Reviews

A melodramatic mess. Ruth Roman starts out OK as a relatively street-smart actor but then turns into your typical silly woman who can't do anything on her own without a man. For some reason, she falls in love with Richard Todd, who is stiff and has some terrible lines to say. His determination to not talk about the night of the murder turns out to be ridiculous as he's innocent anyway! Mercedes McCambridge is good for the first part of the film but then also turns into a melodramatic mess. Zachary Scott plays his usual horrible character, which I suppose means it's a good performance because the viewer dislikes him immediately. But it beggars belief that any of the other characters would think his smarmy stalker-like behaviour is funny and charming. I've now met the minimum character limit, and reached it only because I had to. A truly awful film. Nice scenery though.

Just an absolute mess of a movie.

Great premise - the main character wakes up in a world where the Beatles have never existed, and he "writes" all of their songs and becomes famous.

But it's as if Richard Curtis had this great idea and hired some mook to write the movie for him.

Jack and Ellie are friends but you just know they're going to get together by the end of the film. But what they see in each other is beyond me. They're hopelessly unable to actually talk to each other.

Too many questions. Why are only Jack and 2 other people able to remember the Beatles? Why the other 2 people at all? There's not even a hint at that.

Why is Oasis also a band no one remembers? Is Curtis trying to equate Oasis with the Beatles? Ridiculous. And Coca-Cola is also something people don't remember. Why?

Would Beatles' music being introduced in the modern era even resonate with anyone?

I'd give this 1 star but I give it 2 because having John Lennon show up was a nice touch. Having said that, though, why doesn't Jack ask him why he didn't continue in music? Or why didn't he ask whatever happened to Paul, Ringo, and George (or Pete Best or Stu Sutcliffe)?

Jordan Fry's character Rocky was funny though...

This is a classic noir/action/romance/road trip/crime film. Watch it once just to see where the story goes. Then watch it again and keep your eyes on Peggy Cummins. Despite this film being from 1950, Cummins is a modern actor with no melodrama in her performance at all, as opposed to John Dall, who was too drippy. He was intentionally weak and confused/conflicted but he shouldn't have been sniveling. But this is a small point. Cummins is luminous, and it must have been only her stage career in the UK that prevented her from becoming a major movie star.

There's a small subtle indication about why Cummins's character is the way she is. She likes guns and shooting them. Any more psychological assessment would have been unnecessary.

The scene shot from the backseat of the car is a classic, and apparently ad-libbed.

I don't know how the two of them got jobs in the meatpacking plant when they were being hunted, but that's a minor quibble. This movie is a lot of fun, and the ending is inevitable in its result although surprising in how it gets to that point.

The writer Gary Johnson said, "Some people might call Citizen Kane the great American movie. I might just opt for Gun Crazy instead." I think Kane is highly over-rated (except for how it looks), so I'll agree with Johnson on that.

This is a great, sweet, compelling, and magical film. Laurence Olivier is charming and funny as the old pickpocket. (Comments elsewhere that he's a creepy old man are way off the mark.) Thelonious Bernard is very good as the boy although his acting is occasionally hammy and unbelievable, but that may be because of some of the lines he has to say. But the reason to watch this film is Diane Lane. She is luminous. She is a natural and gifted actor, as she is in all of her later films. Her reactions are always spontaneous, and you can tell that she learned very early on that the most important part of acting is "listening". Her face is very expressive, and she doesn't hit a wrong moment. You can't teach that.

Maybe it's just my interpretation of her character and her acting, but it seemed to me she's very "adult" in her behavior throughout the film, wise beyond her years. And the only time she reverts to being a young girl is when she has to do the most "adult" thing she does in the film - going under the Bridge of Sighs in a gondola for her "forever" kiss. When the kids have to part, it's truly heartbreaking and beautiful. I don't give it a 10 because the relationship between her mother and the director is forced and not relevant to the story.

Incidentally, I met Diane Lane about 2004 in a pub at Yonge and Bloor in Toronto. She was on Skype the whole time so my buddy and I didn't bother her. But when she left, we had a brief conversation; I told her what a great and natural actor she was, and she thanked me. We shook hands and I've never washed my hand since. After she left, we asked the bartender how she was as a tipper, and the bartender told us she didn't leave a tip. I think Ms. Lane, being in an English pub, thought she was in England and not Canada, and figured she didn't have to tip...