Functional Nonsense

There were some good performances here, notably Mickey Rooney, Virginia Weidler and Fay Bainter. However, there was also a lot of questionable behavior by the title character. He was a little punk who didn't seem to have much of a moral compass. I was rooting for him, kinda, because you're supposed to, but I really wanted to give him a swift kick in the tuckus on more than one occasion.

I found it interesting they included a little teaser for the sequel at the end (it's the first old movie I've seen with anything like that), but I'm not sure I have any interest in seeing more of this obnoxious character's shenanigans.

I think this film will improve on subsequent viewings, the first time through I felt I needed to reorient myself multiple times. First it's about the after-life, then it's about the bureaucracy of the after-life, then it's about psychology, then it's about Anglo-American relations. It seemed to be about everything and thus, almost nothing. Or rather, I'm sure it's about something, but I can't quite figure out what that thing is, other than "love conquers death," in which case there are stories that communicate that message with far less focus on red tape and legal loopholes.

That is why I think it would do better on second-viewing. I know what it is, where it's going, what strange twists and turns it takes to get there, so on a subsequent trip, I think I'd be better able to appreciate the details.

This lacked some of the charm and whimsy of the book. Also, I don't like horror, so I didn't appreciate the inclusion of The Shining.

Fun, peppy family film. I've never seen the original, but this was plenty enjoyable and an ideal holiday diversion.

This felt underdeveloped. It was also relatively slow and talky, which made it trickier for me to follow. The performances were all great, but the story could have used a little more fleshing out.

It's also interesting that despite the many amazing performances in Hitchcock movies, Joan Fontaine's performance here is the only Hitchcock-directed performance to win an Oscar.

Watching this, I felt like the only sober person at a party where I didn't know anyone.

Sidenote: I was inspired to watching the after watching the similarly-plotted and unexpectedly superior Buona Sera, Mrs. Campbell. After thoughtful consideration, I can say that Peter Lawford could out-charm either Brosnan or Firth, and despite his mediocre singing voice, I think he could out-sing both of them, too.

This review may contain spoilers.

I know it's a terrible idea to watch multiple different adaptations of a single work back-to-back. It's probably impossible to not be biased towards the first one you see, but I can't help but think the 1949 version is, genuinely, a step up from this.

First off, though, I will give props to Katharine Hepburn. There are parts that she gets much better than June Allyson. The big distinction is that Hepburn is a legit dramatic actress, Allyson was much more a light comedian/general performer. But while there are moments that Hepburn does much better, there are others that Allyson excels at, and they both sometimes veer into "older woman playing a teenager" territory (Hepburn affects an odd voice on some of Jo's more boyish occasions; Allyson reads some of her lines likes she's giving a speech).

But Jo's big arc (and thus the arc of the movie), relies largely on her relationships with the others. Spring Byington was great in a less doofy role than I'm used to seeing her play, and each of the sisters does a fine job (although smaller names than the '49 version).

My big beef with this movie is with Laurie. Peter Lawford is infinitely better than Douglass Montgomery. Montgomery really doubled down on the childish and playful side of Laurie, but I wasn't particularly moved by his proposal. It felt like Laurie and Jo were play-acting like adults, like a scene from one of Jo's plays, rather than a genuine culmination of long-festered feelings. I know this may be influenced by my bias towards Peter Lawford (and the pairing of him and June Allyson) as much as my bias towards my introduction to an endearing story, but I thought Montgomery and Hepburn were too similar to each other for me to care at all about any potential romance, and what's the fun in that?

I got a Hudsucker Proxy vibe from this. I haven't seen that movie in forever, so I don't know if there's any thematic similarities, but the offices, the ideas, and Dick Powell being a little Tim Robbins-esque....

Anyway, this was a very sweet movie. I could have listened to Dick Powell try to explain the genius of his slogan to an unimpressed Ellen Drew for much longer than I was asked to. I feel like Preston Sturges' greatest strength lay in his witty and genuine dialogue, and there was plenty on display here. This was a sweet little tale with a bit of a message that didn't overstay its welcome. I'm glad I caught it on TCM.

Robert Mitchum gives off so strong Bing Crosby vibes that he's lucky I don't dislike him out of that association.

I liked how cerebral this film was. Maybe that's not the best word, but there were more ideas and rationales thrown about than crazy antics or staring into each other's eyes. I enjoyed that it was based as much in psychology as mere feeling.

I think my favorite thing about the movie, though was Wendell Corey. He's one of the best jilted lovers I've seen. You can see his disappointment and resignation, but he's also just such a good guy. Great performance. Generally sweet movie.

This was fun. Slight and silly and fun. The premise could have easily gone south at any number of junctures, but it stayed afloat, thanks in part to some snappy and well-calibrated performances and a script that kept things moving and didn't sit on any one gag too long.

I've had numerous people tell me to watch Mamma Mia and after seeing how fun the plot is here, maybe I'll finally get around to watching it. Although, while I can concede that while Brosnan and Firth could give Lawford a run for his money in the charm department, who can compete with Silvers' zaniness?

I highly enjoyed this. Everyone was fantastic in their respective roles (Janet Leigh's accent was a little inconsistent, but who really cares), and the story was interesting and engaging. I only wish Angela Lansbury got to be a little more involved in the action.

I enjoyed George Sidney's direction. His use of dark lighting was departure from some of his technicolor films, but added to the somberness and covert elements of the story quite effectively.

Simple, slow, and splendid. This is a charming story about cross-generational friendship, optimism and kindness. Mabel Paige is absolutely excellent as a widow who befriends a bunch of college boys and the story manages to avoid being too corny.

There were a number of really great movies from the 30s and 40s featuring older people like Mrs. Freeman. Something tells me they're not really being made today (or maybe they're just not entering my frame of reference), and that's a shame.

Also, because I was brought to this movie by Peter Lawford, I'll comment on his small part: He had improved immensely since A Yank at Eaton, and seemed more lively and engaging than some of his later, bigger roles. I feel like MGM decided that with his accent he should play dull romantic leads, but I wonder if he would have been better off playing the the wise-cracking friend.

This was cute and festive, but the pacing was odd and things occasionally felt a little clunky. It was a fine movie to enjoy over the holiday season, but I'm not sure I would add it to my list of perennials.

I enjoyed the plot about a soldier falsely accused of stealing secrets from the British military on behalf of the Russians. Unfortunately most of this story is about a war in India.

I bet Tony Stark loves this movie.

I personally felt a bit unwelcome after the first scene with women included them silently massaging men and then being ordered out of the room. But I stuck with it, and after an hour of a bunch of guys alternately catching up and being jerks to each other, we finally get to the heist, and from then on it's actually pretty good fun.

So... First half of the movie: 0 stars Second half of movie: 4.5 stars

Watched on Friday December 7, 2018.

The other reviews aren't kidding. If you took out the musical numbers and added a more foreboding soundtrack and this could be one of those "cautionary tales" movies on Lifetime.

I normally like musicals involving the navy (Born to Dance, Follow the Fleet, Anchors Aweigh, On the Town), but the only thing worthwhile about this one is the dance numbers with Ricardo Montalban and Cyd Charisse. And the odd couple pairing of Jimmy Durante and the chihuahua was kind of cute, but I feel like that's scraping the bottom of the barrel.