Reviews

A NEW LEAF, 1971. Starring Walter Matthau and Elaine May. Directed by Elaine May.

This is a movie I have heard about for years and have always wanted to see but somehow could never find. Well, TCM recently screened it and it's a comedic gem.

There really isn't another comedy quite like it. The tone is dark, ironic, absurd, quirky and sweet all at the same time.

The basic plot is Henry Graham lives the life of a playboy. When his lawyer tells him one day that his lifestyle has consumed all his funds, he needs an idea to avoid climbing down the social ladder. So he intends to marry a rich woman and - murder her.

Walter Matthau and Elaine May have amazing chemistry and the progression of their relationship is both hilarious and sweet. The writing is consistently, wry, witty, intelligent and offbeat. It's also one of those great films that is better on repeated viewings. (I've watched it four times in one week.).

What I like about May's character is that she doesn't have to go through a Cinderella or ugly duckling transition in order to be desirable. She always remains kooky, plain, naive, nerdy, geeky yet charming and intelligent. It's the Walter Matthau character that grows to appreciate her and see past her clumsiness and gauche behavior.

There are priceless gems of dialogue and situations that had me laughing out loud which is rare in a character driven non action comedy like this. The late 60s and early 70s were truly a renaissance in film making.

The supporting cast is a who's who of early 70s film and theater talent. James Coco, Renee Taylor, Jack Weston, George Rose, William Redfield and Doris Roberts are all memorable.

Elaine May would direct the equally memorable THE HEARTBREAK KID a year later. Her career got derailed with the disaster ISHTAR but she is truly an auteur of great style and humor. Her writing and direction has a distinct, unique and singular voice in line with legendary writer/directors like Preston Sturges and Joseph L. Manckewicz.

Once you get into the quirky groove of this movie and adjust to its warped skewed view you'll have descended through the looking glass into wonderland and won't want to come back to reality.

ANOTHER PART OF THE FOREST, 1948. This is the prequel to THE LITTLE FOXES, both written by Lillian Hellman.

Though not nearly as well known as its predecessor it's still a riveting movie about some really nasty people. The Hubbards of Alabama are a ruthless scheming family and the wonderful cast plays it to the hilt.

Fredric March is the patriarch, Florence Eldridge plays his long suffering wife (they were real life husband and wife). Ann Blyth plays a young Regina and though not as villainess as Bette Davis gives a performance to rival her turn as Veda three years earlier in MILDRED PIERCE. Rounding out the cast are Dan Duryea as Oscar, Edmond O'Brien as Ben and Betsy Blair as Birdie. All are excellent.

Michael Gordon is not William Wyler but his direction is excellent and he keeps the camera moving supplying some needed action to a very dense script.

It plays out like a combination between a Greek tragedy and Eugene O'Neill.

If you like your drama heavy, dark, nasty and dripping with moss, molasses, maple and magnolia then check this out.

Yesterday I binged the Netflix series RIPLEY. While it held my attention, more or less: more for the gorgeous Italian scenery, less for the cast and lugubrious length it is ultimately not very good.

Though I have never read the Patricia Highsmith novel on which so many adaptations have been based, most notably PURPLE NOON and THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY starring respectively Alain Delon and Matt Damon, I am under the assumption that the lead character is under 30 years old.

Andrew Scott, who takes the role in this version, is 48 years old according to his biography and looks every bit his age. I could get past this if he looked younger or supplied the character with enough charm and likability to make up for the age discrepancy but he doesn't. He portrays Tom Ripley with a rather dour, dull one note expression and monotone voice throughout the entire eight episodes. This is a zombie Ripley and he comes across as lobotomized looking like a stereotypical serial killer from the get go. In this version you wonder why the police don't arrest him immediately and more importantly what it is about his personality that would make him attractive to Dickie Greenleaf. It's nearly impossible to like or side with this Ripley.

The acting of the four leads is pretty bad. No one has any charm, wit, elegance or plays with any irony or style. Scott is comatose and the actor playing Dickie is lifeless, boring with no joie de vivre. All the scenes in Italy that should have a joyful exuberance of the rich, idle youth on adventure are acted as if they are starring in a dull remake of THE LAST PICTURE SHOW. Dakota Fanning is wasted as Marge and makes no impression whatsoever. In Anthony Minghella's two hour movie version Gwyneth Paltrow seems to have far more to do and brings greater depth and sympathy to the character than Dakota Fanning can muster in eight hours. She's dull as a a dishrag. This version makes her stupid to boot. I was rooting for Ripley to push her into the canal at the end.

And don't even get me started on the actor who plays Freddie Miles. Philip Seymour Hoffman must be turning in his grave. It's bad casting and poor acting all around.

And why 8 episodes when the story doesn't benefit from the length in any way, at least not in the hands of this director. The longer script only accentuates plot loopholes and we get interminable, repetitive scenes of people climbing stairs and long protracted murders and interviews that are frankly boring. The length strangles all the tension and suspense until there is none left. And don't get me started on that ludicrous "disguise" at the end. Was that supposed to fool that Italian detective? It ruined the one performance in the entire show that had any sense of irony and only emphasized the lack of talent of this Mr. Ripley.

Points and kudos for the cinematography and location shooting throughout gorgeous Italy.

For far greater entertainment value watch Purple Noon and The Talented Mr. Ripley.

I know I'm in the minority but this film is very boring. The first hour drags on and on explaining the 13th Amendment and it could have been edited down to a 10 or 15 minute seen. It's a pondering movie. I'm not sure what the revelation is about Lincoln in this movie. He's portrayed as he always has been: a revolutionary leader, great mind, folksy and very political when need be. The most interesting part of the movie is his relationship with his wife played by Sally Field. When she comes on the scene at least we have some fire, drama and neuroses. The rest of the film is a good old boys club and quite frankly not very entertaining. You could argue, I guess, that the political content is the guts of the film but it's not presented in an interesting way. The acting is exceptional but I consider this film as disappointing as the MGM 1936 Crawford vehicle about Andrew Jackson directed by Clarence Brown: The Gorgeous Hussy. In that film as well there is an exceptional cast dragging their weight to make something interesting out of American History. This is a modern day version of a bloated, antiquated Hollywood bio picture. Paging Wilson anyone???

Yes, we all know the ending is not the one everyone wanted but it really doesn't matter. Hitchcock has said in print that this film is really about a woman's fantasy life and when looked at from that perspective it is brilliantly executed directorially and by all the actors, especially Joan Fontaine, and it doesn't really quite matter how it ends. Since he doesn't kill her, her fantasy is all paranoia and in the next reel she should probably go seek a good therapist. If he had killed her, the illusion would have been all about her immature and overwhelming love for her husband and the inability to leave him because of her all consuming, fantasy driven obsession with him. I have watched this film over and over and over and never tire of it and I have to say it is Joan Fontaine's performance that keeps the interest going. Grant is wonderful as always but she is the focal point and she never fails to deliver the goods. This is GREAT Hitchcock and I know people tend to overlook Fontaine and give great praise to Ingrid Bergman, especially in Notorious, which is a great film, yet I prefer Fontaine over Bergman and Suspicion over Notorious. The psychology of this film is sooooo compelling and the story and narrative so simple and tight that repeat viewings always reveal something new to discover as any great work of art should. There is not one wasted frame in this picture. Joan Fontaine is an actress who is so often dismissed by people and I don't understand why. She is delicate, fragile and vulnerable yet there is something steely and strong underneath all her performances. This is great acting and I don't care if Hitchcock manipulated her by telling her people didn't like her on set. I know many actors that if you make them uptight by trying to manipulate them into a fearful situation and try to get them to emote that fear and insecurity on stage or film just freeze up and are unable to communicate anything. That Fontaine is able to release her fear, pathos, terror, fright and vulnerability in front of the camera, no matter how it is achieved, is a testament to her talent and ability to transmit it. Give me Fontaine over Ingrid Bergman or Grace Kelly any day. Her two films with Hitchcock are perfection. I'm never quite satisfied with Bergman or Kelly in quite the same way though they have many virtues. And let's not forget Fontaine did win an Academy Award and New York Film Critics Award for this performance. Lest one think she is merely a puppet of Hitchcock watch her beguiling performances in The Constant Nymph and Letter From an Unknown Woman.

This is one of those films I have been waiting for years to see, having been out of circulation for at least 50 years. It was well worth the wait. Joan Fontaine is the type of actress that just doesn't exist anymore. She plays exquisitely fragile, ethereal, delicate types of women with depth, passion, soul and devotion. This is yet another impeccable performance that rated her an Academy Award nomination and I cannot think of another actress who could have pulled off, entirely successfully, playing a 14 year old girl. She is haunting, beautiful and tragic. Charles Boyer and Alexis Smith are fine in their roles but it is Fontaine who carries the film and Edmund Goulding directs in a luxurious style highlighting the delicate relationship between Fontaine and Boyer. They could never make this type of film anymore and that's alright because they wouldn't know how to deal with the subject matter. Music, poetry, art, disillusion, loss, heartache and romance between a pubescent girl and adult man is something mainstream Hollywood no longer knows how to make interesting to the public and for that matter it seems like the public doesn't really crave this any longer. Joan Fontaine is still alive and she must have been ecstatic to know that this film has garnered so much acclaim and interest. My only disappointment being that since Miss Fontaine is still alive why hasn't she been interviewed? You know she hasn't many years left. She must have amazing stories and insight to share with her public. Would kill to see her interviewed on TCM. I have a feeling Robert Osborne has contacted her since he seems to pay attention to detail and I imagine she has been approached but most likely has declined - please, please be persistent in getting a live interview and with her and her sister as well. They are the last of the greats from Hollywood's golden era.

This is absolutely the worst musical adaptation EVER with the most inadequate, atrocious, inept performance ever recorded by a major star. Lauren Bacall is soooooooooooooooooooooo bad in this it is not to be believed. She can't sing or act. I've seen better acting in my high school productions by almost everyone. That being said her performance is so bad that it must not be missed. Truly a howl - I have parties where I show this on TV and my friends and I sit there screeching with laughter and disbelief. One must see this to believe the travesty that APPLAUSE truly is. Bacall is like a drag queen doing bad drag. When she tries to croak the horrible tune "HURRAY BACK" it sounds like she is saying "HAIRY BACK". This adaptation has bought me endless hours of pleasure and laughter for all the wrong reasons. How Bacall ever won a Tony for this is beyond belief. I heard a story that Ethel Merman was sitting in the audience of this (or maybe WOMAN OF THE YEAR) and the minute Bacall opened her mouth to try to sing she screamed out "JESUS Christ" Don't know if this story is true or not but it is a great tale. Why Lucille Ball is derided in MAME and Lauren Bacall is praised in this totally bewilders me. While Lucy is no great MAME she is monumentally better than Bacall could ever hope to be and LUCY can ACT! Rent this, by this and get your hands on it - it is an unintentional comedic masterpiece!!!

I LOVE this film. Cukor made it the same year as PHILADELPHIA STORY and it has the same exact feel and tone. This film was definitely eclipsed by the Hepburn one but deserves to be revived. Crawford is magnificent. I have never seen her play comedy like this and under Cukor's direction she excels. It proved what a versatile actress she could be. I don't understand comments like "she gives a poor imitation of what Gertrude Lawrence did on-stage". I highly doubt the person who wrote that ever saw the original stage production. He says he heard Lawrence speak lines from PRIVATE LIVES on a recording with Noel Coward and obviously that is what Joan was trying to imitate. Joan does not imitate other people and Cukor would never have allowed her to. I find it odd that when Crawford stretches herself in character parts like RAIN, SUSAN AND GOD, THE WOMEN, and A WOMAN'S FACE her public, and more importantly MGM, did not support her when she is obviously and magnificently broadening her horizons and simultaneously doing great work. THE WOMEN was the only one of this bunch that was a hit. But MGM never seemed fit to promote Joan for an Oscar. Watch this film and you will be surprised at this twist in the MGM Crawford. I think her transition at the end is remarkable and the character of Susan really grows and changes. I'm sure it was difficult for Crawford to portray a flighty, ditsy, scatterbrained woman but she really connects with something in this. I watch this movie at least twice a year. People complain it is stagey and long but with dialogue this good I'll take it over a movie half its length. The supporting cast is great. Watch Rita Hayworth in an early role. Fredric March, as usual, is brilliant and wonderful alongside Crawford. This is Joan's best comedy; and more than that, an excellent film. It's subject matter resonates today with it's "new age" religious fervor. I only wish Cukor had directed her in more because she responds soooooo well to him. Imagine if he directed GOODBYE, MY FANCY or TORCH SONG. Ah well, you can't have everything.