Reviews

I'm a history geek and a science geek and looked forward to watching this movie.

I made it through 1 hour and 15 minutes before turning it off.

The movie was so clearly Oscar bait (which worked!) and so poorly made.

I don't need profound moments punctuated by a loud bomb noise. I stopped counting the 4th time that was done.

Matt Damon was horribly cast. When his character started yelling at someone I actually laughed. And don't get me started on that 'stache that evidently was supposed to signal he was a serious, important character.

Maybe I'm spoiled by my love of classic (pre 1965) movies. Most classic movies don't try to wow the viewer with special effects and loud noises. They just tell quality stories.

This story could be made into a compelling and excellent movie. It's too bad that it wasn't and that so many were taken in by the smoke and mirrors.

This documentary started out promising (showing the auction of items intermingled with when they appeared on film), but quickly went downhill.

I am a classic movie buff and had seen nearly all the footage here before, but that's not the problem.

The documentary just seemed to have a lot of filler, especially near the end. Film clips at times seemed random and much too long.

Don't waste your time on documentary. There are much better ones out there.

IMDb requires 10 lines in a review. I can't even think of enough things to say about this documentary. Yes, it was this bad. I only gave it five stars for the auction footage and the footage of the MGM 25th anniversary lunch.

Wow. This collection of clips was disjointed, not funny at all and edited extremely poorly.

Carole Lombard was only shown in one brief clip. She was an extremely talented comedienne and this film did not do her justice at all.

The Jean Harlow clips shown were adequate and they did show one of her funniest scenes (with Marie Dressler in Dinner At Eight).

Cary Grant was shown only briefly. The man was much funnier than the clips led us to believe.

I could go on and on, but my point would remain the same: don't waste your time on this movie. Not only is it poorly made, it is also insanely boring.

I'm a huge fan of Clark Gable and the only other documentary I've seen about him was simply awful. I'm happy to say that this documentary was much, much better.

There are a lot of clips in this program, but there's also a lot of information about him. I actually learned something new (that he and Grace Kelly had a fling) and saw some footage that I'd never seen before.

I especially enjoyed the interviews with Gable's children. Neither of them knew him and their sense of loss is heartbreaking. I can't say that I 'enjoyed' the footage of Gable's funeral, but I had never seen it before so I found it interesting. One of the most striking things I learned in this documentary is that Gable's widow had him buried next to Carole Lombard. Wow. Now that's an understanding woman.

Is this the definitive story of Clark Gable? No.

However, this documentary is very well done and it tells both the good and the-not-so-good about him. There are also a lot of film clips (from both his well known and not so well known roles) to satisfy both the Gable fan and those who are just beginning to know him.

I'm a HUGE Gene Kelly fan and had high hopes for this show. Sadly, I was disappointed.

While the high points of Kelly's career were hit (Singin' In The Rain, An American In Paris, On The Town, Anchors Aweigh), I was hoping to hear him talk about his lesser known movies like It's Always Fair Weather, Brigadoon and Cover Girl.

I did enjoy this interview with him and was hoping for more of Kelly talking and less footage of the movies. It was nice to see the knee slide in On The Town after he had talked about the trouble he had filming it. But, did we really need to see the entire Singin' In The Rain number? I would have loved to have heard him talk about the Moses Supposes number with Donald O'Connor in Singin' and also about The Babbit and The Bromide dance with Fred Astaire in Ziegfeld Follies. The dance on roller skates (from It's Always Fair Weather) was also missing.

I could go on and on, but I think I've made my point. This is a great show for people who are new to Kelly and his work. For his more knowledgeable fans this is an interview worth watching (I especially enjoyed hearing him talk about his early days before he went to Hollywood), but don't expect too much.

Is Three Wise Girls a high point of spectacular American cinema? No, but that's not was I was expecting. I was expecting an entertaining movie and that's exactly what I got.

I'm a huge Jean Harlow fan and was so excited to see a new (to me) movie of hers. I was not disappointed. While I don't think she sparkled on screen like she did in her later films, she gave a solid and completely believable performance.

The plot was predictable, but well executed. I thought the character development was a bit thin, but that's to be expected from a movie that clocks in at just over one hour. (I actually love the short running times of some classic movies: that means you can watch more of them in an evening.)

Three Wise Girls tells a story that's been told many times (small town girl moves to the city and has a rough time), but it tells the story well. And, most importantly, it tells the story with Jean Harlow.

I was expecting so much more from this profile of Hollywood's greatest year. I was very disappointed that this look at 1939 was so thin and so poorly done.

I expected a lot of time to be spent on The Wizard of Oz and Gone With The Wind. I didn't expect this time to be at the expense of other '39 movies. This documentary of 1939 barely glossed over Idiot's Delight (Clark Gable's only appearance singing and dancing) and totally ignored The Little Princess, Bachelor Mother, Stanley and Livingstone, and Intermezzo: A Love Story (just to name a few).

I was particularly disappointed that they left out Intermezzo because this would have provided a perfect time to contrast Leslie Howard with his role in Gone With The Wind (he was much too old to play Ashley Wilkes and I feel that showed in his performance, but he was wonderful in Intermezzo). The exclusion of Intermezzo is all the more puzzling because it was the first American film appearance of Ingrid Bergman. How can the debut of such a star be overlooked?

Even the attention given to Gone With The Wind is weak. No mention is made of Hattie McDaniel's historic Oscar win (except for a one second moment of footage at the awards).

The core audience for this film would have to be newcomers to classic movies. Any fan of classic movies will not learn anything new and will be horribly distracted by all of the omissions.

The 70th anniversary of Hollywood's greatest year deserves better.

Even though I grew up watching the cartoons that Mr. Jones created, I knew nothing about him. This short documentary gave a brief, yet rich summary of Mr. Jones' life.

I absolutely loved how animation was used to illustrate Mr. Jones' words. I also enjoyed seeing him draw some of his most famous characters.

The short stories he told about the key figures in his life (mother, father, uncle) were powerful and it was easy to see how they influenced him throughout his life. I also enjoyed hearing how the name "Acme" came to be used in the Looney Tunes cartoons (I've always wondered about that!).

I often find these kinds of documentaries dry and they nearly always run too long. I wish one had been longer! Mr. Jones was a charming man and he had a way of telling stories that was just enchanting.

Part One.

I have heard the story of how MGM began, but never in such rich detail. This film dove into the daily inter-workings of the studio in the early days and I found it fascinating. I especially enjoyed the insight of Margaret Booth, a film editor at MGM, and specifically her recollection at Douglas Shearer's attention to detail (he could tell when a film was one projection pin out of sync with the sound).

This part of the film uses a lot of footage from silent movies and gives background detail on these films. My knowledge of silent films is poor, so I learned a lot in just a few minutes of watching this documentary. I also enjoyed how they talked about the struggle for silent stars to transition to talkies.

I had (of course) heard the story of John Gilbert's star falling like a lead balloon, but I never heard the juicy reasons why: he punched LB Mayer when Greta Garbo left him (Gilbert) at the altar and Mayer returned the favor a few years later during a disagreement over a movie.

When Part One ended I was struck most by a feeling of "what if?". What if Irving Thalberg hadn't died at just 37? Where would he have taken MGM and what kind of movies would he have given us? I also wonder what Norma Shearer performances we missed out on due to his death (she left Hollywood six years after he died).

Part Two.

I felt that Part Two wasn't quite up to the standard set by part one. Most notably, part two includes a Hollywood myth that has been debunked: that Jean Harlow died because her mother refused to allow her treatment for uremic poisoning. The fact is that Harlow would have died regardless of when she saw a doctor due to the limitations of medicine in the 1930's.

Part Two also details the rising stars of Clark Gable (and his subsequent tragedy when his wife Carole Lombard was killed in a plane crash), Lana Turner, Spencer Tracy, Katharine Hepburn, Judy Garland and Hedy Lamarr. As with Part One, I loved the interviews with people from that era and how they enhanced the story. Mickey Rooney's recollections of Garland were particularly touching.

Another highlight of Part Two was the small segment on Luise Rainer. I had never heard of her, but she is the first person to win back to back Oscars. And then she walked away from it all due to the constraints of the studio system. Just hearing this story would have been wonderful, but having it told by Rainer herself brings this film to a whole new level.

Part Two ends with a sense of foreboding (brought on by the narrator, Patrick Stewart): Storm clouds are swirling off in the distance. Could the happy days at MGM be coming to an end?

Part Three.

Part Three begins in the heyday of MGM's legendary musicals and they cover the best of the best in detail: Singin' In The Rain, An American In Paris and Gigi. There are numerous interviews with Vincente Minnelli and he talks about his movies and about Judy Garland. As with all of the interviews in this film, I love hearing his insights and opinion.

Part Three seemed to contain more interviews than the other two parts of this movie. (I have no idea if this is true, it was just my impression.) Besides recalling specific movies, many of the interviewees talked about Louis B. Mayer. These opinions confirmed what I already suspected: people either loved or hated the man; he was either a wonderful father figure or an evil manipulator.

After the musical era, MGM began its slow decline. I knew the rough facts of how and why this happened, but I had never heard the gory details. As a lover of classic movies, I found the last hour or so of this film to be very melancholy. The golden age of Hollywood had to end, but it was still sad to watch it unfold on the screen.

Summary.

The absolute highlight of this movie was all of the interviews. Besides actors, we hear from directors, producers, writers, film editors, studio executives and contract dancers. These are the people who were there during the golden era of MGM and having their remembrances on film is truly priceless.

I almost didn't watch MGM: When The Lion Roars because it's six hours long and I doubted that anything could hold my attention for that long. I am so glad I took the time to watch all three parts of this movie. It was well worth it. Not only did I learn a lot, but it was very entertaining. I saw clips from many of my favorite movies and the clips from movies I haven't seen left me with a list of movies that I want to see.

Bottom line: if you love classic movies, this is a must see.

I'm a huge classic film buff, but am just getting in to silent movies. A lot of silent films don't hold my attention, but Show People is a notable exception.

Marion Davies and William Haines are simply wonderful in this picture. Davies, in particular, shows a wide range as she morphs from a giggly small town girl to a starlet who takes herself a bit too seriously.

Show People is a fast paced film with a fantastic array of cameos by some of the biggest stars of the silent era. The movie captured my attention immediately and I actually forgot that it was a silent film. (I know that doesn't make much sense, but that's what happened.) The actors are so skilled in their craft that few dialogue cards are necessary.

Show People is a perfect introduction to silent films. It is a fast paced, interesting film with two of the silent era's best stars. Add in the satire of Hollywood and Show People should be on the 'must see' list for all classic film buffs.

As far as comedies go, this film isn't anything special. What is special is John Barrymore. As many other reviewers have noted, his performance in Twentieth Century is just brilliant.

There were some parts of this film that weren't that interesting to me, but I was transfixed by Barrymore. Yes, his performance as Oscar Jaffe is over the top, but that's precisely the point.

Carole Lombard doesn't quite keep up with Barrymore (who can?), but her performance is also excellent. She may not keep up with the master, but she's certainly not overshadowed.

While I thought the storyline of this movie was pretty run of the mill, it was the performances by Barrymore and Lombard that make it something special. Fans of classic movies should see this movie simply to see John Barrymore at his best.