This film was only marginally a 2...it really deserved a 1. A few of the actresses were decent some of the time...but overall this was a total waste of film, and a total waste of my time to watch. There was nothing about the plot or the characterizations that made me want to keep going after the first 30 minutes...but I kept persevering, although I should have gone with my first impulses and stopped then. The only thing in the whole movie which wasn't a waste of time was the soundtrack--some good choices of more obscure '50s jump boogie contrasting with the more mainstream pop of the era. As for the more recent music in the movie, I don't have anything good to say about Taylor Kirk except that he seems a Leonard Cohen wannabe. Poor scripting, marginal acting, bad accents...and although I've never read the Joyce Carol Oates book on which it was based, I know now why I don't want to. I've also never seen the earlier movie based on the book, but I certainly saw nothing in this movie that would make me want to watch another crack at the same material. If you have any interest in good filmmaking, don't waste your time watching this trash.
Reviews
9 Reviews
Jersey Boys
(2014)
I assume the stage show was MUCH better!
6 July 2014
Warning: Spoilers
At least Alfred Hitchcock let his wife look for errors in his films. Clint Eastwood's dog, if he had given it half a chance, could have found plenty in this one.
When a show about recent (all right, within my lifetime) history starts with three anachronisms within the first 5 or so minutes ("Silhouettes," "Earth Angel," and Topo Gigio in a scene supposedly set in 1951), you know that either there have been terrible liberties taken that the audience isn't supposed to realize, or else the producer, director, screenwriter (sorry, Marshall Brickman--I do enjoy most of your work), and the folks they hired have been taking too many "three-(insert your drug of choice here)" lunches. This was almost as bad as the use of anachronistic 45s in "Mad Men." Oh, wait...that was made for TV...I guess they get a pass for being lower-budget.
Don't get me wrong. I am a fan of FV/4S, although not an inordinately rabid one, so my words here are not prompted either by dislike of their music or fandom gone wild. The words here are simply aimed at what I saw on screen--which was indeed pretty lame. For example, character development was zilch. There was no explanation for much of the action that occurred between the main characters, nor for their interactions with those outside the group of leads. No reason for empathy with any of the four members of the group was given, save for the fact that we saw FV trying to mourn for someone with whom he had had almost no interaction...zzZZzz. Thank goodness for two actors, playing members of the group, who shone through their performances and made us forget FV and TdV--kudos to EB & ML for making an interminable flick bearable.
I have never seen the stage show, so I'm not trying to compare the movie to it--but I would certainly hope that there were a few more dramatic moments (even ONE in the movie would have been nice) that would lead someone to assume there was anything that would have lifted the musical, on stage, above the level of this movie, which is the clear equal of any typical USA Network, Lifetime, or Hallmark presentation. Think about it: everyone knows the Four Seasons had a profitable career, and like every other group they had their obstacles to overcome. Do you suppose those obstacles could have at least been made slightly interesting, instead of just being told as fact? Clint Eastwood knows how to tell a story with emotion; here we only have a story with events. Yee, and may I add, haah.
I've already mentioned the obvious anachronisms within the first five minutes. I won't make fun of the use of the mid-'70s "My Eyes Adored You" as an offhand lullaby for a soon-to-be-excised daughter; I'll give them that as some way to bring Valli's later career into the period of the major portion of the flick. But I still have to mention, in as ludicrous a fashion as I can, the supposed "major plot device" that posited "Can't Take My Eyes Off You" as a revolutionary recording.
"Can't Take My Eyes Off You" was a genre-changing invention? Is everyone on drugs here? There were many laughable things in the flick (I certainly wouldn't call it a movie, much less a film), but that was one absolutely ridiculous thing to try to swallow! Whether you lived through the era or not, once you hear that recording, you'll realize the same thing radio listeners at the time recognized: that it was pretty lame compared to previous hits by Phil Spector and Brian Wilson--or even those you might have heard by Jackie Gleason's orchestra or Herb Alpert's brass--which had utilized the same type of recording studios, techniques, and orchestras...and achieved arguably better results. Should a reference of the type need to have been made, perhaps the production team could have looked to the fabulously produced 4S album "The Genuine Imitation Life Gazette"...which flopped as badly as this movie should have.
Overall, a C+ for writing, directing and production...and although there were a few good jobs of acting (Christopher Walken, as always, was giggle-worthy), a B- for all that. I have to give Clint an extra bump for attempting a "Thriller" scene at the end, although that didn't work either. Overall, I cannot see ANYONE with ANY taste thinking this piece of...ummm...was it ever on celluloid, or just all digital?...is worth 6 out of 10 overall...even if, like me, he or she might happen to be a fan of FV/4S. I'll stay home and listen to my 45 of "Soon" and the TGILG album, and get a REAL taste of the Four Seasons.
You should, too.
When a show about recent (all right, within my lifetime) history starts with three anachronisms within the first 5 or so minutes ("Silhouettes," "Earth Angel," and Topo Gigio in a scene supposedly set in 1951), you know that either there have been terrible liberties taken that the audience isn't supposed to realize, or else the producer, director, screenwriter (sorry, Marshall Brickman--I do enjoy most of your work), and the folks they hired have been taking too many "three-(insert your drug of choice here)" lunches. This was almost as bad as the use of anachronistic 45s in "Mad Men." Oh, wait...that was made for TV...I guess they get a pass for being lower-budget.
Don't get me wrong. I am a fan of FV/4S, although not an inordinately rabid one, so my words here are not prompted either by dislike of their music or fandom gone wild. The words here are simply aimed at what I saw on screen--which was indeed pretty lame. For example, character development was zilch. There was no explanation for much of the action that occurred between the main characters, nor for their interactions with those outside the group of leads. No reason for empathy with any of the four members of the group was given, save for the fact that we saw FV trying to mourn for someone with whom he had had almost no interaction...zzZZzz. Thank goodness for two actors, playing members of the group, who shone through their performances and made us forget FV and TdV--kudos to EB & ML for making an interminable flick bearable.
I have never seen the stage show, so I'm not trying to compare the movie to it--but I would certainly hope that there were a few more dramatic moments (even ONE in the movie would have been nice) that would lead someone to assume there was anything that would have lifted the musical, on stage, above the level of this movie, which is the clear equal of any typical USA Network, Lifetime, or Hallmark presentation. Think about it: everyone knows the Four Seasons had a profitable career, and like every other group they had their obstacles to overcome. Do you suppose those obstacles could have at least been made slightly interesting, instead of just being told as fact? Clint Eastwood knows how to tell a story with emotion; here we only have a story with events. Yee, and may I add, haah.
I've already mentioned the obvious anachronisms within the first five minutes. I won't make fun of the use of the mid-'70s "My Eyes Adored You" as an offhand lullaby for a soon-to-be-excised daughter; I'll give them that as some way to bring Valli's later career into the period of the major portion of the flick. But I still have to mention, in as ludicrous a fashion as I can, the supposed "major plot device" that posited "Can't Take My Eyes Off You" as a revolutionary recording.
"Can't Take My Eyes Off You" was a genre-changing invention? Is everyone on drugs here? There were many laughable things in the flick (I certainly wouldn't call it a movie, much less a film), but that was one absolutely ridiculous thing to try to swallow! Whether you lived through the era or not, once you hear that recording, you'll realize the same thing radio listeners at the time recognized: that it was pretty lame compared to previous hits by Phil Spector and Brian Wilson--or even those you might have heard by Jackie Gleason's orchestra or Herb Alpert's brass--which had utilized the same type of recording studios, techniques, and orchestras...and achieved arguably better results. Should a reference of the type need to have been made, perhaps the production team could have looked to the fabulously produced 4S album "The Genuine Imitation Life Gazette"...which flopped as badly as this movie should have.
Overall, a C+ for writing, directing and production...and although there were a few good jobs of acting (Christopher Walken, as always, was giggle-worthy), a B- for all that. I have to give Clint an extra bump for attempting a "Thriller" scene at the end, although that didn't work either. Overall, I cannot see ANYONE with ANY taste thinking this piece of...ummm...was it ever on celluloid, or just all digital?...is worth 6 out of 10 overall...even if, like me, he or she might happen to be a fan of FV/4S. I'll stay home and listen to my 45 of "Soon" and the TGILG album, and get a REAL taste of the Four Seasons.
You should, too.
Babes
(1990–1991)
Possibly the funniest show of the early '90s!
9 April 2007
Three beautiful women, fabulous writing, a host of first-rate guest stars from Phil Proctor to Dolly Parton, and direction that was so far above anything else in sitcoms of the day . . . how could you miss? Well, first, you could be on a small netlet unavailable to much of the country. Then you could make sure the show got scheduled at less than the best possible time. Third, you could fail to pander to stereotypical beauty. Finally, you could cancel after the first season, before the mainstream audience had a chance to catch on.
That said, 'Babes' is still one of the most truly funny--and original!--shows of the past twenty-five years. Since the death of Totie Fields, the U. S. had been needing a reality check as to the loveliness and wit of the larger ladies in its ranks, and 'Babes' delivered wholeheartedly. At least 20 of its 22 episodes should be on the "must see" list of any lover of sitcoms; all 22 have an honored place in the hearts of anyone who has ever seen them.
We're all so lucky that the gorgeous Lesley Boone is still with us, and it's great to see her pop up from time to time in various shows; hey, casting directors--we want more of her, please! And a fond farewell to Susan Peretz and Wendie Jo Sperber, still making 'em laugh on the other side of the great divide. Oh, when these three were together, it was pure magic on the screen.
H'mmm . . . you know, a DVD set of this show's complete run would only take a couple of double-sided discs . . . how about it, folks?
That said, 'Babes' is still one of the most truly funny--and original!--shows of the past twenty-five years. Since the death of Totie Fields, the U. S. had been needing a reality check as to the loveliness and wit of the larger ladies in its ranks, and 'Babes' delivered wholeheartedly. At least 20 of its 22 episodes should be on the "must see" list of any lover of sitcoms; all 22 have an honored place in the hearts of anyone who has ever seen them.
We're all so lucky that the gorgeous Lesley Boone is still with us, and it's great to see her pop up from time to time in various shows; hey, casting directors--we want more of her, please! And a fond farewell to Susan Peretz and Wendie Jo Sperber, still making 'em laugh on the other side of the great divide. Oh, when these three were together, it was pure magic on the screen.
H'mmm . . . you know, a DVD set of this show's complete run would only take a couple of double-sided discs . . . how about it, folks?
Tillie's Punctured Romance
(1914)
If you're looking for a great silent comedy, run, do not walk . . .
31 January 2007
. . . AS FAR AWAY from this movie as you can get! Yes, "Tillie's Punctured Romance" is today considered a classic, but mainly because it has the reputation of being the "first feature-length comedy," and because it is the only film in which the three leads (Normand, Dressler, Chaplin) appeared together, and because it contains one of the earliest "film-within-a-film" sequences. Other than that, it's pretty much useless, unless you want to study Marie's acting style, drool over the always-lovely Mabel, or watch Charlie play the opposite of his beloved "Little Tramp" character.
Don't get me wrong. I like slapstick, I love Chaplin, I think Marie Dressler was a fabulous actress, and you've already heard what I think about Mabel Normand. But not a one of the three is used to any great advantage in this movie--and even Swain, Bennett, and Conklin (all of whom deserve more credit for their work in early cinema than they normally get) are wasted here.
The trouble with this movie is not in the plot (hackneyed as it may seem to current audiences) nor with the actors (who did what they could with the script at hand). No, the trouble really lies with the writing and directing. I can't comment on the original play, having never read or seen it, but I do know that Mack Sennett knew what he was doing with short films--the deservedly classic status of his hundreds of early flicks attests to this. However, when you ask people to sit still and watch over an hour's worth of your movie, there should be something more to hold their attention than your having people fall down over and over and over again. Here's a math problem for someone with much more time on their hands than I have: count the people who fall down in this movie, and divide by the number of minutes the movie lasts, and I think you'll see what I mean.
Please, please, please--do yourself a favor, if you're at all interested in silent movies, or trying to find a way to get your friends to enjoy them with you. Treat yourself (and them) to "City Lights," "The General," "The Gold Rush," any of the one- or two-reelers by Sennett or Hal Roach. Or, for that matter, practically any other silent comedy. (Hey, even Mel Brooks's "Silent Movie" is better than this, although that's not saying much.) Put on some of your (or their) favorite music, if there's not a synchronized score (my copy of "Tillie" seems to have purloined Scott Joplin tracks from a noisy LP). But unless you're ready for over an hour of mostly meaningless pratfalls, don't subject yourself or your friends to this. It's wonderful that it still exists; film students can analyze it to their hearts content. Now go watch something good.
Don't get me wrong. I like slapstick, I love Chaplin, I think Marie Dressler was a fabulous actress, and you've already heard what I think about Mabel Normand. But not a one of the three is used to any great advantage in this movie--and even Swain, Bennett, and Conklin (all of whom deserve more credit for their work in early cinema than they normally get) are wasted here.
The trouble with this movie is not in the plot (hackneyed as it may seem to current audiences) nor with the actors (who did what they could with the script at hand). No, the trouble really lies with the writing and directing. I can't comment on the original play, having never read or seen it, but I do know that Mack Sennett knew what he was doing with short films--the deservedly classic status of his hundreds of early flicks attests to this. However, when you ask people to sit still and watch over an hour's worth of your movie, there should be something more to hold their attention than your having people fall down over and over and over again. Here's a math problem for someone with much more time on their hands than I have: count the people who fall down in this movie, and divide by the number of minutes the movie lasts, and I think you'll see what I mean.
Please, please, please--do yourself a favor, if you're at all interested in silent movies, or trying to find a way to get your friends to enjoy them with you. Treat yourself (and them) to "City Lights," "The General," "The Gold Rush," any of the one- or two-reelers by Sennett or Hal Roach. Or, for that matter, practically any other silent comedy. (Hey, even Mel Brooks's "Silent Movie" is better than this, although that's not saying much.) Put on some of your (or their) favorite music, if there's not a synchronized score (my copy of "Tillie" seems to have purloined Scott Joplin tracks from a noisy LP). But unless you're ready for over an hour of mostly meaningless pratfalls, don't subject yourself or your friends to this. It's wonderful that it still exists; film students can analyze it to their hearts content. Now go watch something good.
The Best Legs in Eighth Grade
(1984 TV Movie)
A charming little fantasy...and lots of fun!
18 August 2006
I notice that both of the previous comments on this title were less than complimentary; please allow me a completely different take on this lovely little piece of fluff.
No, there's nothing here that's earth-shattering in its implications; there's no Oscar-quality acting; there's no major CG effects or Dolby surround sound. What there is, is four very good performers who feel extremely comfortable with their characters and their lines and work together to make their performances congeal this sweet little script into a beautifully molded whole.
I don't see how anyone can watch this (apparently) made-for-HBO vignette and come away from it with anything less than respect for the four leads. It's goofy, it's poignant, and it's the first video I "force" my up-and-coming girlfriends to watch before they make the plunge into really getting involved with me. Why is that? Simply because I am the Everyman of Tim Matheson's character (and I suspect many others are, too): always thinking there's something better coming over that next hill, even if it's that dream we left behind us a dozen years ago. In a very special way, this is a "coming of age" movie for those almost to middle age.
It's also a movie of its time. Appearing in the days before Rock Hudson died or Ronald Reagan used the word "AIDS," the almost childlike (and yet cynical) references to Herpes and diaphragms resonate with the sound of the end of the "free love" era, when the call was being sounded for young adults to indeed "come of age" in their sexual responsibilities--and it's sad to think that twenty-something years later, that call has still not been answered to any great degree. How times (don't) change.
The movie is full of life, of choices, of responsibilities, of temptations, of new chances, and now brings a little bit of nostalgia along with everything else. Annette O'Toole is absolutely flawless in her performance, and the beautiful Kathryn Harrold was never lovelier than here. Tim Matheson makes you love him, flawed as his character is, and Jim Belushi plays St. Valentine with a sentimental twist. But the movie is not sentimental, although it is filled with honest sentiment. It's a real look (St. Valentine in the flesh notwithstanding) at relationships as they were in the early '80s . . . and as they still are, to a great extent, today. (Watch also for Vincent Bufano in what was apparently his last role, reading the Latin Mass with a New York Italian accent.)
And, yes, the movie IS out on VHS, though not (as of this writing) on DVD. I have owned two copies of it myself; the first bought new in the '90s for 80 bucks, and the second purchased off eBay about 3 years ago for about 3 bucks. Funny how times do change in some respects.
No, there's nothing here that's earth-shattering in its implications; there's no Oscar-quality acting; there's no major CG effects or Dolby surround sound. What there is, is four very good performers who feel extremely comfortable with their characters and their lines and work together to make their performances congeal this sweet little script into a beautifully molded whole.
I don't see how anyone can watch this (apparently) made-for-HBO vignette and come away from it with anything less than respect for the four leads. It's goofy, it's poignant, and it's the first video I "force" my up-and-coming girlfriends to watch before they make the plunge into really getting involved with me. Why is that? Simply because I am the Everyman of Tim Matheson's character (and I suspect many others are, too): always thinking there's something better coming over that next hill, even if it's that dream we left behind us a dozen years ago. In a very special way, this is a "coming of age" movie for those almost to middle age.
It's also a movie of its time. Appearing in the days before Rock Hudson died or Ronald Reagan used the word "AIDS," the almost childlike (and yet cynical) references to Herpes and diaphragms resonate with the sound of the end of the "free love" era, when the call was being sounded for young adults to indeed "come of age" in their sexual responsibilities--and it's sad to think that twenty-something years later, that call has still not been answered to any great degree. How times (don't) change.
The movie is full of life, of choices, of responsibilities, of temptations, of new chances, and now brings a little bit of nostalgia along with everything else. Annette O'Toole is absolutely flawless in her performance, and the beautiful Kathryn Harrold was never lovelier than here. Tim Matheson makes you love him, flawed as his character is, and Jim Belushi plays St. Valentine with a sentimental twist. But the movie is not sentimental, although it is filled with honest sentiment. It's a real look (St. Valentine in the flesh notwithstanding) at relationships as they were in the early '80s . . . and as they still are, to a great extent, today. (Watch also for Vincent Bufano in what was apparently his last role, reading the Latin Mass with a New York Italian accent.)
And, yes, the movie IS out on VHS, though not (as of this writing) on DVD. I have owned two copies of it myself; the first bought new in the '90s for 80 bucks, and the second purchased off eBay about 3 years ago for about 3 bucks. Funny how times do change in some respects.
Long, pretentious, boring.
15 August 2006
Oh, I heard so much good about this movie. Went to see it with my best friend (she's female, I'm male). Now please allow me a divergent opinion from the mainstream. After the first couple of dozen "take off your clothes," we both felt a very strange combination of silliness and boredom. We laughed (at it, not with it), we dozed (and would have been better off staying in bed), we were convinced we had spent money in vain. And we had. The plot was incoherent, and the characters were a group of people about whom it was impossible to care. A waste of money, a waste of celluloid. This movie doesn't even deserve one out of ten votes, but that's the lowest available. I'm not sure why this movie has the reputation that it does of being excellent; I don't recommend it to anyone who has even a modicum of taste or intelligence.
Everything You Know Is Wrong
(1975)
Fab LP...so-so flick...
5 August 2006
I gave this movie a 9 out of 10 SOLELY on the basis that I believe this is the Firesign Theatre's at their FUNNIEST and MOST ACCESSIBLE. The film itself is not all that great. As others have said, it's merely a lip-synch to the album (missing a scene or two and adding a bit of music). This movie is to the album what TV was to radio--certainly, the visuals were added, but what Stan Freberg called the "Theatre of the Mind" could always entertain from within in ways no picture could. The original album gets a 10, but knock it down a peg for the cinematic silliness. Find the CD (on laugh.com) instead and you'll see why these four (or five) funny guys, at their peak, were (and their old albums are still) the funniest thing going.
Drive-In
(1976)
Exquisite time capsule of mindless fun
5 August 2006
I could've sworn I had already written a comment on this flick, but guess I didn't. A shame, too. Because this is one of the few non-mainstream movies that I really think deserves a "10" on IMDb's scale.
All right. Call me a romantic blatherer, but no movie other than the first "American Graffiti" is still able--this long after its release, and noting how far cinema has come in the meantime--to transport the watcher to a specific time period in a specific place with so little effort. Rod Amateau deserves a place in cinematic history for that, if nothing else. And the amazing thing about it is that the specific time period--and place--to which it transports the watcher is none other than the very one in which it was filmed! Not something lovingly recreated, but fresh while it was happening! No nostalgic tweaking, just slice-of-life with a smile.
Perhaps I gush, but I remember very well the first time I saw "Drive-In." It was at a dollar-admission cinema and was a new release at the time. The movie house changed its movies every Friday, and for some reason I went to see this on opening night. I was back on Saturday, Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday--five shows in seven days, and if they hadn't changed the movie again on Friday, I would have been back for more the next week. And I brought people with me to every show after that first one, all of whom claimed to adore it as well. That was 30 years ago, and I can remember no other movie before or after for which I felt that kind of exhilaration with the exception of "O Lucky Man!".
What makes the movie so much fun? What makes it amazingly re-watchable? I haven't the slightest idea. It's just a bunch of kids doing what kids do, while the (few) adults around them remain largely clueless. That, and mentally filling in the blanks as to what happens during the unseen parts of "Disaster '76," the movie-within-a-movie on-screen at the drive-in, is always fun. And of course, just the plain old' down-home good humor and never-taking-itself-too-seriously writing doesn't hurt a bit. They pink, Orville...pink as bubblegum! Goodness knows several of the songs are used WAY too often (the Statler Brothers must have gotten GOBS of royalty payments from "Whatever Happened to Randolph Scott" being used more times than I can count) and Enoch is just a little too over-the-top (as is his pseudo-demise) while still being a real character, and NOBODY is believable as being quite what they pretend (just like real life, except these are actors playing parts), so don't look for great performances or something that would make Stanislavski or Strasberg sit up and take notice. But if you're looking for 90 minutes worth of pure entertainment that NO ONE need take seriously but everyone can smile at, I highly recommend searching out a VHS copy of this flick or praying for its release on DVD.
Folks, it's a fantasy. Could it have happened? The odds AGAINST it are as high as the percent given in the Ronnie Milsap song on the soundtrack. But it's too pretty a fantasy to ignore. Give yourself over to it, and remember how life used to be, whether it ever really was or not.
All right. Call me a romantic blatherer, but no movie other than the first "American Graffiti" is still able--this long after its release, and noting how far cinema has come in the meantime--to transport the watcher to a specific time period in a specific place with so little effort. Rod Amateau deserves a place in cinematic history for that, if nothing else. And the amazing thing about it is that the specific time period--and place--to which it transports the watcher is none other than the very one in which it was filmed! Not something lovingly recreated, but fresh while it was happening! No nostalgic tweaking, just slice-of-life with a smile.
Perhaps I gush, but I remember very well the first time I saw "Drive-In." It was at a dollar-admission cinema and was a new release at the time. The movie house changed its movies every Friday, and for some reason I went to see this on opening night. I was back on Saturday, Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday--five shows in seven days, and if they hadn't changed the movie again on Friday, I would have been back for more the next week. And I brought people with me to every show after that first one, all of whom claimed to adore it as well. That was 30 years ago, and I can remember no other movie before or after for which I felt that kind of exhilaration with the exception of "O Lucky Man!".
What makes the movie so much fun? What makes it amazingly re-watchable? I haven't the slightest idea. It's just a bunch of kids doing what kids do, while the (few) adults around them remain largely clueless. That, and mentally filling in the blanks as to what happens during the unseen parts of "Disaster '76," the movie-within-a-movie on-screen at the drive-in, is always fun. And of course, just the plain old' down-home good humor and never-taking-itself-too-seriously writing doesn't hurt a bit. They pink, Orville...pink as bubblegum! Goodness knows several of the songs are used WAY too often (the Statler Brothers must have gotten GOBS of royalty payments from "Whatever Happened to Randolph Scott" being used more times than I can count) and Enoch is just a little too over-the-top (as is his pseudo-demise) while still being a real character, and NOBODY is believable as being quite what they pretend (just like real life, except these are actors playing parts), so don't look for great performances or something that would make Stanislavski or Strasberg sit up and take notice. But if you're looking for 90 minutes worth of pure entertainment that NO ONE need take seriously but everyone can smile at, I highly recommend searching out a VHS copy of this flick or praying for its release on DVD.
Folks, it's a fantasy. Could it have happened? The odds AGAINST it are as high as the percent given in the Ronnie Milsap song on the soundtrack. But it's too pretty a fantasy to ignore. Give yourself over to it, and remember how life used to be, whether it ever really was or not.
Reaching for the Moon
(1930)
Search out the long version, or be confused!
16 August 2005
At not quite 71 minutes, the version of this film that I have seen is even shorter than the theatrically shortened version listed by IMDb, although it does retain the Crosby footage. Perhaps the severe editing is one reason that I found this to be the most confused (and confusing) film of its period. We are given no clue as to why characters suddenly behave in a completely different way than they have previously conducted themselves, allegiances dissolve and reform for no apparent reason, and what might have made for an interesting plot twist (the introduction of drugs into a cocktail by Horton as valet) becomes no more than an excuse for Fairbanks's financial wizard to leap around his stateroom like a monkey playing football. Still, all the actors seem to be giving it everything they've got, trying to put the script across, and being able to see the three leads and Bing at the top of their games is the only thing that makes this movie watchable.
Tell Your Friends