Have you signed up for my Murder, She Wrote themed blogathon, Cabot Cove-thon? If not, there’s still time to join the event! There’s also plenty of topics left to write about! Click on the link below if you want to learn more about Cabot Cove-thon.
Celebrating 40 Years of ‘Murder, She Wrote’ with the Blogathon; Cabot Cove-thon!
For last year’s Broadway Bound Blogathon, I reviewed the
Hallmark Hall of Fame presentation, A Tale of Two Cities. This is an adaptation
from 1980 I liked so much, it was one of the best movies I saw in 2023! While
reflecting on that film, I realized it’s been a whole year since I reviewed a
Hallmark Hall of Fame production. To make up for lost time, I chose to write
about the 1987 Hallmark Hall of Fame film, Pack of Lies! Two years
before this movie aired on television, Pack of Lies premiered on
Broadway, making the Hallmark Hall of Fame movie a good choice for the
blogathon. Pack of Lies is also a Hallmark Hall of Fame film from the ‘80s
I haven’t seen before. One of my aspirations is to see as many Hallmark Hall of
Fame movies as realistically possible. Out of the titles I have seen, I’ve
noticed the mystery genre is rarely represented throughout the Hallmark Hall of
Fame collection. That fact is another reason why I chose to review Pack of
Lies!
Things I liked about the film:
The acting: Ellen Burstyn and Teri Garr portray Barbara
Jackson and Helen Schaefer in Pack of Lies. The friendship of these two
characters highlights how different they are from one another. Helen has a very
outgoing and bubbly personality, a talkative woman who’s willing to solve
problems. Meanwhile, Barbara is more reserved, dressing more modestly and
avoiding conflict whenever possible. Part of why the differences between these
characters were achieved was through the acting abilities of both Ellen and
Teri! They presented the uniqueness of their characters through various emotions
and expressions. When creating a movie where actors portray friends, the believability
of their performances can make or break that illusion. The aforementioned illusion
was certainly created and maintained throughout Pack of Lies!
In stories where a character has some degree of authority,
their personality is usually serious. This can be a challenge for an actor or
actress, as there are few opportunities to utilize a variety of expressions and
emotions. That didn’t stop Alan Bates from portraying Stewart and making that
performance memorable! When Mr. and Mrs. Jackson first meet Stewart, he leaves
a trusting first impression. During this meeting, Alan incorporates eye movements,
vocal inflections, and variations of mouth movements to create an interaction
that appeared realistic. Because of the realistic nature of Stewart’s meeting,
the scene itself contains a sense of realism. This realism is consistently
carried in the movie through the acting performances!
A mystery within a mystery: The meeting between Stewart and
the Jacksons I previously referenced in this review is about how Stewart is
looking for a man named Laurence. The main mystery in Pack of Lies is
discovering who Laurence is and why Stewart is interested in finding him. At
the same time, the legitimacy of Stewart and his mission serve as a second
mystery. Because of the vagueness Stewart provides to the Jackson family, it
leaves both the Jackson family and the audience wondering who Stweart really is
and why he wants to confront Laurence so much. This second mystery provides an
added layer of intrigue to the overall story!
Providing books as gifts: While visiting their friends, Helen
and Peter Schaefer, Barbara and Bob Jackson receive books as gifts from Peter.
Barbara loves art so much, she and Helen take art classes regularly. Meanwhile,
Bob is an employee in the aircraft industry. In the meeting between the Jackson
family and Stewart, Stewart points out a model plane Bob built. From Peter, Barbara
receives a book of drawings from the Clark Institute in Massachusetts. Peter gives
Bob a book about the first flights across the Atlantic. These books were
thoughtful presents Peter took the time and effort to find. Looking back on the
Hallmark films I’ve seen, including those from Hallmark Hall of Fame,
characters receiving books as gifts are rarely shown. Therefore, I appreciate
this creative choice from Pack of Lies’s creative team to fill a
creative void that is, more often than not, overlooked.
What I didn’t like about the film:
Telling instead of showing: In an ideal movie, it’s
important to show and tell what’s happening on screen. But because film is a
visual medium, showing should be emphasized. Unfortunately, in Pack of Lies,
telling was preferred over showing. Throughout the movie, Stewart tells Mr. and
Mrs. Jackson that a man named Laurence Powell is a man of interest. The reason for
this interest is his possible connections to Russian communists. Dialogue is
the only way the truth about Laurence and Stewart’s reason for recruiting the
Jackson family is revealed. The subject of espionage in entertainment media isn’t
always action-packed and adrenaline-fueled. If a creative team knows their
story will have low energy, they should maintain a sense of suspense and
intrigue by showing what’s going on.
Little lapse in time: At the beginning of the movie, Stewart
assures the Jackson family he’ll only observe Laurence for a day or two. As the
story progresses, Stewart’s mission ends up lasting longer than the proposed
one to two days. Like I just said in this review, Pack of Lies
emphasized telling instead of showing. The little lapse in time throughout the
movie is another example of this flaw. Christmas decorations in the Jackson
house are the only indication a significant period of time took place. Prior to
that part of the story, the film looks like events happened within a week.
Things that don’t make sense: As I’ve been saying in this
review, Stewart’s mission is to observe Laurence over a period of time. The more
information revealed by Stewart, the more the Jacksons and the audience learn
Stewart knew more about Laurence than he originally let on. I know the subject
of espionage can be varied and complicated when included in entertainment
media. However, with everything I just said, why didn’t Stewart just arrest
Laurence instead of observing him over multiple days? Why did Stewart need to
get the Jackson family involved in the first place? This is one example where Pack
of Lies doesn’t make sense.
My overall impression:
Hallmark Hall of Fame movies, like any creative endeavor, are
not created equally. As I shared in this review’s introduction, I liked A
Tale of Two Cities so much, it was one of the best movies I saw last year.
Sadly, I can’t say the same about Pack of Lies. The 1987 presentation
was a two hour slow and tedious build-up to a resolution that was underwhelming
and anticlimactic. The cause of these flaws was the emphasis on telling instead
of showing. This is not the first time a Hallmark Hall of Fame movie from the ‘80s
let me down, as I also found 1985’s The Corsican Brothers disappointing.
After watching Pack of Lies, I learned the movie was based on a true
story. Now knowing this, I think the story would have benefitted more had it
become a documentary instead. As I wrap up my review of Pack of Lies, I
reflect on a Hallmark commercial I have seen. In this commercial, a man, whose
first language is not English, is looking for the perfect card for his wife,
who will soon arrive in the United States. When he goes to a Hallmark store,
the man is assisted by an employee named Rose, who helps him find exactly what
he is looking for. Another man who occasionally appears throughout the
commercial reveals the events in the commercial are based on a true story.
Honestly, the story behind that Hallmark commercial is a more fascinating movie
idea than what was presented in this Hallmark Hall of Fame film.
Overall score: 5 out of 10
Have you seen Pack of Lies? Which Broadway show do
you wish received a Hallmark Hall of Fame movie? Tell me in the comment
section!
Have fun on Broadway!
Sally SilverscreenLooking back on Judy Garland’s movies I’ve seen, I can
honestly say I haven’t seen a movie I didn’t like. Even though some pictures were
better than others, I can’t say any of Judy’s films were “bad”. Hoping this
streak will continue, I joined the Third Judy Garland Blogathon by reviewing For
Me and My Gal! This film was recommended by the Brannan sisters from Pure
Entertainment Preservation Society. They not only introduced me to this film,
they introduced me to the Breen Code era! Between 1934 to 1954, the Breen Code
served as a set of guidelines for film-makers. These guidelines addressed the
dos and don’ts of movie-making based on a series of morals. Within that period
of time, Hollywood gave their audience films that have stood the test of time
and even become “classics”. But will this statement hold true for For Me and
My Gal? Keeping reading my review to find out!
Things I liked about the film:
The on-screen chemistry: Since I chose to review this movie
for the Third Judy Garland Blogathon, I want to discuss Judy’s performance in For
Me and My Gal. However, I want to talk about her performance in relation to
her on-screen chemistry with Gene Kelly. When a movie musical features a
romantic relationship, the on-screen chemistry of the lead actor and actress
can sell the idea their characters truly love one another. This is what Gene
and Judy achieved through their portrayals of Harry Palmer and Jo Hayden! One
perfect example is presented during the musical number, “For Me and My Gal”.
Through facial expressions, the choreography, and their singing abilities, Jo
and Harry realize they share the same dream, despite being complete strangers
only hours ago. This musical number emphasizes how these characters were always
meant to be together.
How World War I was incorporated: For Me and My Gal takes place in the middle of the 1900s, the time when World War I took place. The story revolves around civilian perspectives; vaudeville
performers trying to make their dreams come true. At the beginning of the
movie, newspaper headlines broadcast events related to World War I. But the
newspaper’s front page is turned away from the characters, as they are more
concerned with how their performances were reviewed by the critics. As the
story progresses, World War I starts to take center stage in their lives,
affecting each character differently. This progression is steady and the
changes happen more subtly. The way World War I was incorporated into For Me
and My Gal felt realistic. Though fictional musical movies require a
certain amount of disbelief to be suspended, it was refreshing for realism to
be woven into the film.
A story with stakes: Movie musicals, especially those from
the Breen Code era, contain simpler stories. These stories range from looking
for another member of a talent group or characters expressing their love for
each other. In For Me and My Gal, the overarching
story focuses on characters working toward their dreams. Throughout the movie,
Jo and Harry experience obstacles and attempt to overcome them. At one point in
the film, Harry receives an offer to perform at The Palace, a theatre in New
York every vaudeville performer aspires to go. While the offer itself sounds
amazing, the problem is Harry would no longer be able to perform with Jo. This
is one example of For Me and My Gal containing a story with stakes. In
the case of the aforementioned conflict, there were stakes not only for Harry’s
career, but also for his relationship with Jo.
What I didn’t like about the film:
The “insta-love” trope: In stories where a romantic
relationship in included, part of the story is devoted to showcasing the
progression of that relationship. If a story’s relationship moves too quickly,
it may be difficult for the audience to become invested in that relationship or
determine if the actors have on-screen chemistry. While Judy Garland and Gene
Kelly had good on-screen chemistry, I found their characters’ initial attraction
to happen too quickly. In fact, this attraction happened so quickly, it almost
felt unbelievable. I recognize there’s only so much story to tell in an hour
and forty-four minutes. However, I wish Harry and Jo’s attraction for one
another had taken its time.
An unresolved debt: Toward the beginning of For Me and My
Gal, Jo’s brother, Danny, pays Jo a visit after one of her shows. During
their conversation, Jo tells Danny she will pay him back after she becomes a
big vaudeville star. But this is the only time throughout the movie where this
debt is mentioned. The debt is not revisited or resolved as the story progresses.
That part of the story ended up becoming a loose end that was left behind by
the end of the movie.
A confusing conflict: For this part of my review, I will
spoil For Me and My Gal. If you have not seen this movie and are
interested in watching it, skip this part of my review and continue reading where
it says “My overall impression”.
After Jo and Harry discover their love for each other, they
receive a telegram congratulating them on their upcoming performance at The
Palace, a theatre in New York they have dreamed about for so long. When they
arrive at The Palace, Harry and Jo learn there was a misunderstanding. They
received a gig at The Palace theatre in Newark, New Jersey. In the telegram, its
sender stated The Palace was in New York. But any performer on the vaudeville
scene would know there’s only one Palace theatre, the one in New York City.
That quote in the telegram references how Eve Minard, a singer Jo and Harry met
on a train trip, brought up the idea of more than one Palace theatre. For Me
and My Gal was released during the Breen Code era. When a character makes a
poor choice within a film from this time period, they either face accountability
for that choice or learn from their mistake. However, Eve is never confronted
about the telegram. This leaves me confused, wondering if Eve was intentionally
ruining Harry and Jo’s plans or if she was genuinely trying to help, but her
message became lost in translation?
My overall impression:
The term, “The Golden Age of Hollywood”, gets thrown around
from time to time in conversations about the film industry. This term’s
definition depends on who you ask, as film itself can be subjective. In my
opinion, one of Hollywood’s “golden ages” was the Breen Code era. For Me and My Gal serves as one example to prove my point. The 1942 picture sets itself apart from other musical films by
presenting a story with stakes. It also incorporates World War I in a realistic
way. As I’ve stated in past reviews, the strength of a musical movie lies in
its musical numbers. For the most part, For Me and My Gal features
musical numbers that are pleasant to watch! This is the second Judy Garland
production I reviewed this year I was not only recommended, but ended up liking
as well. The streak of enjoyable Judy Garland movies I mentioned in this review’s
introduction is still going strong!
Overall score: 7.6 out of 10
Have you seen For Me and My Gal? What is your
favorite movie of Judy Garland’s? Please let me know in the comment section!
Have fun at the movies!
Sally Silverscreen
You probably saw the title of this review, read the film’s synopsis on IMDB, and wonder, “What does this made-for-TV movie from the ‘80s have to do with the subject of neighbors”? What if I asked you to think about the subject of neighbors from Mr. Rogers’ perspective? On the television show, Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood, the opening theme song was “Won’t You Be My Neighbor?” The show’s overarching theme of neighbors is more about community and a sense of belonging to it. With this perspective in mind, the 1988 made-for-TV production, Dance ‘Til Dawn, fits this definition of neighbors. The story revolves around students and their families belonging to the community of Hoover High School. Most of the movie focuses on Hoover High School’s Senior Prom, showing different points of view throughout the event. Whenever I participate in a blogathon, I try to approach a given topic from a more unique perspective. With Dance ‘Til Dawn reviewed for The Neighbors Blogathon, hosted by Rebecca from Taking Up Room and Quiggy from The Midnite Drive-In, my entry will definitely show a different side to the subject of neighbors!
Things I liked about the film:
The cast’s adaptability: One of the selling points of Dance ‘Til Dawn is the gathering of actors and actresses from television shows that were popular around the movie’s premiere. While television stars are used to working alongside a large group of talent, they grow accustomed to working with their cast from their respective show. They even become familiar with the character they portray, especially if a television show develops a long lifespan. In Dance ‘Til Dawn, the cast was not only given new material to work with, they also had to portray characters that were different from those they were used to. Alan Thicke and Tracey Gold represent everything I’ve been saying. Both actors starred as father and daughter on the sitcom, Growing Pains. Alan Thicke graced television screens as a kind yet fair soul who tried to set a good example for his children. Meanwhile, Tracey’s character, Carol, had a friendly personality (from what I remember), a good candidate for her high school’s welcoming committee. Though Tracey and Alan starred in the same film, they shared very few scenes together. Alan portrayed Dan’s father, Jack, an extroverted, over-confident man who wants his son to be just like him. Tracey portrayed Angela, a young lady who was more introverted and had little confidence to stand up for her dreams. Through Alan’s and Tracey’s performance, as well as the performances from the rest of the cast, every actor and actress sold the illusion of how this talent was always meant to work together. They also sold the idea these characters were always meant to co-exist.
The costume design: A school’s prom provides an excuse for students to dress up in fancy attire and partake in glamour. This is no different for the characters in Dance ‘Til Dawn. The film’s costume designer was Taryn De Chellis and Gingiss FormalWear provided the movie’s prom attire. In collaboration with Patricia Wolfe (the movie’s costume supervisor) and Steve Hicke (the movie’s costumer), the Hoover High School prom attendants looked photogenic in their formal outfits. This was achieved by providing the cast with formalwear that complimented their natural features. Out of the actors portraying high school students, Christina Applegate was the only blonde actress. Wearing an off-the-shoulder gown in a shade that appears to be metallic cherry red, Christina’s blonde hair presents a nice contrast with the bold hue of her character’s prom dress. Though Tracey Gold and Alyssa Milano are brunettes, Tracey’s hair looks a shade lighter than Alyssa’s hair. Similar to Christina receiving a dress in a darker shade, Tracey wore a stunning black, sparkly, sleeveless gown. Meanwhile, Alyssa was given a strapless white dress, paired with white satin pump heels and a pink hair bow.
Different ways of celebrating Prom: In films about Prom, so much focus is given to the party itself that one of two things happen; either prom alternatives are not presented or prom alternatives are frowned upon. But that was not the case in Dance ‘Til Dawn. While Hoover High School’s Prom party was highlighted throughout the story, not every student chooses to celebrate Prom this way. Angela’s original plan was to host a sleepover with her friend, Margaret, spending all night watching movies. No one criticizes or questions Margaret and Angela for wanting to commemorate Prom in this fashion. In fact, the film’s script celebrates the uniqueness of prom festivities. The idea of Prom being what you make it is rarely found in stories about this event, so I appreciate Dance ‘Til Dawn’s creative team making this one of the movie’s themes!
What I didn’t like about the film:
Some cliched stories: Throughout Dance ‘Til Dawn, creative ideas were expressed, from the aforementioned uniqueness of prom festivities to several pieces of dialogue. However, there were some stories within the movie that were cliched. One example is Angela and Kevin’s story. Angela is asked to Prom by Kevin, who wants to date her for the wrong reasons. Before arriving at the prom party, Angela transforms from an introverted “geek” to a beautiful young lady worthy of being prom royalty. Attending an event under false pretenses, as well as a My Fair Lady-esque makeover, have become so common in stories about teenagers, they are cliches at this point. Personally, I wish Angela and/or Kevin’s story had taken a different route. A more unique story option would be having Angela asking an Italian exchange student to Prom, developing a friendship and a shared interest in Italian art.
The underutilization of Tempestt Bledsoe: As I mentioned earlier in this review, Angela originally plans to host a sleepover with her friend, Margaret. Portrayed by Tempestt Bledsoe, Margaret was a character with her own style and not afraid to speak her mind. But compared to the other characters, Margaret appeared in only a handful of scenes. In fact, Margaret wasn’t given much to do in this story. Not only was Margaret an underutilized character, Tempestt’s acting talents were underutilized as well. Like I said about Angela and Kevin’s story, I wish Margaret’s story had been a bit more creative. An example would be Angela daring Margaret to go to Prom, with Margaret having a better time than she expected.
Some things that don’t make sense: There were a few times in Dance ‘Til Dawn where things don’t make sense. A good example takes place in Shelley and Dan’s story. Because Shelley lacks a date for Prom, she spends most of the evening trying to avoid people from Hoover High School to prevent embarrassment. While in the drive-thru of a fast-food restaurant, Shelley recognizes the voice on the other end of the drive-thru menu; a student whose locker is next to Shelley’s. What didn’t make sense to me was how Shelley and Dan did not realize how close they were to the menu’s microphone, meaning the student on the other end would recognize Shelley’s voice. Maybe the screenwriters forgot how drive-thru menus worked?
My overall impression:
Throughout this review, I’ve been using Dance ‘Til Dawn to elaborate on Mister Rogers’ perspective on neighbors. Learning more about the production after watching the movie, I realized some of the cast members would be considered neighbors, as their shows aired on the same network. With stars from other networks joining the aforementioned cast members, the group as a whole provides a blend of talents, personalities, and perspectives. The film’s behind-the-camera team also adds to this blend of people. When they came together, they created a made-for-TV film that, in my opinion, was just ok. The movie didn’t go above and beyond enough to be considered good or great. But at the same time, it wasn’t offensive enough to be bad or even disappointing. The on-camera talent worked together to sell the illusion that they were always meant to act together and their characters were always meant to co-exist. The behind-the-camera team, such as the costume department, collaborated to make the movie look photogenic and feel cohesive. Looking back on Dance ‘Til Dawn, I wonder why there was never a film about the Disneyland attraction, Videopolis. In fact, the prom party in the 1988 film made me think about that place in Disneyland. Now that I completed this review, I guess I have a new mystery to solve!
Overall score: 6 out of 10
Have you seen Dance ‘Til Dawn? Are there any stars you wish had appeared in the movie? Please let me know in the comment section!
Have fun at the movies!
Sally Silverscreen
This review is from my series, Comparing with the Critics. If you’d like to learn more about the series, click on the link below.
Introducing my new series, Comparing with the Critics!
I was intrigued to review Amadeus for a number of reasons. One of those reasons was the song, “Rock Me Amadeus” by Falco. For years, I thought the song was created to promote the movie, given the coincidence of two pieces of Amadeus related media debuting in the ‘80s. With the song released in 1985, a month before Amadeus won Best Picture at the 57th Academy Awards, I’d like to believe I was kind of right. In At The Movies’ ‘Best of 1984’ episode, both Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert liked the glamourous, musical biopic. Roger made the film his “personal choice for the best film of 1984”. Like Network and Harry & Son, I had never seen Amadeus, so I approached the movie with little to no expectations. Though I heard good things about the picture since its premiere in 1984. As I write this review after watching the movie, I can definitely see why Amadeus was, at least, nominated for an Oscar.
When I reviewed RKO 281 last July, I complimented Liev Schreiber’s portrayal of Orson Welles. In that review, I said Liev brought humanity back to Orson’s name, finding the heart of the “genius” and putting some genuine emotion behind it. This is the same way I felt while witnessing Tom Hulce’s portrayal of the titular man. Reading about an iconic figure like Amadeus can make one wonder what his personality was like. Similar to Orson Welles, Amadeus can be thought of as more than just a man with a gift. Through good times and bad times, Tom shows the film’s audience how Amadeus was, simply, human. As his father comes to visit him in Vienna, Amadeus expresses pure joy when he sees his father at the top of the stairs. Amadeus’ smile alone showcases the happiness within his heart. One evening, when Amadeus is composing an opera, he slowly slips into exhaustion. His eyelids rise and fall, he sways out of rhythm, and his face looks as white as the lace on his shirt. Roger claimed Tom’s portrayal of Amadeus was “one of the year’s most engaging performances”. Tom’s performance serves as an example where Roger, the Academy, and I were on the same page.
F. Murray Abraham’s portrayal of Antonio Salieri reminded me of Gloria Swanson’s portrayal of Norma Desmond in Sunset Boulevard. What I mean by this is the character in question’s search for fame is so strong, it forces the character to become increasingly obsessive, even making questionable choices. Throughout Amadeus, Antonio reflects on his life and how it was impacted by the success of Amadeus. At the beginning of his story, wistfulness can sometimes be heard in Antonio’s voice as he shares his dream of making music for God. As his reflected encounters with Amadeus continue, the tone in Antonio’s voice evolves into bitterness, hinting at the frustration he bottled up over the years. This frustration can also be seen if one looks closely at Antonio’s facial expressions. Before a scene from the movie was shared in the ‘Best of 1984’ episode, Roger called F. Murray’s portrayal “a brilliant performance”. The Academy certainly agreed with Roger, as F. Murray won the Best Actor Oscar instead of Tom at 1985’s Academy Awards. Personally, I liked both F. Murray’s and Tom’s performance for various reasons. Through their portrayals, Tom and F. Murray displayed how fame can negatively impact the human soul.
As I mentioned in this review’s introduction, Roger chose Amadeus as his “personal choice for the best film of 1984”. One reason why is how “this movie doesn’t contain one bit of the pretentious, solemnity that we usually associate with movie biographies of classical musicians”. To add to Roger’s comment, I’d like to point out how the film serves as an immersive, detail-oriented character study of how the music industry can be both rewarding and cruel. When Antonio shares his life story with a visiting priest, he emphasizes how he was the only member of his family who was interested in music. This organic talent and rise to prominence provide an opposite view of how Amadeus claimed his fame. Scenes and dialogue illustrate how Amadeus was raised to be a star, with his father providing both the music education and connections for a comfortable future. While discussing a new opera with the Emperor, Amadeus successfully argues why his opera should be performed. He states how he worked many hours on the project and how the opera’s lack of politics will prevent the audience from being alienated. The examples I provided in this paragraph show how, sometimes, talent isn’t enough when it comes to the music industry. It also highlights the effort that goes into making music, let alone one song.
While sharing his thoughts on Amadeus, Roger stated how the film was “a cheerful, rambunctious, irreverent film”. I disagree with his statement to an extent. There are cheerful moments within the movie. However, I wouldn’t claim the movie itself is “cheerful”. The overall story contains darker, sadder moments as well, especially toward the end of Amadeus’ life. One part of the story revolves around someone masquerading as a deceased loved one Amadeus knows. Due to his grief and unresolved issues, Amadeus truly believes the masquerading imposter is the loved one brought back from the dead. This imposter is so cruel to use Amadeus’ pain for their own personal gain. Another statement of Roger’s I disagree with is about how the movie views Amadeus himself. Roger claims how the film “doesn’t so much concern with the actual details of Mozart’s life as with its own feelings about his genius, his personality”. The movie allows the characters, including Amadeus, to be flawed. But there were a few instances where the story seemed one sided. After a successful opera performance, Antonio’s student is upset because she learned Amadeus was engaged to a woman named Constanze. This leads Antonio to believe Amadeus and the student had a relationship. However, the story never clarifies if Antonio’s belief was true. In fact, Antonio stated he didn’t know how his student and Amadeus met or how long they knew each other. To me, this goes against what a cinematic biography should do; introducing an audience to a historical figure through an unopinionated lens.
Before moving on to the next featured film in At The Movies’ ‘Best of 1984’ episode, Once Upon A Time in America, Gene tells Roger “what I love about the film is that it celebrates creativity and that is a subject that most Hollywood movies are simply not concerned with”. As I was about to disagree with Gene by bringing up RKO 281, I remembered that a) RKO 281 was an HBO made-for-TV movie and b) RKO 281 was released in 1999, a decade after Amadeus. But this review is not debating how much creativity is incorporated into Hollywood’s films, especially during the mid-80s. This article is simply an exploration of whether I agree or disagree with Roger and Gene’s thoughts on Amadeus. Earlier in this review, I mentioned how the film was an immersive, detail-oriented character study of how the music industry can be both rewarding and cruel. The movie’s immersion and focus on detail can be seen in the production’s costume and set design. These elements make the entire picture look and feel historically accurate. While Amadeus is a beautiful looking film, it also contains substance. The script provides thought-provoking material, exploring themes like how success can affect someone both positively and negatively. The glamourous and not-so-glamourous sides of the music industry are shown through the stories of both Amadeus and Antonio. Like I previously brought up in this review, Amadeus successfully argued why his opera should be performed. With everything I said, it makes me wonder how much Falco argued in favor of his song, “Rock Me Amadeus”?
This review was brought to you by
Sally Silverscreen
This review is from my series, Comparing with the Critics. If you’d like to learn more about the series, click on the link below.
Introducing my new series, Comparing with the Critics!
Toward the end of At The Movies’ ‘Stinkers of 1984’ episode, Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert share a collection of films they felt were some of the worst movies of 1984. One of the films Roger brought up was Harry & Son. In a brief segment about the movie, Roger refers to the picture as a “sincere, but misguided dream”. Roger also calls Harry & Son “a painfully contrived tear-jerker”. Gene responds before the segment ends that “he and Burt Reynolds are two of the worst in ‘84”, likely referring to Paul Newman. I honestly hadn’t heard of this film until I watched this episode of At The Movies. Therefore, I approached the title with little to no expectations. But now that I have seen Harry & Son, I think calling the picture one of the worst of 1984 is, actually, a bit harsh.
While briefly talking about Harry & Son, Roger brings up Robby Benson. But instead of simply referring to Robby by his name, Roger says “Robby “gee Dad, want a diet pop” Benson”, even saying it in a mocking tone. By addressing Robby’s name in this way, Roger gives the impression Robby’s character, Howard “Howie” Keach, is just a stereotypical surfer jock. As I got to know this character while watching Harry & Son, I discovered this assumption was far from the truth. Throughout the story, Howie always has his heart in the right place. More often than not, he brings a burst of positivity, choosing to look at the glass half full. In a scene where Howie and his father, Harry, are on their porch, Harry orders his son to find a job, a bitter tone in his voice due to his frustrations over his declining health. In a positive, yet matter-of-fact way, Howie informs his dad how he already has a job washing cars. Another scene shows Howie coming home, excited to see his dad arrive so early from work. A big smile is spread across his face and his eyes shine bright with joy. But as he learns his dad has just lost his job, Howie’s face changes to display confusion and fear. This change in persona is seamless, never missing an emotional beat. Moments like this one were made possible by Robby’s acting abilities, showcasing a wide range of emotions and expressions. In my opinion, I think Robby should have, at least, been nominated for his performance in Harry & Son.
As I just mentioned in the previous paragraph, Harry is frustrated over his declining health. After an incident at a construction site, Harry is forced to be honest about his poor eyesight. One scene has Harry talking with one of his co-workers about his health issues, raising concerns over how these issues will affect his employment. In the 21st century, specifically the 2020s, there has been a risen awareness for men to address their medical issues. So, for Harry to talk to a peer about his health in a movie from the ‘80s is kind of ahead of its time. Later in the story, Howie learns his friend doesn’t have health insurance. When he takes his friend to the hospital, Howie is frustrated by the rejection his friend faces due to the hospital’s policies. The importance of health insurance is another medical topic that has gained attention in the 21st century, including the 2020s. Similar to what I said about Harry’s honesty about his health, I appreciate these brief, yet necessary moments to bring up these serious health subjects, especially in a time when they weren’t found in common societal conversations yet.
In the introduction of my review, I quoted Roger Ebert’s statements about Harry & Son, with Roger saying the film was a “sincere, but misguided dream” and “a painfully contrived tear-jerker”. I will agree with Roger about the movie being sincere. There were some sweet moments that were written, acted, and directed with a strong amount of sincerity. One example is when Howie goes to a high-end clothing store to purchase a suit jacket. When I first saw that scene, I honestly thought Howie had bought the jacket for himself, showing his dad how he can afford nicer attire. So, imagine my shock when Howie gave the jacket to his dad as a birthday present.
Where Roger and I disagree is how the movie is a “misguided dream” and a “painfully contrived tear-jerker”. I will admit Harry & Son has its flaws, such as scenes ending too quickly and emphasizing showing without telling. But I wouldn’t go so far as to say the movie is “misguided” or “painfully contrived”. With scenes ending too quickly, it felt like the characters were expected to say more. When Nina (Harry’s daughter and Howie’s sister) is talking with a client at a hair salon, I thought Nina was going to respond to the client’s story about their estranged father. But the moment is quickly forgotten as the story moves on. As Howie is reconnecting with Katie, an ex-girlfriend, their conversation is one of the most cryptic pieces of dialogue I’ve ever heard in a movie. While I could see these characters still cared for one another, by observing their expressions and displayed emotions, it took me a few minutes to figure out what Katie and Howie were saying to each other. This is just one example of showing without telling.
Gene added his thought on Harry & Son, stating “he and Burt Reynolds are two of the worst in ‘84”, as he possibly referred to Paul Newman. Since I haven’t seen many of Paul’s or Burt’s films, I can’t agree or disagree with Gene’s statement. But what I can do is share my overall thoughts on Harry & Son. This is an ok, slice of life story, which, in my opinion, would have worked better as a stage play. My reason is how the cast is smaller and the story seems more condensed. While I liked the acting performances in this film, Robby Benson ended up being the star of the show. If anyone has an interest in watching Harry & Son, I’d recommend the film for Robby’s performance alone. With the flaws I already mentioned, I also felt like there was too much happening in a short amount of time. However, the story itself was easier to understand. Harry & Son will not become one of the best movies I’ve seen this year, so far. But compared to some of the films I’ve, so far, seen, there are far worse titles than Harry & Son.
This review was brought to you by
Sally Silverscreen
When I signed up for the It’s In The Name of The Title Blogathon, one of the movies I chose to review was Harry & Son starring Robby Benson. When I think of Robby, I think of how he voiced Beast in the 1991 animated film, Beauty and the Beast. Remembering how Angela Lansbury also starred in that film, I always thought it was a missed opportunity for Murder, She Wrote to not promote the 1991 movie, especially since the show was still a popular program at the time. This led me to realize Angela and Robby have another thing in common; they both starred in a project released in 1984. In Angela’s case, that program was Murder, She Wrote! In honor of the show’s 40th anniversary, I’m hosting Cabot Cove-thon! Because Murder, She Wrote is a multifaceted program, there are many ideas for blogathon participants to choose from. Here is a list of possible subjects:
If you’re interested in joining Cabot Cove-thon and found an idea you’re interested in writing about, please read the official rules before signing up for the event.
— Sally from 18 Cinema Lane — Editorial about Why Universal Orlando Resort Should Host Murder, She Wrote Weekend, Review of Murder, She Wrote: Dying to Retire by Jessica Fletcher and Donald Bain
— Kristen from Hoofers and Honeys — Review of The Harvey Girls (1946)
— Rebecca from Taking Up Room — Review of Death on the Nile (1978)
This review is from my series, Comparing with the Critics. If you’d like to learn more about the series, click on the link below.
Introducing my new series, Comparing with the Critics!
There are two reasons why I chose Network for my first review of Comparing with the Critics. The first reason is how the movie is an appropriate title for The 6th Golden Boy Blogathon: A William Holden Celebration, hosted by Virginie and Emily from The Wonderful World of Cinema and The Flapper Dame. Network appearing on Gene Siskel’s and Roger Ebert’s list of the top five films from 1976 is the second reason. When I looked through William Holden’s IMDB filmography in preparation for the blogathon, I remembered how Ebert and Siskel liked Network. In fact, it was one of the few films they agreed on. I was aware of Network prior to the Comparing with the Critics series because I had heard it was adapted into a stage play. Toward the beginning of the ‘Best Films of 1976’ episode, Siskel proclaimed how “1976 was a pretty lousy year for movies”. I can’t speak on the cinematic year of 1976 as a whole. But based on my thoughts on Network, this movie would fit Siskel’s argument about the state of 1976 when it comes to film.
When it’s his turn to talk about Network, Siskel says
“I think she’s gonna win an Oscar for this picture”, referring to Faye Dunaway’s
performance in the film. Siskel got his wish when Faye did win the Best Actress
award at the 49th Academy Awards. While I can’t compare her portrayal
of Diana Christensen to the other performances that were nominated that year, I
can comment on how interesting some of Faye’s interactions were with William
Holden’s character, Max Schumacher. While having dinner one evening, Diana asks
Max a series of questions, in order to learn more about her co-worker. The more
personal the questions become, the more reserved Max appears. This reserved demeanor
is consistently carried by William throughout the movie, using emotion more
subtly. When Max does become more emotional, it happens at certain moments,
such as when he’s recalling a story about his first broadcasting job. Meanwhile,
Diana expresses her emotions more openly. She’s more honest when it comes to
her perspective, believing no subject is off limits. The pairing of Max and Diana,
portrayed by William and Faye, represents the “old school” and “new school”
mentality of the world of broadcast television. It also represents “old” and “new”
Hollywood.
Some of Hallmark’s movies have pulled back the curtain on
certain industries. One great example, Cooking with Love, shows a
behind-the-scenes look at how to create a television show. As you’re reading
this editorial, you’re probably wondering what a film such as Cooking with
Love has to do with Network. Similar to the 2018 aforementioned production,
the 1976 film explores the behind-the-scenes operations of network television. Network shows the various steps that are needed
to make network television run as smoothly as possible. The movie also
addresses how television programs are brought to the screen. During a typical
work day, Diana was presented with a set of tv pilots. Hearing the premise of these
pilots makes her realize how similar they all sound. This revelation inspires Diana
to create a program that is drastically different. While talking about Network,
Siskel shares how “I also like movies that deal with what’s really going on in
the world”. Because the movie, more often than not, grounds itself in reality,
the realistic presentation of network television’s behind-the-scenes are
insightful and even educational for the audience.
As I just wrote about in this editorial, Network explores
the behind-the-scenes operations of network television. While I liked this
aspect of the movie, there were times when I felt the movie’s creative team
expected their audience to know what they were talking about. The mention of “shares”
is just one example. The term “shares” was thrown around like confetti on New
Year’s Eve. Diana even dreams about creating a show that will earn a certain number
of shares. Trying to figure out what this part of network television was, I was
confused if the characters were referencing the Stock Market or a program’s
viewership. According to Wikipedia, Network is considered a “satirical
drama”. I could tell when moments were intended to be satire. But, in my
opinion, effective satire is when a story’s creative team knows when to play it
straight and when to acknowledge the joke. Network’s creative team
played it a little too straight, taking their production too seriously. All of
this led to a movie that was pretentious.
In this review’s introduction, I mentioned how Network was one of the few films Ebert and Siskel agreed on. They both stated how comedic Network was. While Ebert called the film “funny”, Siskel said “I laughed a lot at Network”. Comedy, like cinema, is subjective. With that said, the only time I giggled during the film was when Max Schumacher suggests hiring a psychic to report the weather. The story overall was not only dry, it took itself too seriously, as I already mentioned in this review. Network’s first half was a drawn-out search for a resolution to the story’s conflict. The movie’s second half turned into a contest to figure out which character could yell the loudest and angriest. To me, this was a recipe for a headache and not a hilarious two hours. Then again, I don’t find characters yelling and screaming at each other funny.
Network was one of the films featured in the ‘Best Films
of 1976’ episode of Opening Soon…at a Theater Near You. As stated in
this review’s introduction, the movie appeared on Gene Siskel’s and Roger Ebert’s
list of the top five films of 1976. If I made a guest appearance on the show, Network
would not be on my top five or even top ten films list of that year. In fact, I’d
consider the movie as one of the “Dogs of the Year”. Network, for me,
was an endurance test that almost made me fall asleep. Taking itself too
seriously by expecting too much from the audience and telling a dry, boring
story didn’t help Network’s case. Though comedy is subjective, I didn’t
find the film very funny. However, there were aspects of the film I liked, such
as the acting and the peek behind network television’s curtain. But, like
network television itself, there are many parts needed to make a movie work. As
I wrap up this review for Comparing with the Critics, I’d like to respond to
the film’s overarching quote; I’m bored as heck, and I wish Network used
its indoor voice.
This review was brought to you by
Sally Silverscreen
For the first annual Master of Suspense Blogathon (hosted by Maddy from Classic Film And TV Corner), I wrote about the 1955 film, To Catch a Thief. While I addressed how it was a “pretty looking movie”, I found To Catch a Thief prioritizing style over substance. In this year’s event, I have selected the 1935 production, The 39 Steps, which was recommended by Maddy from Maddy Loves Her Classic Films! There are several titles in Alfred Hitchcock’s filmography that have gained popularity over the years. But The 39 Steps has been overshadowed by Alfred’s more well-known projects. In fact, before signing up for the second annual Master of Suspense Blogathon, I knew very little about the film. However, I was familiar with Alfred’s forte for mystery and suspense, assuming I was, at least, going to see a creative concept come to life on screen. Was I correct in my assumption? Keep reading my review of The 39 Steps to find out!
Things I liked about the film:
Robert Donat’s performance: Throughout The 39 Steps, I found the acting performances ranging from fine to well-done. However, I did like Robert Donat’s portrayal of Richard Hannay! What stood out to me was how at ease Robert appeared on screen. A perfect example is when Richard shares some of his family history with Pamela, who was portrayed by Madeleine Carroll. While telling Pamela about his family, Richard was comfortable giving this information, despite barely knowing Pamela. His body language appears relaxed and his facial expressions presented on his face effortlessly. The story itself rolled off Richard’s tongue as if he had told it multiple times. During this conversation, Richard was also yawning, indicating how tired he was by the events surrounding him during the film’s story.
The set design of Alt-na-Shellach: During the movie, Richard visits Alt-na-Shellach, the home of a man named Professor Jordan. The only room shown on screen was the sitting room, where a party was taking place. Despite appearing in only one scene, the room boasted nice set design pieces! Characters were greeted by a large, carved, wooden door. These carvings were intricately detailed, showing how much care went into creating that door. A big, ornate rug covered the majority of the floor, nicely complimenting the space. But the showstopper was the huge window overlooking a nearby river and featuring stained glass designs. I wish more scenes had taken place at Alt-na-Shellach, as I’m pretty sure other rooms would have looked great on screen too!
The mise-en-scène: For those who aren’t familiar with the term, mise-en-scène, it means how a scene is presented in a movie. In The 39 Steps, mise-en-scène was utilized in clever and visually intriguing ways. A great example is when Richard boards a train. On this trip, Richard is sitting across from two men. To avoid eye contact, Richard hides his face behind a newspaper. Wondering if the two men are watching him, Richard peeks over the top of the newspaper, where the audience can only see the men’s eyes. These visuals symbolized how Richard was hiding something behind the windows of his soul, how the eyes are sometimes described.
What I didn’t like about the film:
Limited sense of urgency: Based on Alfred Hitchcock’s films I’ve seen, I’ve come to expect his stories to be filled with mystery and suspense. Because of these elements, I also expect a given story to contain a strong sense of urgency. While there were suspenseful, urgent moments sprinkled throughout The 39 Steps, these moments were not consistent. This made the story take its time being told instead of getting straight to the point sooner. During these suspenseful, urgent moments, there was no music playing in the background. A low amount of adrenaline and excitement was present in these moments partly due to the lack of music.
The “Insta-love” trope: In my recent review of Easter Parade, I explained what the “insta-love” trope was and why it was a major flaw in the 1948 movie. The “insta-love” trope was a major flaw in The 39 Steps as well. Richard and Pamela do not like each other. Even after being arrested, they continue to dislike one another. When they check into a hotel and pose as a married couple, Pamela and Richard’s dislike carries on. But hours later, they act like they’ve always been in a romantic relationship. The inclusion of the “insta-love” trope caused Richard and Pamela’s attraction to be abrupt, with the abruptness preventing on-screen chemistry between Robert and Madeleine.
An over-shadowed mystery: As I just mentioned in this review, I have come to expect stories filled with mystery based on Alfred Hitchcock’s movies I’ve seen. Because of those selected titles from Alfred’s filmography, I expect the mystery to be the story’s primary focus. In The 39 Steps, however, the story’s mystery was overshadowed due to the film’s creative team emphasizing Richard being on the run from the authorities. The mystery taking a backseat in the movie means the mystery itself wasn’t solved until the very end of the film. A longer wait time for answers causes The 39 Steps to feature a limited amount of intrigue.
My overall impression:
Alfred Hitchcock has obtained a reputation for creating memorable productions. Whether it’s incorporating “modern” technology in The Birds or showcasing a pretty location in To Catch a Thief, Alfred’s movies have boasted his stamp of approval through various creative ideas. But out of Alfred’s films I have seen, and even reviewed, The 39 Steps is the most “meh” title from his filmography. The 1935 picture had such a limited sense of urgency and intrigue, I almost fell asleep while watching it. Richard and Pamela’s relationship was heavily affected by the “insta-love” trope, causing the relationship to feel like it belonged in a different film. This is a movie that seems longer than an hour and twenty-six minutes, creating a slow and boring build-up to a reveal that feels kind of ridiculous and anti-climactic. With all the flaws I discussed in this review, it’s a shame The 39 Steps turned out this way. That’s because there were aspects of this movie I liked, such as Robert Donat’s performance.
Overall score: 5 out of 10
Have you seen The 39 Steps? Are there any films of Alfred Hitchcock’s you like or don’t like? Let me know in the comment section!
Have fun at the movies!
Sally Silverscreen
When the curtains rose and the golden gates of Hollywood opened for him, Buster Keaton likely had one goal: to make people laugh. After conquering Vaudeville and starring in over a hundred film and television credits, Buster not only made people laugh, he left behind a legacy of humor, joy, and timeless entertainment! So, you probably saw the title of this article and wondered, “What does The Twilight Zone have to do with Buster Keaton”? One of Buster’s many film and television credits was an episode of The Twilight Zone. This is a show I am familiar with, having seen several episodes prior to The 10th Annual Buster Keaton Blogathon (hosted by Lea from Silent-Ology). However, on paper, The Twilight Zone and Buster Keaton seem like a random combination. Buster’s forte was comedy, while The Twilight Zone incorporates elements of science-fiction and horror. But is this episode, “Once Upon a Time”, an example of “opposites attract”? Let’s step into another dimension to find that answer through this review!
What I liked about this episode:
As I stated in this review’s introduction, Buster’s forte was comedy. His specific acting forte was physical, “slapstick” performances. The creative team behind this episode paid attention to Buster’s comedic work, as Buster was given plenty of opportunities to showcase his comedy skills! One scene shows Buster’s character, Woodrow Mulligan, trying to hide from a police officer. At first, he walks behind Rollo, a character Woodrow meets in the “future”. When both men turn a corner, Rollo moves behind Woodrow, allowing Woodrow to walk in front of him. As they pass a rack of suit pants, Woodrow not only grabs a pair, Rollo picks Woodrow up so he can put the pants on. No beats were missed during this scene. The writing and delivery of this performance was simple, yet effective when it comes to the comedy!
What I didn’t like about this episode:
The run-time for “Once Upon a Time” is twenty-five minutes. Even though the script told a story that could be wrapped up in a short amount of time, there were parts of the episode that were drawn out. Chase scenes serve one example of moments lasting longer than necessary. When Woodrow first travels to 1962, the Time Helmet becomes misplaced. He spends several minutes trying to get the Helmet back, with the Helmet itself getting destroyed in the chase. Another drawn out scene is when Rollo argues with a man who owns a repair shop. While this argument takes place, Woodrow marvels at the “modern” inventions surrounding him. He also discovers a clothing store near the repair shop. In this part of the story, I found Woodrow’s observations hilarious. But I didn’t find the argument interesting.
The story itself:
Throughout this review, you’ve read references to a Time Helmet and Woodrow traveling to the “future”. That’s because “Once Upon a Time” is a story revolving around time travel! When the episode begins in 1890, Woodrow is disgruntled about the world around him. One of his major issues is how noisy his world is. However, this part of the story is presented as a silent film. After he seeks a quieter time period to travel to, he discovers the “future” (1962) is much noisier than he expected. Through this visual and auditory juxtaposition, the creative team behind this episode addressed how sounds can constitute our lives. If you know anything about The Twilight Zone, not everything is what it seems. Each episode shares a lesson or message with its audience, with the story leading up to that message or lesson. Without spoiling “Once Upon a Time”, the way the events play out provide a lesson that members of the audience can relate to.
The other factors from this episode:
For this part of my review, I will be spoiling “Once Upon a Time”. If you have not seen this episode and are interested in watching it, skip ahead to the second point in this section.
My overall thoughts:
I said in this review’s introduction how I have seen several episodes of The Twilight Zone before. But this was the first time I saw “Once Upon a Time”. What surprised me was how light-hearted the story was compared to other episodes I’ve watched. The Twilight Zone is a show known for dabbling in the strange and even the sad. The best parts of “Once Upon a Time” were Buster’s comedic performances! Every comedy scene was written and delivered well, effectively making me laugh! What didn’t work in this episode were the drawn-out scenes. Even though the story was short, some scenes were just too long. When I reviewed television show episodes, I have stated if that episode would serve as a good introduction to its respective show. In my opinion, “Once Upon a Time” is a good place to start for those who either have never seen The Twilight Zone or who are just getting into the show. The story is strange, but not in an unsettling way. It even contains a happy ending. But if you want to know what that happy ending is, you’ll have to enter The Twilight Zone!
Rating: A 3.5 out of 5
Have fun on television!
Sally Silverscreen
18 Cinema Lane 