Nooo! This blu ray has been cut down to 16:9! How evil! Boo! Hiss!
What. Ever.
It’s the 90s!
I saw this movie back then, but I haven’t seen it since. I remembered it being pretty good, but it’s been brilliant so far. So snappy, so breezy. The jokes keep on coming at a dizzying pace.
Such a poseur.
Fashion!
Now here’s real literature.
This movie is pitch perfect… for the first two thirds. Then the Dreaded Third Act Syndrome happens, where Drama happens, and people Experience Character Growth, and that’s just kinda boring.
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?
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”.
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.
