having a most exciting and polished performance. I suspect because Sally had been a ballet dancer and had a very intense stage presence – plus she was quite beautiful. Renee was a good solid dancer, but typical smooth Ballroom dancer, not flashy but very, very smooth. Sally's performances, in comparison, would cause you to watch in awe.

All in all a very entertaining, albeit sort of "whacky", movie to watch!! Don't miss it!

The first 2/3 of the flick has Buster Keaton rambling around movie sets, pretty much getting into trouble. While the last roughly 1/3 of the movie focusing on the "Free and Easy" dance presentation, very entertaining (at least to this writer). If you are at all interested in the 1930's movies then this is a must have for your collection, and you WILL enjoy it!

Incidentally, it's easy to see why background dancer, Ann Dvorak went from an 18 year old dancer in this film to co-starring in a major movie (Scarface) only two years later. She really captures your attention – a beautiful gal!!

Regarding the singer/dancer listed as "Marion Shilling", IMDb indicates that Marion Shilling is the "Singer and Dancer in 'The Free and Easy' Number (uncredited)". The girl dancing with Keaton most decidedly is not Marion Shilling.

"Free and Easy" was released March 22, 1930. I have a number of DVD's featuring Marion Shilling in co-starring roles: "Shadow of the Law'with William Powell (released a couple months later on June 6, 1930). I also have DVD's of Marion Shilling in "Rio Rattler" (released Aug 1, 1935) and "I'll Name the Murderer" – Jan. 27, 1936. The dancer with Keaton in "Free and Easy" bears little resemblance to the Marion Shilling that co-starred in the DVD's I list above.

In his review of Free and Easy, Kidboots states: "Elmer is teamed with a cute dancer (Estelle Moran)". This may well be; however I could find no movies or pictures of an actress named Estelle Moran (or "Estelle Morgan") from that period. So the identity of the singer/dancer remains unclear – except it is not Marion Shilling. Perhaps if you listed the dancer as "Unknown" it would be more accurate.

This is a cutesy short, well worth watching. The color is good for it's day, and there are enough movie personalities to make it interesting.

There actually is a plot of sorts. Winners of dance contests from across the U.S. are invited to Palm Springs for get together with celebrities of the day. The only sad part is that a disproportionate amount of time is allowed at the end of the short for Fuzzy Knight to play and sing - what a waste.

However, as mentioned earlier, it's an interesting and entertaining piece of Hollywood history that is worth watching...

It appears from time to time on the Turner Classic Movie channel.