[I forgot to add the post title and Blogger took the first line I had to create the url direction...I hate when this happens]
This is the second and last monthly review because I think it's better if I review every movie right after watching it. I saw some films that I didn't include because I'm gonna add them in a complete filmography post I'm preparing. Anyway, April brought great movies to see. Let's go...
Carole was too good for this minor role. Anyway, she married William.
Man of the world (Richard Wallace, 1931)
Who’s in it: Carole Lombard + William Powell
What it's about: a con man falls in love with the nephew of one of the man he defrauded.
The good: William Powell is always attractive, and the movie depends on him; the romantic scenes are fine (they should be, since William and Carole married three months after the movie was released); there’s tension coming from the main character's ex-lover and “co-worker”; the ending was unpredictable.
The bad: Carole’s character was too good, simple and nice for her; saw it yesterday and now I don’t even remember what there was before the ending.
Should I see it? Only if you are a fan of Powell or Lombard.
IMBD explains: "The title refers to the superstition that if three people light their cigarettes with the same match, the third person will soon die"
Three on a match (Mervyn LeRoy, 1932)
Who’s in it: Joan Blondell + Ann Dvorak + Bette Davis (+ Bogie)
What it's about: the story of three classmate girls, and how their lives change and connect when they grow up.
The good: interesting story, unpredictable switches, and the little boy was so cute; all the actors are fine, Bogie is very young (has few scenes though).
The bad: too melodramatic at some points; the way to show the passage of time was kind overblown and repetitive; Bette’s character seemed to have no life of her own and was a minor force in the movie.
Should I see it? Yes, it’s good overall.
One Edward G. Robinson here... |
...and two of them here.
|
The whole town’s talking (John Ford, 1935)
Who’s in it: Edward G. Robinson + Jean Arthur
What it's about: a modest employee is confused with an awfully bad gangster ...and the latter takes advantage of the situation…
The good: Edward G. Robinson plays the two roles (employee-gangster) magnificently; you really believe they’re two different people; his employee is so kind, and sweet, and Jean is funny as always, loved the scene at the police station in which she starts to blame Mannon of everything, it’s hilarious; the story is unpredictable and interesting.
The bad: Nothing I guess.
Should I see it?: Yes, good movie.
This belongs to the first tree quarters.
Small town girl (William A. Wellman, 1936)
Who’s in it: Robert Taylor + Janet Gaynor + Jimmy Stewart
What it's about: A girl from a small town (yes, the small town girl) is sick and tired of her boring life and the dull people that surrounds her so she decides to go away with a young and handsome doctor from a big city…
The good: The first three quarters of the movie are great; Janet Gaynor knew how to play this kind of role, she looked vulnerable but she was also very funny; Robert Taylor is very good with his two sided character: on one hand he’s a despicable and conceited rich kid but on the other he’s a sensible doctor that takes good care of his patients.
The bad: In my opinion the last part is not very well developed, Robert’s character behaves awfully and Janet’s boring admirer (Stewart) proves to have great values, so the ending is kind of weird.
Should I see it? Yes, the first three quarters worth it.
Alone in the woods. a romantic detail by Wilder and Brackett.
Arise, my love (Mitchell Leisen, 1940)
Who’s in it: Claudette Colbert + Ray Milland
What it's about: Reporter Augusta Nash (Colbert) and soldier Tom Martin (Milland) fall in love…just before World War II begins.
The good: everything; the script by Wilder + Brackett, filled with details, some funny, some emotive, but always interesting; the story is entertaining and captivating; the performances of the leads are delicious.
The bad: Nothing.
Should I see it? Of course.
 William & Myrna: great chemistry again. |
LOL
|
I love you again (W.S. Van Dyke, 1940)
Who’s in it: William Powell + Myrna Loy
What it's about: After his head is hit with a boat oar a role-model- man (Powell) recovers his first identity … a con man. The problem is that he's going back to a small town where he's very well known...
The good: The leads have their usual perfect chemistry; William Powell is great, funny and clever as always and his performance is solid; there are a lot of hilarious moment (loved the one with the scouts).
The bad: Loy’s character is kind of subordinated to Powell’s, and this isn’t very frequent in their movies; she doesn’t have many memorable lines.
Should I see it? Yes, it’s funny.
What a beautiful couple were these two.
That Hamilton woman (Alexander Korda, 1941)
Who’s in it: Vivien Leigh + Laurence Olivier
What it's about: the love story of married Emma Hamilton and married English Naval officer Horatio Nelson.
The good: the leads are great in their roles, and they (obviously) have chemistry; the story is very dramatic and the tension is very well managed; there are some great scenes.
The bad: the movie ends abruptly.
Should I see it? Yes.
|
Seemed to be such a happy couple.
| 
Rex Harrison's eye in detail.
|
Unfaithfully yours (Preston Sturges, 1948)
Who’s in it: Rex Harrison + Linda Darnell
What it's about: An orchestra director (Harrison) imagines different ways to confront her apparently cheating wife…
The good: the story is very original and unpredictable, Rex is great as the husband and his reactions from denial, to suspicion and then to anger are all good; there’s chemistry between the leads; there are great shots (like the the extreme close-up to Harrison’s eye); the last part is very funny.
The bad: Some scenes were very brutal and exaggerated for my taste and that didn’t seem very funny to me; the end is too fast and brief after all the hypothetical situations.
Should I see it? Yes, just because it’s something unique.
Johnny Belinda (Jean Negulesco, 1948)
Who’s in it: Jane Wyman + Lew Ayres + Charles Bickford + Agnes Moorehead
What it's about: a good and nice doctor (Ayres) teaches deaf-mute girl (Wyman) to communicate…but not all the men in town are that good and nice.
The good: everything! the story is so interesting and emotive; the way the show how these two people start communicating is so touching and memorable; the characters are so well played by the leads, Jane Wyman is great as the impaired girl (won Oscar), so vulnerable but at the same time with such a inner strength; Lew Ayres is excellent too; the girl’s dad (Charles Bickford) and her aunt (Agnes Moorehead) change their attitude to the girl in such believable and moving way; the bad guy (Stephen McNally) is really really bad and despicable; the movie is beautifully shot, there are some great countryside scenes. Everything is very well developed.
The bad: Maybe that there's an unsolved case, but it didn't bother to me.
Should I see it? Saw it twice in two days.
Movies I couldn't finish because I fell asleep:
|
BO-RING.
|
Man-Proof (Richard Thorpe, 1938): Starring Myrna Loy as a girl in love with guy that marries another woman (Rosalind Russel in a part that was too simple for her). Zero chemistry, you really don’t understand why she loves him so much; and the scenes are boring and she argues all the time with other guy (obviously she will end with him). The only interesting thing was the personality of her mother, a liberal writer that gave her some advices.
|
Vulgar and violent.
|
The bank dick (Edward F. Cline, 1940): I didn’t get the humor of this movie; W.C. Fields’s character was really detestable and all the women seemed to be uneducated and violent. Una Merkel was there too but her character was boring and she didn't shine. I’m blaming this kind of movies for some awful and decadent comedy movies we have today (like Borat, and movies starring Ben Stiller, Mike Myers or Adam Sandler).
|
.JPG)
