Custom Detailing Movie Reviews
Sad note to go out on
JUDY GARLAND HATED ITThe film is a masterpiece; all the actors give ace performances - it i s a KEY film for the lonelyhearts... The film makes u feel that U ARE NOT ALONE in having depressing feelings and the script put it in words several times what might be difficult for a person 2 express. Nevertheless; Judy was right! Marilyn shines and performs with NO safety net whatsoever...
A Lesson In FilmThe screenplay by Miller is one of his most striking works. A story of a group of people lost in the wide expanse of the West in search of the discarded souls of their misspent lives. The film's beautiful cinematography by Russell Metty stands out as superb artistry at the demise of the black and white era. It shimmers with the silver of the deep expanse of the desert and the flat grays and blacks of the distant mountains upon which the last act of the story plays. The music by Alex North is among his best work and gives a savage punch to the aerial scenes and the round up at the end of the wild mustangs.
Montgomery Clift, by now sliding into the last years of his life is touching in his performance of Perce. His broken cowboy with the broken heart is almost painful to watch. His phone call home to his mother is among some of his best work. Eli Wallach gives a strong deeply moving portrait of Guido who has lost his wife, his way, and his humanity. He shines in his scene with Monroe where he asks her to save him. When she can't to at least say "Hello Guido".
Thelma Ritter is, well, Thelma Ritter in yet another of her excellent character roles. Ritter is the master of the one line wisecrack but here as Isobel she laces the cracks with an underlying sadness and vulnerability.
As Gay Langland, Clark Gable gives what I consider to be the best performance of his career. It was a brave move for Gable to take on the role of what on the surface seems another one of his typical macho made to fit parts. But as the story unfolds from Arthur Miller's pen Gay reveals that beneath his gruff, not a care in the world, cowboy is a man in deep pain and despair at his losses. The world has left him behind. Abandoned by his children the drunken Gable breaks so violently it is a shock to watch the great man fall. This is Clark Gable at his finest ever.
Marilyn Monroe gives an astounding performance as Roslyn Tabler the newly divorced dancer. A damaged woman who finds in the company of these three men something to finally believe in, something to stand up and fight for, she finds life. It is a performance ground out in part from her own person and experience and in part by the director John Huston and the editor George Tomasini who helped a nearly destroyed Monroe create her stunning Roslyn. This, her last performance is her best and the true example of the collaborative creation that film really is. That Marilyn under the circumstances of her life at that time could be so good is a testament to her talent as an actress and a star. Watch her when she is listening to the other actors. This is where she shines; this is the true mark of a great screen actor. To be able to listen and draw you into the inner life of the character through that deceptively simple act of listening and reaction is her gift to the audience. Her scene with Monty in back of the bar, sitting on a pile of trash, her afore mentioned scene with Eli Wallach in the speeding car. These are but a few of the examples in this film of her great talent. In the 1950's and early 60's there were only a handful of great young actresses in film, Elizabeth Taylor, and Marilyn Monroe where at the summit of the small mountain.
Not a Family Movie
THANK YOU MS HUSTONI honestly believe this tele-movie is must seeing for all of us. The story is true and it is being repeated all around us every minute of every day by our neighbors, friends, and relatives against our loved ones. Until we believe this and look very closely for the signs things will only get worse.
Shocking To The Core
Anjelica Huston is memorable as the vocal talent behind the unbalanced and scary Gothel, and excellent sound effects and colors greatly enhance the film. Hugo the mighty dragon, Otto the nasty ferret, and the sword fight between the feuding kings will hold the attention of those brothers of Barbie fans who are less than enthusiastic about watching this 80-minute film, but essentially this is a little girls' film and the outrageously pink castle, the magical fashion show before the masked ball, and the fairy-tale wedding will make it a firm favorite for that audience. --Tracey Hogan
Barbie as Rapunzel
A real treat!
This one took me like a storm in the night.
Delightful Kids FlickThis movie is based on the book by Rolald Dahl which is about a boy who comes across a flock of witches while vacationing with his grandma on the English seashore. The witches *led by Angelica Huston* are meeting under the disguise of a "children's charity organization* but really are discussing plans to get rid of all of the children in England by turning them into mice! Unfortunately, the boy whose name is Luke becomes one of their first victims. The story is great fun as are the actors. The end is the best part which takes place at a fancy dinner for the witches, but I won't give it away. Fantastic movie for the young and the young at heart.
Beware of WitchesOtherwise everyone else should really enjoy this fantastic movie, that takes place in Sweden and modern day England.
A little boy Luke ((Jasen Fisher) is told by his grandmother (Mai Zetterling) all about witches, and of her own childhood experience with these evil creatures, including the mysterious loss of her best friend to their wicked wiles.
When a few months later he goes with his grandmother to a grand old hotel by the seaside in England, he discovers to his dismay that there is witches conference at the hotel, and before he can foil there evil plans to destroy the children of England, he and another boy, Bruno (Charles Potter) are turned into mice at the orders of the Grand High Witch (Angelica Huston)
He and Bruno must now survive while at the same time exposing defeating the witches' evil plans.
A great movie based on the book by Roald Dahl.
Great Movie About Bad Witches
WHIC DO YOU LIKE BETTER!
PLAY RULES THE UNIVERSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1. You're crazy
2. You're missing out a TON!
So get it and be obsessed with Play like me! They deserve it!
PLAY is in it
Ruined By an Ending!Then it just flat out ruined the past two hours. Its sad how endings can do that, but they can. I wish they had stuck with the original ending in Christie's novel, it would have allowed things to come full circle. But unfortunately things just run flat.
Oh well.
Film, like book, unable to fully realize idea as a storyThe book's premise is clever and fascinating. Careful attention is paid to plot detail. Compared to the films, the book's assortment of past crimes and depictions of the characters' attitudes toward them are more varied, subtle, interesting, and powerful. The book is able to give the highly contrived events a certain plausibility. It does the best job of presenting the characters in ways in which the reader could actually see them as the murderous host. It is the least sentimental, treating all of them vaguely and suspiciously. This is not necessarily enough to make them convincing killers, but at least it maintains more of a sense of fear, dread, menace, suspense, and purpose than the film versions. The book does the best job of explaining why and how Owen carried out the scheme.
However, once the imaginative premise is established, the story becomes thin and formulaic. There is little plot or character development. The storytelling seems flat, frigid, and, at times, slow-paced. There is no lead character to care about. The characters and their past crimes are sketched in summary fashion. Those crimes vary widely in originality, depth, and genuineness. The best are Claythorne's, the general's, Brent's, and the Rogers'. The past crimes of Blore, the doctor, the judge, and Lombard are utterly trite, unexplored, and ineffective. The only real plot twist creates a major logical problem, which the book acknowledges and tries to overcome by weakly suggesting that the ploy would trick or "rattle" the murderer. The guests' murders are designed to follow the nursery rhyme and little more. Some cosmetic frills aside, Owen's killings show, in themselves, no special cunning, skill, strategic advantage, or plausibility. Owen strikes crudely without detection too effortlessly.
Worst of all, the book (and each film) has nothing serious to say about the powerful themes of survival, justice, and criminality that are at the heart of the story. The story is inherently an observation of human nature in a desperate situation. How do the characters behave? How do they try to reason? How do they try to survive? Also by its very nature -- as the book's last pages acknowledge -- this story is a morality play. How is each character a "criminal"? How is each "beyond the law"? Does each get "justice"? Is justice the point, or simply a "lust" to torture and kill? Is the story about breaking the law or enforcing it, about mistakes or abuses in pursuing justice? None of this is meaningfully explored.
Overall, the films are worse in some respects and better in some respects than the book. The 1945 version develops the plot better in some ways. While as tightly written as the book, it is richer in deductive theories, in taking stock at each stage of the story, and in survival techniques. The dialogue seems sharper than in the book and provides some memorable lines. This adaptation pioneered the technique (repeated in 1965 and 1974 and omitted only from the 1989 version, to its detriment) of having one of the characters play the Ten Little Indians nursery rhyme on the piano, which brings it to life and sets the stage for what is to come. The cast is mostly outstanding. Many characters -- Lombard, Claythorne, doctor, judge, Blore, Brent -- seem as smart, strong, or distinctive as in the book, or more so. They are more entertaining. Generally, the films do a better job of showing the characters interact, though none achieves much rapport among the characters. Except for the 1989 movie, the films make more of an effort to explain the important relationship that develops between two characters.
However, the 1945 version handles the past crimes even less effectively than the book. The movie presents the general and his past crime in an obscure, lifeless way; even the weak 1989 adaptation did better. The 1945 version makes a ludicrous change to the judge's past crime. It waters down Brent's. In changing the story to allow characters to survive, it distorts their identities and/or crimes in fundamental ways. In the process, it replaces the book's most complex, interesting past crime with one that is bland, superficial, and false. This confuses the meaning of the host's actions, although it does suggest, but not develop, a new theme of false accusation not present in the book.
Generally, the film's attempts to make the characters entertaining (Starlov, Rogers, doctor, judge) come at the expense of their plausibility as villains and of the story's seriousness. Characters confess their secrets and treat the horror unfolding around them as if it were a parlor game. Mischa Auer's farcical, clownish portrayal of Prince Nikita Starlov is a disaster. The character was poorly drawn to begin with, and the 1945 film does the worst job of any version in presenting his past crime. It is only the most extreme example of a general problem with taking such a lighthearted approach to a fundamentally serious story.
Worst of all, the climactic scene in which Owen's identity, means, and motives are revealed is short, sedate, droll, and unsatisfying. The film leaves a lot unexplained. It is left to the otherwise flawed 1974 version to capture more of the tone and intensity of the book and to the generally inept 1989 film to provide an ending that is dramatic, reflects that a deadly serious killer has been at work, conveys a sense of Owen's menace and lunacy, and most fully explains Owen's behavior.
A delightful and thoroughly entertaining classic filmOne would have to have lived one's life in a cave not to have heard of the story behind this film, based, as it is, on arguably Agatha Christie's most famous novel. Thankfully, the original title has long since been changed from the inconceivably offensive TEN LITTLE N*GGERS to TEN LITTLE INDIANS (Agatha, what were you thinking?). Actually, there have been a vast number of permutations of the story in various films, both explicitly based on Christie's story, or only derived from it in some fashion or other.
Ten individuals are mysteriously invited to a mansion that sits alone on an isolated island, all with a dark secret to hide. Mysteriously, one after another dies a mysterious death. The plot is excruciatingly simple; the execution by director Rene Clair is phenomenal.
The cast is superb though despite the absence of any leading performers. Louis Hayward is the ostensible lead, but his career was largely that of a supporting player. What the film has instead is a collection of absolutely first-rate character actors. The great Walter Huston (who would win a Best Supporting Actor Oscar three years later in his son's THE TREASURE OF SIERRA MADRE) steals many of the scenes he is in, but one of the talents of a great character actor lies in scene theft. Barry Fitzgerald robs a few of his own, as does the brilliant Mischa Auer, whose early demise robs him of the opportunity for additional larceny. Roland Young was one of the greatest character actors of the thirties, and although he made other films after this one before his death in 1953, this was probably his last great role. I love the vastly underappreciated Richard Haydn, who always looked decades older than he was (only 40 in this film) and who never starred in a film but managed to embellish a large number, my favorite being, perhaps, BALL OF FIRE, where he played Prof. Oddly, the expert on botany (who gives an hysterical account about the birds and the bees). In this film he plays the Butler.
One could make the case that this is one of the most influential films ever made. Parts of the plot have been borrowed for countless other films, but in my opinion, none managed it more successfully than this one. A must see film.
Ruined By an Ending!Then it just flat out ruined the past two hours. Its sad how endings can do that, but they can. I wish they had stuck with the original ending in Christie's novel, it would have allowed things to come full circle. But unfortunately things just run flat.
Oh well.
Film, like book, unable to fully realize idea as a storyThe book's premise is clever and fascinating. Careful attention is paid to plot detail. Compared to the films, the book's assortment of past crimes and depictions of the characters' attitudes toward them are more varied, subtle, interesting, and powerful. The book is able to give the highly contrived events a certain plausibility. It does the best job of presenting the characters in ways in which the reader could actually see them as the murderous host. It is the least sentimental, treating all of them vaguely and suspiciously. This is not necessarily enough to make them convincing killers, but at least it maintains more of a sense of fear, dread, menace, suspense, and purpose than the film versions. The book does the best job of explaining why and how Owen carried out the scheme.
However, once the imaginative premise is established, the story becomes thin and formulaic. There is little plot or character development. The storytelling seems flat, frigid, and, at times, slow-paced. There is no lead character to care about. The characters and their past crimes are sketched in summary fashion. Those crimes vary widely in originality, depth, and genuineness. The best are Claythorne's, the general's, Brent's, and the Rogers'. The past crimes of Blore, the doctor, the judge, and Lombard are utterly trite, unexplored, and ineffective. The only real plot twist creates a major logical problem, which the book acknowledges and tries to overcome by weakly suggesting that the ploy would trick or "rattle" the murderer. The guests' murders are designed to follow the nursery rhyme and little more. Some cosmetic frills aside, Owen's killings show, in themselves, no special cunning, skill, strategic advantage, or plausibility. Owen strikes crudely without detection too effortlessly.
Worst of all, the book (and each film) has nothing serious to say about the powerful themes of survival, justice, and criminality that are at the heart of the story. The story is inherently an observation of human nature in a desperate situation. How do the characters behave? How do they try to reason? How do they try to survive? Also by its very nature -- as the book's last pages acknowledge -- this story is a morality play. How is each character a "criminal"? How is each "beyond the law"? Does each get "justice"? Is justice the point, or simply a "lust" to torture and kill? Is the story about breaking the law or enforcing it, about mistakes or abuses in pursuing justice? None of this is meaningfully explored.
Overall, the films are worse in some respects and better in some respects than the book. The 1945 version develops the plot better in some ways. While as tightly written as the book, it is richer in deductive theories, in taking stock at each stage of the story, and in survival techniques. The dialogue seems sharper than in the book and provides some memorable lines. This adaptation pioneered the technique (repeated in 1965 and 1974 and omitted only from the 1989 version, to its detriment) of having one of the characters play the Ten Little Indians nursery rhyme on the piano, which brings it to life and sets the stage for what is to come. The cast is mostly outstanding. Many characters -- Lombard, Claythorne, doctor, judge, Blore, Brent -- seem as smart, strong, or distinctive as in the book, or more so. They are more entertaining. Generally, the films do a better job of showing the characters interact, though none achieves much rapport among the characters. Except for the 1989 movie, the films make more of an effort to explain the important relationship that develops between two characters.
However, the 1945 version handles the past crimes even less effectively than the book. The movie presents the general and his past crime in an obscure, lifeless way; even the weak 1989 adaptation did better. The 1945 version makes a ludicrous change to the judge's past crime. It waters down Brent's. In changing the story to allow characters to survive, it distorts their identities and/or crimes in fundamental ways. In the process, it replaces the book's most complex, interesting past crime with one that is bland, superficial, and false. This confuses the meaning of the host's actions, although it does suggest, but not develop, a new theme of false accusation not present in the book.
Generally, the film's attempts to make the characters entertaining (Starlov, Rogers, doctor, judge) come at the expense of their plausibility as villains and of the story's seriousness. Characters confess their secrets and treat the horror unfolding around them as if it were a parlor game. Mischa Auer's farcical, clownish portrayal of Prince Nikita Starlov is a disaster. The character was poorly drawn to begin with, and the 1945 film does the worst job of any version in presenting his past crime. It is only the most extreme example of a general problem with taking such a lighthearted approach to a fundamentally serious story.
Worst of all, the climactic scene in which Owen's identity, means, and motives are revealed is short, sedate, droll, and unsatisfying. The film leaves a lot unexplained. It is left to the otherwise flawed 1974 version to capture more of the tone and intensity of the book and to the generally inept 1989 film to provide an ending that is dramatic, reflects that a deadly serious killer has been at work, conveys a sense of Owen's menace and lunacy, and most fully explains Owen's behavior.
A delightful and thoroughly entertaining classic filmOne would have to have lived one's life in a cave not to have heard of the story behind this film, based, as it is, on arguably Agatha Christie's most famous novel. Thankfully, the original title has long since been changed from the inconceivably offensive TEN LITTLE N*GGERS to TEN LITTLE INDIANS (Agatha, what were you thinking?). Actually, there have been a vast number of permutations of the story in various films, both explicitly based on Christie's story, or only derived from it in some fashion or other.
Ten individuals are mysteriously invited to a mansion that sits alone on an isolated island, all with a dark secret to hide. Mysteriously, one after another dies a mysterious death. The plot is excruciatingly simple; the execution by director Rene Clair is phenomenal.
The cast is superb though despite the absence of any leading performers. Louis Hayward is the ostensible lead, but his career was largely that of a supporting player. What the film has instead is a collection of absolutely first-rate character actors. The great Walter Huston (who would win a Best Supporting Actor Oscar three years later in his son's THE TREASURE OF SIERRA MADRE) steals many of the scenes he is in, but one of the talents of a great character actor lies in scene theft. Barry Fitzgerald robs a few of his own, as does the brilliant Mischa Auer, whose early demise robs him of the opportunity for additional larceny. Roland Young was one of the greatest character actors of the thirties, and although he made other films after this one before his death in 1953, this was probably his last great role. I love the vastly underappreciated Richard Haydn, who always looked decades older than he was (only 40 in this film) and who never starred in a film but managed to embellish a large number, my favorite being, perhaps, BALL OF FIRE, where he played Prof. Oddly, the expert on botany (who gives an hysterical account about the birds and the bees). In this film he plays the Butler.
One could make the case that this is one of the most influential films ever made. Parts of the plot have been borrowed for countless other films, but in my opinion, none managed it more successfully than this one. A must see film.
Ruined By an Ending!Then it just flat out ruined the past two hours. Its sad how endings can do that, but they can. I wish they had stuck with the original ending in Christie's novel, it would have allowed things to come full circle. But unfortunately things just run flat.
Oh well.
Film, like book, unable to fully realize idea as a storyThe book's premise is clever and fascinating. Careful attention is paid to plot detail. Compared to the films, the book's assortment of past crimes and depictions of the characters' attitudes toward them are more varied, subtle, interesting, and powerful. The book is able to give the highly contrived events a certain plausibility. It does the best job of presenting the characters in ways in which the reader could actually see them as the murderous host. It is the least sentimental, treating all of them vaguely and suspiciously. This is not necessarily enough to make them convincing killers, but at least it maintains more of a sense of fear, dread, menace, suspense, and purpose than the film versions. The book does the best job of explaining why and how Owen carried out the scheme.
However, once the imaginative premise is established, the story becomes thin and formulaic. There is little plot or character development. The storytelling seems flat, frigid, and, at times, slow-paced. There is no lead character to care about. The characters and their past crimes are sketched in summary fashion. Those crimes vary widely in originality, depth, and genuineness. The best are Claythorne's, the general's, Brent's, and the Rogers'. The past crimes of Blore, the doctor, the judge, and Lombard are utterly trite, unexplored, and ineffective. The only real plot twist creates a major logical problem, which the book acknowledges and tries to overcome by weakly suggesting that the ploy would trick or "rattle" the murderer. The guests' murders are designed to follow the nursery rhyme and little more. Some cosmetic frills aside, Owen's killings show, in themselves, no special cunning, skill, strategic advantage, or plausibility. Owen strikes crudely without detection too effortlessly.
Worst of all, the book (and each film) has nothing serious to say about the powerful themes of survival, justice, and criminality that are at the heart of the story. The story is inherently an observation of human nature in a desperate situation. How do the characters behave? How do they try to reason? How do they try to survive? Also by its very nature -- as the book's last pages acknowledge -- this story is a morality play. How is each character a "criminal"? How is each "beyond the law"? Does each get "justice"? Is justice the point, or simply a "lust" to torture and kill? Is the story about breaking the law or enforcing it, about mistakes or abuses in pursuing justice? None of this is meaningfully explored.
Overall, the films are worse in some respects and better in some respects than the book. The 1945 version develops the plot better in some ways. While as tightly written as the book, it is richer in deductive theories, in taking stock at each stage of the story, and in survival techniques. The dialogue seems sharper than in the book and provides some memorable lines. This adaptation pioneered the technique (repeated in 1965 and 1974 and omitted only from the 1989 version, to its detriment) of having one of the characters play the Ten Little Indians nursery rhyme on the piano, which brings it to life and sets the stage for what is to come. The cast is mostly outstanding. Many characters -- Lombard, Claythorne, doctor, judge, Blore, Brent -- seem as smart, strong, or distinctive as in the book, or more so. They are more entertaining. Generally, the films do a better job of showing the characters interact, though none achieves much rapport among the characters. Except for the 1989 movie, the films make more of an effort to explain the important relationship that develops between two characters.
However, the 1945 version handles the past crimes even less effectively than the book. The movie presents the general and his past crime in an obscure, lifeless way; even the weak 1989 adaptation did better. The 1945 version makes a ludicrous change to the judge's past crime. It waters down Brent's. In changing the story to allow characters to survive, it distorts their identities and/or crimes in fundamental ways. In the process, it replaces the book's most complex, interesting past crime with one that is bland, superficial, and false. This confuses the meaning of the host's actions, although it does suggest, but not develop, a new theme of false accusation not present in the book.
Generally, the film's attempts to make the characters entertaining (Starlov, Rogers, doctor, judge) come at the expense of their plausibility as villains and of the story's seriousness. Characters confess their secrets and treat the horror unfolding around them as if it were a parlor game. Mischa Auer's farcical, clownish portrayal of Prince Nikita Starlov is a disaster. The character was poorly drawn to begin with, and the 1945 film does the worst job of any version in presenting his past crime. It is only the most extreme example of a general problem with taking such a lighthearted approach to a fundamentally serious story.
Worst of all, the climactic scene in which Owen's identity, means, and motives are revealed is short, sedate, droll, and unsatisfying. The film leaves a lot unexplained. It is left to the otherwise flawed 1974 version to capture more of the tone and intensity of the book and to the generally inept 1989 film to provide an ending that is dramatic, reflects that a deadly serious killer has been at work, conveys a sense of Owen's menace and lunacy, and most fully explains Owen's behavior.
A delightful and thoroughly entertaining classic filmOne would have to have lived one's life in a cave not to have heard of the story behind this film, based, as it is, on arguably Agatha Christie's most famous novel. Thankfully, the original title has long since been changed from the inconceivably offensive TEN LITTLE N*GGERS to TEN LITTLE INDIANS (Agatha, what were you thinking?). Actually, there have been a vast number of permutations of the story in various films, both explicitly based on Christie's story, or only derived from it in some fashion or other.
Ten individuals are mysteriously invited to a mansion that sits alone on an isolated island, all with a dark secret to hide. Mysteriously, one after another dies a mysterious death. The plot is excruciatingly simple; the execution by director Rene Clair is phenomenal.
The cast is superb though despite the absence of any leading performers. Louis Hayward is the ostensible lead, but his career was largely that of a supporting player. What the film has instead is a collection of absolutely first-rate character actors. The great Walter Huston (who would win a Best Supporting Actor Oscar three years later in his son's THE TREASURE OF SIERRA MADRE) steals many of the scenes he is in, but one of the talents of a great character actor lies in scene theft. Barry Fitzgerald robs a few of his own, as does the brilliant Mischa Auer, whose early demise robs him of the opportunity for additional larceny. Roland Young was one of the greatest character actors of the thirties, and although he made other films after this one before his death in 1953, this was probably his last great role. I love the vastly underappreciated Richard Haydn, who always looked decades older than he was (only 40 in this film) and who never starred in a film but managed to embellish a large number, my favorite being, perhaps, BALL OF FIRE, where he played Prof. Oddly, the expert on botany (who gives an hysterical account about the birds and the bees). In this film he plays the Butler.
One could make the case that this is one of the most influential films ever made. Parts of the plot have been borrowed for countless other films, but in my opinion, none managed it more successfully than this one. A must see film.
Classic for Peck, but not his best role...
Ahab as another Hamlet
The Classic High Seas Adventure!!!This is Herman Melville's finest depiction for the screen, and if you want to see the White Whale, this is it, and if you want to see the brooding and obsessive Captain, this is it. What more can I say. It was directed brilliantly by John Huston, from his script co-written by Ray Bradbury, and it's a classic. View it and get chilled!!
Allen's style of mystery
Comedy, Mystery, and Murder...Oh My!Allen plays Larry Lipton, a writer/publisher who just wants his and his wife's life to be normal. We soon meet his wife, Carol (Keaton), who is definitely more ambitious and more willing to take a risk. The supporting cast includes Alan Alda, Anjelica Huston, Ron Rifkin, and Joy Behar.
For the Liptons, things are just fine until they meet their neighbors, who seem very nice and welcoming. When they learn that the wife has 'died' of a heart attack, Carol becomes suspicious, especially when she learns that the wife had a heart disease, something she never told Carol. Larry dismisses this and wants her to leave it alone and let the husband grieve. Yet Carol thinks he is a little too up-beat after losing his wife of over 20 years. So naturally, Carol investigates along with her very good friend Ted (Alda). Larry slowly becomes jealous that the two of them are together all the time and thinks that if he doesn't become more ambitious, that his marriage is going to fall apart. So he decides to join his wife on solving this mystery. Together, the two encounter much more than they had planned on. The result is priceless. Their little one-liners to each other (Carol calling him a 'Fuddy-Duddy,' reminding me of Annie Hall saying 'La de da...') are great.
If you're a Woody Allen fan, this is a must see movie. If you're not a Woody Allen fan, you may not enjoy it. But if you have never seen any of his movies and don't know much about him, rent this and see if you like it!
Manhattan Shines for Manhattan Murder Mystery!So onto the review. As you may already know, Manhattan is often just as much a character in Woody Allen films as the human characters. This is certainly no exception. The opening aerial scenes showing the Brooklyn Bridge, and the impressive night view of Madison Square Garden are a great setting to start the film. As the film progresses, we see Larry (Woody Allen) and wife Carol go to the famous "21 Club," Larry and sexy Marcia (portrayed brilliantly by Anjelica Huston) dine and play cards at the Cafe Des Artistes. It is very hard not to simply sidetrack the story for the great scenery.
Let's talk about chemistry! The chemistry between Allen and Keaton, is truly top-notch in this film (as well as Annie Hall, another favorite), holding the story together nicely. Supporting cast members, namely Alan Alda and Anjelica Huston add a great twist to the story.
The homage to vintage mystery is evident in this film, and adds to its appeal. Witty dialogue, excellent character development, bustling backdrop of Manhattan, and the "murder mystery" make this an intelligent, fun and stylish mystery-comedy. It is fun to watch the first time, the second time, and many subsequent viewings.
Unfortunately, that is the last high point of the movie. In addition to accepting the unbelievable romance between sixty year old Gable and 35-year-old Marilyn, we were supposed to feel something for these characters. Not an easy thing to ask of the viewer. Wallach, Clift and Gable played dispicable, drunken losers, and Marilyn was a woman bereft of any capability to recognize it. These were all people that I wouldn't even bother with if I met them on the street. Why am I supposed to care about them?
So sad that Gable and Monroe went out on this note. The only value in seeing this movie is purely historical.