luciferjohnson
Iscritto in data feb 2000
Ti diamo il benvenuto nel nuovo profilo
I nostri aggiornamenti sono ancora in fase di sviluppo. Sebbene la versione precedente del profilo non sia più accessibile, stiamo lavorando attivamente ai miglioramenti e alcune delle funzionalità mancanti torneranno presto! Non perderti il loro ritorno. Nel frattempo, l’analisi delle valutazioni è ancora disponibile sulle nostre app iOS e Android, che si trovano nella pagina del profilo. Per visualizzare la tua distribuzione delle valutazioni per anno e genere, fai riferimento alla nostra nuova Guida di aiuto.
Distintivi8
Per sapere come ottenere i badge, vai a pagina di aiuto per i badge.
Recensioni26
Valutazione di luciferjohnson
A charming "anthology" motion picture, of the kind that was briefly popular in the 1940s. This one contains three stories, each of a supernatural bent. None really brilliant, but diverting.
The second piece was the best. This was based on a story by Oscar Wilde (not Noel Coward, as incorrectly stated in another review). Edward G. Robinson plays a lawyer haunted by a prediction that he will murder someone, and the always-watchable Thomas Mitchell is the palm-reader.
The first, with Robert Cummings and Betty Field in a story set in the Mardi Gras, is appealing in a naive way. The third segment, set in a circus, is the weakest. Charles Boyer an acrobat? No way.
This movie suffers somewhat from some of the most unconvincing studio-bound "locations" I have ever seen. I know, this was the 1940s and all that, made in the middle of the war, but puh-lease!
The second piece was the best. This was based on a story by Oscar Wilde (not Noel Coward, as incorrectly stated in another review). Edward G. Robinson plays a lawyer haunted by a prediction that he will murder someone, and the always-watchable Thomas Mitchell is the palm-reader.
The first, with Robert Cummings and Betty Field in a story set in the Mardi Gras, is appealing in a naive way. The third segment, set in a circus, is the weakest. Charles Boyer an acrobat? No way.
This movie suffers somewhat from some of the most unconvincing studio-bound "locations" I have ever seen. I know, this was the 1940s and all that, made in the middle of the war, but puh-lease!
A really glorious, spellbinding movie. Filmed in Bengal, India, on the Ganges, it captures the essence of India, the timeless quality of life on the Ganges, without being patronizing.
This is a coming of age movie about three teenage girls, two British and one Anglo-Indian, and how their lives are affected by the arrival of a one-legged American war veteran. It's very easy to fall into sentimentality in a movie like this, but Renoir avoids this obvious pitfall. Though I have to say, I found this film very moving.
It helps that this movie is filmed in Technicolor, and is one of the best uses of Technicolor of that era.
Some of the performers were amateurs, including the actor who played the veteran and some of the children, but overall the performances are outstanding. A fine, low-key performance by Esmond Knight. This was the only film for Patricia Walters, who played Harriet, and Thomas Breen, the war veteran who played Captain Jack, never made any other movies. Watch for Arthur Shields, the brilliant Irish actor, as father of Nan.
This is a coming of age movie about three teenage girls, two British and one Anglo-Indian, and how their lives are affected by the arrival of a one-legged American war veteran. It's very easy to fall into sentimentality in a movie like this, but Renoir avoids this obvious pitfall. Though I have to say, I found this film very moving.
It helps that this movie is filmed in Technicolor, and is one of the best uses of Technicolor of that era.
Some of the performers were amateurs, including the actor who played the veteran and some of the children, but overall the performances are outstanding. A fine, low-key performance by Esmond Knight. This was the only film for Patricia Walters, who played Harriet, and Thomas Breen, the war veteran who played Captain Jack, never made any other movies. Watch for Arthur Shields, the brilliant Irish actor, as father of Nan.
An unjustly neglected "kitchen sink" movie from the fifties, with fine performances by all and intriguing New York locations.
Bette Davis and Ernest Borgnine portray the very much working-class parents of a young woman who is about to get married, and just wants a quick ceremony with no reception. But the mother, guilty about "not giving her daughter anything" over the years, pushes for an expensive "catered affair" that her husband cannot afford, and would use money he planned to devote to buying a taxicab license.
Davis' brassy performance has received the most attention, but Borgnine's subtle, nuanced portrayal of the father is what really sustains this movie. Barry Fitzgerald provides comic relief as a "oirish" uncle. Altogether a charming and touching film that is very much a slice of life of NYC in the fifties. Like the other Chayefsky scripts of this era, it explores themes that would have been unpalatable or mawkish for any other writer.
Bette Davis and Ernest Borgnine portray the very much working-class parents of a young woman who is about to get married, and just wants a quick ceremony with no reception. But the mother, guilty about "not giving her daughter anything" over the years, pushes for an expensive "catered affair" that her husband cannot afford, and would use money he planned to devote to buying a taxicab license.
Davis' brassy performance has received the most attention, but Borgnine's subtle, nuanced portrayal of the father is what really sustains this movie. Barry Fitzgerald provides comic relief as a "oirish" uncle. Altogether a charming and touching film that is very much a slice of life of NYC in the fifties. Like the other Chayefsky scripts of this era, it explores themes that would have been unpalatable or mawkish for any other writer.