The Lady Vanishes

Alongside "The 39 Steps" and "Young & Innocent", this makes up the trio ofHitchcock’s excellent pre-war romantic adventures.The comic turns in this film are a delight. It perfectly catches theeccentric way England used to be.An excellent cast steer us perfectly along the track.

While this is a very entertaining and suspenseful film, it has a few toomany dated elements. Sure, it would be a masterpiece back then, but itisn’tnow. The acting is too breezy and the dialogue a tad unrealistic. Itdidn’tbother me, but it does prevent this movie from being a classic. But still,it’s a nicely plotted film with decent art-direction and pleasantsettings.

Another great film by Hitchcock. I liked the opening scene with thecamera going from a pan shot to zoom on the interior of a hotel. Andthe silence of the start that gives place to total cacophony. The first20 minutes or so are very funny. Hitchock takes time to set the table.In fact, you start to ask yourself the question: "is this a traditionalHitchock with a murder or two and a cloud of mystery over it all"? Somescenes are hilarious, like when the maid is changing in her room nowoccupied by the two Enghlishmen. But eventually, there is a murder.Transport yourself on the train and there will be more surprises. Wherecould Ms. Froy be? The film also contains a "clin d’oeil" to SherlockHolmes. I was pleased with the chemistry between Margaret Lockwood andMichael Redgrave. Very funny when he’s fighting with the magician andhe tells Iris not to jump around like a referee and cooperate a little!Great line also by the doctor: "I’m sorry that this took such amelodramatic course"! I burst out laughing when Hitchcock makes fun ofEnglishmen’s phlegm: when one of them is shot in the hand and withoutlosing his coolness, goes back into the train. One word on that train:it makes for a perfect setting for this kind of mystery/thriller. Andthe film being done in 1938, it plays well with the geopolitics of thetime. While watching the movie, I thought it reminded me of Tintin. Iwas surprised to read after that another comment on this sitementioning the same thing.

Seen at home, in Toronto, on January 2nd, 2005.

84/100 (***)

How unethical would it be to update obviously outmoded effects in aclassic such as the Lady Vanishes or any number of other films ofearly/middle cinema? I find these antiquated effects so distracting attimes that I almost can’t take the movie seriously. That said I’m notsure if I would condone "fixing" these eyesores. I wonder what othersthink. For instance, would it be acceptable to change a simple scene ina movie that is not effects driven (like "Vanishes"), but not in amovie such as "Jason and the Argonauts" which is known as a film thatwas groundbreaking at the time for its effects magic? This brings upanother question, as well. Is it right for a filmmaker to change hisown film once it has been released in order to update or improvedefects he may perceive? Is film, like a painting or even a novel stillsubject to the revision process even after it has been embraced by thepublic?

As someone who has always found Hitchcock to be vastly overrated I haveto confess I enjoyed this early effort. I was drawn by MichealRedgrave, being a great fan of his; he'd done a small, uncredited rolein a vehicle for fellow stage actor John Gielgud but this was his firstreal film and he went in at the deep end, from uncredited bit part toleading man. The screenplay by newcomers Frank Launder and SydneyGilliatt made up in one-liners what it lacked in plausibility and itsanti-PC comments that would have probably passed without comment at thetime are joyfully refreshing in this restrictive age. Redgrave and hisleading lady Margaret Lockwood are both on form and Redgrave wasarguably the best leading man she would ever have in films. The pace ofthe film makes it easy to overlook the glaring flaws - would theForeign Office seriously employ a middle-aged spinster as a seriousspy; would vital information be exchanged musically rather than otherwell-tried methods; would someone obsessed with folk songs, one stepaway from a Morris Dancer be 1) interested in a pretty girl, 2) attracta pretty girl and 3) be useful with his fists when necessary andfinally would a middle-aged lady cum spy 4)leave the train in the firstplace while armed Nazis are just yards away and 5) manage to get cleanaway on foot - to say nothing of the model village in the openingmontage. Seventy years on it still entertains.

This film makes me understand better than ever just how extremeHitchcock's influence has been on De Palma; I used to think that DePalma simply copied ideas and scenes from the chubby old geezer - butnow I know that he is responsible for De Palma's bad habits, too. DePalma's unique illogical style has, evidently, also come fromHitchcock. I suppose that Hitchcock is analyzed to death andover-praised in film courses at universities, but the opposite shouldbe done: they ought to explain to film students just how bad aninfluence this fat little Englishman can be. Hitchcock is clearly adirector without "vision". By this cliché term I am referring to aconcrete picture of what shape and form a movie is going to take. Forexample, Kubrick's films never drift into side-streets: they alwaysremain on course and on target. Hitchcock, on the other hand, can'teven decide if he wants to make a spy thriller or a comedy. This filmstarts off as a mystery, and a half hour later we are faced with afight scene in the train's luggage compartment which is pure 100%slapstick! This meandering between thriller and silly comedy never gels- simply because it can't. Comedy thrillers do exist - but movies whichswitch from one genre to the other come off all wrong.

But the film's main flaw is the afore-mentioned illogicality. Plus theabsurdity, far-fetchedness, and some silly coincidences. When Lockwoodsees "Froy" written on the window she hastily tries to draw thedisbelieving Redgrave to it; but, alas, the train - just at that moment- passes through a tunnel, and somehow the writing on the windowdisappears when they exit the tunnel (damn predictable, too).(Apparently this is a ghost story as well as acomedy/thriller/slapstick comedy.) Then there are the absurd reasonsgiven to us why all the passengers who are not involved in theconspiracy won't testify that they did indeed see the old lady beforeshe vanished; the male couple refuses to co-operate with Lockwoodbecause they want the train to come on time, in time for a cricketmatch! (This is meant to be hysterically funny. Ha ha.) The othercouple (man/woman) refuses to involve themselves; the man does not wantto be a witness and appear in the newspapers (for some very tiresome"movie reasons"). The woman (in this couple) later decides to testifyin spite of not seeing the old woman herself, and then lies about thewrong woman, and, and, and… bla bla bla - a whole lot of nonsenseensues (I don't have to get into it).

Just the fact that the whole thing is a conspiracy says everything;conspiracies almost always lack credibility and are rarely handledintelligently in movies. Then comes another dumb-as-dirt event: the"nun" - who is in on the conspiracy - turns against her fellowconspirators when she finds out that the old lady is English. Well thatcertainly makes a lot of sense, now doesn't it!!! This "nun" is willingto work against her country's government, but just because the"foreigners" want to kill the old English lady she switches sides - ina jiffy! She'll sell her homeland, but she won't take part in thekilling of one single solitary British citizen! Hitchcock seems tothink his audiences checked their brains at the door of the cinema.(Then again, Chubby's movies are so popular that he perhaps wasn't
sofar off the mark with that assumption. Treating your viewers as moronshas paid off for a number of film-makers.) And so the nonsensecontinues… The last twenty or so minutes are just a muddle of partlypredictable, partly unpredictable - but always silly - plot twists,silly dialog, absurd situations, etc. Basically, the last twentyminutes are a bit of a mess. Just a couple of examples (out of many):the cricket fan gets shot into the hand and doesn't so much as blink!(Apparently the bullets used in the 30s just stung a bit.) Another one:the rich guy (who refused to support Lockwood's claim of the old lady'sexistence) then decides not to tolerate the ensuing shoot-out betweentrain passengers and the "foreigners", so he marches out of the train,carrying a white piece sign - and very predictably gets shot. Aspredictable as the shooting of the "nun" (yes, that's right: the "nun"who inexplicably switched sides, just for the fun of it.) In this lastpart of the film the typical 30s machine-gun-style dialog soundsparticularly silly.

The film is by no means bad; it's fairly entertaining (up until thelast part), and has some charm, I suppose. But I simply cannot stand itwhen the parts of my brain, the ones in charge of logic, getcontinually hammered, over and over. Very ironically, in the last thirdof the movie one of the characters says that "there must be areasonable explanation for all this". He was only half-right: there wasan explanation but it wasn't reasonable.

I was genuinely entertained by "The Lady Vanishes", however I can’thelp wondering why the film garners such rave reviews along with it’sstanding in the IMDb film rankings. I’ll readily admit that maybe it’sme, as I’ve found myself against the majority from time to time.

The premise of the film is an intriguing one, a pair of women board atrain in a mythical central European country. Though unknown to eachother they form a friendly bond, and while Iris Henderson (MargaretLockwood) sleeps off the effects of a bump on the noggin from anoffending flower box, her elderly companion simply disappears. It turnsout that Miss Froy (Dame May Witty) is an English spy (?) who harbors asecret regarding a pact between two countries.

Miss Henderson finds a willing accomplice to the mystery in GilbertRedman (Michael Redgrave), who provides many a witty and comical retortto situations that arise. Both find themselves confiding in therespectable Dr. Hartz (Paul Lukas) when no one believes MissHenderson’s claim; it turns out Hartz is the mastermind behind thekidnap plot. The repartee between Henderson and Redman is quick andsnappy, reminiscent of Nick and Nora Charles in the "Thin Man" series.

The first element that works against the film for me is the gun battleat a train stop. Now I know pistols can be deadly, but didn’t it seemthat the good guys were just a little too accurate in dispatchingvillain after villain from a fair distance? Then, when Redman forcesthe train engineers to get moving again, the curious ballistics thattake out the railroad men is just too unbelievable.

The kicker though is the manner in which Miss Froy’s secret is to bedelivered to her government. It’s to be found in the tune of a songthat she teaches Redman how to hum in case something happens to her.Fortunately, Miss Froy makes the rest of the journey safely, becausejolly old Redman has his mind on other matters (Miss Henderson), andforgets the tune!

One thing though, no matter how novel an idea may seem in modern films,they usually show up in something that went before. On the train, ittakes Miss Henderson a while, but she eventually remembers that MissFroy wrote her name on a window when she couldn’t be heard above thenoise. Pointing it out to Redman helps convince him that Iris isn’tbatty. Jody Foster’s character would find herself in similarcircumstances with identical support in this year’s thriller -"Flightplan".

At the time, so highly original and gripping that variations have sinceevolved into urban mythology. Essential though it may be to the plot’sdevelopment, the hotel scene at the beginning does drag a bit…but theworkon the train (Hitchcock did adore trains, didn’t he?) is so beautiful andwell-written that he’s forgiven. Deliciously composed.

The ultimate entertainment package: the disappearing lady trick, withplentyof comedy, romance, suspense and mystery all tied together with wonderfullyexcentric characters. Basil Radford and Naunton Wayne steel the show as thetwo very English gentlemen on their way to Old Trafford for the testmatch.Even a terrible model shot at the beginning can’t detract from thefun.

An early comedy/mystery from Hitchcock of a motley group of British peoplesearching for a woman who suddenly disappears on a transcontinentalrailroadtrip. Very entertaining and intriguing once story picks up momentum. Atalented cast makes up for the slightly weaker and dated moments in theplot.

read comments (0)

The Adventures of Robin Hood

In all my days I have never seen a more goofy attempt at an actualfilm. Robin’s men are certainly merry as they boast a big, "HA! HA!HA!" after literally anything they ever do. The fight scenes aremediocre at best, but more cheesy than anything. If this film was goingfor super- cheesy, it succeeded, but who wants to sit through thatother than to simply make fun of the atrocious lines and situations?

The tag line for the film states that it is a movie that you can seewith your kids and secretly like yourself. I dare you to find me a kidwho would actually enjoy seeing this garbage.

I give it 5 stars because it was made in ‘38, and the cinematography isexcellent. Thus far, I am not too impressed by any of the Robin Hoodmovies.

The story of Robin Hood is so familiar that all a Robin Hood film cando is tell it in a fun way, something that 1938's The Adventures ofRobin Hood does for the most part. The film holds up surprisingly wellas a whole, though the first few minutes start the film off on thewrong foot, looking more like Mel Brooks' Robin Hood film only withoutthe intentional comedy. However, the film doesn't stay that way, thingspick up later on and the story becomes more entertaining. TheAdventures of Robin Hood definitely delivers great starring actors.Errol Flynn is the definitive Robin Hood, light on his toes, quick witha sword, and carrying a boyish swagger. Olivia de Havilland shows theboys how things are done by giving the best performance in the film asMaid Marion. An exquisite beauty and packing her performance withplenty of wallop, de Havilland makes her scenes glow.

The Adventures of Robin Hood is not exactly a cinematic walk in thepark; there are many aspects that don't carry over well from decade todecade. The film is extremely laughable in the area of humor (no, notin a good way), supporting performances, and fight scenes. The film'sattempts at humor might have worked back in the late 1930s, butgenerally bounces off the blank stares of today's viewer. Also, thevast majority of the supporting performances in the film come off asvery cheesy and does absolutely nothing for the film's overall qualityor enjoyment level. Much of the film's action is also lame - didn'tanyone know that the point of a sword fight is to stab someone, notjust to clink your swords together really fast? The only gratifyingthings about the action scenes are that Flynn does most of his ownstunts and padded stuntmen are actually being shot with arrows.

Still, The Adventures of Robin Hood does have a handful of feel goodmoments of adventure and romance. Add two great leading performancesand you have a generally fun film in The Adventures of Robin Hood.

THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD (1938) **** Errol Flynn, Olivia de Havilland,Basil Rathbone, Claude Rains. The swashbuckler of all time! Flynn (in hisicon defining role) is picture perfect as that rapscallion of SherwoodForest out to foil the nefarious King John (oily Rathbone) and saveNottingham once and for all and - with the help of his Merry Men - does justthat. Academy Awards for Best Editing and Best Art Direction.

I, too, usually enjoyed watching Errol Flynn’s adventure stories andwho wouldn’t love the absolutely beautiful Technicolor in here?Yet….after two viewings - the second being a year or so ago when thefabulous-looking DVD came out, I doubt if I would watch it again. Ijust had a hard time keeping interest on the second look.

Perhaps I just got tired of seeing Olivia de Havilland’s typical rolein these films where she’s always against Flynn until the very end.That gets tiresome, film after film. It isn’t her fault; it’s thewriters.

Maybe it was because Basil Rathbone and Claude Rains annoyed me toomuch, too, although they are the villains and we aren’t supposed tolike them in the first place. Maybe that’s just my preferences as Iprefer Rathbone as the good guy Holmes instead of the nasty villains heoften played in pre-Holmes days.

Whatever the case, I can’t knock the movie: it looks great, Flynn is anappropriate choice to play Robin Hood, it’s a classic old-fashionedadventure story and still holds up well today, and please watch this onthe restored DVD to see it "in all it’s glory," as one critic put it.It has to rank as one of the best adventure stories of its day and thecolors are astounding. But after seeing a lot of the Flynn films,frankly, I get tired of seeing the two same faces in his movies: deHavilland and Alan Hale’s, and the latter’s obnoxiously loud boorishcharacters grow tiresome, too.

I would have preferred the same Robin Hood story/color/movie but with adifferent cast supporting Mr. Flynn.

Compare this with "The Sea Hawk". It was made for the same studio by thesame director with the same stars, the same composer and much the sameproduction crew. Both films are adventures centred around a swashbucklinghero. But Captain Thorpe in "The Sea Hawk" REALLY swashbuckles, while RobinHood never quite comes to life, or at least, not as much as we expect himto. Because of the bright colours, because of Erich Korngold’s wonderfulscore - it sounds better every time I hear it - and because of the aurasurrounding the Robin Hood legends themselves, we tend not to notice, but"The Adventures of Robin Hood" has a surprisingly weak script, and ErrolFlynn was one of those stars who was as good as, but never better than, hismaterial.

Robin has it too easy. In the second scene in which he appears, heswashbuckles his way in and out of the heart of the villain’s stronghold, infull view, for no good reason, without breaking a sweat - so how can we takeseriously the idea that he is ever in any danger? "The Sea Hawk", making nomore concession to realism than "Robin Hood" did, established that CaptainThorpe’s peril was real. When Thorpe is captured he’s well and trulycaptured - and what’s more, he’s humbled. We cheer all the louder when heescapes.

Admittedly it’s not easy to adapt the Robin Hood stories for the screen. They’re too timeless. Robin Hood lives in the forest, robbing from the richand giving to the poor; it’s as if he was always there and will always bethere, and this isn’t an easy situation to turn into a story with abeginning and an end. The old legends provide us with no very convincingbeginning and with two consecutive endings - the happy one we’re allfamiliar with, and a second set years later, so sad it negates the first. (Most films don’t even dare hint at it.)

I’m straying from the point… Basically, this 1938 Robin Hood is all verywell - good fun, and all that - but try, if you can, to seethese:

(1) The animated Disney version of 1973. Yes, it’s studded withanachronisms; yes, it’s hard to find two characters who belong to the samespecies; but that fox is closer to being an ideal Robin Hood than any humanI’ve seen.

(2) The OTHER 1991 version, starring Patrick Bergen. A strange attempt tobe true to the spirit of the stories within the bounds of warts-and-allrealism. It mostly succeeds.

(3) The 1922 version, starring Douglas Fairbanks. I haven’t seen this onemyself, much as I’d like to - I’m recommending it entirely for itshistorical interest, and because surely, surely, Douglas Fairbanks’s Robinwould be at least as good as Flynn’s. It was a true blockbuster, with thelargest sets (according to some sources) of any film ever made; it probablymade more money than the Flynn and Costner versions put together. A pityit’s so hard to lay eyes on now.

All three films are simply called "Robin Hood". However tempted one may beto use a more gilded title, I’m sure it’s bad luck.

Probably the most popular "Robin Hood" film ever produced seems somewhatdated and a bit silly these days, but is still a swash-buckling moviethatwill keep up the interest of the audience. Errol Flynn star
s as thetitledcharacter and does about as well as he can here. The other actors arealladequate, but this is really a film that goes more for spectacle andexcitement rather than intense characterization. 4 stars out of5.

Great film.When is the film going to be released on DVD (it is already onvideo)?I will not buy any videos.Who should I pester?What studio owns the rights?

Men of Sherwood Forest! Your country needs you! Acting ability notessential. Ability to laugh convincingly a positive disqualification.Maybeproper laughter only came in with method acting - maybe Marlon Brandowouldtortuously think of something funny for three days solid before shooting acomedy scene (if he ever did). We will probably never know.

Approached as a stylized product of a quite alien culture, there’s much toenjoy here, from Korngold’s deliciously overcooked score to theTechnicolorwantonness of the visuals. Best performance comes from Claude Rains as aneffete, diminutive Prince John; Flynn is great too - athletic butphysicallyrelaxed somehow, verbally quick and with a rather good smile (to make upforthe abominable laugh). De Havilland can’t do anything with a horriblerole,except demonstrate what big eyes she has (perhaps she’s really a Disneycartoon). The king-in-disguise motif is handled nicely - but this isreallyjust a big dumb action movie, with choreography instead of computereffects,and it’s that element of sheer virtuoso craftsmanship that speaks acrosstheaesthetic gap today.

Attention Errol Flynn and die hard Robin Hood fans of the 1938 masterpiece,Warner Bros is finally releasing this magnificent film on DVD comingSeptember 30th. And that’s not all, this film will be a two-disc setcontaining loads and loads of special features. I hope to God it contains anaudio commentary, maybe by Olivia DeHavilland. Exactly 60 days from now andRobin Hood and Errol Flynn fans can own this fantastic treasure that belongsin everyone’s collection. Ohhh can you feel the excitement!!!! Pure fun,pure classic. **** out of ****!!

This has always been one of my favorite films. I recall seeing this greatadventure epic on the big movie screen in my youth when it was re-released.It obviously loses something when translated to the smaller TV screen butstill manages to retain its’ panoramic look at the denizens of SherwoodForrest. Casting seems perfect as all actors appear so believable in theirroles. This was indeed Errol Flynn at his swashbuckling best. Of all of thegreat sword fights in movie history the climatic one between Flynn and BasilRathbone as Sir Guy surely ranks as the all-time best. After I watched avideo of this film last night it dawned on me that, in this movie, not oneof the "good guys" gets killed. A real rarity.

read comments (0)

Jezebel

Note: Potential plot spoilers below, although I don’t actually discussanyspecific points, just general direction.

Yes, Bette Davis won the Oscar for this "poor man’s Gone With the Wind",butit’s pretty derivative and dated, especially the racial presentation.

But the worst part is the ending — the movie just stops, mid-plot, withnohint at any type of resolution. I’m not against ambiguous endings all thetime, but in this case, a tightly plotted film up to that point, itprovidesa severe letdown for the viewer.

You won’t miss anything by passing this film by.

Next!

The finale of this New Orleans melodrama has always left me a-gaga. By whatlogic does Julie think she can save Preston by going with him to thatrestricted island?

The quarantined area, according to the film’s description, is tantamount toa leper colony. There’s no apparent hope for its indigent inhabitants and,with no known cure available, it’s all downhill from there.

So when Julie pleads and persuades Amy to let Julie go and tend Preston, isthis supposed to exonerate her from her past selfish and manipulative acts? Can this ultimate sacrifice finally wrest her from her Jezebelsins?

To me, it only makes her look foolish and, frankly, I thought Julie had moresense than that. Then again, within the world of wet period romance,perhaps ’tis a far, far better world to which she now goes than whatevermight await her back on the ol’ plantation.

As a big fan of Gone With the Wind, comparing that to Jezebel is likecomparing the Titanic (the actual ship) to speed boat… well,something slightly better than a speedboat. That being said, I thoughtDavis’ and Fonda’s performances were wonderful. Bette Davis cancommunicate so many feelings and emotion through her eyes, actions,emotions… you never feel uncomfortable when she is acting. I thinkFonda does a great job too.

Although I DO understand the period of this movie and all the socialrights/obligations and morals and values, I don’t think that somethings were made completely clear. In Gone With The Wind I canunderstand everything. The movie seems to be all jumbled up into one.Perhaps I should watch this movie again, maybe I did not absorb thepositive bits in it. I watched it in two parts - maybe it lost thefeeling. But at the moment, I am not really keen. I felt it endedabruptly.

Jezebel is a good movie on it’s own, but when it compares to Gone WithThe Wind… I am afraid in my mind there is no comparison.

I’m fickle, I admit, about context and films. Sometimes I watch them asthey come to me today, and sometimes the other way around, as they (Iimagine) appeared in their original context. This one is the rareproject that prompts both.

I’m seeing it 67 years after it was made. It was made 84 years afterthe period depicted, so there’s nearly as much time between me and itas there is between it and its story. Only 17 years before it was madewere women able to vote! Bette Davis was already in puberty before hersex was enfranchised.

So not only was Bette a "difficult" woman, like the character sheplayed, but her countrymen were just as dim about "tradition" as thedolts in the film. So when Julie defiantly wore that red dress — andwhy not? — it had to hit a chord in 1938 that has no meaning at alltoday. All we see is a truculent character instead of a deep filmarchetype. And that business about the double forgiveness, first in thewhite dress and later in the leper colony (!) and certain death… thatmust have resonated with heavy ambiguity in its time.

Oh well, what that means is that instead of being a film thattransports you to another dimension, it prompts you to go there byother means.

I have a database of movies where directors direct actresses with whomthey are making love. This is one is an interesting case. It isordinary in the sense that the director made her look more beautifulthan she ever did elsewhere. But it is unique in that she was sleepingwith the director though both were married to others, and in theprocess cheated on him with the fellow (Brent) who plays theConfederate dolt. One could nearly say that the story is about hischaracter, not Bette’s.

Watch how the Jezebel uses him against the banker, while her puppeteerBette was using his puppeteer (Brent) against the puppeteer of themboth (Wyler).

Ted’s Evaluation — 3 of 3: Worth watching.

Julie Mardsen is a beautiful but spoiled Southern belle living in NewOrleans during pre-Civil War days, who is engaged to Preston Dillard, abank manager. But when Pres is to busy to watch her try on a dress fora grand ball, she chooses to wear a red dress, when all unmarried womenare to wear white. Julie embarrasses him. She later regrets her wickedways, and decides to throw a welcome-home party for Pres after a tripup North. She is furious when she finds out that Pres got married tobeautiful Amy Bradford, and decides to plan revenge. She causes two mento fight a duel over her, and one ends up dying. When Pres is strickenwith Yellow Jack fever, Julie is so heart-broken that she convinces Amyto let her ride away with Pres to nurse him. Amy relents, and Julierides away with Pres on the fever cart, with tears streaming down herface.

When Bette Davis didn’t get the role of Scarlett O’Hara in GONE WITHTHE WIND, Jack Warner, head of Warner Bros. Pictures, gave her the leadin JEZEBEL. When released in 1938, JEZEBEL became a box-office hit withmovie-goers and critics alike. This is a wonderful film, with fineperformances abound. Ms. Davis, who won the 1938 Best Actress Oscar forthis film, gives a marvelous performance. Henry Fonda is great as Pres.Fay Bainter, who also won an Oscar, is great too. Margaret Lindsay issuperb as Amy. Marvelous direction is provided by William Wyler. Thescript, based on a Broadway play and co-written by John Huston, iswell-written. The sets and costumes are well detailed. A film which youmust see! Recommended. 10/10

The reason for the black and white of the film was not just to save onmoney, but also to make a statement. Within the famous ball scene Juliewalks in with her "red" dress on which appears black on film, whichcontrasts greatly to all the white gowns around her. This intensifies thestatement Julie is making about being different, as well as being aoutcastin a society that does not welcome this sort of attitude. This can also berelated to the era in which the white and black races were spilt bydifferences.

Even taking into account the fact that the film is set in the 1850s, thedeep melodrama of this film seems somewhat unjustified to a modern audience.To think that everything happens because of a lady’s choice of dress to aball! Of course, I have the advantage of being able to speak from the 21stcentury, so my criticism probably is unfair. Still, it’s a pretty thinpremise on which to lay an entire plotline.

There are some good observations made regarding the North/South divide inAmerica at the time, and oblique commentary on the practices of the South,but the film is ultimately consumed with its desire to tame the ultimate’scarlet woman’, the rebellious Julie (Bette Davis). It turns and fails onthat point, I think.

That said, the performances are pretty good: Davis herself is appropriatelyspirited and charming at the beginning, and desperately determined at theend. Henry Fonda really doesn’t have all that much to do, but he’s certainlypleasant to look at–almost a precursor of Colin Firth’s Mr. Darcy in ‘Pride& Prejudice’, I’d have to say.

I haven’t seen other films starring either Davis or Fonda, but I think it’spretty safe to say that there are better films starring each of them outthere. Unless you’re intending to watch every film one of them has done, youmight do yourself a favour in passing ‘Jezebel’ by.

I’ve just watched
Jezebel for the first time and although I enjoyed it,there didn’t seem to be a proper storyline until the last half hourwhen plague set in. It’s rather talky and slow moving at times too. Alittle more action would have made it better.

Much of the film is about Davis’s character and her family and lovelives and is set on the eve of the Civil War. The acting is excellentthough as is the score by Max Steiner (King Kong).

The rest of the cast includes Henry Fonda, George Brent, MargaretLindsay, Donald Crisp and Fay Bainter.

Despite the above, Jezebel is certainly a must see movie, especially ifyou are a fan of Bette Davis.

Rating: 3 stars out of 5.

"Jezebel" is one of those movies you don't really have to put too muchconcentration into enjoying it - just watch. As a native of NewOrleans, I found the French Quarter scenes to look as they do today. Infact, I recognized several, including the last townhouse I lived-in onthe corner of Dauphine and St. Louis Streets. I'm not sure about "TheMonteleone Hotel," which is still operating today. I think perhaps thelobby and barroom scene were sets built to represent the architectureof that era. Also, the "plantations"; but, there are many stillstanding (maybe not as many after "Katrina")….the big rooms andrichly comfortable furniture. Of course, the southerners of that periodwere spoiled, because that was the culture.

Several users have questioned the relationship between plantation-ownerand slave. As deplorable as we find it today, there is much literaturethat affirms many slave-owners were not cruel. Some people have thenotion that slaves were not common in "the north"……think of GeorgeWashington. The comparison with "Gone with the Wind" is slightlyunfair, but "Jezebel" is a story about a particular woman.

Bette Davis ("Julie") IS "Jezebel," in that she played her role withclarity and conviction. She was a "product" of her times; not much elseto do then but be patrician in a privileged society. She was not thedelicate female most southern women were supposed to be, constantlyneeding smelling-salts. Henry Fonda ("Preston Dillard"), as severalusers have written, provides a comparison with northerner andsoutherner THEN, and the cast fulfilled its role to complete the story.

George Brent ("Buck") was the perfect, southern gentleman, and DonaldCrisp ("Dr. Livingston") was very believable in his role. Fay Bainter("Aunt Belle") was great in her role, portraying the STRONG, southernwoman rather than the "flower of womanhood". Maybe she was…..

Clements Ripley wrote a very good script for director William Wyler,who kept strong control of his actors/actresses. The closing scene is abeautiful study in black-and-white. Those viewers who preferbelievability, rather than sentimentality, should view this movieseveral times. They'll find it loses nothing for today'smovie-watchers.

"Jezebel" must be rated much higher than 10 - simply because the castwas brilliant and the story very good. We should all have it in ourcollection.

Great cast, great costumes, nice sets. Now if only the story wereinteresting!

Julie Marsden is a headstrong Southern belle played as only Bette Davidcould play her. She seems forever on the verge of bursting; she nevercomes to rest. Henry Fonda stumbles along as the love of her life, butit's a mystery as to why.

The plot of the picture is extremely thin. It telegraphs its punches sothat there are never any surprises. Not much actually *happens.*Julie's character is the only one with a real arc to it, but it allhappens so quickly that we're not sure if she's even sincere.

Unfortunately, the picture falls into slow melodrama about people wedon't know, whose characters and histories are barely delineated, andwhose fate we don't care about by the end. Unfortunate.

read comments (0)

Bringing Up Baby

There have been few female movie stars more obnoxious, affected anddownright annoying to watch than Katharine Hepburn. This way over-hypedmovie reminded me of another "classic screwball comedy" she starred in,"The Philadelphia Story," another very overrated film.

Critics have labeled this film as "hilarious" for way too long. It'stime to "tell it like it is," as Howard Cosell used to say: the comedyis NOT funny and in most scenes, just plain stupid. Much of the samecan be said for most of those "screwball" comedies.

I gave this film two chances in 20-year period, just to make sure,because I like Cary Grant, Charles Ruggles and some of the other castmembers. However, I still didn't find one thing funny in the first halfhour and this time just heaved it into the trash can, where it belongswith most of those "screwball comedy" films which, on the whole, wereanything but funny.

I was not surprised to hear this movie bombed at the box office.

I’ve read the user comments here. Seems that 90% loved it; 10%, includingme, hated it. I’m shaken that so many loved it. That confuses me greatly. I feel I’m inanother dimension!

I love Cary Grant and Howard Hawks’ work — their "His Girl Friday" (ascrewball comedy!) is literally my favorite movie. I respect Katharine Hepburn’s work. In"Bringing Up Baby," I was amused at the start of the film (Grant’s fiance’s romanticaloofness) and the last half hour or so (the mix-up of the two leopards, the jail scene, etc.). I hated the rest.

It was stupid and nasty, especially the Hepburn character. Jerry Lewis’movies are smarter, more adult and subtle in comparison. I won’t bother to comment onhow self-centered, immoral and cruel the Hepburn character is. Nor will I go intohow unlikely the two could fall in love (showing Grant a looser/fun [?, maybe crazy] side oflife is not enough). What bothered me is that most of what went on wasstupid/unbelievable and not funny. I could go on and on giving examples. What is funny aboutHepburn stupidly and unnecessarily damaging Grant’s auto? What is funny about her pulling onhis formal coat to the point of tearing it, or him stepping on the hem of her dress tothe point of accidentally tearing out the back of it? And then characters, when facedwith misunderstandings, simply fail to do what anyone would do — speak up andexplain the confusion. I have seen the film a number of times and found very littlehumor.

Trust your basic instincts and pass on the chance to view, or re-view thistedious "classic". Pushed for decades as the "quintessential screwballcomedy", "BUB" is right up there, in my own opinion, with "Casablanca",whose cheering sections drown out its legitimate critics and intimidatemovie buffs so they march along lockstep. The movie is simply a dated,stagey, endurance test…for the audience. "My Man Godfrey" is a screwballcomedy, and keeps its viewers floating; same for "It happened One Night".

Will someone please put the "Baby" out of its misery? Part of the problemis the "Katherine Hepburn is a Goddess Society". Sorry, Ms. Hepburn’s actingstyle is more of an acquired taste, like esgargot. Her best work was "TheAfrican Queen", a true classic. "Bringing Up Baby" is as funny asgreat-grandpa’s high-buttoned shoes.

I truly have tried to like this movie. I try to watch it and keepfinding myself cleaning the bird cage or sweeping the porch before it’sover. The truth is, Katherine Hepburn is not a "screwball" comedyactress. Maybe it’s because she always takes herself so seriously, sheis always playing at playing Katherine Hepburn and her performance isjust plain embarrassing. There were funny comedic actresses in 1938.She was not one of them.

Cary Grant is always wonderful. I love the rambling dinner scene. Butthis is a predictable, insulting attempt to force a round peg into asquare hole and make us believe for really and truly the "GreatHepburn" was up to any challenge. Har Har.

This really wasn't my taste. Yes, I know I saw it 70 years after it wasmade, but that doesn't mean I will like it because of that or dislikeit for the same reason. And I will be honest, not many older moviesreally do anything for me, with exceptions to "Reefer Madness" and "TheTerror of Tiny Town".

We have a film where a man (Grant), who works at a museum with dinosaurbones, is about to get married. But upon a chance meeting with a woman,is kidnapped by her(Hepburn) and taken on a journey with a leopard.Yes, a leopard.

Anyway, its an old comedy with a style that is prevalent in many oldcomedies. Nothing absurdest in its twists, but just a screwball film.And the only thing I thought was funny was the leopard.

The whole "who is on first routine" grew real old real fast. Overall,did not like it. "D-"

Frankly I cannot see the appeal of this film. Cary Grant has not developedhis suave movie matinee persona and is content to be a watered-down HaroldLloyd/Stan Laurel. Hepburn is intensely irritating. The plot is contrivedand very unfunny. And any film where an animal is the star - and isexpectedto have the most laughs - has got to be suspect! When I finished watchingit, I thought the whole thing was very feeble.

Katharine Hepburn turns out to be a fantastic comedian in the role ofdynamic, self-confident Susan who falls in love with a zoologist and trieseverything to get him: Cary Grant plays his usual character, an upright manwho has trouble through no fault of his own. The film itself is turbulentbut, in my opinion, not very funny. I suppose it was in the year 1938 butmeanwhile it’s become a little antiquated.Watch it for Katharine!

A poor script quickly establishes the main characters as unsympathetic,and"Baby" just never works with any normal audience. People who have beenbrainwashed to believe it is a great film are simply afraid not to likeit.Cary Grant and Kate Hepburn both do their best under the adversecircumstances, and the slapstick with the leopard towards the end of thefilm is genuinely funny. This is one of a series of films thatcontributedto Kate Hepburn’s reputation as "box office poison". After boy friendHoward Hughes bought her the rights to Phillip Barry’s play, she thenrescued her career with her big hit "The Philadelphia Story" (1940).

During the 1950s Cahiers du Cinema hailed director Howard Hawks as an"auteur", and resurrected all of his lesser films as would bemasterpieces.This film was the main beneficiary, changing from a 1938 box office floptoa supposedly classic comedy. It is perhaps the most striking example infilm history of critics parroting received opinion to turn a flop into amasterpiece. In my opinion the 1938 audience got it right. There weremanygreat screwball comedies made during the 1930s, such as "It Happened OneNight", "My Man Godfrey", and "The Awful Truth". Unfortunately, "BringingUp Baby" was not one of them.

Bringing Up Baby is just another glowing example of what happens whenyou place great actors in bad parts. Here we have two of Hollywood’smost respected actors demonstrating that they cannot handle such aconvoluted story such as this. In fact, give this story to even any ofthe actors throughout the history of Hollywood this story and I don’tthink anyone could have pulled it off. Let’s get right down to it, thestory is what hurt this film. I agree that I don’t think KatharineHepburn should have dabbled in comedy, especially with a script likethis, but I guess she could only work with what she had … which wasnothing. Air, space, and dead time would have cre
ated better viewingthan this story did, but alas, director Howard Hawks decides to fillthat space with annoying songs, backwards stories, and characters thatnever quite leap out of the puddles of mediocrity that they sleep in.

What really hurts this story is that there is too much happening toallow any real comedy to develop. From the uncharacteristic meetingbetween David and Susan to the dinosaur bone to the leopard in theyard, I never quite saw the humor in it. In fact, I hardly laughed atthis film at all. I felt Hepburn gave one of her worst performances asthis annoying rich girl that gets upset whenever she doesn’t get whatshe wants. Grant tries to counter the horrid acting by Hepburn byplaying his character a bit low key, but the chemistry never quitedevelops. There is no spark between the two. I never felt like theywere really in love. Hepburn’s comic timing was incredibly off in thisfilm, causing most of the film to follow her lead. The rest of the castwould try to overcompensate for her misjudgment causing even more chaosin this film. One scene that immediately comes to mind is when Susanand David, with the dog, are singing to "Baby" on the rooftop. All oftheir voices together were like fingernails on a chalkboard. Was thisto be funny? I am glad that we have evolved a bit further than this inthat genre or it may have died directly after this film was made.Comedy is not something that can be taught. You either have it or youdon’t, and I do not believe Hepburn had it.

No matter how bad the acting was, it still didn’t compare to thenightmarish story. Perhaps I missed something throughout my 102-minuteviewing, but the elements of this "screwball comedy" just nevercongealed together that well. Coupled with the below par acting, thisfilm really never got off the ground. As audience members, we weremislead from the beginning and never quite found our stepping for theremaining moments. For example, during the opening credit sequences andon the discs of the DVD there are images of Hepburn and Grant helpingthe leopard eat and live life as if it was their child. It shows theleopard in diapers and in other whimsical hijinks, but we were notprivileged enough to see that in the actual film. If that had been abigger part of the story, than I think perhaps the comedy aspect wouldhave been greater. We needed more moments with "Baby" instead of tryingto build a relationship between David and Susan literally out ofnothing. With a lacking chemistry, a poor excuse for a story, andcomedy that was perhaps written by "Baby" herself, this 102-minute filmfelt more like 302 minutes of living, breathing torture.

Overall, I just could not get excited about this film. This was one ofthose movies that took me two nights to finish because I just couldn’twrap my hands around anything substantial. I wanted greater comedy, butoutside of Grant, our characters just acted annoying rather than funny.Hepburn was completely miscast in this feature, and the entire twentyminutes at the end of the film seemed rather rushed and aggravatingthan whimsical. I was hoping that this film would be more about theleopard instead of the people, but director Howard Hawks took it in adifferent direction, which ultimately hurt the outcome. This shouldhave been a movie about a leopard co-starring Cary Grant and KatharineHepburn, not the other way around. I didn’t enjoy this movie in theleast, and still wake up sweating at nights after nightmares ofHepburn, the dog, and Grant singing to the leopard. Ughhhhhhh.

Grade: * out of *****

I'll admit that Hepburn and Grant give their all to this screwballcomedy about a paleontologist (CARY GRANT) seeking a bone for hismuseum, who runs into an eccentric young woman (KATHARINE HEPBURN) andcan't seem to do anything right from then on. It's rightly famous forthe scene where her ripped dress causes confusion in a nightclub.

But it's mostly a battle of the sexes between two equally stubbornpeople and I can only say that Hepburn's Susan drives me up thewall–probably one of the most annoying characters she's ever playedwith all of her Hepburn mannerisms in full gear. Grant wearshorn-rimmed glasses most of the time in effort to look like a handsomerversion of Harold Lloyd. He certainly has comic abilities withscrewball material.

There's nothing subtle about the humor–especially when the two areinvolved with keeping a baby leopard under wraps. CHARLIE RUGGLES andMAY ROBSON and BARRY FITZGERALD do their best to add some merriment tothe proceedings, but the endless sight gags are standard for this kindof fluff and become a little tiresome when everything Hepburn doescontinues to backfire with disastrous results.

Howard Hawks deserves credit for keeping things moving along briskly,but it's never been one of my favorite screwball comedies because noneof the characters have a grain of common sense–especially MissHepburn's madcap heiress.

read comments (0)

Aleksandr Nevskiy

How memory plays tricks on us. I first saw "Alexander Nevsky" when astudent at the University of Kansas, around 1960. Forty-some years later Ifind myself watching it again on DVD and almost unable to believe what myeyes are seeing: one of the most amateurish films I’ve ever viewed, and withby far the worst subtitles I’ve had to bear with–it’s hard to believe thesesubtitles were produced, according to the message at the beginning of thefilm, in 1982.

But even without subtitles this film would fall flat, in my judgment. Iadmire someone with generous enough a spirit to be able to enjoy the filmfor its visual aspect, as at least one commenter did. I’m just not able toshare that enthusiasm. I dearly wish I could, for I found both "BattleshipPotemkin" and (especially) "Ivan the Terrible: Part I" to be excellent–oftheir type. Sorry, but for me "Alexander Nevsky" is just not excellent byany standard. I wonder what Prokofiev thought of it. His music is superb,but needs to be heard on its own, not in the context of this embarrassinglybad film.

The movie Alexander Nevsky still is an example of Socialist Realismthat dominated Soviet films, but it also demonstrates a shift from afocus only on communist propaganda to attempts at achieving otherpolitical goals that were important to Stalin at the time period. MostSocialist Realist films displayed the horrors of capitalism and thedepravity of merchants which is also apparent in this movie. But Nevskyincorporates also an element of Russian nationalism. The villain in themovie are the Tuetonic Knights, from what would have been Germany.These knights are true fiends that threaten the mother land of Russia.The fact that the film had to be pulled during the signing of the NaziSoviet non aggression pact demonstrates the power of the anti Germanimages. Even more convincing is that th movie was released once Germanyinvaded the Soviet Union as a means to motivate a sense of nationalismagainst the German invaders. In this respect the movie Alexander Nevskydemonstrates how Socialist Realism was not just about Marxist idealism,but a means to mold public opinion to serve a political agenda.

A while back, I wrote some pretty savage reviews to directorEisenstein's "masterpiece" IVAN THE TERRIBLE, PARTS 1 and 2. Well,based on pretty favorable reviews for this film and POTEMKIN, it isobvious that I am not an "Eisenstein Hater", though I do think thatmuch of his work is overrated.

This film is a vast improvement over the later IVAN movies becausealthough it is at times a little sterile and stilted, the film also hassome lovely humorous moments and secondary characters who give the filmsome life and depth. In the IVAN movies, the show is all Ivan and hewas just too nutty and silly a character to sustain the films (oh, theover-acting and 'eye rolling' scenes are so BAD). But in this one, thePrince is more of a framework for the film–with both subplots and someintimate moments that kept this from strictly being a dull over-blownepic. While the film STILL at times seemed to both drag and be tooheavy-handed in the propaganda aspects of the film, the overall effortwas excellent and very, very prophetic about the soon to be unleashedNazi invasion of the USSR.

As for the acting, cinematography, etc., the film was very competentlymade. The battle scenes occasionally looked a bit cheesy (the TeutonicKnights looked a lot like the Knights of Nee from MONTY PYTHON AND THEHOLY GRAIL), but for the most part they were quite impressive. Theacting was not from the "roll your eyes and star blankly in space"school like the IVAN films–with some depth and quality in the actingand direction. And, finally, the cinematography was super–withinteresting camera angles and lighting that didn't detract or overwhelmthe movie.

In general, I liked the film and think that most Western audienceswould find this Eisenstein film more "approachable" and watchable thanmany of his other films. However, it did still suffer some from beingtoo epic and too stilted and the dialog, at times, sounded likepropaganda speeches written for the Soviets. If you want to try aperfect or near-perfect Russian film with real humanity and less"posing", try seeing BALLAD OF A SOLDIER.

By the way, although much more subtle than the speeches and anti-Germanaspects of the film, you could also see (if you were looking for it) adecidedly anti-religious aspect of the film. The Germans are shown asbeing led and manipulated by "evil Papists" while Alexander's armiesand people are conspicuously missing Orthodox priests. It's an obviousallusion to the "new and improved Atheistic USSR" of the 1930s.

This is a film of my childhood. I remember seeing it when I was 6 or 7,and then we played this film in the yard with other boys. This is aliving classic of as far as 1938 and it was a really great filmthen…well, it is a good work even now. Of course, some parts of itare pretty naive today. The play of some actors is too exaggerated andtoo much all over the place. But still, the portraits of some heroesare really breathtaking. Think of the Grand Master of the TeutonicOrder - this blond, cold, arrogant man of real posture and extremepride. Or, the common old man, who came to the battle and was killed bya traitor at the very end of it, and only because his iron shirt wastoo short and the knife pierced him in the open part of his neck. Or,the very scene of the grand battle on The Chudskoye Lake, in the winterof 1242, when the Russian army under the command of Prince AleksanderNevskiy defeated the iron armada of the Teutonic Knights. 700 knightswere killed or drowned in thin ice. The final scene of the trial underthat bloody traitor is impeccable, especially when we see the gloomyfaces of the angry Russians who had lost their relatives in the battle,and when they start tearing the traitor apart. The film is short,dynamic and full of breezy humor and real scenes of people's heroicdeeds. Still fresh today.

I had the very good fortune of being in NYC last fall to see the NewYork Philharmonic perform a restored score for full orchestra while avery good print of the film was played on a large screen in AveryFisher Hall.

My experience of the film to date had only been with weak prints of thefilm and a soundtrack that left a lot to be desired. Apparently, in theearly recording, the orchestra was rather small and playing under poorconditions into a single mike (or about that bad — my memory of theprogram notes may not be correct).

But the experience at Avery Fisher was breathtaking — the wonderfullyclean print of the film showed Eisenstein's genius with the camera, andthe stunning orchestra performance afforded what Prokokfiev probablyonly heard in his mind's ear. Imagine that scratchy soundtrack you'reused to filled out in all registers and overtones — it was a sound tobehold (okay, that was awkward).

I hope very much that the NY Philharmonic does whatever it takes to getits soundtrack married up with this print in DVD (if they haven'talready, but I've seen no evidence that they have).

Somehow someone has managed to separate the music from the rest of thesoundtrack; and every so often there will be a screening backed by a liveorchestra and choir. There was one in Brisbane in 1990 - and my god! Isuggest you attend such a screening if possible.

It loses much on a TV screen, but that’s what you’d expect: it’s all musicand images. In some ways it’s a live action version of `Fantasia’. It’shard now to get involved in the patriotic fervour. We see hardly anythingof the civilian life which would justify the warfare, if anything does; andwe can’t care very much about the personal goals of the main characterswhenthey’re merely competing with one another to see who can kill the mostGermans. Some breath
taking scenes are, at one and the same time, silly.One that got a huge laugh showed two mounted soldiers clip clop clip clopclip clop over a frozen lake towards the camera, so that one of them couldsay in a grave tone of voice, `There is ice underfoot.’ But the analogywith `Fantasia’ holds. It’s worth it all for the glorious Prokofiev overthe glorious images.

A must for all those who believe that a film is not just a two hourentertainment, still the film is really entertaining. And the music! Amasterpiece, the score is also available in the form of a cantata.

One of my favorite classics.

Gorgeous film to look at - visually splendiferous. Obviously, the battle onthe ice, the centrepiece and climax of the movie, is very impressive,especially when the ice cracks. I particularly liked the face of the mainTeutonic knight, always with a smug snarl on it - very picturesque, ifslightly caricature-esque

I can’t help thinking that Eisenstein is such a political filmmaker that hemade propaganda films by choice! I don’t know who financed Nevsky, andwhether it was similar to Potemkin, which he was commisioned to make as apropaganda film, but it has a very unsubtle message ofnationalism/patriotism. Its movies like this that helped cultivate thefeeling of the nation together as one entity, and kept reminding Russians tothink of themselves as separate from the world, and against all outsiders.The closing message of the movie is very hostile indeed:

"Let he who comes to Russia as a guest, be welcomed as a guest, but let hewho comes with a sword die by the sword!" The plot of the movie fits thistagline, in that a group of Teutonic knights (I’m pretty sure that meansthey’re German - which is why Russians loved this movie at the time, becauseit was about Russia staying strong against potential threats from Germaninvasion, which Russia had always been vulnerable to, and would be again ina few years from the Nazis) invade russia, and you can imagine how itends.

But with Eisenstein, as with admirering Riefenstahl and Griffith, you haveto get past the often unsubtle message of the film, and its oftendistasteful political/social implications, and admire it for its artistry.As a movie, Nevsky is an unsubtle but visually beautiful battle epic/lovetriangle. Potemkin, the only other Eisenstein i’ve seen at time of writing,was a much greater achievement, in my opinion. But this is quite wonderfulto watch - i do recommend it to you.

"Alexander Nevsky" does not compare favorably to "Battleship Potemkin" or"October," but it’s still a fascinating failure by an extraordinary genius.Eisenstein creates unforgettable visual images and occasionally achieves astrangely magical quality, but the greatness that might have been isscuttled by the heavy hand of Socialist Realism (the thoroughly selfless,noble and very handsome Nevsky; the joyful peasants and workers girdingtheir loins to do battle for Mother Russia; the hideously evil Catholicfascist foes) and the turgid Soviet nationalism, which isn’t especiallycompelling to a contemporary American like me. Still, the film has itsmoments of real grandeur, it probably did a good job of preparing ThePeoplefor The Great Patriotic War, and the Prokofiev score is a concert hallclassic in its own right.

Aleksander Nevsky is an example of a true propaganda film. Made for theCommunist regime of Russia in 1938, this film displays the evilTeutonic invaders in classic haughty Germanic tones, dismissing theRussians and sending Russian patriots to their deaths. The great princeNevsky answers the call of the people of Novgorod and defeats theGermans in a classic battle on the ice of a frozen canal. The acting inthis film is both stylized and stilted, but it is effective and thescenery and sets are brilliant. The battles are well staged and thehistoric elements are relatively well represented. The music is thereal gem however. Eisenstein's score is uplifting for the Russians,dire for the Germans and playful for the comic relief. This is a trulyimportant example of the type of Capraesque film making going on incountries outside of North America before World War II and fullydeserves a look. My affection for this film is such that I recentlywatched it with French subtitles. It's that good.

read comments (0)