Sunset Blvd.

Not a horrible movie. This movie is supposed to be abehind-the-tabloids kind of movie (think liza minelli reality show). Itis so stereotypical of how the media views washed up celebrities. I donot understand how this film is rated so high. It is a decent movie (aborderline good movie) I should say but the story, plot, and directingis uninspired and unimaginative compared to the other films rated highon the lists of film critics. My review of this movie may be a littleoff though as a mere 24 hours earlier I had watched zoolander for the3rd time. Which by the way brings me to another point. This movie takesitself way too seriously. Its hard to take someone seriously if thatperson is too serious himself.

Insufferable in some respects, although perhaps purposefully so. The storydragged on and on though the ego-trip of a silent actress who isstrugglingto be revived in the industry. Norma Desmond’s infatuation with herselfandtotal reliance on being ‘known’ is part of why I struggled so much throughthe film. If anything, I sympathized for Joe, forced to live with thisperson who expected everything to be as she imagined.What makes this film interesting is the story-within-story of the declineofthe silent movie actor juxtaposed against a silent era actress acting asthesilent actress in decline. The cast is full of silent actors, includingNorma, and directors. Even the gossip at the end of the movie was aactor-turned-gossip in truth. Perhaps it had been a stretch for Mrs.Swansonto accept this role. I can’t imagine that very many silent-era actorsenjoyed the advent of ‘talkies’.(possible spoiler:)Also, having the whole story told by a dead man is an interesting take onthings. For all that he was murdered, he gave a rather kind story to theonewho killed him.

Sorry, I have to align myself with those few other reviewers who foundthe movie, well, trite. Not that it didn't have its moments — thatparticularly riveting scene, for instance, where Norma sits inDeMille's chair and a stagehand acquaintance puts a spotlight on herand people begin crowding around her, how spooky can you get? But byand large, Gloria Swanson hams up her lines to the point where shebecomes a TV skit caricature (only this skit goes on way too long),Holden runs his lines off too fast, and von Stroheim mumbles all hislines indifferently (I picture him saying to himself, "Here I am, thegenius who directed 'Greed', and what am I doing today??"). Let's faceit, folks, this is the kind of claptrap that made the revolution infilm-making some 20 years later so necessary, films like "The FrenchConnection" and "Raiders of the Lost Ark" sweeping away the cobwebs ofcrass melodramas like "Sunset Boulevard" and never looking back. Tellme I'm wrong.

Wilder’s Oscar winning noir psychodrama "Sunset Blvd" pales in comparisonwith many middle tier films of today in spite of being revered as a classic.In keeping with the public’s appetite of its time, "Sunset…" ismelodramatic, fraught with overacting, and promotes a plot which raises morequestions than it answers all in the interest of entertaining a movie goingpublic hungry for escape from the memories of global war and the realitiesof reconstruction. Telling of a reluctant gigolo and hack screenwriter whois kept by a has-been Hollywood silent screen star on the verge of madness,the film is rendered like a jig-saw puzzle with characters distorted asnecessary to make them fit the desired end result. In spite of itsshortcomings in light of present day cinematic capability and technology,"Sunset…" is an interesting watch and a durable film. As with anotherWilder film, "Sabrina", a contemporary remake could please Hollywood exec’sas well as the public at large.

sunset boulevard 50 years on remains the best movie ever made aboutHollywood. a terrifying movie, all the more terrifying because it istrue. everybody talks about Gloria Swanson's's magnificent performance,but it's William holden's cool persona, compared to Swanson's's overthe top personality as Norma Desmond, that helps make the strikingdifferences between the two main character more effective.

horror is not about vampires or werewolves; it's about seeing the true,terrible reality of the world, and in a place called Hollywood wherehypocrisy reigns supreme, stabbing in the back is the best known formof entertainment, there are victims such as Norma Desmond who are giventhe world and then have it taken away from her for ever.

Nineteen-fifty proved a spectacular year for Hollywood. The studiosenjoyedmaximum power and influence, following a decade of unprecedented numbersofticket-buyers. Never again would `The Industry’ ride so high, with (amongother factors) the advent of television. And three movies released thatyear have attained almost scriptural status, at least among acolytessharinga rarefied if rigorous cinematic faith: All About Eve; Caged; and SunsetBlvd. All three glitter with brilliant epigrams flashing from thepolishedfacets of their gem-like scripts - lines that have entered the language atlarge, often quoted in ignorance of their provenance.

All About Eve was a theater story but Billy Wilder’s Sunset Blvd. was THEHollywood Story. (Caged was a women’s prison story; enough said.) And itis as a myth about movie-making, and the erratic trajectory of stardom,thatSunset Blvd. most frequently merits attention. But of many movies madeabout Hollywood, none can claim the peculiar potency of this masterpiece,which can still wring from viewers those old Aristotelian emotions of pityand terror (plus a good deal of unholy fun).

Its corrosive force springs from the fact that Sunset Blvd. is, first andforemost, about that oldest and deepest of human preoccupations, gender.Ittells of catastrophic upheaval in the long-honored `natural’ order ofaffairs between males and females: A virile young man falls prey to anolder, more powerful woman. His tragedy is not the watery end into whichheplummets but the slow and painful process of emasculation to which he hasgiven tacit consent.

Ohio newspaperman Joe Gillis (William Holden) went west to make hisfortunewriting pictures, but he works in his bathrobe in a one-room apartmentthreemonths behind in the rent. His car payments are in arrears, too, so hisattempts to elude repo men become the fuse that ignites the plot. A fatalturn takes him into the driveway of 10086 Sunset Boulevard, the Gothicmansewhere, in wealthy if stifling seclusion, lives legendary queen of thesilents Norma Desmond (Gloria Swanson). She grants him asylum, in his viewatemporary convenience. But she has other ambitions.

At first those plans seem to be a rather hopeless pipe-dream aboutreturningto the screen, through the vehicle of her screenplay Salome (anothercautionary tale of reversed gender roles). But soon the resourcelessGillisfinds himself accepting her largess (a garage apartment, vincuna topcoats,agold cigarette case inscribed with "Mad about the boy") and her control(from `And must you chew gum?" to `Of course you didn’t - I wouldn’t letyou’). Once Desmond sinks her talons into him - and Swanson’s own stintinthe silents pay off handsomely, for no one in the sound era ever deployedclaws like hers - he finds he cannot leave, even at the cost of hisself-esteem and greater happiness.

The third character in the movie offers a dress rehearsal of thesubmissiverole Gillis is bound for. Desmond’s Teutonic butler Max (Erich vonStroheim) caters to her every whim and guards her castle of illusions. Inarole suggestive of the male - and generally gay - assistants, publicistsandfans who cluster dotingly around female stars, he fusses over girlishdetails (`Madam will pardon me, but the shadow over the left eye is notquite balanced").

As the movie charts its inexorable course, new humiliations andrevelationsstri
p layer after layer from Gillis’ own illusions. In a chichaberdasherywhere Desmond takes him to smarten up his wardrobe, a clerk whispers,"Well,if the lady is paying, why not take the vicuna?" (Holden wordlesslyreactswith rage and shame.) And when he sneaks back from what Desmond suspectsisa night of tom-catting - he’s actually writing a script with a youngcolleague (Nancy Olson) who’s falling for him - the vigilant Max lurks inwait for him. Challenged by the fed-up Gillis, the butler reveals notonlythat he discovered Desmond when he was the great auteur Max von Mayerling(Stroheim, of course, was a grandiose director of the silent era), butthathe was "Madam’s first husband" as well. In the hard-as-ice script byWilder and Charles Brackett, this stands as, hands down, its chilliestmoment. (By contrast, its sunniest involves Desmond’s return to Paramountstudios, when a light swings upon her so a new generation of actors andcrewcan pay homage to her glory.)

Sunset Blvd. catalogues the kept-man’s degradation to which Gillisacquiesces. He’s moved from chauffeur’s quarters to the lavish suiteadjoining Desmond’s - and from which, owing to Madam’s "fits ofmelancholy,"the locks have been removed. He endures the raised eyebrows of Desmond’sbridge partners (Anna Q. Nilsson, H.B. Warner and Buster Keaton) when heinterrupts their game to ask for money. He finds himself as the soleguest(apart from Max and the orchestra) at her New Year’s Eve soiree, tangoingonthe tile Valentino told her to install, where she finally confesses herlovefor him. (As though he never expected this development, he storms out toaraucous party among his young former friends, only to race back after sheswipes his razor and succumbs to her melancholia.) He even lets her toweloff his bedewed torso after a dip in the pool she has had filled forhim.

Desmond, in a nutshell, has taken a scalpel to his manhood long before thefinal denouement - precipitated by one final, doomed bid for freedom. Andperhaps he prefers the end that he must know awaits him to taking a busbackto Dayton with his tail tucked between his legs. But fate proves`strangelymerciful’ to Norma Desmond. In the movie’s last, most iconic scene (`I’mready for my close-up, Mr. DeMille’), she once again triumphs under theharsh lights and in front of the clattering cameras. The full fetch ofherlooniness at long last unleashed, she gets what she wanted all along: notthe boy she was so mad about but the "return," however delusional, shecraved.

A faded movie queen living in the past meets a handsome young failure andfalls in love with him, trying to buy her way into his heart. Morbid, butsatisfying. It could have been a great one, had there been more dialogue.The scant dialogue and the abundant narration are major flaws. There shouldnever be narration in a movie. Things should explain themselves. The plot istoo schematic, too thin to really involve one’s emotions. Movies in generalcontain too much action and too few words. They shun anything that a mightbe difficult for a 12-year-old.

MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD !!!

Brilliant film, it’s true, the actors are amazing, but too many twists andflaws make the whole situation hardly credible in my opinion.

So the servant turns out to be the husband who used to direct Norma in herfilms and he has now become her slob who perfectly accepts the presence ofthis other man (Joe Gillis) in her life just because he wants his wife tokeep living out her fantasy… that’s a bit hard to swallow.

And why does Joe feel so trapped ? I never quite got that!So he has people trying to repossess his car ? Big deal. He could hide in amillion other places and still work on his script with Norma from there…he doesn’t *have* to stay at her place if he feels uncomfortable there (thatis before he starts finding advantages in her wealth) … but somehow hefeels he has no alternative… yet he does.

Anyway, despite these two major flaws (and other minor flaws), the filmremains extremely enjoyable 50 years after its release.

After watching this movie, I find funny to notice the growing interest ofpeople for psychiatric cases in movies ("Psycho", "One Flew Over TheCuckoo’s Nest", "Birdy", "Whatever Happened To Baby Jane ?", "Rain Man", …).

Man, sure seems like people love to write mini-books on this site aboutSunset Blvd. I’ll try to keep my opinion concise and to the point. First,don’t shoot me, but I think this is a good movie, but not a great one. Itcould have been a great movie, and it’s certainly a classic, but I think itfalls short, and here is why. The forgotten movie star living in adilapidated, spooky mansion off Sunset Blvd. is a terrific setting. Greatcasting abounds with Gloria Swanson and hottie William Holden, and thestrange friends each of them have. But for me, this movie falls apart everytime they pull away from Gloria to concentrate on Joe and Betty’s buddingromance. Why devote so much screen time to a bland character, BettySchaefer, struggling to write a who cares script called "Dark Windows" orwhatever it’s called, when we could be spending more time with faded, kookyNorma Desmond in her scary house with Max? Face it, no body writes volumesabout Nancy Olson’s character do they? We all know who makes this moviegreat, and it ain’t her. The only fun scene with Betty is when Norma(surprise!) is tracking her down on the phone.

I know Betty must provide a jealous factor for Norma, but her charactercould have been so easily pushed into the background, way into thebackground, and still have a suspicious Norma think that Joe is cheating onher. Same results, same ending, but less Betty!

Billy Wilder always liked the obvious and easy things. For instance,Jack Lemon is the "middle American everyman", Marilyn is the dumb girl,Stanwyck is the blonde wicked vamp, Stroheim is "one of the threegrands directors of the silent era", Swanson disguised as Chaplin, etc.His films are often overwritten (lines like "next time I'll write "Thenaked and the dead", "who wants to see a film about the civil war?",etc.). "Sunset Boulevard" is a typical Wilder film, full of obvious andoverblown things like that, but is a film that it gets better as thedecades pass by, I don't know exactly the reason. It is a film that is"so bad that is very good". Perhaps in ten years, another awful"wilderiana" as "The big carnival" (almost worse than SBoulevard) willbe also redeemed by its campy flavor.

read comments (0)

In a Lonely Place

Screenwriter Dixon Steele is a surly womaniser but is well-known withinhis business. One night he takes a young woman back to his flat to"read him a story" to help him analyse it in regards the potential forit to become a film. Tiring of her energy and innocence, Steele sendsher home with money for a taxi. The next morning he wakes to find thepolice at his door asking questions about the woman, who was found deadhaving been thrown from a car hours after she supposedly left Steele'sapartment. Steele's neighbour Laurel provides his alibi as she saw thewoman leave and this unusual introduction to one another sees her andSteele fall into a relationship. However as love blossoms, the fingerof suspicion never moves from Steele and even Laurel starts to have herdoubts.

I will move swiftly past the fact that this is not a "noir" and itdoesn't fit that genre no matter how many amateur reviews say it isone. However this is an aside because I would rather focus on what thefilm is rather than what it isn't. What the film is, is a sort ofromantic mystery where we have a touch of the Hitchcocks as a youngwoman finds herself in a relationship with a man who may or may not bea killer. It is an interesting scenario but sadly the film doesn'ttotally make the most of it as it falls down in the area ofconsistency. Parts of it are brilliant in the way it kept me guessingand drew out stuff from within Steele, however too much of it is theflipside of this as Steele and Laurel fall in love. Now, I understandthe need to have the "normal" to build the relationship and also givethe edgier stuff come out from behind of, however for me this filmoperated like a light switch – it was either dark or bright, there waslittle in-between.

And it is in this regard that I found it a little disappointing,because it didn't manage to bring that edge into the day-to-day stuffin the way that Hitchcock would have done with the same material.Instead it is very much a matter of Steele either being a bit of a tw*tor beating a man half to death. It is a shame because Bogart does goodwork here, particularly playing well when he loses control and fallsinto rages. He is not as brilliant as some would have you believebecause I didn't think he managed to bring out how much he hated thisside of himself but he was still effective doing what he did. He workswell with Grahame, who herself was good if not that great. Support fromLovejoy, Reid and Smith are all solid.

Overall then, an enjoyable film but one that falls short of being"great" by failing to find the consistency and blend ofcharacterisation. By flicking between extremes the film does produceimpacting moments and a good lingering feeling but watch it whileconsidering Hitchcock and I think you'll agree that it doesn't delivereverything that it could have despite the aspects it does well.

Again a superb whodunit with Bogie! And, Gloria Grahame should have wonanaward for her sensitive and creepy character. Tension, emotional, andedgeof the seat excitement; What happens next?? Well, you’ll have to see itforthe surprise ending! I had never seen this before, and Grahame was asurprise because she used to be a singer.

Follows a boisterous screenwriter (Humphury Bogart) who it a the centreof a murder investigation lead by a old cop with a chip on hisshoulder, mean while Bogart is pursuing his alibi, a young mysteriousactress’s who contained within her perfect smile has many secrets ofher own. cool. Wonderful, the writer doesn’t allow you to becomeattached to the characters; revelations about their character atapprobate moments deter the audience from liking their character,useful inconsideration of both plots, romantic and criminal. I wouldrecommend this film to the MTV generation on a late Tuesday, on yourown, your single, just had a shower, lovely.

The story is not consistent, by far a lesser noir by any standards.But…it has Bogart in it and the man never ceases to amaze me. He isso perfect in whatever he is doing that it doesn't matter the wholemovie otherwise plays like a soap opera. Some reviewers have noted thesimilarities between this movie and a much more interesting SunsetBlvd. and they are right in thinking that 1950 was the moment whenHollywood begun asking some questions. Too bad it stopped there, somequestions would be suited today as well. What does it mean to createillusion? What is the reason we're making and watching movies? etc. Ina Lonely Place has the best ingredient of a good noir: the good naturedcharacter driven to madness by the society that doesn't understand him.And once more, Bogart was amazing…!

I saw this for only the second time in about 30 years, last night, and havebeen mulling it over. It bulges with noir icons, I know: Nick Ray, Bogart,Gloria Graham. It ought to work, but it doesn’t. The murder story, whichshould be at the center of things, is of no consequence. Instead we haveBogart as a nasty and ill-tempered guy who doesn’t know how to say "I loveyou," or "I’m sorry" (after he bashes his agent, one of his few friends). Graham is a dumb bimbo who likes his face but doesn’t want to kiss it. There isn’t a light moment in the movie, and Bogart is Captain Queeg withoutany sympathy. He hasn’t learned anything at the end, and neither hasGraham. She was right to leave him. Anybody would be right to quit hispresence. It looks like noir but it’s really rien.

I really enjoyed this drama, but I’m wondering whether to class it as afilm noir or not. Perhaps the closing fade implies Dix’ subsequentsuicide, just as the subtle fade near the beginning implied the girl’ssubsequent murder. On the other hand, I personally concluded that Dixand Laurel would’ve soon sorted out their troubles. Laurel had seen himalmost kill before, which would’ve been the time to have doubts andbreak the relationship, but she carried on dating him, and she seemedvery attracted to his vulnerability, so it shouldn’t have come as anyunforgivable surprise when he momentarily lost the plot and tried tostrangle her. Listen to me! I’m going on as if I’d read some moremacabre Mills and Boon title. What we’re dealing with here is class;not trash…and I think it had a happy ending.

Hollywood screenwriter Dixon Steele (Humphrey Bogart) is a bitter man.He hates his job and everybody in it–he also flies into violent rages.He is accused of killing a girl last seen leaving his apartment onenight. A neighbor of his (Gloria Grahame) is positive he didn't doit–and immediately falls in love with him. But then she sees him losecontrol a few times and begins to think she may be wrong about hisinnocence.

There's a lot wrong with this picture: The plot is familiar and thedialogue is pretty terrible. Also believing that beautiful Grahamewould fall in love with a very ill-looking Bogart is pushing it. Bogartalso is terrible–he looks old and tired and walks through his role(but he was sick with cancer at the time). Still this is worthcatching. Bogart aside it's well-acted (Grahame is just great) andextremely well-directed by Nicholas Ray (a nighttime drive with Bogartand Grahame is especially well-done). It moves very quickly too (it'sonly about 96 minutes). A lot of people don't like this film because ofit's cynical tone and downbeat ending–but don't let that scare u away.Again, it's worth seeing but not the classic it's been called. I giveit an 8.

I viewed "In a Lonely Place" It was a very interesting movie. I wasvery impressed with the way people expressed themselves back in 1950.It is an accurate demonstration, and it is very curious to notice themanner in which our society has evolved. We are not a romantic societyanymore as we once were. I was also impressed with the fact thatHumphrey Bogart was so much older than Gloria Grahame. He
looked oldenough to be her father, yet no one remarked about that. Everyonethought they were an appropriately matched couple. The disparity intheir personalities was well portrayed. Had the lieutenant told themthe good news one day earlier, the results would have been disastrous.They would have married, and Humphrey's character still would have beena violent, possessive person. Gloria's character would still have beenafraid of him. I was certain that the woman who plays Sylvia Nikolaiwas Shelley Winters, yet the cast of characters lists her name as JeffDonnell. Are they one and the same? person?

As far as I've heard, this was one of the early films about theHollywood film industry (the oldest one I know is probably Singin' inthe Rain, about the transition into sound), and a bit of a weird one Ihave to say, well, it is film noir. Basically Dixon Steele (HumphreyBogart) is the heavy drinking Hollywood screenwriter faced with writinga trashy bestseller, and one night he is trying to have a good timewith Mildred Atkinson (Martha Stewart). Later that night, Mildred isfound murdered, and with his record of violent tendencies, macabresense of humour, and emotionless reaction (coolness), Steele is theprime suspect. Fortunately, his neighbour Laurel Gray (Gloria Grahame,originally the part was written for Bogart's wife, Lauren Bacall) giveshim an alibi, and soon enough, and friendship turns into love. Later ofcourse, with evidence or something like that popping up more, andSteele easily losing his temper and punching a driver, Laurel questionshis innocence, and even when he is proved not guilty, there is no happyending and he leaves. Also starring Frank Lovejoy as Det. Sgt. BrubNicolai, Carl Benton Reid as Capt. Lochner, Art Smith as Agent MelLippman, Jeff Donnell as Sylvia Nicolai, Robert Warwick as CharlieWaterman, Morris Ankrum as Lloyd Barnes and William Ching as TedBarton. Bogart is pretty convincing as an easily angered near maniac, agood dark film. Humpherey Bogart was number 36 on The 100 GreatestMovie Stars, he was number 1 on 100 Years, 100 Stars - Men, and he wasnumber 27 on The World's Greatest Actor. Very good!

I liked the first half of "In a Lonely Place." But somewhere along theway,the movie drops and nearly forgets the noir-ish murder mystery that gotthewhole story started and just becomes another ’40s/’50s message pictureaboutan out of control and abusive man (this time around a bad tempersubstitutesfor alcoholism). However, Bogart and Graham are very good together, and Ireally enjoyed the apartment set for some reason. It reminded me vaguelyofJimmy Stewart’s pad in "Rear Window."

read comments (0)

Cinderella

Beautiful young woman, orphaned and living with her evil stepmother andtwo jealous stepsisters, hopes to attend the Royal Ball in the castleon the hill but may be thwarted by her cruel keepers and a decidedlynasty cat named Lucifer. Animated classic from Walt Disney has thecompany's signature style, but the scenarists skimp a bit on thebackground details. Walt wasn't exactly into character development, andthe leading lady here is a bit of a masochist (one has to wonder,especially in this day and age, why she doesn't stick up for herself.Does she feel trapped or is her isolation a comfort to her after herfather's demise?). The friendly, chattering mice who help Cinderellaprovide the comic relief, there are at least two excellent songs("Bibbidi Bobbidi Boo" and "A Dream Is A Wish Your Heart Makes"), andmany gorgeous moments of animated magic. Still, this plot is on theslim side (running time: 74 minutes), and is reminiscent of "SnowWhite" besides. Loaded up with villains, the movie could perhaps use abit more of the grandmotherly Fairy Godmother (who literally vanishes);the pacing seems to stall after the big ballroom sequence, and thefinale doesn't tell us what happened to the step-family. It's exquisiteto look at however, and has some very funny slapstick. *** from ****

Personally, CINDERELLA seems a tad redundant… there’s simply a few toomany Disney features that concern a female title character who is "saved" atthe end by some sort of Prince. SNOW WHITE AND THE SEVEN DWARFS (1937) hadalready come before CINDERELLA (1950), and SLEEPING BEAUTY (1959) seemedlike a "greatest hits" version of both movies. And in the grand scheme ofall things Disney, CINDERELLA, overall, is probably not one of the greatestfeatures Walt oversaw (props should rightfully go to other efforts such asFANTASIA, SNOW WHITE, PINOCCHIO, BAMBI and DUMBO). But before I get toostuffy about all this…

CINDERELLA is still funny, charming and loaded with fun songs and absolutelysuperb animation. If I only have one minor quibble, it’s that the businessbetween the mice and Lucifer the cat seem to take up a little too much timeof the film. If you have children, or are simply a fan of old movies oranimation in general, no collection is complete without this. It may not beperfect, but it comes closer than most animated films of today and is stilla minor classic at the very least.

This bland, tepid Disney cartoon remains one of the most popularanimated films produced by the studio, but it has none of the visualartistry that distinguished the Disney style in its early days in filmslike "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs," "Pinocchio" and "Fantasia.""Cinderella" acts as more of a transition to the family-oriented Disneyof today, that sacrifices artistry and content for popularity andmerchandising opportunities.

And, to top it all off, "Cinderella" has one of the most annoyingsoundtracks of any Disney film. "Bibbidi-Bobbidi-Boo," anyone?

Grade: C

As a fan of Disney movies, this is one my lower rated ones. Possiblybecause it doesn't have much of a plot, like Sleeping Beauty. The otherDisney princess movies at least have a plot. The film also tends to goon the love side as well. There isn't too much action, but yet somegood Disney innovations, and good animation.

Based on the classic tale, the tale is retold pretty decent with mostof the funny stuff dealing with the Grand Duke and the guy with him,and the show-stealing mice. However, the film has some plot, becauseour villain is the evil Stepmother, Lady Tremaine.

But the rest however isn't that great. It was a little bit on the loveside for me, but as a Disney classic I respect it and give it a 7.2 outof 10. I recommend Beauty and the Beast and Snow White over this.

Yes, yes, it's cute, funny, a great visual, but the way the charactersare used is very bad. The prince almost does not appears, the fairygodmother could have appeared in other scenes etc etc. "Cincerella" isthe type of movie that, when the "The End" appears, you ask ONLY THAT?I found myself thinking that it could have a good 30 minutes more notbeing boring, but telling the story more interesting and detailed. Ifyou see the DVD bonus material, you'll see some deleted scenes thatcould perfectly have been used with no matter. Songs are nice, colorsare great, Cinderella is beautiful, but because what I have said, Idon't like this movie so much. If you want a very well-told Disney'sclassic story, look for Snow White.

I can’t believe no one has yet commented on this film, so I feel it mydutyto be the first.This isn’t one of Disney’s best films (in my opinion), but holds it’s ownand is quite a beautiful story. With the mere fact that no one has yetcommented on it shows how little of an impression it has on the generalpublic today. Still, I believe anyone who thinks of Cinderella todaythinksof mice, birds, and a plump and jolly Fairy Godmother; many of theelementsfirst introduced by this delightful film. In addition, it spawned someclassic songs like "Bibbity-bobbity- boo", and "A dream is a wish yourheartmakes." I think my favorite part is the mice singing their "we can do it"song while making a dress she can wear to the ball.I believe this movie was the first to introduce the concept of having twolovable side-kicks that the kids could relate to and enjoy: Gus and Jack(Aside from perhaps Thumper and Flower from Bambi). Disney realized thesuccess of this much later and now include these types of characters innearly all their animated movies.All in all I give it a 6½ out of 10, but respect it for what it is: Aclassic story that Disney made timeless and unforgettable.

"Cinderella" is probably ranks among the top 5 of my favorite Disneyanimation films. Yes, the main characters are female and a cat is used (Ilike dogs much better). But the characters are fun to watch and listen toand they are believable. The only one I really didn’t care for wasCinderella (I know, I know, you have to have her or else the story doesn’texist). Her character just didn’t have the spark that a main charactershould have and she wasn’t nearly as engaging as, let’s say Lady Tremaine,which brings me to my most favorite character of the movie which is LadyTremaine. I loved watching her simply because she was a character full ofopposites. You saw her composed one minute and then the next out of controlthe next. Lucifer, her cat, matches her perfectly. He acts just as a catshould act, kniving, ruthless, and full of hypocrisy. Drisella andAnastasia, the two step-sisters were also fun to watch even though I wishthey would have done more. The three weakest characters were the prince,theking, and the grand duke.The storyline itself has been around forever but Disney really did a goodjob in making it fresh and modern. If you haven’t watched "Cinderella" yet,do so. There’s something in it for everyone.

Once upon a time in a kingdom far away, in a small château lived akindly man and his daughter Cinderella. The man was widowed and wanteda mother for his child, so he married a woman, Lady Tremaine, who hadtwo daughters, Anastasia, and Drizella, plus a cat, Lucifer.Unfortunately Cinderella’s new stepmother was a horrible old woman andher new step-sisters were bratty, selfish and loud. Upon her father’suntimely death (Accident? Maybe not), Cinderella was made into a slaveby her evil stepfamily. She had to wash, cook, clean, and tend to theevery beckon call of her rotten Stepmother and Stepsisters. Plus fatcat Lucifer. Cinderella’s only friends were the birds, horses, dogBruno, and the mice. That day, while Cinderella tended to her work, shesung about a dream she had. A dream is a wish your heart makes, sheex
plained. That’s when she was introduced to a new mouse friend, Gus,who also met Lucifer, who was hungry for mice. Gus hid in a tea cup,which made it into the Stepsisters’ rooms. They complained to LadyTremaine, who doubled Cinderella’s work load. But sure enough, hope wasnot far away.

The king of the kingdom was hoping his son, Prince Charming, would wedand have offspring soon so he could see his grandchildren before he bitthe big one. He decides to have a royal ball so the prince could choosea bride. The royal messenger sent out invitations to every lady in thekingdom. The Stepsisters and Stepmother also got invitations. So didCinderella, who could go only if her chores were finished, and she hada fancy dress. They would do all they could to make that impossible;The mice, lead by Jaq and Gus, decide to help out their friend in thispredicament, so they take an old dress that had belonged toCinderella’s late mother and, adding some trimming and a pearl necklacefrom the stepsisters’ rooms, really make it a beauty. Cinderella wasoverjoyed. But then greedy Anastasia and Drizella took back theirthings, making Cinderella’s dress a torn mess. (Actually by today’sstandards, that look is considered sexy). Well they leave for the ball,leaving Cinderella all alone, and sad. That’s when she receives a visitfrom her fairy godmother who uses her magic to turn a pumpkin into asplendid coach, the mice into horses and the horse into the driver. Awave of her stick, and to finish the trick: Bibbity, Bobbity, Boo! Sheturned Cinderella’s torn gown into a sparkling, beautiful dress. BeforeCindrella left, her Fairy Godmother warned her to return by the strokeof 12 midnight, when the magic would wear off.

At the ball, Prince Charming seemed to turn away all the wound-besuitors. This made the king upset, and he took it out on the GrandDuke. That’s when Cinderella strolled in. Her stepmother andstepsisters didn’t recognize her. The prince seemed to have found thelady of his dreams. They dance, divinely. It was a glorious and magicalevening, until the clock struck midnight. Cinderella had to leave in ahurry, and in so doing, left behind a glass slipper. She barely made ithome by the time all of the Fairy Godmother’s magic had worn off; SinceCinderella’s identity was unknown to the king and all he found was herglass slipper, he ordered the Grand Duke to try that slipper on thefoot of every maiden in the kingdom. He tried many, but it didn’t fitany of their feet. Finally, he arrives at Cinderella’s house. Her evilstepmother had locked her in her room when she found out about theprevious night. So while the Grand Duke tries the glass slipper onAnastasia and Drizella’s fat feet, Jaq and Gus snatch the key from LadyTremaine and rush upstairs to rescue Cinderella. Lucifer the cat dideverything to complicate that. But at last Cinderella was free. Sheraced downstairs, tried on the slipper…And it fit! She and the princewere married, and lived happily ever after.

Cinderella. One of Walt Disney’s all-time greats. One of the mostpopular fairy tales ever told. This is Disney’s first animated featureafter World War II. Voices, Ilene Woods was Cinderella, Eleanor Audleywas the evil stepmother, Verna Felton was the Fairy Godmother, JimMacDonald voiced the mice (he also used to voice Mickey Mouse), andLuis Van Rooten voiced the king and the Grand Duke. Ilene Woods isstill around, but everyone else has passed away. Cinderella had asequel, odd as that may seem, in 2002. I haven’t seen it, but I knowit’s partially about Jaq being turned into a human. I’ve also heardthat they’re planning to make a Cinderella III. Now what in the worldwould that be about? What is with Disney’s latest fascination withdoing sequels? Cinderella III: Rise of the Machines. But anyway,nothing beats the original. Great animation, great music and songs,great characters. This movie has it all! So if you like Disney princessmovies, Sleeping Beauty or Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, thenCinderella is for you! See it today!

-

I know all the critics of this movie, most of them women’s libbers orthe such who hate a woman being rescued. But switching the focus to thepassive Cinderella to more interesting animal side kicks was ingenious.I recently watched it again after probably 20some years and wasentertained by the subtle perks I am sure I missed as a kid. What wasmost entertaining and enlightening was my 2 year old daughter satspellbound throughout the entire movie, a feat that has not to thispoint been accomplished with modern movies. If I have any complaints itwould have to be the songs. Other than Bibbitybobbity I want to cramsomething into my ears to prevent the sappy made for movie music fromlodging into my head like a tumor. Disney has taking a dive into thetanks lately and a classic like this just drive the point home.

First off, I want to say, "Thanks, Disney, for finally releasing the"Cinderella" movie on DVD! Now you have all the Disney animated filmson DVD (including the 1999 Limited Editions)! What are you going to donext? You're going to Disney World!!!!!" Well, technically (I mean,look at the castle!!!!!)

Anyways, Disney remains magical in his 1950 animated classic film"Cinderella," the movie that put fairy tale movies on the map. We areall familiar with the story of Cinderella, her stepsisters, her date,the glass slipper, the pumpkin that turns into a carriage just forsaying "Bippity- boppity-boo!," and of course, trying to head home bymidnight!

What I like about this film: It's a grand old fairy tale that childrenlike, now in a movie form (as well as on DVD as well)!!!!!

"Cinderella" - thank you, Disney!!!!! 10 stars.

read comments (0)

All About Eve

Taking a second look at a picture I found to be a dreadful bore in 1950when I was 12 years old is even more boring after 56 years of lifeexperience. Why waste over 2 hours on a movie about a bunch of stuffedshirt snobs and their irritating pretenses? There are better things todo with your time, such as watching virtually any other movie made byDarryl F. Zanuck during the great golden age of 20th Century-Fox.

Anne Baxter is the main character, and she was a joy to watch in dozensof superior Fox movies such as "Swamp Water" or "Yellow Sky" — to namejust two. These were entertaining pictures which could be watched overand over, still enjoyed. In Eve she plays an overambitious cutthroataspiring actress, who is oh so dull to watch.

The entire boring mess is about Broadway, its stars and creativetalent. Taking a cue from Walt Disney's Thumper, who said, "If youcan't say something nice, don't say nuthin' at all." Here it goes:There's not one homosexual in All About Eve. If you see a Broadway playin 2006, just try finding a play or musical WITHOUT a homosexual theme.Of 20 current ones, not so many as 5 are non-homosexual. And thisyear's Tony went to a play that advocates homosexual teachers preyingon their minor students. Oh, they don't tell you about that until afteryou buy the ticket.

Off subject, sorry. "All About Eve" was hands-down the worst picture towin an Oscar during the 1950's when some really great films were made.Avoid this dud at all costs.

It doesn’t seem fair that when a movie is a classic, people are put downwhen they don’t like it. There are exceptions to the rule like "CitizenKane" or "Star Wars" or "Breathless", among many others. There are somefilms that are important, maybe not amazingly good, but still important forwhat they did for the industry or in the advancement of film. But when afilm is a classic because it is apparently just good, one should be able todislike it. "All About Eve" is just plain boring. It was on AFI’s 100Greatest Films and won multiple Academy Awards, including best picture, butit is one of the hardest movies to sit through. It is supposed to be asatire on the theater world and ultimately acting in general, but it isn’tfunny. It is slowly paced, which isn’t necessarily bad, because "A ManEscaped" is very slowly paced, but it works for the tone. But in acomedy-drama, the pace should be an in-between. Comedies are usually fastpaced and dramas are usually slower, but "All About Eve" can’t really findit’s zone. Which again can be brilliant, as in "Pulp Fiction".Two entirely different films, yes, but similar in that they don’t have adistinct genre. Regardless, "Eve" will be forever etched in film history asa wonderful movie and it doesn’t matter what anybody really thinks now. Butit still seems unfair that there are some movies that people HAVE to like,just because they are staples, and if they don’t, there is something wrongwith them.

Much-celebrated, well-acted drama has Bette Davis in now-famous role asMargo Channing, Broadway actress with a heart-of-gold who takes indevoted fan Anne Baxter, unaware the neophyte has designs on her life.Boozy and bitchy, and written with a cleverly poisonous pen, but notespecially interesting once all the pieces have fallen into place (withat least thirty minutes left on the clock). These pompous, drylydecadent people do a lot of emoting and sounding-off, but we don'tlearn much about what's going on under the surface. Writer-directorJoseph L. Mankiewicz doesn't so much see this story as a chess-board ashe does a gossipy cocktail party. Despite the film's multiple Oscars,it can leave one with a chilly, hollowed-out impression. **1/2 from****

I watched this film after years of seeing it placed on best lists andlist of classic movies, well let me tell you this movie was very dulland had dull actors from start to finish, the basic premise of thisfilm, a bunch of morons walking around a theatre trying on coats andstuff. This film is painfully outdated, it's better sitting therewatching paint dry. You will probably will get more enjoyment. Thereare so many characters who all look very similar so it can be difficultto figure out who's who or why we are even supposed to care about themain character or the outcome of the film. Watch this film if you wantto fall asleep.

People can say what they like about "All About Eve", but in the end it’sjust a very boring movie. Even though the script was well written, the moviecame across like it was in slow motion. As I’ve only seen this movie onceperhaps this is a little harsh. In the end though, with great movies youonly need one screening to know that you are watching awinner.

6.5 out of 10 (It would have been lower if it wasn’t for the script andacting).

Fasten your seatbelts: This is a trashy film. Here is what I wrote in my1990 diary: "An over-acted, over-written, overrated soap opera. Too much repartee, toomuch phony sophistication. Critics hailed it as one thegreatest."

I don’t like to clutter my reviews with movies I detest, but this is one ofthe worst ever made, because it takes the viewer’s indulgence for granted.It takes it for granted that the viewer will want to be subjected to hoursof flat-footed, uninspired misogyny, humorless misanthropy, indulgentself-loathing and contempt for "ethnic" people of lower classes, as well asthespians and their fans. This movie isn’t even original, it’s a remake of"A Star Is Born" smothered in vile sentiment. A more fitting title would be"A Steer Is Born". This is an emotionally cruel movie, and its writeremerges as the main villain, peddling insult as insight. Where is his loveof humanity? Where is his compassion? Indeed, where is his sense of beauty?He doesn’t even TRY to create something beautiful, which makes his failureall the more repellent. He seems to think there are only two kinds ofpeople: the stupid and the vile. He cranks up his cynicism to such a degree,that nothing whatsoever could pass inspection. It starts out as acondemnation of an upstart and ends up as condemnation of literallyeverything and everybody. There is no cinema in this one.

This has to go down with "Some Like It Hot" and "Gone With the Wind" asoneof the MOST overrated movies of all time. It has a so-so message (ofwhichit’s really proud of itself), with the exception of George Sanders’cynicaltriumph it has terrible acting (especially Anne Baxter’s ridiculouslyunconvincing portrayal) and, most of all, it is SO melodramatic. I havenever seen a movie beat around the bush as much as this one does. I itweren’t for some very clever dialogue I would have given this movie a twoorthree. The most frustrating thing is that it was not only voted to theAFItop 100 list, but also it was named best picture of 1950 over the likes of"Sunset Boulevard" and "The Third Man": two spectacular, unforgettablefilms. I will never understand how people can say that this trash wasanywhere near the level of those masterpieces. What a convolutedmess!

Good dialog, very good acting (particularly by Davis and Sanders), buta premise that isn't all that realistic; Baxter runs off from somesmall town with stolen money, then plans to get close with Davis byseeing all her performances in a play! Once that is achieved, theextension of the plan is to study and brown-nose Davis and play agoody-two-shoes innocent until her big break arrives as an actress. Andthe far-fetched thing is that it all works! We aren't even sure thatBaxter has any real experience in acting. It would be one thing if shemade it overnight in a movie, but in theater?? Sure, she knows thelines by heart, having seen the play
a zillion times, but to be so goodthe first time in a major role?! Quite far-fetched, especially for adrama.

As one can plainly see, the plot is very much Hollywoodized in themoronic old-school sense, but the theater setting is a good idea as itpresents a variety of characters and twists. Some twists aren't verycredible; 1) Baxter's blackmail plan doesn't hold much weight, but itseems to be enough for Holm; 2) Sanders's blackmail of Baxter has muchmore weight admittedly, but since she is planning to make it inHollywood wouldn't her native town folk recognize her and thereby forceall the filth in her past to swim up to the surface? But okay, thelatter blackmail, all in all, has plenty of credence.

Though interesting throughout in spite of its length, the movie isuniversally overrated. So much so, in fact, that one famous salivatingmale film-critic even praises Monroe's acting! To actually mention HERperformance, what with all those other good actors and the much morerelevant characterizations, is to truly get carried away with the malehormones. ("Yes, yes…! Even the extras are great! The way that manwalks down the street in scene no.235 in the lower-left corner of thescreen… Amazing!") Monroe's appearances are few and brief, and heraffected acting is totally out-of-place. She is a feather-weight amongheavy-weights. I have to add even that as far as looks are concernedMonroe is totally overshadowed by Baxter's beauty. Even Davis'scharisma overshadows Monroe's looks. Monroe is no beauty here, probablydue to the fact(?) that this movie was shot before she had all thatfacial surgery. If you'd like to read my "biography" of Marilyn Monroe,contact me by e-mail.

Anyone who loves movies has seen this one. It is still enjoyable, and themovie, like "Miss Channing", is ageless. George Saunders and Thelma Ritterare hysterical, and seeing Marilyn Monroe in a small part is a joy. Davisgives the performance of her career and anyone casting Claudette Colbert(who was supposed to be Margo), or anyone else in the part, isunthinkable.

Hollywood of today, might take a good look at this film, they might learnwhat a good film,story line, directing and acting is all about. Betty Daviswas the epitome of an actress, she and Joan Crawford were the tops.Therearen’t many of today’s crowd that could hold a candle to either one of them.She and Joan were products of the Hollywood Studio system,during theHollywood "Golden Years", that was when they made good films.

read comments (0)