Classic Movie Spotlight: “Le Samourai”

Classic Movie Spotlight

SAMUROI PosterLe Samourai” begins with a perfect tone-setting scene. As the opening credits flash by we are treated to a wide still shot of an old meager apartment saturated in dark and gloomy grays. At the center of the shot is a bird hopping around in its cage. And almost unnoticeable is a man laying on his bed blowing gentle bursts of smoke from his cigarette. He blends in perfectly with his shadowy, unassuming abode. This scene, like the entire movie, could be descibed as spellbinding. It captures our attention and keeps us absorbed through its quiet and meticulous artistry. It’s the perfect opening.

After the final opening credit the man rises from his bed fully clothed. He walks to the door of his apartment stopping only to put on his khaki overcoat and to carefully place and adjust his gray fedora on his nicely combed black hair. We immediately sense that he was waiting for a specific time and that he has something important to attend to. His name is Jef Costello (Alain Delon) and he’s a pretty tough cookie. We quickly learn that he is a hired killer and he’s very good at his job. There’s a precise and proven procedure that he follows and he takes us through it step by step.

He leaves his apartment building and moves through the streets of Paris before furtively stealing a car. He gets the plates changed, new papers, and a weapon. After that he gets his alibi in order by visiting the beautiful Jane (played by Alain’s real life wife Nathalie Delon). After that he’s ready for what should be a quick and clean contract. He heads to Marty’s nightclub where his target is located but this turns out to be a tougher job than he anticipated. A police roundup, double-crossing, and a ton of heat tests Jef like never before.

“Le Samourai” was directed by the great Jean-Pierre Melville. Melville, who would only make three more films after “Le Samourai” due to his untimely death at age 55, was a lover of 1930’s and 1940’s American crime pictures and you can see those influences in much of his work. But Melville would add his own stylistic twist to his storytelling which would go on to influence new generations of filmmakers. Melville was also a fan of Alain Delon and he used him in his films whenever the opportunity presented itself.

LE SAM 1

Delon is perfectly cast as Jef Costello. Delon was a handsome and popular actor whose stone-faced expression and scarred chin gave him the look the part needed. In fact he never smiles throughout the entire film. He’s all business. Delon was born in a suburb of Paris and was an unruly fellow through his childhood and even into his French military service. That changed when he was finally discovered by a talent scout while on a trip to Cannes. I can’t help but think that his past may have contributed to his sleek and tempered performance.

There are so many great touches and techniques in Melville’s direction and he gives us several unforgettable scenes. For me none are better than a fascinating sequence on the Paris Metro. The police decide to tighten the screws on Jef by monitoring his every movement. Jef who knows the Metro like the back of his hand heads underneath the city in an attempt to lose his tail. But undercover officers are everywhere relaying his movements from train to train. Jef struggles between awareness and paranoia as he tries to decipher who is tailing him as he skips from one Metro stop to another. It’s a brilliantly conceived and constructed sequence.

It was hard for me not to be enthralled with “Le Samourai”. The sparse dialogue is carefully reserved for specific scenes and the camera tells a lot of the story. I can see where that approach may lose some people but for me it was clever and effective. It took me a while to get around to seeing this film and that’s a shame. It’s a stylish yet classic cinema piece that has had it’s share of imitators since its 1967 release. If you haven’t seen it, don’t wait as long as I did.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

REVIEW: “Badlands”

Classic Movie SpotlightBADLANDSTerrence Malick’s directing career has spanned four decades. Now that can be a bit misleading since he’s only made six films during that time. Still, that small body of work has been enough to make him one of my favorite directors. For me, a Malick movie is an experience. He’s an auteur who plays by no other rules other than his own and the quality of his films are always at a high level. There are also several thematic and visual distinctions that course through every Terrence Malick picture, stylistically and narratively differentiating them from most other movies.

It all started in 1973 with the release of “Badlands”. Malick was inspired by the real-life story of Clarence Starkweather, also known as the ‘Mad Dog Killer’. He and his girlfriend Caril Ann Fugate went on a killing spree through the midwest in the late 1950’s, murdering 11 people including her parents and her 2-year old sister. But the similarities between the film and the true story are few. “Badlands” does focus on an ill-founded young romance and the terrible events that follow but it looks at them through a much different lens than the true story would allow.

“Badlands” stars a 33-year old Martin Sheen who looked a lot younger than he was. He’s intentionally given a James Dean look with his white t-shirt with rolled up sleeves, blue jeans, dangling cigarette, and rebel-styled hair. He plays Kit, a rudderless ship with seemingly no direction or aspirations for his life. He’s just quit his job as a garbage collector and you get the sense that he has no idea what’s next.

Badlands 2

While walking through the streets of a small South Dakota town, Kit comes across 15-year old Holly (Sissy Spacek) twirling her baton in her front yard. Spacek was almost 10 years older than the part but you would never guess it from her performance. She immediately comes across as an innocent and naïve young girl with a very veiled perception of the world. She lives alone with her father ever since her mother died a few years earlier. I got the sense that that loss had deeply affected her life. Holly falls victim to Kit’s charm and a romance follows, against the wishes of her father. From there, as with most of Malick’s movies, the story takes an idyllic idea and carries it through to a sad and violent conclusion.

In “Badlands” there are several things that Malick doesn’t reveal and several questions he doesn’t explore. For example we know practically nothing about Kit’s past. We also never get a clear idea as to the root of his violence. Personally I think it’s all found in his and Holly’s quest to find where they belong in the world. Malick gives us two characters who you could say create their own twisted fairy tale of existence. They romanticize their lives on the run and never seem to count the consequences or consider the damage the do. They live in a fantasy world of their own making. This evident from several scenes and conversations they have. We also sense it from Holly’s narration which we hear scattered throughout the movie.

badlands1

In “Badlands” you’ll also see the genesis of Malick’s concentration on nature. Even then his camera seems to gravitate towards beautiful shots of the sun breaking through a leafy canopy, glistening dew on a flower petal, or the lively flow of water in a stream. It’s certainly not as profound as in his more recent pictures but it’s undeniably there. And throughout the film there seems to be a contrast between the beauty and peacefulness of nature and the skewed fantasy world the characters have invented.this subtle dichotomy is never more vivid than in the movie’s well-known tree house scene. I’ll leave it at that for those who haven’t seen it, but it’s a fascinating sequence.

Let me build on that last sentence. “Badlands” is a pretty fascinating movie and it’s a strong directorial debut for one of our best directors. It’s a well written tale of two lost souls dancing between idyllic naiveté and sociopathic violence. I couldn’t take my eyes off of it. Again, “Badlands” is an obvious birthplace of Malick’s particular and personal style of cinematic storytelling and that in itself is worth seeing. But there are also more unsettling stories of lost innocence and tragedy from Malick’s pen that are just as vital to making this a great film.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

REVIEW: “Duck Soup”

Classic Movie Spotlight

duck_soup posterI think it would be safe to say that the Marx Brothers had a brand of humor that was uniquely their own. In a variety of ways Groucho, Harpo, Chico, and Zeppo Marx influenced the comedy genre like no others. Their chaotic and anarchic comedy is centered around rapid-fire quips and ingenious slapstick that’s as well choreographed as any fine dance or ballet. Some of today’s audiences haven’t had the same appreciation for the Marx Brothers and many moviegoers raised by modern cinema may be tempted to dismiss their style of humor. But I stand with the many who believe that the brothers were some of the greatest comic geniuses ever to grace the big screen.

Many believe “Duck Soup” to be the Marx Brothers’ greatest film. While my affection for several of their other movies keeps me from emphatically agreeing, I don’t mind saying that “Duck Soup” is right there in the conversation. The movie features two significant finales for the brothers. This was their last movie to include Zeppo Marx and it was their last production for Paramount Pictures. Many consider the Paramount days to be the best for Marx Brothers movies. But serious contract disputes sunk the relationship between the two sides and after “Duck Soup”, the final movie of a five picture contract, the brothers moved to MGM.

As with most of the Marx Brothers movies, summarizing the plot of “Duck Soup” can be an exercise in futility. There’s no dense or intricate narrative in the film. It’s simply a basic story that allows Groucho, Harpo, and Chico to showcase their comedic chaos. Groucho plays Rufus T. Firefly, the appointed leader of a small country named Freedonia. Freedonia is in a vulnerable position due to economic hardships and poor leadership. Why anyone would expect things to change with Firefly in charge is beyond me! Groucho is exactly as you would expect. He hurls sarcasm and insults at Mach 5 speed and his idiocy when it comes to running a country only makes things worse for Freedonia. But what’s worse for them is hilarious for the audience. Groucho is in top form and its a challenge just to keep up with his humor.

DUCK SOUP 1

The neighboring rival country of Sylvania sees blood in water and they believe the time to take control of Freedonia has come. Their ambassador Trentino (Louis Calhern) sends two spies Chicolini (Chico) and Pinky (Harpo) to infiltrate Firefly’s regime. Another dumb move. Obviously the two numbskulls botch the operation and turn things upside down. Before long the two countries have declared war and things go completely insane. In other words, its exactly what you would expect from an effective Marx Brothers picture.

Zeppo appears as Firefly’s secretary chief, Bob Roland. After playing his usual straight man role in the first five Marx Brothers films, he would quit acting after “Duck Soup” to make his fortune in engineering. Also a Marx Brothers favorite Margaret Dumont plays her familiar wealthy, aristocratic widow role. As always she plays the straight face in the middle of the brothers’ madness and she takes the brunt of Groucho’s jabs and insults. Dumont is certainly a supporting character but her roles are always vital to making much of the comedy work. That’s definitely the case in “Duck Soup”.

The film has several signature scenes none more well known than the mirror sequence. In it Harpo, decked out as Groucho, pretends to be his reflection in a busted out mirror. He matches Groucho’s every movement and expression in a scene featuring some mind-blowing choreography. There’s also a fantastic sequence where Chico and Harpo fight it out with a lemonade vendor battling them for sidewalk business. It’s a sequence that could be construed as Marx Brothers cruelty. In fact I’ve heard that argument but I think that’s taking the scene way to seriously. It’s a hysterical part of the film. Then there is Harpo’s penchant for clipping things with his scissors. Whether it’s tuxedo tales or feathered pens, he clips anything he gets a chance to.

I could go on and on about the numerous funny lines and hilarious gags. “Duck Soup” may have more Marx Brothers zaniness than any of their other pictures. For anyone not familiar with these early comic legends this is a great entry point. Just be prepared. The humor is relentless but it keeps me laughing from the opening to the closing credits. The boys made some fantastic films after “Duck Soup” but here they’re at their peak. And for me this 1933 comedy succeeds where the vast majority of modern attempts fail. It’s incredibly funny and it carves out for itself a spot as a true classic.

VERDICT – 5 STARS

5 STARSs

5STAR K&M

REVIEW: “Roman Holiday”

Classic Movie Spotlight

roman_holidayI don’t mean to be repetitive. But at the risk of sounding like a broken record, they just don’t make romantic comedies like this anymore. This 1953 classic from director William Wyler is a beautiful blueprint for a genre that seems to struggle with making quality movies these days. “Roman Holiday” brings together the always good Gregory Peck and the adorable Audrey Hepburn in a film that could almost be considered a fairy tale story. But while the film embraces some of the elements that make a good romantic comedy, it dodges a few of the conventions which have become all too familiar.

“Roman Holiday” was the star-making role for a young Audrey Hepburn. After appearing in several smaller roles this was a bigger performance that caught the world’s attention. A lot of that attention is because of Gregory Peck. Peck was instrumental in getting Hepburn’s name out there after realizing she was going to be big. Interestingly enough Peck wasn’t Wyler’s first choice. The director first sought after Cary Grant but Grant turned it down after reading the script. Peck once said that anytime he received a comedy script he knew Grant must have turned it down first. Well I don’t think anyone is griping about how things turned out. Peck and Hepburn have a charming chemistry as they explore the unique relationship between their characters.

The story for “Roman Holiday” was written by Dalton Trumbo but it was credited to Ian McClellan Hunter. Trumbo was one of the Hollywood Ten and was blacklisted for his communist ties and failure to cooperate with Congress. It was during that time that he penned the story. To make things even more interesting, “Roman Holiday” won the Academy Award for Best Story (as the category was known at the time). Hunter would accept the award but it was Trumbo who earned it. Only in 2011 was full credit given to Trumbo was his work on the film.

ROMAN1

His story follows Ann (Hepburn), a princess of an unmentioned country who is on a European tour stop in Rome. Ann is young and adventurous and she wants to experience the life outside of her closed in ornate walls. She’s tired of the strict itineraries and stuffy hobnobbing so one night she lets out her frustrations. The royal family doctor gives her a sedative to calm her down but before it can kick in, she sneaks out of the embassy to experience the sites and sounds of Rome. An American reporter named Joe Bradley (Peck) stumbles across Ann sound asleep next to a fountain. He doesn’t recognize her at first but after a comical series of events he learns her identity and sees her as a big story that could eventually land him back in New York.

Joe doesn’t let Ann know that he recognizes her and Ann tries to keep her identity secret. He calls a photographer friend of his Irving Radovich (Eddie Albert) to secretly capture some photographs of Ann for their big story while the three of them spend a playful day exploring Rome. Of course Joe begins to have feelings for Ann. I mean who wouldn’t? This is Audrey Hepburn were talking about. He’s faced with the decision of caring for her or cashing in his feelings for a big payday. It’s such a wonderful story filled with good humor and a lovely romance. Hepburn and Peck light up Rome with Albert playing the tag-along who gets in some good laughs.

“Roman Holiday” was shot in Rome, something that you didn’t see a lot of during that time. Unlike now where on location shoots are the norm, then it was a pretty special thing to have such an extensive shoot especially I’m a city like Rome. It was a brilliant decision. The city and all its beauty is on display throughout the film and Wyler treats Rome like one of the film’s characters. But it’s a supporting character. The city shows itself often but always as a support for the bigger love story. There are several magical scenes with Ann and Joe at some of the city’s major locations. One of my favorites is a playful moment at The Mouth of Truth monument. Peck pretends as if his arm is stuck in the mouth of the monument and he lets out a scream. Hepburn new nothing of this little gag. Only Peck and Wyler were in on it. It genuinely startled Hepburn who let out a loud scream of her own. It was completely spontaneous and Wyler was able to capture it therefore requiring only one take.

ROMAN2

“Roman Holiday” ended up with 10 Academy Award nominations. I mentioned Trumbo’s win but that wasn’t the biggest story. Audrey Hepburn, a relatively unknown actress at the time, would take home the Best Actress Oscar. This catapulted her into the spotlight and opened the door for her to star in several of my favorite classic films. Peck was right with his appraisal of the young beauty and she was always appreciative. They remained close friends for the rest of their lives. Their admiration for each other and their friendship translated into their performances and they give us a truly memorable screen couple.

I still love “Roman Holiday”. It’s a beautifully filmed movie that tells a wonderful story through some top-notch performances. The Rome locations provide such a pleasing sense of place and even in black and white Wyler gives you a very real feel for the city’s allure and vibrancy. It’s also one of those movies with several scenes that you’ll never forget. It’s easy to get lost in “Roman Holiday” and as an avid movie watcher that’s what I want. I want to be swept away by an interesting story about interesting characters. And in a romantic comedy I want to care about what I’m seeing. I want the story to be smart, the humor to be sharp, and the romance genuine. We get all of this and more in “Roman Holiday” which is one reason this great film has stood the test of time.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

THE END

REVIEW: “Titanic” (1953)

Classic Movie Spotlight

TITANICWhen mentioning “Titanic” and the movies most people today instantly think of James Cameron’s 1997 blockbuster epic. But there have actually been several movies centered around that ill-fated voyage in 1912. One of the best of these films came out in 1953 and like Cameron’s movie, this film was simply titled “Titanic”. It featured a fine cast and special effects that were considered pretty cutting edge for that time. Of course being a 1953 picture it didn’t depend on its special effects as heavily as Cameron’s. Instead the true strength of this version lies in the characters and their stories which unfold before us on the ship prior to the collision which would eventually sink the vessel.

In the film Julia Sturges (Barbara Stanwyck) boards the Titanic with her 18-year old daughter Annette (Audrey Dalton) and 10-year old son Norman (Harper Carter). She’s secretly leaving her husband Richard (Clifton Webb) and taking her children to America, leaving behind the lavish high society living that Richard is consumed with. But he gets wind of her plan and is able to buy his way onboard before the ship sets sail. Webb is perfectly cast as the snobbish and conceited aristocrat. He surprises Julia and their children in the dinner hall later that evening and let’s just say the exchange between husband and wife is pretty heated.

For much of the remainder of the film the two battle it out with their children caught in the middle. One of their biggest disagreements centers around their conflicting views of class. Julia is tired of the pampered upper class living and misses the more humble life of her American roots. Richard’s arrogance is such that he believes their worth is tied to their prosperity and social status. This personal conflict between them mirrors the class differences on the ship. The movie doesn’t spend a lot of time on it but we do get several looks at the swanky elegance of the first class passengers contrasted with the poorer people in the noisy and crowded decks below. Of coarse Richard and Julia also argue about the future of their children which leads to some brutal verbal exchanges and the unveiling of secrets that have been hidden for years. The scenes shared by Stanwyck and Webb are brilliantly written and performed and I found myself completely absorbed in every word.

Titanic1

There are several other interesting characters on the ship as well. I loved the wonderful Thelma Ritter as a straight-shooting wealthy woman who’s still grounded in her working class roots. I also enjoyed 22-year old Robert Wagner as a peppy Purdue University tennis player who tries to win over Annette. Richard Basehart has some fine scenes as an ex-Catholic priest struggling with alcoholism. Unfortunately his character is terribly underdeveloped. But I also have to mention Brian Aherne as the ship’s Captain. He gives a subtle but focused performance that paints the perfect picture of what I would imagine the Captain to be like. There are several other characters that work for me as well and while I do wish some had been given more screen time, they each have their moments where they capture my interest.

But regardless of how well these personal stories play out, this is still a story of the disastrous maiden voyage of the Titanic. The film only spends about 30 minutes on the collision with the iceberg and the subsequent sinking of the ship and that works out just fine especially considering the film’s compact overall running time of 98 minutes. As I mentioned earlier the special effects are quite good. Considering today’s heavy CGI approach to visuals, it’s interesting to see how these older movies approached their special effects. I think what makes these so effective is that director Jean Negulesco never keeps his camera focused on them. He shows us some incredible long shots of the ship in various stages of descent but in each scene he cuts his camera or puts something else in the shot to keep us from seeing his visual trickery. The results help create a perfect sense of peril that I really responded to.

titanic2

Charles Brackett, Richard Breen, and Walter Reisch won Oscars for their work on “Titanic’s” screenplay and while there is a level of sentimentality and melodrama, I don’t think that’s a bad thing. And I wouldn’t say that their story is striving to be the most accurate account of the disaster. As with the most recent movie, there are several things that Titanic history buffs could pick away at. But in terms of dramatic storytelling the trio collaborate to create a highly entertaining character-driven drama. The dialogue is smart and efficient and its easy to be enthralled when it’s handled by such a wonderful and capable cast.

1953’s “Titanic” will never match James Cameron’s film in visuals, size, or scope but for me it doesn’t have to. This is a movie that certainly stands on its own. Its character based storytelling approach draws you into the story, and by the time the ship begins to sink you’re thoroughly invested. In many ways its structure resembles that of Cameron’s epic minus the newer film’s bloated first half. This is a much tighter story and there’s never a wasted or throwaway scene. I do wish we could have spent more time getting to know some of the smaller underdeveloped characters but I wouldn’t trade that for a single scene that Stanwyck and Webb share together. So if the only “Titanic” picture you’ve seen was the 1997 box office smash, take time to give this one a watch. It certainly deserves a new audience today.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

THE END

REVIEW: “Singin’ in the Rain”

SINGIN

They just don’t make movies like this anymore. That may sound like a very cliché and overused statement but when talking about the classic “Singin’ in the Rain” it most certainly fits. This is a film that overflows with the happiness and joy that once was prevalent in motion pictures. In fact, I would challenge any real movie fan to watch this picture and not notice an ever-present grin spread across your face. But this is more than just a happy little dance picture. It’s filled with romance, lots of good humor, and it’s set during one of the biggest transition periods in cinema.

SINGIN SMALL“Singin’ in the Rain” is first and foremost a musical and many call it the greatest motion picture musical of all time. While my personal preference is “An American in Paris”, it’s really hard to argue with them. Now I’m not a big fan of musicals so for a movie musical to get such a positive reaction from me says something. But this is simply a great film from start to finish and the musical numbers are some of the most memorable in movie history. Gene Kelly not only starred in the movie but he also co-directed it and handled the choreography. Kelly is amazing to watch and several of his numbers alongside the immensely talented Donald O’Connor cross classic dance with acrobatics. The results are playful and lighthearted yet display undeniable talents.

Kelly plays Don Lockwood, one half of a hugely popular silent movie couple. His partner is Lina Lamont (Jean Hagen), a beautiful blonde with the Hollywood good looks but with a screeching voice that seems made for the silent era. Their studio, Monumental Pictures, makes up a romance between the two. This was a real tactic that many studios would employ to increase the popularity of their performers with audiences. Don knows there is nothing between them but Lina didn’t get that memo. Her attraction to Don becomes a steady stumbling block for him throughout the picture.

While this is primarily a musical, it’s also a movie about making movies. As I mentioned elsewhere, I love it when a film takes us behind the scenes and shows us the creative process behind making motion pictures. “Singin’ in the Rain” is set during a pivotal time in cinema – the transition from silent films to “talkies”. It doesn’t dive deep into the history or process but it does use it honestly and effectively. Some silent stars made the transition fine. But others never made it because their voice work wasn’t good enough to be able to keep their audiences. Such was the problem Lina and Monumental Studios faced with her grinding voice.

Singin2Debbie Reynolds is one of the true delights of “Singin’ in the Rain”. Reynolds was only 19-years old when she made the film and this was her big break. She brings such a sprightly energy to every scene she’s in and she’s a perfect fit with Kelly and O’Connor. Reynolds would later say that “Singin’ in the Rain” was possibly her hardest shoot, but you would never know it by watching the picture. She’s a scene stealer and that’s high praise considering the heavyweights she shares the screen with. Her character Kathy Selden is a young aspiring performer who eventually becomes the romantic wedge between Don and Lina. This complicates the studio’s manufactured relationship between their two big stars but even they are won over by Kathy’s beautiful voice and amazing talent.

Another key ingredient is O’Connor whose dancing talents match Kelly’s step for step. He plays Cosmo Brown, Don’s longtime friend and proverbial sidekick. Cosmo’s quick wit and snappy one-liners provide the movie with some of its biggest laughs. But O’Connor may be most remembered for his spectacular dance number “Make ‘Em Laugh”. It’s a stunning display of physical comedy put to music where O’Connor throws his body around, runs up walls, and wrestles with a stage prop dummy. Words don’t do this dance sequence justice but you can’t watch it and not be wowed by O’Connor’s ability.

“Singin’ in the Rain” features a host of other memorable songs and dance numbers but interestingly enough only one, “Moses Supposes”, was an original song written for the movie. Every other song was pulled from MGM’s own music vault. But Gene Kelly, the true mastermind behind the production, was able to make these earlier tunes synonymous with this film. This was never more evident than with the title track. The lyrics and music of “Singin’ in the Rain” was written by Arthur Freed and Nacio Herb Brown all the way back 1929. But it’s Gene Kelly’s legendary dance number on a city street during a downpour that the song is instantly associated with. Kelly twirls his umbrella, stomps in puddles, and swings on light posts in what has come to be considered one of the greatest movie moments in history.

While I do love “Singin’ in the Rain’ immensely, there is still one gripe I have with it after all these years. Later in the film there is a huge production number that lasts a good 15 minutes. Now there’s nothing wrong with the number itself. It features the wonderful “Gotta Dance” song and it looks amazing. The problem is it yanks me out of the film’s story every time. Now it isn’t just a random dance number. Don is sharing his vision for his new movie with a studio executive and we basically watch what he’s envisioning. Again it’s a fine number but, just like in “An American in Paris”, it pulls me out of a story that I’m completely invested in.

SINGIN1

“Singin’ in the Rain” is a true motion picture classic and an absolute joy to watch even for tepid musical fans like me. Debbie Reynolds wins us over with her spunkiness and beauty. Donald O’Connor wows us with his feet and great humor. Jean Hagen pretty much becomes the antagonist of the film and gives us one hilarious classic line after another. But the glue that holds it all together is Gene Kelly. Both in front of and behind the camera, Kelly’s fingerprints are all over this film. His performance is pitch-perfect and his wonderful chemistry with O’Connor and especially Reynolds is key. But it’s his amazing dance numbers that still resonate through time. Kelly gave 110% to his dance and later in life his body would show the effects of that. But it’s that unwavering devotion and maximum effort that we see in every number he performs.

This is a movie of a bygone era – an era when an audience could be impressed by the sheer happiness of a story and moved by the footwork of a master. Perhaps I am being too cynical, but it’s hard to imagine a large modern movie audience sitting down and enjoying this picture if it were released today. But for many of us we still have “Singin’ in the Rain” and the reminders of the great history of filmmaking it brings with it during each viewing. Unlike today, it didn’t need a load of profanity and distasteful raunch to be funny. It didn’t need nudity or constant sexual references to be romantic. None of these modern movie crutches were needed to make this a truly timeless film. Like I said at the beginning, they just don’t make movies like this anymore!

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS