Why did the writers of the movie feel it was necessary to go to Canada? Did audiences of the time accept the oddly dressed workers as Canadians? They were, of course, Germans acting in a movie from 1934.
As I write this in 2018, I wonder if other new viewers had the same thought as me -- they are going 1700 feet underground along the coast of Nova Scotia? My God -- it's Oak Island!!
It may have been made in 1963, but it hearkens back to good old 1950s alien sci-fi movies. Yes, it's low budget and the robotic device on Mars looks a bit silly by 21st century standards. But the main filming location, the mansion, is quite impressive. The acting by the two or three main characters is excellent, as is the dialog. The basic plot is refreshingly original, and almost -- dare I say it -- believable.
Don't be fooled by the overall rating of 4.8. This is really worth watching.
I won't summarize the plot, as others have done so. However, I do think it extremely unlikely that a shot from a 38 caliber pistol would be effective over the long distance demonstrated by the scene where Della waves from the hilltop. It's not clear how Mrs. Grainger's gun got involved in the crime. Also, not to reveal any spoilers, but the accomplices at the end seemed a rather unlikely pair.
There are holes in the plot. The clock is introduced very late, unlike in the book. It's not explained how Perry found the clock. It's not explained why Beaton didn't discover what was going on.
Read the book!
About half of the program, including the murder and arrest, occurs on board a cruise ship that Perry and Della happen to be taking as well as those directly involved in the plot. The acting and staging are well done; good "production values." The plot hangs together very well upon reflection, at least when you consider that sixty years ago security on board cruise ships was not like it is today. I was impressed that they simulated the rolling of the ship during the storm, a nice touch.
I love these early years of the long running TV series, in which Perry and Della -- and even Hamilton Burger -- look quite young. I didn't like the last few minutes, where the court room confessions are not realistic.
It's very believable. As always, Diana is gorgeous -- I for one find her far more attractive than Hazel was. James says at one point that he regrets choosing Hazel over Diana. I think back then (about ten years earlier) James saw Diana as a bit scary and Hazel as safe. Now, their brief fling creates problems with Richard, and Bunny too when he finds out.
I won't reveal here how it turns out. But the whole episode provides a revealing look at James's character and what's become of his life postwar. Highly recommended.
With a bit of a lull in late summer 2015, with Mad Men over and a few months to go for Downton to start again (here in the US), my wife and I decided to watch all of Upstairs, Downstairs again. Ten years ago we watched the entire opus, and I wrote then on a review here that the series is the finest thing that's ever been on television. A bold statement. What about now, after so many good series, what would we think?
You can tell that the actors and writers were feeling their way, getting settled in during the first couple shows. The episode previous to this was very good.
Then this one. I vaguely remembered the main plot element, an affair of Marjorie's, but that's all.
Wow. Absolutely superb. It adds to the enjoyment that I'm a fan of Keats and the opera scene that is the backdrop near the end. Profoundly deep, so very real. A pure 10. Not to be missed.
In general, I love movies from the 1930s, but this one was disappointing. When my daughter was growing up, I read to her every night, and often read a Nancy Drew mystery. It would usually take at least a week to finish one. They were quite good juvenile fiction, intriguing and suspenseful.
This movie has a totally different feel and tone. It is basically a comedy with a mystery subplot. Most of the characters are just silly compared to those in the books, especially Nancy, "Ted" (what's wrong with "Ned"?), and the police chief.
It got better once the staircase was discovered, and the last ten minutes or so was clever and entertaining. But still, I would much rather have a story faithful to the novels.
This episode was evidently to be the last one. Foyle has finally retired and is preparing to go to America, when he takes a deep interest in the trial of a traitor named James Devereaux recently returned from Germany. Coincidently (?) a young woman is murdered in the nearby town of Brighton. She was renting a room in a house owned by someone who spent many years working for James Devereaux's father, a very wealthy and important man. Hmm.
I guessed the reason for the strange intense interest Foyle had in Devereaux; that was a very nice touch. The plot reminds me very much of many of those written by the great mystery writer Ross Macdonald. As in his stories, the present day evil stems largely from an act committed a generation ago.
I like many other parts of the story, including the side plot with Sam, but couldn't help noticing some plot holes.
** spoilers below ***
- Mrs. Ramsay has been renting a room to Agnes for some months, and recognizes the picture frame when Milner shows it to her. Yet she had not recognized in those months the face of someone she knew well -- James Devereaux.
- Jack Stanford is a fake, yet he essentially "rejoins" MI5 when he gets back to England, and no one there recognizes that he is a fake. Really?
- I find it just unbelievable that James would commit suicide and betray himself by not explaining his actions. That he was doing this to punish his father just doesn't make sense.
- What's with that sudden explosion in the house/hotel that Wainwright owned? Talk about a deus ex machina. Don't have to worry about selling or fixing up the place now!
As are most of the early Perry Mason TV episodes, this one was based on a book by the same name. Unusually, the TV episode is much better than the book, which is too complicated and has people doing extremely unlikely things.
In the interest of time if nothing else, a number of the features of the book had to be removed or changed. Here, only one check for $2500 is delivered to Mason's office (not two) to start the story. Here, the stepdaughter is younger and more innocent than she is in the book. Here, the client (Mrs. Allred) is more willing to talk to Mason and is more straight forward.
But the essential features are the same: Allred's right-hand-man, Fleetwood, feigns amnesia after a blow to the head because he knows too much about a crooked deal. Allred wants to tightly control him, maybe kill him, at least keep him from his partner (who does not appear at all in the TV episode). Allred, his wife, and Fleetwood go to a motel; they are not all there at the same time. Later there is a murder, and Fleetwood ends up not too far away at a cabin on a small ranch.
That brings us to probably the most interesting part of the plot: the map showing the tracks left in the soft ground at the ranch by various people, a car, and a dog. The district attorney says the tracks clearly show that Mrs. Allred is guilty. But Perry has another idea.
It is very well acted, with Della looking especially young and lively. Highly recommended.
It is intriguing that for quite a while there seems to be no connection between the two main subplots. If the story has any fault, it is that it is too complicated. There are an awful lot of subplots, most of which are red herrings are not really so interesting. I did like the hint of a romantic interest for Foyle.
I also much appreciate each episode learning some history of how England got through these early war years. This episode we learn about the Women's Land army.
But this one I do not like. It's too complicated! There are too many threads that just barely connect, and too many coincidences. I'm not going to say much more as I don't want to reveal any spoilers.
The story opens with the murder of a man who drives a truck (lory). It develops that he was hired to drive art masterpieces from a museum in London to a safe hiding place in Wales. But is that why he was murdered?
Immediately a second plot begins with Foyle's son Andrew flying some missions to help the RAF test its radar. It was neat to see how important radar was to the success of the British air force. I do love the history that one learns in these stories. But Andrew soon gets into some trouble with his superiors at this secret base. It seems to have something to do with an old college friend of his, who apparently is being shadowed by someone. Who? And what has that to do with the art museum masterpieces?
Throw in another subplot about Samantha's father, and you've got quite a complicated story.
I agree with others who say that the acting of the two leads, Ford and Page was excellent. So too was that of the supporting characters Lansbury and Nichols. But the many fine small touches stand out too. I loved seeing the old Penn Station in New York, long since destroyed. I loved the look of the girlfriend of Ford's "son", with the hair style, clothes, and big glasses. That brings back some high school memories. The many fine little one-liner or throw-away jokes, such as "nice wig" or Ford: "I have a psychic thing;" Nichols: "I don't want to see it."
But even beyond that, I was amazed by the portrayal of the society and customs of 1963 New York. Shades of Mad Men! No, there were no Madison Avenue Ad executives, but the banter and casual sex displayed was an eye opener. I thought that all happened ten years later? Even the look and feel of Ford's character was remarkably like Don Draper. I seriously wonder if this movie was not an inspiration for Matthew Weiner when he created Mad Men.
As others have written, this was the second filmed episode. It is closer to the early books in mood than most of the TV episodes. Della looks especially young and attractive. She playfully massages Perry's neck. Mason is himself playful, almost flirting, with one the the female leads whom he needs to get on his side. He almost playfully traps the murderer on the witness stand. You don't see that sort of thing (especially Mason smiling so much) later in the TV series, after it became a huge hit, and a bit formal, if not stodgy.
The early books have a pronounced film noir flavor, and this book is no exception. The TV episode is a very good representation of the book. Of course they had to abridge it somewhat, to make it fit into 53 minutes. They've left out some of the material about the niece, which makes one wonder, who has seen only the TV episode, why the title is the way is it. My major criticism of the TV episode is that the actor who portrays the murderer doesn't fit the part; it's poor casting. The result is a person who is hard to imagine as a murderer.
Still, a great 53 minutes of television.
It's based on one of the best PM books by Gardner, one of his early ones. It concerns a young woman who may be the long lost granddaughter of a millionaire, if a certain bishop can be believed. Or is he just an impostor, a crook of some kind?
The book is a lot more complicated than this episode, and they changed some things about the bishop. If you can, read the book.
I had heard of Kay Francis, but I don't recall having seen her in anything. She is fantastic! Barrymore is best known these days for playing the heavy in "It's a Wonderful Life", but here he is quite a bit younger, very spry, and marvelously expressive, both in inflection and mannerisms.
I wouldn't dream of giving away the ending, which has two nice touches, but I'm proud to say I saw it coming - about thirty seconds before the climax. I was thinking, "wait, they couldn't possibly ..., not the ... " but it was. Superb! Highly recommended.
As others have written, it is centered on the story of a WWI veteran (Larry, played by Tyrone Power) who can't get serious about the routine kind of life everyone else seems to be pursuing in Chicago after the war. He wants more. He gives up marrying the beautiful Isabel (Gene Tierney) and has enough money to travel to Paris, then to India, seeking enlightenment and wisdom. That could be hokey, but it is handled well. He is gone long enough for Isabel to give up on him and marry someone she doesn't really love named Gray (John Payne). Also, an old friend of Larry's named Sophie (Anne Baxter) meets tragedy in her family life.
Years later, Larry returns from India to Paris and meets Gray, Isabel, her rich uncle Elliott (Clifton Webb) and others there. The stock market has crashed and Gray and Isabel have lost most of their money. They are living with Elliott. Larry has an unusual hypnosis scene with Gray. I was intrigued and thought the situation really had a lot of potential. I loved the scenes with Anne Baxter in Paris. But somehow, after that the main thread got lost. It is a long movie, but maybe not long enough to really do justice to all the subplots. Some of them should have been toned down or dropped, though I admit choosing which one wouldn't be easy.
Anne Baxter was superb. Every scene she was in was gripping. Clifton Webb was good, but I got tired of him. There was too much about him. Having Somerset Maugham appear in the movie as a character had its advantages, but somehow didn't really work for me, though the scene where he starts to seduce Tierney is great.
Music, direction, plot, production values -- all are first rate. But the movie lives or dies based on the plot and the characterizations.
For me, the two main flaws are Tierney and Power. Tyrone Power is just too handsome, in a plastic sort of way, and ultimately fails to be believable. Tierney is in one sense perfectly cast for the villainess -- maybe too perfectly. She is too obvious, too one-note. The contrast with the performance of Anne Baxter is striking.
So it's a very good movie that makes me want to see the 1984 remake, and read the novel. I wish they could have cast someone other than Tyrone Power.
Unfortunately it is late in both the canon and in the wonderful Sherlock Homes series with Jeremy Brett. Brett is showing his age and his declining health. As for the plot itself, it seems that Doyle was recycling some plot elements from earlier stories. Those who have seen or read quite a few earlier episodes will see haunting parallels.
Still, I enjoyed it. I love Jeremy Brett and I love this series of Holmes stories.
The bad part: everything else. Start with the appalling choice of Glenn Close as Nellie Forbush. You've got to be kidding. Glenn Close is **one year** younger than Rade Serbedzija, who played Emile de Becque. That's absurd. She should be at least ten years younger, twenty would be better. The closeness in age is all too obvious in the movie.
Glenn Close has no southern accent. Nellie is supposed to be a well meaning, sweet, naive twenty year-old from unsophisticated Little Rock. Glenn Close, to her credit usually, is just not that type of person. It just doesn't work. Worse, every time she opens her mouth to sing, this sweet little voice comes out. Sure, right. Glenn Close as Nellie Forbush is the worst miscasting I have ever seen.
Rade Serbedzija actually does a good job.
The guy that plays Luther Billis doesn't have the right attitude or communicate the right personna.
The original movie with Mitzi Gaynor is far far superior. The play recently on Broadway (2010) is excellent. The show done on PBS a couple years ago with Reba McEntire is very good. If South Pacific is new to you, try to see one of those fine presentations.
It takes some getting used to. There are odd interpolated scenes that don't seem to make any sense. There are foreshadowings and flashbacks. There are a lot of extreme closeups. There are also brilliantly constructed scenes with impressive lighting effects. It's very non-linear and often puzzling.
The overall effect? I'm impressed. All the strange scenes make sense at the end, even granting, upon rational reflection, that the ending is perhaps a bit unlikely. This is a superbly crafted, acted, and presented film. It is a worthy addition to the Canon, and a triumph by Brett and Edward Hardwicke.
By all means, give it a shot. Don't be dissuaded by the negative reviews. This is truly a great Sherlock Holmes mystery.
There are some really fine acting performances. Unlike some, I like Robert Cummings. Yes, he is a bit "one note" as someone wrote, but I think that makes sense. Cummings has accurately portrayed a believable personality. Yes, I agree that Ronald Reagan was excellent. He almost becomes the lead role, and that's part of the problem with this movie. Ann Sheridan I would just say was good, not excellent. She does not deserve to have top billing in this movie. Maybe she was the best known star of the three main actors at that time, and she was given top billing for that reason. Betty Field as Cassandra was good, but overacted a bit in a difficult role. Claude Rains was excellent, as usual.
Two other actors deserve mention, even though they had lesser roles. I thought that the actress who played Louise (Nancy Coleman) was very convincing. And I thought the performance of Henry Davenport as Skeffington was remarkable. He really seemed to be a completely authentic lawyer from the 1890s. It's hard to believe that that was someone acting.
The basic situation and plot were intriguing. Sounds like the novel would be a good read. But the movie disappoints in several ways.
First, it is disjointed. Too many scenes happen quickly or end abruptly. For example, there is a scene about half way through where Parris and Duke are reading a journal of Dr. Tower, soon after someone important dies (don't want to get too specific here). Suddenly Parris says, "but I'm tired." Duke immediately jumps up and says "I'll get the light." He blows it out and they leave. That's just unreal. It's too abrupt. It's jarring. This sort of thing happens again and again.
Second, a major love interest of one of the main characters is introduced with only about 20 minutes to go. That is very awkward and off-putting. A veritable Deus ex machina.
Third, the movie builds up a major romance and conflict between Parris and Cassandra, only to have it suddenly resolved barely half way into the movie (again, don't want to get too specific). Really, the movie should have ended there. It's as if it were really two movies, parts I and II. It would have been better as two.
Fourth, the character of Randy, played by Ann Sheridan, is very briefly in the beginning of the movie as a child, then abruptly (there's that word again) reappears about half way through the movie and becomes a major character.
Fifth, comparatively minor but still jarring, the actresses playing Cassandra (Field) and Randy (Sheridan) looked amazingly alike. Maybe it would not have been so in color, but in black and white, I was astonished when Sheridan abruptly appeared in the middle of the movie and seemed to be Cassandra! Was this planned by the director?
So I appreciate the basic story. It's very creative. I appreciate the fine acting. But with so many flaws, I can rate it no higher than 7.
There are two big problems. One is Nigel Bruce. His Dr. Watson is clownish, and I just can't abide it. It turns the movie into a Disney movie. It ruins the sense that this could be a real story about a real detective.
Worse, the plot is silly. As someone has described well on one of the comment threads, it is full of holes. I don't want to give anything away here, but there are so many gaps and illogical points as to once again reduce the movie to little more than a cartoon.
What a waste of great talent!
There are some exceptions, such as Stagecoach, which transcends itself, as of course lots of other old movies do. But anyway, I and lots of other people these days don't respond well to Westerns.
This one is different. This is a very fine movie. Charlton Heston really is excellent. So are Joan Hackett and Donald Pleasance. But more than that, this is just a really fine, believable, adult plot, very well written, directed, and photographed. It is really a pleasure to see a Western, or any movie, done so well.
Without giving away any spoilers, the way the dangerous situation is wrapped up at the end seemed a bit of a cop out, a bit too easy. But that's the only flaw I can find. The real climax, though, is the conversation at the end.
The first strong point is the excellent comedic plot, better than that in 42nd Street, about the same as Footlght Parade. Guy Kibbe is wonderful as always, Hugh Herbert and Zasu Pitts are great. The three of them really steal the show, at least as far as acting and plot go. The jokes come quickly and can easily be missed. I would hazard a guess that some viewers will no longer get the joke in the name of Hugh Herbert's character, "Ezra Ounce."
Joan Blondell is gorgeous and smart as always. Dick Powell is the same as in all the movies - which is absolutely fine! I love his voice.
I find Ruby Keeler a delight to look at and watch. It's true, as others have commented, that she really doesn't do a heck of a lot in this one, though she is on screen quite a lot. Some people seem to love to put down her acting or dancing. OK, so she's not going to star in King Lear or Antigone. So what? Get over it! That's not the point. She is very appealing. Similarly, I like seeing her dance. She doesn't have to be as good as Cyd Charisse. Get over it!
The real appeal of all five of the movies I've mentioned here, and the real star, is Busby Berkeley. It is amazing to read one or two of the reviews written here in the last decade by people who, I suppose, are rather young and set in their ways. How anyone with half a brain can watch this movie and not be absolutely blown away is unbelievable to me. Truly, such a person is blind. Maybe not in the sense of passing the eye test for a driver's license, but blind nonetheless. Surely Busby Berkeley was the most unexpected creative genius in the history of film.
Let me echo something another poster has written. Though I was born long after the great depression ended, it was still a living reality in the minds of my parents, and something I absorbed somehow when growing up. Maybe a byproduct of the difficult economic times we are living through now will be a greater sensitivity on the part of some people to those times and the culture produced in those times. It does seem that some of the negative reviewers here need to broaden and deepen their appreciation, not just of movies, but of humanity.
But I digress. This is a wonderful, fun, eye-popping movie, full of great songs and fantastic choreography. Enjoy.