I don’t care about state subsidies or whatever, as long as it results insome movie. Culture has to be subsidized anyway, the (mass) marketmechanism, under capitalist relations, cannot supply it.

2) What were the Taviani’s doing in the Summer of 1996? Dozing off with aglassof Chianti Classico and a copy of Lucio Gaudino’s "Adelaide" on a portableVideo Recorder to ‘inspire’ them on the shoot of this drab,lifeless,un-inspired period piece?"Adelaide" was shot 5 years earlier, on a shoestring (with breadcrumbsfromthe Italian State Film Funds) and was directed by a Mr.Nobody.It too was inspired by a period Novel, not Goethe, but a ‘minor’ FrenchNovelist, I believe.Goethe wouldn’t ‘turn in his grave’ over the Taviani’s treatment to hismasterpiece…Yes he WOULD turn over and go to sleep, maybe muttering a German phrase ofdisgust.Darlings of the institutions, it appears the Taviani’s will continue tofindfunds for such lame efforts in the coffers of Italy’s politicalparties.The film is a ‘rip off’.It’s French protagonist,( usually riveting), is strangely absent, a verypale copy of Assumpta Serna, "Adelaide"’s mesmerizing ageing beauty with acaustic brilliance.Gaudino’s small jewel of a film is beautifully shot, well acted, andrespects the ‘feel’ of the epoch.Anyone attracted to such material, (and deluded by the Taviani mess)shouldtake the time, and trouble to track down ‘the real Mc Coy!Buona Visione!

3) I was going to write a review of this, but there is little I can add toPeter Shelley’s very perceptive review (at Amazon’s video store). I willrelate my experience with the video. I chose it more or less at random, asI sometimes do (in this way I try to extent my horizons, or at least to comeface to face with something different), but partially because it starredFrench actress Isabelle Huppert, whose work I admire. As I shifted in myseat through the languid development, I thought how odd and how out of syncwith a modern story this is! Strangely coy and even "Victorian" for anItalian movie! After some time it occurred to me that the only explanationis that it was adapted from an eighteenth century novel! For some reasonThe Sorrows of Young Werther came to mind. When I discovered that ElectiveAffinities was indeed based on a novel by Goethe, I was very pleased withmyself until I noticed on the video jacket a reference to Goethe that I musthave read and forgotten.

Let me quote a passage from Goethe’s novel, Elective Affinities (1808) foundin Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations that goes a long ways toward explainingwhy Carlotta (Huppert) does not immediately divorce her cheating husband andtake up with the dashing architect: "The sum which two married people owe toone another defies calculation. It is an infinite debt, which can only bedischarged through all eternity." Carlotta represents Goethe’s point ofview.

I would also like to note that this is not Huppert at her best. She is toomuch long of face, and that sly cynicism of hers is a little too much ondisplay. Additionally (I guess I can’t help but review this a little!) theself-satisfied privilege of the upper classes depicted here allows one tounderstand the reasons for the revolutions that would again and againthreaten the old order in Europe throughout the nineteenth century and intothe twentieth.

4) In the Eighteenth Century, in Italy, the Countess Carlotta (IsabelleHuppert) meets occasionally the Baron Eduardo (Jean-Hughes Anglad). They hasa crush for each other in the past, when they were young, and they decide toget married very soon. One year after, Eduardo decides to invite hisfriend, the architect Ottone (Fabrizio Bentivoglio) to stay with them andhelp them to improve their property. Then, Carlotta decides to invite hergoddaughter Ottilia (Marie Gillain) to stay also with them to make companyto Ottone. Carlotta feels attracted by Ottone, and Eduardo falls in lovewith Ottilia. These attractions lead the four central characters to anaffair with tragic consequences. This romance is very strange. It is aboutinfidelity, in a very different world in Italy in the 18th Century .Although those things of love are very unpredictable, it sounds very strangethat a couple like Eduardo and Carlotta, newlywed and in love for eachother, have this type of affair proposed in the film. I myself have notbought the story. The direction and performances are impeccable, but thestory has not convinced me. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): `As Afinidades Eletivas’ (`The ElectiveAffinities’)

5) Taviani brothers are extremely talented filmmakers, and every movie theymake is worth seeing. "Elective affinities" is a wonderful film. Based onanovel by Goethe it shows us how human lives are unable to match mathematicformulas. Tavianis direct the film with amazing simplicity andpreciseness,with very few flaws. It is unlike their Italian films, but the art ofthosewonderful brothers is breathtaking.My Grade: **** 1/2 (out of *****)

6) "Elective Affinities," even though it stars one ofmy favorite actresses, Isabelle Huppert, is a terriblefilm.Why? The secenario is so routine that they even use theequation-symbol (i.e. A is attracted to B, while C is attractedto D., etc.) to prophesize what is about to occur, and (viola!) it does justthat. A woman (I.H.) engages her lover of 20 yearsago and they become married (I think that very day). They setttle in on hisestate and then the husband’s friend arrivesfor a visit, at almost the same time the women’s nubiledaughterarrives from college. Can you guess the rest? It’s aspaghettiromance; shame on Isabelle Huppert for this one.

The movie starts with a wall full of posters for various entertainers,which become the source of a series of antics involving passers-by. Thestory that follows is clever, but the visual effects in this one arebelow the standard you come to expect from Méliès. Instead of the usualsmooth dissolves and careful background continuity, the special effectshere unfortunately come across as a little clumsy.

It helps a lot that the story really is a funny one, with some cleverideas, and is worth watching. It’s just too bad that the technical sideof it was not quite up to the visual wizard’s usual standard, becauseit could have been a truly fine feature if the special effects hadworked better.

2) Director Georges Méliès was well-known for his absolutely astoundingcreativity and camera tricks in the very, very early years of films. Noother director came close to him in these respects and he is myfavorite early film maker. While this is a super-original and cleverfilm, I must admit that the camera tricks look pretty primitivecompared to his other works. But, considering just how funny the filmit, I can forgive this.

The short film starts with a couple guys putting up some posters. Thenafter they leave, the posters come to life and some even leave theirframes and play pranks on each other AND unsuspecting passers by. Thisultimately leads to a funny showdown with the police. A cute andamiable little film.

If you want to see this film online, go to Google and type in "Méliès"and then click the video button for a long list of his films that areviewable without special software.

3) Hilarious Posters, The (1904)

aka Affiches en goguette, Les

*** (out of four)

Georges Melies film about a billboard full of posters that comes tolife. More terrific special effects keep this film very interestingfrom start to finish. The way Melies keeps all nine images flowing isstill remarkable.

In early 2008 a box set with over 170 films from Meiles will bereleased.

This movie is also on Kino's The Movies Begin set.

2) Dennis Morgan, Merle Oberon, Rita Hayworth, and Ralph Bellamy are"Affectionately Yours" in this 1941 comedy. Morgan is a newspaperreporter who travels constantly. His current amour is Malcolm(Hayworth), and he gives her the same story he's given all of them -his wife (Oberon) won't divorce him. However, he receives a telegramstating that she has, and he panics. He rushes home to New York, withMalcolm right behind him, and tries to woo her back. She's planning tomarry Mr. Wright (Bellamy), who is more than disturbed by the fact thatshe still seems interested in her husband.

This is a fairly trite comedy with some very funny slapstick and, ofcourse, two of the screen's most beautiful women, Oberon and Hayworth.This film was made just before Hayworth broke through into big stardom,and she's delicious. She has the best role in the film. It alwaysamuses me to see her so vivacious and talkative on screen. According toone of her biographers, when the kids from the old neighborhood saw heron screen for the first time, they were shocked at how much she wastalking. She never talked as a young girl. Though she didn't reallylike movie stardom, the screen was where she could let herself go andbe someone else. Morgan is attractive and just right as the erranthusband. Bellamy is in his usual role as the man who doesn't get thegirl, and he does beleaguered very well. Oberon lends sophisticationand class to the film. Someone commented here that she looked plump. Idon't know what they're talking about.

This is a good movie to see for the stars. The story isn't much.

3) I absolutely loved this story!Rita Hayworth,Merle Oberon and Dennis Morganare energetic and entertaining throughout this whole film.Ralph Bellamydoesn’t get the girl,but he’s great anyway.Merle Oberon once commented thatshe thought this movie"was a real dud..I hate it!"She conceded that her children did like it.Ithought it was wonderful and I love when Dennis tiesMerle’s foot to something on the pier and after strugglingtoget away…can’t budge!She falls over into the water andcatchesa cold…which leads to Morgan and Bellamy arguing over whogetsMerle.You’ll have to watch this film to find out what happens!

4) Richard Mayberry is a world traveling newspaper reporter, who plays aroundwith lots of women, excepting his own wife, who has to stay athome.He’s in Lisbon, trying to mess around with lady reporter Irene Malcolm, andshe’s all for it: but she’s like him to leave his wifefirst.

Meanwhile, his wife Sue has meet "Mr. Wright," literally, and she’s abouttodivorce her husband. Lot of fluffy misunderstandings, misappointments andmisdeals follow, as Richard tries to either make his wife jealous withIrene, or tries to foist Irene off on Owen Wright.

You have to watch it to find out what happens, but there is certainly afair amount of screwball comedy along the way to findingout!

5) As a fan of Rita Hayworth, this is the only reason I wanted to watchthis movie. She is in fine form, as are the all the actors. It's justsuch an insipid story that it bored me. I could not wait for it to beover.

I didn't like Rickey (Morgan) since he is such a womanizer. I wonderedwhy would Rita want him after discovering what a player he is. I alsowondered why Sue (Oberon) would want him again. I guess it's me: I justdon't see why those two smart women would each want a man like that.

It's always fun to watch Hattie McDaniel and Butterfly McQueen, butthey too often played the same roles over and over and over.

Anyway, view for it Rita, but don't expect a great movie. Check yourbrain at the door.

6) Dennis Morgan had experience in light comedy. Merle Oberon did somesophisticated comedy. But Rita walks away with this.

She looks ravishing — as beautiful as in "Gilda," though in businessclothes (which she wears dazzlingly) She is sensational as a woman of theworld with a wry sense of humor.

The movie itself is mildly amusing.

Merle Oberon is very beautiful, as always, but she looks a bitplump.

Everyone does the things that were acceptable then but aren’t now: Thecharacters smoke a lot, they drink and it is supposed to be hilarious whenthey get drunk.

An American plays a Turk, using pidgin English. And, oh, it is racist: Everytime Butterfly McQueen appears, the score picks up a leitmotif based on"Nobody Knows The Trouble I’ve Seen."

• One of over 700 Paramount Productions, filmed between 1929 and 1949, which were sold to MCA/Universal in 1958 for television distribution, and have been owned and controlled by Universal ever since.

2) Joan Fontaine, before 1945, only made a few comedies, and they were Bpictures. In this movie, she changes her personality with every new manshemeets. She met four men, and she changed her personality four times. Eachtime she is a different type of woman: shy, movie star, social, andintellectual. She is very funny in each of the roles as she tries toreadjust to the new life, and try to find the right man. She finally endsupwith her first husband, but goes through a lot to find out he is the rightone. Very funny, I recommend it.

3) Joan Fontaine is wonderful in this delightful comedy about a woman whoappears to attract men like flies!!! She is about to run off with themanshe loves, when he discovers all the so-called ‘loose ends’ that she hasleft behind. I am a big fan of Fontaine and this film is one of herbest.Watch the way she wraps each man around her little finger without evenrealising it!! Comes highly recommended.

4) This is indeed a treat – a Joan Fontaine comedy. We so often see her indeeply serious romances that we were unprepared for her charming anddelightful light touch in this very amiable comedy. She is quite finehere- superbly adept in a comic performance that was quite worthy of an Oscarnom. The Original Story did garner a nomination but equally deservingwasthe screenplay itself and the quite funny and inventive musical score byFrederick Hollander. Susan is about to embark on a second marriage(WalterAbel) who is hearing conflicting stories about her from her first husband(George Brent) and two almost-husbands (Don DeFore and Dennis O’Keefe).Thethree sit down and tell their stories, each revealing a new take on Susanasshe goes from honest and innocent country girl to actress against her willto one who knows how to cleverly lie her way through life. However, thosewho taught her to lie are the unsuspecting victims of this talent at laterpoints. It’s all quite frothy with fine work from all involved and veryworth seeking out. Like a lot of Fontaine films it is quite rare – if itcomes on your local channel- tape it.

5) Joan Fontaine shines brilliantly in one of her rare comedies. She playsSusan who is pursued by four different men, each with distinctpersonalities. As she adapts to each of her suitors personalities, we seeadifferent Susan and a delightful Joan Fontaine. I highly recommend thisfilm to anyone who enjoys witty dialogue, a brisk paced film. superperformances by a supporting cast, and most especially anyone who lovesclever story lines. Edith Head designed the clothes Ms. Fontaine wears andthey are to die for. It is not available on video, so tape it when it comeson cable. Every once in a while you can purchase it on Ebay. Joan Fontaineis simply great in this movie.

6) James Agee wrote for The Nation:

I would like to be able to make "The Affairs of Susan" sound half asbad as it is, but I know when I'm licked. In this interminable film,which might be described as a Make's Progress, Joan Fontaine isphotographed as Joan of Arc; the Maid looks as if she were testifying,for a handsome fee, to every nice thing the Voices told her aboutLysol.

Miss Fontaine also appears as a lake-shore innocent, in trousers and athinly knit jersey; in a series of gowns and negligees which are stillmore earnestly calculated to refute the canard that, if the Hays officepermitted, she would be ashamed to make a clean breast of her"development" (I think the word is); and in a collection of horn-rims,tight hair, ties, and sharp tailoring which, if they suggest nothingadmissibly human, may at least roughly approximate Mayor LaGuardia'smental image of "Trio".

Thihs sort of thing makes me all the angrier because Miss Fontaine hasproved that she is an actress worth building a good picture around –or even worth using in one that doesn't build around anyone.

About Dennis O'Keefe's characterization of a writer, I feel less kind.He achieves it purely by letting his hair get rather long behind theears. In objecting to this, I am probably the only living writer whohas to cast his stone through a glass house; and much as I loathehaircuts, I have been trying ever since I saw this picture to bracemyself to enter a barber shop.

2) "The Affairs of Martha" (1942) is a good illustration of how even adream cast and solid directing cannot transform a weak script intoanything more than a very average production. Imagine having the luxuryof Marsha Hunt as your leading lady and female love interest; surroundher with some of the best comic character actors of the era (VirginiaWeidler, Marjorie Main, Margaret Hamilton, Spring Byington, and GradySutton); finally throw in Richard Carlson's best ever performance. Anymovie buff would expect quite a treat from this ensemble.

In writer Isobel Lennart's defense, Weidler was miscast; what arehilarious lines coming from a precocious 11-year-old (for which thepart was written and for which Weidler would have been perfect a fewyears earlier) just don't work coming from a 15-year-old actress wholooks even older. Following this film with several similar disastersWeidler retired from the business.

Contrary to the plot summary, young housekeeper Martha Linddstrom'ssoon to be published book is not the real focus of the film. It is aromantic comedy much like "Bringing Up Baby", and could have benefitedfrom a few of that film's screwball elements. Jeff Sommerfield(Carlson) returns home from a long absence with his new fiancée Sylviain tow. Jeff does not reckon on the continued presence of Martha(Marsha Hunt) in his parent's household. Just prior to his departure hemarried his parent's housekeeper at the conclusion of a drunken bender.Because she is genuinely in love with him Martha did not follow throughon her promise to have the marriage annulled but instead has worked toimprove herself in night school and has just completed a book laudinghis family.

Oddly, coming from a misunderstood woman writer and centered on amisunderstood woman writer, Lennart takes a lot of cheap shots at thethird side of the screenplay's love triangle. Academic Sylvia Norwood(Francis Drake) is beautiful, intellectual, accomplished, and verywell-adjusted. This is not the sterile Alice Swallow character in"Bringing Up Baby". Sylvia must serve as the film's villainess, whichnot only fails to generate any audience concern (Jeff would benefitgreatly from being paired with either woman), it totally undermines theworking woman political subtext of the production.

Along with Carlson's performance there are several very good thingsabout "The Affairs of Martha". Marsha Hunt (as always) is excellent inboth melodramatic and comedic moments; its just too bad her characteras written is so bland. For my money Hunt is the Hollywood's all-timemost underrated actress and I've enjoyed her each time I've seen her.Grady Sutton has the film's best moment early in the film in anonverbal sequence at the breakfast table; unfortunately his characteris not developed further Given the film's very short running length andits failure to develop many of the most amusing secondary characters itis likely that much was trimmed out during the editing process.

There is a clever dinner table scene near the end of the film in whichJeff is emotionally ranting against writers and publishers; ademonstration that further alienates Martha. Eventually you understandthat it is a ploy to delay the announcement of his engagement to Sylviabut it works as a very nice bit of misdirection.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.

3) The film begins with a small but very rich town all abuzz because astory appears in the newspaper that one of their servants has written a"tell all" novel. Most of the folks are worried that their own secretsand peccadilloes will be exposed, so everyone seems to be keyed up tosay the least.

The film then centers on a particular household where Marjorie Main andMarsha Hunt are employed. Unbeknownst to all, sweet Marsha is theauthor, but no one seems to suspect her in particular. Later, when herboss' son (Richard Carlson) returns from an anthropological expedition,a MAJOR romantic mess is revealed and much of the rest of the film is acute romantic comedy where it soon is apparent that these two have someunfinished business! The writing, acting and pacing of this little filmare all excellent–resulting in a very nice and very watchable film.Considering the modest expectations of this low-budget film, it is aconsiderable success.

God has a disco ball.

• This modest (by MGM standards) black-and-white musical failed to be noted by a contemporary New York Times review. In addition, this was Debbie Reynolds’ only monochrome song-and-dance picture.

Having never realized that Dobie Gillis had been made into a movie prior tothe television series, I naturally had to watch this movie if only forhistorical purposes. I was therefore pleasantly surprised to find myselfthoroughly entertained by a very good comedy quite capable of standing onits own merits. It’s silly but it works, and is filled in quite nicely withseveral excellent song and dance routines. All of the cast is outstanding,from stars to supporting roles, but it is Bobby Van who steals the show asthe happy-go-lucky Dobie Gillis.

2) I caught this film in the pre-dawn hours of an insomniac nightrecently, and found it reasonably diverting, although certainly nocinematic treasure. It does, however, contain genuine buried treasurefor anyone interested in dance history, especially fans of Bob Fosse.The future Triple Crown of entertainment winner (Tony, Emmy, and Oscarin the same year) has a dance solo in this little movie which ispositively searing, absolutely mind-bending in its virtuosity…andthat's as seen in 2006. In its original release that sequence must havesnapped the jaws of any member of the audience who'd ever taken a danceclass. The man was simply fantastic, making Bobby Van, a decent hooferhimself, look like a club-footed spaz. I'd watch the storyless anticsof Van's Gillis again just to see that number. By the way, I have readthe original Dobie Gillis novel by Max Shulman, and it is very funny,as well as substantially earthier than any film or TV version of thestory. If you see it in the library, give it a try.

3) After I warmed up to the taller, goofier-looking Bobby Van (compared toDwayne Hickman), this movie really took off for me. Like many others, Ididn’t know there was a movie six years before the TV series debuted. I’monly a casual fan of DG (it doesn’t get shown enough these days) but stillwanted to see how this early version compared to the show. I wasn’tdisappointed. I noticed a similarity between this picture and Disney’sMerlin Jones movies. But whereas Merlin was this semi-genius, Dobie is anunderachiever out for fun and females.

Die-hard fans of Zelda will be crestfallen to learn that she is mercifullyabsent here. She is replaced by the much more feminine Debbie Reynolds,whoferments a good screen chemistry with Van; that’s appropriate, as theirmostharrowing adventures take place in the chemistry lab (Pansy is fond ofmixing assorted substances until they explode).

But where is Herbert T. Gillis, Dobie’s workaholic grocer old man seen inthe series? He was my favorite character, mainly because of Frank Faylen’sinimitable characterization (he was also hilarious as Dearborne inDisney’sTHE MONKEY’S UNCLE). Instead of Dobie’s family we get Pansy’s blusteryworkaholic father, who wants to separate the lovebirds forever. Has anyoneelse noticed, by the way, how fathers are perpetually portrayed as sillywindbags, while the boring cipher wife/mother is forever made out to bethe"wise" one? Even in the 50’s.

Strangely, it seems as though Dobie and Pansy only took two courses -English and Chemistry. And what about that chemistry prof, who boasts thathis class is the hardest they’ll ever encounter? Guess he never heard ofCartography at Radford U. After playing hooky (except when it rained) forseveral months, they return to class to find an essay due in English and aproject due in Chemistry. I won’t give away how they solve this crisis.Butthen the sky falls on our amorous pair. Deeming Dobie the worst possibleinfluence, Mr. Hammer sends Pansy to NYC (blah – like that’s the greatestplace on earth to be sent) to live with her horrid maiden aunt. You reallyfeel depressed for Dobie, now wandering aimlessly around campus. After allthe scrapes they’d been through together – the chemistry lab explosions;thecapsized canoe; and the most hysterical of all – Pansy’s blouse gettingcaught in the car engine, then her trying to sneak past Ma and Pa and acouple of neighbors watching TV (yes, they had TV in 1953). Then when agungoes off on TV, the startled viewers suddenly become aware of Pansy in herundergarments. That scene ended perfectly.

All this brings us to some intriguing questions about college life in the50’s. Was it common for professors to write their own textbooks? We havethedeliciously snobbish, condescending Hans Conried (Prof. Pomfritt)announcingthat he is rewriting his "English Usage For College Freshmen", suddenlyaccepting Dobie’s belief that the rules should be according to the waypeople really talk. C’mon, a single professor rewriting the rules ofgrammar? And did academic buildings really have bells to dismiss thestudents? Sounds like high school all over again. All classes beginningandending at the same time. Well, I know one thing in the movie that’sdefinitely based in reality: the way school bookstores buy back used booksfor pennies on the dollar, then resell them at a 90% markup. This textbookracket is still flourishing!

Absent from AODG is Dobie’s endless philosophizing in front of a marblestatue. But I don’t expect you’ll really miss that.

All in all, I recommend THE AFFAIRS OF DOBIE GILLIS to even the mostcasualfan of the TV series, and to anyone who likes college slapstick/romancefromthe 50’s. I only wish this movie had been long enough to include moreprofessors played by character actors on the caliber of Hans Conried. Or aseries of 75-minute films, where Dobie and Pansy take Psychology, physics,French…imagine the constant jams they’d've been in and out of. I knowDebbie Reynolds went on to bigger things, like voicing Charlotte inCHARLOTTE’S WEB and giving birth to Princess Leia, but she could’ve beenreplaced by some other bodacious 50’s babe. And no, I don’t meanZelda.

4) My reviews often seem to be "in defense of" reviews after a group ofreviews pan a movie, without really considering the genre. It is likereviewing a opera as bad when the standard being applied it a hip hopconcert. Or something like that.

This movie is silly and lightweight. Folks break out singing anddancing all over the place, cuz it is an MGM musical. (I do ding it forbeing in black and white.)

The leads are Bobby Van and Debby Reynolds. They sing, they dance, theyact as silly as can be. It is fun, it is very 50's. All is resolved inthe end. It is cute. And you get to see Bob Fosse in his early daysblowing everyone off of the screen with his dancing.

Great character actors abound, playing up their characters to the top,in a way that current film makers would never allow. I'm not saying Iwant to see lots of this kind of fluff, but as fluff it is pretty good.And the fantasy part makes me want to go back to the midwest and docollege again. Well perhaps that is overstated.

Watch this to see the fun dance numbers and take a look at theHollywood take on college in the 50's. It is a bit of ananthropological statement dressed up with some fun music. Sex,,,,Nopeya won't see that; but you do see the obsessional way that 18 year oldsfall in love. And a movie that can capture that (as I remember itrather than with the rather bad parts of it) has its good moments.

Everyone is cute, everyone is white, everyone is straight (even thoughthey sing and dance and write poetry an awful lot). If that is not you,ya got to take a bigger step or suspension of belief to become involvedin the movie. The heavies are not that heavy, bad behavior isoverlooked as youthful indiscretions. Looking at this view of idealizedlife and how it has changed in 50 years is interesting in itself. Thisis also one of the last of MGM's musicals. Bobby Van really did notadapt to the changing times, or at least studios did not see hispotential for non-singing and dancing roles. That is a shame. DebbyReynolds is still working after the death of the musical, and Bob Fossewent stellar in spite of the death of the musical. They just keptmaking them for him (still do and he has been dead for about 15years!). A good later nighter.

5) A very attractive cast and a couple of good musical numbers make forreasonably good entertainment. Far different from the TV series thatcame a few years later (and not as good in my opinion), this featurewas actually inspired by the Max Shulman Dobie Gillis stories from theforties. Shulman, who also wrote the the screenplay for this movie,does manage to work in bits and pieces of his short stories into thescript, but not too successfully. The reason for this is that theoriginal stories were stand-alone brilliant comic masterpieces. Here wejust see a little scene from this one, and one from that one, and soon. The way to really, really enjoy Dobie Gillis is to track down theout-of-print collection, "The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis"(easilyavailable at Amazon). I’m a fan of the TV series, and I like thismovie, but neither can hold a candle to the hilarious short storiesthat served as the original inspiration for both the TV and screenversions.

By the way, it was only about two years ago that I read the originalstories. They are every bit as wonderful today as when they wereoriginally written.

6) This comedy/musical is a rather silly but quite entertaining collegeromance. The dialogue and situations is extremely dated, having come outinthe early ’50s, but if you enjoy films from that period you’ll probablylikethis one. Some of the situations made me laugh out loud which is morethanI can say for many films of today. The characters from this film werelaterused in the television series The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis.

7) College freshman Dobie Gillis (Bobby Van, exercising more befuddledexpressions and quirky dance movements than even Ray Bolger) falls fora perky, studious innocent (Debbie Reynolds) on his first day ofenrollment; he also makes a buddy in Bob Fosse, who apparently trollsfor curvier dames. MGM musical with the usual stuffed-shirt parents andteachers who never have any fun (as if they'd outgrown it completely).The kids are crazy-cool, treating life with abandon and dancingjitterbug-style in coffeehouses which probably looked very flashy in1953. They are required to do some classwork, but this college campusis the fictional type wherein something is always comically explodingin the chemistry lab. If the leads weren't so talented this might makeyour teeth ache, but–for the first two-thirds of an hour–it isn't badand the infrequent songs are quite good. Fosse, who seems stuck in anugly white pullover with a stripe around the waist, talks amusingly(and probably unintentionally) like one of the Bowery Boys, yet hissmall muscular frame and early-receding hairline are boyishly charming;Reynolds can't get a proper grip on her character due to the writing,but she's a very good sport. ** from ****

This is the largely unknown and deservedly forgotten earlierincarnation of Dobie Gillis. Made in 53, pre-beatnik, therefore noMaynard Krebs character. In fact, the film is an unreal mixture ofstale college comedy and sudden bursts of singing and dancing. BobbyVan plays Dobie and Debbie R. plays Pansy. Yeesh! Silly names and sillycomedy. It does have plenty of familiar faces popping up here and there(Hans Conreid, Kathleen Freeman, Charles Lane, Percy Helton and evenAlvy Moore). The story is non-existent; mostly to do with Van, Fosseand Ruick as slacker students only interested in college as a means toscore with the opposite sex, but Van quickly goes after energeticstudent Reynolds and the others unaccountably follow. Throughout thefilm the leads switch from klutzy slackers to amazingly agile dancers,all part of the MGM fantasy world. Van is okay at times, but otherwisecan't keep the blank grin off his face… or commit comic overkill whenasked to react to some backfiring shenanigan. Fosse has littlepersonality at all, until he explodes into expert dance work. Ruick andReynolds are perky. A time-killer at best.

9) t’s strange that this was spun off into a television series. (I haveever seen the TV show.) It’s a peculiar movie: It’s an MGM musical inblack and white. It’s mildly amusing but no more. The only performerwho went on to stardom is Debbie Reynolds.

Almira Sessions was a very odd choice for the New York City aunt of aGrainbelt U. student. She looks like a crony of Ma Kettle.

I can’t comment on the many — well, undertones. Possibly the mostintriguing aspect of the whole thing is Bob Fosse’s dancing, which musthave seemed astonishing in 1953. We have seen it now in his own workand in those that have been influenced by him. But the rest of themovie seems — if not unappealing, and it’s not — quaint and dated.

• The play, “The Firebrand,” opened on Broadway in New York City, New York, USA on 15 October 1924 and closed in May 1925 after 261 performances. The opening night cast included Nana Bryant as the Duchess, Frank Morgan as Allessandro (same role as in the movie), Edward G. Robinson as Ottaviano and Joseph Schildkraut as Cellini.

The film centers on 16th-century Florence, a hotbed of wealth and intriguerun by a family you might of heard of (the Medicis), and one of itsleadingartisans, the goldsmith Benvenuto Cellini. Cellini (about whom HectorBerlioz wrote an opera and numerous poems and stories have been penned) issort of a hybrid of Robin Hood and the Scarlet Pimpernel, with a dash ofDonJuan thrown in for fun. Played by the very young, unabashedly gorgeous andsurprisingly athletic Fredric March (seen many years later in suchclassicsas Inherit the Wind, The Bridges at Toko-Ri and The Best Years of OurLives), Cellini’s a stiffnecked anti-aristocrat that the Duke of Florence(played hilariously by The Wizard of Oz himself, Frank Morgan) and hislethal-seductress wife (Fox’s big star of the mid-’30s, Constance Bennett)can’t seem to do without, so skilled at goldsmithing and seduction ishe.

Toss in Fay Wray (the year after making Kong go ape), Fox stalwart LouisCalhern in the Basil Rathbone role and the VERY young Lucille Ball in asupporting role, oodles of classic B&W cinematography, snappy directorialpace (by Fox veteran Gregory La Cava) and quasi-operatic sets anddecoration, and you’ve got the kind of lunchtime matinee that 24-hourclassic movie channels like Turner Classic and Fox Movies (where this canbeseen at least twice a month) were meant to provide.

2) Benvenuto Cellini was a goldsmith in 16th-century Florence, andapparently he was also something of a hell-raiser and a swordsman (inthe sexual sense as well as the literal one). However, it’s myunderstanding that we have only Cellini’s own memoirs (never publishedin his lifetime) as testimony of his sexual prowess. Fortunately, someof his artistic creations have survived, and they leave no doubt as tohis skill as an artisan.

This movie is based on a play by Edwin Justus Mayer, which alsoinspired ‘The Firebrand of Florence’, a musical (with songs by KurtWeill and Ira Gershwin) that flopped on Broadway in 1945. I wish Icould have seen that musical instead of this movie. What’s wrong withit? Well, there’s lots of sumptuous Hollywood spectacle on view here,which is part of the problem. This is supposed to be 16th-centuryItaly, but everything is spotlessly clean and everybody has good teeth.Late in the film, we get a glimpse of brawny Dewey Robinson in a PrinceValiant wig, galumphing about as a poncy steward. I was more impressedby Vince Barnett as Cellini’s dogsbody assistant, wearing a wig thatconceals Barnett’s lug-ears.

Some people enjoy Frank Morgan’s performance. I don’t, largely becausehe nearly always played a whinnying idiot. Here he’s cast as the dukeof Florence, who was apparently a whinnying idiot because that’s howMorgan plays him. More impressive is Fay Wray, an actress of keenintelligence, who here very convincingly portrays a stupid peasantgirl. The jumble of American accents are very annoying in this movie,constantly reminding us that this is 16th-century Florence by way of20th Century-Fox.

Constance Bennett gets top billing, but the real draw here isdefinitely Fredric March, who plays Cellini in full swashbuckler mode.March’s stunt double makes an impressive entrance through the ceiling.The sets and costumes throughout this film are elaborate andimpressive, as is the camera work. Still, this is one of those annoyingmovies in which the hero is the only ‘real’ man, who invariably comesup trumps in every encounter. I’ll rate this movie 6 out of 10. Itprobably would have been a better movie if the duke had been played byRalph Morgan, a much better (and more versatile) actor than his brotherFrank

3) Nominated for four Academy Awards including Best Actor for Frank Morgan(best known for his many roles in "The Wizard of Oz"), this film is a raregem that’s well worth it’s 80 minutes. The film showcases wonderfulperformances from an all-star cast that includes Fredric March ("The BestYears of Our Lives"), Fay Wray ("King Kong"), and Constance Bennett.Wittyand clever dialogue is a strong point in the film and everyone makes thiscomedy as funny as it can be.

Fox Movie Channel is showing this from time to time, so definitely stopandsee it if you have the chance. Not only will you get to a rareOscar-nominated film, but a brilliant comedy with a remarkablecast.

4) Constance Bennett was born to play a Medici. Her combination of hauteurand ooh-la-la makes this role a perfect fit. Frank Morgan, as herdithering husband, is amusing but less plausible.

Fredric March, as the title character, is good. He was always good.Possibly not the heartthrob he needs to be, he is nevertheless bothcocky and handsome. Fay Wray is excellent as a commoner whose tastesare too prosaic for the dastardly lover Cellini. She looks beautiful(as does Bennett.) This is certainly atypical Gregory La Cava. It isprobably not very accurate historically. But as costume pieces go, it’svery compelling. A few years later, another studio made one that ismore famous. That was "Marie Antoinette." It was better researched andis still somewhat well known. But it is really dull.

The costumes here are gorgeous. Now and then the music is appropriateto the time. A theme that seems distinctly 19th Century Romantic runsthrough, though.

The supporting cast is up to the task. It’s hard to imagine what peoplesitting down in a theater in 1934 made of this. Bennett was still a bigstar so maybe they were happy to see her. It’s an oddity, no doubtabout it. But it’s very good.

5) Gregory La Cava is one of Hollywood’s great directors, but this isn’t up tohis standard, despite a good cast. Though supposedly a comedy of manners,it’s really a swashbuckler with hardly any swash. Morgan, a milquetoast kingthough he tries to act ferocious, overdoes his "well I don’t…ahem…do youreally…oh well, I…" routine. Fay Wray is best as an artist’s model.She’s sexy, yet so dumb she hasn’t the imagination for romance. At onepoint, when the other characters are trying to get her to take part in anelaborate charade to make someone think that someone is not someone’s lover,she says, "Oh, this is so silly." One of the few really funny lines, and,sadly, all too true.

2) This is a mildly amusing movie focusing on the affairs of a sea captain(played by Walter Brennan) who obviously doesn’t like anything modern(including all Bottomley products and gadgets), who returns home aftera fairly long absence and is extremely frustrated by all the changes inhis home, family, and business. He deliberately takes his family andassociates on a sea cruise and makes sure they all get stranded withhim on a deserted island in the Pacific, to "fix them", which includeschanging the minds of his daughters and holding off the merging of hisbusiness by Mrs. Peasely (who owns 51% of it) with Bottomley’s company.He also makes a $5,000.00 bet with Bill Peck that he can "fix" everyoneand clean up what he thinks is a real mess.

The acting is okay, nothing outstanding, but certainly good enough fora simple comedy such as this (which actually plays out more like astage drama in parts).

The music sounds much like that from a Popeye cartoon in parts, both instyle, instrumentation, and certain parts of the melody, yet it ismostly suitable and well-paced throughout.

Light-hearted, tame, and enjoyable, and easily worth a watch or two.Directed by Ralph Staub, based on the story by Peter B. Kyne.

Nice miniature boats, but an especially unconvincing reef scene and thesame cloud painting used on each ocean scene.

The automatic door with the "photoelectric cell" was a very interestingsurprise in this movie. I didn’t know this idea was around in 1937, letalone so much button-pressing paranoia!

Selected Lines:

Cappy Ricks (to self): "Waldo P. Bottomley. For twenty years I beenkeeping that old barnacle scraped off my hull. Now he’s got a grip onmy stern."

Cappy Ricks (to his daughter): "You’re not going to sea on any floatingswitchboard!"

Cappy Ricks (to Bill Peck): "Bottomley’s at the bottom of this!"

Cappy Ricks (to Bill Peck): "…and that pussy-willow son of abutton-pusher!…"

Mrs. Peasely (happily, to all): "Isn’t this air enervating!" MattPeasely (suffering with sea sickness): "Youmean…*gulp*…invigorating, mother.."

Cappy Ricks: "Do you William Peck take this woman to be your lawfulwedded wife and to love, honor, and provide for her so long as youshall live?" Bill Peck: "Uh…" Cappy Ricks: "Well do ya, come on!"Bill Peck: "…any minute now…"

Cappy Ricks: "Someday, somebody’s going to press a button once toooften around here."

Cappy and Bill (singing during a storm): "Oh, press a button and smoothout the waves…please smooth out the waves…"

*** SPOILER ***

PLOT TWIST: Some might see this coming, but they find that they reallyare stranded about 40 minutes into the movie, but not for very long.

Rating: 6/10

3) While not having heard of Cappy Ricks before this, I'm guessing afterlooking on ebay that he was a fairly well-known book character in theearly 20th. Brennan goes full steam as the curmudgeonly "old saltshaker" who stubbornly resists the encroachment of technology and ishorrified on returning home and finding his daughter's futuremother-in-law running his house and business and poised to merge hiscompany with rival Bottomley, a purveyor of all things automated! Cappylaunches a counter plot to set things straight, giving the story thebulk of its humorous situations. The highlight is the segment aboardthe ELECTRA, Bottomley's almost completely automated yacht,particularly the scene with the push-button spice dispensers. The sillyplot is served well by nice performances by Brennan, Georgia Caine,Frank Shields, and perky, attractive Mary Brian as Frankie. And thefilm itself foreshadows The Jetsons and Gilligan's Island 25 yearsbefore those shows made us roar with laughter (?)

5 1/2 Stars, check it out.

4) Walter Brennan, at the grand old age of 43, plays Cappy Ricks, a crustyold mariner returning home after a lengthy voyage to discover hisdaughter is about to marry a buffoon whose mother has taken over Ricks'home and business. This is a typical 30s programmer: made with alimited budget but a decent enough cast to carry it off. The writing isOK, although there are no belly laughs. Brennan is good in the titlerole, and everyone plays their part well but, even at a running time ofless than an hour, this modest comedy tends to drag at times. Ofinterest mainly to film buffs who like to seek out little-seen curiosand those who were around at the time it was released.