Holiday Affair (1949)

Connie Ennis (Janet Leigh) is a WW2 widow who is struggling to raise her son, Timothy (Gordon Gerbert), and make ends meet. She has been dating a lawyer, Carl Davis (Wendell Corey), for several years and despite many proposals from him she just hasn’t felt right about saying yes yet. While working as a comparison shopper during Christmas she runs into a store employee Steve Mason (Robert Mitchum) and in a round about way helps him get fired. Throughout a series of situations, Steve keeps popping up in her life. Suddenly Connie is confused about which man to choose so Timothy steps in to help show her which one is right for her.

Robert Mitchum wishes Janet Leigh would turn around so he could admire her bullet bra

I felt terrible for poor Carl in this. He is such a swell guy, but he just seems so dull next to Robert Mitchum as Steve. Plus, I really enjoyed seeing Mitchum in a lighter role. He doesn’t try to be funny, he plays it very straight, which makes him very charming. This may be one of the few times I have thought he was actually attractive in a film, perhaps.

As for Janet Leigh, I have the strangest thing to say here. I can’t ever decide if I like her as an actress. She certainly has given a lot of great performances, but I think it is something about her face – it kinda looks hard. She usually plays very nice women, but something about her face always makes me think there is a pill lurking underneath. Of course, I don’t think most men even realize she has a face given the figure that bullet bra gave her.

I really don’t have much in the way of criticism on this. I thought all around it was a wonderful film. I have really enjoyed finding “holiday” films this year that I hadn’t seen before and this was definitely a great find. This isn’t a straight romantic comedy as the situation of her being a widow lends itself to a fair bit of drama in her trying to move on from such a devastating loss. The comedy is very subtle and lies in the awkward situations where Steve seems to always be turning up and Carl, being such a swell guy, must always be nice and accommodating to him.

I love holiday films and I especially love finding new holiday classic films to look forward to each year. If you haven’t seen this one, I highly recommend you add it to your list for next year.

Gunga Din (1939)

Okay, I have a confession. I need to whisper it though. Lean in close. Clooooser. Okay. Until now, I had never seen "Gunga Din". Yes, I consider myself quite the Cary Grant fan. Yes, I have had the movie on DVD for years. So, why haven't I seen it? Honestly, I think it is because I didn't want to watch all the Cary Grant greats at once. I like the idea of knowing I still have some that I can watch for the first time and get that rush of the first viewing experience. There are actually quite a few I still have left to see, but that is a discussion for another time.

Cary Grant, Victor McLaglen and Douglas Fairbanks, Jr

Set in India, three British soldiers - Cutter (Cary Grant), MacChesney (Victor McLaglen) and Ballantine (Douglas Fairbanks, Jr) - are the best of friends. Watching each other's back, terrorizing anyone that crosses them and generally having a great adventure. It soon becomes evident that the Thuggee cult is on a killing spree and the British Army's new mission is to try to find them and stop them from wiping out everyone in sight. Cutter befriends a native water bearer, Gunga Din (Sam Jaffe), who desperately wants to be a soldier and accidentally finds the Thuggee temple while searching for gold for his new friend. One of them gets captured, the other has to bring help and the audience is on the edge of their seats anticipating a showdown.

I have to say, this movie didn't disappoint even though I delayed my viewing gratification for years. And if you will excuse me for a second while I swoon, OMG - Cary Grant looked smokin' HOT in this one. He always looks great, but, this was over-the-top-hottie-on-screen goodness. Of course, I think I experience that almost EVERY time I watch a Cary Grant movie I either haven't seen before or it has been a long time since I have seen it. The magnetism is always .... (fanning myself) overwhelming, if you will.

And yes, I do have to focus even more on Cary. There are so many wonderful scenes in this one. I loved the beginning, that wonderful innocent, naughty little boy look he pulls in the beginning when Higginbotham tells him to let go of that man and he does, right out a window. He looks like, "You told me to let him go - it isn't my fault he fell out a window. Just following orders." Along the same lines, I also loved the scene where he is pouring the elixir into the punch and trying to hide what he is doing and just look like he is enjoying the party. Then the scene immediately following where he drags Higginbotham to the punch bowl and is pantomiming to MaLaglen that they should give Higginbotham the punch is hilarious. Just that quick, raised eyebrows and mischievous looks tells McLaglen everything he needs to know. AND, I loved hearing the cockney accent coming from Cary's mouth instead of the ultra-refined one he, well, refined instead.

I think, by far though, my favorite Cary moment in the movie is in the Thuggee Temple when he has to draw attention to himself so he marches around singing an English Pub song and ends it with "Now, you are all under arrest. The whole bunch of ya. And you too, (pointing to the leader) and you know why! Her Majesty is very touchy about having her subjects strangled."

All in all, this is a wonderful movie. It reminded me of a version of "The Three Musketeers" but set in India. The interplay between the three leads is wonderful throughout. Cary was tops for me, of course, but all three had wonderful scenes. I had a hearty laugh when Victor and Cary's characters were bickering and they called out for Douglas to intercede. He looked disappointed and sad, never looked at them and just said, "You displease me greatly and I ignore the both of you." Just ... perfect delivery and setup.

If I had to make a complaint about the movie - if I had to - it would be one that classic movie enthusiasts groan when they hear. The movie is dated a little, I think, and only because of the fighting style. I know George Stevens was going for a high adventure and high fun romp - so it make sense - but some of the early fight scenes in this look more like keystone cops taking on Thuggees than anything else. They just aren't very realistic - Grant can take on 8 men at once and lay each one out with just a quick punch. He seems immortal too - not flinching when hit with a chair and later, taking a bayonet in the back and a gunshot in the leg and still smiling and laughing at his friends carrying on while he is laying in the floor supposedly in too much pain to move. But, I add these in only because it is supposed to be a "balanced" movie review. I honestly thought the fight scenes were so much fun - I didn't give a hoot if they were realistic or not.

My last point before wrapping this one up is how wonderful Sam Jaffe was as Gunga Din. He played the character with such dignity and grace. I thought about how I approach my own job/life and how much enthusiasm he brought to just bringing water to everyone. A job most people would think beneath them, he makes it a most noble and important one. He really is wonderful.

So, I highly recommend not waiting years to see this one. It is wonderful beginning to end. I especially enjoyed noticing how many scenes/story lines/themes have been used in later movies as homages to this. Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, for example, used many scenes as homages to this wonderful film. Who knew? Well, you did if you weren't a dork like me and had already seen this!

A Letter for Evie (1946)

Evie O'Connor (Marsha Hunt) is looking for romance. She works in a factory where they supply shirts for soldiers. Out of desperation, she slips a "Dear Soldier" letter into the shirt pocket of a 16.5 sized shirt hoping it would find its way to a tall, handsome, strapping young lad who would read it and fall in love with her. It does indeed find it's way to a tall and handsome lad, but the fact that he is Edgar "Wolf" Larson (John Carroll) means he is too busy chasing skirts to bother with writing a nice girl. However, his buddy Johnny McPherson (Hume Cronyn) who is the antithesis of him physically, listens to the letter and falls instantly in love. He begins writing her and they both fall in love ... that is ... till they have to meet face-to-face.

Hume Cronyn, Marsha Hunt and John Carroll

This could so easily have been just another one of those "mistaken identity" screwball, silly little romantic comedies. Not that there is anything wrong with the occasional fluff like that, but this movie makes it's mark with heartfelt scenes and unsuspected depth that leaves the audience feeling like they have watched something special. Don't get me wrong, it is a romantic comedy with light moments, but it is also much more.

I was intrigued by Hume Cronyn's sensitive performance in this. He doesn't usually do a role like this and it is very nice to see a different side to him. There is a scene where he is concerned that Evie is about to fall under the spell of his handsome Army buddy and decides the only way to get her out of the situation is to act like he is drunk. He plays it totally over the top and it is hilarious to watch ... Hume Cronyn of all people .... act like Jerry Lewis. Heeey Laaaaaaaaady!

This is a hard to find movie, but if you are lucky, you can catch it on TCM. It is definitely worth looking for - one of those rare gems forgotten over time.

A Tree Grows in Brooklyn (1945)

Johnny (James Dunn) and Katie Nolan (Dorothy McGuire) are trying to raise a family in the Brooklyn tenements and barely surviving. The story is told through the eyes of their daughter Francie (Peggy Ann Garner) who is coming of age and trying to make sense of her parents as individuals, their relationship and what kind of person she wants to be as she gets older.

Peggy Ann Garner, Dorothy McGuire and Ted Donaldson

I read this book many years ago and again in the past few years. The book is very detailed and covers much more of the minor characters and intricacies of sub-plots. The book is definitely worth reading at least once, if you have a chance. The movie was a good addendum to the book because I had a hard time imagining what true Irish-American tenement life would be like in the early 1900s. The movie fills that in nicely and helps paint the picture of a family truly struggling to survive.

I find the adult characters of this story incredibly compelling. First of all, you have the patriarch, Johnny Nolan. He is an alcoholic and doesn't do a good job of providing for the materials his family needs, but does that make him an all bad father? As they say in the film, he gives of himself generously. He inspires his daughter, he listens to her, he helps her with her problems, he is kind and makes her proud he is her father.

At the opposite end you have Katie Nolan. Katie and Johnny love each other, but the stresses of family life puts a definite strain on them. Katie comes off as a woman that has grown hard and questions that in the film. If she is, she has gotten that way because she had to care for her family, work to make money and provide the necessities. While Johnny could be loving because he had the time without work, she felt she never had enough time to sit and give of herself in that way. She grows resentful of her role and also of the love Francie lavishes on her father.

The reason I find these characters so compelling is because I keep asking myself, would I want to be more like Katie Nolan who is the rock of her family (both in good and bad ways) or more like Johnny Nolan who is the life of his family (both in good and bad ways). I can't answer it for myself yet, so I will be pondering this for a while. Obviously a combo of the two is the best answer, but these characters were purposefully made polar opposites for illustrative purposes, I am sure. Betty Smith knew what she was doing when she wrote the novel. :-)

I think the difference is best described with their views about the Gathers family. Flossy Gathers is a young girl who is very sick and probably going to die. Her family makes the decision to stop spending money on funeral insurance for her and instead spend the money on pretty dresses for her to wear. Johnny's feelings are expressed when he sees Flossy in one of her new dresses.

Johnny: "Well, will you look at our beautiful princess tonight in a brand new gown."
Flossy:"It is made out of silk."
Johnny: "Silk? Oh, don't you tell me that. This dress is made out of flower petals and birds wings and a little old piece of cloud. Anybody can tell that."

Flossy beams because of the exchange. Later, when Flossy dies, Katie and Johnny have a fight. Katie thinks it isn't right that her parents were irresponsible by not keeping up the funeral insurance. Flossy will now be buried in Potter's Field since they couldn't pay for a proper burial. Johnny says that at least she enjoyed the pretty dresses while she was alive because he doesn't think she cares where she is buried now.

I think the point of all this is that there isn't a right or wrong answer, but I have to say that it really makes me think about my values in life. I won't give any crucial plot points away, but the end of the film does have Francie and Neely reflecting on how much fun they had "as kids". I didn't have much money as a child either, but I never realized it and I had fun too. Sometimes, money isn't the most important thing in life and this story felt like a good reminder of that.

I want to add in here that I think one of the early unsung heroes of the movie is Joan Blondell as Sissy Edwards. I think people look over the importance of Sissy in the story. She lightens things up and tries to help keep the peace. When she sees the people she loves struggling, she tries to set them on the right path. Joan Blondell plays this part wonderfully with all the warmth and vivaciousness you would expect. I can't help and wonder if she is not a large piece of the tape holding this family together since she can help both Johnny and Katie see the other's point of view. This also illustrates how important other relationships are outside the main family unit and how keeping those relationships alive is beneficial. Again, what is important to us?

I thought this movie was wonderful. The acting is top-notch and Elia Kazan as a director is perfect for this. The story is heart-breaking, yet inspiring at the same time. If you haven't seen this, put it on your list to watch when things are looking bleak. It will help you feel like things really aren't so bad.

The Devil-Doll (1936)

I will be the first to admit that I am not a fan of modern day horror movies. Even when they are supposed to be kinda funny, I just don't see the point in all the blood, guts and gore. Nor do I really see the point in watching something that is meant to prey upon my fears to scare me. I just ... never saw that as a positive, really. So it was with a fair bit of trepidation that I started recording some of the "horror" movies on TCM this month. I decided to give them a try because I reasoned I knew nothing about the beginnings of the genre and like most movie genres, I may prefer the classics to the current fare.

Would you believe me if I told you Lionel Barrymore was in this photo?

Paul Lavond (Lionel Barrymore) is a wrongly convicted man. He was framed by his three partners for robbing the bank they jointly owned and killing a guard. He has been sent away for almost 2 decades when he finally escaped with a fellow inmate, Marcel. The two throw the police off the chase and end up at a laboratory where Marcel's wife, Malita, has been carrying on her husband's experiments. The project they are trying to complete is shrinking humans to 1/6th their size. When Lavond sees what happens when the humans are shrunk, he soon develops a plan to seek revenge on his former partners. Ooooo-kay.

I wouldn't go so far as to call this a great movie, but I really enjoyed it nonetheless. I expected a horror movie, but what I saw was something more layered than strictly a horror tale. It had romance, emotion, humor - the whole bit. The ending, instead of being a scare-your-pants-off kinda ending, was actually the ending you would expect on a good drama.

Having said all that, there are plot holes and hilarious bad science premises galore, that you can pick at if you chose. There is some "camp" acting mixed in with a fair bit of good acting. The "camp" factor is cemented when Barrymore goes full-on drag waltzing around the police as a sweet grandma-ma type character who has an assistant that looks like the Bride of Frankenstein (see photo below) complete with white streak, dark eye makeup and way over-acted wide eyes that look half crazy for dramatic effect. If that isn't camp, I don't know what is. And, even though it made it less of a horror movie probably, I loved it all the more. And you know what? Barrymore was TOTALLY believable as the old lady. I had to do a double-take to realize it was him.

Seriously - is it homage or rip-off?

Even more surprising to me is how the special effects aren't bad at all. I mean, we are talking 1936 and I don't think anyone watching this 70 years later would be pointing to the screen and laughing at the effects. It appears the filmmakers were smart enough to use very simple techniques which make it look solid on film.

The ending, which I won't give away, took me by surprise. Not because of what happened necessarily, but because how wonderfully Lionel Barrymore portrayed his emotions and showed his character trying to suppress them. It was a powerful bit of acting that wasn't overdone (like the Barrymores tend to do as a whole) and it was just, superb.

At a run-time of under 80 min - I definitely recommend this one as a time capsule of what I assume is somewhat representative of the early horror genre. It isn't strictly horror so it has a little bit of something for everyone - drama, crime, romance, horror, sci-fi, emotions, revenge ... even a miniature "half-wit, inbred orphan" that acts like a little nymph when she is shrunk down. Intriguing, no? :-)

Goodbye, Mr. Chips (1939)

I always wondered how a simple and sentimental movie about a school teacher could net Robert Donat a Best Actor Oscar in one of the most hotly contended Oscar years ever. Well, now I have watched it and now I know.

Elderly Mr. Chips at the beginning of the movie

Robert Donat, same year, will someone explain to me how this young man came to look like the elderly man seen above?!?!?

I am probably the last person on earth to just get 'round to watching this one, but in case there is one more out there, here's the plot. The movie opens with an elderly Mr. Chips (Robert Donat) reflecting back on his life from the point that he was travelling to take his appointment as teacher at a prestigious private school. Is shows him as an almost painfully shy young man, desperate to do a good job and have his student like and respect him, but he can't seem to break out of the shell of shyness. After approximately a decade on the job, and being passed over for promotion, he finds himself on a trip to Austria. It is here that he meets Katherine (Greer Garson) and they fall in love, marry, and he brings her back to school. It is Katherine that helps ease him out of his shell and helps give him the confidence to become the man and teacher he always wanted to be.

Robert Donat is so completely believable as the 83-year-old man. Not only does he look different, but he carries himself completely different. He sounds completely different. When he delivers the somewhat teasing and grumpy old man line of, "Enough of your loathsome statistics woman, go about your business" you certainly can't imagine that coming from the younger version of himself. What a difference in demeanor and presence between the older Mr. Chips and the young, shy instructor who speaks slow and looks so awkward. I would have sworn on my life that they hired an old man to play the part. How on earth - in 1939 - did they make a 34-year-old Robert Donat look so different and believable as an 83-year-old?

I also want to mention Greer Garson's role too. It is amazing how skillfully and gracefully Katherine helps ease his uncomfortableness at social situations and teaches him how to interact with confidence. I think I have fallen for Greer Garson in this role. She is peaches and cream, delightful ... perfection.

This movie is a testament to storytelling. Chips isn't an extraordinary man really, he is someone that we can identify with - a shy person who learns to reach out. Give good actors and a good director a wonderful, simple story to tell without all of today's over-the-top trappings and this is what you often get - magic. I highly, highly recommend this one if you haven't already seen it.

Ever Since Eve (1937)

I had heard of Marion Davies before, but only because she was a mistress to William Randolph Hearst for 30 years until his death. I had never actually seen her in a movie. When TCM showed some of her movies for their Summer Under the Stars series, I decided to record a few. I started with "Not So Dumb" actually, and almost wanted to turn it off. Her fakey voice and silly, annoying "I'm dumb, but cute, so love me" character really was a turn off. However, after talking to my movie mentor, he suggested I watch "Ever Since Eve" in all it's role-reversal glee to try to redeem my overall opinion of Marion Davies.

Marion Davies portrait "borrowed" from doctormacro1 and colored by someone named Brittany

Marge Winton (Marion Davies) is a gorgeous blond secretary who can't keep a job because her male bosses always put the moves on her and she inevitably gets fired when she turns them down. In order to keep a job, she comes up with a brilliant plan of dressing up in full-on frump so that her employers will focus on her skill and not on her appearance. All seems to go well until she is asked to work with a writer named Freddy Matthews (Robert Montgomery) and he eventually sees her without the plain Jane costume and falls in love. After that, mistaken identities, dance numbers and stick 'em ups abound!

This is one of the more improbable screwball comedies I have seen in a while. It starts out sane, but by the end it is so completely off-the-charts zany that you know you enjoyed yourself but wonder how on earth you got there. Marion Davies didn't have the crazy voice like she did in "Not So Dumb" and played a smart lady so I have now forgiven her for annoying me so the other day. Plus, she is cute as a button so I had already forgiven her a bit anyway, truth be told. If that wasn't enough, her romantic rival (Marcia Ralston) went to the school of Ethel Barrymore eye acting (continually narrowing and widening one's eyes to try to show emotion) so that alone makes Marion Davies look completely brilliant! Well done!

A huge bonus for me was seeing Robert Montgomery again. Speaking of forgiving, this one almost made me forgive him making me sit through "Lady in the Lake". Al-most. He is back to sweet "Mr & Mrs. Smith" charming fun and frivolity in this one. I also really enjoyed the supporting cast. Frank McHugh, Patsy Kelly and Barton MacLane help round out the film and provide a bit of a comedic foundation to allow the in-zanity.

This wasn't a great film, but it was definitely enjoyable and most importantly, entertaining. I definitely recommend checking this out if you happen to catch it on TCM sometime. It is worth the 80 minute investment.

A Night to Remember (1943)

No, this is not the early Titanic movie. :-) Nancy Troy (Loretta Young) rents a basement Greenwich Village apartment so her husband Jeff (Brian Aherne) can soak up the ambiance of the area and switch from murder-mystery novels to some kind of a novel with romance set in Greenwich Village. Of course, nothing goes as planned and they suddenly find themselves in a building with a bunch of odd-acting tenants and a stiff in the garden. Soon Jeff decides he will solve the murder so he will finally be able to write an authentic, best-selling murder mystery novel.

Something comes between Loretta Young and Brian Aherne

I watched this one and immediately thought it was a decently cute knock-off of "The Thin Man". They aren't as sophisticated as Nick and Nora, Asta has suddenly turned into a giant turtle and the goings ons are supposed to be a bit more eerie and ends up being more silly, but there are still flavors of a poor man's "Thin Man" in there.

I will be the first to admit that this comes off as a rather silly little movie, but I didn't mind really. I never feel that I have to watch something that should be a contender for the greatest films of all time when I sit down to enjoy a movie. All that matters is that it entertains me and this one did, even if it really wasn't very good. Loretta is so adorable to watch and how many films feature a turtle? Seriously?

I recommend this one as long as you are in for a silly little comedy and keep your expectations low. It is cute, fun and a good way to spend an hour and a half.

These Three (1936) & The Children's Hour (1961)

"The Children's Hour" is a remake of "These Three", but both films were directed by William Wyler. In both films, Karen Wright (Merle Oberon, Audrey Hepburn) and Martha Dobie (Miriam Hopkins, Shirley MacLaine) open a school for girls in a small town. Karen gets engaged to one of the local doctors, Dr. Joe Cardin (Joel McCrea, James Garner) and trouble seems to follow the engagement. One of the school girls stirs up trouble in the form of gossip. In "These Three" the gossip is that Martha is having an affair with Karen's fiance'. In "The Children's Hour" the gossip is that Karen and Martha are having an affair. In both cases, the gossip spreads like wild fire in the small town and all three reputations, as well as the school, is destroyed.

Shirley MacClaine and Audrey Hepburn in "The Children's Hour"

If you are here, then you are a classic movie fan and probably know the deal about the censorship that forced "These Three" to change what the gossip tidbit was about. I am shocked to say that after watching both, I prefer the censored version, the original. One of the main reasons is the girl that starts the trouble, Mary Tilford, is played brilliantly by Bonita Granville. What a scheming, mean, little wretched girl. However, in the second version, the little girl is a terrible actress and looks like a cross between a lost puppy and a brat. I can't even stand watching her after having watched Bonita rock the role. It is surprising how one weak link in a cast can really do such damage to a movie.

The second reason I prefer the original is the script. In the original, they spend a good bit of time setting up the story about the girls graduating from college, neither having anything to do, so they decide to go to Karen's house that she inherited and look for jobs. It shows them deciding to fix the house and start a school. It shows the awful aunt popping in and out for handouts, which makes more sense about why the aunt is there in the first place. Then it also shows Karen meeting Mary and her Grandmother, with her Grandmother offering to send Mary there and rally some other folks around the school. That helps the audience to understand why they put up with Mary so long and also why when Mary was pulled out of school, everyone else went too. A lot of the background work in the beginning of "These Three" make it a much more even and complete movie, in my mind.

The third and final reason I will mention here about why I prefer the original is the tidbit of gossip. I agree that the movie isn't really about WHAT the gossip is, just what gossip will do to reputations and livelihoods. However, despite "The Children's Hour" being one of the first to start to deal with lesbianism, I am still offended by how it is portrayed as unnatural and an illness. I would rather see the story changed to a heterosexual relationship than to hear the awful way it is handled in this. I understand, it was more than 40 years ago and this was the best they could do then. I really do, but it really is uncomfortable to watch. I am sure it is truthful to the time as to what most thought about homosexuality so it is hard to knock their attempt - I just ... ugh.

Of course, I will say that there are some great things about the 1961 version. For starters, Audrey Hepburn portrays a woman so sweet and so obviously in love. I felt that was an improvement over the 1936 version. No offense to Oberon, but Hepburn radiates love when she looks at Garner in a way that made Oberon look like she was indifferent to McCrea. Also, hands down, Shirley MacClaine blows Miriam Hopkins version off the screen too. I always forget what a great actress MacClaine is. Lastly, one of the best things about the latter version is that it is visually stunning. The cinematography and the shots are all brilliant - much better than the the 1936 version. "The Children's Hour" really worked in some clever angles and it really paid off.

In short, both movies are worth watching, but "These Three" was definitely my preferred version. Mainly because the story feels more complete and there isn't a performance that sticks out as bad. In "The Children's Hour", while I think Hepburn and MacClaine showed more depth and emotion than the previous actresses, the chopping of the script and the absolutely horrid performance by Mary made it a little confusing and somewhat painful to watch.

Midnight (1939)

I have been absent from this blog for a while, sorry about that. I went to Ireland and had a grand time, then I quickly came down with walking pneumonia. The illness is what did it - I had so much fun watching movies without having to turn in the homework assignment of a blog that I have been a movie watching fiend, but not a blogging fiend. I decided it was time to come back and turn in another assignment.

Eve Peabody (Claudette Colbert) arrives in Paris with no luggage and no money. She convinces Tibor Czerny (Don Ameche), a taxi driver, to drive her around town while she looks for a job in a nightclub. Coming up ended handed, she flees his kindness and lands a job pretending to be a baroness. Her assignment is to woo and marry the lover of Georges Flammarion's (John Barrymore) wife (Mary Astor) so she will stay with her husband.

Don Ameche and Claudette Colbert get cozy while John Barrymroe looks on

This was a delightful screwball romantic comedy. The script was witty and fun (co-written in part by Billy Wilder, so it should be) and the performances were great. I am developing a bit of a crush on Don Ameche - holy cow, what a cutie! And John Barrymore was very funny without being too hammy or over-the-top in this one.

An example of the excellent script is the exchange between Ameche and Colbert's characters as she tries to explain her past "business" ventures:

Eve Peabody: I landed a lord, almost.
Tibor Czerny: Almost?
Eve Peabody: Well, the family came between us. His mother came to my hotel and offered me a bribe.
Tibor Czerny: You threw her out, I hope!
Eve Peabody: How could I, with my hands full of money?

My only issue, and I swear it isn't her fault, is with Claudette Colbert. I don't know what it is, but I just can't warm up to her. Part of it, I think, is her voice and the way she carries herself. I always feel like she is an 60 year-old woman in a 30 year old body. I am sure this isn't fair, but I always think she carries herself that way. I don't see a spark or much personality emanating from her like I do other actresses of the same period. I know she is beloved so I am sure you guys will have a different opinion and I welcome it. I would love to get over the Claudette Colbert hump.

As a warning, I read that they are in the process of remaking this one starring Reese Witherspoon. So those of you who are anti-remakes (I am in that camp most of the time too) start preparing your groans for the upcoming trailers.

But as far as this one, even with my Claudette issue, this was a delightful film. It was recently released on DVD and is available from Netflix so check it out.

The Odd Couple (1968)

Oscar Madison (Walter Matthau) is divorced and lives in a huge apartment that often hosts Poker Night with the guys. Felix Ungar (Jack Lemmon) is a part of the regular Poker Night crowd, but something is amiss when he doesn't show up with his usual punctuality. When Felix finally appears, he is distraught because he has been kicked out of his house and his wife wants a divorce. Oscar does the only thing he knows to do which is to invite him to move in until he can get his life sorted out again. Unfortunately, no good deed goes unpunished.

This is one of those that I had seen bits and pieces of throughout the years, but never sat down to watch the whole thing beginning to end. I swear, you can't get better buddies for a buddy movie. Walter Matthau and Jack Lemmon are great as the bickering "couple". I love movies that simplify the plot to the point that they just allow a couple of characters to exist in a space to see what will happen. That is exactly what this movie is about and the characters leap off the screen for our entertainment.

One of my favorite scenes is when their relationship is wearing thin and Oscar is almost at the end of his rope. He finally lets loose with this rant, "I can't take it anymore, Felix, I'm cracking up. Everything you do irritates me. And when you're not here, the things I know you're gonna do when you come in irritate me. You leave me little notes on my pillow. I told you 158 times I can't stand little notes on my pillow. 'We're all out of cornflakes. F.U.' It took me three hours to figure out F.U. was Felix Ungar!" Hahahahaha! That made me laugh out loud.

Okay, I can't let it go with one favorite scene. I have to add in the bit about Jack Lemmon in the restaurant making that awful noise to try to open his ears. I have to admit, I would have just gotten up and walked out on him, but it was hilarious.

So if you are looking for a discussion about archetypal relationships as they relate to male friendships or something like that, you have come to the wrong place. I can't add anything that hasn't been said a hundred times about this thoroughly entertaining movie. It is an incredibly witty film thanks to the brilliant script by Neil Simon. It is a delight to watch Lemmon and Matthau play off each other. It is a must see comedy, beginning to end, and all those delicious funny bits in between.

Too Hot To Handle (1938)

Chris Hunter (Clark Gable) and Bill Dennis (Walter Pidgeon) are rival newsreel men who are constantly trying to out scoop the other. If the stories get thin, sometimes improvisation is needed. After being scooped by Hunter with a less-than-truthful newsreel, Dennis decides to fake his own story to beat Hunter at his own game. Unfortunately, Alma Harding (Myrna Loy) gets drug into the mess and soon both men are rivals again, but this time for her affections.

Lobby Card for Too Hot To Handle

That is a very high-level view of the plot. There is also a sub-plot about Alma being a top female aviator who is out to find her brother, whose plane crashed along the Amazon. She will take almost any job just to try to raise enough money for her expedition to find what became of her brother.

This is an example of one of those movies where suspension of disbelief is a must. It isn't a bad film at all, it just has it's quirks and if you are up for a fun adventure where you throw any questions about "They can't really fly over a ship that blew up and survive, can they?" then this is for you. I don't want to sound like I didn't enjoy this one - I really did. I love fun adventures and this one really fits the bill.

One of the highlights of this film is the competition between Gable and Pidgeon. They are excellent as the stereotypical newsmen who would sell their own mothers to get a decent story. The dialogue between them is excellent as they take jab after jab at each other. The downside of their ruthless "win at all costs" nature is that it makes it hard to believe that either are really in love with Loy. It seems more like another competition they are in just to show who is better at winning rather than a true attempt to win a woman's heart. One of my favorite lines from the movie was Gable saying to Pidgeon, "With the way you looked at her with those calf eyes just now, you'd let her walk on you with spiked shoes." Great line.

I have made no secret of the fact that Gable is not a favorite leading man of mine. He always seems kinda slick and oily. You know? Icky car salesmaney. However, I have had a friend feeding me some of his movies to attempt to sway me and, sway me he has. I see now that my first impression as slick and oily is really more rascally than anything else. Rascally = good. Oily = bad. After watching "Wife vs. Secretary", "Mutiny on the Bounty" and this one as well as re-watching "It Happened One Night", I concede he is a dang fine actor with a fair bit of range. He still isn't at the top of my male lead list, but I no longer cringe when I see him on the credits - this is a vast improvement for me, I assure you.

I definitely recommend this one if you get some time to watch it. Of course, it is another one you will have to try to catch on TCM as it isn't on DVD. However, it is a fun adventure and the newsman competition angle is great. Plus, you get to see Gable jump around in some version of a strange chicken suit. You can't beat that!

Mrs. Miniver (1942)

The Minivers are an English family about to experience war up close and personal. As the war comes to their idyllic little town, they struggle to keep a normal existence and hold the family together. Mrs. Miniver (Greer Garson) manages to keep her young children safe and happy while she worries over the fate of her husband Clem (Walter Pidgeon) and her oldest son Vin (Richard Ney) as they do their part for the war effort.

The Minivers in a tiny tin can (aka bomb shelter)

I really liked this one. What a moving story about a family that is determined to not let outside events disrupt or tear them apart. One of the most touching scenes, to me, was the one pictured above. Mr. and Mrs. Miniver, with their two young children and of course, the cat, all cramped inside a tin can of a bomb shelter while bombs are landing on their home. Rather than be upset, they take their tea and try to chat with each other as they did after dinner every night before the war tried to take over. Just the iron will of this family is amazing - what courage it must have taken to carry on light conversation while your house is a mere, 100 ft away and most likely being blown to bits. At one point her young boy says to her, "Mommy, they nearly killed us this time didn't they?" I can't even begin to imagine how horrible something like that would be to live through. The movie almost makes me feel ashamed for my whole pampered generation.

It is no surprise that this wonderful movie cleaned up at the Oscars in 1943. Greer Garson won for Best Actress in a Leading Role and I can see why on that point too. I thought Greer Garson was absolutely lovely in this. So beautiful and charming. Such a woman of character who tried to be kind to all and keep her family foremost in her mind. Of course, Mrs. Miniver's taste in hats should be reconsidered, but that might be her only flaw. :-)

One odd note I made when I watched the film was how Mrs. Miniver and Vin seemed to be unusually close. I thought that in one of the scenes where Vin kisses his girlfriend and then kisses his mom, Mrs. Miniver. I made a quick note of "He seems to be more interested in kissing his Mom than he does his girl." Well, I had a good laugh when I was discussing the movie with a friend and he mentioned that after the film wrapped, Mrs. Miniver married her son! Well, I mean Greer Garson married Richard Ney. Maybe I was imagining it, but I challenge you to go find that scene and compare kisses, then come back and talk to me.

Lastly, I think many people have complained that this movie had a propagandic message and they think that wasn't appropriate. I honestly don't know what "these people" expect, really? Artists use their talents for what they are passionate about. They draw inspiration, for better or for worse, from the events going on around them. The propaganda claim is very true as William Wyler admitted that he made this film for that reason. He wanted the Nazis stopped and even personally joined the war effort after the film was over. I don't see that as any reason to discount this film, no matter what your view on the matter of "propaganda" might be. "Those people" are silly, in MY opinion.

Anyway, all in all, I really have absolutely nothing negative to say about this film aside from her hideous taste in hats. It is a great film start to finish. I highly recommend this one, without hesitation.

The Search (1948)

What happened to all the children whose parents died in the Holocaust? This film focuses on the plight of one such child, Karel 'Jimmy' Malick (Ivan Jandl), who was sent to a concentration camp and miraculously survived. However, he is a shell of a child, so scarred that he has largely lost his memory and afraid to even try to remember. Karel ends up running away because he doesn't understand the difference between American soldiers and German soldiers and doesn't understand he is safe. He eventually is befriended by a GI, Ralph 'Steve' Stevenson (Montgomery Clift) who takes care of him while they try to sort out who he is and what happened to his family.

Ivan Jandl as Karel 'Jimmy' Malick

This is an absolutely stunning film. Do you see that little face up there in the picture? He will break your heart into a thousand pieces. It is not just his though, the other little boys and girls will tear you apart too. The thing that I loved about this film is that it was one part documentary and one part silent film and one part drama. As such, it is one of the earlier examples (that I can list) of what is now commonly called a docudrama.

The boy who played Karel, was apparently a Czechoslovakian boy who couldn't speak a word of English, but had a face that conveyed emotion like nobody's business. I bring this up because Ivan had to learn all his lines phonetically and I think someone was smart enough not to load the film down with a ton of dialogue for him. Instead, they had the boy show his feelings and thoughts without words and the result was amazing. His face tells the story and does it brilliantly. The scenes where they let him be, without talking, ended up giving part of it a silent film feel which was perfect for the this film and the subject. What a brave little boy.

I also liked that a lot of this was filmed in postwar Germany. I say this because they show lots of streets completely lined in rubble where buildings once stood. The sheer amount of destruction is unfathomable for me because I have nothing (thankfully) in my experiences of which to compare. Then to think of families trying to live there and innocent children trying to grow-up there. It is ... sadness beyond words.

I should quickly mention a couple of the other stars. I really liked Aline MacMahon as Mrs. Murray, one of the ladies in charge of the children's homes. She was so compassionate without being overly sentimental and that was a difficult tightrope for her, I bet. And yes, Montgomery Clift was in this one as well. I still don't really like him much as a star, but he didn't do his famous fever acting (I guess he hadn't perfected the sweating and shaking technique yet) so I would say he did a good job in this one too.

I feel I should make a special note of the beautiful cinematography in this. I can't imagine the difficult task of trying to put such human tragedy on film. I don't know if it was the cinematographer or the director, Fred Zinnemann, that set up some of the shots, but they were beautiful. Like, for instance, the one below. They show restraint by not attempting to do a closer shot of the boy, they allow the beauty of the scene with this tiny boy, all alone, speak volumes to what the scene is about.

My only complaint about the entire film is that the ending felt abrupt. I won't ruin it for you, but I always hate when it feels like they say "Oh, we need to wrap this one up quick - end it now!" It doesn't leave it open, there is a definite resolution, but I really wanted a little more time to let the ending have an effect on me instead of having the shock of suddenly see the credits roll. This could easily be a personal preference though.

It is an understatement to say it is a crime and utterly unforgivable that this film is not on DVD. It is one that needs to be seen. I can't believe this masterpiece has not been released. Try to find it on TCM sometime - it is a beautiful, heartbreaking and wonderful film. I loved it. Even WITH Monty Clift in it. :-)

The Women (1939) and (2008)

A group of socialite women is shocked when one of their own, Mary (Norma Shearer) (Meg Ryan), is being stepped out on by her husband. Mary is unsure if she should confront her husband about the affair with the shop girl, Crystal (Joan Crawford) (Eva Mendes) or keep quiet about it till the storm blows over.

Norma Shearer, Joan Crawford and Rosalind Russell in the 1939 version

I had misaligned expectations when I watched the original. I knew it was an all female cast, but that was about all I knew. I mistakenly was super excited about seeing a film that is all about girl power since this is a film made by women, obviously, for women. Instead, it was a bunch of hens who were delighted by each other's misery and even more delighted to gossip about said misery. I realize that is how women are stereotyped, but I really hated seeing that portrayal. It was a bit disheartening and made me have a hard time "enjoying" the movie.

Of course, having said that, the performances were really amazing. Norma Shearer was a wonder as the hurt wife. Rosalind Russell as the biggest hen of them all, without any loyalty whatsoever. Joan Crawford was delightful as the uber-bitch mistress, totally unapologetic about her role in the whole mess. I don't mind some women being shown as catty, because there really are some of them out there, but this film would have you believe the whole lot of us are like that and can't be trusted to be a true friend. That really made me uneasy about the whole film. I really should have enjoyed it for what it was probably, but somehow, I think I misplaced my funny bone.

Annette Bening, Meg Ryan and Eva Mendes (along the bottom) for the 2008 version

Fast-forward to the 2008 version, and my biggest disappointment is corrected. Instead of spending the entire movie tearing each other apart, they are supportive of each other. Instead of Sylvie (Rosalind Russell) (Annette Bening) sending Mary into Saks on purpose to find out the truth about her husband like in the original, she tries to prevent that from happening. It really is nice to see that change about how the women were portrayed.

The problem in changing that is that you really did lose something. The actresses didn't stand out as much in this version. The break-neck speed that I love in older movies, is slowed way down for the new version. The acerbic wit is mostly toned down because they aren't as bitchy now, and I really did love the wit of the original. Also, Eva Mendes, though seriously smoking hot in this, will never be the uber-bitch that Joan played so deliciously in the original. Joan's wicked performance in the bath tub scene was perfect in the original. Plus, at the end when Debra Messing is talking and she says, "and I am sorry I can't stay here long" I was already screaming at the TV, "PLEASE don't let it be a rush to the hospital labor scene with all the labor room antics. I am so sick to death of those scenes in romantic comedies!" Well, you can guess what happened there. So you can guess I really didn't enjoy the last 10 - 15 minutes of the remake.

So I realize I am totally talking out of both sides of my mouth on this. Why can't the updated one have the fast pace and the razor-sharp wit of the first, while retaining the theme of women friends actually WANTING the best for each other and supporting one another? You may wonder which one I liked better? If I had to rate the two, I would definitely have to say the original was a better movie, hands down. However, if you ask which I enjoyed more? Probably the remake, and that is pretty sad for me to say. I think you definitely need to see both and draw your own opinions.

For another take on it, please read Jenny's brilliant take on the original, as compared with another modern day chick flick, the Jane Austen Club. Check it out here.

Central Park (1932)

Two down-on-their-luck depression era people, Rick and Dot, meet and have an instant spark in Central Park. The vow to meet later that day. Dot (Joan Blondell), somehow gets mixed up in a supposed sting operation while Rick (Wallace Ford) gets kidnapped for his involvement with Dot. Add to that an escaped lion as well as an escaped lunatic zoo keeper and you have the makings of a zany drama.

Lobby Card for Central Park

This is only 60 minutes long and packs a ton of plot into that short time. For most movies I would applaud brevity and packing it in, but in this case I felt like it was a bunch of stuff thrown together that never really had time to resolve. I mean, by the end the big plot is resolved, but you end up with a quick scene to resolve the lion and then policeman making a side comment about the escaped lunatic. Why even bother, really?

Also, I really disliked the fact that Rick goes through all this trouble to rescue the girl. He finally gets to her and is like "Oh, hi, yeah, I am an idiot so I am going to go chase the bad guys. Take care of yourself." Okay, he doesn't actually SAY that, but after his sole motivation was to help the girl, when he gets to her, he doesn't stay with her to see if she is okay and protect her? What ever happened to chivalry? He isn't in law enforcement, he is an out of work guy, why on earth would he steal a car and start chasing bad guys when there were like, a zillion policemen there?

So that is what I didn't like about this one. What did I like? I loved Joan Blondell. She was a dream in this - I loved the snappy way she cracked out that dialogue. I also loved that she really seemed to be one of those women who could take care of herself. I really enjoyed watching her entire performance.

I also liked seeing Guy Kibbee as a policeman that is integral to the plot. I liked seeing him because it proved to me he was a good character actor and not the true idiot with the fluttering eyelashes like in "The Dark Horse". He was such a good actor in "The Dark Horse" that he had me convinced he must be an idiot, but apparently not.

I recommend this to any movie buff out there. It is always good to see these early films and see directors and actors try to sort out their crafts and this business of making movies. I love pre-code so that is a bonus too. For the average movie goer that is just wanting to dip their toes in early movies, I would give a huge list of other pre-codes to watch before this one. This one isn't bad, but didn't really sparkle as a great example. However, it is a good one to watch for us die-hards out there. :-)

Mr. Hobbs Takes A Vacation (1962)

Roger Hobbs (James Stewart) thinks a romantic getaway with his wife, Peggy (Maureen O'Hara) would be ideal when he calls her to tell her the news. By the time he gets home, their romantic getaway has turned into a family reunion after she has invited their entire brood to a month-long vacation. Even worse, their rental turns out to be a dilapidated house on the beach complete with tons of family issues.

This was a delightful family film. My Mom had a great love of family films since family was what was important to her and she easily passed that love on to me. Stewart and O'Hara both give great performances (duh) and the situations they get themselves into are absolutely hilarious. Stewart's dry wit is so subtle in this one that I caught myself reacting belatedly to the joke and having to rewind so I wouldn't miss anything. Even though he is older in this, he is still great with his presence and physical comedy too. Watching him do the bird-watching walk alone is enough to leave anyone in stitches.

The script didn't disappoint at all with important sub-plots that underscore the serious side to marital and family relations. All the while, the tone of the film is kept light for that summer fun feel. That alone is a very difficult trick to pull without being too corny on one side or too glib on the other and it is done brilliantly. Stewart's crackling repartee and sarcastic jabs keeps the audience on their toes and tells them everything will eventually work out okay. A couple of my favorite quotes include Hobbs telling his wife, "We got one consolation. In the whole history of the world there has never been a child brought up right." Or Hobbs talking to a very attractive girl on the beach and he explains his brood includes grandchildren. As his wife steps out, looking gorgeous as only Maureen O'Hara can, the girl says, "That's a grandma?" Hobbs slyly replies, "36-26-36 and still operating."

I will keep this one short by saying this is delightful. It is a family film that instead of being geared for children, as most are today, is geared more towards adults. I think that is something that I miss in a lot of the more recent family films. If you get a chance, check this out as I am pretty sure the whole family will enjoy watching it.

Rings On Her Fingers (1942)

Susan Miller (Gene Tierney) is a department store sales girl who dreams of the good life. One day a rich couple visits the store and soon she is whisked away to exotic locales with them.Why? They need big fish and she is the bait - the couple are con artists and she is now a part of their scam. Unfortunately, John Wheeler (Henry Fonda) is at the wrong place at the wrong time and falls hook line and sinker for Susan Miller, who is now Linda Worthington.

Lobby Card for "Rings On Her Fingers"

This is a cute little Cinderella story. A quote from Gene Tierney's department store sales girl character sets the tone of that nicely with, "I guess we were just born on the wrong side of the counter." I really enjoyed seeing Henry Fonda again since I have developed sunch a fondness for Fonda. :-) Gene Tierney did well and my goodness, was she a beautiful woman or what? She filled out that bathing suit quite nicely too. Henry Fonda's character remarked in the film, "If you didn't have a face like that our quarrels would last a lot longer!" I bet they would, indeed. The supporting cast of the con couple, Laird Cregar (who was surprising agile for a large man) and Spring Byington, played it so charming and devious. So the actors were all great - no issue there with this one.

The downside of this one is that we have seen this story many times. Frankly, we have seen a better screenplay of this acted out many times. There is nothing original or clever here. This is another classic example of really good performances propping up what would otherwise be a very mediocre film.

Luckily, the performances do prop the film up and make it a very enjoyable. It is not outstanding, but very enjoyable. If you find this on TCM and have time to kill, give it a shot. It is pretty shallow as films go, but fun. :-)

Westbound (1959)

Welcome to the Civil War. Union Captain John Hayes (Randolph Scott) is dispatched to the West to set up a stagecoach delivery route to transport gold safely from California without those sneaky Confederates snaking it. At one critical point in the route, Clay Putnam (Andrew Duggan) stands in the way as a big shot Confederate sympathizer, determined to ruin the Union's plans. Fortunately, John Hayes receives help from a wounded Union soldier Rod Miller (Michael Dante) and his wife, Jeanie (Karen Steele) aka Big Bazongas, but Clay Putnam also has help from all his cronies and henchmen.

Movie Poster from "Westbound"

I will say upfront that this movie was a bit of a disappointment to me. This is one of those Budd Boetticher / Randolph Scott collaborations which I have enjoyed, but this one isn't one of the better ones. The story is very weak and convoluted. The plot lines are under-developed and terribly predictable. Even worse, they made Scott a hero, but a mostly ineffectual one, just kind of standing by and watching chaos happen to a town till the final showdown. And good golly, the acting aside from Scott is simply atrocious. The most fun I had with the other actors was watching Big Bazongas and the way her dresses and such were cut to best show off her ... well, Big Bazongas. Everyone needs to have a talent, I guess, even if it isn't acting.

So, while this was semi-interesting, I would give this a pass unless you are a Boetticher or Scott fan, or just want to see every Western there is out there, or a fan of Big Bazongas. If you are in the mood for a good Boetticher / Scott film - pick up "The Tall T" instead. You won't be disappointed in that one.

The Dark Horse (1932)

The Progressive Party is hopelessly deadlocked with trying to nominate a candidate for Governor. One side of the deadlock has a brilliant idea. They decide to nominate a "dark horse" candidate from the same county their competition is from so that the votes will be split and their guy will be nominated. Unfortunately, the other deadlocked side realizes what they are trying to do and decide to vote the "dark horse" candidate in rather than lose altogether. Of course, neither side knows anything about the "dark horse" candidate, other than his name, so now they are stuck trying to get a moon-faced, blithering idiot named Zachary Hicks (Guy Kibbee) into the Governor's spot. Enter Kay Russell (Bette Davis), the party's secretary, who has the answer to all their problems. Her boyfriend Hal Blake (Warren William) is a brilliant campaign manager who could run a successful campaign to get a turnip elected president. The party agrees to hire him and the antics are off and running.

Guy Kibbee, Vivienne Osborne and Warren William in "The Dark Horse"

This is a great political satire and Warren William is awesome, awesome, awesome in it. His performance crackles with energy. He is such a character - so charming. You know he is a bit of a shyster, but he is so good at being a shyster that you don't even care. He can launch into an impassioned speech at the drop of the hat to make you believe anything that he is trying to sell to you and ... you enjoy the sales pitch. Here is a perfect example, from after a sheriff breaks down his door, which he knew was coming and plays it so outraged and almost pious it is hilarious:

"What do you ruffians mean by breaking in like this? Is there no privacy in America? Has the time passed when a man's home is his castle? When you smash in my door, the laws of America crash around our heads. This is outrageous!!!!"

I remember Warren William from "Three On A Match", but didn't think too much about him then - he didn't stand out to me. In this role, not only did he stand out but he literally jumped off the screen! I can't wait to see him in more movies.

Every time I watch an early Bette Davis film I am always struck with her beauty. She looks very little like she did when she got older and really gained popularity. She looks like a cute sorority girl. She does well with the role of ... I guess the ingenue here. It is obvious that the studio didn't really know what they had yet and put her in cutesy roles where she could be sassy, but not fierce like she would be later in her career.

The supporting cast is great - which would actually include Bette Davis as supporting cast, but I have already talked about her. Guy Kippee plays Zachary Hicks, the idiot candidate, and boy does he play idiot well. I love the campaign slogan, "Vote for Hicks from the Sticks". He also has this weird way of smiling, where he bats his eyelashes like a girl, which makes him seem even more idiotic. I swear, either he is a true idiot or a great character actor. I think Warren William's character sums the candidate up best when asked what he thought of him after first meeting him. He said, "He's the dumbest human being I ever saw. Every time he opens his mouth he subtracts from the sum total of human knowledge." Ouch.

Also, I shouldn't leave out Vivienne Osborne. She plays Hal Blake's ex-wife and even though I didn't mention her at all in the plot synopsis, she plays heavily into the plot later in the film. She is pretty ... pretty calculating, that is. I kept going back and forth on my feelings about her because in one scene she seems like she might be nice, but later, you realize she is really only out to bleed anyone and everyone she can. I have to ask, how on earth did that woman get $400 / week alimony in 1932?!?!?!?! That is $1,600 a month!! In 1932?!?!?!?!

Lastly, I want to mention Frank McHugh as Joe. Joe is the go-to-guy (or crony, I guess) for Hal Blake's character. I really loved the scene where he is insulting Zachary Hicks, without realizing that the person he is talking to is actually Hicks himself. When someone calls out Hicks name and the guy walks off, Joe realizes what he has done. He takes off his hat and starts beating his head against the wall. I laughed out loud because, good golly, I have wanted to do that many times myself.

I love political satire and social commentary about the American public. They do this in a light humorous way and tossed other elements in to keep the movie interesting for everyone. The performances are great too. If this film comes on TV (it isn't available on DVD) I highly recommend you watch it. I don't think anyone would be disappointed with it.