Seen in 2015

Re-watch

Re-watch

Re-watch

Re-watch

Re-watch

Finally, a Rita Hayworth movie for which I can say I really liked it, both the movie and her character in it. I found whole cast to be terrific. My first pick after leads would be Adolphe Menjou, which is surprising for me to like and laugh at character who yells all the time. Plot device used in early film seems quite ridiculous and since there is not much dance numbers, this movie appears more as a screwball comedy than as a musical. Still, I love all dance scenes, and especially one gave me "Wow!", during which Fred Astaire solo dances, with only Menjou as his audience. So, lost of laughs, sarcasm, sweet dance moments, and Rita's appearance and wardrobe left me speechless. She looked like a goddess.

Last dance number cast a shadow on everything that preceded. I'm not saying I didn't like what happened before, on contrary - but putting together film noir elements with musical is so unexpected and creative idea. I love noticing little difference between 1930's and 1950's Fred Astaire. Great fun.

"You see, I wanted to be a detective too. It only took brains, courage and a gun - and I had the gun!"

As I recall, this is the first noir spoof I've watched - and I certainly don't regret doing it. The way this movie was using noir devices made me laugh a great deal. I'm talking about narration in first, Bob Hope had such great, fun lines, particularly on his inefficiency and cowardice, that I wished I wrote them all down. I also loved the dialogue and interaction he had with other characters. He actually carried the movie, and there's always something fun happening while he's around. I felt that investigation plot is getting bumpy and abstruse at times, but I didn't get to worry much about that because Hope would do/say something fun in the meanwhile and interrupt me in getting remarks. My point is - even with the occasional mess in the plot, it's entertaining to watch mostly thanks to goofy humor of the lead role.

For a ninety years old, this movie surprisingly holds true about college environment, even for today's standards. There are parties around the clock, couples making out in parks behind buildings (where you can also notice young Clark Gable!) and a good, promising guy making it hard to balance between responsibilities and college sweetheart. Basically its enjoyable, but my complaint might not be the most objective one. I found it a bit disappointing that there is not much room left for Clara Bow to show her talent, even though she got the role of 'the queen bee' among the girls. She appears only now and then, mostly between football scenes, and even then you get the feel she's only there to corrupt her boyfriend's potential, with heavy partying and drinking. They did make it up with the ending, being one of the cutest scenes in the movie.

I'd recommend "Why Be Good?" as a quick time-travel to anyone who wants to take a glimpse of how 1920's were for its youth. The atmosphere is captured perfectly - around every corner you'll bump into party, jazz club, Charleston dances and flirty flapper girls.



One of the girls is Coleen Moore, (makes great first impression on me) perky partygoer with swell dance moves and - this must be said - infallible resemblance of Clara Bow. They share both similar looks and body language, especially notably expressive eyes. Coleen had more luck here than Clara possibly ever in career, so she is well-matched with quite a looker, Neil Hamilton who plays kindhearted but unfortunately tractable guy.



Even though the film seems forward for its time, it couldn't escape the period's standards so it's closing with 'morality test' which lowered my excitement, but I didn't let that spoil my impression.

Death decides to take a human form and spends few days trying to figure human striving and desires. This premise sounded interesting to me, yet it was so hard to get used to this movie. It's very different from '30s stuff I watch which usually don't have anything supernatural and fantasy-like within. So, the movie really kicks in after Fredric March shows up. He had really fun word plays and interactions with most of the characters. As human, he also learned about love and realizes that's about the only worthwhile matter on Earth. To my disappointment, that is the weakest part of the movie. Couple barely had any chemistry and I really disliked their dialogue, especially in final scenes - so overlong, bookish and melodramatic (it goes something like "You have given the meaning to the stars, I shall hear your laughter in every wind that passes") and not to mention how they seem so distant and stiff during that scene, as if they're just saying the words. So I couldn't help but roll my eyes and wait for the closing credits to show up.


Also, Fredric March was a quite handsome fellow, but that horrible monocle doesn't suits him at all.

This is so unrealistic (I mean really, why are people in their late twenties still acting like teens and even preserved their high school crushes? Only few of the reunion people had actually acted like something that resembles real life) but yet it's so lighthearted and fun! Mira Sorvino and Lisa Kudrow are really cute, ditzy and their crazy ideas (and clothing) certainly cheered me up. Pleasant to watch and to recall own high school days.

For some reason, the first part of the movie totally evaporated out of my mind. I think that mystery didn't exactly grab me. On the other side, it is going to be hard to forget its resolvent - classy dinner party with all the suspects is, with its suspense and cleverness, high point of the movie. But what it's really all about is the pairing of Powell and Loy. They do have great interaction and I never get tired of listening to their witty dialogues.

Re-watch

This was a strange movie experience, in least. First of all, I don't know why it is called horror. This is not a horror (possibly 'cause I laughed more and was chilled less). Nor it is a vampire movie, as some may conclude from the title. Countess does not drink blood, she just uses it for cosmetic purpose, hello!

So we meet our countess as a mean, embittered old lady but she'll soon become just her opposite when accidentally finds magical prescription for youth. Then she turns into a joyous sexpot lusting for men. This whole movie is filled up with sexual innuendo and naked gals, and it even pulled through some jokes about it. I though that murdering part, countess' 'relations' with girls and her manic running away from being discovered were entertaining. Love triangle should have been exciting, but dull triangle members did a great job to make it continuously uninteresting to watch. At least historical background of this movie is something to think about. I mean really, there actually existed some crazy lady who to took baths in virgin's blood? Jeez!

Re-watch

Like other two Borzage's Gaynor-Farrell silents, "Street Angel" combines romance and melodrama. Romance is about as effective as in "Lucky Star" or "7th Heaven" with a little different take on characters. Here Janet Gaynor is more dominating, in sense she is loud and feisty (in first half at least) while Charles Farrell is coy, sentimental, even infantile in certain way.

I found melodramatic parts to be much more frustrating to watch than in other two. The fact that it's basically fault on character's actions, and not on some third party, makes it only more difficult to sympathize with them. In last third of the movie Gaynor's characters pulls such a incomprehensible move so for me everything went downhill from that point towards the end. And the ending didn't help either - what a soap. So basically, up until one hour "Street Angel" is well worth the watch, afterwards it would be way smarter for me if I had just rolled over to sleep and took only good parts along.