Now, how did I come to get this movie? Hm… Oh, right, I watched The Beaver Trilogy Part IV, and Crispin Glover was in that movie. And the director of this movie directed The Beaver Trilogy. (Not Part IV.) And I think this film was mentioned? So I had to see it, and now I am!

Mystery solved.

This is where Wes Anderson got his entire style from. This one scene.

Anyway, this is a low budget indie movie, I guess? But it’s really stylish, and it’s not as odd as you might think looking at these pictures. It’s about a strange boy (played by Glover) and a multi level salesman in training meeting up by accident, and I’m guessing hilarity will ensue.

It’s really charming so far, but not actually… “ha ha” funny.

See? Wes Anderson.

It’s really well filmed. The shots feel very thoughtful.

Yowza.

This is just a really enjoyable movie. Films like this have a tendency to start out strong, establishing the milieu of the movie, and then often start flailing around. This one doesn’t put a foot wrong at any point — it’s consistently amusing, and doesn’t overstay its welcome.

And the cinematography is fantastic.

It’s the only movie I’ve seen on Rottentomatoes that just has a single review.

Oh, I’ve gotta see that.

Yeah, he’s totally appearing in the costume for Rubin & Ed — and this is in 1987, doing publicity for River’s Edge. It took four years to get financing?

Wow. This is amazing. Letterman was pissed!

Anyway, really enjoyable quirky little movie.

Rubin & Ed. Trent Harris. 1991. ⚄

Well, this is quite meta. Astaire is playing a washed-up musical star, but Ava Gardner is playing herself… And I guess Astaire was past his prime (commercially, at least).

It’s most amusing.

This is quite the old-fashioned musical, but it’s about putting on a Broadway show, so some of the dance routines are in-show, and some are “fantasy”.

Oh, this bombed?

According to MGM records, the film earned them distributor rentals of $2.3 million in the U.S. and Canada and $1,202,000 in other countries, resulting in a loss of $1,185,000.

I’m both surprised and not — this is an amusing movie, but it’s also a bit out of step with the times? It’s manic and frothy, like a late 30s musical. And doesn’t really have a hook like Singin’ in the Rain (which was released the previous year).

Harsh!

Well, OK, now it’s dragging a bit. Too Much Drama.

Heh, nice set.

Such serious.

Shell shocked!

Perhaps it’s not the frothiness that’s the problem, but rather the opposite — the movie takes a long time to get to the inflection point… The plot is that they’re putting on a show, and the director wants to make it Faust, and that takes up 80 minutes. Then they start fixing the show (and make it a success), and that’s the rest of the movie. By the time we get to the success part, it feels like we’ve ready for the movie to end (while there’s half an hour to go), which is the wrong vibe altogether.

Creepy!

Are there any real hits here? I guess there’s That’s Entertainment, but…

The “successful” version of the show they ended up with seems totally nonsensical and disjointed — basically a vaudeville skit show. Which is hard to get enthusiastic about.

It’s OK? I mean, it’s fine, but it’s also disappointing, because it started off like gangbusters. And then it … got to bogged down? But it’s pretty good. Astaire and Charisse both shine, and Nanette Fabray steals any scenes she’s in. The music is meh, and the dance routines are nothing special.

The Band Wagon. Vincente Minnelli. 1953. ⚃

So that’s Miriam Hopkins… I must have seen her in stuff, but I don’t remember anything in particular.

Perhaps Jekyll and Hyde? Her performance here seems very… er… stately.

Bette Davis is doing her Yes I’m Indeed A Teenage Girl For Sure thing.

Those skirts seem very practical. Gives you more lap to put your laptop on.

This is extremely melodramatic, which I quite like. The performances are entertaining, and the costumes are fun. But it’s a bit hard to get into — it’s just not all that gripping.

Heh heh:

For a bad play, it makes a surprisingly good drama

[…]

Variety called the film “stagey, sombre and generally confusing fare.”

The New Yorker wrote at the time:

The story is adult, insofar as it is concerned with something beyond getting a certain girl into the arms of a certain man. But how dull it is! Written and directed with no variety or change of pace, “The Old Maid” just trudges sensibly along to its inevitable conclusion, and then stops.

Yeah, that’s basically the problem.

So I guess her character is supposed to be… 40 now? So no wonder she’s gone grey.

This old film does have good points, but at the end of the day, I just have to agree with the New Yorker review: It’s just a bit on the dull side.

The Old Maid. Edmund Goulding. 1939. ⚂