It Happened One Night (1934)

QUICK RATINGS:

Character Development: 3 stars
Cinematography: 2 stars
Plot Development: 3 stars
Costuming: 5 stars
Overall Rating: 3 stars


PLOT SUMMARY:

Ellie Andrews (Claudette Colbert) is an heiress who has just married King Westley, who is not actually a king, but a society gentleman who her father does not like. When the movie begins, Ellie is onboard her father's (Walter Connolly) yacht after he has kidnapped her to try and convince her to annul her marriage. She jumps overboard and swims to shore to bus back to King Westley. On the way, she meets the dashing Peter Warne (Clark Gable), a newspaper reporter who is mostly interested in helping her out to get the 'inside story' on her travels back to her sweetheart. When the bus they are travelling on breaks down, they find themselves hitch-hiking together to New York. From there, it's just a series of wacky hijinx and lots of fun. By the time they end up in New York, Ellie may have found herself in love with someone besides King Westley.

MY REVIEW:

How can a film be bad with Clark Gable in the lead?! I thoroughly enjoyed this classic romantic comedy. Now, if you pause and think about the creepiness factor in Peter's (somewhat gruffly) forcing Ellie to stay in a hotel room with him (don't worry - there are two twin beds!) the first night when the bus breaks down, it is understandable that she is more than a little weirded out by his advances. But, man -- did you see that sexy smirk? C'mon Ellie! It's Clark Gable! I mean, Peter Warne! No wonder she ends up letting her guard down and having a little fun with this delightful gentleman-in-disguise.

Clark Gable and Claudette Colbert's performances were magnificent. Their love/hate relationship and flirty banter was delightful! The characters development was good enough and perfectly suited to the romantic-comedy genre. I loved watching Claudette's character soften and embrace the hitch-hiking life to which she was obviously not accustomed.

The costumes were perfect (especially Ellie's silky wedding gown), the comedic timing right on, and the film, highly recommendable. I can't think of anything else to say!



FUN FACTS:

• The movie based on the story Night Bus by Samuel Hopkins Adams. While shooting, Night Bus was the title of the film. They later changed it to It Happened One Night, which is a strange title because the film takes place over several days and nights.
• It was the first film to win all five major Academy Awards: Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Director, and Best Writing/Adaptation

Looking forward to another Clark Gable flick -- Mutiny on the Bounty is next! -- Critic Fix

Cavalcade (1933)

QUICK RATINGS:

Character Development: 3 stars
Cinematography: 2 stars
Plot Development: 3 stars
Costuming: 5 stars
Overall Rating: 3 stars


PLOT SUMMARY:

This picture presents a cavalcade of English life from New Year's Eve 1899 until New Years Day 1933. Based on a play by Noel Coward, we watch this cavalcade through the eyes of the wealthy Londoners Jane (Diana Wynward) and Robert (Clive Brook) Marryot, their children Joe (Frank Lawton) and Edward (John Warburton) and their servants Ellen (Una Connor), Alfred (Herbert Mundin) and their daughter Fanny (Ursula Jeans) Bridges. It tells the tale of how these two families deal with the tragedies of war, death, and loss. Amongst the events that touch their family are the Boer War, Queen Victoria's death, the sinking of the Titanic, and the Great War.


MY REVIEW:

Although this movie won the Acadamy award for Best Picture, it is relatively unknown. But although it was hard to track down, I thought it was worth the effort. I watched this with my two friends, the Slickpigs, and they both enjoyed it as well. We thought that it portrayed a relatively accurate picture of how two families of different classes would interact and how they would deal with the various tragedies that come into their lives.

Adapted from Noel Coward's play, at times the dialogue felt too 'stagey' for film, but I disagree with the critics who said it didn't translate well to film. The viewer just needs to take the formality and artificiality of the film with a grain of salt.

It is tough to say whether or not the characters developed. The cast is made up of qualified actors portraying clearly defined characters who held my attention onscreen. When tragedy struck, they responded genuinely. But overall, they seemed too much the same at the beginning and end of the film.

That being said, I felt that the mothers (Diana Wynward and Una Connor) outshone their husbands in terms of acting performance. Although there were times when her performance was overdone, I thought that it was fitting that Diana Wynward was nominated for an Academy Award for her portrayal of Jane, a woman struggling to find the balance in saving her family, supporting her country, and keeping her dignity. The impact of war on family dynamics is summarized in Jane Marryot's famous line, "The march of time measured by a mother's heart!"

Likewise, I loved the older Fanny and her modern woman characteristics. As a former music student, I am a sucker for ladies who can really nail a performance! Her song, "Twentieth Century Blues," was the highlight of the film for me.

The costumes were terrific. Enough said.

Some of the plot was predictable (of COURSE the son and his new bride aren't left in the happiness of their puppy love - they board the Titanic for their honeymoon), and some of the characters were flat, but I would still recommend this movie. Although the characters faced tragedy, their loyalty to country and to each other was commendable and fun to watch. It is ironic that everyone is so hopeful at the end of the film because it ends right before the dawn of Hitler's reign and WWII.


FUN FACTS:

• There weren't really any fun facts for this film because frankly, it has fallen into obscurity. But don't let that fool you into thinking it's not worth your time! I really enjoyed it -- and so did the Slickpigs!

Grand Hotel

QUICK RATINGS:

Plot Development: 4 stars
Character Development: 5 stars
Cinematography: 4 stars
Costuming: 5 stars
Overall: 5 stars


PLOT SUMMARY:

This movie was one of the first to successfully handle an ensemble cast. Several famous actors are guests at the Grand Hotel in Berlin. Grusinskaya (Greta Garbo) is a famous ballerina who is dealing with major depression and a failing career while staying in the hotel. Senf (Jean Hersholt), the head hotel clerk, isn't getting any sleep as he's waiting for his wife to give birth to their child. Preysing (Wallace Beery), is an easily-angered industrialist staying at the hotel to negotiate a business deal. He hires the lovely Flaemmchen (Joan Crawford), a sassy stenographer, to serve as his personal secretary. Otto Kringelein (Lionel Barrymore), is an endearing man who used to work for Preysing. Having been diagnosed with a terminal disease, he has quit his job and moved to the hotel to flagrantly spend away his last days. Finally, Baron Felix Von Greigern (John Barrymore), an adventurer traveling with his Dachshund, is a man in need of money to pay off a heavy debt. His plot is to steal valuable jewels from Grusinskaya's room while she is away for a performance.

When Grusinskaya leaves the hotel to head for the theater, the Baron sneeks into her room to rob her. But Grusinskaya quickly returns because she is too depressed to perform. The Baron must quickly hide himself in her room, where he stays hidden until he sees that Grusinskaya intends to take her own life. He suddenly appears to stop her from suicide and stays in her room to profess his affection for her. Despite the fact that he admits he was trying to rob her, they spend the night together and fall hopelessly in love.

How will the Baron be able to pay off his debts? Will Grusinskaya marry the Baron or will she choose her career? As for the other guests, will Preysing, a married man with two grown daughters, be able to convince Flaemmchen to be his mistress after working hours? Will he be successful in his business negotiations? Will Kringelein get to relax and enjoy his last few days alive? Will Senf's wife make it through several days with no sleep and a wife in labor?


MY REVIEW:

Out of all the Best Pictures I've watched this year (okay so there have only been 5), this was by far my favorite. I was so glad not to be disappointed again! Although my mother said she thought it was depressing, I thoroughly enjoyed it.

First of all, the hotel itself was quite stunning. With lovely rooms and a gorgeous, central, spiraling staircase to connect the many floors, it was a beautiful backdrop for all the crazy scenes. I enjoyed the opening scene when we were introduced to the main characters as they checked in or walked through the hotel lobby. With such a flurry of activity in such a grand space (and in such lovely clothes!), I was immediately drawn in.

A doctor staying the hotel says "Grand Hotel. People come and go. Nothing ever happens." But during the few days that we observe the patrons of this hotel, this statement couldn't be further from the truth. There is a plethora of excitement and drama as the characters mentioned above enjoy a few days in the Grand Hotel.

For once, there was (finally!) good character development. I loved getting to know each of the patrons and observing the developing stories of their lives. It is clear why these stars were famous -- they could actually act! From the simple-minded Kringelein, desperate to enjoy his last days, to the beautiful, lonely Grusinskaya, the characters were fully unique and fully realized. John Barrymore was quite dashing as the Baron, but my favorite was Joan Crawford's Flaemmchen. She really stole the show when she was on-screen, managing to appear both confident and naive.

I guess I should drop a hint that there is a surprise plot twist at the end. And it might intrigue you more if I let you know it involves the m-word. That's right, murder! Other than that, there's not much else to say on this film. It was thoroughly delightful and I would recommend it to anyone. Go out and rent it now!


FUN FACTS:

• During the filming of the busy lobby scenes, the socks were worn on the outside of the actors' shoes to prevent noise. Reportedly two hundred pairs of woolen socks were worn out daily.

Sorry again for the delay, my husband and editor still hasn't had a chance to look at this one and make sure I didn't make any huge errors -- if you see any let me know! Cavalcade should be on here soon! Keep reading -- I promise I'll be better! -- Critic Fix

Slacker

My apologies to the millions (read: tens) of you out there who have been anxiously anticipating a new entry on this blog. I have been pretty busy lately and out of town for the past two weekends. But I have watched the next two films and I am working on writing my blogs. I have found that writing the blogs is actually the hardest part of this goal. The watching is easy! That being said I promise that I will have some new entries by this weekend!

Ciao! -- Critic Fix

Cimarron (1931)

QUICK RATINGS:

Plot Development: 3 stars
Character Development: 3 stars
Cinematography: 3 stars
Costuming: 3 stars
Overall Rating: 3 stars


PLOT SUMMARY:

"Cimarron means wild, unruly." So says one of the characters in this 1931 film. In 1889, Cimarron Territory was the unofficial name for the unsettled West and Midwest portions of the United States. Yancey Cravat (Richard Dix) is a larger-than-life man who sees this rugged terrain as one big adventure. Based on Edna Ferber's book by the same name, this movie follows Yancey as he takes part in the Oklahoma land rush and then moves his wife Sabra (Irene Dunne) and young son out to start a new life and a newspaper in the newly formed town of Osage, Oklahoma. But life in Oklahoma is not always easy. As they try to start their new life, the Cravats face many challenges including the rebel outlaws and crooked townspeople. But perhaps the most dangerous threat to their marriage is Yancey's wanderlust. As his desires lead him further away from home, Sabra shows her true grit in keeping her household and their newspaper running all by herself.


MY REVIEW:

Spanning over 30 years of frontier life, the film was quite an epic production and exciting to watch. The shots of the Oklahoma land rush in particular, were spectacular. In fact they were so well done, that the only real difference I saw between these shots and the land rush scenes in 1992's Far and Away was that the latter was shot in color. Likewise, the town of Osage changes during the movie, from a dangerous dirty settlement in 1889 to an Oklahoma metropolis in 1930. This is all done convincingly for the screen.

That being said, I felt that this movie suffered in the way many epic films do -- it was big on production but lacking an emotional core (okay and it also really lacked sound quality, but hey, movie companies were just figuring out how to use sound and you can get the basic idea if not every word). The characters were fleshed out, but it sometimes felt like they were the backdrop for the awesome crowd scenes and ahead-of-their-time sets.

About ten, maybe fifteen minutes into the movie, I realized I had a problem. Yancey and Sabra were already moving in opposite directions (as they did for the whole movie), and I just couldn't quite figure out who to root for. The movie was obviously 'pushing' the viewer to like Yancey Cravat, the main character. But I had a problem with that. There were many aspects of his character that truly turned me off. I wanted to love his wife simply for putting up with him and loving him despite his arrogance, but her blatant racism made her hard to warm up to. What was I to do? Root for Sabra? Root for Yancey? Hmmmmmmmm...

We'll start this discussion by dissecting Yancey. First off, there was the matter of his haircut. Atrocious. Secondly, he was the cause of the most traumatic moment in the picture (for me at least). This is when he nays -- that's right, neighs -- the weirdest, loudest, longest horse-like neigh that I have ever heard a human being produce. At first I thought there was a problem with the sound and there was going to be a horse in the next scene. But alas, no. Yancey makes this noise right in the face of the town bully as a threat. That 10 second long moment, although terrifying and strange, is worth the cost to rent the film.

Most importantly, I had a problem with the way he treated Sabra. He never really listens to her, but patronizes her like a child. When he hears that the Cherokee land has been opened up to settlers, he runs off and leaves his wife and children for over five years. The day he returns, he heads off to court to defend the bawdy house madam Dixie Lee (Estelle Taylor), a fallen woman whom his own wife is trying to run out of town (okay so I agree with him that there is no found evidence for kicking Dixie Lee out of town, but the point is that his wife begs him not to do it and he doesn't even sit down and discuss it with her, he just ignores her pleas and rushes off to do what he wants to do). Not long after this incident, he leaves again.

On the positive side, he is an over-the-top sort of man who usually stands up for what's right. He is loved by all (except the corrupt). When he talks, people listen. When he shoots, people die. When asked to give the town's first sermon, he ends up shooting the town bully right in the middle of the service. He displays awesome courage in defending the town from rugged outlaws. He writes editorials about the Indians' rights and as I said above, defends Dixie Lee when she is wrongly accused. He also dies heroically. That being said, he leaves his wife for years at a time and he's a jerk to her when he comes back. Oh. Did I already say that? Sorry. Richard Dix also overacts this part to the point of comedy at times (see horse-naying anecdote above).

On to Sabra. She's a wimp. She's also a bigot who is overly condescending to the young slave Isaiah and repeatedly tells her husband and her son to stay away from the "dirty, filthy Indians."

But, other than that I felt really sorry for her. She is sweet and yet she is strong enough to survive when Yancey keeps running off. By the end of the film, she has changed her bigoted ways and embraces her son's Indian bride, Ruby. Also, at the end of the film, she is elected as a Congresswoman.

I guess it's pretty clear that I just liked Sabra more than Yancey. Sorry folks, Critic Fix will always been against cocky heroes.

Most likely it is because of it's blatant racism that this Best Picture is not a favorite with today's audiences. And although it was good enough to draw me in and make me feel conflicted, it is the horse-like nay alone that makes it worthwhile for anyone else to pick it up.

FUN FACTS:

• Even though it was shot during the depression, RKO Pictures spent over $1.5 million to produce this picture. However, because American audiences were actually suffering through the depression, the movie's success wasn't enough to recover from the cost of this film and RKO ended up folding.
• More than 5,000 extras, twenty-eight cameraman, and numerous camera assistants and photographers were used to capture scenes of wagons racing across grassy hills and prairie.
• A special award for make-up was given to Ern Westmore for his work on the film. (I felt that this was very justly deserved, the characters 'aged' in a very realistic way)

Perhaps I am just a glutton for punishment, but I have high hopes for Grand Hotel! -- Critic Fix

All Quiet On the Western Front (1930)

QUICK RATINGS:

Plot Development: 2 stars
Character Development: 1 star
Cinematography: 3 stars
Costuming: 2 stars
Overall Rating: 3 stars


PLOT SUMMARY:

This film is based on Erich Maria Remarque's book of the same title. It follows the wartime experiences of Paul Baumer (Lew Ayres), a young German soldier in World War I. He and several of his classmates are led to enlist after their school teacher gives stirring speech praising the heroism and loyalty of soldiers. However, when Paul and his classmates embark upon their journey, it is not as they expected. They struggle to survive with little food, non-stop artillery fire and the continual monotony of battle. As Paul watches his friends die, he observes the randomness and pointlessness of war. We see him change from a naive young man to a jaded soldier. When he is wounded and goes home to visit his family, he has a hard time making sense of his hometown and the people at home. While he and his friends long for peace, everyone at home is talking about pushing on to Paris. Paul returns to the battle front to find only his mentor Kat and a few friends remain. The movie's ending is bleaker than the beginning, but I won't ruin it in case you decide to watch it.

MY REVIEW:

All Quiet on the Western Front one of my husbands favorite books and I just read this book last year (as part of my 25 books goal) so I was eager to see it on the big screen (okay, so our tv has a 13" screen, but you know what I mean).

Unfortunately, this movie disappointed us both on several levels. First of all the character development was so weak I wasn't sure who Paul was until he had already enlisted and was fighting his first battle. It was hard to keep his classmates straight as their individual personalities were never fleshed out. Perhaps this was intentional, to make their deaths seem even more pointless, but it made me less interested in the film.

The acting in this film was also really poor. Paul's character was so melodramatic it felt like a badly done soap opera. Likewise, his teacher's speech was so overacted I couldn't truly believe that it would prompt anyone to go to war. The French women that the soldiers meet (and woo with food) were so giggly and girly it was just annoying. The only person that I did enjoy watching was Louis Wolhelm, the actor who played Paul's mentor Kat. His acting was not overdone, but carefully crafted to portray a realistic, hardened and experienced veteran. I also liked his broken nose.

Not only was the acting bad, but the plot progression was incredibly slow. Again, the director (Lewis Milestone) might have done this intentionally to capture the monotony of war, but there were many scenes (particularly the battle scenes and those where the soldiers were waiting out artillery fire in the trenches) that should have been edited down. They slowed the pace of the film and made me even less interested in what was happening to Paul and his friends -- I just wanted the film to be over!

The battle scenes went back and forth between good and bad. There were some incredibly realistic and freightening shots. But there were also many scenes where the soldiers' deaths can only be described as fake-looking. They reminded me of little boys on a playground pretending to die during a game of cops and robbers.

In conclusion, if you want to watch an interesting film about WWI, you should rent WINGS. While I didn't think that film was a winner, at least I didn't fall asleep twice while watching it (okay, to be honest, I did fall asleep once while watching WINGS -- but I was really tired! And it's still a better film than this one). I have the feeling I will be saying this a lot in future posts, but if you want to enjoy your experience of All Quiet on the Western Front, read the book!

FUN FACTS:

• Between the period of 1928 to 1941 this was one of many films to be banned in Australia by the Chief Censor Creswell O'Reilly
• The fanzine that singer/songwriter Pete Doherty was junior editor of as a boy, All's Quiet on the Western Avenue, is a pun on the title of this film.
  

Cimarron (not cinnamon), a movie about the Oklahoma land rush, is next!-- Critic Fix

Sunrise, Part II

Just to clear things up for Julie and Melissa and anyone else who was confused...

As I said before, Sunrise was given the Academy Award for Unique and Artistic Production (in 1929, for films made in 1927 or 1928) which some have considered to be a variation of Best Picture. There was no Best Picture Academy Award given in 1929. But, in a way, 1929 had two Best Pictures, WINGS and Sunrise. Wikipedia lists both of these films as Best Picture, but most lists do not include Sunrise. As I said before, the list of Best Pictures on Netflix did not include Sunrise as a Best Picture so my husband didn't put it on our queue. If I had my druthers, I would have liked to watch this one too and would have watched it before The Broadway Melody.
However, what I didnt realize when I wrote my first post (saying how I would watch Sunrise after The Broadway Melody) is that Sunrise is unavailable to me. It isn't at Blockbuster. It isn't at the library. It isn't available through Netflix. So, I will not be able to review it at this time. If someone out there would like to hunt down a copy of it, by all means, please send it my way. But for now, I am continuing on without having watched it.

And again, as most lists of Best Pictures do not include Sunrise, I can live with myself for not having seen it! Does that clarify things or just make it worse?

-- Critic Fix

The Broadway Melody (1929)

QUICK RATINGS:

Plot Development: 2 stars
Character Development: 3 stars
Cinematography: 2 stars
Costuming: 5 stars
Overall Rating: 3 stars


PLOT SUMMARY:

The Broadway Melody deals with the effects of fame on relationships. This musical starts off with Charles King (Eddie Kearns), pitching his new song idea (a little diddy called Broadway Melody) to the producer on broadway, Francis Zanfield (Eddie Kane). After Zanfield approves of this new tune, Charles rushes off to meet his girlfriend, Hank Mahoney (Bessie Love) and her beautiful sister Queenie Mahoney (Anita Page) who have just used the last of their meager funds to get themselves to Broadway to try and make it big. The Mahoney sisters try to sell themselves as a sister act, but Zanfield is more interested in Queenie without Hank. To further complicate things, as Queenie's popularity rises, so does Charles' interest in his girlfriend's younger sister. The love triangle is further construed by a rich suitor, Jock Warriner (Kenneth Thomson) who is also vying for Queenie's affections. Will Charles leave Hank for Queenie? Will Queenie be wooed by Jock's expensive gifts? You'll have to watch and find out!


MY REVIEW:

After I got over the strangeness of a girl named Hank, this musical was quite endearing. Okay, to be honest, I never quite got over the fact that her name was Hank and it confused me at a few points during the movie when I thought they were referring to some male character that I wasn't familiar with. It also would have been nice if they explained where this name (nickname?) came from at some point, but moving on...


By no means was this a great movie. But it had more of a plot than many that I have seen from this era. I have to admit, I didn't like the ending. It was happy, but not what I thought should have happened. Also, there were times when it was apparent that this was a new "talkie," and they were trying to take advantage of the fact that they could sing and dance and talk! The number "Wedding of a Doll" was particularly painful.


Since it was a musical, I had an expectation of cheese and it did not disappoint in this area, but I was also struck by how sad the movie was at points. Although Anita Page (Queenie) achieved more real-life stardom than Bessie Page (Hank), it was Bessie's acting that impressed me in this film. She was nominated for Best Actress and rightly so! I felt that her emotion was incredibly raw and gripping during the sad scenes of the film.


The costumes in this picture were quite delightful. There were several costume changes which no doubt added to the appeal of this new form of picture. I loved the black (I know, I know, it's a black and white film so they could very well have been blue or purple or brown or some other dark color but for now, let's just say black) feathered hat that Queenie wore in her dance number with Hank. And even though the song was annoying, the clothes for "Wedding of a Doll" were a hit!


So, overall, not the greatest film of all time, but it was definitely entertaining and visually engaging. Again, if you are looking for a timepiece that shows what movies were like when they first acquired sound, this is a great one to check out!

FUN FACTS:

• On the version we got from Netflix, their are several bonus reels of Amateur Vaudeville-type acts. Some of these were more entertaining than the film and yet a lot of them were flat-out creepy!
• I am a big fan of Singin' In the Rain and The Broadway Melody has a lot of songs that are featured in that movie, including "Broadway Melody" and "Wedding of A Doll."
• This was the first musical motion picture for Metro-Goldwyn-Meyer and the first all-talking musical.
• Because of it's success, there was a sequel made called Chasing Rainbows. Also, MGM made several movies with similar titles Broadway Melody of 1936, Broadway Melody of 1938, and Broadway Melody of 1940. These were not sequels, but they had very similar plot-lines involving a group of people putting on a show.

All Quiet on the Western Front is next! -- Critic Fix

Sunrise (1927)

As was the case with Wings, this film actually didn't win "Best Picture." Instead, it was the only film to win the Academy Award for Unique and Artistic Production (in 1929, for films made in 1927 or 1928) when it was a variation of Best Picture. Thus, this film is not counted in most lists of Best Picture, including the list on Netflix.com, which is where my husband went to get the next movie for me to watch. He kindly added The Broadway Melody to our queue instead of Sunrise because that is what Netflix listed as the next Best Picture. So, in order to not waste time by sending back The Broadway Melody to get Sunrise, I went ahead and watched The Broadway Melody. Some may argue that this means I am not accomplishing my goal of watching each of the Best Pictures in order. However, I can live with this critique. I will watch Sunrise as soon as I can. In the meantime, on to The Broadway Melody!

WINGS (1927)

QUICK RATINGS:

Plot Development: 3 stars
Character Development: 3 stars
Cinematography: 4 stars
Costuming: 4 stars
Overall Rating: 3 stars


PLOT SUMMARY:

As WINGS begins, Jack (Charles 'Buddy' Rogers) and David (Richard Arlen) are two young men pining after the same woman, Sylvia (Jobyna Ralston). Smitten by Sylvia's charms, Jack is oblivious to his next door neighbor, Mary Preston (Clara Bow), who is pining after him. Jack and David leave these ladies behind as they head off to serve as pilots in World War I. In their experiences, they are stripped of their youth and forced to deal with the realities of friendship, love, and war.


MY REVIEW:

They say a picture is worth a thousand words. Well, there were times while watching this picture that I would have traded a thousand pictures for one word! I should start by saying that I didn't know this was a silent film. My husband watched this one with me and we were both a bit puzzled when the talking didn't start in with the action. But once we got over that fact, we enjoyed this flick for the treasure that it is.

The plot itself was engaging if predictable. The film attempted to engage a lot of emotions, mingling funny scenes with serious ones in a quirky way that, for the most part, worked. But there were a few scenes (including one with cartoonish white "bubbles" that a drunken Jack sees coming out of his champagne bottle) that just seemed out of place for war drama.
The organ's musical theme (composed and performed by Gaylord Carter) tied the random scenes together, and gave the movie a melodramatic feel.

As far as the characters were concerned, I really enjoyed Clara Bow's role. There is no reason to wonder why she was a popular Twenties "It" girl. I found myself looking forward to when she was going to be on the screen. On the other hand, Richard Arlen's performance as David was overly stoic and rigid which made it hard to believe that he was the same age as his headstrong, lighthearted peer, Jack.

As my ratings above indicate, I felt that the cinematography in this film was very advanced for the time. I was continually amazed at the different camera angles that they were able to achieve. Especially the aerial battle sequences -- they put you right in the action with Jack and David!

There is no doubt that it is an old movie and to a modern eye, used to the movies of today's Hollywood, the imperfections of this film do not go unnoticed. At times, these hiccups interrupted the continuity of the film and were a bit distracting.

Overall, this film gives a great picture (pun intended) of what America was like during World War I, and what movie making was like before sound. If you are looking for a flick with complex interweavings of characters and plot, this isn't it. However, if you are in the mood for a timepiece deemed "culturally significant" by the United States Library of Congress, pick up a copy of WINGS and enjoy a glimpse of America's movie-making past.


FUN FACTS:

• This was the only silent film that ever won an Academy Award for Best Picture. Actually, if we are being technical, this film didn't win the award for Best Picture, as in 1929, they called it "Best Picture, Production."
• Gary Cooper has a brief cameo in this film.
• According to Wikipedia, it is the first known film to feature a male-on-male kiss, a fraternal one, between the two main characters, pilots and good friends Jack and David.

Keep checking in, soon I'll be reviewing Sunrise!
-- Critic Fix

BACKGROUND: A Girl With Goals

I am a girl with goals. Well, I am at least a girl with a yearly goal. It all started three years ago in 2004, when I set a goal for myself to read 25 books within one year. This goal was prompted by a friend of mine who claimed he read 50 books every year. I thought "I don't know about 50, but I bet I could read half of that!" And thus, my yearly goals began. By the end of 2004, I had read 25 books.

As 2005 began, I decided I needed a new challenge. Anyone can read 25 books. But, how many people can say they have watched 25 seasons of television on DVD in one year?! To my delight and my mother's shame, my second yearly goal was also accomplished well within the "one year" time span! 25 seasons of television on DVD.... done!

Feeling a bit over-TVed, I decided to return to books for 2006. I cut it pretty close, but around 8 am on December 31st, I finished book #25!

Besides being a girl with goals, I am also a girl who believes that variety is the spice of life. So, to switch things up, I decided that this year, I would watch every movie that has won the Academy Award for Best Picture. If my adding is correct, the grand total is 80 movies to date, 81 when you add 2007's Best Picture. My plan is watch them in order from oldest to newest and to blog 'reviews' of each of the films. This may sound like a large goal, but in comparison to past years, I feel like this will be easy! (Think about it, one film runs approximately 2 hours, where one season of television can easily run 18 hours. And I'm not the world's fastest reader, so books could take even longer! )

My sister is the one who suggested that I blog my thoughts and 'reviews' of these movies and I agree that this will be a fun way to keep track of what I watched, which movies are my favorites, which ones I can recommend, etc. I hope that whoever reads this will find it interesting and somewhat informative. ***DISCLAIMER: Although I call myself Critic Fix, in no way do I consider myself to be a film critic. My 'reviews' will most likely resemble my feelings on the films and not too much more. So, if you care how I feel about movies, then read on!***

Quick math says that I will need to watch 1.5 movies per week to stay on schedule. I predict that my pace may be a bit slower at the beginning of the year when I am renting most of the movies from the only place that they are available - Netflix. Then, as the movies become more and more recent, I will be able to pick them up at Blockbuster or the library and watch a couple a week.

I welcome comments and feedback on the movies others have seen, if you feel my review was good, fair, stupid, or dead wrong, whatever. Feel free to let me know what you think.

I'll write more soon -- as soon as I can rent Wings from the library and watch it!

Best Wishes for this new year of BEST PICTURES! -- Critic Fix