Clark Gable, you're distinctly not a good-looking man, yet you employ your bag of brilliant tricks to motivate us to accept your ruse. No personality, since the beginning of time, fuses such wit, confidence and charm to entice women to yearn for him. How would he fare as an actor today? Without the mustache and slicked back hair, he would be an exemplary fit--a modern day George Clooney. "A dame with millions, and a guy with ideas--he commanded and she defied." There wasn't a narrator for the trailer, and the previous sentence conveys a modest synopsis concerning the plot. At first, Gable's character appears to be a married man having an affair, yet after watching the trailer considerable times, I believe he's single and not married, yet he's after a woman with money. Whether he loves her isn't reveled, though I would say that's a yes since Gable typically plays a decent human being. There's also a murder involved, though Gable's involvement appears to be innocent.
This would be a thumb's neutral for me. I'm not a huge romance fiend, yet there's Clark Gable looking all young and witty. Again, maybe a boring rainy afternoon would suffice to encourage me to watch.
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.
