donniefriedman

This movie was made in 1934, a year before the Hayes Code was enacted, that required Hollywood movies to adhere to a moral standard regarding relations between men and women and other such matters. So the double entrendres and sexy banter of this movie is a nice taste of what went before the Code came into effect. I wonder even if this storyline would have been possible after the Code. Fred and Ginger in this early pairing are delightful. Falling in love through dance is a pattern that would be repeated in future cinematic collaborations. It reminds me of the saying: When you're so in love that you can't speak, you sing. And when you can't sing, you dance. That about sums it up.

I was scrolling around the tv dial and happened upon this movie. Because it featured Alan Arkin, I gave it a go. I love that guy. What an enjoyable two hours.

Aside from the clever plot line and the excellent acting, what struck me as being most effective was the set and the props. In a story featuring a recently blinded woman, every feature of her apartment took on a special significance. Audrey Hepburn embodied the heroine so completely in how she related to her environment, with all the touch and audio cues.

The movie had almost a single setting (easy to see how it was a stage play) and the setting just took on a life of its own, which became more and more intense as the movie moved forward.

These days we definitely miss the presence of telephone booths and wired phones as plot devices, so skillfully used in this production.

If you've never seen Wait Until Dark, do see it. And keep an eye on the frig.

Awkward script and embarrassing acting. Where is the story about what made Bernstein great? I should have read the reviews here before seeing the movie which would have forewarned me. Nothing notable that Bernstein did was really featured, his creative process, his tremendous influence as an educator, how he made classical music cool; even his charismatic conducting was only given one or two scenes. I really felt cheated. Why even bother to make a biopic about a notable conductor and composer and omit the whole point of the man's life?

The physical impersonation was pretty good, but the acting was shallow and wooden, I thought.