Category Archives: Movie Reviews – S

“The Seven Year Itch” – 4 STARS

by

19

Classic Movie SpotlightSEVEN YEAR POSTERAcclaimed director Billy Wilder’s “The Seven Year Itch” was a movie that at the time drove the Motion Picture Production Code enforcers crazy. As risqué and seductive as the film was, it’s based on a much edgier play by George Axelrod. Wilder co-wrote the screenplay with Axelrod and ended up making several changes to satisfy the censors. But these alterations did nothing to hurt the picture. “The Seven Year Itch” is a smart and funny romantic comedy – exactly the kind of movie you would expect to get from Billy Wilder.

The story is set during a hot Manhattan summer when wives and children leave the city for cooler vacation sites leaving behind the men to work. This exodus, which resembles a massive animal migration, leaves a nerdy, insecure business executive named Richard Sherman (Tom Ewell) alone while his wife and son head off to Maine. It doesn’t take long to see that Richard is a bit eccentric and unsure about himself. He also has a vivid imagination and often times finds himself daydreaming about things that feed his insecurities. He spends a lot of time carrying on conversations with himself, discussing his wife’s skepticism over his ladies man status as well as his unquestioned faithfulness to his wife while she’s away. While other husbands may be out catting around, not Richard Sherman. There will be no drinking, smoking, or womanizing for him.

Well that may be easier said than done, especially when he bumps into the new tenant in his apartment building. Now this is no ordinary tenant. The a gorgeous blonde bombshell is played by Marilyn Monroe. Apparently that says all you need to know because we never get her name (which may give us an indication of where Richard’s mind is at). She’s simply credited as The Girl. As you might expect, Richard is smitten with his beautiful neighbor and regardless of his best efforts and outspoken arguments with himself, he places himself right in the path of temptation.

SEVEN YEAR1

Richard’s array of flirtatious errors begins with inviting ‘the girl’ to his apartment for a drink. Bad move. The girl’s ditzy, playful, and seductive charm is more alluring than Richard imagined and soon he finds himself in too deep. A little fib here and a poor decision there has the already paranoid Richard a little on edge. The question becomes will he go too far and irreparably harm his marriage or will he come to his senses? On the other hand, does he even have any senses to come back to?

Tom Ewell was never what you would call a leading man. The consummate character actor, Ewell had a familiar face for film fans but his biggest career successes came on Broadway. His greatest recognition came with his lead performance in the stage version of “The Seven Year Itch”. He would play the role for three years, eventually winning a Tony Award. So Ewell was the natural choice to reprise his role of Richard Baxter in the film version. While the material was altered between stage and screen, Ewell handles it well and his common, everyday man persona works perfectly within Wilder’s film. In fact, my wife has said that Ewell’s portrayal of Richard’s neurosis is so convincing that it makes her antsy.

SEVEN YEAR2And then there’s Marilyn Monroe lighting up every scene with her radiance. While Ewell was clearly the lead character, it was Marilyn who received top billing. In 1955 Monroe was a hot property and it was her name that would serve as the biggest draw. She’s fantastic in this film. It’s easy to dismiss her character as another air-headed blonde but I think there’s more here than that. She certainly has her ditzy moments but its also feasible that she knows what she’s doing. Marilyn sells both sides and when combined with her obvious beauty and undeniable sexiness, she gives us one of her better cinema performances.

“The Seven Year Itch” has earned it’s place as an appreciated movie and many call it a true classic. There are several things about the film that is etched in pop culture history. Of course nothing more so than the iconic scene with Marilyn standing on the subway grating. The subway zips by underneath, the beautiful white dress of hers billowing from the air blowing up. But “The Seven Year Itch” has also been called an overly simplistic movie that at times feels too much like a play. I think that’s a fair criticism but one that doesn’t subtract too much from film. It’s witty and intelligent and ultimately unforgettable. The story never grows dull and the performances are a blast. While this may not be Billy Wilder’s best film it’s still a fun picture and a nice part of his amazing résumé.

“Say Anything…” – 4 STARS

by

14

SAY ANYTHING POSTERBack in 1989 Cameron Crowe wrote and made his directorial debut with “Say Anything…”, a teen romantic comedy that still stands out from the bulk of the teen flicks we still get today. So many teen films adhere to the annoying formula of vulgarity mixed with immaturity and they treat their characters as shallow and stupid stereotypes. “Say Anything…” does none of that instead choosing to give us genuine characters who feel grounded in reality. These are the types of characters you can relate to and care about which makes for a much more authentic experience.

Crowe clearly has no interest in creating another portrait of teen debauchery. This film features real characters struggling with real problems and sharing real emotions. But Crowe’s writing also allows for a fair share of humor which always comes at just the right time. For all its sweet romance and well conceived drama there are some really funny moments as well. But perhaps what I’m the most thankful for is that Crowe actually gives us well developed and layered characters. He opens these people up for us and allows us to see what’s inside. That’s a key ingredient to getting the audience to latch onto the characters and their stories.

The story starts on graduation day at a small Seattle, Wasington high school. John Cusack plays Lloyd Dobler, an average, everyday student with no clear vision for what he wants to do with his life. He’s a very honest and forthright guy who finds himself attracted to Diane Court (Ione Skye), the class valedictorian. On paper this doesn’t look like the perfect match, something Lloyd’s best friend Corey (Lili Taylor) is happy to point out. But Lloyd and Diane are two characters that we’re happy to invest in and their unlikely romance makes for good cinema.

Say ANything 2

Both Lloyd and Diane have struggles in there individual lives that Crowe takes time explore. I mentioned Lloyd’s uncertainty about his future and with graduation day behind him time is running out to decide what he’s going to do. His parents are overseas leaving him to live with his sister and her son. I couldn’t help but feel he was a kid needing his parents presence and love. Yet Lloyd is still a good guy even though he’s unsure. Diana is the smartest girl in school which has socially distanced her from her entire class. She doesn’t appear to have any close friends and her one confidant is her father Jim (John Mahoney). She chose to live with him during her parents’ divorce and the two have a very close and open relationship. But outside of her father, Diane has no one else she can truly call a friend.

Crowe stays away from the standard teen movie cliches and formulas when bringing these two together. Their emotions feel so authentic and their problems complicate things in ways people are sure to relate to. There’s a lot of talk about honesty in “Say Anything…”. Lloyd is a honest and sincere young man and that plays a big part in his relationship with Diane. Her relationship with her father is built entirely on honesty and trust. Honesty is such a big part of the film and when it’s broken, just like in real life, it can often times carry heavy consequences.

SAY ANYTHING

Cusack is pitch perfect for this role. I’m not the biggest fan of his but I have admired some of his work. Here he relays that teen enthusiasm and nervousness surrounding new found love. But there’s also a innocence and vulnerability that he brings which I really responded to. Skye has her moments as well. At times her performance can be very convincing as she moves between heavy, emotional scenes and others where she conveys an almost childlike exuberance. But there are some times where she plays things a tad to big and she ends up standing out for the wrong reasons. Mahoney is brilliant as Diane’s father. He gives us such a likable character and several times we feel as if he’s going to go down the conventional road that most of these teen movie fathers travel. Mahoney is so believable and his performance really shines later in the film.

“Say Anything…” is over 20 years old now but it still maintains its freshness in a genre thats grown repetitive and stale. It’s a film that treats teens as sensible human beings with real world feelings and issues. Cameron Crowe’s writing is crisp and his direction is sharp. He gives us a film that feels like an 80’s movie with a new decade’s vibe bursting out of it. But regardless of its age and imperfections, “Say Anything…” still stands out today. But that’s no surprise. Good movies always seem to.

“Stoker” – 4 STARS

by

23

STOKER POSTERThere are two things that you’ll instantly notice when watching “Stoker”. First, it’s clear that director Park Chan-wook is a true visionary. Second, there is something seriously not right in the Stoker household. “Stoker” is a twisted psychological thriller oozing with Hitchcockian influence and mixed with traces of classic horror. There’s a good reason for that. The script was written by Wentworth Miller (yes, the guy from “Prison Break”) who stated that he used Hitchcock’s classic thriller “Shadow of a Doubt” to help frame his story. But this isn’t a mere carbon copy. He takes things in a much darker direction which helps this movie stand on its own two feet.

Chan-wook is best known for his “Vengeance” trilogy and for “Oldboy” which is currently being remade by Spike Lee. “Stoker” marks his English-language debut and his fingerprints are all over this film. He takes Miller’s script and instantly incorporates his signature style which works to create a specific mood and tone throughout the picture. And if you’re familiar with his other work you know his films often incorporate uneasiness and brutality. Both are present here as well.

The story centers around young India Stoker (Mia Wasikowska). Her life is dealt a terrible blow when her father Richard is killed in a tragic car accident on her 18th birthday. India was very close with her father, something that can’t be said about her relationship with her mother Evelyn (Nicole Kidman). The two have a strained relationship resulting from Evelyn’s emotional instability and her jealousy of India’s affection for her father. After the funeral, both meet Richard’s brother Charlie (Matthew Goode) who has been traveling abroad for years. Evelyn takes to him instantly but India doesn’t trust him. He has the charm and good looks but there’s something unnerving about this guy.

stoker1

Uncle Charlie volunteers to move in to help the family out. Evelyn is thrilled which does more to strain her relationship with India. The story unfolds and we quickly sense Charlie is up to no good. But there’s a lot more going on than anyone realizes. Most of the film deals with the tension between India and her Uncle. Her suspicions of Charlie are valid but neither she or the audience can figure the guy out. But it’s not as if she’s completely stable. She’s a very dark and brooding recluse. She lives in her own little world which is made clear by a couple of scenes that take place at her high school. The contrast between home and away is profound. Her nature and Charlie’s creepiness make for some good, eerie conversations between the two. But there’s also an undeniable psychosexual tension that permeates each scene. It’s a key part of the movie’s overall weirdness that sometimes has you squirming in your seat.

Wasikowska is an young actress that I’ve always been impressed with. She gives another solid performance here although the material doesn’t require much in terms of range. Throughout the entire film she maintains the same blank expression regardless of what’s happening. It’s nothing that allows her to flex her acting muscle yet it’s strikingly appropriate for this story. I also thought Kidman was really good. She takes on a smaller role, but her strong performance brings more to her character than you might expect. But for me Matthew Goode is the real standout. From his first appearance in the cemetery overlooking his brother’s funeral service, Goode maintains an eerie presence. He slithers around the Stoker’s secluded two-story estate channeling his best Joseph Cotton from “Shadow of a Doubt”. I loved what Goode did with the role and for me he helped give the movie the creepy intensity it was shooting for.

Stoker2

But I think my favorite thing about “Stoker” was the undeniable style of Park Chan-wook. I loved what he was doing with his camera and I never grew tired of his perspectives. There’s such artistry at work as he uses strategic close ups, moving cameras, and specific framings of shots. Chan-Wook also left indelible images carved into my mind. He gives the film a real horror movie feel with chilling shots of things like a crawling spider, a hair on a bar of soap, or a pencil sharpener. He also gives the movie heightened senses particularly in the area of sound. It may be voices, buzzing house flies, or even the crumbling of a boiled egg’s shell. All of this contributes to letting us know everything’s wrong in their world. I mean even the end credits are backwards and scroll down instead of up.

All of the amazing visuals and strong acting really worked for me. But some will assuredly be turned off by the movie’s bloody and violent final act. In a way I can understand why but not necessary due to the blood. I’m just not sure that the ending works that well storywise. That aside, “Stoker” is a strong film, dark and unsettling but still wickedly entertaining. It’s most certainly not a film for everyone. But it should be seen even if only for Goode’s devilishly good performance and the stylistic visionary direction. Lucky for me, I found there to be more to like than just that.

“Safe Haven” – 3 STARS

by

19

SAFE-HAVEN poster

There are several things that you automatically expect when your watching any movie based on a Nicholas Sparks novel. You know you’re going to get an overloaded plot, the characters are going to be bombarded with tragedy, a main character will probably die, and whether its rain, a pond, or the ocean, you’re going to get a lot of scenes involving water. Now the water thing doesn’t bother me. I’m sure there’s a nice little story as to why water is so prominent in these films. But the other stuff along with a history of bad performances have made the other Sparks adaptations almost unbearable to watch. So I guess the question is why on earth would I watch his latest endeavor “Safe Haven”? More importantly, would it be able to avoid the habitual weaknesses of the other movies?

Well let me start off by saying that Sparks almost had me with “Safe Haven”. In fact he came incredibly close. “Safe Haven”a flirts with being a really good movie mainly because it steers clear of those crippling stumbling blocks that killed every other Sparks production. Much of the credit for this goes to Gage Lansky and Dana Stevens. Their screenplay keeps things simple, grounded, and focused, that is right up until the very end. It’s there that the story undermines everything it had done up to that point by tossing in a clunky action sequence and an off-the-wall twist that had me slapping my a forehead.

safe haven 1

Julianne Hough plays Katie, a young woman with a big secret. We first see her in a bus station where she hurriedly hops on a bus heading to Atlanta. Right on her heels is police officer Kevin Tierney (David Lyons) who narrowly misses catching her. Katie flees, in search of a place where she will feel “safe” Officer Tierney issues an all-points bulletin and continues to search for her. We know Katie is involved in something bad but the movie never tells us what it is all at once. Instead we are fed bits of information through a series of flashbacks.

Katie’s bus stops briefly at a sleepy little North Carolina town called Southport that sits at the mouth of the Cape Fear River. She decides to stay. She buys an old fixer-upper house isolated in the woods and lands a low-key job as a waitress in a fish restaurant. She also reluctantly starts making connects in town including catching the eye of the conveniently widowed Alex (Josh Duhamel). It doesn’t take a Rhodes scholar to guess that the two eventually fall for each other. Hough and Duhamel are actually quite good together. Hough is beautiful and fairly believable and her acting was a surprise. She did have some rough patches but overall she was much better than I expected. Duhamel is a very likable actor but I’ve yet to see him really relay emotion. He gives a good enough performance here but it’s nothing that will grab your attention. But the main thing is that they do have a nice chemistry and we get plenty of scenes with these two pretty people together. But you can only run from the law for so long and Katie’s past could eventually destroy her new life.

I was curious to see how director Lasse Hallström was going to handle this movie. He’s got an interesting résumé that includes some really good films such as “Chocolat”, “What’s Eating Gilbert Grape”, and last year’s “Salmon Fishing in the Yemen”. But he also made the Nicholas Sparks disaster “Dear John”. Well thankfully this is no “Dear John”. Hallström never let’s things get out of control and he’s able to keep his characters entertaining and interesting. He does get close to falling into eye-rolling sappiness at times but he actually succeeds in making this a fairly enjoyable romantic drama, something that can’t be said about the previous Sparks productions.

safe-haven2

Now “Safe Haven” does use some of the standard clichés that you see in a lot of these type of pictures. We get the super cute little kid doing and saying super cute little things and there are certain moments in Katie and Alex’s romance that were taken straight out of the Hollywood handbook on formulaic romance scenes. But I have to say that these things are at a minimum and they never overtake the film. There’s also the water. I mean there’s water everywhere. Of course Alex and Katie have to get caught in a rain storm and there’s a lot of scenes that include the Cape Fear River. There’s even a reoccurring bottled water that has significance. That Nicholas Sparks, he sure loves his water.

So while “Safe Haven” can be a little sappy, a little cliché, and too convenient, those aren’t its biggest offenses. Even with the surprising control and restraint that we see in the majority of the film, the ending blows most of it out of Sparks’ beloved water. There’s an early twist that I actually thought was pretty well done. But it leads to an action sequence that felt terribly out of place. It just suddenly throws too much at you and it felt pretty cheap. But then the story gets back on track with a really touching final sequence. The only problem is the filmmakers don’t leave it alone and they toss in a twist that left me shaking my head. I don’t know, if I watch it again I might feel differently, but it seemed to me that they ruined a really good ending by trying to be too crafty. Sometimes you have to recognize a good thing and let it play out.

So what’s my final take on “Safe Haven”? I’ve slammed every Nicholas Sparks production that I’ve reviewed and I was expecting to do the same here. But as I consider the film as a whole I can’t help but recommend it, even if it’s a slight recommendation. Hough is lovely and Duhamel as likable as always, and even though they’re not the most polished performers, their chemistry sold me. I’m still not one to say I now look forward to Nicholas Sparks movies, but for me this was a step in the right direction.

REVIEW: “Silver Linings Playbook”

by

47

SILVER POSTER

I can’t say I was all that excited to see “Silver Linings Playbook”. But since its release I’ve heard nothing but positive things about it. The reviews have been unanimously great, and it has popped up on one Top 10 list after another. And then along came awards season. “Silver Linings Playbook” made a huge splash with the Academy, nabbing eight nominations including one in every major category. Now it looks like The Little Engine That Could as it gains more and more momentum heading into Oscar’s big night. So what’s with my reluctance to see this film?

Well let me get this out of the way, “Silver Linings Playbook” is a good film. It’s a sharp romantic comedy that avoids the usual pitfalls associated with the genre today – that is right up until the end. It’s written and directed by David O. Russell which quite honestly was one reason I was in no hurry to see it. I’m not a big fan of Russell’s abrasive and sometimes crass style of storytelling. But I have to hand it to him, even though we do get some of that here, Russell manages to tell a good story and his personal connection to the material is evident.

SILVER2

While Russell wasn’t a draw for me, the cast certainly was. Bradley Cooper plays Pat, a man who, due to his bipolar disorder, has spent eight months in a sanitarium. We learn that after catching his wife having an affair, Pat flies into a rage and beats the man to a pulp. His court agreement says he must receive treatment hence his stay in a mental hospital. He’s eventually released into the care of his parents with hopes of starting a new life and convincing his wife that he is cured. But there’s one problem, she has a restraining order which doesn’t seem to deter him one bit.

His parents are played by Robert De Niro and Jacki Weaver. Talk about perfect casting. Weaver is very good although most of her scenes put her in the background. It’s De Niro that really stands out, and this is the performance people have been waiting to see again. His character is honest and grounded. He has some hilarious moments, but he also gives us a look at where his son’s disorder may have originated. This was right up De Niro’s alley, and some of the film’s best moments are when he’s on screen, particularly when he’s hashing out his complicated relationship with Pat.

But it’s a troubled young woman named Tiffany (Jennifer Lawrence) who shakes Pat’s life up the most. Since the death of her husband, Tiffany has struggled to keep her life on track. At first the two have no idea how to react to one another. This leads to some really funny moments including conversations about medications and what constitutes a first date. Cooper and Lawrence have a nice chemistry and I was impressed with how well they played off each other. I can’t help but believe that improvisation played a role in their performances because much of their dialogue flows so naturally (especially their more heated discussions). They are two fractured souls and watching them struggle to manage their lives can be both funny and crushing.

Silver1

It would be hard to justify criticism of any of these performances. They are that good. But that doesn’t mean this is a flawless movie. There are a few issues and for me they can be traced back to Russell. There is so much that he does right in the movie, and I don’t want to downplay that. But I did feel it was a little longwinded early on and then there’s the ending. For most of the film things felt fresh, and I thought Russell was plowing new ground. Then things take a conventional and predictable turn. Obviously to keep from spoiling things I have to dance around the details, but you can see the ending coming from a mile away. I kept expecting Russell to steer away from the mainstream course he was on, but it never happened.

Now don’t misunderstand me, there’s nothing wrong with these types of endings. But here it did nothing to set the movie apart from the rest of these types of films. And since that seems to be what Russell was going for (and accomplished for most of the picture), it’s a real head-scratching choice. But enough with the negatives. “Silver Linings Playbook” is a fascinating look at mental illness and its effects on relationships, family, and social life. It’s also a master class in acting, showcasing some of the best performances of the year. Obviously I don’t find it as profound as many do, and I don’t see it as a Best Picture or Best Director Oscar winner. But it deserves praise for taking a difficult subject and nicely wrapping it in humor and emotion. That’s something many films have tried but failed to do.

VERDICT – 3.5 STARS

REVIEW: “Singin’ in the Rain”

by

24

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