Created by me, Sally Silverscreen, on Adobe Spark.
Greetings to all of my readers and followers! I just want to remind everyone that there’s only one month left to sign up for my blogathon, “Siskel and Ebert at the Blogathon”! If you’re interested, please request a topic as soon as possible. To check out the original blogathon announcement, click on the banner that’s located in the upper right-hand corner of the screen. I also want to share that I have just received The Baroness Orczy Blogging Award from the blog, Silver Screenings! I’m going to be honest, I had never heard of this particular author until I won this award. So, I went to Goodreads and learned more about her. Based on the presented information, she sounds like a fascinating individual! I’ll definitely have to check out one of her books sometime. Thank you to everyone at Silver Screenings for selecting me for this award. Having my written work compared to someone like Baroness Orczy is truly an honor!
So, I was, originally, not going to participate in the Summer Under the Stars Blogathon. This is because I already signed up for three other blogathons that are scheduled for August. But, when I discovered that there would be prizes involved, I was in it to win it! Since I’m also a participant in Pure Entertainment Preservation Society’s A Month Without the Code Blogathon, I will be incorporating the films I review for the Summer Under the Stars blogathon into my roster for the aforementioned blogathon. That way, I can help the Brannan sisters promote their message and try my best to win Kristen and Samantha’s blogathon! When I was looking through Turner Classic Movies’ (TCM’s) roster of films, I came across the movie, I Never Sang for My Father. It’s one that I had heard of, but had never seen. Before seeing this film, I was not familiar with who Melvyn Douglas was as an actor. So, I did some research on TCM’s website. The first thing I noticed was that he was a Broadway actor prior to appearing in films. This made me wonder if any of his on-stage talents were carried over to the screen. Keep reading my review of 1970’s I Never Sang for My Father in order to find out!
I was going to use this film’s poster from Wikipedia, but I decided to take a screenshot of this poster instead. Screenshot taken by me, Sally Silverscreen.Things I liked about the film:
The acting: As I’ve said in the introduction, I was not familiar with Melvyn Douglas before watching I Never Sang for My Father. This means that this is the first time I have ever seen him act. Despite this, I was very impressed with his performance in this film! His portrayal of Tom Garrison contained so much depth and emotion, that it was captivating to watch. He definitely stole the show in this movie! The other actors and actresses in I Never Sang for My Father brought a sense of realism to their performance, just like Melvyn did. One of them is Estelle Parsons, who portrays Gene’s sister, Alice. Whether it was the look in her eyes or the inflection of her voice, she always expressed her character’s concern and care with believability. Even though she wasn’t on screen for very long, she made a memorable impression with her performance!
Dynamics between the characters: Because every actor portrayed their characters with such realism, the interactions and dynamics between the characters were interesting to watch. Every time these characters communicated or spent time with each other, I always wondered what was about to happen next. That’s because it reflected how conversations, sometimes, work in real life. When it comes to interacting with someone, we can’t always predict how things will turn out. This was captured well in the film through the dynamics of the characters!
The messages and themes: Within this film, there were several messages and themes that are just as relevant today as they were in the early ‘70s. One of them was the care and well-being of elderly relatives. After their mother dies, Gene and Alice try to decide how to take care of their father. Several options are discussed, such as a live-in nurse and a nursing home. The way these ideas were expressed came across very realistically, like the situations themselves had come directly from real life. This made the interactions between the characters that much more interesting.
The run-time: I Never Sang for My Father has a run-time of one hour and thirty-two minutes. But the movie itself felt like it was two plus hours. This is because some scenes were drawn out longer than they needed to be. One example is when Tom Garrison reads a letter to his children. It seems like scenes like this one were as long as they were for the sake of satisfying the run-time. But it was already at a reasonable length of one hour and thirty-two minutes. Another aspect of the film that seemed to satisfy the run-time was unnecessary subplots. The part of the story about Gene’s affair really didn’t seem to lead anywhere. It made me think that the narrative would have improved if that part had been omitted.
Telling, but not showing: In almost any cinematic story, an effective way to persuade an audience is by verbally and visually presenting an idea. In I Never Sang for My Father, there were many cases where ideas about Tom Garrison were verbally expressed. However, there was no visual evidence to support these claims. When Gene stated that he was physically abused by his father, the behaviors and actions of Tom Garrison that were shown on-screen didn’t show him being physically abusive toward anyone. If anything, the things that were said about Tom sounded like hearsay that couldn’t always be taken seriously.
An over-exaggerated relationship: A significant part of this story is about the strained relationship between Tom and Gene Garrison. The film’s synopsis makes their relationship seem worse than it really is. Sure, it isn’t pleasant. But it didn’t seem like anything out of the ordinary. Throughout the film, Tom comes across as a lonely senior citizen who just wants someone to talk to. Meanwhile, Gene is presented as, simply, annoyed by how often his father speaks. I feel this is the result of the screen-writing. Both Gene and Melvyn did the best they could with the material they were given. But, for characters and their relationships, they have to be well acted and written.
Like I said in the introduction, I Never Sang for My Father is a movie that I’d heard of, but had never seen. I thought that the story would be deep and thought-provoking. But, now that I have seen the movie, I, honestly, think it’s just ok. The story itself was more straight forward than I had expected. I also thought that the plot was weaker than it could have been. However, one of the better parts of the film was, definitely, the acting! Melvyn Douglas’ performance was a highlight, bringing his character to life in such a captivating way. I’m glad that I gave I Never Sang for My Father a chance, as I was able to introduce myself to new actors and films! With several changes, this movie could have been approved by the Breen Code. These changes would be the following:
At the beginning of the movie, there is a couple that can be seen kissing passionately. Either the man or woman in the relationship would need to turn their head in order to block the kiss or the kiss itself would have to be cut shorter when it comes to length of time.
There are several instances when foul or suggestive language is used by the characters. One constant example is whenever someone swears. These words would need to be rewritten, with the screen-writer choosing words that are more appropriate.
As I mentioned in my review, there is a subplot about Gene having an affair. This part of the story would either get omitted or would be rewritten to make this relationship come across in a more subtle way. Any references to sex would be removed or rewritten to be as subtle in presentation as possible.
Overall score: 6 out of 10
Have you been keeping up with Turner Classic Movies’ “Summer Under the Stars” marathon? Which day of the marathon are you excited for? Share your thoughts in the comment section!
Like last month, I will be participating in Pure Entertainment Preservation Society’s A Month Without the Code Blogathon! Unlike the Clean Movie Month Blogathon, the purpose of this month’s blogathon is to watch and talk about films that were released outside of the Breen Code era. That way, elements of the Breen Code can be applied to these films through discussion and analysis. For the very first review, I have chosen Nosferatu! It’s a film that I had definitely heard of, but had never seen. So far, I’ve had a good track record when it comes to the silent film genre. The Kid, Wild Oranges, and Sunnyside are films that I have seen and enjoyed. Also, I thought it would be interesting to apply the Breen Code to a film that was released before the Breen Code existed. It’s time to start this unfrightening and not-so-spooky review of 1922’s Nosferatu!
Like the poster for Les Enfants Terribles, I’ve seen other posters for Nosferatu. This one, however, is the one I like the most! Screenshot taken by me, Sally Silverscreen.Things I liked about the film:
The acting: As I’ve said in my review of Wild Oranges, actors and actresses in silent films have to rely on body language, facial expressions, and actions/behaviors. The cast in Nosferatu used these acting elements to their full advantage, as if the “silent” part of silent films was never considered as a disadvantage. Both Gustav von Wangenheim and Greta Schroder, the actors who portrayed the characters of Hutter and Ellen, were very expressive! Their acting abilities helped the audience figure out what their characters were thinking and feeling. The two actors that stole the show, though, were Max Schreck and Alexander Granach! Even though their characters, Count Orlok/Nosferatu and Knock, are only on-screen for a limited time, they made the most of their on-screen presence. Both of these actors use their facial expressions to make their characters appear as creepy as possible. Because their acting abilities were that good, it made the portrayal of their characters appear believable!
The music: Similar to films like Sunnyside, the music in Nosferatu represented the tone of the overall film. This movie is classified as a horror movie, so the music during frightening scenes was tense and suspenseful. For less scary moments, the music was calmer and gentler. While Hutter visits an inn on his trip to Count Orlok’s castle, the music is light-hearted. This shows what Hutter is feeling, which is excitement toward his journey. When he shares his destination with the innkeeper, every patron in the inn becomes scared. At this moment, the music quickly changes to sound more mysterious and eerie. The fact that the music was always on-point with what was happening on-screen helped make the movie-viewing experience that much more engaging!
The on-screen chemistry: Even though their relationship wasn’t featured on-screen for very long, I liked seeing the on-screen chemistry between Gustav von Wangenheim and Greta Schroder! Anytime Hutter and Ellen interacted with each other, it was apparent that these characters truly cared about one another. As I already said, Gustav and Greta’s performances were very expressive. This not only helped make their portrayals endearing, but also help the audience stay invested in Hutter and Ellen’s relationship. This part of the story was a good way to balance out the scariness of Count Orlok/Nosferatu’s character. It was just one way of providing enough light-hearted moments to not frighten the audience too much.
Nosferatu’s limited presence: Before I watched this film, I had assumed that Count Orlok/Nosferatu would have a significantly large presence on-screen. Unfortunately, he was only featured in a handful of scenes. I also thought that most of the plot would revolve around Count Orlok/Nosferatu, especially since the movie is titled Nosferatu. However, the plot was about the fear associated with this character. While Count Orlok/Nosferatu was not an afterthought, it felt like the movie was about everything but him. This character ended up serving the plot very sparingly.
Not so subtle dialogue: Because Nosferatu is a “silent film”, the film’s dialogue is featured on title cards and shots that look like the audience is reading a page from a book. But this dialogue didn’t want to hide the fact that there was a vampire in the movie. Toward the beginning of the film, Knock, Hutter’s boss, tells him that in order to sell a house to Count Orlok, it would require a little bit of blood. When Count Orlok sees a picture of Hutter’s wife, Ellen, he says that she has a nice-looking neck. These are just two examples of how this dialogue was not so subtle about who Count Orlok really was. This happened so frequently, that I felt annoyed by it.
Contradicting logic: In, at least, two instances, there were times when logic in Nosferatu was contradicted. One example is when Count Orlok tells Hutter that he only sleeps during the day, which causes people to think that he doesn’t exist. But, when he boards a ship on his way to Wisborg, Count Orlok/Nosferatu walks around the ship’s deck in broad daylight. In a shot that was sharing the film’s plot, it was revealed that the people of Wisborg were afraid to leave their homes because they were unaware of who was affected by the “plague”. When they accused Knock of infecting the town with the “plague”, these same townspeople were chasing Knock throughout the town and a neighboring field. Moments like these made the story seem like it wasn’t as strong as it could have been.
After watching Nosferatu, I can see that this year’s A Month Without the Code is off to a good start! I have been lucky when it comes to the silent film genre, as I enjoyed every film I’ve seen and/or reviewed so far! Nosferatu has such a rich story, making for an interesting and engaging movie. The stories of how this project was made and restored are also fascinating. It makes me thankful that someone went out of their way to preserve this piece of cinema and save it from obscurity. If this film was created during the Breen Code era, it would be very different. For one thing, it would not be a silent film, as movies released between 1934 to 1954 had audio where cast members could be heard. From the perspective of content, there are a few things that would need to change. These things are the following:
The references to blood would need to be reduced. Since one of the characters in Nosferatu is a vampire, talking about blood makes sense. But, because mentions of bodily functions are looked down on, blood would have to be talked about at a minimum.
There are two shots in this movie that could be seen as disturbing: one shows a Venus Fly Trap eating a fly and one shows a spider eating its prey. These scenes would have to be removed.
On two separate occasions, a dead body is shown on-screen. These images would have to be removed and the on-screen deaths would need to be implied either through dialogue or clever visuals.
Overall score: 7.5 out of 10
Have you seen Nosferatu? What is your favorite movie featuring vampires? Share your thoughts in the comment section!
For the Christmas in July Blogathon from Drew’s Movie Reviews, I knew that I wanted to review a Hallmark Christmas movie. However, I was originally going to talk about Hallmark Hall of Fame’s A Heavenly Christmas. Because I forgot to record that movie and because I have a lot of movies stored on my DVR, I chose to review Christmas Camp instead. This is the latest Christmas movie from Hallmark Movies & Mysteries. Having a new Christmas film air in July is not a new concept, as this has been done on both of Hallmark’s channels in the past. What makes this film sound interesting is the idea of a Christmas-themed camp. This idea has never been featured in a Hallmark movie before, so I wanted to see how it would be executed in the story. Did this movie make me a “happy camper”? Take a sleigh ride through this review of Christmas Camp to find out!
The acting: I was not familiar with Lily Anne Harrison’s acting abilities before watching Christmas Camp. In fact, this was the first Hallmark movie that Lily had ever starred in. Despite this, she did a good job with the acting material she was given! Because of her performance, her character, Haley, came across as a very pleasant individual. Another character that was a pleasant person was Jeff. Bobby Campo also did a good job at bringing this character to life, providing the charm and likability that made his performance enjoyable. The rest of the cast was talented! They complimented one another’s acting abilities and shined on their own merits!
The cinematography: For some of the scenes involving natural landscapes, the cinematography was really good! Anytime a snowy forest was featured in the movie, it looked beautiful on-screen. What stood out to me was a shot of a sunset behind a snowy forest. This was captured very well on film! There was other good cinematography inside the Christmas Camp. In one instance, a close-up of a gorgeous Christmas tree was shown before a scene began. This was a great way to showcase some of the facility’s Christmas decorations!
A pointless plot: The premise of this movie is a businesswoman being sent to Christmas Camp in order to find inspiration for an upcoming business project. But within the first ten minutes of the film, Haley’s boss gives the coveted business project to another employee. This made me wonder why she would entertain the idea of giving Haley the project if she already gave it to someone else? During her time at Christmas Camp, Haley discovers her idea for the aforementioned business project. This idea was found at the local community center, not at the Christmas Camp. It made me ask why she was forced to go to the Camp when she was able to find inspiration elsewhere?
A hypocritical message: The overarching message of Christmas Camp was to uphold Christmas traditions. However, this message ended up coming across as hypocritical. Earlier in the film, Haley shares that her Christmas tradition is taking a family vacation to the Caribbean and watching Christmas movies in the hotel room. Her boss thinks that she needs an “attitude adjustment” because her traditions aren’t “traditional”. Throughout the film, Haley is guilted into changing her Christmas traditions to align more with those of the Camp. Another guest of the Camp shared that one of his Christmas traditions was opening presents on Christmas Eve, due to his father being a professional basketball coach. Shortly after sharing this, the guest’s wife is critical about this particular tradition. Everyone has their own unique and special way of celebrating Christmas. So, for this story to look down on that is very frustrating.
Christmas Camp as an afterthought: The idea of a Christmas-themed camp is something that has never been shown in a Hallmark movie before. Because of this, I was curious to see how this concept would be incorporated into the story. Unfortunately, the Camp itself was treated as an afterthought. The activities associated with Christmas Camp seemed so interesting. Yet, most of these activities were barely shown in the film. One example is when the campers are required to pick out a Christmas tree and decorate it. However, the only person the audience sees doing this activity is Haley. Also, for a place called Christmas Camp, Haley’s bedroom was poorly decorated. It barely featured any Christmas decorations, which made the room look less than festive.
After watching this movie, I’m starting to understand why Hallmark Movies & Mysteries aired Christmas Camp in July and not during their “Miracles of Christmas” line-up. This film had so much potential to do something different from other Christmas movies on the network. There was also potential to share a message that would have been relatable. Unfortunately, all of this potential was not taken advantage of by Christmas Camp’s creative team. Instead, I ended up getting the worst Hallmark movie I’ve seen this year, so far. I’m hoping that during Hallmark Movies & Mysteries’ “Miracles of Christmas” line-up and Hallmark Channel’s “Countdown to Christmas” line-up, movies as disappointing as Christmas Camp will be a rarity.
Before I end this review, I would like to add a name to the invitation list for Drew’s Christmas Party. The actress that I would like to see get invited to Drew’s Christmas party is Karina Arroyave. I’ve seen several of her acting work in various television shows and movies, including two Hallmark Hall of Fame films (Blind Spot from 1993 and Missing Pieces from 2000). I think she’s a very talented actress. But, at the same time, she is also very underrated. By suggesting Karina’s name for Drew’s invitation list, I’m hoping that she can, sooner or later, receive the recognition she deserves!
Overall score: 5.1 out of 10
Have you seen Christmas Camp? Do like watching Christmas movies in July? Leave your thoughts in the comment section!
For Pure Entertainment Preservation Society’s Favorite Code Film Blogathon, I reflected on all of the Breen Code era movies that I’ve seen and/or reviewed since starting 18 Cinema Lane a year ago. One film, that I watched back in May, that left a good impression on me was 1938’s Boys Town. Before 2019, I had never even heard of this movie. But I’m glad I gave the film a chance, as I thoroughly enjoyed it! Boys Town had the components that I look for in a movie; a good story with likable characters. It’s also based on a real-life person as well as a real-life non-profit organization. This is a film that I think people should give a chance. To explain why, I created a list of reasons to support my opinion. One of my goals for this blog is to encourage others to watch films that they may not have seen before. So, if this post accomplishes that goal, I would feel like I helped someone out.
When I review a film, one of the first things I talk about is the acting. This is because the acting performances are one of the first things you see in a movie. In Boys Town, the actors in this cast gave fantastic acting performances! One of the most notable is Mickey Rooney’s performance as Whitey Marsh. Over the course of the story, Whitey evolves from a self-centered youngster to one of Boys Town’s biggest supporters. Mickey’s portrayal of this character helped make this evolution believable. In fact, this is one of the best performances that Mickey has ever given in his career! That’s not the only acting performance that impressed me. Spencer Tracy’s portrayal of Father Flanagan is consistent in not only Boys Town, but also in the sequel, Men of Boys Town. With the right amount of emotionality, Spencer made his character a likable individual. Father Flanagan was stern when he needed to be, yet selfless and caring toward the residents of Boys Town. Throughout this movie, you can tell that Father Flanagan always has his heart in the right place.
Based on a True Story
As I said in the introduction, Boys Town is based on a real-life person and a real-life non-profit organization. Before watching this movie, I was familiar with Boys Town as a charity. Their mission and the people that have benefited from Boys Town are things that I learned about years prior. When I watched the film, I learned more about Boys Town and the history associated with it. While there were liberties that were taken in this story, the movie is an educational lesson about who Father Flanagan is and what his mission was. Come to think of it, I haven’t seen or heard of many movies that tell the story about an existing non-profit organization. This is something that makes this film truly special!
Because Boys Town and its sequel, Men of Boys Town, were released during the Breen Code era, there isn’t any cinematic content this is questionable or offensive. Because of this, I will be talking about the positive content that is featured in this film. A large portion comes from the lessons and messages included in this narrative. Giving second chances is a fluid message, highlighted in Whitey’s subplot. By bringing Whitey to Boys Town, Father Flanagan gives Whitey a second chance at life. Despite Whitey’s negative attitudes toward his new surroundings, Father Flanagan never gives up on him. One important lesson that can be found in Boys Town is putting other people before yourself. During the entirety of this story, Father Flanagan is always looking out for the residents of Boys Town. Even when he receives hundreds of dollars in donations and plenty of praise, he still tries to figure how he can help others to the best of his abilities. Messages and lessons like these can be relatable for all members of the audience!
An Entertaining Sequel
I’ve been saying in this post that Boys Town was given a sequel called Men of Boys Town. Before I watched this film, I was skeptical about its quality. Since its predecessor was based on a true story, I wasn’t sure how the sequel would hold up. I was proven wrong, however, as I was met by a movie that was just as good or better than the first one! While Whitey’s subplot repeats some of the same story-points from Boys Town, the overall narrative of Men of Boys Town expands upon the story from the first film. New characters are introduced, causing new stories to be told. With this comes new ideas and messages, such as trauma, loss, and finding ways to heal. Men of Boys Town is one of the few sequels that actually compliments the film that came before it. If you do give Boys Town a chance, check out Men of Boys Town as well!
In my review of Stowaway, I shared that I would be reviewing a Breen Code era film every week during Clean Movie Month. This gives me a chance to watch even more movies that I haven’t seen before. That’s the great thing about being a movie blogger, as I not only get to watch films that are new to me, but I also get to share these films with others. In the month of July, films that were released between 1934 and 1954, also known as the Breen Code era, are celebrated by anyone and everyone who enjoys movies. Because of Tiffany and Rebekah, from Pure Entertainment Preservation Society, more people can learn about the Breen Code and why it’s an important part of film history. Be sure to stay tuned for the rest of my Clean Movie Month reviews, which will come as July goes on.
Unlike the Jean Simmons and Rosalind Russell Blogathon, I was familiar with who Olivia de Havilland was, as an actress, before I signed up for The Fourth Annual Olivia de Havilland Blogathon. Gone with the Wind and The Snake Pit are the only two films of Olivia’s that I’d seen prior to my blogathon participation. I wanted to watch a film within this actress’s filmography that I haven’t seen before. When I found out that Olivia had starred in the film, Hush…Hush, Sweet Charlotte, I decided to choose this movie for this review. Hush…Hush, Sweet Charlotte is a film that I had heard of before. It’s usually put in the same category as a film like What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?, where mystery and suspicion are the common themes within the narrative. I was fortunate to have seen this movie knowing very little about the story. The lack of spoilers helped my movie-viewing experience be as entertaining as possible. Now, let’s figure out what my thoughts are on Hush…Hush, Sweet Charlotte!
The acting: I was a fan of the acting performances in Hush…Hush, Sweet Charlotte! The only other film of Bette Davis’ that I’ve seen is What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?. But even after watching that film and Hush…Hush, Sweet Charlotte, I think that Bette excels at portraying characters that are unsettling and over-the-top. Olivia de Havilland’s portrayal of Miriam Deering was very cool and collected. This helped balance out the differences between Bette and Olivia’s performances! I was also pleasantly surprised by Agnes Moorehead’s performance as Velma Cruther! She made her character so memorable, that her performance still stands out in my mind long after I saw the film.
The cinematography: Hush…Hush, Sweet Charlotte had some really good cinematography! The way some of these scenes are presented made the movie look visually appealing. How the lighting was used in this film was something that caught my attention. For example, during an evening meal, when Charlotte was talking about her father, a portrait of him is shown with the use of a bright light. Certain camera angles made some scenes have a unique look to them. One example is when Charlotte is walking up the stairs. This scene was presented as if the audience was looking down on the set of stairs.
Some unexpected surprises: As I mentioned in the introduction, Hush…Hush, Sweet Charlotte is a story that has a good amount of mystery and suspicion. With this comes some unexpected surprises. I will not be spoiling any of these surprises in this review, especially since some of my readers and followers may not have seen this film yet. But what I will say is that these surprises were very shocking, leaving me completely caught off guard! The surprises kept this story interesting, helping me to stay invested in the overall narrative.
An unnecessary amount of violence: When I was watching this film, I noticed some violence that, in my opinion, didn’t need to be there. For example, early on in the movie, John Mayhew, Charlotte’s love interest, gets his hand chopped off. This act is explicitly featured in the movie. While this was a shocking moment, I don’t think this needed to be shown in the film. If a shadow of the knife falling were seen or if John’s scream were heard in the distance, it would have created the same effect of shocking the audience.
The run-time: Two hours and 13 minutes is the official run-time for Hush…Hush, Sweet Charlotte. Because of this, there were moments that were drawn out a little longer than they should have. One example is this is when Charlotte and Harry Willis meet for the first time. Personally, I think that the film’s run time is a bit too long. Having the movie run at under two hours would have worked better for the narrative. This way, the audience could stay invested in the story without having to feel bored at any moment of the film.
The amount of shocking/surprising moments: Hush…Hush, Sweet Charlotte does have some shocking/surprising moments. However, most of these moments take place within the film’s climax, toward the end of the film. I understand that the narrative is building up to that climatic moment. But, prior to the climax, these shocking/surprising moments are used sparingly. This creative choice caused me to feel that this story was not as mysterious or suspenseful as I had thought it would be. The ratio between shocking/surprising moments and scenes without them were uneven.
Manor with white colored porch image created by Arkadiusz Frankowicz at freeimages.com. “FreeImages.com/Arkadiusz Frankowicz .”
My overall impression:
Though this movie had its flaws, I still found Hush…Hush, Sweet Charlotte to be a good film! It’s one of those movies that gets better as you keep watching, developing into a story that is truly shocking and intriguing. The only movie I can compare this to is What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?, as the structure of each narrative is very similar. After comparing these two films, I would choose Hush…Hush, Sweet Charlotte as the better of the two. It had more interesting components and I found myself being more invested in this particular story. I would definitely recommend giving this film a watch! But, if you choose to watch this film, please avoid spoilers, as it will make your movie-viewing experience that much better.
Overall score: 7.7 out of 10
Have you seen any of Olivia de Havilland’s film? If so, which one is your favorite? Share your thoughts in the comment section!
When I looked through Rosalind Russell’s IMDB filmography in preparation for The Rosalind Russell Blogathon, I discovered that The Trouble with Angels was given a sequel called Where Angels Go, Trouble Follows. This is a movie that I had never seen or heard of. But, since I haven’t created a double feature for a blogathon since last August, I decided to review The Trouble with Angels and Where Angels Go, Trouble Follows! If you read my review for the first film, you would know that I enjoyed it. The synopsis for the sequel sounded interesting and different from the previous movie. This is what caused me to want to give this project a chance. Was this a complimentary story to The Trouble with Angels? Find out in my review of Where Angels Go, Trouble Follows!
The acting: Like in the first movie, the cast of Where Angels Go, Trouble Follows was good! One of things that helped was having some of the actresses who portrayed the nuns in the previous film return for the second one. This kept a sense of continuity between the characters. Also, like in the first movie, Rosalind shined in her role of Mother Superior! Her performance was very consistent with how she portrayed the character in The Trouble with Angels. It continued to make this character just as likable as she was in the previous picture.
The inclusion of Sister George: Because Mary Clancy graduated from St. Francis Academy at the end of The Trouble with Angels, Sister George, portrayed by Stella Stevens, replaced her as a counteracting presence for Mother Superior to interact with. Both Rosalind and Stella gave a strong acting performance, which allowed their talents to compliment one another. These characters were also well-written, both of them providing interesting points to their stance. I found this aspect of the film to be the most interesting. Seeing these characters progress as the movie went on was one of the strengths of this story.
The scenery: I’m glad that the building from The Trouble with Angels made an appearance in the sequel! While there weren’t many scenes that took place inside of the school, a few more exterior shots of the grounds were shown. These outdoor spaces were captured really well on film! It kind of allowed the viewer to explore this location a little bit more. Most of the movie took place on a class field trip, which consisted of traveling through several states in order to reach a peace rally in California. This gave the creative team an excuse of include scenery-heavy scenes in the movie. These scenes were interesting to look at, as they showcased the natural landscapes from each state that the characters traveled through. This was, honestly, one of the more memorable parts of the film.
A weak plot: As I’ve already mentioned, this movie is about the nuns and some of the students of St. Francis Academy going on a field trip to a peace rally in California. Besides the conflict between Sister George and Mother Superior, this story was very weak. A large portion of the scenes in this film consist of the school’s bus traveling through various states. Instead of one overarching story, this narrative was written as a series of short vignettes. Not only were none of these vignettes that interesting, but they seemed to string the movie along just for the sake of keeping this weak plot going.
Scenes lasting for way too long: Throughout this movie, I found several scenes that lasted way too long. One example is when some of the students from St. Francis Academy attend a party that is hosted by an all-boys school. The scene itself felt like a two-minute music video. It didn’t really add anything to the plot or the development of the characters. The length of these scenes feel like they are trying to make up for the weakness of the plot.
Charismatic-less characters: Since Rachel and Mary graduated in the first movie, Marvel Ann, portrayed by Barbara Hunter, and Rosabelle, portrayed by Susan Saint James, acted as their replacements. Barbara and Susan tried the best they could with the acting material they were given. But these characters weren’t as charismatic as Rachel and Mary were. Because of this, it made Marvel Ann and Rosabelle seem unlikable. It also made me not care about their story.
My overall impression:
I was very disappointed by Where Angels Go, Trouble Follows. This movie had interesting ideas that could have lent themselves to a good sequel. However, all of these ideas were wasted on poor execution. When it comes to fictional stories, I am more than willing to suspend my disbelief. But this movie tried to make me suspend more of my disbelief than I had wanted to. The only interesting aspect of this story was the conflict between Mother Superior and Sister George. This part of the film was not only well-acted, but also well-written. Unfortunately, I can’t say the same about the rest of the movie. While I would recommend The Trouble with Angels, I would suggest skipping the sequel.
Before signing up for The Rosalind Russell Blogathon, I had never heard of Rosalind Russell. Like I did to prepare for the 90 Years of Jean Simmons Blogathon, I visited Rosalind’s IMDB filmography. After searching this page, I discovered that Rosalind starred in the film, The Trouble with Angels. This is a film that I’ve heard of, but never seen. So, I used my participation in the blogathon as an excuse to watch this movie! I was also aware that Hayley Mills starred in The Trouble with Angels. Before watching this film, I had seen a few of her movies. In fact, I reviewed The Moon-Spinners earlier this year! So, I was looking forward to seeing what her acting abilities had to offer in this production. Was my movie-viewing experience a blessing or a curse? You can fly through my review of The Trouble with Angels if you want to find out!
The acting: I really liked the cast of The Trouble with Angels! Every actor and actress pulled off a performance that not only appeared realistic, but also was effective. Rosalind Russell’s portrayal of Mother Superior was interesting to watch. This character was strict, yet she always had her heart in the right place. I couldn’t help but find Mother Superior to be a likable character. I also enjoyed seeing Haley Mills in this film! Prior to watching The Trouble with Angels, I have seen The Parent Trap (1961), That Darn Cat and The Moon-Spinners. Hayley’s portrayal of Mary Clancy is somewhat different from her roles in those aforementioned films. However, Hayley’s performance had a sense of maturity to it. This particular role complimented both her age and acting abilities. Because of this, it made Hayley’s portrayal of Mary that much more entertaining to watch!
The set/scenery: The Trouble with Angels takes place at St. Francis Academy. According to IMDB, the building that was used in the exterior shots is a real-life facility in Ambler, Pennsylvania. But the interior shots were filmed in a California studio. Despite this difference in filming locations, I thought the scenery/set was absolutely magnificent! The building itself looks like a castle, the footage of it probably doesn’t do this place justice. There were grounds surrounding the building that I liked seeing as well! All four seasons was showcased in the film, which helped highlight the beauty that these grounds had to offer. The set looks like it would compliment the real-life structure. A combination of stone, wood, and stained glass were appealing to the eye. The location scout(s) and set decorator(s) did a great job with bringing this school to life!
A sense of humanity: In this story, there were moments where a sense of humanity shown through. This happened through dialogue and situations amongst the characters. One example is when Mary and Rachel (portrayed by June Harding) try to lie to Mother Superior about their whereabouts. When Mother Superior suspects that Mary and Rachel are making fun of one of their teachers, she shares the truth about this particular teacher with them. Another example is when some of the students visit a Retirement Home during Christmas-time. When Mary overhears some of the residents sharing their loneliness with others, it shows the audience that this specific season might not be the most wonderful time of the year for some people. The incorporation of this sense of humanity felt genuine, like the creative team behind this film had good intentions for including it.
A limited amount of humor: While there were moments of humor found throughout the film, I felt like the story favored the dramatic moments more than the comedic ones. These moments of humor seemed far and few between. Most of the film’s humor came from the pranks and mishaps that are caused by Mary and Rachel. Even though The Trouble with Angels would be classified as a comedy, this movie feels more like a dramedy (a mix of comedy and drama).
Mostly static characters: The Trouble with Angels is primarily about the characters of Mary and Rachel. This story follows them from the beginning of their freshmen year of high school to their graduation. In that time-frame, however, Mary and Rachel didn’t really seem to have that significant of a transition of rambunctious youngsters and responsible young adults. For more than half of the film, Mary and Rachel were static, continuously pulling pranks and despising their peers and teachers. It wasn’t until they joined their school’s band when these characters started to grow as individuals. This part of the story feels a little bit rushed, like the creative team behind this movie was trying to make up for lost time.
Little emphasis on academics: In movies that take place in a school setting, there is usually an emphasis on either an important teacher or an influential school assignment. But that wasn’t the case for The Trouble with Angels. Instead, the story focused on the character development of Mary and Rachel. There were moments that showed these characters in the middle of a school lesson, such as when Mary and Rachel were trying to avoid their swim tests. But these moments didn’t last long enough to have a large impact on the narrative.
We interrupt this movie review to give you a moment to appreciate Rachel’s hat. Screenshot taken by me, Sally Silverscreen.This is, honestly, the coolest pill-box hat I’ve ever seen in my life! Screenshot taken by me, Sally Silverscreen.As soon as I saw this hat, I knew I had to have it in my life. Screenshot taken by me, Sally Silverscreen.
My overall impression:
The Trouble with Angels is a fine film. This story had more heart and soul than I expected, especially due to the sense of humanity found within the narrative. While this movie could have been stronger, there were elements about it that made the project enjoyable. Rosalind and Hayley definitely helped carry the film! Though these actresses were at different places in their careers, their acting abilities complimented each other. When it comes to films about teenagers, The Trouble with Angels is one of the better ones. The story primarily focused on Mary and Rachel. But, with the incorporation of the teachers and Mother Superior, the best intentions for the students could be seen throughout the story. That’s how I would define this movie; the creative team making this film with the best of intentions.
Overall score: 7.4-7.5 out of 10
Have you seen The Trouble with Angels? Which movie of Rosalind Russell’s would like me to watch next? Please tell me in the comment section!
I know that it’s been two weeks since I last wrote a movie review. Because I was out of town around that time, I chose to reschedule several of my planned blog posts to later dates. But, when it comes to posts relating to blogathons, I always try my best to be a blogger of my word and publish my lists, reviews, or editorials within the blogathon time-frame. When I signed up for the 2nd Annual Broadway Bound Blogathon, I knew, right away, that I would be reviewing the film, Little Nellie Kelly. Before this review, I had never seen or heard of this movie. Plus, the synopsis on Turner Classic Movies’ (TCM’s) website said that this film is about “the daughter of Irish immigrants patches up differences between her father and grandfather and rises to the top on Broadway”. Because I knew that Judy Garland was the star of this production, I figured that I would, at least, find some enjoyment in this movie. Was my prediction correct? Was there enjoyment to be found in Little Nellie Kelly? Please keep reading if you want to find the answer!
The acting: Something I’ve noticed about Judy’s films (specifically the ones that I’ve seen) is that she surrounds herself with a talented cast. This is no different for Little Nellie Kelly. Charles Winninger’s portrayal of Michael Noonan was such a pleasant surprise! He brought so much emotion to his performance that it ended up being effective. Judy’s performance was also great to watch! Her emotions and musicality helped her portrayal of Nellie Kelly be as strong as it was. I also liked George Murphy’s performance as Jerry Kelly! His acting talents helped carry this film alongside his co-stars.
The comedy: In Little Nellie Kelly, there were comedic moments that I truly found to be hilarious. One scene has Nellie telling her father that she’s going to get married to Jerry. As soon as her father hears this, he unexpectedly spits out his coffee and makes a big mess. This moment made me laugh out loud! As I watched the film, I noticed that the majority of these comedic moments were caused by Charles’ character, Michael. Because of this particular actor’s quality of talent, it made the film’s comedy stick the landing.
Some of the montages: There were two montages in Little Nellie Kelly that I really liked. The first one was when Jerry, Nellie, and Michael go through the process of becoming citizens of the United States. When it comes to cinematic stories about people immigrating to the United States, this aspect of the narrative is rarely explored. The second montage I liked showed the process of Jerry becoming a police officer. In film, when a character chooses to be a police officer, they are usually shown either before or after they accept the job. Like the first montage, this process is not always featured in cinematic narratives. Even though these montages didn’t last very long, I’m glad they were included in this story.
An inability to hold an accent: Because some of the characters are from Ireland, hearing accents from them is to be expected. While Charles Winninger did a good job when it came to carrying the accent, I felt that Judy and George’s ability to carry an Irish accent wasn’t as strong. When I watched Little Nellie Kelly, I never heard Jerry talk with an Irish accent. Meanwhile, the only time Nellie spoke with an Irish accent was when she sang “A Pretty Girl Milking Her Cow”. Because of Judy and George’s inability to carry an accent, this prevented a sense of continuity to exist amongst the characters.
A limited amount of musical numbers and comedy: Even though I liked the comedy in this film, there were very few comedic moments to be found. Throughout this one hour and thirty-eight minute picture, there were more dramatic moments than comedic ones. In this movie, there were a total of about four to five musical numbers. That’s a lot less than I was expecting. The film’s opening credits said that Little Nellie Kelly was based on a “musical comedy”. But, if anything, this project felt more like a “dramedy” (a combination of comedy and drama), with an emphasis on drama.
Judy Garland portraying Nellie Kelly Sr. and Jr.: In the movie, Judy portrays two characters; Nellie Kelly and her daughter. While different hairstyles helped, a little bit, to differentiate between the two characters, this creative decision still baffled me. I understand that MGM wanted to utilize Judy’s talent as much as possible. However, I still think that Judy should have portrayed only one character. Because this movie is called Little Nellie Kelly, Judy could have portrayed the daughter, while another, slightly older actress could have portrayed Nellie Kelly Sr. That way, Judy could have still been the leading star of the movie, while the other actress could also receive a significant amount of recognition.
I like Little Nellie Kelly for what it is. There are elements to the film that make it enjoyable, such as the musical numbers and the acting. However, I found this movie to be somewhat misleading. As I said in the introduction, this synopsis said that the protagonist “rises to the top on Broadway”. Not only was this location never mentioned in the film, but Nellie never aspired to be an entertainer. What makes this even more frustrating is how few musical numbers there were and how little comedy there was in the film despite it being called a “musical comedy” in the opening credits. From what I’ve heard, this movie is based on a pre-existing Broadway musical. Because I have never seen the stage version of this story, it’s difficult for me to say if the movie was anything like the play. This kind of reminds me of how I felt about Edward, My Son. Both of these films were based on plays and made me felt like I was misled. I can’t fault the creative teams behind these movies too much, since their job was to adapt their respective plays to the screen. However, a good amount of honesty should have been included into each film’s synopsis.
Overall score: 7.2 out of 10
Have you seen any of Judy Garland’s movies? If so, which one is your favorite? Let me know in the comment section!
One day, while I was on the internet, I came across some episodes of Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert’s show, At the Movies, on Youtube. As I was watching these episodes, I wondered why there wasn’t a show like this on television anymore. But, when I asked this question, I realized that there kind of is. Though not on television, I can think of several channels on Youtube dedicated to talking about film. There’s also lots of blogs related to movie criticism, especially on WordPress. As a movie blogger myself, I know that the growth of the movie review community might not have been possible without Siskel and Ebert. So, in honor of the Grandfathers of Movie Criticism, I have decided to dedicate my very first blogathon to them! Siskel and Ebert at the Blogathon will take place from September 20th to the 24th. If you would like to participate, you can sign up in one of the following categories:
A. Siskel and Ebert Themselves – This category is for blog entries about Gene Siskel and/or Roger Ebert. Articles about their life, legacy, or career are most certainly welcome. If Siskel and/or Ebert have written any books, editorials, or articles, blog entries about that can be submitted to this category. If you do write an entry for this specific category, all I ask is that you please be respectful when writing about Siskel and/or Ebert. If your post is about how you disagree with their opinion, that’s fine. But please don’t be disrespectful or negative toward anybody.
B. Movies that Siskel and/or Ebert have reviewed or talked about: This category is pretty straight forward. Any movie that Siskel and/or Ebert have reviewed/talked about or that was covered on any of their shows is fair game. To find out which movies would be allowed for this category, you can find episodes of At the Movies on Youtube or search “At the Movies” or “Sneak Previews” on IMDB and look through the listed episodes section.
C. The Show Itself: For this category, you can write about anything related to Siskel and Ebert’s shows. Do you have a favorite episode of Sneak Previews or any version of At the Movies? Share it in your post! Was there a particular host that you were fond of? Feel free to talk about them in your article! Did the show play an important role in your life? Tell your story on your blog! Other topics that would be allowed in this category are trivia about the show, specific segments, and the show’s history, just to name to few.
D. Something movie related that has to do with Chicago: Because Siskel and Ebert were film critics in Chicago, this category is a creative way to honor the Grandfathers of Movie Criticism. For this category, you can talk about movies that either take place or were filmed in Chicago. You may also write about film festivals or movie related events that have been hosted in the Windy City. If you’ve had a movie-going experience in the city of Chicago, feel free to share your story!
The Official Blogathon Rules
As I’ve already mentioned, please be respectful not only when writing about Siskel and Ebert, but also to other bloggers.
If you plan on publishing your post(s) earlier or later than the allotted time-frame (September 20th to the 24th), please let me know in advance.
Only new posts will be allowed for this blogathon.
Three participants at a time are allowed to write about a singular topic. For example, if four people wanted to talk about Roger Ebert’s book, I Hated, Hated, Hated This Movie, only the first three participants would be able to write about the book.
Each participant is allowed to publish a maximum of three entries.
All entries must be original work.
If your interested in participating, please share your idea(s) in the comment section below.
Creativity is encouraged.
Pick one of the five banners and spread the word about Siskel and Ebert at the Blogathon!
Created by me, Sally Silverscreen, on Adobe Spark.Created by me, Sally Silverscreen, on Adobe Spark.Created by me, Sally Silverscreen, on Adobe Spark.Created by me, Sally Silverscreen, on Adobe Spark.Created by me, Sally Silverscreen, on Adobe Spark.
The List of Participants
Category A
Sally from 18 Cinema Lane – (Editorial) Roger Ebert’s Movie Yearbooks: How Relevant are they Anyway?
Ruth from Silver Screenings — (Review) Roger Ebert’s book, The Great Movies
Edirin from Retro Movie Buff — (Editorial) Roger Ebert’s book, Your Movie Sucks
UpOnTheShelf from The Movie Shelf Reviews — (Discussion piece) Siskel and Ebert’s appearance on “The Critic”
Category B
Le from Critica Retro — (Review) Z (1969)
Gill from Realweegiemidget Reviews — (Review) Prizzi’s Honor (1985)
J-Dub from Dubsism — (Review) Casino (1995)
Quiggy from The Midnite Drive-In — (Review) The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
Rebecca from Taking Up Room — (Review) Straight Talk (1992)
Tiffany and Rebekah from Pure Entertainment Preservation Society — (Review) A Star is Born (1954)
Category D
Rob from MovieRob — (Review) About Last Night… (1986), Opportunity Knocks (1990), and Rookie of the Year (1993)
![20190807_161150[1]](https://18cinemalane.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/20190807_1611501-e1565233658665.jpg?w=497&h=594)
![20190803_151228[1]](https://18cinemalane.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/20190803_1512281-e1564880878704.jpg?w=431&h=564)
![20190605_185743[1]](https://18cinemalane.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/20190605_1857431-e1559873358749.jpg?w=398)
18 Cinema Lane 
