Change Your Image
dmne
Reviews
Where's Charley? (1952)
Where is this film?
Can someone please explain to me why this delightful film has never been released on DVD or VHS? Does it have something to do with securing the rights? Just curious to see if anyone knows the answer. This is one of Bolger's best films, and also a rare starring role for Allyn McLerie. So sad that she never quite made it to stardom. Other than this film, I've seen her in "Calamity Jane" and "Desert Song". Although relegated to supporting roles in both, she was wonderful. I especially enjoy her Katie Brown in the latter. Like one of the other commenters, I have always wondered why she never really became a "star". Please, whomever is keeping this film from being released, let the public once again enjoy this wonderful film.
Guys and Dolls (1955)
Okay film version
This is an "okay" film version of the smash Broadway hit. Part of the problem was the strange casting of Marlon Brando and Jean Simmons in the leads. That was just nutty when there were plenty of more than competent singer/actors in Hollywood at the time. Actually, Sinatra could easily have been cast as Sky Masterson. That part was much more his style than the comic Nathan Detroit. What was wrong with Gene Kelly or Dean Martin as Sky? Any of those three would have been a huge improvement over Brando. And Jean Simmons? Where was Jane Powell or Ann Blyth? I would have even tolerated Kathryn Grayson in the role, if a bit too operatic sounding for it. And Sinatra as Nathan Detroit? That was just plain silliness casting a bona fide singer in an essentially non-singing role. Someone in an earlier comment mentioned Phil Silvers. That would have been wonderful casting. As it was, the musical part of the Nathan Detroit role was significantly beefed up for Sinatra.
Which brings me to another comment. What was with cutting some beautiful numbers from the original score (My Time Of Day, I've Never Been In Love Before, Marry The Man Today, Bushel And A Peck, More I Cannot Wish You), and putting in those awful replacement numbers (A Woman In Love, Adelaide, Pet Me Poppa)? Hollywood strikes again! With that said, there are some very good aspects to the film. It stayed fairly true to the original stage production, and although their singing was less than stellar, Brando and Simmons gave fine performances, as did the bulk of the cast.
One small comment to the person who talked about it not being "realistic". "Guys and Dolls" was never meant to be realistic. The stage production was billed as "A Musical Fable Of Broadway". Also consider the source material. Damon Runyon's stories about the New York underworld were never meant to be realistic portrayals of the real-life mobsters of New York City. I also think that many people out there have missed the whole idea behind musicals, especially musical comedy. In musicals, people sing and/or dance when their emotions become too strong to simply speak what they want to say. It's much more effective for Sarah Brown to sing about the way she feels when she realizes she's in love with Sky than for her to say, "If I were a bell I'd want to ring right now." Adelaide says so much more in her musical lament than she ever could with a speech about her long engagement to Nathan causing her cold-like symptoms. The crap game in the sewers would be so much more dull without the lively dancing. Perhaps what is lacking in this age of video games and reality television is imagination and the ability to suspend disbelief. Too bad that a musical like "Guys And Dolls" can't be enjoyed for what it is -- a fun adaptation of Damon Runyon with a wonderful score, not ever to be taken too seriously.
Robin Hood (1973)
Definitely NOT one of Disney's best or even close
The story is weak. The animation looks more like Hanna-Barbera second-rate TV animation than the quality Disney was known for prior to Walt Disney's death and the "Little Mermaid"/"Lion King" era. Let's be honest. Most of the animated films that came out of the Disney studios post "Jungle Book" up until "Little Mermaid" were quickly put together and seriously lacking in what the earlier animated films had. The only exceptions to this were "The Many Adventures of Winnie The Pooh", which was a compilation of the Winnie-The-Pooh shorts shown in the 60s, and possibly "The Fox And The Hound". Disney did much better in 70s and 80s with re-releases of earlier films than new releases during this time period. Unfortunately, someone was not doing their job during that time. Sadly, the same thing has happened with the post-"Lion King" animated films that Disney has made. I suppose it's asking too much that the quality of a Snow White or Pinocchio be seen in every one of Disney's animated films.
Mame (1974)
Where was Angela???
Who the heck had the "bright"(?) idea of casting Lucille Ball in this film??? It should have been Angela Lansbury's baby all the way. At the very least Lucy should have had her singing dubbed.
There is some compensation in the fact that Jerry Herman's score is pretty well kept intact except for "That's How Young I Feel", and we do get performances by the original Broadway cast members Jane Connell and Bea Arthur.
I suppose Robert Preston had to be given a song, hence the inferior "Loving You".
Overall, I think in this one the wrong redhead was cast.
Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (1968)
Over long?
I have noticed several comments concerning this movie that condemn it for being "over long". It's very interesting to me that just about any film that dares extend past the two hour mark is thought to be too long. Yet, Americans can watch a three, four, or sometimes even five hour sporting event and think nothing of it. It's nothing to sit in front of the TV or the computer for hours on end. Even stage productions that run close to three hours are not considered too long. Our attention span is just fine for lots of other things, why are movies so different?
Anyway, now that I've gotten down from my soap box, on to the movie. "Chitty" is a wonderful film for young and old alike. The cast is right on. The songs are very tuneful and memorable, especially the title tune. The film keeps a good pace and stays interesting. Personally, I can watch the whole thing from beginning to end without it losing my attention. (Oops! Back on that soap box again! Get down from there!) About the only minor regret that I have is not seeing Julie Andrews cast as Truly. She would have been Scrumptious. Not to disparage Sally Ann Howes, who was wonderful.
All in all, a wonderful film that everyone should see at least once.
Oliver! (1968)
Hollywood got it right
One of the few stage musicals to have received a reasonably faithful adaptation on the silver screen. The casting is superb. One minor fault is the cutting of a few numbers from the stage version. The film works very well without them though.
A response to the poor soul who railed against the musicalization of the classics. While I agree that some musicalizations of classic literature, especially those based on Gothic horror novels, do leave much to be desired, I find "Oliver!" to be an exception. It's awfully hard to find fault with Lionel Bart's fresh, lively score. The music and lyrics are very well-written and true to the spirit of Dickens' novel. They do the job of furthering the story and defining the emotions of the characters as integrated musicals of this type should do. And I think the comment about the musicalization of classic literature to "improve" it is a bit misguided. The idea is not to improve on what has been written, but to simply give it life in a different medium. "Oliver!" should be judged for what it is, and solely in the medium to which it belongs. Judging it that way, "Oliver!" is one of the best, no question.