Category Archives: Romantic Comedy

Anora-2024

Anora-2024

Director Sean Baker

Starring Mikey Madison, Mark Eidelstein, Yura Borisov

Scott’s Review #1,450

Reviewed November 3, 2024

Grade: A

Anora (2024) is one of the boldest films I’ve seen in some time and ranks as my favorite Sean Baker film so far. Tangerine (2015) and The Florida Project (2017) are the other great works.

Those planning to see the film should do homework and learn what Baker films are about. He frequently directs independent feature films about the lives of marginalized people, especially immigrants and sex workers.

Baker’s films are dirty, dark, and outrageous.

Because Anora has received awards buzz and is classified as a romantic comedy, the audience at my showing seemed slightly overwhelmed by its raw nature. While there are comedic moments, they are shrouded in darkness, and I don’t think my audience quite knew how to respond.

Some cover art has captured the main couple played by Mickey Madison and Mark Eidelstein happily dancing and depicted with the caption ‘a modern day Cinderella story’. This is misleading to the gritty nature of the story.

Madison plays Ani (Anora), an exotic dancer and part-time sex worker at a swanky Manhattan strip club. She lives in a Russian section of Brooklyn. Her life takes an unexpected turn when she meets and impulsively marries Vanya (Mark Eidelstein), the childlike son of a Russian billionaire.

When Vanya’s godfather and parents catch wind of the union, they send their henchmen to annul the marriage, setting off a wild chase through the streets of New York. Vanya flees the scene and the others must find him.

Madison is brilliant. Known for a small role as Susan Atkins in Quentin Tarantino’s Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) and a role in one version of Scream (2022), the young actress comes on as gangbusters.

Her character is tough. We only know she lives with her older sister and their mother lives in Florida with her boyfriend. Presumably, her father is absent and she has had to find work to help support herself. She is brassy, savvy, and intelligent. Most importantly, the audience roots for her.

Madison has an aura surrounding her and she believably plays loving and hysterical with ease. Ani wants love but is also smart enough to know love doesn’t come easy and has a price. Madison channels each emotion with seeming ease.

Baker has become a favorite director of mine. He also writes,  produces, and edits most of his projects. His films are not easy to watch but that’s what I like about them.

His films take marginalized or dismissed groups and provide representation.

Another standout is Russian actor, Yura Borisov. Since Ani is the only character worth rooting for, Borisov’s character of Igor slowly becomes a fan favorite. Assumed to merely be a henchman he begins to care for Ani and strive to do the right thing amid chaos.

Borisov provides Igor with warmth and kindness in a world of little. I yearned to know more about the character. How did he get to be where he is? Did he need to escape Russia any way he could?

It’s hard to like the other characters and I loathed quite a few, especially the wealthier ones. I yearned to leap across the aisles and smack Vanya, his mother, and one stripper who is Ani’s rival.

This made me have a visceral reaction to the film and left me thinking about my emotions after it had ended. Anyone who appreciates good cinema knows the longer you are left thinking about it the better it is.

Towards the end, Baker incorporates satisfying moments of Ani standing up for herself, especially against Vanya and his mother. This only reaffirmed the passion of her character. Even in despair Ani remains tough and refuses to be mistreated by anyone.

My favorite sequence is at the end during a January snowstorm in Brooklyn. A tender moment occurs between Ani and Igor where the writing, cinematography, and camera angles are beautiful.

Anora (2024) is recommended for fans of Baker’s work. He successfully and carefully weaves a tale of adventure, romance, desperation, and the haves versus the have-nots that are emotional and raw.

Tootsie-1982

Tootsie-1982

Director Sydney Pollack

Starring Dustin Hoffman, Jessica Lange, Teri Garr

Scott’s Review #1,449

Reviewed November 2, 2024

Grade: A

Dustin Hoffman is perfectly cast in the romantic comedy Tootsie (1982), a blockbuster hit from 1982 with much going on within its cinematic walls and a progressive-leaning slant.

Sydney Pollack directs and also has a supporting role in the film.

In addition to Hoffman, Jessica Lange, Teri Garr, Dabney Coleman, and Charles Durning give all-star performances.

Tootsie is genuinely funny and a treat for anyone who has ever auditioned or been interested in the acting or theater professions. The popular soap opera or daytime drama genre features directors, producers, and actors intertwining.

Romance, drag, wacky setups, insecurities, and social commentary on gender inequality are analyzed making Tootsie more relevant than most romantic comedies and an unforgettable experience.

Hoffman plays New York actor Michael Dorsey (Dustin Hoffman), a talented yet opinionated perfectionist unable to find work. His flustered agent (Pollack) sends him on a soap opera audition that goes poorly.

Michael decides to reinvent himself as actress Dorothy Michaels and wins the part. What was supposed to be a short-lived role turns into a long-term contract, but when Michael falls for his castmate Julie (Jessica Lange), complications develop.

Hoffman flawlessly merges with Dorothy, a feminist,  to make her a character the audience loves and champions. This is a risky assignment and could easily make the character a goof or not be taken seriously.

Not only does Hoffman look convincing in a dress, wig, heels, and a feminine southern accent, but he makes us forget he’s a man.

The hilarity of other characters not knowing Dorothy is Michael is there when a romantic quadrangle develops. Neurotic Sandy Lester (Garr) is in love with Michael while he is in love with Julie who thinks Michael is Dorothy. Finally, Julie’s father, Les (Durning) falls for Dorothy.

The New York setting works wonderfully as struggling actors, greedy agents, and temperamental directors co-exist on tense sets, over dinners, and at many schmoozy parties. This presents the grit of New York show business in the 1980s when the city was crime-infested and dangerous.

The hustle and bustle perfectly showcases the time.

Pollack and screenwriters, Larry Gelbart and Murray Schisgal, add satire to the soap opera, or as mentioned in the film, the politically correct, daytime drama, world.

The horny and inept longtime cast member, John Van Horn (George Gaynes) needs a teleprompter while the sexy ingenue April (Geena Davis) prances around in underwear. Hurried script rewrites and pages of dialogue to memorize makes the cast frazzled and rushed.

Tootsie takes an important though lighthearted approach to sexism but at least it’s recognized. Dorothy scolds her boss and director Ron (Coleman) for calling her demeaning nicknames like ‘Tootsie’ and treating Julie, who he’s casually dating, poorly.

Michael begins to realize that he doesn’t treat Sandy well either so he learns from his experience as a woman and being judged on beauty rather than anything else.

It forces the audience to realize this too. Tootsie was released in the early 1980s when women’s liberation was strong and more women were in the workplace so the message was timely.

The producer of the fictional soap opera is female which enhances the gender message brought across.

Still, the comedy takes center stage and the film isn’t a message movie. The funny moments feel fresh as the characters work their magic. Julie first assumes Dorothy is a lesbian when they nearly kiss and Sandy thinks Michael is having an affair with Dorothy which means he is having an affair with himself.

The antics go on and on and resemble the classic Some Like It Hot (1959) especially tender moments between Les and Dorothy.

Tootsie (1982) holds up well decades after release. Smart dialogue, witty sequences, and strong characters make it a timeless treasure to revisit often.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Director-Sydney Pollack, Best Actor-Dustin Hoffman, Best Supporting Actress-Jessica Lange (won), Teri Garr, Best Screenplay-Written Directly for the Screen, Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing, Best Original Song-“It Might Be You”, Best Sound

Four Weddings and a Funeral-1994

Four Weddings and a Funeral-1994

Director Mike Newell

Starring Hugh Grant, Andie MacDowell

Scott’s Review #1,444

Reviewed October 8, 2024

Grade: A-

Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994) is a surprisingly fresh and delightful romantic comedy and one of the better offerings of the 1990s. It is likely an inspiration for Love, Actually, from 2003, which I have seen recently, and they would be paired well together.

Both are British or set in the London area and have an English sophistication often lacking in American rom-coms.

The key to Four Weddings and a Funeral’s success is the writing. Storylines about real life emerge and relatable, awkward, and flawed characters grace the page. Lovelorn audience members who may have lost love or suffered from loneliness may relate most.

This is a huge win for a genre that often plays it safe or revels in predictability. Crisp writing goes a long way.

The main couple are played by Hugh Grant and Andie MacDowell and made them household names plummeting them to a successful decade in similar films, especially Grant.

Lovable Englishman Charles (Grant) and his group of friends seem to be unlucky in love. They frequently gather at parties or weddings never finding what they truly want, linking them together for life.

When Charles meets a beautiful American named Carrie (Andie MacDowell) at a wedding, he thinks his luck may have changed. But, after one magical night, Carrie, deemed ‘slutty’ returns to the States, ending what might have been a wonderful long-term relationship.

As Charles and Carrie’s paths continue to cross usually at someone’s wedding and one funeral, Charles believes they are meant to be together, even if their timing always seems to be off.

Grant shines in his role despite believing his performance was hideous, at least before the film received many accolades. Mike Newell, the director, provided conflicting direction making it hard for Grant to play the role in a particular way.

His stuttering and confusion, though, are what makes his character so endearing.

MacDowell is good too. It’s not clear why she doesn’t drop everything right away and date Charles or why she chooses an older Scottish guy to marry but the story-dictated situations only make the characters shine brighter.

Once the first wedding occurred I found myself hooked. I couldn’t wait to find out what three nuptials would be forthcoming and who the funeral was for.

Could it be a main character or even Charles or Carrie?

That makes Four Weddings and a Funeral compelling especially as the supporting characters are fleshed out.

We get to know Fiona (Kristin Scott Thomas), a bitchy friend who seems to judge everyone she meets. Her snobbery is slowly replaced with vulnerability when it’s revealed that she has always loved Charles.

Other characters like Tom (James Fleet) and Scarlett (Charlotte Coleman) are comic relief while a same-sex couple, Gareth and Matthew (Simon Callow and John Hannah), and Charles’s deaf brother David (David Bower) are part of the group with no judgments about their sexuality or disability.

In 1994 this was a searing victory and a feeling of inclusion is apparent.

The icing on the cake is a spectacular soap opera moment when a bride and groom are about to take their vows only for one party to admit their love for another character. Hysterics, a meltdown, and good old-fashioned drama commence and make the scene satisfying.

I didn’t expect to enjoy Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994) as much as I did. Audiences agreed and the film was rewarded with two surprising Oscar nominations.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Original Screenplay

Love Actually-2003

Love Actually-2003

Director Richard Curtis

Starring Hugh Grant, Emma Thompson, Liam Neeson

Scott’s Review #1,438

Reviewed September 8, 2024

Grade: B

Love Actually (2003) is a British romantic comedy perfect for watching around the holidays, especially on Christmas Eve. Perhaps even on Valentine’s Day, the setting is tinsel-laden and filled with holiday merriment and sweetness.

It involves an ensemble cast of dozens but surprisingly not hard to follow. The myriad of stories had me naturally more invested in some than others, preferring the heavy drama to the silly side plots.

The film begins beautifully as a voice-over narrator sets the stage and message of love. He ruminates about pure and uncomplicated love of lovers, and friends, and points out that the messages from the 9/11 victims were messages of love and not hate.

The story then switches among the interconnecting “love stories” of many people.

The quick segment nearly left me in tears and to let the poignant message sink in.

I was pleasantly surprised to find nine stories some of which intersect with others. I am a fan of this type of storytelling but not all of them connect with others which might have made it too confusing or even better layered.

Some stories are not given a lot of exposure but the balance feels close to right.

I preferred the first half of Love Actually to the second. I had heard of the film and finally watched it twenty years later but anticipated more of a sappy romantic comedy than anything of substance, especially since the rom-com master Hugh Grant stars.

I immediately felt an emotional connection to stories like the United Kingdom Prime Minister (Grant) and his romantic connection with Natalie (Martine McCutcheon), a junior member of his household staff. This ‘boy meets a girl from the wrong side of tracks’ felt authentic and laden with possibilities.

Another win is the love story between Sarah (Laura Linney) and handsome creative director, Karl (Rodrigo Santoro). Their buildup and near tryst after a Christmas party had me in their corner, and rooting for the pair to overcome an obstacle involving Sarah’s dependent brother.

Finally, my favorite couple is writer Jamie (Colin Firth) and his Portuguese housekeeper, Aurélia (Lúcia Moniz). Their sweetness and innocence are gleeful and true and rooting for them to get together despite language barriers was easy. 

Richard Curtis, who directs and writes the screenplay, misses an opportunity when he creates an unfulfilling love triangle between newlyweds Juliet (Keira Knightley), Peter (Chiwetel Ejiofor), and best man Mike (Andrew Lincoln). Initially unclear if Mike is smitten with Juliet or Peter the traditional route is chosen instead of an LGBTQ+ presence.  

In one story, the horny British lad named Colin (Kris Marchall) unsuccessfully tries to woo British women and decides to go to America to get laid. Predictably, he meets one hot woman after another in the mid-west USA.

This story is hokey and could have been dropped altogether in favor of more screen time for the more interesting stories.

In the final act, I was disappointed when the film teeters too much towards cheesy with a tepid Christmas pageant where many stories come to a head.

This culminates with a silly chase throughout Heathrow Airport where one character jumps security and outwits inattentive airport personnel to catch his love interest before she leaves on a flight to New York.

Since 9/11 is mentioned in the beginning this tired plot device is surprising given the times of heightened terrorism and deserved respect for airport security.

Curtis rips off Paul Thomas Anderson’s Boogie Nights (1997) in the epilogue by using the same song, ‘God Only Knows’ by the Beach Boys, and the same wrap-up of what happens to the characters.

Despite the thievery, I did enjoy seeing what happens in my favorite stories.

Love Actually (2003) wobbles a bit by trying to have all nine stories pack a punch but the effort is nice and the message of love closes out the film.

We know happiness and Christmas miracles usually don’t pan out but it’s nice to escape and pretend they do.

There’s Something About Mary-1998

There’s Something About Mary-1998

Director Peter Farrelly, Bobby Farrelly

Starring Ben Stiller, Cameron Diaz, Matt Dillon

Scott’s Review #1,428

Reviewed June 16, 2024

Grade: B+

Since many films are released within the romantic comedy genre most are disposable and forgettable. Very few stand out initially let alone stand the test of time.

Decades later, There’s Something About Mary (1998) holds up well mostly because of its chemistry and laugh-out-loud memorable moments. It also has a heart and is not mean-spirited showcasing a brewing romance people can relate to.

Watching in 2024 particularly interesting is the appeal of Cameron Diaz since retired from acting, and a young Ben Stiller who was then in his heyday and a box-office gem. Brett Favre, who then was a superstar NFL quarterback makes a cameo appearance.

Pleasing is to watch a hit film from decades ago that still offers appeal.

Ted’s (Ben Stiller) unexpected dream prom date with Mary (Cameron Diaz) in 1985 is disastrous due to an embarrassing injury at her home causing them never to get to the prom. Mary leaves town shortly after.

Thirteen years later, pre-social media in 1998, Ted hires shady investigator Pat Healy (Matt Dillon) to track down Mary so he can reconnect with her. Pat becomes obsessed with her and lies to Ted about Mary, finding out everything he can about her to trick her into dating him.

Ted realizes the truth and travels to meet Mary in Miami, Florida where she is a successful orthopedic surgeon to reconnect with her.

Instantaneous hilarity comes to mind from two legendary scenes involving Ben Stiller’s Ted that most people have heard of.

While using the bathroom at Mary’s house before leaving for the prom Ted gets his private parts or ‘frank and beans’, caught in his zipper. Every male viewer will squirm in imagined discomfort but the hijinks with Mary’s parents and neighborhood firefighters who get involved make the sequence legendary.

This pairs well with a later scene when Ted masturbates just before his date with Mary to relax. Mary mistakes some ‘residue’ on Ted’s ear for hair gel and hilariously applies it to her hair causing it to stick straight up in the air during dinner.

Both scenes still feel fresh and natural years later and are now historical.

The introduction of Tucker (Lee Evans) a third admirer of Mary doesn’t work so well in hindsight. The revelation that he is not a British architect but merely a pizza deliverer who injured his back to get close to Mary feels forced and unnecessary.

The triangle between Ted/Mary/Pat is just enough.

The inclusion factors are impressive. In 1985, Mary had a black stepfather and a mentally disabled brother both of whom she adores. When Ted drives from Rhode Island to Florida he stops at a rest area and is assumed to be gay. This is preceded by a session with a psychiatrist who suspects Ted may be gay.

These additions go a long way to showcase normalcy in these individual areas.

It’s also impressive that the Farrelly brothers (Peter and Bobby), who direct the film, make Mary a surgeon paving the way for female viewers to aspire to the same.

There’s Something About Mary gets a slight knock for exploiting female breasts, Mary is seen at least twice through a window putting on a bra while a male spies on her from the distance.

The characters are benevolent especially Ted and Mary making it easy for the audience to root for them. Thanks to the tremendous chemistry between Diaz, Stiller, and Dillon, There’s Something About Mary (1998) feels fresh and romantic without a forced feeling.

Sixteen Candles-1984

Sixteen Candles-1984

Director John Hughes

Starring Molly Ringwald, Michael Schoeffling, Anthony Michael Hall

Scott’s Review #1,389

Reviewed August 14, 2023

Grade: B

While recently re-watching a string of John Hughes-produced or directed films from the 1980s I set upon them with fresh eyes. Some scenes or themes that worked in the mid-1980s would be inappropriate in a more sensitive and post-Me Too! movement.

Hughes, of course, was the king of the teen angst, coming-of-age, romantic comedies that usually starred Molly Ringwald.

Sixteen Candles, Hughes’s first directorial effort was released in 1984 and launched him to superstardom and immense popularity. Films like The Breakfast Club (1985) and Pretty in Pink (1986) would follow to much acclaim.

What he did so well was provide maturity and a message to otherwise dumb and raunchy comedies that populated the decade and they had a fresh female perspective whereas others were typically male and hormone-driven.

Already angst-ridden Samantha (Molly Ringwald) wakes up on the morning of her sixteenth birthday to find her busy family has completely forgotten her special day.

Samantha already pines for the handsome senior Jake (Michael Schoeffling), but worries that her dorkiness and lack of sexual experience will be a turnoff for the popular boy.

Meanwhile, Samantha must constantly rebuff the affections of nerdy Ted (Anthony Michael Hall), the only boy in the school who seems to take an interest in her.

As enjoyable as Sixteen Candles is I’d list it as the weakest of the Hughes films. It serves as more of a blueprint for the genius he would become.

Ringwald carries the film with ease made more impressive since this was one of her first film roles. She infuses Samantha with a blend of confidence but also insecurity and worry so that most American teenage girls could see themselves in her.

Pretty but not a pinup blonde, Samantha is intelligent and the girl next door. She lives in a suburban neighborhood, is middle class, has loving but distracted parents, and siblings focused on their trials and tribulations.

Most can relate to that.

A wonderful and tender moment between Samantha and her father, Jim, played brilliantly by Paul Dooley nearly moved me to tears. His wisdom and kindness as Samantha emotionally reveals her love for Jake to her dad is warm and solid epitomizing what a dad should be to his daughter.

A tepid series of misunderstandings occur between Samantha and Jake, who ironically has noticed her and shares the attraction. She freezes when face to face with him, and flees, so he naturally assumes she is a bitch and has no interest in him.

It takes so long for the lovebirds to connect that more possibilities and scenes are left unexplored. The film ends as soon as they reveal their feelings so there isn’t enough for the audience to celebrate.

We also know almost nothing about Jake. He is a rich kid whose parents are vacationing in Europe but what makes him tick? He could have any girl in high school and dates the pretty blonde girl but what makes him so drawn to Samantha?

The casting of the four grandparents serves no purpose other than comic relief and an inaccurate message of how bumbling older people are. One refers to Samantha’s ‘boobies’ while another stinks up the bathroom.

Worse yet, the inclusion of a foreign exchange Asian student named Long Duk Dong is riddled with cliches and stereotypes only played for laughs.

These characters are caricatures.

Finally, the groping and taking advantage of drunk female characters now feels dated if not flat-out inappropriate. In 1984, the scenes are meant to be funny.

Still, Sixteen Candles (1984) accurately depicts the loneliness and problems that face nearly every teenager in the history of the world. With a warm message of belonging and a sweet subtext, the film is a recommended watch but watch out for those stereotypes.

Funny Face-1957

Funny Face-1957

Director Stanley Donan

Starring Audrey Hepburn, Fred Astaire

Scott’s Review #1,375

Reviewed July 7, 2023

Grade: B

The results of Funny Face (1957) are mixed and the word ‘cute’ pops to mind on more than one occasion.

On the one hand, audiences are served a sophisticated look at the fashion industry and the sleek style of Paris, France in the 1950s. The outfits and set design are fab revealing the cultured and colorful modeling world while the makeup and hairstyles match the time with fragrant gusto.

The screenplay is riddled with plausibility issues bordering on offensiveness, silliness, and a good look at the patriarchal mindset of the times. The message is twofold. The fashion industry and Hollywood equally embraced these norms at the time the film was made.

In a word, the overall film is dated.

New York City fashion photographer Dick Avery (Fred Astaire) is tasked with finding a model for a new assignment. Discouraged, he is struck by the beauty of Jo Stockton (Audrey Hepburn), an intellectual bookstore employee he photographed by accident.

He convinces Jo to go with him to France, where he continues photographing her against Parisian backdrops, while they scramble to pull together a fashion show along with crusty Maggie Prescott (Kay Thompson), a fashion magazine publisher.

Dick and Jo fall for one another, only to find hurdles to overcome along the way.

The musical numbers are plentiful but rather second-tier. Bouncy songs like ‘Funny Face’ and ‘On How to Be Lovely’ are decent but not memorable. The highlight is “S, Wonderful’ appearing during the finale and perfectly wrapping the Paris experience and the film in a shiny bow.

Comparisons can be made to An American in Paris (1951) and not just because both are set in Paris use the same tune (S Wonderful) and are composed by George Gershwin. There’s more buried beneath the surface that ties the two films.

Both lead characters, Jerry and Jo, wind up with the wrong partners, in reality, inappropriate for each other. Jerry should be with the comparable Milo while Jo should be with the dashing and artistic Flostre (Michael Auclair). Instead, Jerry chooses the waifish Lise while Jo lands the ancient Dick.

Astaire is old enough to be Hepburn’s grandfather which makes the romance odd.

Of course, in An American in Paris and Funny Face, Milo and Flostre are made to be the foils. They are merely obstacles to be overcome by the preferred couple.

Another irritant is the demeaning nickname that Dick calls Jo, ‘funny face’. Hardly a dog, Hepburn is quite beautiful though the film makes the audience assume she is wrong for the modeling world. The reality is she fits right in looking perfect in every dress or costume she dons, or photograph she appears in.

A better casting choice would have been not classically beautiful singers/actors such as Barbra Streisand or Bette Midler though admittedly neither had surfaced at that point.

Though shot on a soundstage, Funny Face rebounds from implausibility with gorgeous ariel views of historic Parisian landmarks that envelope the glitter of the theme.

Shots of the Eifel Tower, Arc de Triomphe, and the broad Champs-Elysees are robust and made me rewatch this sequence again.

In parallel, the Greenwich Village, New York City setting where other events in the film take place is an intelligent choice to define the artistic and bookish characters.

The opening titles of Funny Face (1957) are creative and polished reflecting the maturity of the subject matter and style of the 1950s.

With no chemistry, Hepburn and Astaire carry the film as best they can with a dated and tame screenplay.

Oscar Nominations: Best Writing, Story, and Screenplay-Written Directly for the Screen, Best Costume Design, Best Cinematography, Best Art Direction-Set Direction

Single All the Way-2021

Single All the Way-2021

Director-Michael Mayer

Starring Michael Urie, Philemon Chambers, Luke Macfarlane

Scott’s Review #1,325

Reviewed December 21, 2022

Grade: C+

Single All the Way (2021) is an LGBTQ+ romantic comedy film released by the streaming behemoth Netflix, though I swear the film feels like a Hallmark or Lifetime television movie of the week offering.

The film is a Christmas-themed romantic comedy about gay men and is the streaming service’s first gay holiday film.

As inspired and momentous as this may sound please hold the accolades and champagne for just a hot second. I hoped for at least a bit more danger, complexity, or even darker drama from Single All the Way being that it’s the first of its kind.

Instead, I was presented with a childish, cliched, saccharine-induced, run-of-the-mill story that swaps the standard straight-laced, blue-eyed, blonde-haired straight couple from the midwest, USA, with gay characters.

Everything else remains the same.

Since the LGBTQ+ is to be celebrated, the result is a marginally enjoyable romantic comedy featuring gay men and a timid triangle where the audience knows all along how it’s going to play out.

Desperate to avoid his family’s judgment about his perpetual single status, Peter (Michael Urie) who lives in Los Angeles, convinces his best friend Nick (Philemon Chambers) to join him for the holidays in snowy New Hampshire and pretend that they’re now in a relationship.

But when Peter’s mother (Kathy Najimy) sets him up on a blind date with her hunky trainer James (Luke Macfarlane) the plan goes awry. Peter becomes caught in a quandary about either confessing his feelings for Nick or pursuing relations with James while his family schemes to unite Peter and Nick.

Let me just make clear that the only reason Single All the Way rates as high as a ‘C+’ is that I applaud the decision to write, produce, and release an LGBTQ+-themed film. It’s about damn time, but I wish it were a better film.

Nick being light-skinned black is also a way to promote at least a bit of diversity, although the other characters and environment feel as white as the fake snow draping the wintry set design.

Despite being slightly effeminate he works as a rugged handyman which somehow completely doesn’t work.

The main issue is that there is no chemistry between any of the three men. Unbelievable is how Nick and Peter have been roommates for years and it takes a trip to New Hampshire for them to suddenly realize their undying love for one another.

Macfarlane, well-known for appearing in Bros. (2022), the first gay romantic comedy released by a major studio, is almost distractingly good-looking. Hunky and drop-dead gorgeous, to believe his character would be the odd man out against the semi-cute Peter and Nick is laughable.

It’s like someone wanted the average joe to finally beat out the hunk.

Realistically,  Peter would have at least slept with James instead of hemming and hawing before declining an invitation up to James’s apartment after a date.

The family, led by Peter’s mother Carole (Najimy) is beyond irritating. Wanting desperately for her son to find love, she is what every gay man doesn’t want his mother to be. Landing Jennifer Coolidge, a gay icon, is a major win wasted by casting her in the cliche-riddled role of Aunt Sandy, a man-hungry diva.

If that isn’t bad enough, Peter’s two sister’s scheming to separate Peter and James’s burgeoning romance and unite Peter and Nick is silly and not worthy of a daytime soap opera.

At the end of the day Single All the Way (2021) is barely even a cute film. It’s as safe as can be with every cliche (straight and gay) imaginable as if someone was so thrilled to be making an LGBTQ+ film that they didn’t dare take one single risk.

Bros-2022

Bros-2022

Director-Nicholas Stoller

Starring Billy Eichner, Luke Macfarlane 

Scott’s Review #1,304

Reviewed October 5, 2022

Grade: A

Even if Bros (2022) was a bad film it would still hold the monumental distinction of being the first LGBTQ+-themed romantic comedy released and supported by a major distributor.

In the year 2022, years after the legalization of same-sex marriage in the United States and various other firsts that would take way too long to list, surprisingly, Bros is the first of its kind.

Fortunately, Bros is not a poor film but an exceptional one with brazen confidence and a lot to say.

Led by crisp and intelligent dialogue, lovable lead actors, a cast solely made up of the LGBTQ+ community, strong characters, and hilarious moments, it has something for everyone, gay, straight, or otherwise.

Before readers pigeonhole the film as one only to be seen by the  LGBTQ+ community, I will cry bullshit.

Straight audiences will fall in love with the characters and learn valuable lessons about stereotypes and deep seeded emotions of gay men who are not always comfortable in their skin.

Unfortunately, Bros was not the box-office smash hit the studio hoped it would be. Some straight viewers felt the film was not for them and that’s a shame.

There’s more work to do to eliminate conscious and unconscious bias and education others to embrace differences.

Billy Eichner, who co-wrote the Bros screenplay along with director, Nicholas Stoller, stars in the film, alongside Luke Macfarlane.

Eichner plays a sardonic, gay Jewish male named Bobby Leiber who resides in New York City.  We meet Bobby while he is doing another episode of his New York podcast and radio show The Eleventh Brick at Stonewall, talking to callers about his written works on gay history and gay icons.

He claims to be fine with being single and not having found love, instead hooking up with random men over a dating application called Grindr, though he is successful in his career and has good friends.

He awkwardly meets Aaron Shepard (Macfarlane), a hunky masculine guy deemed ‘hot but boring’ by those in Bobby’s circle, in a gay club.

The two men slowly develop a romantic relationship despite commitment problems and hectic schedules that seem designed to put the kibosh on love.

Despite all the other aforementioned wins for this LGBTQ+ film is that the screenwriting feels fresh and intelligent. Above all else, it wisely paints the struggles that most gay men seeking a relationship of substance face.

As in other romantic comedies, some setups and situations cause conflict that risks Bobby and Aaron not getting together. Bobby feels Aaron is out of his league preferring other muscular men to his overbearing and critical approach.

One can understand Bobby’s angst but in one of the film’s most poignant and beautiful scenes, Aaron tearfully reveals that Bobby constantly challenges him and it feels good.

He needs to be with Bobby because it is right. Bobby serves as a mentor to Aaron as he wrestles with being true to himself. Stuck in a depressing yet financially secure job, Aaron instead longs to be a chocolate maker.

Beauty is only skin deep. Regardless of occasional insecurities, the two men are strongly connected and that beats everything else.

On a personal level, both characters resonated with me making me feel their angst. One would assume that Aaron the hunk would be more confident but is that the case? Both men teach and learn from each other which makes their relationship powerful.

Other than the romantic moments, Bros has its share of raunchy comical scenes justifying its ‘R’ rating. In typical Judd Apatow (the film’s producer) form, the sex scenes are revealing.

There are enough orgies, toe-sucking, and fist-sucking, to make the prudish blush. The planned ‘rimming’ scene didn’t make the final cut. Does one wonder what that would have been like?

The film follows a distinct comedy formula and includes a helping of standard annoying, clueless, or over-the-top colorful characters that appear to justify its mainstream comedy placement.

The genius is that Bros works.

I implore straight audiences to give the film a chance if for no other reason than to show that gay people are as different from each other as apples and oranges. As Bobby makes clear some are nice and some are assholes.

Bros (2022) treads conventional but with a twist, and shows that gay characters are as genuinely funny as straight characters. It provides laugh-out-loud moments and teary sentimental ones.

I can’t wait for the next project from Billy Eichner.

The Pajama Game-1957

The Pajama Game-1957

Director George Abbott, Stanley Donen

Starring Doris Day, John Raitt

Scott’s Review #1,292

Reviewed August 19, 2022

Grade: B+

Doris Day, the queen of the romantic comedy film during the 1950s and 1960s was riding high in 1957 when The Pajama Game was adapted into film production. It had taken Broadway by storm in 1954 and achieved immeasurable success.

The actress/singer did not star in it, Janis Paige did. The film version required a Hollywood star in one of the lead roles and since Frank Sinatra turned down the male lead role, Paige was given the boot in favor of Day.

This hurts a bit but how the Hollywood world of box office receipts works.

Fortunately, Day can sing as evidenced by her startling good rendition of “Que Sera, Sera” from Hitchcock’s The Man Who Knew Too Much which won her an Oscar just a year earlier.

Set in the midwest, USA, the boss of an Iowa pajama factory hires superintendent Sid Sorokin (John Raitt) to help oppose the workers’ demand for a seven-and-a-half-cent raise.

Sid’s presence stirs the jealousy of foreman Vernon Hines, who is dating bookkeeper Gladys Hotchkiss (Carol Haney) and attracts worker “Babe” Williams (Day), a strong advocate for the pay increase.

Despite liking Babe, Sid resists the workers’ sabotage attempt and must decide whether to fire activist Babe. Predictably, the two fall madly in love amid catchy song and dance numbers.

I’m a huge fan of the musical genre, especially during the 1950s and 1960s heyday. The Pajama Game falls somewhere in the middle for me, inferior to the brilliant West Side Story (1961) and Gypsy (1962) but holding its own with other fun musicals like Guys and Dolls (1955).

Fun is a perfect adjective to describe The Pajama Game with its bright, fluffy, colorful pajama element, midwestern polite charm, and the romantic comedy bits between Babe and Sid.

This shouldn’t mean that The Pajama Game is juvenile or fluff because it’s solidly crafted and professionally made. Every musical number sounds good and is choreographed well.

Unsurprising is to learn that Bob Fosse is at the helm as a choreographer, returning to the job he did on the stage production. The principal cast of the Broadway musical reprises their roles for the movie, except Paige, and Stanley Prager, whose role is played by Jack Straw.

As a result, it’s very similar to watching a stage production. Cinema performing is different from stage performing so there is a good number of giant voices and theatrical-style acting which I didn’t mind at all.

This is never showcased better than when they all go on the factory picnic.

It’s careful to remember that the singing and dancing shouldn’t let the viewer forget that a sneaky liberal slant emerges in the story and a women’s liberation/progressive woman slant is exposed if the viewer looks carefully enough.

This is a wonderful way to add a tidbit of worth to an otherwise story about romance.

Babe is a strong female character but it’s not bashed over our heads, but simmering below the surface. Unfortunately, this may be missed by those focused only on the most obvious elements.

As entertaining as the film is something is missing that ranks it below other productions like West Side Story, Singin’ in the Rain, or The Music Man. It might be a lack of serious drama replaced by a corny element or the need for one big memorable music number.

The Pajama Game (1957) may not be the greatest musical of all time but has enough songs and dances to satisfy a musical fan. Day envelopes the role just fine but I’ll always wonder how Janis Paige would have done in the film role.

A Countess From Hong Kong-1967

A Countess From Hong Kong-1967

Director Charlie Chaplin

Starring Marlon Brando, Sophia Loren, Tippi Hedren

Scott’s Review #1,287

Reviewed August 8, 2022

Grade: B-

I hesitated even listing Tippi Hedren among the main cast above since she only appears in A Countess From Hong Kong’s (1967) final ten minutes. I then realized that her appearance also helped make the film better than it would have been without her so I decided to give her some deserved props.

A Countess From Hong Kong needs all the help it can get to lift it above mediocrity which it only does by a hair. This is surprising, given the directorial talents of Charlie Chaplin and the marquee name recognition of heavyweights like Marlon Brando and Sophia Loren.

Somehow the stars agreed to appear in the film. Maybe they hadn’t read the script before signing on the dotted line.

Perhaps the incessant door opening and shutting sequences that go on endlessly are symbolic of the stars attempting to flee from this film.

It’s not all drivel and doom as the set decoration is flawless in beauty and style and, of course, Miss Hedren’s appearance in the final act is splendid stuff.

The trivial storyline features a Russian countess named Natascha (Loren) who stows away in the stateroom of a married United States diplomat Ogden, (Brando) bound for New York. They must scheme to ensure she arrives safely and undetected in Hawaii by marrying her off to another man.

Predictably, Natascha and Ogden fall madly in love.

Let’s feature a couple of positives before delving into the shit.

Whoever dressed and decorated the sets for A Countess From Hong Kong practically deserves an Oscar nomination for their work. Brimming with relevant mid-1960s style and sophistication, the sets are right out of television’s Mad Men series.

The colorful yellows and navy blues pair perfectly with black and grey furniture and whatever costume Loren is wearing, especially when she is clad in an ill-fitting green getup during one hi-jink scene.

Especially noteworthy is any scene that takes place away from one of the ship’s cabins, completely overused to enhance the farcical elements.

The open-set ball sequence is like a breath of fresh air and it immediately flourishes with wide-open brightness. Easy to do (and recommended) is to forget the plot altogether and escape with pleasure into each artistic design of the dance number.

When Hedren appears dressed to the nines in glittery and royal outfits it showcases both her star power and the talent of the costume team. She is given little to do as Martha, Ogden’s suspicious wife, except to be jealous, but she knocks it out of the park with her bit of screen time.

Loren and Brando surprisingly have little chemistry even when Natascha and Ogden bark and banter with each other endlessly. Their characters are hardly developed and hers turns into a bitch before too long while he does enough fuming and pouting to last a lifetime.

Based on the title you’d expect Natascha to be Asian but instead, the character is Russian and being played by an Italian actress.

I understand the need for big Hollywood stars to be incorporated into a film to achieve solid box-office returns but Chaplin seems to be without a clue how to make the pair connect.

A feeble attempt to add sophistication by giving English actress Margaret Rutherford one scene as a dotty bed-ridden old woman does nothing other than waste the legendary actress’s time.

Though, I shudder at the thought of how poor the film would have been without these talented actors.

A Countess From Hong Kong (1967) is a botched effort at creating what undoubtedly was supposed to be a fun romantic comedy romp. The film might have worked in the silent film era but forty years later feels tired.

Instead, we must traverse the tedious story to find underlying glimpses of brightness, just bubbling beneath the surface.

The Object of My Affection-1998

The Object of My Affection-1998

Director Nicholas Hytner

Starring Jennifer Aniston, Paul Rudd

Scott’s Review #1,249

Reviewed April 24, 2022

Grade: B

The Object of My Affection (1998) is a romantic comedy riddled with the standard cliches and obvious situation setups of similar types of film.

As a whole, it is plot-driven rather than character-driven.

The redeeming factor is that it adds a left-of-center approach and delves into LGBTQ territory, albeit in a soft touch, which more mainstream American films were only starting to do in the late 1990s.

The best part of the film is the casting of Jennifer Aniston and Paul Rudd who have tremendous chemistry as a potential couple who has no chance of riding off into the sunset together. At least in any romantic sort of way.

He is gay and she is straight and nothing can change that.

Though fluffy, The Object of My Affection deserves some level of praise. Several gay men can easily relate to a situation where they find a female friend enamored with him and experience a return of affection differently.

It’s common to fantasize about what might have been if feelings were different and as the film explores, even try to go straight.

The film itself has a definite Will & Grace vibe, a popular television program emerging at this time, and even has the same location. The main characters become the very best of friends, watching movies together and sharing intimate moments just like a romantic couple would do.

The late 1990s was a time when gay characters took center stage so The Object of My Affection gets a thumbs up for being part of the herd.

Nina Borowski (Jennifer Aniston) lives in Brooklyn, New York, and works as a social worker. She invites her new gay friend, George (Paul Rudd), to move into her apartment after he breaks up with his longtime lover, Robert (Tim Daly).

Meanwhile, Nina gets pregnant and decides to keep the baby, but ends her relationship with the child’s father, her controlling boyfriend Vince (John Pankow).

As Nina and George live and experience her pregnancy together, they grow close and Nina realizes she’s beginning to fall in love with her friend.

Aniston and Rudd work well together as a couple, friends or otherwise, and the chemistry tones are terrific. Even during the sappiest of scenes, and there are many of them, I always smiled a bit at their bond.

When Nina and George have the inevitable dramatic scene and express their feelings it doesn’t feel as forced as one might expect. Their bond is solidified and the film unsurprisingly has the pair remain in each other’s lives, presumably forever.

In satisfying form, Nina and George do ride off into the sunset along with little Molly but in solid relationships with other mates. Each character finds their destiny and soulmate while keeping in each other’s life.

While nice, there are many hurdles the filmmakers could have gone further with but don’t. The message is clear- regardless of sexuality, race, religion, or politics, a friend is a friend and a bond is meant to be forever.

It’s a warm message which is the basis for what the intent was and the film delivers a heartfelt story that eases the conflict of real life and perhaps that is needed sometimes.

As much as The Object of My Affection (1998) has its heart in the right place with a progressive and inclusive slant, the film is bogged down by standard cliches and a fairy tale ending.

It’s a nice, fulfilling fantasy film but skates over hard-hitting realistic issues in favor of kid gloves-type situations making it feel dated nearly twenty-five years later.

Other films in the years ahead would supersede the premise and take it to different and more interesting levels delving outside the box further and further.

But, a nice attempt.

I Love You Phillip Morris-2009

I Love You Phillip Morris-2009

Director John Requa, Glenn Ficarra

Starring Jim Carey, Ewan McGregor

Scott’s Review #1,235

Reviewed March 5, 2022

Grade: A-

Easily the most daring and arguably the best film role of Jim Carey’s career, I Love You Phillip Morris (2009) is a delightful romantic comedy featuring same-sex characters in the central roles.

At the risk of being too fluffy, there is a sardonic and wry wittiness that I fell in love with.

Those criticizing the film as ‘gay porn’ are silly since there is hardly a sex scene to be critical of or anything more than would appear in a traditional male/female romantic comedy.

Prudes wouldn’t see a film as I Love You Phillip Morris anyway.

It is based on the 1980s and 1990s real-life story of Texas con artist, impostor, and multiple prison fugitive Steven Jay Russell who was clever beyond belief and successful at outwitting his opponents.

I Love You, Phillip Morris, is the directorial debut by John Requa and Glenn Ficarra who received a nomination from the Writers Guild of America Award for Best Adapted Screenplay.

Steven Russell  (Carrey) becomes a cop, gets married, and starts a family, but after a terrible car accident, he vows to be true to himself. Thus far in his life, he has played by the rules and done what is expected of him and because of the crash, he pivots to an emotional bloodletting.

The key irony is that Steven is telling the audience his story from his deathbed so most of the activity is in the past. This is the hook because it made me wonder how and why he died. But is there a twist?

He comes out of the closet, moves to Florida, and finances a luxurious lifestyle with bad checks and credit cards. Arrested and now in prison, Steven meets Phillip (Ewan McGregor), a mild-mannered inmate who becomes the love of his life.

Determined to build a beautiful life with his partner, Steven embarks on another crime spree.

The film caters to the LGBTQ+ audience but has a crossover appeal so that all audiences can enjoy it. This is in large part thanks to the screenwriters and whoever had Carey and McGregor in mind for the film.

Too often films centering around gay characters are deemed second fiddle and not profitable but with bigger stars, the audiences will come.

I Love You Phillip Morris is an independent film that builds momentum when the message is that big stars are comfortable in gay roles, something Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal taught us a few years earlier in Brokeback Mountain (2005).

Jim Carey, fabulous in The Mask from 1994, and having his share of hits and misses over the years, is perfect in the role of Steven. It’s the most interesting role he has portrayed since he gets to provide his usual physical humor in a role that matters.

LGBTQ+ audiences see a character who makes them laugh without the typical gay stereotypes.

Straight audiences will see a character whose sexual identity doesn’t matter to them.

Props go to McGregor as well who makes a perfect counterpart for Carey as the calm, cool, and collected ‘straight man’. The film could not have worked without him.

He meshes so well with Carey that the audience instantly roots for Steven and Phillip to ride off into the sunset despite being criminals.

The stereotypes are limited but the subject matter of AIDS, especially given the time in which the film is set, is given notice. This is a win and Requa and Ficarra are very careful not to teeter too close to the edge of doom and gloom while respecting the disease.

At its core, I Love You Phillip Morris (2009) is a romantic comedy, and the trials and tribulations of Steven and Phillip are told. I immediately fell in love with them and viewers will too.

It’s a film that feels fresh and alive with the exploration of character richness that is not easy to come by.

The 40-Year-Old Virgin-2005

The 40-Year-Old Virgin-2005

Director Judd Apatow

Starring Steve Carell, Catherine Keener, Paul Rudd

Scott’s Review #1,214

Reviewed December 31, 2021

Grade: B-

I am not a fan of director/producer Judd Apatow. His brand of silly comedy that includes objectification of women, homophobic language, and plain old unfunny attempts at slapstick comedy doesn’t go very far or sit particularly well with me.

His directorial debut is The 40-Year-Old Virgin (2005) which contains a fresh feeling and would ultimately lead to less worthy efforts like Knocked Up (2007) and This is 40 (2012).

Admittedly, the title alone had me and many others brimming with curiosity.

The freshness is mostly because of leading actor Steve Carell in a role that would propel him to film stardom and much better roles in the future.

So, I guess The 40-Year-Old Virgin deserves credit for that.

Typically, in Apatow’s films, the female characters are written as uptight, shrewish, and bitchy whereas the male characters are goofy and fun-loving. The audience is ‘supposed’ to root for the men and dislike the women.

The 40-Year-Old Virgin is no exception.

Still, the film does have a sweet-natured and innocent feeling amid the stereotypes, potty jokes, and obscenity that lie within. We root for the underdog to succeed in life and champion his plight despite it being a carnal and sexual one.

Andy Stitzer (Carell) is a tender yet socially inept man who works a lowly job at a big-box store. Single and living alone, 40-year-old Andy whiles away the days playing video games and admiring his action-figure collection. He is your classic, lovable nerd.

He harbors an embarrassing secret.

Despite his age, Andy has never engaged in sex, so his friends, including his closest friend David (Paul Rudd), encourage Andy to lose his virginity.

While attempting to get over his awkwardness around female customers, Andy meets a local shop owner Trish (Catherine Keener), and they begin an early romance.

With any Apatow film, the rest is highly predictable and the blueprint is formulaic and easy to figure out.

Andy will face humiliation due to his predicament and because of the bumbling yet good intentions of David and his other friend Cal, played by Seth Rogen.

He will inevitably have awkward encounters with a few other female characters, in this case, the aggressive Beth, played by Elizabeth Banks, before finding love with the ‘good girl’ Trish.

They will ride off into the sunset to live happily ever after. Spoiler alert- they have sex!

The best, and arguably only good part of The 40-Year-Old Virgin is Carell’s Andy. The character brings a warmth and a vulnerability that causes the audience to sympathize with his plight. While the majority of the viewers will not relate to being a virgin at his age they can at least relate to having an embarrassing issue to deal with.

I am glad that this film led to meatier roles for Carell. Foxcatcher (2014) and his storied role as Michael Scott in television’s The Office (2005-2013) immediately spring to mind.

Keener, mostly known for her dramatic rather than comedic roles is decent as the main love interest, Trish.

She, like Andy, is a rootable character though we don’t know too much about her. She is fond of Andy so, therefore, we like her and hope she takes Andy’s cherry.

The rest of The 40-Year-Old Virgin is riddled with standard comic setups and situations. When Andy slips and reveals his virginity by the next day his entire store knows his secret. From there, the insulting additions of a transvestite prostitute and a weird speed dating situation arise.

We know all along that Trish is the girl he will be with.

Apatow unwisely gives an interminable two-hour and thirteen-minute running time to his film which feels too long for a situation comedy.

One hour and thirty minutes would have been ideal and more desirable.

The 40-Year-Old Virgin (2005) is not the worst offender of the Apatow collection but it lacks any surprises or attempts at diversity.

It’s a perfect example of a tried and true adult sex romp with, thankfully, a likable central character.

Christmas in Connecticut-1945

Christmas in Connecticut-1945

Director Peter Godfrey

Starring Barbara Stanwyck, Dennis Morgan

Scott’s Review #1,211

Reviewed December 24, 2021

Grade: B+

Christmas in Connecticut (1945) is a flavorful holiday romantic yarn that will please those looking for a snowy, laugh-out-loud experience with zany moments and silly situations but that works nonetheless.

Any foodie craving a film that dazzles with showcasing wonderful meals will enjoy this treat.

The film also oozes New York’s sophistication and New England’s atmosphere making it a cinematic balance between city and country.

Despite the colorful cover art Christmas in Connecticut is shot in black and white which is better.

The key selling point is the instant chemistry between the leads, Barbara Stanwyck and Dennis Morgan who carry the film.

Stanwyck had just made the vastly different Double Indemnity (1944) and Morgan was a singer which allowed him the ability to perform a memorable song.

Together, they shine.

Actors like Sydney Greenstreet, S.Z. Sakall and Una O’Connor provide perfect comic timing in their roles allowing the leads to take the stage in the romance department.

Not to be missed is the timely release of the film in 1945, the year that World War II ended, and a necessary time for a cheery film like Christmas in Connecticut. The main character is an Army veteran who begins the film injured in a vet hospital but the film opts not to make it a dreary, real-life experience.

The action starts in the Atlantic Ocean where war hero Jefferson Jones (Dennis Morgan) is stranded on a raft with his mate. He imagines the raft a clean dining room table brimming with delicious food and his mate his waiter.

Awakened in a hospital, he tricks his nurse, Mary Lee (Joyce Compton) into becoming his fiancée so he can be fed steak dinners.

While recovering he grows familiar with the “Diary of a Housewife” column written by Elizabeth Lane (Barbara Stanwyck), the Martha Stewart of the 1940s. She provides cooking advice for her readers.

Mary arranges with Elizabeth’s publisher, Alexander Yardley (Greenstreet), for Jeff to spend the holiday at Elizabeth’s lavish Connecticut farm with her husband and child. But the column is a sham, so Elizabeth arranges to marry her friend, John Sloan (Reginald Gardiner) to make it appear she is the domestic she claims to be in her columns.

How she can write popular columns that dole out cooking and housekeeping advice without knowing anything about either subject is ludicrous but part of the fun.

When she meets Jeff, they fall madly in love at first sight.

The film is one madhouse situation after another and there is never a doubt that Elizabeth and Jeff will live happily ever after but how they will reach that point is the main appeal. From the first scene when they meet at the Connecticut farm there is instant chemistry between Stanwyck and Morgan that lasts the entire film.

Their gazes and glances made me root for them.

The fun is the situations the pair is put through, mostly Elizabeth. As she pretends she has a baby she borrows a neighbor’s baby and hastily names him Robert unaware that the baby is a girl. When Jeff who is more domestic than Elizabeth changes the baby’s diaper he is in for a shock.

That Elizabeth knows nothing about cooking or a baby is the hilarity of Christmas in Connecticut. She awkwardly tries to flip a flapjack or handle a cow or other situation comedy moments that make the film as good as it is.

Stanwyck is fantastic as a woman on the verge of being found out.

Handsome Dennis Morgan portrays a good American man who will make an even better husband which is a large part of his appeal. We long for Elizabeth and Jeff to be together.

A bevy of food scenes and references appear. Besides the flapjacks and steak sequences, steaming plates of good food and drink appear in seemingly almost every scene.

Elizabeth’s uncle/chef and housekeeper played by Sakall and O’Connor respectively light up the screen in comical scenes. I was hoping the pair would find their romance together but this never came to fruition.

An endearing seasonal nugget, Christmas in Connecticut (1945) will please fans of good-natured romance tinged with physical comedy. It has a heart and a pleasant veneer showcasing hapless misunderstandings that lead to the inevitable and satisfying conclusion.

What’s Up, Doc? -1972

What’s Up, Doc? -1972

Director Peter Bogdanovich

Starring Barbra Streisand, Ryan O’Neal 

Scott’s Review #1,162

Reviewed July 20, 2021

Grade: B+

Careful trepidation must be advised for filmmakers chartering into humorous or slapstick comedy waters especially if known more for dramatic films.

Since we’re talking 1970s cinema here, there is only one Mel Brooks, and plenty of films with physical humor and gags fail miserably.

What’s Up, Doc? (1972) is not one of them and is a refreshing success.

Brooks’s influence can easily be seen throughout the film and this is no surprise. Before doing any post-film research I immediately was reminded of the popular television sitcom Get Smart which ran from 1965-1970.

Buck Henry, a frequent Brooks collaborator, co-created Get Smart and wrote the screenplay for What’s Up Doc?

The antics and comedic moments scream Brooks. If one is unfamiliar it is like watching a Mel Brooks film.

Director, Peter Bogdanovich, most notably known for the 1971 masterpiece, The Last Picture Show, changes course and instead goes for comedy with lots of screwball situations and physical comedy activities that are completely different from his previous works.

Speaking of Brooks, Madeline Khan, a mainstay of his films, makes an appearance as a particularly neurotic character named Eunice Burns. It is her first film role.

I must say I was thoroughly impressed by What’s Up, Doc? which oddly pairs two Hollywood superstars of the time, Barbra Streisand and Ryan O’Neal. One might be surprised to think of the duo as romantic partners, and the chemistry comes and goes throughout the film but the antics and quick dialogue are joyous and timed perfectly between the actors.

What’s Up, Doc? intends to pay homage to comedy films of the 1930s and 1940s, especially popular Warner Bros. Bugs Bunny cartoons, hence the title, but the reference doesn’t appear until the final scene.

This caused me to ponder why the specific title was used.

The premise goes something like this. Doctor Howard Bannister (O’Neal) arrives in San Francisco to compete for a research grant in music. He is accompanied by his overbearing wife, Eunice (Khan).

Already nervous and on edge because of Eunice, he meets a strange yet charming woman named Judy Maxwell played by Streisand at the drugstore. They are drawn to each other yet are not sure why. She both annoys and fascinates him.

In a subplot, a woman has her jewels stolen and a government whistleblower arrives with his stolen top-secret papers. Ironically, all the players have an identical red plaid bag and stay in neighboring hotel rooms, adding to the confusion and the hilarity.

My favorite moments are the screwball scenes. Especially memorable are the hilarious sequences that take place in and around the hotel guest rooms as a constant in and out of parallel rooms transpires. Each character has a particular motivation as he or she sneaks around the hallways and rooms.

It is delightful fun.

When I realized that Streisand and O’Neal were the romantic leads I was skeptical at first but their chemistry is not bad. They are not the sort of couple that he and Ali MacGraw were in Love Story (1970) and certainly have no heavy drama to play but they play comedy off of each other well.

The film makes a joke about the film Love Story.

Unfamiliar to me, I am glad I took the chance and watched What’s Up Doc? (1972). The film provides laughs, entertainment, and good chemistry among the cast who know how to deliver rapturous humor with perfect timing.

Rated G, the film can be enjoyed by the entire family as there is not a double entendre or otherwise offensive moment to be found. Just good, old-fashioned humor. I would argue that the film influenced the 1970s as much as paid homage to comedy films made decades earlier.

I would see it again.

Salmon Fishing in the Yemen-2011

Salmon Fishing in the Yemen-2011

Director Lasse Hallstrom

Starring Ewing McGregor, Emily Blunt

Scott’s Review #1,152

Reviewed June 15, 2021

Grade: B-

Despite exceptional chemistry between leads Ewing McGregor and Emily Blunt, who were also bankable stars in 2011, the romantic comedy Salmon Fishing in The Yemen (2011) is predictable, dull, and lacks a good identity.

It is the feel-good film of the year and that is not meant as a compliment.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s above par as compared to the usual drivel emerging from one of my least favorite genres, the rom-com, but it should offer more than the by-the-numbers plot it churns out.

Someone either felt lazy or was instructed to create a banal film.

With good actors and fabulous locales, I expected more edge from Swedish director, Lass Hallstrom. But, alas, we get something merely adequate.

Doctor Alfred Jones (McGregor) is a fisheries scientist who one day receives an unusual request from a strong businesswoman named Harriet Chetwode-Talbot (Blunt). She wants his help in fulfilling a request from a wealthy sheik played by Amr Waked who wants to bring sport fishing to Yemen.

Jones declines at first, but when the British prime minister’s spokeswoman (Kristin Scott Thomas) latches on to the project as a way to improve Middle East relations, he joins in.

Romance blooms as Jones and Harriet work to make the sheik’s dream come true.

If this brief synopsis sounds like it’s taken from a novel that’s because it is and it is as straightforward as you can imagine. The film is based on a 2007 novel which must have been better than the film.

Let’s be fair and clear. McGregor and Blunt are as good as they can be with the material they are given and they succeed in bringing some life to the big screen. The trouble is there isn’t very far to go with their characters. Harriet is a businesswoman with a task at hand. Alfred is a handsome doctor with something she needs. Did I mention he’s a doctor?

Harriet’s romantic interest is hardly a surprise and Hallstrom puts nary any real obstacles in their path towards getting together.

The fact that early in the film Harriet is dating British Special Forces Captain Robert Meyers played by Tom Mison and Alfred is married to a woman named Mary (Rachael Stirling) is laughable after Robert is quickly killed off and Mary is sent away to Geneva for a conference.

Predictably, Alfred and Mary realize their marriage is over.

But wait, there’s more! Robert resurfaces from the dead alive and well. Harriet struggles with her emotions and quickly realizes that her feelings for him have changed leaving her to be with Alfred.

The setup for Harriet and Alfred is as predictable as what peanut butter and jelly sandwiches will taste like.

Poor Kristin Scott Thomas, a fantastic actor is reduced to playing the cliched role of Public Relations Patricia Maxwell. She straightforwardly plays her as aggressive, impatient, and bitchy. The performance doesn’t work well.

Second, to the sweetness of McGregor and Blunt, the locales are thankfully plentiful. Visits to London, Scotland, and Morocco are blessed treats.

A silly subplot of the salmon being removed from British rivers and something about farming goes nowhere and is not worth the effort to go into. Suffice it to say it does little for the film or as a companion to the main plot. The only thing viewers should focus on is Harriet and Alfred’s romantic involvement.

I only recommend Salmon Fishing in The Yemen (2011) for those fans of either McGregor or Blunt or who yearn to escape to a fantasy world with a happily ever after ending.

If one enjoys fishing or fly-fishing (is there a difference?) that may be enough cause to give the film a twirl too.

Otherwise, the film offers nothing that hasn’t been seen countless times before. By the conclusion of the film, I felt weary and bored for so much unchartered potential left on the cutting room floor….or somewhere else.

Emma-2020

Emma-2020

Director-Autumn de Wilde

Starring-Anya Taylor-Joy, Johnny Flynn

Scott’s Review #1,128

Reviewed March 31, 2021

Grade: B

I haven’t read the classic Jane Austen novel written in 1815 nor have I seen the 1996 film version starring Gweneth Paltrow. Neither of these is a prerequisite to enjoying the 2020 version of Emma starring Anya Taylor-Joy in the lead role of Emma Woodhouse.

The film, while set in the early nineteenth century, feels incredibly contemporary and seemingly makes little attempt at a classic style save for the hair, makeup, and costumes. These items are splendid, and the high point, and make the film stylish and bright.

Beautiful, smart, and rich, Emma (Taylor-Joy) enjoys her matchmaking skills that sometimes lead to awkward or failed matches and romantic missteps. She claims to not be interested in her romance or potential suitors though that changes with time.

She struggles with the challenges of growing up, though she is pampered and has a habit of involving herself in other’s business. Emma is also mischievous and not always kind though deep down she is a good person and has regret when she hurts someone’s feelings with her antics.

In a good, coming of age way, she finally realizes that love for her and a proper match of her own has been there all along and staring her in the face.

The film begins with Emma’s governess, Miss Taylor (Gemma Whelan), marrying and becoming Mrs. Weston. She and Emma are best friends and Emma is saddened so she settles on Harriet Smith (Mia Goth), a younger girl whom Emma supposes is the unclaimed child of a gentleman; Harriet’s parents are unknown, but her education has been provided for. They become bonded and Emma’s influence is immeasured.

Taylor-Joy does a wonderful job in the title role and carefully makes Emma naughty and sometimes unlikable before carefully reeling her in with an act of kindness. She has no malice in mind but is often bored and looking for excitement. I found myself rooting for her to find romance with Mr. Knightley (Johnny Flynn), which she does but not without a hurdle or two on the way.

Other characters come and go with flirtations and romantic possibilities explored.

Speaking of Flynn, the actor is rumored to play rock icon David Bowie in a future theatrical feature. A real musician, Flynn should be the perfect casting for that important part. He is the only character to show some flesh, his bare bum, in Emma and one wonders if female director Autumn de Wilde did this purposefully. After all, traditionally in cinema, it’s been the female who is more commonly nude. Turnabout is fair play.

While Taylor-Joy is good she is nearly upstaged by the delightful Goth who is fabulous as the insecure and impressionable Harriet. With humor and innocence, she makes her character quite likable. I’d like to see more from this young actress. Bill Nighy is perfectly cast as the comical father of Emma while Miranda Hart as Miss Bates steamrolls over every scene she is in.

Some inconsistencies exist especially where Miss Bates is concerned. A quick mention that Miss Bates and her family had once been rich and are now struggling is not explored where it reportedly was in the novel.

Dividing the film into seasonal sections (Autumn, Winter, Spring, and Summer) is a good decision and makes it more like a novel. The winter snow and Christmas festivities along with a summer picnic do wonders to add fresh atmospheric tidbits. The many scenes of delicious spreads of food and drink laid out for hungry eyes to see offer a robust and colorful glimpse of the culture.

The vibrancy, the food, and the aforementioned clothing, all brimming with richness based on the seasons are the main draw. The castles and large houses featured surely small-town English style brim with vastness and atmosphere.

Emma (2020) is a fun film and the story is not the best part of it. Predictably, all characters wind up with romantically who they should wind up with and there is a happily ever after sensibility.

Adolescents can easily sit in comfort with their mother and father and enjoy the lightweight affair. Nobody will be offended and all will be satisfied. It’s a solid romantic period piece.

Oscar Nominations: Best Costume Design, Best Makeup & Hairstyling

Tadpole-2002

Tadpole-2002

Director Gary Winick

Starring Sigourney Weaver, Aaron Stanford, John Ritter

Scott’s Review #1,125

Reviewed March 23, 2021

Grade: B

Tadpole (2002) is an enjoyable coming-of-age effort that carefully, or too carefully, toes the line between being cute and exploring some morally questionable material.

The film gets away with the naughty subject matter because there exists a wholesomeness that lands somewhere between fresh and a commodity.

It’s a fun romp but nothing memorable either, borrowing from better films.

Aaron Stanford, the lead actor, makes the film better than it might have been and seamlessly matches wits and comic timing with heavyweight actors like Sigourney Weaver, John Ritter, and Bebe Neuwirth. He is charming just like his character and carries the film.

As Oscar Grubman (what a name!) he is compassionate and sophisticated, reciting Voltaire and speaking fluent French.

When he arrives home for Thanksgiving weekend it is revealed that he has a major crush on his stepmother, Eve (Weaver). She and Oscar’s father, Stanley (Ritter) share a ritzy Manhattan apartment and entertain a girl they think would be perfect for Oscar but he only has eyes for Eve and rebuffs the poor girl.

Despondent at not having a chance with his stepmom but desiring her, Oscar visits a local bar and runs into Eve’s best friend, Diane (Neuwirth). He gets drunk and she takes him home winding up in bed together! Oscar is filled with remorse.

Oscar’s and Diane’s tryst is the caveat for the rest of the antics of the film. Oscar is terrified that Diane will tell his father and Eve especially as she is on the guestlist for dinner the next night!  An amusing game of footsie under the table ensues between Oscar and Diane.

Diane is a Mrs. Robinson-type character to Oscar’s Benjamin if we want to draw comparisons to The Graduate (1967) and how could we not? Eve is like Elaine, Mrs. Robinson’s daughter.

Unsuspecting and slightly naive. It’s fun to reminisce about the classic film that director Gary Winick borrows from.

Speaking of Winick, he has a knack for creating coming-of-age stories featuring teenage characters with light angst and he commonly releases independent films. My hunch is that if Tadpole was a big-budget mainstream affair even more concessions might have been made for the brewing May/December romance.

The “dinner scene” is the best part of Tadpole and provides good physical comedy and a hilarious setup. It’s a stretch in plausibility and borrows from many slapstick comedies but somehow the scene works well and stands out.

The subject matter of a woman three times the age of Oscar is not as harsh as it sounds and is largely played for laughs and misunderstandings. This is where the film misses the mark and stays firmly in the safe lane.

Imagine the juicy possibilities that would occur if Eve reciprocated Oscar’s advances. Now that is an interesting concept!

I shudder to think that if Oscar were a fifteen-year-old girl and Eve a forty-something-year-old man this film would never have been made.

The double standard gnawed at me.

The ending is wholesome and predictable making the film satisfying for the character yet limiting for the viewer. Oscar more or less “snaps out of it” and realizes that girls his age are okay after all.

I half-wondered if the film would be revealed to have all been Oscar’s dream.

The cougar-esque subject matter provides light entertainment never daring to go as far as it could have, or should have. In the end, we understand a young, pubescent boy’s dreams and desires and may fondly recall when we were his age and all the troublesome sexual feelings that bubbled under the surface.

Tadpole (2002) is a watchable independent comedy providing enough to digest thanks to the worthy actors among its cast.

Hairspray-2007

Hairspray-2007

Director Adam Shankman

Starring Nikki Blonsky, John Travolta, Christopher Walken

Scott’s Review #1,095

Reviewed December 28, 2020

Grade: B+

Hairspray (2007) is a fun film, without being superfluous. The third incarnation of the musical treat doesn’t disappoint, offering a brighter production.

A safer affair than the 1988 escapade directed by naughty filmmaker John Waters, it’s nonetheless not a “watered” version either. It loses none of the charm that the original had and includes plenty of big-name stars.

In short, it’s a solid summer popcorn flick with sing-along tunes and a cool vibe.

The important message of racial relations is not lost nor dismissed.

The setting is early 1960s Baltimore, Maryland, a city rife with racial problems representing the entire United States during that decade.

Our star, Tracy Turnblad (Nikki Blonsky) is a chubby, bubbly, sixteen-year-old, who wants nothing more than to trudge through the school day and come home and indulge in her favorite television show, The Corny Collins Show, a popular local dance competition.

Tracy auditions for a spot on the show, and wins. She became an overnight celebrity, a trendsetter in dance, fun, and fashion. She and her fans hope that her new status as a teen sensation is enough to topple Corny’s reigning dance queen, Amber von Tussle (Brittany Snow), and bring racial integration to the show.

Amber’s racist mother, Velma (Michelle Pfeiffer) manages the television station and thwarts Tracy’s efforts, leading to tension and a dance competition between Tracy and Amber.

The casting is a big part of the success. Blonsky, making her film debut, carries the film flawlessly. Both energetic and empathetic, she is the perfect girl next door and relatable for any young girl who is not a stick figure.

More broadly, she represents anybody who feels like a misfit or is put upon for not being classified as perfect. Her joy and sincerity as she sings and dances to “Good Morning, Baltimore” and “I Can Hear the Bells” is infectious and makes her a perfect protagonist.

The supporting cast is delightful and laden with A-list Hollywood stars having a ball with their over-the-top roles.

My favorite is John Travolta as Tracy’s mother and compadre, Edna. Fans of Hairspray know that Edna is always cast with a male actor in drag and Travolta is fantastic. His mannish body and movements only make the character more fun and fabulous.

And with his beehive hairdo and pink ribbon he is so darn cute!

Tracy’s father, Wilbur, is played by Christopher Walken. His love for his wife and daughter is sweet. Pfeiffer fuels her one-note character with venom as the racist woman gets her just due.

Director, Adam Shankman, puts the focus on the musical numbers, and that’s just fine. For added pleasure, he includes both John Waters and Rikki Lake (the original Tracy) in cameo roles, which is a treat for anyone who has seen the original.

The best numbers occur when the entire company joins in, especially the wonderful finale, “You Can’t Stop the Beat”. Besides being musically contagious, the song sends an important message of progression and embracing change.

Despite the fluffy trimmings, the important message of racial inequality is not overlooked, nor does it feel dated in the year 2007.

Racism is still an issue. Justifiably so, the racist characters like Velma and Prudence Pingleton (Allison Janney) look ridiculous with outrageous fear for anyone different than themselves.

Tracy and her friends champion causes like racism, integration, and being true to oneself, which are themes at the heart of the film, along with the merry songs.

While I still prefer the 1988 version of Hairspray for more seediness and a colder vibe, Hairspray (2007) is a colorful rendition that exposes a new generation to the chirpy and danceable tunes while maintaining the important themes.

It’s a family-friendly affair and a very funny experience without sacrificing any credibility.

Sex Tape-2014

Sex Tape-2014

Director Jake Kasdan

Starring Cameron Diaz, Jason Segel

Scott’s Review #980

Reviewed January 15, 2020

Grade: C

Sex Tape (2014) is a cliched, by-the-numbers, standard romantic comedy that meets expectations, but does little to exceed them.

It is a raunchy affair, perhaps too raunchy for some, and riddled with juvenile moments.

The film contains good chemistry between the leads and is fun up to a point. The final sequence strays too far into dumb, situation comedy-style moments, with too many seen-before stereotypes, that take away most of the preceding fun.

With universally scathing reviews, I expected to hate the film salivating over the opportunity to craft a good, old-fashioned terrible review, but, Sex Tape is marginally fair to middling.

After reuniting again after starring in Bad Teacher (2011), Cameron Diaz and Jason Segel do what they can with the material given, offering strong convictions and fluid moments of enamored charm.

In a supporting role as the boss, Rob Lowe is fine in a stock role, and the child actors are abhorrent (what else is new in romantic comedy casts?)

The film treats the viewer to a brief backstory, narrated by Annie, about the fresh romance between twenty-somethings, Jay and Annie Hargrove (Segel and Diaz).

Much in love, they can barely keep their eyes off each other and have sex at the drop of a hat. Once they settle down and have kids, their romantic interludes must be balanced and scheduled amid bath time, feedings, and the necessity of sleep.

Annie writes a popular blog, expressing the challenges of being a mom, as she bucks for a well-paying job at a company run by Hank Rosenbaum (Lowe).

One day, while feeling naughty, Jay and Annie rapturously and spontaneously decide to record their session of hanky panky on video, to enjoy later.

Predictably, an error occurs, and their lovemaking session is inadvertently synchronized to video to several iPads the couple had given away over time, which is the entire cast.

They struggle to retrieve the iPads and erase their session while being blackmailed by an anonymous viewer.

The strength of Sex Tape is the pairing of Diaz and Segel because without them the film would be nonsense. Chemistry and antics are everything in physical comedy films, and these two have it down.

We accept that the married couple, despite it being ten long years, is still in love with each other, avoiding the doldrums. What they need is a spark and it is fun watching them come up with a sneaky idea.

Even when the film gets bad, the actors are a hoot.

The supporting cast is what one usually gets in a romantic comedy and the wonder is why these characters are always written as a “type” and not better fleshed out.

Examples are Jay and Annie’s best friends, Robby and Tess Thompson (Rob Corddry and Ellie Kemper), one-dimensional and offering merely extensions of the lead characters, with no character development of their own.

The same can be said for Annie’s mother (played by Nancy Lenehan).

The studio’s attempts to promote the latest technological tool, the iPad, to death is strongly evident. If one more iPad appeared on screen I would have screamed. And how is it possible to record yourself in numerous sexual positions with an iPad?

How did they move the iPad and get into those positions? Why did everyone and their brother have an iPad? A weak explanation alluded to Jay’s occupation being somehow responsible.

Sex Tape (2014) does not rewrite the comedy roadmap and will assuredly be forgotten over time- might this film’s bad reviews and the disastrous remake of Annie (2014) be why Diaz retired from acting altogether?

Regardless, for a pleasant Saturday night of silly laughs over a Cosmopolitan or two, this film is okay but for fans of Diaz, watch There’s Something About Mary (1998) instead.

With Six You Get Eggroll-1968

With Six You Get Eggroll-1968

Director Howard Morris

Starring Doris Day, Brian Keith

Scott’s Review #931

Reviewed August 15, 2019

Grade: B

A film that influenced the creation of the iconic television series, The Brady Bunch (1969-1974), or the reverse depending on the timeline or who you ask, With Six You Get Eggroll (1968) is a cute family romantic comedy, hardly exceptional fare, and becoming too silly during the final act.

Featuring the merging of two families into one big blended family, the heart of the film is the romance between two middle-aged singles looking for new love despite their baggage.

Abby McClure (Doris Day) is a widow raising three boys somewhere in northern California. She dutifully runs her deceased husband’s lumberyard while feeling unfulfilled in the romance department.

When her overzealous sister, Maxine (Pat Carroll) tricks her into inviting widower Jake Iverson (Brian Keith) to her dinner party, the pair do not connect but are drawn to one another as they become better acquainted.

Predictable obstacles come their way including misunderstandings and backlash from their kids.

With Six You Get Eggroll is Day’s last film and certainly not one of her best offerings but is nonetheless moderately enjoyable.

The filmmaker intends to showcase a romance between Abby and Jake so that the elements are set up in a way that makes the characters likable, leaving a very predictable experience.

When Jake arrives at the party early and sees Abby at her disheveled worst, or after Jake makes up an excuse to leave the evening early but runs into Abby later at the supermarket, it’s the sort of film that has a happy ending.

As such, the chemistry is palpable between Day and Keith which makes the film charming. If they had no chemistry the film would be a bust, but their slow build fondness for each other works well for this genre of film.

They share a spontaneous evening of champagne and small talk at Abby’s house and excitedly plan a date for the next day only for Jake to make an excuse leaving Abby perplexed.

When Abby sees him with a much younger woman, we feel her disappointment. After all, Abby is well past forty in a world where middle-aged women are not the pick of the litter anymore, as sister Maxine annoyingly reminds her.

When the young woman turns out to be Jake’s daughter, we smile with relief, along with Abby, because we like the characters and want them to be together.

The children: Flip, Jason, Mitch, and Stacey (a young Barbara Hershey) add little to the film and are merely supporting characters. They dutifully add obstacles to their parent’s happiness by squabbling with each other over bathroom space or resenting one parent for taking the other away from them.

Conversely, Maxine and Abby’s housekeeper, Molly (Alice Ghostley) add wonderful comic relief, keeping the film from turning too melodramatic and providing natural humor.

The Brady Bunch comparisons are quite obvious to any viewer who has seen the television series, and who hasn’t. The blended families and the G-rated dramatic crises are the most certain and the period and clothes are almost identical.

Molly the maid could be Alice the housekeeper, and the actor (Allan Melvin) who plays Sam “the Butcher” from the television series appears as a Police Sergeant.

I half-expected the musical scores to mirror each other.

The film does have some mild flaws other than the predictability factor. The introduction of a band of hippies (though cool to see M*A*S*H alums Jamie Farr and William Christopher in early acting roles) and a speeding chicken truck resulting in arrests is way too juvenile and plot-driven.

A much better title could have been thought up for the film; With Six You Get Eggroll doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue, nor does it have anything to do with the story.

Finally, Abby’s masculine profession is only shown in the opening scene and also has nothing to do with the story.

For a wholesome late 1960’s 1960s-themed evening, With Six You Get Eggroll (1968) is a moderate affair with cliches and a cheery tone, but also some genuine chemistry between its leads.

The sets and colors lend themselves well to the times and Day is always top-notch. Perhaps one could skip this film and watch a sampling of The Brady Bunch television reruns; the experience would almost be the same.

Do Not Disturb-1965

Do Not Disturb-1965

Director Ralph Levy, George Marshall

Starring Doris Day, Rod Taylor

Scott’s Review #917

Reviewed July 8, 2019

Grade: C+

Singer and actress Doris Day put her stamp on the romantic comedy genre during the 1960s becoming synonymous with wholesome film characters. She had spunk and charm and always wore sensible shoes.

Do Not Disturb (1965) is a lightweight, forgettable work with a silly premise, a juvenile script, and a meandering plot thrown in for good measure.

The film is saved somewhat by the interesting locales of London and Kent England, but those seeking better quality ought to seek out the gems The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) or Pillow Talk (1959).

Day and Rod Taylor star as Janet and Mike Harper, an American couple who relocate to England as part of a transfer for the company he works for. They immediately disagree over where to live; Mike prefers the excitement of London, but Janet favors the rustic quality of Kent.

After she gets them a house thirty miles outside London, the plan backfires when the couple grows further apart due to Mike’s need to commute to London every day. Lonesome and isolated, Janet worries incessantly that Mike is having an affair with his new secretary, Claire Hackett (Maureen McGivney).

Prompted by her busybody landlord, Vanessa Courtwright (Hermione Baddeley), Janet meets an Italian antique dealer, Paul Bellari (Sergio Fantoni), who she hires to redecorate her house. With Mike spending more time with Claire, Janet, and Paul in equally close quarters, the antics begin.

Janet and Mike may be innocent, but Paul and Claire could have designs on their potential mates especially as the foursome faces one compromising situation after another.

The heart of an authentic romantic comedy is good, old-fashioned chemistry between the leads, and Taylor and Day exhibit adequate sparkle but hardly sizzle.

Mediocrity in the setup and writing can be forgiven if other elements like crackling moments exist, but those are scarcities in Do Not Disturb.

Some Like it Hot (1959) embodies a great comedy with romantic wrappings featuring fantastic leads Jack Lemmon and Marilyn Monroe, but the former does not come close to finding its footing amid cliche after cliche.

The film is plot-driven and heavy on story-dictated situations rather than character development, and the ending is predictable. The jokes fall flat or feel distinctly canned and cheap and the laughs never catch on.

During a tepid sequence, Janet and Paul go to a remote town to check out antiques and she winds up drinking too much bubbly, becoming drunk and foolhardy.

What should have been comic relief does little to further the plot or flesh out the characters.

Director Ralph Levy makes little effort to steer the film anywhere other than a slick mainstream “affair” despite the release year being 1965 when more edgy works were replacing the polished and familiar.

Rather than dare to go to a less-than-cheery place and perhaps decide to have Janet or Mike cheat on their significant others, Levy chooses not to go there instead attempting to satisfy those seeking a happily-ever-after wrapping.

Not to be completely negative, Do Not Disturb features wonderful and stunning locale sequences of bustling metropolitan London, quaint English cottages, and wilderness, oozing with as much culture and sophistication as down-home comforts and rich flavor.

The combination of an American couple thrust into a different setting with a new set of rules and regulations to follow makes the film fun and offers a sprinkle of good scenery.

Do Not Disturb (1965) is a mid-1960s mainstream release buried among nests of other similar-themed but better-written films. Even appealing and bankable stars of the time like Taylor and Day could not succeed in spicing up tired gimmicks and plot devices.

The film will forever be relegated to the romantic comedy shelves teetering on the brink of obscurity.

Pillow Talk-1959

Pillow Talk-1959

Director Michael Gordon

Starring Rock Hudson, Doris Day

Scott’s Review #907

Reviewed June 6, 2019

Grade: B+

Pillow Talk (1959) is the ultimate in romantic comedies from the age of innocence in cinema.

In 1959 pictures were still largely wholesome and safe, providing happy stories and charming characters. The film is a lovely and enchanting experience with intelligent characters and wonderful chemistry among its leads.

Combined with a good romance and comic elements it makes for a fun watch that still feels fresh and bright decades later.

Doris Day and Rock Hudson smolder as singles living in Manhattan, New York City. Day plays Jan Morrow, a perky, independent interior decorator who dates frequently but has not yet found love. Hudson plays Brad Allen, a talented, creative Broadway composer, and playboy who lives in a nearby apartment building.

Jan is frustrated by a party line that allows her to hear Brad’s endless phone conversations with the women in his life. Her prim and proper, holier-than-thou attitude annoys him. They bicker on the phone but have not met.

Through their mutual, yet unknown to them, acquaintance Jonathan Forbes (Tony Randall), Brad realizes who Jan is, which leads to hilarity as he fakes a Texan accent and invents a new persona: Rex Stetson, a wealthy Texas rancher.

He succeeds in wooing Jan who falls madly in love with him while unaware of who he is. Events culminate in the inevitable big reveal when the couple vacations at Jonathan’s cabin in nearby Connecticut.

Rock Hudson oozes masculinity and charisma in this film with nearly every woman he meets falling madly in love with him. With Hudson’s sexual preferences hidden from the public but well-known within the film industry, one wonders if a few comical situations were added as an inside joke.

One can speculate if these additions were done with or without the star’s knowledge; rumors abound that Hudson reportedly carried on an affair with actor Nick Adams (Tony) during filming.

A recurring theme involves Brad mistakenly walking into an obstetrician’s office (twice!) and the doctor and nurse assuming he may be the first man to become pregnant as they attempt to locate Brad when he continues to disappear.

Later, Brad attempts to trick Jan into believing Rex might be a homosexual because of his love for effeminate things.

The supporting players bring wit to Pillow Talk and are a key piece to the enjoyment of the film. Randall as Jonathan is not quite the nice guy but not entirely the foil either. As he has designs on Jan he warns Brad to keep away.

His intention, which fails, is to woo her with money, but Jan seeks true love.

Thelma Ritter as Alma, Jan’s boozy housekeeper, is delicious, adding necessary comic timing and sardonic humor. When she ultimately finds love with the elevator operator we crackle with delight.

The lavish set design is flawless and brightens the film while adding luxurious style and sophistication that only New York City apartment living can bring. The combined sets of Brad’s and Jan’s apartments are gorgeous.

With bright colors and 1950s-style furniture, one can easily fantasize how beautiful it would be to reside in an apartment of this brilliance- I know this viewer did!

A Doris Day film would not be complete without several songs that the singer/actress performs. “Pillow Talk” during the opening credits, “Roly Poly” in the piano bar with Blackwell and Hudson, and “Possess Me” on the drive up to Jonathan’s cabin.

Pillow Talk (1959) is an example of a rich romantic comedy with great elements—a bit fantasy, a bit silly, but containing style, sophistication, and humor.

The film was an enormous success and was deemed “the feel-good film of the year” in many circles. Hudson’s career was re-launched following the film after a snag years earlier.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Actress-Doris Day, Best Supporting Actress-Thelma Ritter, Best Story, and Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen (won), Best Scoring of a Dramatic or Comedy Picture, Best Art Direction, Color

Singin’ in the Rain-1952

Singin’ in the Rain-1952

Director Stanley Donen, Gene Kelly

Starring Gene Kelly, Debbie Reynolds

Scott’s Review #874

Reviewed March 4, 2019

Grade: A-

In the over-saturated field of musicals released during the mid-twentieth century, Singin’ in the Rain (1952) has the most to do with the entertainment industry.

The battle between the transition of silent pictures to “talkies” is the basis of the story, giving the film an important, along with fun, subject matter.

Likable stars and sing-along tunes make the film memorable and decidedly All-American, though perhaps not the greatest in the crowded musical field.

During the late 1920s, Don Lockwood (Gene Kelly) was a famous and well-regarded silent film star. His co-star and studio-created romantic attachment is Lina Lamont (Jean Hagen), an annoying and shallow leading lady with a harsh singing voice.

As more successful “talkies” (films with sound) are produced Don finds himself smitten with musical chorus girl Kathy Selden (Debbie Reynolds). The plot to dub Lina’s voice with Kathy’s leads to comical chaos and an idea to create a new musical amid a blossoming romance between Don and Kathy.

The fun and frolicking Singin’ in the Rain is lightweight but never silly nor superfluous thanks to the overriding message of the change in Hollywood priorities.

Critically acclaimed from the get-go this is unsurprising since Hollywood loves stories about Hollywood especially since the film was made only a little more than two decades since sound-laden films overtook the world.

Furthermore, in 1952 television was making its debut to legions of fans and the accessibility presented a serious threat to the cinema making the subject matter even more relevant.

Kelly and Reynolds make a nice enough pair, but I never thought they completely knocked it out of the park from a chemistry perspective.

One slight knock is the lack of hurdles preventing the couple from an inevitable union. Lina is the clear foil and ultimately played for laughs so she is no serious threat.

The plot-driven conflict involving Kathy’s initial dislike of Don because she values stage over film is cute, but ultimately revealed to be a sham since she has been a fan of his all along.

The musical is a comedy, but better hurdles might have made for a more interesting story.

Nonetheless, Singin’ in the Rain is a pleasure and a largely non-threatening experience. The hi-jinks involved as the characters strive and struggle to put on their production are comical and Lina’s New York accent and shrill singing voice threaten to steal the show from the more grounded central characters.

The musical numbers are a dream especially favorites like “Make ‘Em Laugh”, “Good Morning”, and the epic title song.

Through no fault of the film’s title number “Singin’ in the Rain” will forever not be associated with this film for me, but rather with the dark and cerebral A Clockwork Orange (1971). As the villain beats and rapes his victim by cheerily singing this tune the song will forever hold a much darker association for me.

The dramatic final act is the highlight as a lavish premiere of The Dancing Cavalier is unveiled to a live theater audience hungry for something good.

When the crowd chomps at the bit for Lina to perform live the big reveal of Kathy being the truly talented singer is displayed a la the wizard in The Wizard of Oz style as Don and Kathy kiss and ride off into the sunset together in grand show biz fashion.

In the crowded genre of the 1950s and 1960s musical productions that ravaged American cinema at the time, I mostly chose to watch West Side Story (1961), Gypsy (1962), The Sound of Music (1965), and Oklahoma! (1955) for pleasure, but Singin’ in the Rain (1952), an earlier gem is worthy of value, especially for the memorable musical soundtrack it offers.

The story is light but also relevant and most importantly highly entertaining.

Oscar Nominations: Best Supporting Actress-Jean Hagen, Best Scoring of a Musical Picture