Style2

Kind Lady (1951) Directed by John Sturges

Posted by: Frank Veenstra Posted date: 4:28 PM / comment : 0 , , , , , , , , ,



(Review originally written at 12 February 2008)

The movie begins like a very typical Victorian-like costume movie, with real ladies and gentlemen but soon the movie makes a thriller turn, which makes the movie as a whole a surprising and fine contrasting one. It has a real good thriller story, that above all is also really original and everything gets uplifted all by its settings and time-period it is set in.

Even though this movie was from 1951, the movie certainly looks and feels like a '30's/'40's movie. It's in black & white, has Victorian settings and has '30's/'40's big time movie star Ethel Barrymore in it. The style of film-making and the way things are set up are also done in an old fashioned, as the overall visual style and atmosphere of the movie. Basically the only thing that gives away that this is a '50's movie is that Angela Lansbury is in it as well.

It's an early thriller that works mostly out because of its original as well as intriguing story about a 'poor' man and his wife and baby who are kindly given shelter by an elderly lady. Only thing is, he doesn't want to go away and soon start taking over the household and takes the command, especially when some of his 'friends' show up as well, without giving much more away of it all. The story makes this movie a sort of an 'unpleasant' one to watch. of course in a positive and effective way. It provides the movie with a constant certain tension and not knowing what will happen next.

But lets not overpraise this movie too much, fore it's definitely not the best or most perfect movie within its genre. The story and directions it is heading in are at times a bit too simple for that and also the restrained settings prevent this from being a true genre classic. It's a good and original early movie within its genre and it deserves to be known better but not really a movie you must see before you die or anything.

The movie is directed by John Sturges. The man best known for directing movies such as "The Magnificent Seven", "The Great Escape" and "Gunfight at the O.K. Corral". So he's not really a man that is widely known for his thriller making expertise and it sort of makes it a shame after watching this movie that he didn't made any more thrillers in his career, since he obviously had the right talent and skills for it.

The movie features Ethel Barrymore in a rather late role of hers. She is best known for her roles in '30's and '40's movies, as is she known for being the sister of John and Lionel Barrymore. Sort of funny that she once more plays a character in this movie who is mostly sitting on a chair and lying in a bed, as she also used to do in many other previous roles of her. But she plays a good role in this movie, even though I just never have been the biggest fan of her. Maurice Evans also plays a good early typical thriller villain with a brain. It was also nice to see a still quite young Angela Lansbury in this movie. Never thought I would see Angela Lansbury and Ethel Barrymore in one and the same movie together! It's a kind of a surreal image.

Definitely a movie that deserves to be better known and seen by more!

7/10

The Clock (1945) Directed by Vincente Minnelli & Fred Zinnemann

Posted by: Frank Veenstra Posted date: 6:13 AM / comment : 0 , , , , , , , , ,





(Review originally written at 17 December 2007)

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This is a rare movie in which Judy Garland doesn't sign but it also isn't exactly her best one.

It features a very simple boy meets girl story, set in the Big Apple but it was all shot in a California - Hollywood studio by the way. The movie mostly tries to be different by putting in a lot of fun and makes the story seem like an adventure set in the big city. But no, the movie doesn't feature enough of those 'adventures' events and entertaining characters to let this style completely work out. It's the sort of musical movie making-style, only just without the songs this time. No wonder, since Vincente Minnelli was at the helm of this movie. The sort of 'happy' and 'joy' atmosphere of the movie also makes this feel like a very outdated one already. Who knows, perhaps Americans just needed this sort of movies to cheer up and make you forget everything for a while, during the WW II war period. Guess the movie of course also had some propaganda reasons, to show how great- and what very friendly lads the soldiers were.

The movie is from the period when it was still OK to marry a person, after only knowing that person for one day. It was considered cute and ultimately romantic and acceptable for a movie to feature. Nowdays, this sort of scenario is hardly unbelievable of course, even for the die hard romantics and dreamers.

For me it also didn't helped much that the characters weren't played by the two most attractive persons of that time. Judy Garland looked beautiful in some of her roles but this wasn't one of those. Robert Walker was already 37 at the time of this movie, which just makes him a bit too old for his role. On top of that, he just wasn't on the list of greatest actors of his time.

It's an OK enough enjoyable movie to kill some time with but don't expect to be blown away- or taken completely away by the story and movie.

6/10

Watch trailer

Royal Wedding (1951) Directed by Stanley Donen

Posted by: Frank Veenstra Posted date: 11:26 AM / comment : 0 , , , , , , , , ,




(Review originally written at 7 February 2007)

 So, basically everybody around the globe knows- and has seen the famous dancing sequence with Fred Astaire dancing on the walls and ceilings. But how many people actually know that, that sequence is from this movie? I'm surprised that a movie with such a famous sequence isn't better known.

 In essence "Royal Wedding" is your typical MGM musical, with still a couple of extra pluses, that makes this movie distinct itself from the average, formulaic movie musical, from the same time period. Obviously the famous sequence with Fred Astaire dancing on the ceiling is one of them but to me it also was the humor. Musicals really aren't best known for the well placed and original humor but this movie does a great job at providing a couple of genuine good and original laughs.

 The story is kept simple and formulaic and above all also of course very predictable. The movie doesn't offer an awful lot of surprises but yet the story serves its purpose and that fits the genre just right.

 There are a couple of great and likable characters in this movie, that help to make the movie an extra joy to watch. Fred Astaire of course steals the show with his acting and dancing but also Jane Powell as his sister was great. Not too happy about the casting of Sarah Churchill (Winston Churchill's daughter). No offense but she just isn't beautiful enough (she has got her daddy's looks, I'm afraid) for her part and also perhaps a tad too old. It just doesn't fit the genre.

 The musical numbers are all well executed, mainly those by Fred Astaire. The sequences were however a bit too 'stagey' for my taste, although I should admit that the musical genre has just never been my favorite movie genre.

 All in all an enjoyable to watch typical MGM musical, with a couple of more offerings in it than its fellow genre movies.

 7/10

 Watch trailer

That Midnight Kiss (1949) Directed by Norman Taurog

Posted by: Frank Veenstra Posted date: 1:34 PM / comment : 0 , , , , , , , ,





(Review originally written at 2 July 2006)

is is yet another MGM musical with a standard and predictable love-story that has all the familiar ingredients in it. It's one of those typical movies of which you already know how its going to end. From start till finish, nothing refreshing or unpredictable ever happens to be honest.

However of course these sort of movies were made to simply entertain its audience. It's a fun romantic movie. You just sit back and enjoy it, without thinking too much about its story.

This time the musical takes an operatic twist, which should delight the fans of it. I shall immediately admit that opera is not entirely my cup of tea. Never has been and never will be most likely. Still there was enough to enjoy for me, since the movie also wasn't made entirely in 'opera style'. The movie was good lighthearted, romantic fun to watch, even though it all was nothing too remarkable, refreshing or original all.

The actors were cast for their signing voices and musical skills rather than their acting abilities but that however is fine and acceptable for a movie in this sort of genre. Their musical skills most certainly compensate enough for their acting skills! Mario Lanza was one of the most talented young singers of the last century who unfortunately died way too early. Ethel Barrymore also does what she can do best; play a character who lies most of the time in bed. None of the comical actors really work out in the movie, probably mainly because it doesn't blend in that well with the operatic elements of the movie, that are the most prominent present in the story.

It's a worth seeing, charming movie. Don't expect anything too spectacular or original. Just sit back, enjoy and try not to think too much about the typical MGM musical formulaic story. It does not fail to entertain!

7/10

Watch trailer
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Copyright © 2014 Boba_Fett1138's movie reviews
⬆
Top