Search
Grimms' Fairy Tales by Jacob & Wilhelm Grimm
4.5
Rate It
Podcast
Talking animals, wicked stepmothers, valiant tailors, cruel witches! Sixty-two stories that feature...
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated 2012 (2009) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Roland Emmerich does big budget disaster flicks as well as Dairylea does cheese. However, some of his most recent attempts to dominate the box office have been panned by viewers and critics alike, who say that he has become too reliant on special effects.
Unfortunately, those critics better look away now, as his new film is the biggest yet.
2012 takes place, well, in 2012 for the most part and features an array of big Hollywood names attracted none the less by the huge box office forecasts for the film. The premise is simple; here comes the end of the world and god should we run!
With a reported budget of over $200m which is more than Michael Bay spent on his worldwide smash Transformers: Revenge of the fallen, Emmerich was certainly able to splash out on some eye popping CGI.
2012 reads like The Day After Tomorrow on a steroid, which is no bad thing, but that film had some hideously underdeveloped characters and lacked the depth needed to allow viewers to share compassion for the people who had been affected by the global crisis.
Thankfully it seems that Emmerich has learnt his lesson here and has provided us with a back-story and it comes in many different forms. Thandie Newton and Danny Glover play president’s daughter and president respectively, a great deal of emotion has gone into writing these two characters and their on-screen scenes together, albeit a small amount, are wonderful.
John Cusack and Amanda Peet play divorced parents Jackson and Kate, only united by the love they share for their two young children and predictably later on in the film, a few deeper emotions. Unfortunately these two share no chemistry together and their on-screen scenes are flawed as a result.
2012 doesn’t have a huge deal of character development but it does improve on what was seen in The Day After Tomorrow and more recently, 10,000BC, with a deeper understanding of the characters. It ultimately succeeds in making the viewers share compassion for even the heartless characters in the film.
Moving on to the saving grace of all disaster films; the special effects, fans of major cities being destroyed are going to be pleased here with some eye-watering action pieces really showing why perhaps Emmerich overshadows even Michael Bay and has become the king of destroying anything that can be destroyed. There are a few questionable scenes, which look rather less than realistic, but this is a small point that doesn’t need to be taken into account.
Whilst all this may seem excellent, it all feels familiar, it’s all been seen and done before, so in reality 2012 adds nothing new to the genre which is unfortunate because it really is an excellent film.
Overall, 2012 is a mouth-watering treat in cinema engineering, apart from some lapses in scientific accuracy and some shaky special effects; it surpasses The Day After Tomorrow and similar disaster films by sheer depth. On the downside it adds nothing new to the formula, but if you want sheer popcorn fodder then please, look no further.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2010/10/18/2012-2009/
Unfortunately, those critics better look away now, as his new film is the biggest yet.
2012 takes place, well, in 2012 for the most part and features an array of big Hollywood names attracted none the less by the huge box office forecasts for the film. The premise is simple; here comes the end of the world and god should we run!
With a reported budget of over $200m which is more than Michael Bay spent on his worldwide smash Transformers: Revenge of the fallen, Emmerich was certainly able to splash out on some eye popping CGI.
2012 reads like The Day After Tomorrow on a steroid, which is no bad thing, but that film had some hideously underdeveloped characters and lacked the depth needed to allow viewers to share compassion for the people who had been affected by the global crisis.
Thankfully it seems that Emmerich has learnt his lesson here and has provided us with a back-story and it comes in many different forms. Thandie Newton and Danny Glover play president’s daughter and president respectively, a great deal of emotion has gone into writing these two characters and their on-screen scenes together, albeit a small amount, are wonderful.
John Cusack and Amanda Peet play divorced parents Jackson and Kate, only united by the love they share for their two young children and predictably later on in the film, a few deeper emotions. Unfortunately these two share no chemistry together and their on-screen scenes are flawed as a result.
2012 doesn’t have a huge deal of character development but it does improve on what was seen in The Day After Tomorrow and more recently, 10,000BC, with a deeper understanding of the characters. It ultimately succeeds in making the viewers share compassion for even the heartless characters in the film.
Moving on to the saving grace of all disaster films; the special effects, fans of major cities being destroyed are going to be pleased here with some eye-watering action pieces really showing why perhaps Emmerich overshadows even Michael Bay and has become the king of destroying anything that can be destroyed. There are a few questionable scenes, which look rather less than realistic, but this is a small point that doesn’t need to be taken into account.
Whilst all this may seem excellent, it all feels familiar, it’s all been seen and done before, so in reality 2012 adds nothing new to the genre which is unfortunate because it really is an excellent film.
Overall, 2012 is a mouth-watering treat in cinema engineering, apart from some lapses in scientific accuracy and some shaky special effects; it surpasses The Day After Tomorrow and similar disaster films by sheer depth. On the downside it adds nothing new to the formula, but if you want sheer popcorn fodder then please, look no further.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2010/10/18/2012-2009/
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Godzilla (2014) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Adapting a cultural film icon that is held sacred by a nation and legions of fans is a daunting task. Roland Emerich attempted to do so, and created a film widely panned that ended his run of blockbuster hits.
Gareth Edwards is the latest director bold enough to bring the legendary Godzilla to the screen and has done so with cutting edge visual effects and 3D.
When Joe Brody (Bryan Cranston), becomes unsettled about some unusual tremors around the Japanese nuclear plant he works at, little does he know that the pending accident and tragedy will have long-term consequences.
Flash forward 15 years and his son Ford (Aaron Taylor Johnson), is an ordinance disposal expert in the military who is returning to his San Francisco home after a deployment to see his wife and young son.
No sooner does Ford get home than he is summed to Japan to retrieve his father who has been arrested for venturing into a restricted area located by his former residence and place of work.
Joe is convinced that a massive cover up is place behind the disaster that left him a widow and turned his life upside down.
When the mysterious tremors return, Joe is vindicated and learns that a massive threat is responsible for what has previously transpired, but this is nothing compared to the damage that is unleashed when the creature escapes.
In a race against time, Ford, the Navy, and a team of scientists attempt to prevent massive destruction and loss of life from an enemy they are not prepared for and do not understand.
While the film does have some great visuals, it unfolds in a very plodding manner and the action sequences are few and far between until the end and even that is for the most part anti-climatic.
The dialogue in the film is filled with groans and unintentionally laughable moments that really make it difficult for the characters to really connect with one another and the audience and as such it is very hard to really care what happens to them.
Another big surprise was how little screen time the title characters actually appears in the film. I spent much of the film wondering how such a larger than life character could be reduced to a supporting part in a film that bears his name.
It has been reported that Japanese audiences have not been thrilled with the new film stating that the creature looked “fat “and “slow”. I would not go that far as from a visually standpoint, the film obtained nothing but high marks from me.
However, I had to ask if we really needed to have this film made. We have had so many giant creature movies in recent years including “King Kong”, “Colverfield”, and “Pacific Rim”; one has to wonder what new material there is to show an audience.
While it is not as bad as I expected, it is pretty much a guilty pleasure that you can enjoy in parts and then quickly forget as this film is not likely to enhance the legendary status of Godzilla.
http://sknr.net/2014/05/14/godzilla/
Gareth Edwards is the latest director bold enough to bring the legendary Godzilla to the screen and has done so with cutting edge visual effects and 3D.
When Joe Brody (Bryan Cranston), becomes unsettled about some unusual tremors around the Japanese nuclear plant he works at, little does he know that the pending accident and tragedy will have long-term consequences.
Flash forward 15 years and his son Ford (Aaron Taylor Johnson), is an ordinance disposal expert in the military who is returning to his San Francisco home after a deployment to see his wife and young son.
No sooner does Ford get home than he is summed to Japan to retrieve his father who has been arrested for venturing into a restricted area located by his former residence and place of work.
Joe is convinced that a massive cover up is place behind the disaster that left him a widow and turned his life upside down.
When the mysterious tremors return, Joe is vindicated and learns that a massive threat is responsible for what has previously transpired, but this is nothing compared to the damage that is unleashed when the creature escapes.
In a race against time, Ford, the Navy, and a team of scientists attempt to prevent massive destruction and loss of life from an enemy they are not prepared for and do not understand.
While the film does have some great visuals, it unfolds in a very plodding manner and the action sequences are few and far between until the end and even that is for the most part anti-climatic.
The dialogue in the film is filled with groans and unintentionally laughable moments that really make it difficult for the characters to really connect with one another and the audience and as such it is very hard to really care what happens to them.
Another big surprise was how little screen time the title characters actually appears in the film. I spent much of the film wondering how such a larger than life character could be reduced to a supporting part in a film that bears his name.
It has been reported that Japanese audiences have not been thrilled with the new film stating that the creature looked “fat “and “slow”. I would not go that far as from a visually standpoint, the film obtained nothing but high marks from me.
However, I had to ask if we really needed to have this film made. We have had so many giant creature movies in recent years including “King Kong”, “Colverfield”, and “Pacific Rim”; one has to wonder what new material there is to show an audience.
While it is not as bad as I expected, it is pretty much a guilty pleasure that you can enjoy in parts and then quickly forget as this film is not likely to enhance the legendary status of Godzilla.
http://sknr.net/2014/05/14/godzilla/
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated House of Madness in Books
Mar 1, 2019
Good Pacing (1 more)
Interesting Characters
An Okay Ghost Story
I love love love paranormal thrillers! Ghost stories are my favorite, so when House of Madness by Sara Harris was up for review, I jumped at the chance. However, House of Madness was just an okay story. It wasn't brilliant, but it wasn't bad either.
The plot for House of Madness has been done before, but it was interesting to see how Sara Harris changed it up a bit. Adelaide (Addie), her husband Tim, and their daughter, Michaela, who's on the Autistic spectrum move to a great big house out in West Texas. Addie is an aspiring writer and had suffered a miscarriage previously. This new house, that they bought on the cheap, is their chance for a fresh start. However, it isn't long until weird things start happening and Michaela seems to have made a ghostly friend. The house previously belonged to a couple of doctors, and it also comes with a horrific past. There were times the plot seemed a bit far-fetched, but for the most part, I found the story to be enjoyable and entertaining. There were no cliff hangers in House of Madness, although I was left with one or two questions about the ending which I won't go into because to do so would mean spoilers. There were a couple of plot twists. I was able to easily predict one.
I felt some of the prose was a bit wacky sounding. One sentence in the book that sounded a bit strange was "His voice trailed off and mixed with a hot swirl of West Texas air." Maybe it's just me, but it didn't sound right. Another weird sounding sentence I found was "The closet door fell open with a creak." I imagined the door actually falling. Surely, it would have been better to write "The closet door opened with a creak"? Maybe I'm just being too pedantic. There were times when I felt like I was reading a young adult novel rather than a book aimed at adults. Saying all of that, I still did find the book to be a decent read.
I enjoyed the characters in House of Madness. They all felt realistic. Michaela and Addie seemed to be the main characters, and I enjoyed reading about them. I loved how sweet Michaela came across, and I loved how brave Addie could be. I enjoyed the little ghost girl named Lisette. I was always wondering if she'd turn out to double cross Michaela though. The ghost of Ritchie was definitely an interesting character. He was another one that made me question whether or not he would turn out bad or good. I always trusted Rochelle for some reason. The doctors, Marjorie and Roland Darkland, were also well written although they must have been very fit for an older couple considering they were probably supposed to be in their early 80s at the very least. (For the record, I'm assuming that House of Madness takes place in modern day. It's never actually mentioned what year it is.)
House of Madness is a short read, and the pacing made it feel even shorter. I thought that Sara Harris did an excellent job with the pacing. I found myself not wanting to stop reading at all. I had to know what happened next concerning the ghosts as well as the living characters.
Trigger warnings for House of Madness include violence, murder, attempted murder, mental illnesses, and talk of a miscarriage.
Overall, House of Madness was an alright read. Yes, the writing was a little shaky at times, but it's still worth reading for those who enjoy ghost stories. The characters were great, and the pacing was fantastic. I would recommend House of Madness by Sara Harris to those aged 15+ who like a short ghost story.
--
(A special thank you to Silver Dagger Book Tours for providing me with an eBook of House of Madness by Sara Harris in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
The plot for House of Madness has been done before, but it was interesting to see how Sara Harris changed it up a bit. Adelaide (Addie), her husband Tim, and their daughter, Michaela, who's on the Autistic spectrum move to a great big house out in West Texas. Addie is an aspiring writer and had suffered a miscarriage previously. This new house, that they bought on the cheap, is their chance for a fresh start. However, it isn't long until weird things start happening and Michaela seems to have made a ghostly friend. The house previously belonged to a couple of doctors, and it also comes with a horrific past. There were times the plot seemed a bit far-fetched, but for the most part, I found the story to be enjoyable and entertaining. There were no cliff hangers in House of Madness, although I was left with one or two questions about the ending which I won't go into because to do so would mean spoilers. There were a couple of plot twists. I was able to easily predict one.
I felt some of the prose was a bit wacky sounding. One sentence in the book that sounded a bit strange was "His voice trailed off and mixed with a hot swirl of West Texas air." Maybe it's just me, but it didn't sound right. Another weird sounding sentence I found was "The closet door fell open with a creak." I imagined the door actually falling. Surely, it would have been better to write "The closet door opened with a creak"? Maybe I'm just being too pedantic. There were times when I felt like I was reading a young adult novel rather than a book aimed at adults. Saying all of that, I still did find the book to be a decent read.
I enjoyed the characters in House of Madness. They all felt realistic. Michaela and Addie seemed to be the main characters, and I enjoyed reading about them. I loved how sweet Michaela came across, and I loved how brave Addie could be. I enjoyed the little ghost girl named Lisette. I was always wondering if she'd turn out to double cross Michaela though. The ghost of Ritchie was definitely an interesting character. He was another one that made me question whether or not he would turn out bad or good. I always trusted Rochelle for some reason. The doctors, Marjorie and Roland Darkland, were also well written although they must have been very fit for an older couple considering they were probably supposed to be in their early 80s at the very least. (For the record, I'm assuming that House of Madness takes place in modern day. It's never actually mentioned what year it is.)
House of Madness is a short read, and the pacing made it feel even shorter. I thought that Sara Harris did an excellent job with the pacing. I found myself not wanting to stop reading at all. I had to know what happened next concerning the ghosts as well as the living characters.
Trigger warnings for House of Madness include violence, murder, attempted murder, mental illnesses, and talk of a miscarriage.
Overall, House of Madness was an alright read. Yes, the writing was a little shaky at times, but it's still worth reading for those who enjoy ghost stories. The characters were great, and the pacing was fantastic. I would recommend House of Madness by Sara Harris to those aged 15+ who like a short ghost story.
--
(A special thank you to Silver Dagger Book Tours for providing me with an eBook of House of Madness by Sara Harris in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Skyscraper (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
As sponsored by Duck Tape.
I have a fundamental problem with this film. And it’s not that it’s an irrevocably cheesy and derivative action movie, since you could automatically assume that by watching the ridiculously over-the-top trailer. But more on that later.
Dwayne Johnson plays Will Sawyer, a security expert left one-legged after a disastrous FBI operation 10 years previously. Now Will has moved with his wife Sarah (Neve Campbell, “Scream”, “House of Cards”) and two young kids into “The Pearl” in Hong Kong, the tallest building – by several Shards – in the world, designed and constructed by tech billionaire Zhao Long Ji (Chin Han, “Independence Day: Resurgence“). As the first residents, the family live in isolated splendour on a high floor. But in true “Die Hard” fashion, baddies, led by a the unconvincingly evil “Scandinavian” Kores Botha (Roland Møller, “The Commuter“), are intent on controlling and then destroying the high-rise. As fire races up towards his family, Will has to use all his physical capabilities to re-enter the building and save his family.
Now, there are implausible leaps in films and then there are IMPLAUSIBLE leaps!
As a story it’s well-crafted but completely bonkers. There are more ludicrous plot holes than muscles on Johnson’s well-crafted body. Why exactly does Botha needs to implement such a ridiculously convoluted plot to secure his goal? Why wasn’t the lift drop delayed by two minutes? Why don’t critical access controls have two-factor authentication? And – most perplexing of all – why don’t the “heaven cameras” show the building below?!!
Big, bigger, biggest!
Both “Die Hard” and “The Towering Inferno”, of which this is an unsubtle blend, could both be similarly accused of lacking credibility but were fun rides. This is not in the same league as either, but has its moments of vertiginous excitement. Johnson is suitably energetic in the muscular lead but lacks acting nuance. I was trying to analyse why this is, and I came down to his eyeballs! In conversation with Campbell, his eyes dart from left to right and back again, as if an army of ants are running over her face. He needs to take lessons on fixed stares from Michael Caine!
Duck tape! Anyone knows if you put two bits together you never get them apart again!
As the title of this review implies, Duck Tape also plays a key role: not for Johnson the fancy blue light/red light gloves of Tom Cruise! It also derives one of the best of a series of quotable lines from the film: “If it can’t be fixed with Duck Tape, you’re not using enough Duck Tape!”.
Neve Campbell is actually the best actor in the film, proving to be suitably kick-ass in her own right. It’s a shame she’s been rather tagged as ‘the screaming girl from “Scream”… no, not Barrymore, the other one’: she deserves more feature film opportunities like this one.
The best acting in the movie from Neve Campbell, here with a Noah Cottrell and a supremely confident performance by McKenna Roberts.
Rawson Marshall Thurber (“Central Intelligence“, “Dodgeball”) keeps the action to a tight 102 minutes, but needs to keep more control over his Hong Kong extras: there is far too much ‘twenty-second-pointing’ and over exuberant jumping up and down going on that draws the attention away from the principals. This is particularly the case in the Die-Hard rip-off of an ending (“HOOOLLLLLLYYYYYY!!!”).
As a popcorn piece of escapist nonsense, it’s serviceable and delivers as a B-grade movie… it’s not good enough to be a “Die Hard” classic, and not bad enough to be a “so bad it’s good” disaster like “Into the Storm“.
Taiwanese actress Hannah Quinlivan as Xia, the ruthless hit-girl.
You’ll note that I haven’t rubbished the film per se. So why then do I hold a negative view of the flick, and indeed somewhat regret going to see it?
One word – – Grenfell.
I knew the plot on going in, but didn’t equate just how damaging the mental effects of that dreadful night of 14th June 2017 were on my soul. Traumatic incendiary scenes together with some insensitive dialogue (“We’re going to turn that tower into a chimney”) broke through the wall of “entertainment” and left just a sick feeling in my stomach. And my wife had exactly the same feelings as we debriefed afterwards. This is a film that might have benefited from sitting on the shelf for a couple of years before release.
If you can separate in your mind the movie story from the shocking reality of one of life’s most unpleasant recent twists, then good for you: go and enjoy the movie. But I wasn’t so lucky so on a purely personal basis this is one occasion when I will give a film two ratings.
Dwayne Johnson plays Will Sawyer, a security expert left one-legged after a disastrous FBI operation 10 years previously. Now Will has moved with his wife Sarah (Neve Campbell, “Scream”, “House of Cards”) and two young kids into “The Pearl” in Hong Kong, the tallest building – by several Shards – in the world, designed and constructed by tech billionaire Zhao Long Ji (Chin Han, “Independence Day: Resurgence“). As the first residents, the family live in isolated splendour on a high floor. But in true “Die Hard” fashion, baddies, led by a the unconvincingly evil “Scandinavian” Kores Botha (Roland Møller, “The Commuter“), are intent on controlling and then destroying the high-rise. As fire races up towards his family, Will has to use all his physical capabilities to re-enter the building and save his family.
Now, there are implausible leaps in films and then there are IMPLAUSIBLE leaps!
As a story it’s well-crafted but completely bonkers. There are more ludicrous plot holes than muscles on Johnson’s well-crafted body. Why exactly does Botha needs to implement such a ridiculously convoluted plot to secure his goal? Why wasn’t the lift drop delayed by two minutes? Why don’t critical access controls have two-factor authentication? And – most perplexing of all – why don’t the “heaven cameras” show the building below?!!
Big, bigger, biggest!
Both “Die Hard” and “The Towering Inferno”, of which this is an unsubtle blend, could both be similarly accused of lacking credibility but were fun rides. This is not in the same league as either, but has its moments of vertiginous excitement. Johnson is suitably energetic in the muscular lead but lacks acting nuance. I was trying to analyse why this is, and I came down to his eyeballs! In conversation with Campbell, his eyes dart from left to right and back again, as if an army of ants are running over her face. He needs to take lessons on fixed stares from Michael Caine!
Duck tape! Anyone knows if you put two bits together you never get them apart again!
As the title of this review implies, Duck Tape also plays a key role: not for Johnson the fancy blue light/red light gloves of Tom Cruise! It also derives one of the best of a series of quotable lines from the film: “If it can’t be fixed with Duck Tape, you’re not using enough Duck Tape!”.
Neve Campbell is actually the best actor in the film, proving to be suitably kick-ass in her own right. It’s a shame she’s been rather tagged as ‘the screaming girl from “Scream”… no, not Barrymore, the other one’: she deserves more feature film opportunities like this one.
The best acting in the movie from Neve Campbell, here with a Noah Cottrell and a supremely confident performance by McKenna Roberts.
Rawson Marshall Thurber (“Central Intelligence“, “Dodgeball”) keeps the action to a tight 102 minutes, but needs to keep more control over his Hong Kong extras: there is far too much ‘twenty-second-pointing’ and over exuberant jumping up and down going on that draws the attention away from the principals. This is particularly the case in the Die-Hard rip-off of an ending (“HOOOLLLLLLYYYYYY!!!”).
As a popcorn piece of escapist nonsense, it’s serviceable and delivers as a B-grade movie… it’s not good enough to be a “Die Hard” classic, and not bad enough to be a “so bad it’s good” disaster like “Into the Storm“.
Taiwanese actress Hannah Quinlivan as Xia, the ruthless hit-girl.
You’ll note that I haven’t rubbished the film per se. So why then do I hold a negative view of the flick, and indeed somewhat regret going to see it?
One word – – Grenfell.
I knew the plot on going in, but didn’t equate just how damaging the mental effects of that dreadful night of 14th June 2017 were on my soul. Traumatic incendiary scenes together with some insensitive dialogue (“We’re going to turn that tower into a chimney”) broke through the wall of “entertainment” and left just a sick feeling in my stomach. And my wife had exactly the same feelings as we debriefed afterwards. This is a film that might have benefited from sitting on the shelf for a couple of years before release.
If you can separate in your mind the movie story from the shocking reality of one of life’s most unpleasant recent twists, then good for you: go and enjoy the movie. But I wasn’t so lucky so on a purely personal basis this is one occasion when I will give a film two ratings.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Philadelphia Story (1940) in Movies
Sep 14, 2019
It's as good (maybe better) than you've heard
We all know of movies that you hear are considered a "classic", but you've never seen, and the few clips of the film you've seen does not, exactly, motivate you to check out the entire film. THE PHILADELPHIA STORY was one such film for me. This 1940 George Cukor production is lauded for it's dialogue, direction and the stellar performances of the cast - particularly the 3 leads, Katherine Hepburn, Cary Grant and Jimmy Stewart.
Recently, I attended our monthly "Secret Movie Night" where we pack the Willow Creek Movie Theater on the 2nd Thursday of every month and get treated to a "Classic" Film (made before 1970) or a "New Classic" (made after 1970), but we don't know what the film is until it starts playing on the screen.
So...imagine how much my eyes rolled back into my head when I saw that this month's film was the aforementioned THE PHILADELPHIA STORY. I sighed to myself and said "all right, time to endure this one all the way through."
And...I couldn't have been more wrong. Almost from the start the script, pacing and witty dialogue of this Broadway-Play-Turned-Movie swept me away. Most certainly aided by the fact that 3 of the best movie stars of all time - at the peak of their abilities - were letting this wonderful dialogue roll off their tongues. This film is a "classic" in every sense of the word.
The plot is...inconsequential. Basically...Philadelphia socialite Tracy Lord (Hepburn) is getting remarried. Her ex-husband (Cary Grant) enlists the aid of a Journalist (Jimmy Stewart) to create havoc at the wedding.
But...this is a film where the journey, not the destination, is the fun of the flick. The 3 leads banter back and forth with each other, arming and disarming (and charming) one another with their quick wit and biting criticism. The Broadway Stage play was written, specifically, for Hepburn and she exceeds in this role. Here is a newsflash - KATHERINE HEPBURN IS A VERY GOOD ACTRESS - and I think this is the very best performance of the very best actress of all time (with apologies to Meryl Streep). She was nominated (but did not win) the Oscar for Best Actress for her performance (losing to a very deserving Ginger Rogers in KITTY FOYLE, I would have voted for Hepburn, but gotta give Rogers her due, she is very good as the titular KITTY FOYLE).
Stepping up to the plate - and matching Hepburn blow for blow - is, surprisingly, Stewart. I didn't really know the story of this film, so I was surprised where Stewart's character-arc went, especially in relation to his relationship with Hepburn. Stewart lost the Oscar in 1939 for his bravura performance in MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (inexplicably losing to Robert Donat in GOODBYE MR. CHIPS), so the Academy made up for it's mistake by awarding Stewart the Oscar for Best Actor of 1940. This most certainly was a worthy Oscar-winning performance, but (if I"m going to be honest), pales in comparison to his work in MR. SMITH...
Looming over these two (and Tracy's impeding marriage to another person) is Cary Grant as Tracy's ex-husband, C.K. Dexter Haven. While Grant's role is the least showy of the 3, he commands the screen just with his presence whenever he shows up and strengthens this triangle with his strength of character.
The supporting cast is just as strong - Ruth Hussy (Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress) as a photographer, Roland Young (as the lecherous Uncle Willy) and, especially, 13 year old Virginia Weidler who is spunky, fun and smart as Tracy's kid sister. The only performer relegated to the back of the scenery is the bland John Howard as George Kittredge (the man Tracy is slated to marry). With Grant and Stewart on the scene, you know that Kittredge has no shot at getting Tracy Lord to the altar (or does he?).
All of these fine actors and the wonderful dialogue were put into the hands of the great Director George Cukor - who had 1 of his 5 Best Director Oscar Nominations for this film (he will win for MY FAIR LADY in 1964). He handles this film with skilled hands letting the actors (and the dialogue) "do their thing" without letting any of them overstay their welcome. It is a masterful job of directing and with strong actors (and off-screen personalities) like Hepburn, Grant and Stewart, he had his hands full.
Sure...it's a 1940's movie, so some of the "social situations" (mostly male/female dynamics) do not age particularly well, but Hepburn was a strong personality - certainly well ahead of the game in terms of equality of strength of the sexes, so these dynamics do not jump at us as strongly as it might have been in a lesser actress's hands.
If you haven't seen this film in sometime (or if you haven't seen it at all) - check out THE PHILADELPHIA STORY - you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Recently, I attended our monthly "Secret Movie Night" where we pack the Willow Creek Movie Theater on the 2nd Thursday of every month and get treated to a "Classic" Film (made before 1970) or a "New Classic" (made after 1970), but we don't know what the film is until it starts playing on the screen.
So...imagine how much my eyes rolled back into my head when I saw that this month's film was the aforementioned THE PHILADELPHIA STORY. I sighed to myself and said "all right, time to endure this one all the way through."
And...I couldn't have been more wrong. Almost from the start the script, pacing and witty dialogue of this Broadway-Play-Turned-Movie swept me away. Most certainly aided by the fact that 3 of the best movie stars of all time - at the peak of their abilities - were letting this wonderful dialogue roll off their tongues. This film is a "classic" in every sense of the word.
The plot is...inconsequential. Basically...Philadelphia socialite Tracy Lord (Hepburn) is getting remarried. Her ex-husband (Cary Grant) enlists the aid of a Journalist (Jimmy Stewart) to create havoc at the wedding.
But...this is a film where the journey, not the destination, is the fun of the flick. The 3 leads banter back and forth with each other, arming and disarming (and charming) one another with their quick wit and biting criticism. The Broadway Stage play was written, specifically, for Hepburn and she exceeds in this role. Here is a newsflash - KATHERINE HEPBURN IS A VERY GOOD ACTRESS - and I think this is the very best performance of the very best actress of all time (with apologies to Meryl Streep). She was nominated (but did not win) the Oscar for Best Actress for her performance (losing to a very deserving Ginger Rogers in KITTY FOYLE, I would have voted for Hepburn, but gotta give Rogers her due, she is very good as the titular KITTY FOYLE).
Stepping up to the plate - and matching Hepburn blow for blow - is, surprisingly, Stewart. I didn't really know the story of this film, so I was surprised where Stewart's character-arc went, especially in relation to his relationship with Hepburn. Stewart lost the Oscar in 1939 for his bravura performance in MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (inexplicably losing to Robert Donat in GOODBYE MR. CHIPS), so the Academy made up for it's mistake by awarding Stewart the Oscar for Best Actor of 1940. This most certainly was a worthy Oscar-winning performance, but (if I"m going to be honest), pales in comparison to his work in MR. SMITH...
Looming over these two (and Tracy's impeding marriage to another person) is Cary Grant as Tracy's ex-husband, C.K. Dexter Haven. While Grant's role is the least showy of the 3, he commands the screen just with his presence whenever he shows up and strengthens this triangle with his strength of character.
The supporting cast is just as strong - Ruth Hussy (Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress) as a photographer, Roland Young (as the lecherous Uncle Willy) and, especially, 13 year old Virginia Weidler who is spunky, fun and smart as Tracy's kid sister. The only performer relegated to the back of the scenery is the bland John Howard as George Kittredge (the man Tracy is slated to marry). With Grant and Stewart on the scene, you know that Kittredge has no shot at getting Tracy Lord to the altar (or does he?).
All of these fine actors and the wonderful dialogue were put into the hands of the great Director George Cukor - who had 1 of his 5 Best Director Oscar Nominations for this film (he will win for MY FAIR LADY in 1964). He handles this film with skilled hands letting the actors (and the dialogue) "do their thing" without letting any of them overstay their welcome. It is a masterful job of directing and with strong actors (and off-screen personalities) like Hepburn, Grant and Stewart, he had his hands full.
Sure...it's a 1940's movie, so some of the "social situations" (mostly male/female dynamics) do not age particularly well, but Hepburn was a strong personality - certainly well ahead of the game in terms of equality of strength of the sexes, so these dynamics do not jump at us as strongly as it might have been in a lesser actress's hands.
If you haven't seen this film in sometime (or if you haven't seen it at all) - check out THE PHILADELPHIA STORY - you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)