Joan Crawford dwells in my memory as the maniacal mother in Mommy Dearest. The difficulty occurs while envisioning a young and beautiful Crawford revealed in the trailer, and challenging to perceive the mutation of a future villain in her gracious disguise. We learn her true nature from the book, written by her daughter, and made into a movie starring Faye Dunaway (tip: if you're ever transported to the past, never hang up clothes with a wire hanger in the vicinity of Crawford) and all her early work appears extinguished by this reveal. The film tells a story, old as time, of a woman aspiring to marry for money. The story can yield two options, she actually falls in love with the rich man, or there's a poor man lurking about the kingdom, and she falls in love with love and money be damned. Crawford has the rich man and the poor man loving her, what's a girl to do, live in splendor or live without. I'm assuming she favors the poor man, since sympathetic feelings for love is infinitely Hollywood, and their stance on the "happily ever after" theme.
Two critics on Rotten Tomato gave a review, and one--a green splat of repulsion, and the other an intact red tomato of adulation. Mere mortals on the site gave the movie 60%, and it has a rating of 5.8 on IMDb. I bequeath to this film a thumbs down, as I feel I would be bored to tears watching all the close up of Crawford's face and not to mention the story line. If they had thrown in a zombie or two, perhaps I might surpass my negativity and adjust the thumb into a upward position.
Suit Up would surpass the title of Bullets or Ballots--a universe where the entire race of men (except the average police officer) wears a suit and a fedora. This creates the complication of discerning the good guys from the bad. The men appear quite clonish (a word that I've created, meaning the propensity to be a clone), because each man repeatedly appears similar to the next man. At the time, the audience had the ability to differentiate this problem--after 79 years that knowledge is lost to us me. The scenes from the trailer, present groups of men in cramped rooms, exhibiting immense anxiety disorders-- screaming at each other furiously. Several state they're the boss of the mob, but it's difficult to understand if anyone is indeed in charge. I would ask if it's worth the angst and high blood pressure--meanwhile happiness is but a fleeting thought? How could people live this way? Why not relinquish the futile frustration and move to a ranch in Montana, where children and cattle can be raised, and live happily ever after? After watching the trailer several times, I realized that the movie simply deals with the major issue of organized crime, and the true story (Hollywood's truth) of one man who brought the syndicate down, and not just loud men running amok.
This film receives a complete thumbs down, as I would only watch it for food if I were starving, I received large sum of money, or to save the life of a loved one. A film dealing with the mob, made in the thirties, in black and white and containing an insufficient story line, will not be in my immediate future, though the parts showing Edward G Robinson knocking down grown men, with the effort of a child, are quite humorous.
Jimmy Stewart was a man of considerable acting skills, and appeared in countless movies which are highly regarded in the industry. Twenty eight years old in 1936, he acted in eight movies that year, including The Thin Man, and thus we have the problem with Born To Dance, and to sum it up, I ask, "what was he thinking." The thought of Jimmy Stewart singing and dancing in a musical feels quite puzzling, and unbelievable. I might not protest so hardily except that he's terrible at singing--something he admits in a later interview (video below trailer). The problems don't end with his performance--the concept of the story revolves around a sailor and a tap dancer, and she's gotta dance, which disappoints him (he may have wanted her home in the kitchen). I believe Powell was a well loved star in the thirties, though she's not a name I recognize.
The trailer offers the development of several love interests, though any enthusiasm, to satisfy my urges, to watch the romance in this movie are nonexistent. Expand this mixture to incorporate extravagant show tunes-- singing, dancing, countless men playing tubas, and scene after scene of exaggerated smiling--this movie recipe doesn't interest me in the least. 100% thumbs down!
Two people commit the same unforgivable social faux pas in 19th century Russia, though one is completely shunned by society, and the other one keeps their standing in the community. What did the unfavorable person do to lose their position by all those forcing their judgments and mores? Her one unforgivable transgression--she was born a woman, and throughout history men were forgiven or revered for the same actions which destroyed the opposite sex. Poor Anna's no exception to this sexist rule, and when she leaves her harsh, unloving husband for her lover, she must endure the hardship of living without friends--no one will allow her into their home, and if she arrives at a public event, the whispers and intolerable glances will drive her away. I've read the book in the distant past, and the haunting sadness is carried over to the movie. Greta Garbo portrays Anna and her sorrow is felt each time her haunted face appears on screen. Tolstoy created a monster in Anna, and the only way to destroy the character he brought to life--her death by suicide. She threw herself under a train, and the problem of what to do with Anna was instantly solved to everyone's satisfaction.
Feelings of sadness, repress my desire to watch another movie where a woman's power is nonexistent, and her struggles to survive are overpowered by crushing defeat, and for this reason I've designated a thumbs down for the film, though I believe it's an excellent, flawless movie.
The trailer promises the movie is "the greatest soul thrill of our lives." I'm concerned this promise may prove deceptive, since watching the trailer proved my soul thrilling aspirations may not reach the same heights as the trailer predicts. The story transpires in a small town or suburb, though I assume the title represents the chronicles of a young boy's transforming into a young man, and the mental wilderness he must trek through. One scene shows a woman (prostitute?) in his lap forcing her lips on his without any reluctance on his part. Apparently, his fling exposed aspirations for increased contact, and suddenly he's appealing to his girlfriend for a kiss, which shocks her to her core, and forces her to say a resounding no.
There's a generous amount of actors employed in this film, including Lionel Barrymore and Mickey Rooney, though unlimitled actors couldn't save this film. The story doesn't interest me, nor the characters (plus, let's not forget the soul thrilling letdown), and I believe boredom would consume each second I forced myself to watch. I give this a confident thumbs down!
The trailer faithfully promises to provide "the greatest aggregation of dancing beauties ever seen together on stage or screen," Undeniably, beauty in one era may not transmit comparable awe in later generations--society adjusts its perspective of beauty in brief bursts of distinct fashion periods, defined by months to a few years. 42nd Street is 82 years old, and the revisions to the code of "beauty" through the years are too numerous to count. The women of this time period came from a generation who saw their mothers or grandmothers wearing corsets, long dresses and buns, and the unrestricted clothes and hair styles (perms and bleached blonds) available in the 30's gave the appearance, through beauty, of freedom. The story of the movie is portrayed by the dancers rehearsing for a new Broadway musical. A Chorus line is the 80's offering of the same story, though it's a much harsher film. The question I want answered--how long women had danced to tap and jazz in such an unrestricted manner? I'm sure they were not raised this way, and a completely new and exciting part of entertainment had entered their lives.
This would be a thumbs down for me. I would not say it's a bad movie, only one that wouldn't interest me. I might watch it on a boring day, yet I would rather watch a X-file rerun. I would like to point out the poster gives off the feeling these are a line of blow up dolls (not that I know what they actually look like in person, but from movies).
If I were a war enthusiast, I could see my brain rustling up aninterest for this movie based on the trailer. The explosions would have been fantastic for movie goers at that time. Film making was still in it's infancy 85 years ago, and talkies had started just a few years earlier. I love the statement from the soldier with a plan to avoid war by putting those in power in a field to fight with clubs, instead of making millions of soldiers do it for them. Something I believe people of today could go for this, and our husbands and sons could stay home safe with their families. I've read the book, so I know this is a story full of sadness and depression, and waiting in the trenches with a canary--dying from cold, disease and the enemy's gas. Though, many men during the war were glad to get away from the dreaded factories, and couldn't wait to enlist--they may have regretted it later.
Based on the trailer, I would give this a thumbs neutral--I might check it out on a sad rainy day, though the quality of the film leaves much to be desired. I wish everyone before World War II watched it and taken all the horrors to heart, and maybe they would not have been so quick to start it all over again.
#/media/File:Anna_Karenina_1935.jpg)
