6/10
Surprising
27 May 2016
Warning: Spoilers
I had expected this film to be a standard, clichéd Hollywood On Hollywood movie and was prepared to dump it if it was as dumb as I expected.

Surprising that it had pretty exceptional entertainment value and a very good cast.

As a period piece set in the late twenties I expected the usual 6os clothes and make-up, but for the most part, the details were pretty good. Minus a couple of bouffants and a couple of women in that cast who appeared to have been teleported from 1959 with their flips. Think Laura Petrie style in Dick Van Dyke.

Poor directing showed in Jayne Mansfield's scenes. One of the key things an actor learns is to communicate his lines clearly so the audience understands what the actor is saying. While it isn't the director's job to teach a professional how to act, for the sake of the film, one would expect that slowing down Jayne's speech and diction would have been a priority.

Jayne Mansfield was a relatively toned down version of herself, but still self absorbed in trying to be sexy rather than delivering a character portrayal. As such, she really sucked at portraying a living breathing human being.Jayne Mansfield playing Jayne Mansfield playing a character named Lana.

Julie London was quite good both as an actress and singer. Her scenes were natural and sincere.

Lots of period music, rather than studio schlock, dancing and an upbeat and clever number by Barbara Nichols that was a standout.

Glad I didn't dump it before I gave it a chance. Lots of fun.Maybe because I didn't expect it to be some sort of serious and definitive biography of George Raft made it the harmless entertainment I found it to be.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed