henrylbs Reviews

Oh, for a Man! (1930)

Mainly for Jeanette MacDonald fans but you might like it

[8/10 · 31 May 2023]

This film would seem to have very little to recommend it except for the sparkling energetic performance by Jeanette MacDonald. But that is enough. If you only remember MacDonald from the sometimes stultifying MGM musicals with Nelson Eddy, you are in for a surprise. Jeanette is alive and bright and rather seductive in the peignoirs, flimsy negligees and low cut gowns she wears and she no longer has the slightly zaftig European look that Lubitsch preferred at Paramount. She has a very natural sexiness that comes through even though the print I viewed on youtube is of very poor quality. I'm sure she was a turn-on for male viewers in 1930 which is what Fox wanted when they signed her. Remember this was the "pre-code" era which she as much as anyone else was responsible for (she was already tagged "the lingerie queen") so this is what audiences expected and this is what they got.

As a result of the Paramount musicals she previously appeared in, MacDonald was typed as singer so in this she is cast as an opera singer and opens the film singing "The Liebestod" from Wagner's "Tristan and Isolde" and later on she sings once more. But this not a musical; it is strictly light comedy held together by MacDonald. The plot can only be called ridiculous. She (inexplicably) falls in love with a burglar (Reginald Denny ) and convinces him to marry her but he agrees only on the condition that she will give up her career. Soon he tires of the arrangement and leaves her and (apparently) goes back to being a burglar while she resumes her career as an opera singer. But of course it is not over. It ends as viewers probably already imagined it will.

MacDonald did three films at Fox between her two stints at Paramount that preceded her eventual stardom at MGM. These three are largely forgotten now but were well received and were money makers at the time for Fox. It was the depth of the depression and all the studios but MGM were effectively bankrupt. Seen in this context, films like "Oh, for a Man" were what Fox needed, what MacDonald needed to prolong her career and what the country needed. And viewed today, it is surprisingly refreshing and shows what MacDonald was capable of.

George & Tammy (2022–2023)

A Great Lady and an Impossible Man

[10/10 · 13 December 2022]

George Jones was already a country music legend but heavy drinking was taking its' toll and he was on the way out unless he could do something about it. But there is no sign that he is about to do this or that he even cares what he is doing to himself until Tammy Wynette enters his life. Tammy was on the rise being only a year and a half in Nashville with three successful records to her credit. Tammy idolizes George or rather his music and finally is able to be hired as an opening singer for him. She is in love with him from the start but he is married and so is she with three kids of her own from a previous marriage and three inherited from her second husband. George falls in love with her and takes her away from her husband but their problems are just beginning and the biggest problem is that George is a self-destructive abusive drunk. I've only seen the first two episodes but it is pretty obvious how this is going to play out. Tammy is going to rise to the heights while George is probably going to sink to the depths and Tammy is going to hold onto him as long as she can but it will prove more than she can bare.

I know what happens later on and its' not pleasant. In fact, even episode two was hard to watch in places. So why do I think this is a 10 and plan to watch each episode multiple times as I have with the first two? First, it is extremely well written. It is very fast moving with each scene well thought out and placed. The scenes tell the story often without the need for dialog. George and Tammy are together and the scene cuts to her singing. He's singing and the scene cuts to her in the shower. She is singing "Stand By Your Man" and there are intercuts to George punching out Tammy's evil husband and retrieving the nude photographs he has been blackmailing her with. Second, the picture we get of the music industry in Nashville is revealing to say the least and the character development is sharp. Finally, the two main characters are terrific. Jessica Chastain as Tammy steals your heart as she stole George's and she is a heroine as she tries to rescue George from himself while putting up with his abuse. Of course she doesn't sound exactly like the real Tammy but to me she sings and performs the songs very well. George as played by Michael Shannon is probably a much stronger presence than was the real George Jones. He almost has to be in order to make the character palatable. The real George was 5-7 and quite ordinary looking while Shannon is 6-3, handsome and masculine. It is easy to see why Tammy, who was in love with his music, can also be in love with the man. And to me, Shannon not only sings like George, I think he sings the songs better than George. I love listening to him sing those great George Jones songs.

This is a long sad story about two people in a rut who work in a business populated by drunks, womanizers and con-men. And yet it is fascinating to watch. Highly recommended.

Out of Africa (1985)

A Great Woman and a Streep Tour de Force

[10/10 · 25 December 2008]

I've watched this movie many times over the years and although it seems like I know it by heart I always seem to watch it again and it always seems like the first time. And so this Christmas morning when I saw it was going to be on TV I dutifully viewed it again and for the rest of the day I will think about it as I always seem to do.

There are many aspects or levels on which to enjoy this movie. For me there is first the historical level...a glimpse of British colonial east Africa during the period of the story, 1913-31. There is the great landscape...wild and free and unexploited; the native peoples who are primitive and yet they exude a nobleness and simple grace and beauty like the land they inhabit; and then there are the colonials many of whom are living semi-degenerate life styles and who are there for no other reason then to exploit the place. One immediately makes the obvious comparison and draws their own conclusion about which group is the more to be admired.

And then there are the characters beginning with the immense Meryl Streep character, Karen Blixen, who is a European dropped into an impossible situation in Africa and then must spend the entire movie, a period of 18 years, trying to make the most of it. In doing so she endears herself to us by overcoming one incredible hardship after another as well as a failed marriage and an unfulfilled romance with the Redford character, Denys Finch-Hatton. We also enjoy the brilliant Streep performance with the Danish accent and all the wonderful mannerisms that make this another perfect Streep performance.

The Redford character Finch-Hatton is a British hunter/guide that Blixon gets to know after he saves her from a lion. He sort of floats in and out of the story and as somewhat underplayed by Redford (certainly in contrast with Streep's performance) he just seems to hang out; it is difficult to see what motivates him...it isn't money or women or love of country and he doesn't really even seem to love what he does. It is rather that he is like the country itself...he is just there in all his physical beauty. But he also has a sort of poetic, philosophical intellectualism about him that is what draws Blixen to him. And in the end he is as difficult to hold down as Africa itself and perhaps what happens to him and to Blixen's tenure in Africa and to British colonialism are wrapped up in Redford's character. It is all there until it is not there...nothing has really changed and life goes on.

There are several other wonderful characterizations including those of some of the native characters and there is the vast beauty of the land. The colonial incursion is already on the wane...there are efforts to exploit it like the Blixen farm but they like the lifestyle of the interlopers can't last. Only the land endures and the movie makes the most of the wonderful landscape. Some might say that this slows the action to a halt at times but this is as much about the land as it is about those trying to change and exploit it. In the end what you remember is that wonderful music and the great land of Africa. And you remember the wonderful writer, story-teller and heroine who overcomes all until she can't any longer. And to me Meryl Streep dominates this movie much as Blixen took control or her life in Africa so I'm not sure whether it is Streep or the real Blixen who is more to be admired.

The Big Sky (1952)

Could Have Been So Much Better

[8/10 · 10 July 2008]

This is a movie that I try to watch whenever it is on but I am sad because there is so much that I don't like about it. First the positives... I love the haunting theme music that just seems so appropriate for this movie. I also like the story about a largely unknown time in western America and and I like the way it is presented as a story being told by the Arthur Hunnicutt character, the old mountain man Zeb Calloway. The narration is just perfect with Hunnicutt's folksy voice and because it mostly fills in the holes and keeps it all moving. And then there are the interesting characters of which I especially like the seemingly hapless Indian Poordevel played by Hank Worden. And now the things that bother me about the movie... I hate the fact that it is in black and white and moreover it seems dark and lifeless to me. All the wonder that could have been made of the magnificent scenery is lost. What a waste. Second, I generally dislike Kirk Douglas who always seems so over the top, so overbearing and obnoxious and unlikeable that I have difficulty watching any movie that he is in. (I've read that he was rather unlikeable and this aspect of his personality seems to show through in his roles.) In this one he is a frontiersman, Jim Deakins,who mainly plays against another frontiersman, Boone Caudill, played by the unknown actor Dewey Martin. Martin's personality is nonexistent with the result that the overpowering Douglas dominates every scene so the movie is mostly about the Douglas character and a lot of the other character development is not done sufficiently. For example we wonder why Poordevil is the way he is, a drunken Indian caricature yet reliable when he is needed. We also miss the fact until the very end that something is going on between the Indian woman Teal Eye whose character is totally undeveloped and the Martin character Boone Caudill. We really never get to know either of them so for me at least the ending came as a surprise. In fact, I'm not sure Teal Eye, who is played by Elizabeth Threatt, has a single line in this movie and Boone has little to say except in the scenes dominated by Douglas. Arthur Hunnicutt shines through all this but except as the story teller, his is a minor role. The clash with the trading company is predictable and the story ends well as we suspect it will since the narrator lived to tell about it. All and all, a very watchable movie that makes me crazy when I think about how good it could have been .

Nobody's Fool (1994)

Nobody's Fool?

[7/10 · 11 May 2008]

First of all, we all agree that everyone loves Paul Newman but I don't get why everyone seems to love this movie. It is depressing and and much of it makes no sense at least to me. Even the title makes no sense. Is Sully (Newman) nobody's fool because he lives by his own rules? Is it that he seems to have a life free of responsibility? Or is it because he is grudgingly respected in his own little world? Probably all of the above but wait a minute. He apparently couldn't take married life so he long ago walked away from his wife and small son and never took any interest in them again...until the long lost grown up son (Walsh) and his own family show up. Are we supposed to admire him now for attempting to be the father he never was? And having no responsibility also means that he has next to nothing save that long lost family he abandoned to show for his life. He is a laborer living in a dreary upstate NY town with a broken down truck and a best friend who is borderline retarded. He has nothing but his self respect (I guess) so he is nobody's fool. This has to be it but I didn't take that way. He is of course accepted and you might say that he is the king of his own little world which includes some very interesting characters. There is his aged landlady (Tandy) who he looks out for and who respects him more than her own crooked businessman son. There is the shady small time construction company operator (Willis) who he works for and is always trying to get the best of. And there is the Griffith character who Sully lusts after (sort of) but when she offers herself to him he backs away. You don't know if he is being honorable or just avoiding commitment. There is a haunting quality to all this and nobody doesn't love and respect Newman but so much of what happens just doesn't ring true. Even the thing with the dog doesn't make sense. He drugs the dog so we are supposed to accept that the dog (a Doeberman) is afraid of him for that?

Christmas in Connecticut (1945)

Christmas Con Job

[7/10 · 25 December 2007]

I've always liked Barbara Stanwyck who was, perhaps, the hardest working lead actress of the 30's and 40's although few of her movie roles are memorable. Today she is remembered most for the TV show "The Big Valley". Stanwyck worked so much because she was durable; it seems that she would accept most any role and make the most of it to make the movie a success and so directors loved her and many an ordinary picture gained credibility by her presence.

And so it was for "Christmas in Connecticut" a very ordinary effort whose plot strains credulity and isn't even really about Christmas. It does, however, have Stanwyck and Dennis Morgan as well as some supreme character actors including Sydney Greenstreet and S.K. Sakall so there are plot twists and funny moments which undoubtedly seemed more real in 1945 than they do today. To begin, the plot concerns a magazine writer (Stanwyck) who the magazine's readers believe is a domestic goddess, married with a child and living on a farm in Connecticut but who is really single, lives in New York City and knows nothing about cooking or homemaking. Could anyone get away with such a fraud even then? Apparently, and even the owner of the magazine (Greenstreet) is deceived although one would think that he would have long since seen though the deception but the story moves on and Stanwyck, Greenstreet, a sailor recently survived from his sunken ship (Morgan) and Stanwyck's restaurateur friend (S.Z.Sakall) find themselves spending Christmas in Connecticut at a farm belonging to Stanwyck's boorish boyfriend (Reginald Gardiner). You can imagine all the possibilities there are for this as the fraud unwinds as it must. Gardiner wants Stanwyck to marry him to perpetuate the rouse but one wonders how she can stand him at all. Morgan and Stanwyck fall for each other but he is supposed to be engaged and she is supposed to be married. Regardless, they begin what seems to be a make believe affair dancing cheek to cheek and stealing off in a horse drawn sleigh. Meanwhile, the incredibly naive Greenstreet character who has seen Stanwyck and Morgan go off together but still doesn't get it sees one of the neighbors take back a child that has been borrowed as part of the deception and calls the cops to report a kidnapping. Stanwyck and Morgan are arrested for stealing the sleigh and the hoax begins to unwind.

At this point the movie is funny as in ridiculous or absurd, not funny ha,ha and it routinely ends like screwball comedies always did. The good guy gets the girl and presumably they live happily ever after.

I watch this movie every year at Christmas to enjoy these character actors at their best in a story that reflects way it was in 1945 and because of a long held fascination with Barbara Stanwyck. Thank goodness it was set at Christmas or like 95 percent of Stanwyck's movies it would have been long ago forgotten and we would not get to see it each year anew.

The Great Gatsby (1974)

Not So Great Gatsby

[5/10 · 11 January 2007]

I have not read the book but I've seen this movie several times mainly because of the rich way it portrays life in the 1920's. A similar characterization is given in The Cat's Meow which is about an incident that took place in 1924 aboard the yacht belonging to Hearst. In both movies the costuming and the general picture conveyed of the times were well done but in The Cat's Meow the performances were believable, the characters compelling and the story at least to me was very interesting. Not so with Gatsby. To begin, what is so great about Gatsby? He doesn't live up to expectations. He has a fine house but at least played by Redford he seems far too unsure for a man of such obvious albeit mysterious accomplishment. And why the infatuation with Daisy? Surely there must be more to this character in the book than Mia Farrow portrays. I understand that this is a story about unrequited love but it is not believable. We need to understand why an all powerful man would give everything for this woman who obviously doesn't deserve him. Somehow if we could just see whatever Gatsby sees in this woman...

The other affair (between Daisy's husband and the wife of the gas station owner) is also less than completely believable. Are these just two more self-destructive people affected by the immorality of the times? I guessed from the very first how this would end up and I was right. An affair, out in the open with a volatile, unknowing jealous husband...

As the narrator neighbor of Gatsby, Nick seems completely normal and out of place in this group but even he is less than believable because he witnesses all this weirdness without any attempt to pass judgement or to react to anything. He is so bland that at the end you still don't know anything about him except that you like him. He is the only likable one in the film.

Somehow I believe that the characterizations of the movie must have failed the book. It is fun to watch this glimpse of the roaring 20's if you overlook some of the unbelievable aspects of the story.