frankebe Reviews

No Lady (1931)

ANOTHER GOOD Sunday Matinée

[7/10 · 2 March 2017]

The movie itself is really only about a 5, but for me, when Lupino Lane really gets going, he can do no wrong.

For several years now, I have found myself bored to death over movies that are directed to be more concerned with presenting their "story" than with what they DO with the narrative. Most movies are written by a bunch of hack writers anyway, and few stories have any depth or value to them that can keep me engaged. RATHER, I am interested in any movie that allows truly talented actors to show off their skills.

Now it turns out that Lupino Lane is as good an acrobat as Buster Keaton, and probably as good a pantomimist and dancer as Chaplin or Lloyd. So here I am delighted to find a featurette that really displays his talents—and in a talking picture while the actor is still at his prime, no less.

Not that it couldn't have been even better, but... you can't have everything (although I'll never know why).

Fortunately, there is enough innocent silliness, cartoonishness, pantomime, acrobatics and else at play here, and briskly moving along at a pace to keep my interest.

If you don't know Lupino Lane, you might want to start with a wonderful compilation of clips from his movies, with super music, on the DVD "SlapHappy: Vol 1 (3 Funnymen...)".

If you find those clips amazing, astounding and hilarious, then you should try out some complete silents. After that, if you, like I, cannot possibly get too much Lupino Lane, then you should check out this movie (you can buy it at Amazon UK).

Panama Hattie (1942)

A Single Kernel of Wheat Among the Chaff

[1/10 · 9 April 2016]

That single kernel, that one diamond hidden in the dirt, is an excellent little dance routine by the three comedians. More about that later.

This is one of those movies constructed in a way I most loathe—the characters talk their way through an unpleasant story that bores me to death, and unsympathetic characters (Ann Southern doesn't get along with a child; how unsympathetic can you get????). In amongst all this are three highly-talented comedians, and a bunch of speciality song-and-dance numbers.

I hate specialty numbers. I don't want to see the Berry Brothers jump from a 20-foot high mezzanine into split position during a gratuitous dance. It would be so much better if they did these acrobatics as part of a story, like Buster Keaton or Harold Lloyd. But... no. I also hate being dragged away from the only real reason I am watching a movie—to see my favorite comedians. I hated it when Hal Roach did this to Laurel & Hardy and I hate it in this movie.

But one scene—ONE number is the sole reason to keep this DVD. About 31 minutes in, Red, Rags and Ben do a characterful little dance. Now I've been searching to find out if Red Skelton could really dance—he said once that he could dance, but I've never seen him do a good number in his TV shows nor in all the movies I've seen so far; and I've wanted to see Ben Blue do a nice number—because I wondered how someone so contrived could have been a successful performer (and it was obvious that he was a great dancer).

Well, here it is, for a very, very, MUCH TOO SHORT moment or two, the comedians get to do some real dancing. This is dancing with technique, but also infused with great personality and THAT is the dancing I like to see!

For the rest of the movie... meh. I don't see why people like Ann Southern—she has a voice like a kazoo and she doesn't do much with her dancing. Her character is unlikeable, she's not funny, and I do not find her attractive. She is very irritating. I also find Virginia O'Brien extremely boring. The comedy trio is good when they dance, but the rest of time...

...I would actually have preferred to see the Three Stooges doing their sketches!! Especially the one about being in the spooky spy house. Red, Rags and Ben are SO LAME here I couldn't believe it. The Stooges actually would have provided more energy, better pantomime, and better ensemble work.

Just Imagine (1930)

Visually Stunning and Marjorie White!

[8/10 · 27 February 2016]

The sets are gorgeous and magnificent. The 'special effects' are—VERY effective! The story is hallucinogenic and outrageous. The musical numbers are gratuitous and hilarious. The hairstyles, the clothes, the backdrops all may be nominally futuristic, but it's the future through a 1930's lens—my favorite decade in art and film. Everything is improbable and unbelievable—and it's all delightfully pre-code and 100% politically incorrect.

What's there not to like?

El Brendel is really quite engaging. He takes several deft falls and acquits himself as a decent visual comedian. He even gets to do a multi-personality skit, which I'm assuming came from his Vaudeville shtick, so there is some historical interest to this.

And if you like Marjorie White, this is the movie for you! She has a pretty large roll in this movie. She mugs, she sings, she performs eccentric dancing, she pantomimes. As her usual spunky self, the first time we see Ms. White is on a tele-TV screen: she's in her underwear. Immediately upon appearing in-person, she takes off her clothes. Toward the finale she also gets a nice comic monologue. My only disappointment is that she doesn't manage to stow away on the spaceship to Mars… (As a "guilty pleasure" I will to admit: I love the exotically-dressed Amazonian outer-space women of early "sci-fi" cinema. So the Martian Women are a plus here, not a minus!)

Admittedly, there are a few slow-ish shots. But even these work in the film's favor—as Ms. White suddenly grabs the rear-seat of a man walking too slowly through the set, and thrusts him forward with the admonition to "get moving!"

Well, folks, "Just Imagine" now joins the ranks of much maligned movies that I actually enjoy enough to watch more than once, and which I will show to my friends—and of which they will heartily approve. This list includes: "Meet the Baron", "Three's A Crowd"; "A Pest from the West"; "Cuckoo on a Choo Choo", "Outer Space Jitters", "Abbott and Costello Go to Mars", and Larry Semon's "Wizard of Oz".

All we need is a pristine print; and since one was recently projected at David Packard's "Stanford Theatre", I certainly hope a copy gets printed onto Blu-Ray sometime soon!

Skirt Shy (1929)

High Marks for Improv

[10/10 · 28 August 2013]

At first I thought this was a terrible film. The "script", as such, is nonexistent and nothing makes any sense at all. But I found all the characters delightful, cute and hilarious. Then it occurred to me: this WAS improvised, probably set up and shot in a day.

So, if you think of this as an elaborate theatre exercise, it becomes immensely enjoyable. Imagine sitting in a drama class while the leads of the school's drama team makes up this skit: wouldn't you laugh?

Now that I understand what this is really all about, "Skirt Shy" has become one of my favorite of the Hal Roach Langdon films.

Harry is given plenty of time just to do his shtick; little Nancy Dover is breathtakingly cute and more than a little ornery—she may be Harry's most perfect screen partner. She actually does what most of us have wanted to do at some point in a Langdon film: slap a little sense into him!

Tom Ricketts apparently was actually 76 years old when he made this film, and is a very funny guy, runs like hell and even does pratfalls(!). I actually wish they'd spent more camera-time on him.

May Wallace at 52 looks 82 but joins in the farce vigorously and swings a mean shovel; and whoever plays the cowboy is also good in his very over-the-top improv.

All these Hall Roach films of Harry Langdon need to be restored and made available for viewing. Langdon is exceptional with his voice, and actually funnier to me in sound than in his silent comedies, even though a few of the silents are better put-together.

The King (1930)

Absolutely Hilarious!

[9/10 · 25 August 2013]

I completely agree with the review by "lowbrowstudio". I absolutely do not understand the criticisms of this movie. It is hysterical. The more i think about it, the funnier it seems to me, and every time I re-watch it (I've seen it about 5 times now) it actually seems even funnier than the time before.

Thelma Todd is stunning, and shows herself to be a superb comedienne in her own right and an excellent comic partner for Langdon. All the supporting actors are funny. The sets and production-values are striking, with what looks to be a cast of at least a hundred in the opening shots, and huge sets both indoors and outside. And Langdon is at his peak. He still looks exactly like the Little Elf of the silent movies, and has plenty of energy.

The idea that Langdon was lost in the world of scripts and talking pictures is an idiotic myth promulgated by James Agee. And the idea that Langdon lost the magic of his persona in his sound movies is a canard derived from reading too much and thinking too little (and perhaps a deficient sense of the absurd?). Notably, in his book on Langdon, William Schelly makes a lot of negative observations that are so utterly inaccurate that I have to question whether or not he ever actually SAW the films he was criticizing.

So, to be completely at odds with all the authors who have commented about Langdon working best in silence, I think his voice and all his little improvised verbal infantalisms add a whole new layer of personality to his character, as well as being extremely funny. Hal Roach must have been deaf and dumb (REALLY dumb) at the time he said that Langdon "wasn't so funny articulate." I think Langdon is incredibly effective in sound.

This film is as funny and continuously amusing to me as any true classic like Laurel & Hardy's "Brats" or Charley Chase's "Movie Night". And it is also BETTER than many of Langdon's own silent shorts (I've seen all of them that are known to exist). In fact, it has more life and laughs than most of his BEST silent shorts.

Just to slap some sense into myself, I re-watched all the 1920s shorts on the DVD set "Harry Langdon, Lost and Found". I wanted to get a tangible feel for how his "classic work" compared to the Hal Roach talkies and vice versa.

Now, maybe it's partly the goofy, and sometimes creepy and inappropriate music by the Snark Ensemble, but I rarely laughed and at times felt a little unresponsive to what I was watching. "Boobs in the Woods", "Feet of Mud" and "The Luck O' The Foolish" held my attention the best.

The finest of these movies have stories that are well thought-out with real dramatic sweep, meaningful climaxes, strong character-building and well-planned endings, all of which results in a very satisfying movie experience. But they are also sometimes a little TOO much of all this, and are a bit hard to sit through. I yearned for the music, sound effects, voices and dialogue, and the non-stop jokes of the Hal Roach talking films.

"The King" may not have the architecture of a classically-constructed comedy narrative, but it is ALIVE. It's like watching a roller-coaster ride. I also find myself laughing all the way through it, and I laugh to myself even now whenever I reflect about how absurd it all is. What do you NEED from a short, funny movie, anyway?

Of course this short does not have the purposeful narrative of the silent "Fiddlesticks", but it is NOT THAT KIND OF A FILM. This is a vignette, a slice of life, a Saroyan (…well, maybe that's going a bit too far, BUT it is that style…). And it's way funnier than "Fiddlesticks".

So why would I recommend this short to anyone? Why on earth not?? It's Harry Langdon and Thelma Todd at their best, and it's relentlessly fast and funny.

By whatever means, try to find this movie. Let's hope someday someone releases pristine prints of all the Hal Roach shorts; and, too, that ALL of Langdon's movies can be made available in high-quality prints. I will bet there are some other gems out there.

He Loved an Actress (II) (1938)

A Sleeper

[1/10 · 25 July 2013]

Yup, put me to sleep. I cannot imagine anyone actually wasting all 71 minutes of this movie's time to watch it. Has anyone who has seen this on VHS or DVD ever really watched it without ANY fast-forwarding? This is another example of the lead side of Hollywood's Golden Age. The only time this thing lit up for me was when Harry Langdon was on. And he is on screen very, very little. And they waste him.

Langdon is just as fascinating in 1938 as he was in the mid-1920s. But he has nothing to do. It appears he improvised what little time the writers and director gave him. And I have to give him credit; with nothing going for him, he is spellbinding to watch--for those few seconds here and there when he appears...

The movie is mostly the characters talking their way through the story, which I consider the worst kind of movie-making. The musical numbers are based on some nice surreal ideas, but the routines are too long and the dancing never takes off.

This is not even a movie for Langdon completists. Or Lupe Velez fans for that matter. (She only gets to rave and throw things one time in the whole movie, and then acts embarrassed about it.)

Would someone PLEASE convince SOMEBODY to release Langdon's Hal Roach shorts?!

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (2005)

Better Luck Next Time?

[5/10 · 31 January 2013]

Although I could not understand the storyline, and found most of the actors' speaking absolutely unintelligible, I enjoyed the overall concept, the perfect choice of music, and all them pretty pictures. And the dolphin song. The movie was a pleasant if befuddling event.

Instead of dragging down the comedy with the lumpy and inexpressive performances of Martin Freeman and Mos Def, imagine how the movie would have been infinitely enlivened if they could have hired a young: Gene Wilder and Richard Pryor; or Mickey Rooney and Sammy Davis Jr.; or Rick Moranis and Eddie Griffin (or David Chapelle). But… all the great comedian character-actors are GONE or way too old! There isn't anybody like that anymore! Or is there??? Who do you think should pair up for the next installment: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe ?

The Wizard of Oz (1925)

This Movie Needs Re-Evaluation

[7/10 · 18 August 2012]

Larry Semon's "Wizard of Oz" is a movie that needs to be re-evaluated.

It also may be one of those films that just needs all the help it can get, which it does get in a pristine print with a brilliant soundtrack by Robert Israel, via WarnerVideo.

So far as I can find, there is only ONE source for this version: The Wizard of Oz (Four-Disc Emerald Edition) (2006) "70th Anniversary", selling on Amazon for a mere $13.58.

Being interested in early cinema fantasy, I bought this set specifically for its inclusion of the 1910 Oz movie (pretty good, by the way). I wanted to compare that to what Melies was doing around then.

After watching the 1910 and all the 1914 versions (also on this set), I then put on the Semon film, intending to watch just a few minutes and then go to bed. Immediately, I was captivated by the engaging full-orchestra title music. Then the film proper came on and I was amazed at the beauty of the image. Sparkling clear and clean! Comparable to the most recent Kino release of Keaton's "The General". Semon's big production values are finally fully visible. Further, imaginative and gorgeous tintings with no loss of detail give the effect of a full-color movie. It was stunning. I couldn't take my eyes off the film!

Add to all this, Robert Israel's beautiful music, comedically but sensitively set to the action in perfect synchronization. It may be Israel's best work (and may prove how utterly critical it is to have a superior musictrack to a "silent" film). And with Semon's imaginative cinematography, the movie was playing out like a classic. There was no way to stop watching…

Now, forget about the title. Frank Baum himself re-wrote the basic Oz story many times. In his own movies he sets up the same characters and just revises the same story over and over. So if you're unhappy with the "fidelity" of this film to the book (or the 1939 movie (c'mon, get over it)), just call it "Semon in Oz" (oops... heh... I mean, y'know, like "Abbott and Costello in Hollywood"). What's wrong with that? Do NOT think about this as THE Wizard of Oz.

I realize that slick appearance does not make up for poor content, but as Pauline Kael once said about a W.C. Fields movie, So what if everything is "all gummed up"? Story-logic doesn't always matter; sometimes I'm more interested in the comic riffing…

So I watched the whole movie, and was continuously delighted, even laughing out loud. Then I was surprised to note that it had been 72 minutes long. I thought it had only been about 45 minutes!

Well, there is a whole lot more I could write, and anyone can point out the weaknesses of this movie. But suffice it to say that I was thoroughly engaged and entertained from start to finish, and I am one who has a BIG problem sitting through movies over 20 minutes long. I can barely sit still long enough to slog through the labored stories of silent drama ("A Child of Paris", "Sunrise", D.W. Griffith melodramas), or comedies of Coleen Moore, Mary Pickford, and D. Fairbanks, which have me itching for the fast-forward button; even Keaton and Lloyd occasionally dawdle too much for me. (On the other hand, Melies is never too long, nor is Chaplin or Langdon; or, once front-and-center, Laurel & Hardy.)

Now I am curious to show this version of this movie to others to see if they enjoy it. Or conclude that I've just finally lost my mind from watching "Ridolini" too many times.

A Trip to the Moon (1902)

An Overview of the Best Versions on DVD

[10/10 · 25 April 2012]

This is a summary of the best available versions of this movie, and where to find them.

There are three black-and-white versions that are outstanding: (A) a digital scan of an original 35mm nitrate print owned by the Melies family; this scan is available through flickeralley (.com). (B) a digital scan of a 35mm PRINT of the (A) PRINT (so a "print- of-a-print") that can be found on the 5-DVD compilation entitled, "Georges Melies: First Wizard of Cinema", also distributed by Flicker Alley. (C) StudioCanal offers a different print, available directly from France. (Go to Amazon.fr and search for "Georges Melies" "studiocanal". It's in the 3-DVD Méliès edition that comes with a gorgeous book with beautiful pictures…and text all in French!)

Here are the pros-and-cons of each version:

FLICKER ALLEY (A) has unbelievably crisp picture quality on both DVD and blu-ray, and absolutely crackling detail on the blu-ray. In high-definition, you can see the actors' teeth when they smile. It's a great study version. However, to keep the clarity and retain the fullest frame, the image has not been cleaned up or adequately stabilized. The picture looks like it's in a snowstorm; but somehow this adds to the charm. The real problem is that without additional cropping, the film still has enough jitter-and- weave to make you want to poke your eyes out. But if you want detail, this is the print to see. You have a choice of three soundtracks, and the one by Robert Israel is brilliant. The DVD includes a narration that is derived from a text that Melies himself wrote. It is absolutely delightful. Unfortunately, on the current edition of the DVD version of music-with-narration (which by some oversight is NOT found on the blu- ray disc*), the sound is nearly 2 seconds ahead of the image, creating an odd effect when the cannon is fired, and when the moon gets smashed in the eyeball.

*These two discs come together in a Limited "Steelbook" edition that costs about $30, and thus you are supplied with BOTH the blu-ray AND the DVD version, with identical contents (except the missing narration on the blu-ray), coded for Region 1 (North America). The high cost is a result of the main attraction on the set: "A Trip to the Moon" IN COLOUR. More about that later…

FLICKER ALLEY (B) is a digital scan of a print of the above print, so the focus is softer, and it is only available on DVD (as opposed to high-definition blu-ray), making the focus softer yet. However, it has been much cleaned, the white speckles are gone, and although there are a lot of light tramlines (vertical black streaks), they are not too annoying. As with ALL versions, splice lines and all larger blemishes have NOT been removed. The image hardly bounces at all. The soundtrack is the Robert Israel music-and-narration, with an option for music-only, and in pretty good sync to the picture.

The STUDIOCANAL (C) print is intriguing. All versions I'm summarizing have the complete film; that is, they include the opening in the Great Hall, and the ending with the dance around the statue (absent in some older versions). However, in this StudioCanal version there are a few seconds missing at the very, very end. On the other hand, it has a few more frames and a dissolve that is missing from the Flicker Alley B&W prints. This print is strikingly clean. In fact the whole second half of the movie is so clear and with such depth that you would swear it was filmed yesterday. The image is completely stabilized so that jitter and weave are simply not an issue. The only disadvantages of this version are (1) it is expensive, and (2) the soundtrack is a just-barely adequate piano score. This print runs faster than all other versions and as noted it has a different number of frames, so you cannot just play the Israel soundtrack while watching this film and expect it to be in sync, although I suppose you could approximate it, if you're happy with that sort of thing.

The newly "restored" colour version, available in the same Steelbook album from Flicker Alley as the (A) B&W version, is a different animal altogether. It is a spectacular release and the restoration, imperfect as it may have to remain, is miraculous and cost over half a million dollars. Thus the high price of the DVD set. It's worth it. I would have paid twice the amount to own this film. It is not meant for the casual purchaser of low-cost DVD's. However, because of some major image problems, restoration notwithstanding, a good black-and-white print remains indispensable. The Flicker Alley (B) print is the simplest way to see this film in a comfortably watchable version. The disadvantage there is that you have to buy the whole 5-dvd set of Melies films. The ADVANTAGE is that… you get the whole 5-dvd set of Melies films(!!), which has given me months and months of pleasure, day after day!

Flicker Alley, or whoever controls these things, would do us all a great favor by taking their high-definition (A) scan of the original nitrate-print, cleaning it up a little, and fully stabilizing the image, setting the Israel soundtrack to it IN SYNC (giving us a music-with-narration and a music-only option), and then distributing it on blu-ray. If additionally they would pay someone (or find a nut like me who would do it for free) to take a couple of evenings to use some movie-editing software to hide the bad splices and cover up the ubiquitous black spots, pieces of crud and splashes of see- through emulsion, which inevitably blemish all vintage films, this would be the ideal version of the movie, notwithstanding the coloured-print…

The Kingdom of the Fairies (1903)

A Ten for its Time, and Still Charms

[10/10 · 17 March 2012]

You cannot rate this by comparing it to a modern movie. That would be like denigrating the intelligence of a dolphin because it doesn't think with a human brain. Given the date of release (1903: that is OH THUREE!!!) it is a wonder that this movie even exists. That is it is available in what appears to be a well-preserved first or second-generation print, almost scratch-free and in dazzling color, is practically miraculous enough to have made Darwin a believer.

The best version of this film that I know of is in the Flicker Alley 5-dvd set, enhanced by Eric Beheim's synthesized but nonetheless completely fitting and well-synchronized musical soundtrack. There is still much that could be done to clean up this print: it is possible to matte over much of the sparkling on the left side of the frame, and blot out almost all of the blobs of crud and scrapes that come and go, eliminate a few flash frames, and of course hide all the splices. There is still a little annoying jitter in the underwater scene, but it's not too bad (and after all it IS "underwater"). If these things are corrected, or if you just use a little imagination to overlook the blemishes, the quality of this film is really staggering (1903!!). It is probably the most beautiful of all the existing Mèliés films (maybe right beside "Inventor Crazybrains and his Wonderful Airship", also in color).

Of course Mèliés uses a number of antiquated stage conventions, such as trap doors and wobbly sliding flats; and for some reason he hired an oddly stolid and frumpy fairy grand-godmother to introduce the apotheosis (itself a creaking stage convention), but this all adds to the fun. (Remember, it is NINETEEN OH THREE!) The story itself is secondary, and it has no particular depth, but it is extremely well put together. And besides, unless we're talking classic literature, story should really be secondary anyway: it's what you DO with the story that matters, and here Mèliés really "pulls out the stops" with fabulous pantomime, running and leaping (most notably from Mèliés himself), exotic costumes, amazing fantastic backdrops and characters (and animals!), cumulative drama with a fantastic climactic fire scene, a well-constructed and engaging narration, and in the case of the Flicker Alley release, a speaker who really charms and amuses with some highly mangled (but still understandable) English, like a dear old granduncle from The Old Country spinning a story for the kids. So far this is the only movie I've ever rated a 10. I wish I could rate the restoration a 10, but 9.5 is pretty good.

The Palace of Arabian Knights (1905)

An Early Color Spectacular

[4/10 · 17 March 2012]

I actually have no problem at all with the slow tempo of this movie. But given all the black-and-white sections needed to complete a print of this film, you do have to use a little imagination to realize what this looked like when it was first released, and how early-cinema audiences must have reacted to it.

The purpose of a lot of Mèliés movies is using the medium of film to show off spectacle. And this film is truly visually spectacular. Even in the 21st century I find myself awed by the fantastic coloring on this film. If you've never seen any of it in the kaleidoscopic colors it was painted, you really need to get the Flicker Alley 5-dvd set of Mèliés films and see this. I was flabbergasted to see the minute detail of sumptuous coloring in the crowd scene at the beginning. One-by-one various incredibly-costumed performers march onto the stage until it is absolutely filled with characters, costumes and color. Unfortunately, only a black and white print today exists of the very first minute or two of this film, after which the color explodes. Some day someone will restore the black-and-white sections and the poor-color sections of this film well enough to justify re-coloring it so we can have a complete print looking the way Mèliés intended.

You will have to use your mind's eye, then, to imagine this movie in pristine form. The multiple fantastic characters (even though they don't do much), the sets and the costumes, the pyrotechnics, the treasures and the overall pageantry give much to look at, and I can easily see how this would have been an audience pleaser back in 1905.

The story mixes together all sorts of Middle Eastern and Eastern, and even European story conventions, into a very amusing hodgepodge (the main character, not Mèliés by the way, is even named "Prince Charming" instead of Aladdin). Mèliés' narration makes complete sense out of the action, so you really need to either read his text first, or see the movie with the narration in the soundtrack (see Flicker Alley).

I admit that this is not the very best Mèliés film (like the action-filled "Trip to the Moon" or "The Impossible Voyage"), but there is always so much to see, so much beautiful hand-made stylized decoration, and so much going on with so many characters in every shot, that I never find myself bored watching a Mèliés spectacular like "The Palace of the Arabian Nights". Robert Israel's excellent music in the Flicker Alley release completes the enjoyment of this movie.

Le roi des Champs-Élysées (1934)

Solid if not Super Keaton

[7/10 · 24 December 2011]

This is good movie. I found a fairly clear copy with English subtitles from A-1 video, image and sound properly in-sync, but image tightly cropped, and it can be seen from reading the subs that the movie has none of the awful joke-dialogue that plague the MGM comedies. The story is well put together and, unusually, I can find nothing I would edit down or cut out. It is not a high-budget affair, but the script does not require it.

The notion that a U.S. release of this film might have revived Buster Keaton's career doesn't make any sense: the general public still loved Keaton in the early 1930s, and his worst movies were very successful; the only way of "reviving" his career would have been for a major studio to hand over full production of movie-making to Buster, and I don't see how this film or any other non-Buster directed movie would have accomplished that. However, if the idea is that "Le Roi…" brought Keaton back to his old self, well, that's debatable, but he does not seem to be fighting for his comic life, either.

Of course, under Keaton's direction, the photography might have been pellucid instead of so much shadowy-gray, and the cinematography probably would have focused more clearly on the gag and story elements. If Buster had been completely in control, no doubt he would have found an even higher level of wit or irony in the story, and greater comedy in the details with probably a few innovative stunts as well; but overall "Le Roi…" remains a successful, if lesser Keaton vehicle. It is a particularly surprising and moving accomplishment to have taken place during the most disastrous time of his life, a time of suffering that would have killed anyone with less inner strength and resilience. This is a movie that deserves restoration and perhaps dubbing (so we can always watch the all-important physical action instead of reading).

Start Cheering (1938)

Slow and predictable, with a dull leading man

[3/10 · 22 November 2011]

I have very little patience for leading men and their love interest, and their songs; and I don't care much for musical numbers by "guest" performers, so much of this movie was a complete bore to me. I'm also not much interested in watching the details spelled out for me in run-of-the-mill stories like this: I prefer watching what the characters DO within a story, not the playing-out of the story itself, and since a lot of time here is spent with the main characters talking out the narrative, my fingers were itching for the fast-forward button. Durante is always fun to watch, but the script is so poor that his jokes mostly fall flat. I agree that he and Walter Connelly have no chemistry, and the justification for Durante even being in the story at all is too contrived to suspend belief. I actually prefer his roles in the late MGM Buster Keaton movies, like "What, No Beer?", where his character is an integral part of the story and his vitality really helps to move along the film. In this movie, the only moments I really enjoyed were Durante's musical number, Hal LeRoy's dance (which I have to admit was spectacular), and the Three Stooges who perform two skits with perfectly timed ensemble work. Basically, the story-laden non-comedic scenes were boring, and most of the Durante comedy was slightly embarrassing and only borderline amusing. Recommendation: don't pay more than $7 to watch it.

Going Wild (1930)

Very funny screwy if not screwball comedy

[8/10 · 19 February 2011]

I'm inclined to agree with the positive reviewers about this film. After reading the most negative review, and then actually watching the film itself, I wonder what some of you expect from a comedy. Certainly, this is not a Marx Brothers film and Joe E. Brown is not Groucho Marx. So what? It is a LIGHT comedy, a screwy comedy, and a character story. What's wrong with that? I can't watch Three Stooges ALL the time! As it is, I agree with those who thought that this is a very funny movie; the exposition in particular had me practically clucking in pleasure at Brown's outrageous characterization.

It does greatly help to see Joe E. movies in first-rate condition on a big screen. I saw the new DVD release from the Warner Brothers Archives, apparently struck right off the original negative or a safety negative, watched it on a 55" flat screen, and it came across very nicely. There are a lot of things to look at in such a pristine print of a film this old and this well made. The actual filmstock was different back then, a little more grainy but very clear, immediately giving the movie that ancient 'vintage' quality, which I find engaging (I associate it with my favorite films of my childhood black-and-white TV viewing). The styles of hair, dress, and architecture are very clear and interesting (the "heart test machine" is particularly quaint). The painted backgrounds are beautiful and perfect, and the rear projection during the rather hair-raising finale is EXCELLENTLY done (as is the rear projection in the train). This is a very high-quality, high-production-value film with loads of extras and great care taken of all the cinematic details.

The flying bed and the unexpectedly bizarre physical exam are two highlights and both are very funny. No wonder there are no consequences for the main characters' charade—they are obviously not the only frauds in this story! AND, for those of us who want to see more of Brown's specialty acts, he DOES get a funny song!

It's not a great film like a Chaplin film, or 'Duck Soup' or a wildly inventive W.C. Fields movie, but it is a COMPLETELY enjoyable Sunday-afternoon film, done up in perfect 1930s style, which I will rate 8 stars out 10. Not a film I'll look at over and over, but definitely a Keeper.

Bright Lights (1935)

A Great Showcase for Joe E. Brown

[9/10 · 10 January 2011]

I love this film. It moves along very briskly—a strong point in its favor; Joe E. Brown is in front of the camera almost continuously, another major point; and most important of all, he does good stuff. Lots of good stuff. Now I've only seen 13 (!) Joe E. Brown Movies, so I don't know what else might be out there, but of those 13 this is by far the best. It is not a belly-laugh hilarious film, but I don't require that of a "comedy". It IS consistently amusing and the movie absolutely showcases Brown's multiple talents. He runs, he jumps, he falls, he tumbles, he swings through the air; he uses his rubbery face; he speaks in funny voices and dialects; he sings; he pantomimes; he dances—and boy does he dance! Twice! Two beautiful eccentric dances. All this in one film. I think nothing else need be said, but try to find a good sharp print with sound that is in-sync with the picture; and if you like gymnastics, pantomimic full-body comedy and crazy dancing, this is your movie. If you don't like those things, maybe you should put on a good Capra classic.

Three's a Crowd (1927)

It Could Still Be Saved

[8/10 · 27 December 2010]

There are really only two problems with Three's A Crowd, and one has nothing to do with the film: (1) the editing is often a problem (this can be fixed), and (2) it needs insightful and properly-synced music (this can also be fixed).

It seems to me that final editing was never actually done on the film. It was re-cut and then quickly released. I maintain that with refined editing to fix the "matching shots" that do not match (ex: the "Husband" gets out of bed twice), to cut down some of the sequences that go on too long (climbing up the rug, preparing the diaper for the rolling pin), and to eliminate some of the unnecessary and repetitious shots (such as of the 'goodbye note', and Gladys at the boxing ring), and cut out the entire Adventures-of-a-Doll sequence (which is damaged beyond repair anyway), an effective film results that flows along seamlessly with one exception—the pigeon. I would NOT cut down the Harry-Langdon-static-shots, which are the essence of Harry Langdon. I would, however, cut some of the unnecessary business that stretch out certain scenes too long (some of waiting-at-the-door-with-the-toys shots, people milling around inside the shack after the baby is born, repetitious business during the diaper scene, pretending to spank the baby, etc.).

After making these editing refinements, if some enterprising film-school Harry Langdon nut could find a Langdon impersonator and film the missing section where Harry sees Gladys at a distance (through his toy telescope), and sends off his pitiful love letter with his pet pigeon (who then just drops down to the window below, where his boss's wife finds it), I swear that would make this a perfect movie.

You might not like the story, but there are a whole lot of depressing films out there that have received awards; and in this case, the ending is NOT so bleak as some insist: there is a strong ray of hope at the end. Gladys tells Harry that she and her husband hope to show their gratitude. When the husband's father sees that his daughter-in-law and grandchild were saved from an icy death by good-hearted Harry, he will surely hire him as a handy man!

This is a beautiful film, engaging and haunting. The cinematography is gorgeous (ex: the horses snorting along in the first snow-fall of the year). All the characters are ultimately sympathetic, and unlike the opinion of 50% of those who have seen this movie, I find Langdon very funny; not only that, but I find his character immediately and constantly mesmerizing. The movie only needs a little refined editing at the least (and an added scene at most), and a sensitive soundtrack that is actually synchronized to the action (unlike the organ track currently on the Kino release of the movie, which is sensitive, but not well-synchronized to the picture).

War Italian Style (1965)

A Solid Finale for Buster

[7/10 · 19 December 2010]

This is a very likable movie, very much UNlike the American sibling "Sergeant Deadhead", which is awful. Although I agree with the opinions of theowinthrop's review, here and there he makes a statement that sounds as if he was watching a different movie. I did not see Keaton figure out how to "fill up the sink by turning on the shower stall"--to the contrary, Keaton never figures out a thing in this scene and simply runs off; I also saw no amphibious jeep-boat in the movie… I suppose theowinthrop saw this film a billion years ago and simply mis-remembers it; and this is too bad because these ideas are really quite good and I regret they are not in the film.

Despite such disappointments, and despite the nagging rumination about what a different movie it would have been if the producer had let Keaton co-write the script, this film has a lot going for it. It moves along fairly briskly (although it could still use a little editing), there are enough visual jokes and action sequences that it doesn't matter if you see it without English subtitles (although it will help if you can find a story breakdown before watching), and having Buster Keaton in it sure doesn't hurt! Although Franco and Ciccio are not really funny, they are fun to watch, and do keep things moving along. I give much credit to the director that Franco & Ciccio, and Keaton are in the film almost continuously, and Keaton seems to have gotten his way with a few gags and the entire washing-his-face routine. And as mentioned by the other reviewer, this movie does have the warmest send-off ever given to an aging comedy icon. The little epilogue is quite funny, too.

The Chaser (1928)

It's All In The Editing

[7/10 · 23 November 2010]

Well, you're all wrong.

The only real trouble with this film is in the editing. Cut down to 45 minutes, it is really a very amusing movie.

There are many, many shots that are repetitive or simply unnecessary; for example, the repeated shots of the women scolding the telephone make the characters ghastly and unbearable, but remove a few of these shots and the characters become less hideous and more laughable. What would really make it work funny would be if each shot of the women were a little faster, if you catch my drift...

A lot of shots are too long and can have a few seconds removed at the beginning or end with no damage to continuity, and a number of intertitles can be deleted with no loss of understanding. The wife crying can be faded out before the jump-cut and the thing with the mascara. The entire sequence of the morning newspaper headlines about Man Commits Suicide, and the ensuing shots of the judge can be removed. Generally, I would NOT shorten shots of Harry doing his schtick (the whole purpose of watching this film is to see Harry do his schtick).

And of course you can just take out the whole bathing-beauty section: when Harry and Bud think they've awakened the dead, they run off in a panic... with the help of a dissolve, they could end up in the car with Harry putting his dress back on (an important visual), and then a wipe could take us from there to Harry hiding in the rumble seat. Every vestige of the stupid and meaningless bathing beauties scene could thus be excised to streamline the film, and the two characters still have plenty of motivation to dash off the golf course.

Once the film is cut down this way, it becomes a very respectable 7 stars out of 10: not bad at all. At this point the only real criticism I would have is that I just wish the story were something a little less domestic and that lent itself more to physical comedy.

The Gold Ghost (1934)

Both Gold and Ghost

[7/10 · 11 July 2010]

Well, maybe Fool's Gold... No it's not "vintage" Keaton, but it's pretty dang good! Educational Pictures gets slammed all the time for being so low-budget, but here is a whole broken-down frontier's town for Buster to play with, complete with ghosts, mobsters, and a dang hell of a lot of extras! It's a quickie-film, as if Buster were trying out sound for the first time to see what he could do, and on a very smallish experimental level I think it works pretty good. Of the entire 16 Educational shorts he made, my vote for best of the bunch is "The Chemist". ("Grand Slam" has been over-rated for years, and doesn't come close, in my opinion.) Buy the set from Kino and check these out for yourself!

Sweet and Hot (1958)

Your Grampa Can Still Dance a Nice Jig

[7/10 · 13 June 2010]

When I was about 9 years old, my folks left me and a friend at the theatre to see some or another kids' movie, and what pops up before the feature but "Hellooo, Hellooo, Hellooo… hello." The Three Stooges(!), singing, and in wide screen!

I was stunned. I'd figured the Stooges had died before my grandfather was born. With this perception in my mind, it seemed no wonder that there was no Curly. In fact, I had the impression I was not really watching a "Three Stooges" movie so much as some kind of playful little teaser with Moe and Larry and another funny guy name Joe. Moe and Larry certainly did not perform their usual roles, and Moe even had his hair slicked back. But that was no problem: he WAS Moe, and he WAS Larry, and the whole affair actually seemed like a logical "update" for these comedians. Like, they are still around but doing different things now..

Larry danced and jumped and moved about so lithely that it seemed impossible he was the same guy in the ancient 1930s movies we watched on TV. But there he was! And doing a wonderful comic dance. Joe, too, did a nice dance, and later Moe did a few steps. (Even later, Joe did a REAL nice tap number, BETTER than Curly, joined by Larry on the violin.)

But when the movie was over, I was disappointed. Not because I missed Curly, nor even because the Moe and Larry did not play The Stooges, but because the Grand Finale somehow never occurred. Logically, there should have been a memorable song-and-dance with Joe, Larry and Moe. And this absence of a musical climax, to this day is my main criticism of this film. (Although if I were using Final Cut on this thing, I'd cut out the entire "childhood-memory" section.)

As it was, I thought then (and still think) that "Sweet and Hot" came across as a cheery little film, with some good dancing and a few moments of modest slapstick. But it was not a good "story" movie, and it was missing that key element of really strong physical comedy we kids loved so much. Rather, this was just a very lively "guest appearance" for Moe and Larry, in a quickie film made to warm up an audience for the feature film, and offered as an amazing surprise to 9 year olds. As such, it succeeded.

Flying Saucer Daffy (1958)

Very Entertaining Non-Stooge Film

[7/10 · 13 June 2010]

Like the Stooge film before this one, "Sweet and Hot", this movie falls into place along with "Cuckoo on a Choo Choo" and "He Cooked His Goose"/"Triple Crossed". If you want a vintage-style 3-Stooges movie, don't watch ANY of these films. They are all something different.

Can you BLAME them for trying SOMETHING different a FEW times out of 190? And at this point, they really were not "The 3 Stooges" any more, and we all knew it. So, give them a break for a little experimenting!

And AS something different, take this as a Joe Besser trifle, with Moe and Larry as supporting actors, and it's a perfectly odd, interesting and entertaining short subject to spring on an audience before the feature film. Joe, Moe and Larry (as opposed to "The 3 Stooges") take on the Cinderella story and do a convincing job of it; and it's about as creepy as you'd ever want. Joe has many risqué lines, his acting is really quite good, and for once the meanness behind Moe and Larry makes good sense. (Did you not ever notice that when Moe is not beating up on Curly, Larry is always happy to do it?) The movie doesn't last long, but it's long enough to tie all the ends together. My only criticism is that I think the ending, starting where Joe gets "mad", could have been more imaginative and, at the very end, a little funnier and cuter.

If you want to see Moe and Larry in something REALLY different, watch this film. If you want to see The Three Stooges, you now have 186 other Stooges shorts at your fingertips, thanks to Sony.

Par où t'es rentré? On t'a pas vu sortir (1984)

Not So Bad

[6/10 · 30 May 2010]

This film is available to watch on Youtube. It's actually better than many of Lewis' other movies, including his comeback film, "Hardly Working", and several of his films with Dean Martin. WAY better than "Don't Lower the Bridge..." or "Slapstick of a Different Kind." I'd say it's about on par with "Way Way Out", except more consistently gag-oriented and lower budget. I really cannot imagine why Lewis wants to withhold distributing this film, given his real Hollywood bombs in the past. The editing is clumsy and it doesn't have the manic impact typical of Lewis' films; he and Frank Tashlin did know best how to focus on a Lewis-character when he was on a roll. On the other hand, I found this film droll and amusing all the way through, without any need to fast-forward. On the other hand...

Love Nest on Wheels (1937)

Charming

[7/10 · 28 March 2010]

I'm inclined to agree with rpmathewson's review. No, it's not a good "Keaton" film, but I found it entirely entertaining. Probably it's greatest weakness is its strength: it's very, very short; therefore, Keaton does not have time to invest it with but a hint of his trademark mechanical and stunt gags, but then neither does it go on long enough to become tiresome. A couple of times I had to laugh, and it IS extremely interesting to see practically the whole Keaton family at one time (where was dad?). With Al St. John in the mix, it is incomprehensible that they didn't put in some acrobatics--I wonder why not? Even so, it's an agreeable enough little short subject, like something Keaton might have done on a TV stage.

Ditto (1937)

Enthrallingly Bizarre

[7/10 · 26 March 2010]

This has got to be one of the weirdest movies made by a traditional filmmaker. The first third is quite funny. The middle third, where Buster is confused by the two girls, is too embarrassing for me to enjoy. BUT THEN, the last third is amazing. Keaton must have written this. I cannot imagine anyone else coming up with anything so surreal, so entertainingly bizarre. You really have got to see it to believe it. And yes, it certainly does whet the imagination to wonder what Keaton might have done with the final shot if Educational had given him the money to do whatever he wanted. It would have to have been something well beyond what I would cook up, since nothing I can think of would work as well as the way they shot it. We REALLY need these Keaton movies restored.

Jail Bait (1937)

Almost Vintage

[8/10 · 21 March 2010]

I think this is an excellent Keaton short, equivalent of "The Chemist" and "The Gold Ghost", the other two Educational Keaton films I like the most (I know, I know, everyone thinks "Grand Slam Opera" is the best but me...). What helps enormously is the crisp and clear picture quality afforded us on the KEATON PLUS DVD put out by Kino in 2001. I have read many complaints about this series of Keaton movies being "poverty row" efforts, and that they have a depressed and defeated look to them. Well, if we could get ALL the Educational films restored this way, the comedy could sparkle a bit more and the movies would feel less grungy. This is a great example.