Sunday Movie Review: "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" (1939) // Remember 9-11

Hi everyone,

I watched "Mildred Pierce" on Friday, and I loved it. However, I thought I would do a patriotic film to review this Sunday since it is the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

I was too young on 9/11 to understand what was going on, none the less remember anything. I was lucky to not have personally lost someone close to me in those attacks, but nearly three thousand people died that day, which is awful beyond words. I have no recollection of the day; on Friday in our Social Studies class we discussed the event and I was surprised to see that some of my fellow classmates could produce sketchy memories of the day; some more vivid than the others. I have none.

In honor of those who lost their lives on that unfortunate day, I thought I would do patriotic/American film of sorts to review this Sunday. I Googled "most patriotic films" or something, and the classic film that seemed to consistently show up often on many lists was "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington."

Everyone knows that 1939 is often deemed the greatest year of film there was - with "Gone With the Wind" and "The Wizard of Oz" among others, one of them being "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." I personally love "Mr. Smith" and decided this would be good opportunity to review it.

The thing is, it's been a little while since I saw "Mr. Smith." The films I usually review for the Sunday Movie Reviews are movies I'd seen a few days ago and so they are still really fresh in my mind. Because of this my review for "Mr. Smith" is going to be short -- in addition to the fact that it's a really brilliant film and I don't have that much to complain about! So excuse the shortness of this Sunday Review.

***

When idealistic junior senator Jefferson Smith (James Stewart) arrives in Washington, D.C., he's full of plans and dazzled by his surroundings -- qualities he retains despite widespread corruption among his cynical colleagues. Jean Arthur puts in a sharp performance as Smith's streetwise secretary, who helps him navigate his way through Congress, in this Academy Award-winning classic from director Frank Capra. [from Netflix]

The cast has:

• Jimmy Stewart as Jefferson Smith (aka "Mr. Smith")
• Jean Arthur as Clarissa Saunders
• Claude Raines as Senator Paine

It is directed by Frank Capra.

This film has the three of my favorites: Jimmy, Jean, and Frank Capra as the director (how many times do you need to hear "Capraesque" to know how wonderful he was?). 

Though it is over seventy years since this film was made, it manages to remain refreshing and new everytime I watch it. It combines drama with the wittiness of a screwball comedy. Jimmy Stewart gives one of his best performances in my opinion as the determined yet frustrated Mr. Smith who represents the everyday good guy that members of Congress are not used to. Jean Arthur keeps the pace moving as smart talking Clarissa.

Jean is one of the reasons I love this movie. She represents a sophisticated woman who knows more about politics than Jimmy does, despite the fact she's a woman - totally splitting a stereotype in two right there. Take this scene, for example, where Clarissa explains to a naive Jeff how to get his bill passed:

Jean is perfection

Of course, this is not to undermine Jimmy's Jefferson. The role is perfectly built for Jimmy Stewart -- a true good guy, a patriot, who proves to the millions of people that doubt him that he can stand his own.

I'm not going to say much more. This review was extremely short, and for that I apologize. But the bottom line is that you should see this movie. You really should. Five stars.

***

Well, there it is, my pathetically short review for a fantastically wonderful movie. I really hope everyone has seen it. Jimmy and Jean are one of my favorite pairings and this is true Capra material; this is not one of those "classics" everyone always hypes about and it turns out to not be that so good. It truly is that good!

That's all for today. Tomorrow I will reveal the faces behind the current Here's Looking At You, Kid. If you haven't already guessed, you can click that link and leave me a comment. :)

Have a good Sunday, and a take a moment to pause and remember the people who lost their lives on this day ten years ago. 

Sunday Movie Review: "Now, Voyager" (1942)

This Sunday I'm going to be reviewing "Now, Voyager" -- the last movie of my summer vacation, but it did end on a high note! I have really been loving Bette Davis this summer (but you all knew that), and this film did not disappoint me... let's get on with the review!

***

Since I'm pretty bad/confusing at describing films, I've decided now that I will just pull the summaries from Netflix, with all due credit to them, of course. I think most of the time their synopses are pretty good and it will save me time ;)

Bridled by an autocratic mother, Charlotte Vale (Bette Davis) borders on a nervous breakdown. But when a psychiatrist (Claude Rains) persuades Charlotte to drastically change her life, she blossoms into a confident, self-possessed woman. Charlotte then takes a voyage, where she falls in love with the unhappily married Jerry (Paul Henreid). Though their romance is doomed, Charlotte finds solace in helping Jerry's emotionally unhinged daughter. [from Netflix]

The cast has:

• Bette Davis as Charlotte Vale
• Paul Henreid as Jerry Durrance
• Claude Raines as Dr. Jaquith
• And the character actress Mary Wickes as a nurse (she is familiar to me from "I Love Lucy")

It is directed by Irving Rapper.

I really liked this movie. I thought it was a good drama, and though some parts may be considered corny or too coincidental, I enjoyed it enough to like the page for it on Facebook (lol).

Charlotte Vale must be one of my most favorite characters ever! It is a journey for the viewers to watch as she transforms from the shaky, spinster "Aunt Charlotte" who hoards dirty novels, booze, and cigarettes 

to a beautiful (at least, in that Bette Davis way), confident, and sophisticated woman who is ready to travel the world and have her cigarettes lit by Paul Henried.

Not only did I love the character, I adored Bette playing her. I think she did a fantastic job and I think she's built for the role. Though a pretty new dress, a chic new hat, a haircut and some makeup help Charlotte Vale transform, it is her attitude that takes the biggest transformation - the new Charlotte is confident and ready to capture the world, but not forgetting her past.

This film was made 1942, the same year as "Casablanca", which also had Paul Henreid and Claude Raines. Since Paul Henried's character in this is married but despite that he begins having an affair with Bette (in some far off, romantic country), I cracked, "Now we know what Lazlo was doing when Rick and Ilsa were in Paris!"

I was a little worried before watching that it may become slow at parts, but I assure you it will not! This movie captured from me the start and did not relent until the end. Sometimes in movies, even good ones, you'll find those few moments that are slow and make your mind wander off, but I did not feel that once in "Now, Voyager". 

Paul Henreid's Jerry is a likable character even though his relationship with Charlotte is doomed from the start. Bette and Paul have good chemistry, as well.

Gladys Cooper is Charlotte's domineering mother who pushes her to the point of a nervous breakdown. This is a wonderful love to hate character - I mean, one look at that clenched jaw framed by snowy white hair scolding Bette Davis for getting her life back will have you wanting to throw a punch at the screen (which is excellent for this particular role, of course!)

I also liked Claude Raines as the doctor, and also enjoyed the performance of the child actress who played Jerry's daughter. There were lots of cute scenes between her and Bette as Charlotte Vale takes this young, whispery, shaky girl and helps hand her the confidence earlier in life - rather searching for it for years like Charlotte had.

This has all the good elements of a wonderful drama - romance, edge of the seat moments, good acting, it was a splendid film! The title comes from this snippet of a Walt Whitman poem:

"The untold want by life and land ne'er granted,

Now voyager sail thou forth to seek and find."

Words given to Charlotte Vale by her doctor, instilling in her a new confidence and bright hope for the future.

Though, above all, my favorite line in the whole film will have to be the memorable: "Don't let's ask for the moon. We have the stars."

Said by Charlotte, it basically expresses her feelings that though she will not get everything she has wanted, there is still beautiful things for her to cling onto.

I love a good movie score and this one is beautiful. It is fluid and romantic and will carry you off to different worlds- It won the Oscar, after all! I think I'm going to try to find it for my playlist.

I really enjoyed this film and I'm going to go as far to give it a four and a half out of five. To me, it was a beautiful, moving drama and "don't let's ask for the moon" will have to be one of my favorite memorable lines.

What else can I say? I love this movie. And I guess the underlying fact is, I don't have much to complain about it - you should watch it, now! And you can watch it online here, for free, so you have no excuse not to! ;)

***

That's all for now, folks. And for those of us who have long weekends, have a great one :)

Sunday Movie Review: "Forever Darling" (1956)

Bonjour!

It looks like we survived the hurricane at my place. Now, it's sunny and the sky is blue and there's a beautiful wind (whatever remains from Irene's destructive path) blowing through the trees. I'm glad, because today is the second to last day of my summer vacation (insert crying), and I want it to be beautiful, of course.

To tell you the truth, Irene wasn't that bad. The worst of it came when it was dark outside so all of it was a LOT of wind (you could hear all of it), and rain, and all of that. And... best of all.... WE DIDN'T LOSE POWER!!! I guess we totally lucked out because a lot of people lost power, and we also have one of those really annoying companies that supply power that are terrible when it comes to withstanding these sort of things. So yes, we totally got lucky. Over all, it wasn't a terrifying experience... but I did hear that fourteen people died from the storm, or due to things related to the storm, so that's pretty awful. I, for one, am done with natural disasters for now!

So, I watched two movies this week - I rewatched "Forever Darling", from my new Lucy box set, and then I watched, for the first time, "To Have and Have Not." I have "Now, Voyager" - I'm on a kind of Bette Davis high -  waiting for me in a red envelope from Netflix, but between all the craziness of the last days I haven't gotten a chance to get to it (I'll probably watch it tonight and save it for next week's review).

As you can tell by the title of this post, I am going to be reviewing "Forever, Darling." Now, here's the thing - as much as I love, love, love Lucy (and you all know how much I do, it's crazy) but "Forever, Darling" is really not that good of a movie. (In fact, Lucy said so herself: "I've been in a lot of stinkers, but this one was the stinkiest."). So. Why am I reviewing this one and not "To Have and Have Not", which in reality WAY better?

Because, and don't think ill of me, I'm sort of tired of doing reviews on good films!!! The last few have all been really excellent films and "To Have and Have Not" would be another one of those, and I was getting bored. So I decided to allow myself one bad film review for this week. And besides, my new header, as you can all tell, is now featuring the most stereotypical  photo of Ingrid EVER (hehe), because it's her birthday tomorrow!!!! So, of course she's going to be in my header.

But anyway, that's why I'm doing this movie and I hope all of you know what a great film "To Have and To Have Not" is.

Before I get on with the review, we're going to play a little game. Here's how it's going to work: I'm going to post a picture of a particular Old Hollywood actress as a child, and you all can leave me a comment with your guess. I won't tell you until maybe a day or two, and then I'll mention the comment-er who figured it out first. No prizes or anything, but it's fun to play.  See if you can figure it out!!

Don't be bashful... take a guess! ;)

***

I know... awkward poster... check out Desi's expression.... ho hum...

Lucy plays Susan Vega, a Californian housewife who has been married to scientist  husband Lorenzo (Desi) for five years. The honeymoon is since over and Susan finds herself spending way too much time with her snobby cousin Millie Updike (played by that chick from Gilligan's Island.. uh... what's her name?) and nearly turning into a clone of her. The first sign? She is swooning over James Mason at the movies. In a bizarre turn of events, Susan finds herself visited by her "guardian angel" who, ironically, looks exactly like James Mason. She has mixed feelings of resentment and then lust for the "angel", but in the end she looks to him for help to patch up her marriage. The angel's fix? To go on a camping trip with Lorenzo, one, that, of course, turns into a disaster...


The cast has got:

• Lucille Ball as Susan Vega
• Desi Arnaz as Lorenzo Vega
• James Mason as The Guardian Angel Who Looks Exactly Like James Mason
• Natalie Schafer as Millie Updike
• And, in an appearance as the maid, Amy, Nancy Kulp

It is directed by Alexander Hall, who had been a beau of Lucy's - in fact, he was the guy she had been dating when she met Desi, and, in succession, dumped him for Desi (no hard feelings, I guess, especially if they got him to direct this bomber).

This was made in 1956. "I Love Lucy" was still on air and at the top of the ratings and Lucy and Desi were humongous stars. Their earlier film, "The Long, Long Trailer" (1953, at the peak of their popularity) had been a HUGE success and the expectations for this film were quite high. But, despite all of this, this movie failed to attract at the box office.

I can understand. This movie is all over the place. It is a comedy with an awkward sci-fi feeling hanging over it like a dark cloud on a sunny day. 

Susan Vega is not exactly a version of Lucy Ricardo, but a lot of her stems from our favorite zany redhead. Especially her pratfalls when they go camping - like getting stuck in a sleeping bag, poking a hole in the boat, etc. etc.

Lorenzo Vega is just one of those awkward, somewhat unbelievable characters. I think, of course, that Lucy and Desi do a good job with whatever material they are given, but a lot of it feels somewhat episodic and I think the whole guardian angel bit was just way out there.

It is said that Lucy and Desi originally wanted Cary Grant for the James Mason role, but he was out of their price range (the same thing had occurred on the set of "A Star is Born") so they had to settle for James Mason. James Mason doesn't get to do much, either. He walks through walls with awful special effects, and disappears for most of the camping trip but then shows up at the end to save the day. 

Is it just me... or is that a little creepy????

The Susan-Lorenzo marriage thing is kind of depressing. By this time Lucy and Desi's marriage was not completely broken up but it was on shaky ground. At least they loved each other in "The Long, Long Trailer" -- this couple is pretty distant and a lot of the time they're fighting in parralels to the real Lucy and Desi. I mean, one would think they're closer to their guardian angels then one another, really (Desi doesn't have one, but if he did she would look like Ava Gardner, who he dreams about. To this, I cracked, "She'd be a GARDNER angel!" Get it?? Get it?? Me and my bad puns... ).

What are the upsides to this film?

Well, if anything, I must say it's entertaining. I mean, you're not going to get bored with it or anything, that's for certain. Also, it has LUCILLE BALL in it so that's always a bonus, for anything, ever.

And hey! Lucy wears a lot of the stuff she wore on "I Love Lucy", so now know what they looked like in color, of course... I did a lot of, "That dress is yellow? But I thought it was white!", and all of that.

Also, I kind of liked the soundtrack for this film --

I think if you're a Lucy / Desi fan, you'll want to see it. And you can watch it right here on Youtube:

This is the whole movie, all in one, which is quite nice.

Over all, I'm going to give this a three stars out of five. I'm probably being quite generous, though.

***

That's all for this Sunday's review.  I'm off to enjoy Carole Lombard day on TCM. And don't forget to leave me your guesses! ;-)

Sunday Movie Review: "Splendor in the Grass" (1961)

Hello everybody.... welcome to the second edition of the Sunday Movie Review!

As you can probably tell now, my blog header has changed from Clark and Vivien ("Gone with the Wind") to Natalie and Warren in what I believe was some kind of a publicity still for "Splendor in the Grass," the movie I will be reviewing today.

Before I start, I'm going to make a quick plug for my "Which Old Hollywood book should I read next?" poll. If you haven't already voted, I'd really appreciate if you could! The poll will be closing in three days, and Lauren's autobiography and Ava's biography are tied, so let's see if we can break it... or pull Vivien up or Natalie in the running.. so yes. If you could vote :) And, like always, I will review the book after reading it... this is the book I'll be reviewing after I finish Jean Arthur's biography, but I'm taking a little longer to read than usual because the end of August is always quite crazy for me, with getting ready for back to school (ugh), finishing summer projects I left until the last minute (of course), and my mom's birthday next week...

BUT! you don't need to hear me complain. So, as promised, here is my review of "Splendor in the Grass"...

***

Despite the fact I have seen most of Natalie Wood's films, you'll probably be surprised to learn that when I saw this movie a couple of days ago it was for the very first time. I guess I avoided it because it always seemed weird, or that once they showed it on TCM and my mom was watching the last half of it, and, well (this was before I became a big Natalie fan), all I could really remember was a lot of screaming and splashing in the water and things in the back of cars. 

But anyway, it was time I saw it. 

Deenie Loomis (Natalie Wood) and Bud Stamper (Warren Beatty in his debut role) are young lovers who are pushed to the edge when they must chose between their own desires for one another or the moral standard of 1920's smalltown Kansas. When they reach the boiling point it drives the fragile Deenie to heartbreak and madness.

The cast has:

• Natalie Wood as Deenie Loomis
• Warren Beatty as Bud Stamper
• Pat Hingle as Ace Stamper (Bud's father)
• A Barbara Loden as Ginny Stamper (Bud's sister)

It's directed by Elia Kazan.

So.... I did like the movie, I thought it was engaging and well written. However, I can easily understand why I once found this "weird" or why anyone else would. The film is centered around sexual repression, but I think the idea that abstinence can drive you crazy is a little outdated. I would think that that idea was even a bit outdated for the early 60's, in which this movie was released... but it does take place in the 1920's (even with the very 60's feel to it), so I guess that makes it appropriate. Because of this, it does not age well and some audiences won't do so well with this film.

Natalie Wood played in several different types of movies: comedies, musicals, dramas. I've seen her in all different genres and I think, above all, she was best as a dramatic actress. She gets a chance to chew some scenery in this without becoming too obvious, and all while being effective. 

Natalie in the infamous bathtub scene  -  evoking a powerful moment in her acting career

Deenie is a very complex character and probably a challenge for any actress to play but Natalie does well and gives one of her best performances of hers I've seen to date. I was thinking how Deenie's character could easily become annoying in many scenes, but Natalie's brilliant performance stops it from happening. Her character comes to life as very convincing. 

Beatty is a little lackluster as Bud, the boyfriend. He keeps a straight face all the time and is a little bland with the lines he's given. On the bright side, he has good chemistry with Natalie (Natalie was divorcing Robert Wagner about the time of the filming of this; popular rumor was that she and Warren Beatty were having an affair which caused the separation, but that was not true. Natalie and Warren actually clashed backstage and it was not until later that they would begin dating).

A very interesting character is Ginny, Bud's freewheeling flapper sister who is forced back into the sleepy Kansas town after she got in trouble in New York. Ginny rebels and it is not long before she becomes the most gossiped about in town and gets the label of a tramp. But no one can stop Ginny, a true product of the roaring 20's who has a strong pallet for men and booze, from her scandalous ways.

The role of Ginny is played by a Barbara Loden that I have not heard of, but she gives a wonderful performance in a character who is a stark contrast to the original, virginal Deenie.

Ginny, strumming away to glory, at some of her youthful, sober best

The parents (in particular Bud's father, Ace Stamper, and Deenie's mother) are almost as troubled and as high strung as their children. Though they do their best to show to the young lovers that they approve of the relationship, you can tell that deep down they do not want what they believe as an "awkward match" of the rich boy and the poor girl. Deenie's mother constantly badgers her daughter over her relationship with Bud -- on the other hand, Ace encourages Bud to get a girl to "have fun with." (A strong case of sexism: Ace is embarrassed by his partying daughter Ginny, but would not mind Bud to get a girl like his sister so long he doesn't marry her.)

Natalie enjoyed doing films like this, slightly daring and under the direction of the always controversial Kazan. She would do several types of roles, but these were the films she would enjoy best - and I must agree, she does wonderful in them.

Deenie and Bud at a tension filled New Year's Party

Morally, it was 1961 and they could not do much more than imply, but they most certainly do a lot of that.  The content may have caused a little bit of a stir: a newspaper ad for this film in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, requested that "No one under the age of 16 will be admitted without an adult", inadvertently giving this film an R rating. (Of course, the material is no where near as strong... and would probably be given a PG -13 by today's censors).

So, yes. It was most certainly weird at points. But Natalie gives the performance of her life that is well worth seeing - also, if you want to see Warren's film debut and the entirely too human characters are engaging, exciting, and very engrossing to watch. Because of this, I'm going to give it four stars out of five. I did enjoy it, and it's a good movie - but not if you are looking for something light and fluffy to watch!

The bathtub scene, a very high strung scene that sums up the whole theme of the film


Lastly, I'd like to leave you with a excerpt from the lovely poem, "Ode to Immorality" by William Wordsworth that this film gets it's title from (and as Deenie puts it, explains to us how when we are young, we are very hopeful about life, but as we get older, we realize things aren't as picture perfect as we plan):

"Though nothing can bring back the hour
Of splendor in the grass and glory of the flower
We grieve not, rather find
Strength in what remains behind."

***

 Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to watch the all day long Cary Grant marathon on TCM! I hope you enjoyed the review, though it most certainly could have been better. :) But don't worry, I hope to get better at it in time.

(Oh, and by the way - if you have seen "Splendor in the Grass", I'd really love if you could comment and let me know what you thought of it... was it weird? Was it good? I'm looking for opinions on this one because some people find it poignant while others find it strange... and it just goes either way. So, I'd love to hear!)

Sunday Movie Review: "The Snake Pit" (1948)

Bonjour!

So, today is the first edition of the "Sunday Movie Review" (I know, such a clever title). I created this segment for a couple of reasons. One, in keeping with the tradition of movie blogs, I should probably be doing way more movie reviews than I already do. And it's not that I don't enjoy doing them, it's only that I don't think I'm real great at them... especially doing long ones. I'm used to do shorter ones on Netflix. But here I have all this space for pictures, and video clips, and well, they become quite extended.

But I guess writing a movie review each Sunday will give me enough practice to get really good at it... eventually. Anyhow, I am also staring this because of my new "drive in" header. This week will be the only one in which I am not going to change the header... I've decided to leave Clark and Vivien up until next Sunday so they can complete a full week (and a little more), and then I'll change it next Sunday. But most weeks I will probably be changing the movie that's playing at the drive in depending on what I watched (and reviewed)... which is why I've decided to write these reviews at the beginning of the week.

Also, school will be starting for me in a couple of weeks (ugh!). This will be quite an important year for me with my studies and all, so I probably won't be able to post every day like I do now. I know it's hard to believe with the amount I write these days, but for fear of neglecting this blog, the Sunday Movie Review will force me to update here at least weekly. And since I don't want this blog just to be made up of movie reviews, I will try to update once in the work week (Mon - Fri) and once over the weekend with my Sunday Movie Review. (I usually land up watching a movie either on a Friday or Saturday night, even during the school year, so don't worry about me not having a movie to review). At the LEAST. (Because I love blogging.)

Anyway, now that I've got all of that explained, I guess it's time to start. In the past couple of days, I watched two very different movies: "The Snake Pit" (1948) and "Inside Daisy Clover" (1965) and I had a hard time choosing which one to review for you. "Inside Daisy Clover" is a part of my Natalie Wood Movie Collection (which came yesterday), but not a very good movie. In fact, it was pretty awful. And even though I was thinking about doing a negative review about this quite terrible film, I'm think I'm going to have to go and do a review for "The Snake Pit."

***

I'm really loving this poster. It looks like the cover of one of those Nancy Drew Mysteries I used to read as a little kid.

I decided to rent this movie after it was on TCM about a year ago. I happened to catch it someplace in the middle. For some reason, it left a very loud and creepy impression on me (well, it is a movie about a mental hospital - but after watching it all the way through, that's not the feel that I got this time) and I didn't watch it. But my dad told me it was a good movie, and since recently I've really been loving Olivia de Havilland films, I decided to give it a try.

Here's the summary for those of you who don't know:

Deeply troubled Virginia Cunningham (Olivia de Havilland) finds herself in a mental hospital. Her world is a confused blur as the determined Dr. Kik (Leo Genn) tries to find a way to save her. Tortured by tarnished memories of her past, Virginia is forced to come to terms with her mental illness  (with her husband and doctor by her side) as she journeys through the several terrifying wards of the "snake pit." Celeste Holm makes an appearance as her nearly sane friend, Grace.

The cast has:

• Olivia de Havilland as Virginia Cunningham
• Mark Stevens as Robert Cunningham, her husband
• Leo Genn as Dr. Kik, her determined doctor
• Celeste Holm as her friend, Grace
• And a series other supporting players as mental patients and a super annoying nurse

It's directed by Anatole Litvak. 

Olivia was nominated for an Oscar for this, and I really enjoyed her performance. It's quite a shame she didn't win because she is really terrific. She brings life to Virginia's character, and makes her human. Not only that, she makes Virginia a lovable character, one that you want desperately  for her to get better.

One of my favorite parts was Virginia's very sane (yet confused) thoughts that we only hear. This is a serious movie, but what goes on in her head brings light and even some laughter to the film. For example, there is a scene early on in the film when one of the nurses greets her with a, "Hello, Virginia." In her mind, we hear hers say something along the lines of: How do you know my name? And what am I supposed to tell you - Hello, Kiddo? Later on, her husband comes to visit her and Virginia thinks he's a fake. She tells herself, My, they do a good job.

She also delivers really cute lines throughout the film. In one scene, another patient boasts to her that she owns the Hope Diamond. Virginia says quickly in return, "Well, I have the Hopeless Emerald."

In another scene, we get a look into Virginia's head: she thinks she's drowning in a huge ocean. But in reality, she is only in a tub screaming her head off while nurses tend to her.

Virginia clutches on for dear life in her "drowning scene"

I really loved her character.

This is all Olivia, all her film. The performance of the doctor by a Leo Genn was good, if only stereotypical. I was not pleased with Mark Stevens as the husband. His character is stale. To be fair to him, he gets pretty bland lines, but he doesn't do much with them. Olivia gets all the great lines though and she really has fun with them and eats it up. I read that in preparation for this movie, she visited several mental hospitals and sat in on therapy sessions, and even attended a dance between two mental hospitals like you see in the film. No wonder she sparkles as Virginia!

Celeste Holm gets pretty big billing for this considering you really only see her character for ten minutes, as one of Virginia's friends.

A "Helen Craig"  plays Nurse Davis, or the super annoying nurse I mentioned. She is a fantastically wonderful character to hate. You know, like one of those really awful people who always manages to get her way and you just kind of want to sock her in the nose.

I guess to just put it simply, this is a really good film. They don't really make them like this anymore. I thoroughly enjoyed myself. I know I haven't really talked all that much about it, and this review is kind of short. But I guess it ought to show you its brilliance through that alone, because when a film is so good, it usually leaves you a little at a loss for words. (If I had reviewed "Inside Daisy Clover," which I will probably land up doing eventually, I would've gone on for quite a while...) 

Lastly, the movie is right here on Youtube:

So you don't have an excuse not to watch it! I give it four of five stars. Really a rather good movie, and since it's not one of those films with the "classic" label stamped on it, totally deserves more credit.

***

Well, that's it for the first edition of the Sunday Movie Review. Before I sign off, I'd quickly like to note the passing of a great foreign film star from Bollywood's own "classic era." It is Indian actor Shammi Kapoor, who, as I was informed by my mom, died today aged seventy nine. I'm not all that into Bollywood films (and I haven't seen any of his) or foreign films at all for that matter, but in India he was hailed as a great actor of Bollywood's own golden era of the 50's and 60's, so I thought he most certainly deserved a mention.  

Anyhow, hoped you enjoyed the first Sunday Movie Review!