Reviews
Penny Serenade (1941)
a film with possibilities, but sentimentally overdrawn and underwritten
**warning: definitely includes spoilers to the story! Having been a Cary Grant fan for some time and more recently an admirer of director George Stevens I was eager to watch Penny Serenade. I find that, unfortunately, I have to disagree with most of the other listed comments.
That Cary Grant and Irene Dunne are wonderful actors, there can be no dispute. However, it is the screenplay that is at fault here. Both main actors are luminous and riveting, but they are either burdened with lines that fall flat or, in many instances, with a lack of words and dialogue.
***spoiler*** While in Japan, the newlywed couple are caught in an earthquake and the pregnant Julie (Dunne) miscarries. The word is never mentioned, which I found hard to believe. I am supposing that this must have been due to the censorship code of the time.
***spoiler*** After their adopted daughter Trina dies, there is an appalling absence of dialogue between husband and wife. Julie and Roger (Grant) are left without words, sitting in silence, supposedly to convey despair and sorrow. I found this such an unimaginative way to handle what the couple was experiencing. A series of brief scenes in which Dunne tried to talk with her husband in ordinary day-to-day situations might have better depicted Grant's withdrawal and depression.
The gimmick of using different songs to lead into flashbacks of various stages in the marriage was heavy-handed, stilted and trite. I think that the movie might have been better organized if the story had simply played in sequence from past to present. It put too much of a burden on Dunne to do what little acting she could as she put one record on the turntable after another. After the second record, I no longer found it credible that she would play those songs and temporarily relive all her heartbreak, considering the fact that she and her husband were on the brink of divorce and she was getting ready to leave him. I can only suppose that in 1941 this idea was more workable and more acceptable for the audience of that time.
The actress who played Katrina at age six had a forced smile that did not seem natural or genuine. The couple of times she smiled at the end of her lines was distracting. She was trying too hard to be cute.
In some scenes it almost seemed as if Dunne and Grant were told to improvise their lines and it was clumsy. Here I think of the scene when Miss Oliver from the orphanage comes to the apartment to check on them for the first time and the scene in which they go to the orphanage to see the baby for the first time. Even Miss Oliver is not given sufficient, credible lines. In describing the infant Katrina to the couple, all she can say is: "she is like no other child" two or three times. It was wearing. The scene when they take the five-and-a-half week old Trina home from the orphanage was overlong and overplayed. Grant seemed very uncomfortable, while Dunne managed her way. The scene where several of the men who worked on Roger's newspaper were in the apartment watching the nervous and inept Julie washing and diapering her baby was, again, overplayed and overdrawn, especially the repetition of the cracking of the peanut shells as a distraction to Julie and wearing on her nerves.
As many have said, the highlight of the film is Grant's scene with the judge, pleading that his daughter not be taken away because he is out of work. It is such a powerful and wonderful scene, which, for me, only emphasizes the fact that so much of the rest of the movie is weak by comparison.
As for the director, I think it is fair to say that films like A Place in the Sun and Giant were far more successful and far better achievements artistically and dramatically.
I can really only recommend the film because of Grant and Dunne. They have done much better work in other films. I was surprised to learn that Grant was nominated for an Oscar in this movie.
Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994)
Not a perfect film, but wonderful even with its flaws
Having seen the film many times on DVD, and having read many reviews, has inspired me to offer this review. It is easy to find fault with one aspect or another of this (or any) film. Sometimes it may be the performance; other times it may be the script and the way the character is written. Overall, whatever shortcomings any viewer might identify according to his or her perspective, Four Weddings and a Funeral does what it is supposed to do, namely to entertain. One could wrangle on and on about Andie MacDowell (as many have!), but the fact remains that she portrays a character we, as viewers, are not meant to judge. For those who claim there is no chemistry between MacDowell and Grant, it would seem that they are not accepting the story as written but as they would like it to be. MacDowell plays a very complex woman: attractive, somewhat mysterious, coy, experienced as a lover (a very uncomfortable point, especially to a modern audience) and verbally playful. It would be easy to dismiss her character Carrie by labeling her a slut (as Fiona does in the film). Hugh Grant's Charles is attracted to her and falls in love with her. The movie establishes that there is some level of mutuality in this attraction, despite Carrie's considerable amorous past. Charles is meant to be the one man in her life who challenges her to see that there is a difference between love and sex, that sex is more than mere physical attraction. We see Carrie much more objectively than Charles does, which I think is part of the movie's energy. We could as easily dismiss Charles for being a fool for being interested in someone with a longer list of lovers than his own. Much has been said about MacDowell's acting- that she can't, that she is wooden, that her very presence on the screen is boring, even ruins the film. That is too facile, too dismissive. One could equally take exception to Charles' constant faltering speech and see his eye blinking as annoying. Clearly this Englishman and this American woman are not perfect, but they do happen to be attracted to one another and the movie tells the story of what becomes of this initial attraction. Let us not forget the insensitive way Charles has treated each of his former girlfriends, regaling each new date with the shortcomings of the previous ones. Let's not focus on the fact that he is more virtuous because he only slept with nine women, a mere fraction of the number of lovers Carrie had. Clearly the movie is about how both of these characters are looking and at the same time are somewhat lost. Both choose the wrong partners for marriage for the wrong reason. Neither really listens to his or her heart until the end of the movie and having made disastrous mistakes. Some criticize the movie for the fact that we don't know what any of the characters do for a living. I don't see how that really makes a difference. We do learn that Carrie worked for Vogue magazine. We also learn that Scarlett is considering a job for a supposed sex shop called Rubber. The focus of the movie is on the personalities, feelings and thoughts of the main characters, not what careers or professions they have. In that area the movie does give us enough information to be able to involve us as viewers. The movie is not meant to be terribly profound, although there are several moments which delve beneath the surface of mere comedy. The best way to enjoy Four Weddings and a Funeral is to see it for what it is and not what we think it should be.
Robin and Marian (1976)
undying love
I was so happy to notice that the overwhelming majority of reviews for this film was positive. I have always regarded Robin and Marian as an under-rated classic. In it we have two major film actors at their best in legendary roles with a different spin: Robin and Marian, famed medieval lovers, separated for many years, then reunited in middle age. Sean Connery and Audrey Hepburn perfectly embody these roles with a depth of realism. They take these mythical figures and make them live. Marian was the perfect role for the 46 year old Hepburn to portray, and no doubt it was the quality of the script and the fascinating premise of the story which were able to lure her back to the silver screen after a nine-year absence. (Unfortunately none of her subsequent film roles were of this caliber.) The supporting cast is solid, a real ensemble of some of the greatest British actors. Richard Lester's direction is masterful. The screenplay brings great romance and irony to the relationship of Robin and Marian. The cinematography is beautiful without painting the tragic nature of the tale in rosy hue. The music of John Barry, as is always the case, wonderfully accompanies every mood and moment of the story.
Longstreet (1971)
The irony of television: another great show that did not make it
Longstreet was only on the air for one season. In my memory it stands out as a truly great series despite the fact it was short-lived, as sometimes happens with television. The premise was intriguing: a blind detective. The part of Mike Longstreet was wonderfully portrayed by James Franciscus, well remembered for his run in the earlier hit series, Mr Novak. Unfortunately, Longstreet did not catch on in the same way. Franciscus was perfectly believable as a blind person. He was the right person to carry off this part: handsome, smart and charming. The stories were interesting and intelligent with strong acting in the supporting character parts. Hopefully a DVD set of Longstreet will come out in this age when old and recent television series are being made available on the latest technology.
A Place in the Sun (1951)
reporting the facts
It is always an interesting experience to read the comments of fellow IMDb reviewers. I especially appreciate the care that many take in presenting their evaluations. Sometimes, however, there is inaccuracy of information provided in the comments. Admittedly, most people submitting their comments are not professional movie critics, but it would be helpful for any of us submitting comments to make an attempt to stick to the facts when writing more than just our opinions. For example, reading all the reviews for A Place in the Sun, I encountered incorrect ages for Elizabeth Taylor. If one is going to mention the age of an actor in part of their review, the person should be certain of the facts. To the best of my knowledge, Montgomery Clift was born in 1920 and Elizabeth Taylor was born in 1932. The movie was released in 1951, but I believe the movie was filmed in 1949 according to facts provided in special features on the DVD. So, Montgomery Clift was 29 and Elizabeth Taylor was 17 at the time the movie was being made. There are also times when a character's name is incorrectly given. Several reviews referred to the Montgomery Clift character as George Easton instead of George Eastman. This kind of inaccuracy detracts from the review as a whole. Finally, every person is entitled to his or her opinion. Reviews in which disparaging comments are made about anyone who happens to like or dislike the film in question only detract and distract from whatever constructive comments may have been made in the course of the review.
Two for the Road (1967)
Standing the test of time
Thank God that Audrey Hepburn made this film before slipping off into an extended temporary retirement. Was she too old for this movie? Not for the segments that deal with the latter part of the married relationship. The movie spans eleven years and, yes, it is a bit of a visual stretch to see a 37 year old Audrey portraying a 22 year old college woman, but her performance throughout was nothing short of brilliant. This film was a tremendous departure for her. In Two for the Road she does not play the part of the doe-eyed delicate creature of her earlier movies. She even abandoned, reluctantly, her trademark Givenchy wardrobe to sink her teeth into a gritty, visceral part. Many critics of the time remarked on its art house appeal, due in large part to the back and forth sequence editing and the clever juxtaposition of similarities, parallels and contrasts in scenes spanning eleven years. The film must have been incredibly fresh and jarring in its day, abandoning a linear narrative approach to the history of a marriage. Even today it comes across as very "contemporary." Albert Finney delivers an equally strong performance. There is genuine chemistry between Finney and Hepburn. The viewer sees all that is wonderful and horrible about the dynamics of a couple that comes to realize that despite mutual infidelity they still love each other and belong to one another.