Movie Review: Funny Face (1957)

Greetings, readers!

This is my last movie review for 2020. Itʼs so hard for me to believe! Even though parts of 2020 have crept along at a snailʼs pace, it seems like I just started with La Belle et La Bête (1946) a week ago. Iʼm ending with a musical that I hadnʼt see before, and in fact enjoyed quite a bit. Sit back, and enjoy my review!

My guarantee: On ALL of my reviews there are NO spoilers unless I give you warning. This is spoiler free!

Funny Face (1957):

The magazine Quality is the height of fashion. For a photo shoot, the company randomly chooses a bookstore and causes some havoc much to the distress of the young shop attendant, Jo Stockton. The photographer, Dick Avery, stays behind to help clean up and is surprised by this girl and her talks of philosephy, especially empathy. Later he convinces Maggie Prescott-, the head of the magazine, that this girl would be great for their new model. The only way that Dick can convince her is that in Paris she could meet famous philosephers. Once they get to France, feelings start breaking out, and in the sweep of the moment they canʼt find Jo. Will she be where they want her to be at the right time?

“Every girl on every page of Quality has grace, elegance, and pizazz. Now, what's wrong with bringing out a girl who has character, spirit, and intelligence?”

Genre: Musical, Romance.
Length: approx. 103 minutes.
Script: 10, no bad words at all.

“Anything you donʼt understand you call ʻsmall talkʼ.”

Crew: Directed by: Stanley Donen. Written by: Leonard Gershe.
Starring:
Audrey Hepburn as Jo Stockton. “I have no illusions about my face, I think itʼs funny.” 

Fred Astaire as Dick Avery.
Kay Thompson as Maggie Prescott.
Michel Auclair as Prof. Emile Flostre.
Dovima as Marion.
Robert Flemyng as Paul Duval.
Jean Del Val as Hairdresser.
Virginia Gibson as Babs.
Sue England as Laura.
Ruta Lee as Lettie.
Alex Gerry as Dovitch.
Iphigenie Castiglioni as Armande.

Costumes: 9, this movie is all about a fashion magazine, so there are lots of costumes. There arenʼt any that I dislike. There is quite a lot of pink, and I was scandelized by comments like, “Burn the blue!”, but they all are fun.
Costumes designed by: Edith Head.

Cinematography: 9, Iʼm conflicted on this. If there was a word that I would use to describe it, that word is “unique”. Iʼve never seen cinematography like this. There are so many colors and changes! My favorite scene was one in a “dark room” for developing photos. The red lighting the whole time was perfect. Another time in a “café” in Paris you could tell that it was many takes stitched together as the cinematography changed every time the angle was shifted. Overall, I enjoyed the creative take for our viewing pleasure.

“Trees have beauty, why donʼt you photograph trees?”

Cinematography by: Ray June.
Music: 8, my favorite songs were “Bonjour, Paris”, and “Funny Face”!
Music by: Ida and George Gershwin.

Notes: I caught a reference to another Audrey Hepburn movie, Roman Holiday (1953). WARNING: In this movie there are spoilers for the book Anna Karenina - by Leo Tolstoy. It is one of my favorite books, so I advise not seeing this until youʼve read it, or if you already know the plot.
Quotability: N/A, as I just watched it so recently. I do have the feeling that Iʼll be quoting this line at least, sometime in the future:

“Iʼm so tired, itʼs an effort for me to say Iʼm so tired.”

Content: 8, there is smoking and mild kissing. A character gets into an uncomfortable situation for a second, but everything is fine.
Originality: 7, does this follow the typical “romance” structure? Yes, but the setting is still fun.

Good For: Fans of the actors, musical lovers.
Age Range: This is a movie that would be fine for any age. There is nothing too scary for a little kid. There are some scenes in a “café” which is more like a saloon which has a smoky atmosphere, but thatʼs all that I can think of that would bother a kid.
Overall Score: 8.5.
Worth watching?: Oui, oui! It was cute and I had fun. I really liked the message on having empathy for other people.

Will I watch again?: Oui, again. My older sister only caught the last half, so Iʼll try to watch the beginning with her again. Then again, my dad only saw the first half and was bored, so if heʼs interested Iʼll watch the second half with him.

“This is my second and last encounter with you lunatics.”

For the blogathon:
I know that itʼs crazy that this is my fourth review of a Fred Astaire movie this year. Iʼve done: Royal Wedding (1951), Silk Stockings (1957), and Holiday Inn (1942). Itʼs not just that Iʼm on a kick, most have been for blogathons, and this one is continuing the tradition.

 This is my entry in Michaela of Love Letters to Old Hollywoodʼs The Third Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers Blogathon. It is hosted with best wishes for the other intended co- host, Crystal Kalyana, as she has been through some scary health problems and is currently in the ICU in a coma. Her family would appreciate it if you kept her in your thoughts and prayers.

Surprisingly, I have contributed to this blog party each year. The first time was a review of Fredʼs Letʼs Dance (1950), and last year I talked about Gingerʼs Monkey Business (1952), so it was Fredʼs turn again. Iʼve owned this movie for a long time but never watched it, so I wrangled my sister into enjoying it with me.

It could be said to be like the movie An American in Paris (1951), but I might just be thinking that because it features Americans in Paris and has one of the same songs. Note, while it is called Funny Face, it has a different story from the 1927 musical that also starred Fred Astaire.

If I really think about it I could make some connections between this movie and the one that I didnʼt like from this same year, Silk Stockings (1957). Because they are similar, do I not like this one? No. Why not? Well, Iʼm a little confused by that myself. It could depend on my mood. I watched this movie over two (accidentally spread apart) days, and on the first day I wrote down that I was “snorting” (I know, not a ladylike thing to do) so many times in the first 10 minutes by how ridiculous it was. On the second day, there were places that if I had been in the same mood I wouldʼve kept up the same mocking stance towards it. But I wasnʼt. I thoroughly enjoyed it the whole second time. Thinking about it, there were somethings that I normally would be insulted by, but it didnʼt matter to me.

“MC,” youʼre asking, “Why? Why do you like this better than Silk Stockings (1957)?”

Was it because I like Audrey Hepburn better than Cyd Charisse? I donʼt think that was too big a factor, but I could be mistaken. No, I think that Silk Stockings (1957) takes itself too seriously. Funny Face (1957) is just carefree. It is relaxed (or “chill” as I like to say), so I didnʼt mind anything that I would otherwise not cared for. For example, in the song “On How to be Lovely”, I would usually be groaning, but Kay Thompson and Audrey Hepburn seemed to be having so much fun, that I couldnʼt help smiling. Watching this movie was almost like going on a picnic; an enjoyable way to spend a day, leaving you with memories of laughter.

Itʼs not the most impressive role that Iʼm seen Fred in, but I liked it all the same. I canʼt think of anything bad to say about this movie, as Iʼm just so contented, that youʼll have to look somewhere else for a negative review. In the meantime, Iʼll be swaying along in time to the music to express myself.

Thanks to Michaela for continuing to host this! Check out all of the other entries HERE.

How are all of you doing? Are you tired of my Fred Astaire reviews? Does your mood affect your opinions when watching movies? Thanks for reading! For my next review, look in January 2021!

MovieCritic

Movie Review: Holiday Inn (1942)

Greetings, folks!

I hope that you are all going to have a lovely occasion. Did I say occasion? I meant day. Whoops, slip of the tong--er--hand. If you’ve been around my blog for awhile, you know that I love reviewing things for special occasions. It isn’t likely that I would randomly review a Christmas movie in July (my sister insists that it would work because “Christmas in July”...but no.) Today I’ll be talking about a movie that has so many holidays that I could chose to review it on, but I think I finally found the right one. Why? Read on!

My guarantee: On ALL of my reviews there are NO spoilers unless I give you warning. The main review is spoiler free, but later on there will be some spoilers. I will warn you in time, though!

Holiday Inn (1942):

Stage performer Jim Hardy is tired of having no breaks. He never has a day off and even has big shows on holidays! He decides to quit it all and buy up a farm, thinking that he’ll have free time whenever he wants it. Turns out he was wrong and it is a lot of work. His new brilliant idea is to only work on the holidays and have everyday off! He forms plans to open an inn that is only open on special occasions. Things are going well until he and his friend Ted Hanover both become attached to the same girl. The catch is that he knows who she is and Ted doesn’t. How long will he be able to keep his secrets and what will happen if they are known?

Genre: Musical, Comedy, Romance.
Length: approx. 100 minutes
Script: 10, absolutely clean as there are no bad words.

“Oh boy, do I go for those! Why they're great on... on ... or even plain!” 

(My whole opinion on food.)

Crew: Directed by: Mark Sandrich. Written by: Irving Berlin, Claude Binyon, & Elmer Rice.
Starring:

Bing Crosby as Jim Hardy.

Fred Astaire as Ted Hanover.

Marjorie Reynolds as Linda Mason.

Virginia Dale as Lila Dixon.

Walter Abel as Danny Reed.

Irving Bacon as Gus.

Louise Beavers as Mamie.

Shelby Bacon as Vanderbilt.

Joan Arnold as Daphne.

Marek Windheim as François.

John Gallaudet as Parker.

James Bell as Dunbar.

Leon Belasco as the Flower Shop Proprietor.

Bob Crosby's Band as Orchestra.

Costumes: 9, nothing indecent, and they are quite fashionable, all of them. I mean, I wouldn’t mind wearing one of them...

Costumes by: Edith Head.

Have you ever seen Fred were something so crazy? No, you haven't.

Cinematography: 8, it was classic cute old movie, but nothing too big. I had a bit of a dilemma when I started typing this review, as I didn’t remember if it was black and white or color. I watched it back near Easter so it was a long time ago, okay! I pretty distinctly remember color, but my older sister helped remind me. After that, I remembered how long it took me to coax my little sister into watching it, then once we started she yelled out, “Oh no! Not black and white!” because she rarely likes black and white. This one was approved by her, though.

Cinematography by: David Abel.

Music: 9, good songs, as expected from Irving Berlin! My favorite was probably, “I Can’t Tell a Lie”.

Music by: Irving Berlin & Robert Emmett Dolan.

Quotability: 6, I haven’t quoted it since seeing it, but after multiple rewatches I can image myself doing it.

“Dance yourselves into beautiful nervous breakdowns.” (Paraphrase)

Oscars won: 1: Best Original Song (“White Christmas”). We always associate the song “White Christmas” with the musical, again starring Bing Crosby, titled White Christmas (1954), but the song was actually released with the movie, 12 years before that! This is also the start of the famous song “Easter Parade”, which also got a film all to itself, but only 6 years later.

Content: 7, there is some smoking and some drinking where one character got highly drunk. There are some war scenes in a slideshow, but it is very brief. There is also a very controversial scene with the song “Abraham”, which might be offensive to some, as it has some “incorporating images and behaviors” (Source), that could be called racist. Sometimes this scene is completely cut when stations play the film. Personally, it was my least favorite.

‘“Then I had a drink.”

“A drink? Boy, you were fractured!”’

Originality: 9, this was a bucket of fun! You have some classic Hollywood set ups in there, but it just adds to the fun. An Inn that only specializes in holidays? Never heard of it before!

Good For: Fans of the actors, watching on any of the mentioned holidays.

Age Range: This is acceptable for any and all ages. Little kids will love the dancing, as will older people, I’m sure!

Overall Score: 8!

Worth watching?: Yes! Ever since I’ve learned that this was the origin for “White Christmas”, I’ve wanted to see it and it didn’t disappoint! The numbers were fun, and the actors worked so well together. I'd never seen anything with Marjorie Reynolds before, so I liked that. My sisters and I keep talking about how strange it was to have a movie where we don’t like Fred Astaire’s character. Don’t get me wrong, he isn’t unlikeable, we just like Bing Crosby’s character so much better! The dancing and singing were top notch, as per usual!

Will I watch again?: I now want to make it a tradition where I watch this every year, on one of the many holidays. The fun thing about this movie is that it’s not necessarily Christmas, so there are many chances to watch it.

“You sound sweet, but you don’t make sense.”

For the blogathon:

This movie features the holidays: Christmas, New Year’s, Valentine’s Day, Lincoln’s birthday, Washington’s birthday (those two are now combined into President’s Day), Easter, Independence Day, and...

Thanksgiving!

This is my entry in Sally of 18 Cinema Lane’s A Blogathon To Be Thankful For!

There are four categories in this blogathon, and this is the one that I am participating with: Write about a movie or television show episode that either revolves around Thanksgiving or features, at least, one scene taking place on Thanksgiving.

I really love the idea of Sally hosting this because Thanksgiving is one of my favorite holidays! It is all about being grateful, so how awesome is that? And food, it also involves food. I like this because so many people jump to Christmas after Halloween and tend to forget about it, which is really sad! I celebrate Christmas for a long time afterwards, and not so much beforehand. I know all holidays this year have been different, but it’s good to remember what we’re thankful for.

Alright, time for me to talk about the Thanksgiving scene in here!

Each holiday is proceeded by a short (30 seconds max.) animated feature on a calendar. For Thanksgiving, it has a turkey jumping back and forth between two dates, Thursday the 20th and Thursday the 27th, showing that this was supposed to take place in 1941. This is a fun detail because in all three years of 1939, 1940, and 1941 there was a lot of controversy going on about what date Thanksgiving should be on. From 1863-1938 it had always been the last Thursday of the month, but in 1939 there were five Thursdays instead of four, and President Roosevelt changed it to the week before the last. This stirred up a lot of trouble with people being dismayed over the “breaking of tradition” until finally in 1941 FDR signed a law that it would be the fourth Thursday in November.

(Credit to Cricket magazine and my sister for my expertise on this.)

Okay, from now on SPOILER ALERT. I’m going to be talking about near the end of this movie, so if you haven’t seen it, read no further!

This isn’t the most cheerful part of the movie. Unlike all of the other holidays, Jim is alone for this one. Except for loyal Mamie, of course! He has closed down the inn and let Hollywood start making a movie about it. He has lost Linda as she is off making movies and is overall feeling sorry for himself. He is working on writing the song, “Plenty to be Thankful For”, which is quite the opposite of his current mood, and he keeps making pessimistic comments in reply to the lyrics.

Also, these two kids were adorable.

Mamie brings him a Thanksgiving feast, but he doesn’t really eat, just pushes his food around. Mamie gets tired of his moping and finally tells him to go after Linda, saying:

“You could melt her heart right down to butter, if you'd only turn on the heat!”

There you have it! A huge thank you to Sally Silverscreen for hosting this! Make sure to check out the other entries HERE.

Tell me, what is your favorite holiday movie (for any holiday)? What is your favorite Bing Crosby movie? What about Fred Astaire? Thanks for reading, and happy Thanksgiving in advance!

MovieCritic

Movie Review: Silk Stockings (1957)

Bonjour!

Ah, musicals! They are so much fun, right? Sometimes you watch one and it changes your life...and sometimes to get one that at best makes you feel, “eh”. Today I'll be talking about, sadly, one of the later. But, I have a lot of fun roasting planned in this review which I know I will have a blast writing, and I hope you enjoy reading it!

My guarantee: On ALL of my reviews there are NO spoilers unless I give you warning. This is spoiler free, so wipe those worries away!

Silk Stockings (1957):

Based on: Ninotchka - by Melchoir Lengyel. This is a musical remake of the 1939 film. 

Russian citizen Vassili Markovitch is going to write the score for a movie in Paris. The Russian government doesnʼt like that and sends three men to take him back. They botch the job and the government is forced to send in one of their top agents, Ninotchka Yoschenko.  She is no nonsense. Things become complicated when the producer of the movie, Steve Canfield, finds himself attracted to her. Will the movie be made and will their lives all go back to normal?

Genres: Musical, Romance, Drama.

Length: approx. 117 minutes.

Script: 9, no bad words. I'm taking down just a slight bit for a pet peeve of mine, which is when people don't use adverbs. In here a character said, "Live simple and die natural." and I nearly pulled my hair out.

'"You 'go, go, go', but you don't get anywhere."

"You're telling me!"

Crew: Directed by: Rouben Mamoulian. Written by: Melchoir Lengyel, Leonard Gershe, Leonard Spigelgass, George S. Kaufman, Leueen McGrath, & Abe Burrows.

Starring:

Fred Astaire as Steve Canfield.

Cyd Charisse as Ninotchka Yoschenko.

Jules Munshin as Bibinski.

Peter Lorre as Brankov.

Joseph Buloff as Ivanov.

George Tobias as Vassili Markovitch.

Janis Paige as Peggy Dayton.

Wim Sonneveld as Peter Ilyitch Boroff.

Costumes: 5, this is due to the fact that we had two whole scenes where people are dancing around in their underclothing. And making a point of it. There is actually a song all about it. It was just strange and weird and any other adjective that I can think of like that.

Costumes by: Helen Rose.

Cinematography: 7, I wasn't wowed, but musicals have lots of choreography, so that was fun.

Cinematography by: Robert Bronner. An interesting thing is that all dances with Fred Astaire in it were choreographed by Hermes Pan, and all other dances were choreographed by Eugene Loring.

Music: 7, due to the song about underwear. But, I didn't mind a lot of the others. In fact, one song made me really happy.

Music by: Cole Porter and Conrad Salinger.

Notes: The character Peggy Dayton is obviously based on the actress Esther Williams, which was a tiny bit offensive to me because Peggy was very irritating and anytime I've seen Esther she was perfectly lovely. They reference her movie Neptune's Daughter (1949) which a fictional movie called "Neptune's Mother". In addition to that there are also lots of Russian stereotypes. There is also a reference to the play The Merchant of Venice.

Quotability: N/A, as I just watched it for the first time the other day.

Character 1: "Any questions?"

Character 2: "Uh--"

Character 1: "I will ask the questions!"

Content: 5, in addition to the costume thing (which you are probably tired of me mentioning it, but I got really tired of it, okay?), there is talk of suicide, smoking, drinking, very suggestive things, and talk of affairs between married and unmarried people.

Originality: 7, I've seen movies about making movies, and parts were pretty predictable. 

Good For: Fred Astaire fans.

Age Range: I am completely undecided here. A lot of the content could probably go unnoticed by little kids, but maybe not. I was really bored while watching it (seriously, I kept stopping it to go do other things, and I never do that), but little kids might find it interesting with the dances? I don't know. I can't give an accurate figure here.

Overall Score: 6.5

"The arrangement of your features is not entirely repulsive to me."

Worth watching?: Yes, for one reason, but have patience, I will tell you what that was very soon.

Will I watch again?: Nope, I don't think I will. Once was enough for me.

For the blogathon:

This is my entry in Heidiʼs With Glamour and Panache: A Fred Astaire and Gene Kelly Musicals Blogathon!

(Did I have to look up the word Panache in the dictionary? The world will never know.)

When I heard about this blogathon I was so excited because those are two from the Golden Age of musicals! But, why did I pick this one? Story time! Looking through all of the posts that I have written, it turns out that I have reviewed quite a few musicals with either Fred Astaire or Gene Kelly. They are as follows:

Fred:

Letʼs Dance (1950)

Royal Wedding (1951)

(Okay, there arenʼt as many as there seemed to be, but I promise you that more is coming soon!)

Gene:

An American in Paris (1951)

Brigadoon (1954)

For Me and My Gal (1942)

Singinʼ in the Rain (1952) (Also known as my favorite movie of all time, no doubt about it)

And I have seen a few others, but my final choice came down to two: Review Follow the Fleet (1936) (One from Fred which I hated) or find something new. At the last moment, I had the opportunity to watch this and I jumped at it! I had never seen it before. It seemed fitting for this blogathon, because Fred Astaire retired from making musicals after this.

As you can tell with my review, I was not impressed. And to be honest, I was warned by THIS POST. Overall this just has that gritty quality of some late '50s movies. I have the feeling that it was made to show off how amazing Paris is, but it did the opposite for me. If that is all that Paris is, then I have no interest in going there. But, it wasn't a total waste of time, and there are somethings that I liked. In all due time, I'll get to it, but I'm going to do a wee bit of ranting first. With that I might start waltzing into SPOILER territory, so warning for that.

Firstly, the characters. Did I like the main character, Ninotchka?

*Picture this: a gif of Horst Kerr from Ratatouille (2007) saying, "Yeah, of course. Before he changed it."*

Ugh, how to start. When we first meet Ninotchka I was really impressed with her. She is direct and to the point, organized and tidy, and loyal and determined to help her country on whatever task she is given. Based on her credentials we know that she is very brave. She even has a good line: 

"It seems to me that seduction can only take place when one is willing."

In Paris we see her strength and stamina. "I prefer the stairs." (Up to the forth floor! I always take the stairs, too.)

She doesn't see why she should be treated any differently than the respect a man always gets. She says:

"Please don't make an issue of my womanhood."

What happens? The whole rest of the movie we make an issue of it. She meets Steve. Okay, there was absolutely no chemistry or attraction between them, but the filmmakers decided to try to make them a couple. Now don't get me wrong, I love Fred Astaire, but his character was very frustrating. Steve literally liked nothing about Ninotchka except how she looked. He was constantly trying to change who she was, just "so that she could be more like a woman". Apparently all of these good qualities that Ninotchka had, were 'too much like a man's'? Wow, really?

No characteristic is more masculine than feminine. Not even a combination of qualities immediately points to a certain gender. Every single person on in the world is different. If a woman is couragous it doesn't mean that she is trying to be manly. If a man has skill and precision it doesn't mean that he is girly. These are all shared traits!

Let me ask you, what exact does being a woman mean? The wonderful thing is that there is no right or wrong answer. But, according to this movie it is dressing up in fancy things and being pretty. Now, I am not bashing anyone who likes to do that. It is a perfectly good thing to do! I just ask that people don't critize anyone who isn't interested in that.

At the beginning of the movie we see the downfall and temptation of some men, so I understand how they were trying to even it out, which is fair. I get that it is about a character starting to live life and appreciate it, which I am all for.

"For the first time in my life I looked at something and thought, 'how beautiful' instead of 'how useful'."

But, you don't just flip the switch on people that quickly. People are complicated and detailed. It just could've been better. How? 

BACKSTORY.

Nothing with Ninotchka's character made sense (after a certain point), but if we could've had some more about her past it might have been clearer. Maybe she was a ballerina, but was rejected which is why she doesn't like to dance anymore. Maybe she grew up in a very poor place and always wanted special things but the one time she got something it was ruined immediately and therefore started looking at the practical side of things. Maybe she knew someone who died who wasn't prepared for life and she vowed to make sure that she was always ready and not waste time one what didn't matter.

There are a million possibilities here!

Even with the boatload of complaints, I feel like I finally got to see Cyd Charisse act for the first time. Usually she is just a girl for Gene Kelly or Fred Astaire to dance around (yes, I still feel that way about Brigadoon), but in here she was given a character. Sure, a character that was manipulated by the filmmakers, but we have to take the wins where we can.

Okay, now I'm going to get into what I did like about it and why it was worth watching!

Right out of the shoot I have to mention Fred. His dancing is amazing and top notch, as per usual. I remember the day that my sister asked my mom about tap dancing and she told us about Fred for the first time. She showed us two clips, and I immediately loved his dancing! One was with a lady where they danced on roller blades (when I finally watched Shall We Dance? (1937) I got so excited because I'd finally found where it came from!). The second is one that I listen to all the time and really like, but I had no idea what it was from.

Imagine my utter joy when I was watching along without caring and BOOM there it is. One of the final song and dance numbers in this movie was it! It was the one! I was so happy! So worth the whole movie for that.

Another highlight that I want to mention are Jules Munshin and Peter Lorre. I was not expecting to see them and it was a great treat. Peter Lorre's little dance that he tried to do anytime anyone else was dancing around cracked me up. It was hilarious!

Alright...I think I'm done now. Tell me, have any of you seen this? If so I would love to hear your thoughts! What do you like about it?

Thanks to Heidi for hosting this! Make sure to check out the other posts HERE. What do you think, readers? Have you ever watched a movie that you highly disliked, but one thing saved it? Have you ever watched a movie and found, "Oh, that song is from here!"? Thanks for reading!

MovieCritic

Movie Review: Royal Wedding (1951)

Good evening to everyone!

As you have seen I haven't been blogging as recently as I usually do, and that is because I have been really busy. And I will continue to be busy for a couple of months, so while I will be popping in to review things from time to time, my usual schedule won't be back in place until May. Anyway, as tradition on this blog, I do a post on the 19th of every month and for tonight I will be reviewing the first Fred Astaire movie that I saw!

My guarantee: On ALL of my reviews there are NO spoilers unless I give you warning.


Royal Wedding (1951):

A brother and sister dancing duo are going to preform in London around the time of the royal wedding. The sister, Ellen, has people admiring and falling in love with her all the time and meets a Lord who has the same problem. The brother, Tom, always makes fun of marriage, but in London he finds a dancer, Anne, whom he finds himself falling for. Ellen and Tom are determined to stay the team that they have always been, but will their hearts lead them elsewhere?

'"If you think nice things then doors open for you."

"Is that your message for the day."'

Genre: Comedy, Romance, (Musical? I actually really don't know what to call this. There is singing and dancing, but I wouldn't really consider it a musical? I don't know, I'll explain my strange brain and sorting system one day. Every movie back then had music, but it was almost always explained it by saying that they are performers.)
Length: approx. 93 minutes.
Costumes: 8, nothing in appropriate. The styles are fun to see.
My favorite:
Script: 10, no bad words!
"Let's walk a minute, get some nice clean fog."
Crew:
Directed by: Stanley Donen.
Written by: Alan Jay Lerner.
Starring:
Fred Astaire as Tom Bowen.

Jane Powell as Ellen Bowen.

Peter Lawford as Lord John Brindale.

Sarah Churchill as Anne Ashmond.

Keenan Wynn as Irving Klinger & Edgar Klinger. (He does such a good job at playing two roles!)
"This is a pretty box of pickles!"

Sadly, this was the best picture that I could find of him!

Albert Sharpe as James Ashmond.
Cinematography: 10. Okay, can we just talk about something for a minute? The fact that they had no CGI back then, but that they were able to make Fred Astaire do some insanely awesome things while he is dancing? Wowza! Really incredible. And they have good choreography in all of the dances.

Cinematography by: Robert Planck.
Music: 8, there are a ton of fun dance scenes with good music. A few of them are not my favorites (like "How Could You Believe Me When I Said I Love You When You Know I've Been a Liar All My Life" [yes, that is the name of the song]), but I love the music for "Sunday Jumps" and whenever I hear "I Left My Hat in Haiti" I have to sing along.

This is from the one with the really long name. 

Music by: Burton Lane & Albert Sendrey.
Quotes: 8, "She's quiet, but also deep. At least I hope she's deep or else she's wasting her time being quiet."
Content: 8, there is some drinking, smoking, a suggestive thing, and a separated married couple.
[highlight for spoilers but they are shown as a possibility as getting together.]
Originality: 9, this is a cute little movie, and while I've seen lots of movies with dancing duos, this is the only one that I can think of who is a sibling team!
Good For: Fred Astaire fans, dancers, families.
Age Range: It is a fun movie for any age, with lots of dancing scenes to keep younger ones interested. I liked when I was little and my grandmother did, too.

Overall Score: 8.5!
"I always smile when I'm heartbroken."
Bonus thoughts:
As I said, this is the first movie that I remember watching with Fred Astaire. I know that I had seen tons of clips of his other movies, but this was the first one that I sat down and watched all the way through. So while a lot of people think of him and Ginger Rogers as a team, I always think Jane Powell. Once my sisters, grandma, and I watched it about once a week for two months and we were all so tired of it, but watching it again the other day I really enjoyed it. This was also my introduction to Peter Lawford who I absolutely love watching and can never find enough movies with him in it. So yeah, this is quite enjoyable way to spend some time! Actually, the dances are quite iconic!


What about all of you? What was the first Fred Astaire movie that you watched? Anyone else as big a fan of Peter Lawford as I am? Thanks for reading!

"Pip now!"

MovieCritic