I've never read Max Catto's novel but the synopsis indicates why it would be attractive to filmmakers - the tale of a conman in modern African who natives think is a version of Moses; he leads them to safety and finds redemption. Movie stars love playing rogues with a heart of gold.
Robert Mitchum is ideally cast in the title role. The film benefits from location filming in Kenya, brisk Ronald Neame direction, a jaunt John Barry score, and the delectable Carrol Baker as the female lead. Baker is spirited, funny, beautiful, with that great voice; she matches well with Mitchum (even though he's old enough to be her father, like several of Baker's co stars during her early Hollywood years eg Karl Malden, Clark Gable).
But I didn't really like the movie. It's racist. I mean, you can say that about pretty much any Hollywood film in Africa, but the black characters are still poor - the locals are exemplified by one dumb elder (Orlando Martins), no more, and a shonky dude who is from America (Raymond St Jacques) and wants to con his own people.
The adventures this Mr Moses has aren't particularly exciting - the ticking clock is a dam about to be flooded, but that doesn't happen. You keep waiting for someone to chase after them, or to have extra baddies, or a development or something but it's all too easy. Moses in the Bible had floods and pursuing Egyptians and plagues and interesting conflicts among the Jews... this doesn't.
Ian Bannen is annoying as a district official engaged to Baker (I kept waiting for him to do something treacherous but it never happens). Alexander Knox's character feels superfluous in many ways too - it's like if Robert Morley didn't die at the beginning of African Queen and went along with Kate and Bogie.
Still, nice music and Baker/Mitchum completists will get something out of it.
Saturday, August 13, 2016
Movie review - "Circus World" (1964) ** (re-viewing)
Samuel Bronston had tackled Revolutionary America, medieval Spain. the Boxer Rebellion and Ancient Rome -with this he turned his eye on turn of the century circuses. Not as inherently violent as those periods, but still plenty of spectacle and colour. John Wayne is believable as a circus owner and its nice to see him out of Westerns.
But they didn't bring a story.Wayne runs a circus, has an adoptive daughter (Claudia Cardinale) and a rival (John Smith) plus a best friend (Lloyd Nolan). He decides to take his show to Europe. Things get off to a rocky start when, in the film's best sequence, the boat capsizes and a lot of his animals and equipment are sunk. But he bounces back with relative ease, gets together a new circus and is a success. There's a fire at the end, but no members of the public are present and it's quickly resolved.
There's a subplot - or is it the main plot, I wasn't sure - about Wayne and Cardinale who run in to Rita Hayworth, Cardinale's mother; she was married to Cardinale's father, but had an affair with Wayne which resulted in the dad basically killing himself on the trapeze.
There are interesting elements raised but never developed. At the beginning a lot is made of John Wayne and John Smith being Wild West style artists, which is cool and a great reason to explain their presence in the cast... but then this feels forgotten and these two just hang around the circus at the end. Lloyd Nolan feels as though he's in the movie just for exposition. Richard Conte looks as though he's about to do something interesting, as a clown who is the brother of Cardinale's father, but he never does. (Or is he the person who wrote "suicide" on Cardinale's wall? I wasn't sure who did that.) John Smith's character threatens to become interesting, with this supposed rivalry with Wayne and romancing Cardinale - but the script never develops any conflict. (Why not make him Wayne's biological son? Why not ramp up the conflict?)
The romance between Cardinale and Smith is rushed through and feels a bit yuck because although Cardinale is stunning as always (especially in those trapeze outfits), she plays it so naive and child like.
John Wayne is fun. Richard Conte and Nolan are professional. John Smith is weak; his role was to have been played by Rod Taylor, and it's a shame it wasn't - Taylor is simply a better, more charismatic actor and the part could've used it. Rita Hayworth was excellent in her part; she looks tragic and is a believable trapeze artist. Many good elements, but it doesn't mesh, and the film's failure at the box office is hardly surprising.
But they didn't bring a story.Wayne runs a circus, has an adoptive daughter (Claudia Cardinale) and a rival (John Smith) plus a best friend (Lloyd Nolan). He decides to take his show to Europe. Things get off to a rocky start when, in the film's best sequence, the boat capsizes and a lot of his animals and equipment are sunk. But he bounces back with relative ease, gets together a new circus and is a success. There's a fire at the end, but no members of the public are present and it's quickly resolved.
There's a subplot - or is it the main plot, I wasn't sure - about Wayne and Cardinale who run in to Rita Hayworth, Cardinale's mother; she was married to Cardinale's father, but had an affair with Wayne which resulted in the dad basically killing himself on the trapeze.
There are interesting elements raised but never developed. At the beginning a lot is made of John Wayne and John Smith being Wild West style artists, which is cool and a great reason to explain their presence in the cast... but then this feels forgotten and these two just hang around the circus at the end. Lloyd Nolan feels as though he's in the movie just for exposition. Richard Conte looks as though he's about to do something interesting, as a clown who is the brother of Cardinale's father, but he never does. (Or is he the person who wrote "suicide" on Cardinale's wall? I wasn't sure who did that.) John Smith's character threatens to become interesting, with this supposed rivalry with Wayne and romancing Cardinale - but the script never develops any conflict. (Why not make him Wayne's biological son? Why not ramp up the conflict?)
The romance between Cardinale and Smith is rushed through and feels a bit yuck because although Cardinale is stunning as always (especially in those trapeze outfits), she plays it so naive and child like.
John Wayne is fun. Richard Conte and Nolan are professional. John Smith is weak; his role was to have been played by Rod Taylor, and it's a shame it wasn't - Taylor is simply a better, more charismatic actor and the part could've used it. Rita Hayworth was excellent in her part; she looks tragic and is a believable trapeze artist. Many good elements, but it doesn't mesh, and the film's failure at the box office is hardly surprising.
Tuesday, August 09, 2016
Book review - "Foxy Lady: The Authorised Biography of Lynn Bari" by Jeff Gordon (2010)
A biography of Lynn Bari - why? But, when you think about it, why not? Bari was a very likeable, capable performer who did sterling work over a number of years, and is still remembered by buffs today for some excellent "other woman" parts in Sun Valley Serenade and Orchestra Wives.
There was more to her career than that of course - a long apprenticeship in Fox's B unit, becoming known as Queen of the Bs: few of these films gathered any sort of serious critical renown (though she popped up in Charlie Chans, Mr Motos and Michael Shaynes). She never quite became a star - Gordon argues she was kind of was one around the time of The Magnificent Dope, Moon Over Her Shoulder and Tampico. But she never really headlined a big hit and crashed through to the next level the way, say, Jeanne Crain, Linda Darnell, Gene Tierney and Anne Baxter did.
Why that didn't happen is one of the things tackled by Gordon in his excellent, comprehensive biography, which benefits from extensive interviews with Bari. She was a co operative, hard working, highly professional actress who seemed to get along with most people. But her mother was a drunk who had a habit of calling the studio and complaining about her. She also had shocking taste in men, marrying agent Walter Kane who ripped her off and gave her bad advice, then Sidney Luft, who did exactly the same. Part of her appeal for producers was her placid nature but then she started complaining about roles and money at a time when (post WW2) the studios were reducing their contract lists.
Her decline as a film star/name was perhaps inevitable, even if she'd had that hit or two - but it's a shame she never got a great "second act" like a hit play or TV series. She tried a few series and did a lot of theatre and guest roles but never crashed through. Her protracted and vicious divorce/custody dispute with Luft may have had something to do with that, but it was also age and circumstance. Still she was rarely out of work.
The latter part of her life is depressing. After two dud marriages with agent types she hooked up with a shrink, who didn't like her to work, cheated on her, wasn't generous during the divorce settlement. She became an alcoholic, had a lot of health problems (an intense cigarette habit didn't help), stopped working... On the bright side, she had a lot of friends, had a good relationship with her son, kept her marbles to the end. And she became friends with Gordon, who interviewed her for what became this book, so that must have made her feel good.
This is a loving, affectionate look at Bari, with solid scholarship behind it. It presents a favourable interpretation of Bari's flaws (appalling taste in men, poor financial nous, etc) but doesn't obscure them. I particularly enjoyed the stuff about Fox's B movie unit, about which I knew little (apart from the Chans and Motos). It's a sad to read at times, but I'm glad she got a book.
There was more to her career than that of course - a long apprenticeship in Fox's B unit, becoming known as Queen of the Bs: few of these films gathered any sort of serious critical renown (though she popped up in Charlie Chans, Mr Motos and Michael Shaynes). She never quite became a star - Gordon argues she was kind of was one around the time of The Magnificent Dope, Moon Over Her Shoulder and Tampico. But she never really headlined a big hit and crashed through to the next level the way, say, Jeanne Crain, Linda Darnell, Gene Tierney and Anne Baxter did.
Why that didn't happen is one of the things tackled by Gordon in his excellent, comprehensive biography, which benefits from extensive interviews with Bari. She was a co operative, hard working, highly professional actress who seemed to get along with most people. But her mother was a drunk who had a habit of calling the studio and complaining about her. She also had shocking taste in men, marrying agent Walter Kane who ripped her off and gave her bad advice, then Sidney Luft, who did exactly the same. Part of her appeal for producers was her placid nature but then she started complaining about roles and money at a time when (post WW2) the studios were reducing their contract lists.
Her decline as a film star/name was perhaps inevitable, even if she'd had that hit or two - but it's a shame she never got a great "second act" like a hit play or TV series. She tried a few series and did a lot of theatre and guest roles but never crashed through. Her protracted and vicious divorce/custody dispute with Luft may have had something to do with that, but it was also age and circumstance. Still she was rarely out of work.
The latter part of her life is depressing. After two dud marriages with agent types she hooked up with a shrink, who didn't like her to work, cheated on her, wasn't generous during the divorce settlement. She became an alcoholic, had a lot of health problems (an intense cigarette habit didn't help), stopped working... On the bright side, she had a lot of friends, had a good relationship with her son, kept her marbles to the end. And she became friends with Gordon, who interviewed her for what became this book, so that must have made her feel good.
This is a loving, affectionate look at Bari, with solid scholarship behind it. It presents a favourable interpretation of Bari's flaws (appalling taste in men, poor financial nous, etc) but doesn't obscure them. I particularly enjoyed the stuff about Fox's B movie unit, about which I knew little (apart from the Chans and Motos). It's a sad to read at times, but I'm glad she got a book.
Sunday, August 07, 2016
Movie review - "The Miracle" (1959) *1/2 (warning: spoilers)
To understand why this got made you need to know it was based on a play that was very popular in Europe in the 1910s and which toured the US in the 1920s. Warners bought the film rights back then and to be honest that's when they should've made it but it kicked around in development hell until it was revived during the late 50s vogue for religious pictures (A Man Called Peter, The Nun's Story, etc.)
The plot is odd. It starts in a convent with some "how do you solve a problem like Maria" style chats among the nuns about Carroll Baker, who is a novice, but tends to day dream. When hunky British soldier Roger Moore trots into town (the time is the Napoleonic Wars and Wellington's campaign in Spain) she gets hot pants and the two of them are soon rolling in the hills. She gets it into her head that Moore is killed, goes a little ga-ga and runs off with the gypsies. Vittoria Gassman falls in love with her and winds up dead. Then she becomes a flamenco dancer; a bullfighter falls in love with her and ends up dead. Then she's reunited with Moore. At the convent the Virgin Mary comes down from a statue and pretends to be Baker. There's a drought. Baker goes back to the church so that Moore can survive the Battle of Waterloo and that it may rain again. I think I've got all that right.
So basically it's about a woman who wants to escape being a nun, but God keeps killing off all the men who are into her, and throwing in some drought for good measure, so she goes back to it. Which isn't very fun.
At times this has shades of Gainsborough Melodramas of the 1940s, with Baker going from nun, to gypsy wench, to flamenco dancer... Maybe that's should have made it. The filmmakers never get the tone right.
Baker actually is compelling in the lead - I always enjoy her, she's a strong actor, great voice, has star quality. She's better than the material. There is camp fun watching her hop around playing all these sort of characters - Baker as a nun is inherently campy. Roger Moore hadn't grown into his looks by this stage; like Baker he's got a great voice, and his performance isn't bad.
There is some hammy support acting from Walter Slezak and Katina Paxinou; some terrible dialogue such as "here's a portrait from my friend Goya" and the Duke of Wellington going "we could fight him here... at Waterloo".
It's a terrible move really only for Roger Moore and Carroll Baker completists, and/or students of religious films of the 1950s.
The plot is odd. It starts in a convent with some "how do you solve a problem like Maria" style chats among the nuns about Carroll Baker, who is a novice, but tends to day dream. When hunky British soldier Roger Moore trots into town (the time is the Napoleonic Wars and Wellington's campaign in Spain) she gets hot pants and the two of them are soon rolling in the hills. She gets it into her head that Moore is killed, goes a little ga-ga and runs off with the gypsies. Vittoria Gassman falls in love with her and winds up dead. Then she becomes a flamenco dancer; a bullfighter falls in love with her and ends up dead. Then she's reunited with Moore. At the convent the Virgin Mary comes down from a statue and pretends to be Baker. There's a drought. Baker goes back to the church so that Moore can survive the Battle of Waterloo and that it may rain again. I think I've got all that right.
So basically it's about a woman who wants to escape being a nun, but God keeps killing off all the men who are into her, and throwing in some drought for good measure, so she goes back to it. Which isn't very fun.
At times this has shades of Gainsborough Melodramas of the 1940s, with Baker going from nun, to gypsy wench, to flamenco dancer... Maybe that's should have made it. The filmmakers never get the tone right.
Baker actually is compelling in the lead - I always enjoy her, she's a strong actor, great voice, has star quality. She's better than the material. There is camp fun watching her hop around playing all these sort of characters - Baker as a nun is inherently campy. Roger Moore hadn't grown into his looks by this stage; like Baker he's got a great voice, and his performance isn't bad.
There is some hammy support acting from Walter Slezak and Katina Paxinou; some terrible dialogue such as "here's a portrait from my friend Goya" and the Duke of Wellington going "we could fight him here... at Waterloo".
It's a terrible move really only for Roger Moore and Carroll Baker completists, and/or students of religious films of the 1950s.
Saturday, August 06, 2016
Movie review - "Act One" (1963) **
Moss Hart's memoirs about his early days as a playwright became a classic of the form. It was adapted, produced and directed by Dore Schary, then in his brief writer-director phase
It's a very Dore Schary movie - intelligent, sensible, polite, self conscious. Look at the way Hart talks to other writers - "I'm the soul of graciousness". The polite way he talks to actors. The awkward comedy. This was effective in telling the story of Franklin Roosevelt recovering from polio, not so much in a tale of a young man trying to Make It Big in Theatre.
It should be a racy, affectionate valentine to old Broadway but it's made with a pole up its backside, as if it were directed by Hilary Clinton. The jokes are awkward - Hart has dream sequences about being famous; his friends bicker and banter. But there's no atmosphere. It's shot like a serious 50s American TV drama.
Hart/Hamilton does a reading of the play - where he reads all the parts. Eli Wallach's theatre producer talks like an essay on playwriting. There's so much serious talk about comedy. A joke were women are attracted to a young Cary Grant ("Archie Leech") is funny at first then repeated like three or four times without much change. There are montages of people writing. We are never clear why Once in a Lifetime didn't work or how they got to make it work.
George Hamilton tries - he's a polite, well mannered man, it's a conscientious performance - but he's simply miscast playing a young struggling Hart. Too handsome. Too unlike a writer. I think Hamilton would've been perfect for the late period Hart - a darling of the social scene, well dressed, sophisticated. But not a young man on the make. He's got no energy or chutzpah: James Woolcott suggested a young Richard Dreyfuss would've been ideal. I think George Segal, who plays Hart's jealous friend, would've been better.
The support cast for this is strong - Segal, Jason Robards as George S Kaufman (tousle haired and grumpy - he seems like a real writer whereas Hamilton never does), Eli Wallach, Jack Klugman as an investor who seems to be in love with Hart/Hamilton. So too does sensitive David Starr played by Sam Groom who I later found was based on a young Dore Schary.
It's a failure as a film really - it lacks energy, is too stately, doesn't capture the atmosphere of the theatre. But it is interesting, because so few films are made about these people. There's a party sequence with Alexander Woolcott, Fanny Brice, Dorothy Parker - I wish there'd been more stuff like that.
It's a very Dore Schary movie - intelligent, sensible, polite, self conscious. Look at the way Hart talks to other writers - "I'm the soul of graciousness". The polite way he talks to actors. The awkward comedy. This was effective in telling the story of Franklin Roosevelt recovering from polio, not so much in a tale of a young man trying to Make It Big in Theatre.
It should be a racy, affectionate valentine to old Broadway but it's made with a pole up its backside, as if it were directed by Hilary Clinton. The jokes are awkward - Hart has dream sequences about being famous; his friends bicker and banter. But there's no atmosphere. It's shot like a serious 50s American TV drama.
Hart/Hamilton does a reading of the play - where he reads all the parts. Eli Wallach's theatre producer talks like an essay on playwriting. There's so much serious talk about comedy. A joke were women are attracted to a young Cary Grant ("Archie Leech") is funny at first then repeated like three or four times without much change. There are montages of people writing. We are never clear why Once in a Lifetime didn't work or how they got to make it work.
George Hamilton tries - he's a polite, well mannered man, it's a conscientious performance - but he's simply miscast playing a young struggling Hart. Too handsome. Too unlike a writer. I think Hamilton would've been perfect for the late period Hart - a darling of the social scene, well dressed, sophisticated. But not a young man on the make. He's got no energy or chutzpah: James Woolcott suggested a young Richard Dreyfuss would've been ideal. I think George Segal, who plays Hart's jealous friend, would've been better.
The support cast for this is strong - Segal, Jason Robards as George S Kaufman (tousle haired and grumpy - he seems like a real writer whereas Hamilton never does), Eli Wallach, Jack Klugman as an investor who seems to be in love with Hart/Hamilton. So too does sensitive David Starr played by Sam Groom who I later found was based on a young Dore Schary.
It's a failure as a film really - it lacks energy, is too stately, doesn't capture the atmosphere of the theatre. But it is interesting, because so few films are made about these people. There's a party sequence with Alexander Woolcott, Fanny Brice, Dorothy Parker - I wish there'd been more stuff like that.
The odd career of Veronica Lake
I don't think anyone had better luck than Veronica Lake when starting out. Her first decent part was a choice, showy support role in a big hit, I Wanted Wings - a military romantic drama released just as America was gearing up for a war.
She followed this with great parts in five fantastic films:
* Sullivan's Travels - a classic Preston Sturges comedy;
* This Gun for Hire - an exciting thriller which teamed her with Alan Ladd;
* The Glass Key - another top thriller with Ladd;
* I Married a Witch - delightful Rene Clair comedy with Lake at her sexiest as a witch;
* So Proudly We Hail - gripping war story with a very flashy part for Lake as a Bataan nurse.
Lake made a notable contribution to all five films - being effective, her limitations protected.
Then the tide turned. She cut her hair, lost a baby, developed a bad reputation, and was in a series of duds:
* The Hour Before Dawn
* Bring on the Girls
* Hold That Blonde
* Out of This World
Things turned around a little with Miss Susie Slagle's, The Blue Dahlia and Ramrod. But then it was back to crap:
* Saigon
* The Sainted Sisters
* Isn't it Romantic?
Then she left Paramount, and could never recover her previous position.
What happened? Was it inevitable?
Well, Lake wasn't a very good actor - she had to be carefully used. She couldn't survive bad material (unlike, say, Alan Ladd).
You could say "Paramount shouldn't have put her in comedies" - but she'd had success in Sullivan's Travels and I Married a Witch.
Most of the films she appeared in during the second half of her Paramount career were simply ineptly made - they helped killed the careers of Eddie Bracken, Joan Caulfield and Diana Lynn as much as Lake.
It's a shame she wasn't teamed with Ladd more - she could've easily slipped into say OSS (as she did on radio) or Wild Harvest or Calcutta. (She may have refused these parts, to be fair - it's just a pity since Ladd was rarely as effective with another girl.)
There was also a curious reluctant to use her as an out and out vamp. Lake looked like a bad girl but rarely played one - there was always some excuse or redemption for her behaviour. Sometimes this made the film more interesting (eg The Blue Dahlia) but often it weakened the drama - several of her films would've been better had Lake played a flat out villain eg The Sainted Sisters. Also she would've seemed a natural for film noir as a femme fetale, but she didn't - noirs, yes, but as good girls.
Maybe it was simply karma. But it's as hard a slog to get through Lake's last films at Paramount as it is a pleasure to get through her first.
So anyway a Lake top ten
1) I Wanted Wings
2) This Gun for Hire
3) Sullivan's Travels
4) The Glass Key
5) I Married a Witch
6) So Proudly We Hail
7) The Blue Dahlia
8) Ramrod
9) Miss Susie Slagle's
10) Saigon (not very good but at least with Ladd)
She followed this with great parts in five fantastic films:
* Sullivan's Travels - a classic Preston Sturges comedy;
* This Gun for Hire - an exciting thriller which teamed her with Alan Ladd;
* The Glass Key - another top thriller with Ladd;
* I Married a Witch - delightful Rene Clair comedy with Lake at her sexiest as a witch;
* So Proudly We Hail - gripping war story with a very flashy part for Lake as a Bataan nurse.
Lake made a notable contribution to all five films - being effective, her limitations protected.
Then the tide turned. She cut her hair, lost a baby, developed a bad reputation, and was in a series of duds:
* The Hour Before Dawn
* Bring on the Girls
* Hold That Blonde
* Out of This World
Things turned around a little with Miss Susie Slagle's, The Blue Dahlia and Ramrod. But then it was back to crap:
* Saigon
* The Sainted Sisters
* Isn't it Romantic?
Then she left Paramount, and could never recover her previous position.
What happened? Was it inevitable?
Well, Lake wasn't a very good actor - she had to be carefully used. She couldn't survive bad material (unlike, say, Alan Ladd).
You could say "Paramount shouldn't have put her in comedies" - but she'd had success in Sullivan's Travels and I Married a Witch.
Most of the films she appeared in during the second half of her Paramount career were simply ineptly made - they helped killed the careers of Eddie Bracken, Joan Caulfield and Diana Lynn as much as Lake.
It's a shame she wasn't teamed with Ladd more - she could've easily slipped into say OSS (as she did on radio) or Wild Harvest or Calcutta. (She may have refused these parts, to be fair - it's just a pity since Ladd was rarely as effective with another girl.)
There was also a curious reluctant to use her as an out and out vamp. Lake looked like a bad girl but rarely played one - there was always some excuse or redemption for her behaviour. Sometimes this made the film more interesting (eg The Blue Dahlia) but often it weakened the drama - several of her films would've been better had Lake played a flat out villain eg The Sainted Sisters. Also she would've seemed a natural for film noir as a femme fetale, but she didn't - noirs, yes, but as good girls.
Maybe it was simply karma. But it's as hard a slog to get through Lake's last films at Paramount as it is a pleasure to get through her first.
So anyway a Lake top ten
1) I Wanted Wings
2) This Gun for Hire
3) Sullivan's Travels
4) The Glass Key
5) I Married a Witch
6) So Proudly We Hail
7) The Blue Dahlia
8) Ramrod
9) Miss Susie Slagle's
10) Saigon (not very good but at least with Ladd)
Movie review - "Isn't it Romantic?" (1948) **
To understand why this was made you need to remember that nostalgic family pieces in historical settings were all the rage in the 1940s - Meet Me in St Louis, Life with Father, I Remember Mama, etc.
This load of old codswallop is set in Indiana during Reconstruction, and focuses on three sisters - Veronica Lake, Mona Freeman and Mary Hatcher. Their idiotic father is obsessed with the Civil War (he runs around in a Confederate uniform) and won't get a job. I think he's meant to be loveable ol' dad but he just comes across as a lazy, racist separatist, uncharmingly played by Roland Culver. We're supposed to feel for him at the end when he realises he got swindled; I wanted him to shoot himself, like that Confederate officer in The Ox Bow Incident.
These sort of movies are hard to pull off - director Henry King was one who could, as was John Ford, but Norman McLeod fails. He's not helped by a B level cast. Lake seems uncomfortable; Freeman and Hatcher are B list. There's a few musical numbers - maybe with colour and more elaborate musical numbers it might have gone over.
Billy de Wolfe is tiresome as Lake's love interest; Patric Knowles un-charming as the guy who romances then swindles Lake. This film just annoyed me. There were cute period detail I suppose like going to see an early silent film.
This load of old codswallop is set in Indiana during Reconstruction, and focuses on three sisters - Veronica Lake, Mona Freeman and Mary Hatcher. Their idiotic father is obsessed with the Civil War (he runs around in a Confederate uniform) and won't get a job. I think he's meant to be loveable ol' dad but he just comes across as a lazy, racist separatist, uncharmingly played by Roland Culver. We're supposed to feel for him at the end when he realises he got swindled; I wanted him to shoot himself, like that Confederate officer in The Ox Bow Incident.
These sort of movies are hard to pull off - director Henry King was one who could, as was John Ford, but Norman McLeod fails. He's not helped by a B level cast. Lake seems uncomfortable; Freeman and Hatcher are B list. There's a few musical numbers - maybe with colour and more elaborate musical numbers it might have gone over.
Billy de Wolfe is tiresome as Lake's love interest; Patric Knowles un-charming as the guy who romances then swindles Lake. This film just annoyed me. There were cute period detail I suppose like going to see an early silent film.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)