Reviews

This is a reasonably well acted short film about two handsome brothers living with their parents in the French countryside. The youngest is gay, the older one straight but they are very close and protective. Having an enquiring mind I wondered how ' straight ' the elder brother was but I chastised myself for naughty thoughts. The younger needs what is coyly called affection, and being seventeen he longs to make an online connection with a man ' around ' thirty. Of course of his own volition he meets the ' ageing ' predatory man in a sort of hotel and well, use your imagination. He calls his brother, who rushes to get the nasty wolf who has been very bad indeed. Hysterical shouting follows, and end of spoilers. All this seemed like a warning film from the 1950's about how teenagers must not, and definitely not go with predators. The ending seemed to lack something. I just wondered if older brother would hover over him for life!! Beautifully filmed though this film is and handsome though the two brothers were I just wondered why they were so good looking ? Couldn't they have been more ' ordinary ' as most people are ? Good looks become too much of a cliched look in gay genre films.

For anyone out there with an old copy of ' Room with a View ' there is an appendix written by Forster himself imagining the loves of the two lovers in his book. George may well have died in his bed, but definitely not in the way that is presented here. James Ivory cannot be surpassed in his adaptation of the book and on top of that in my opinion the acting was much better. I liked Rafe Spall as George and he was right in showing up the class distinctions in the story and his real father in life Timothy Spall almost reached the heights of Denholm Elliot. That is not to say that Ivory was perfect; Daniel Day-Lewis in my opinion miscast and I have no idea why in both films both actors have to act in such stereotyped ways. Is it wrong to compare the two films ? I think it is when such a totally misconceived ending was tagged on to this film; over passionate when Forster and Ivory were reticent and absolutely absurd when Florence itself becomes clouded with intimations of war to of all the music available the weepy strains of what I think was Verdi's ' La Traviata. ' Not satisfied with that a return to Florence and a minor character comes in and takes over. In my opinion this version failed utterly.

Two films come to mind on seeing ' La Fille Aux Yeux D'or ' and one is Astruc's ' Le Rideau Cramoisi ' and Melville's ' Les Enfants Terribles. ' Along with Albicocco's arguably finest film they all have a cruel and rather perverse ( using this last word in its positive sense ) view of sexuality, and to the extreme ways of admitting to and denying love. Desire rules and in this film there is a group of men in a secret club capturing women by any means to satisfy their erotic needs. In one scene one of them played superbly by Paul Guers wears an animal mask as if to devour his prey. As well as trying to satisfy his cold needs he has a bizarre relationship with Francoise Prevost ( one of France's greatest actors ) who plays a bisexual fashion photographer. Both of them desire the girl with golden eyes played to the ambiguous hilt by Marie Laforet. Of the three protagonists I found her acting less interesting than the other two. She seems to desire both Guers and Prevost, and the outcome is inevitably complex and tragic. End of spoilers. I have no idea why this masterpiece of French Cinema has been so ' lost ' and was only available as a supplement to the DVD of Albicocco's ' Le Grand Meulnes. ' It can now be fortunately seen on YouTube with English Subtitles. Made in 1961 it shows a fashionable Paris crowd and filmed in black and white it superbly evokes that era of troubled times. Everything for pleasure and love a passport word for sexual needs; the downside being that real emotions creep in and destroy the erotic pleasure. A film well worth seeing for its visual beauty but also for Paul Guers ( what a great Valmont he could have been ) and for Francoise Prevost at her very best.

Rita Holloway, the temperamental actor, always seen from behind wants a 50% cut for being the lead in a film made by a film studio. The film is being made by Universal Studios in the mid-1950's and the producers fight against her wishes and look for a woman to replace her. End of logic. The studio travels around Europe bringing Marianne Koch from Austria; Elsa Martinelli from Italy; Gia Scala from France and only Julie Adams from America. Why they go so far afield is never really explained and George Nader has to find the right actor for the part. The casting couch is hilariously not mentioned despite the fact that each woman has an ardent admirer. One of the failed choices goes off to Las Vegas for the fun of it with Grant Williams an actor in reality who was being gently pushed out of Universal Studios himself. No more spoilers. ' Four Girls in Town ' starts with a great film score composed by Alex North, and it sets off the momentum which does not let up. This is a ' lost ' film to be found on YouTube and it is not in its original Cinemascope. Despite the sad fact that few people know much about these actors in 2024 it should be restored. In its own way it is examining Hollywood practices of the time and most of the acting is very good. Sydney Chaplin and Marianne Koch are exceptionally fine in their roles, and Elsa Martinelli is a joy to watch. Even the words ' The End ' are hilariously placed, and when it comes down to it it is all about Rita Holloway. A fun film with serious aspects; not least the loss in Hollywood of most of its actors.

I have to admit that I could not get to the end of this screen version of D. H. Lawrence's second version ' John Thomas and Lady Jane ' and for those who do not know it John Thomas signifies the male genitalia and Lady Jane the female genitalia. This of course poses lots of questions on how to film ' Lady Chatterley's Lover ' in any of its three versions without falling into very explicit sexuality and so far this has not been achieved on screen. Three or perhaps it was four of the scenario's sexual scenes are in my opinion, in this French version as dull as ditch water. I also found the film very, very slow and although I like slow cinema ( Ozu and Bresson ) come to mind, I find this film did not again in my opinion justify its slowness. The countryside has been filmed to death and inevitably we see a lot of it. The one brief scene of miners in inclement weather did work, but that was followed by a lot of talk and a lot of taking time over every detail. The acting was good, but uninspiring. Perhaps one day the uninhibited ' Lady Chatterley's Lover ' will be made as Lawrence dared to write it, and until then I believe it should be left to the reader to make his or her imaginative version.

Crystals from outer space become giant monoliths once they touch water, and when humans touch them they are turned to stone. No spoilers but this could have been an absurd scenario, but thanks to Jack Arnold's scenario it is riveting to watch. Grant Williams plays the lead in trying to stop the monoliths destruction, and he gives an excellent performance. Sadly he was always cast in minor films when he could have become one of the finest actors and in my opinion far more interesting than others who had A pictures and it is ironic he was cast in ' Written on the Wind ' in a minor role. His one big A feature. Such is the roulette wheel of Hollywood's decision making. Lola Albright stars with him but is used for decoration when she proved to be a fine actor in ' Cold Wind in August. ' A film well worth watching on all levels.

Giving out free medicine in an American film is rare to see, and I am not even sure I have ever seen that gesture of equality before in what is a medical USA drams. The story is simple; Charlton Heston in one of his rare good roles takes on the ethical problem of discarding his uniform and taking on the medical job ( which he was trained for ) to get money from the rich who want excellent treatment. Irving Rapper surveys this greedy landscape quite objectively and he is far away from the Bette Davis melodrama syndrome. But there are two places in town in this film; one for the rich and one for the miners who risk their lives every day providing for them. Lizabeth Scott pays the bad for each other love interest and Arthur Franz is excellent as a young doctor who believes all people are equal. No spoilers but the ending is good for the film. Well worth seeing.

Going through old 1950's Cinemascope films I realised I had not seen this one. The great Roberto Rossellini was supposed to direct, but wisely withdrew. I cannot imagine he could have been interested in the first place but director's have their whims. Admittedly the bombing of a shop full of escaping people showed clearly the atrocities of war, and seeing children crying in despair gruelling to watch. But then we switch to the unlikely scenario of Richard Burton at his most surly, and Joan Collins had the unfortunate role of being a nun and torn between Burton and holy orders. No spoilers but I think she made the right decision, and the film moves to its climax and finally the film ends. The war scenes tragically relevant, but the rest seemed to me to wallow in the worst of melodrama. There is also the inevitable desert island but it offers no enlightenment on character or situation that take place there. I dread to think it was a popular film in 1957 and that is for others to find out.

There is a sort of hyper-reality to this film; Edward Hopper comes to mind as if the characters are stranded in a desert of their own making. Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio give perfect performances as a once happy couple, and how life carries on and on and that nothing will ever ' happen ' to them again. Winslet comes up with the frantic idea that they must give up their lives in America and the ironically named ' Revolutionary Road ' that they live in to go and live in Paris. They have two children which are barely seen and a kind of horrific reality sets in when she becomes pregnant. No spoilers but the trap of so-called real life closes in and we the viewers get a glimpse of marital hell that I have rarely seen on screen before. Based on a great novel by Richard Yates it is a film that has to be seen, and I just wonder why I missed it in 2008, but am grateful to have caught up with it. Kathy Bates is also in the film and she kind of closes it with a terrible silence that is almost as terrible as the dropping of an atonic bomb. My one criticism is about the two sex scenes which lacked passion or authenticity. Against the hyper-realism of the rest of the film they were too brief ( a matter of seconds ? ) and dull. Sadly many directors are happy with emotional violence between couples, but almost totally fail with the life giving pleasure of sexuality.

If desert islands had the ability to show films. And I was stranded on one of them this film would definitely come with me. Beautifully filmed, acted to perfection it is not in my opinion appreciated enough for those film critics who should know better. It has excellent dialogue, and in a saloon bar a woman accosts Richard Egan and says ' I have the time ' and Egan replies ' no, you haven't ' and the whole atmosphere of the film is a fight against what I call a pessimism of the spirit. As for the plot Egan has shot a friend in the back, and he is haunted within himself and by those around him. He befriends a child played by Ben Chapin and cannot defend his father being murdered by professional killers. Reaching a town where the child has relatives; a saddened woman played by Dorothy Malone and her ' supposed ' cowardly husband played excellently by the great Cameron Mitchell, he adopts a new life. Both he and Egan are haunted in their own ways, and this makes for a dark, psychological Western. No spoilers to what happens but it is a major masterpiece of film making and should have a bigger following than it has. It also has a wonderful score by Dmitri Tiomkin.

I am not a great film of torture films. This is one of them. It involves incarceration, burial alive and other forms of an extreme violent nature. I cannot believe that Isabelle Huppert got involved and it makes ' The Piano Teacher ' perhaps one of her greatest films look like fun, despite the violence that that film had. A woman of a certain age leaves bags on metro seats for kind young women to pick up and return to the address of the woman inside. Huppert plays the woman, who turns out to be Hungarian instead of the French woman people think she is. Huppert plays the one good scene in the film in a restaurant where she hisses out Hungarian words and ' Nosferatu ' came to mind in a camp way. So far so bearable but what eventually follows is psychologically very, very disturbing. No spoilers but it is a film in my opinion not worthy of Huppert or anyone in the cast, and should not be watched by anyone who has disturbances of the mind. Whole heartedly not recommended.

I certainly do not agree that this is in any way a minor Merchant-Ivory film. It can only be considered that if we over value his films that are based on authors such as Henry James or E. M. Forster. With ' Jane Austen in Manhattan ' he clearly realised that there was little substance in a 12 year olds play, however famous the author was. He cleverly puts the spotlight on Manhattan in the last year of the 1970's and the experimental theatre that was taking place at the time. In doing this he shows us a very different Manhattan than today when Lofts were used for artistic purposes and not chic over priced places to live in. He shows us the streets of Manhattan, and there is very little glamour in what he shows. Cleverly he depicts two rivals played by Anne Baxter ( in one of her finest roles, and sadly her last ) and Robert Powell. They both want to put on this trivial play in very different ways and the film becomes an elegy for a lost New York when people could be playful with themselves, unaware of the cold wind of the future when a lot of the fun of living there would succumb to a terrible epidemic which would wipe out so many people; people who loved creativity for itself and not just in monetary terms. Watching it in 2024 is like seeing another world, another way of existing. Visually it is less polished perhaps than films like ' A Room With A view ' but in many subtle ways it is more profound. The acting is excellent and fresh, and the characters fully rounded with their schemes and their light hearted change of partners. Baxter has two scenes when she reflects on theatre and life, and recalling her performance in ' All About Eve ' and bearing it in mind a perceptive viewer can see and hear that very same Eve Harrington, willing to fight for what she wants. To sum up this film is a great film and its time capsule is brilliantly conveyed.

Some may question the ending of this art house Western ( set in the wrong country, and it shows ) but I do not. The repressed homosexual who was once in a possible sexual relationship with a man who has died must be killed off. It happens so often in mainstream or high profiled art house films this death of the homosexual that some brave critic of note should write about it, but they don't. But back to the film in question; it is a bleak tale of mother love worthy of Norman Bates in ' Psycho ' and the whole cast acts equally bleakly, and in my opinion pretentiously. Cumberbatch is an anguished man who takes it out on everyone, and no doubt in grief for his dead could have been lover. Dunst plays a widow who falls in love with his spruced up brother and somehow she descends into alcoholism, and she does it very well being the best actor in the dreary scenario. She has a son who is truly nasty, but no one seems to notice his methodical cruelty. He cuts up animals and hugs a rabbit before killing it. Quite a boy!! But as he loves his mother he will do anything to save her. From himself ? Cumberbatch tries to get his act together, and has male physique magazines stashed away ,and we certainly cannot tolerate that, and inevitably there is an exit door for him. The scenery which acts better than the humans is a Montana set in 1925 and we all know it is filmed in New Zealand. To sum up I felt numb with depression watching it and longed for Rory Calhoun to rush in and yell at them all for faking Western mythology. But sadly he is dead. To sum up I think most of the actors were miscast ( except Dunst ) and I did not like the tease of male nudity in such a basically heteronormative film. Naked cowboys splashing in water did not make up for the inevitable killing off and a return to so-called normality. The film has been acclaimed heavily as a masterpiece. Perhaps I have looked at it through the wrong end of the telescope.

I liked this film for its positive intentions, but I disliked the direction of the film and in my opinion Anthony J Caruso should have left it to someone else. And to be absolutely honest I found a lot to be desired in the acting in general. The Catholic ' brothers ' got on my nerves, and especially the stereotyped banter that seemed to go on forever. It did not come from an elderly generation alone, but among the young characters. One ridiculous scene was when one young man did not know of a reference to Bette Davis, and was gently taunted at for not doing so. Why should he have ? In my opinion ( as the film came out in 2017 ) the director should have known that a young generation of viewers had moved away from the ( to me ) internalised homophobia of the past. On the positive side I also felt the film meant well, and I have to say that I speeded up the duration of its relatively long running time towards the end. No spoilers but I glimpsed a gay marriage and despite my former reservations I felt the good intentions of making this rather badly made film.

I could not find one flaw in this film. How is it that the French have made so many masterly films revolving around homosexuality ? And in a way that is truly adult and involving ? ' Theo and Hugo ' ' Sauvage ' ' Presque Rien ' and believe me the list could go on. I just hope in our troubled times films of such quality will not dry up. But to return to ' Arrete Toi Avec Tes Mensonges ' ( why didn't they just call it ' Stop Your Lies ? ) I have admired Philippe Bresson's books for a long time, and it has taken me a while to dare approach this film based on his book. I feared disappointment. Autobiographical it tells the truth, and it is basically about an elderly man's return to a provincial French town that he came from. And here the present and the past faultlessly interweave. At the age of 17 he fell in love with a youth of his age group who could not truly admit to his sexual orientation. Life parts them, and society and its prejudices and internalised homophobia has a large responsibility for that, and in the 1980's there was a lot of homophobia around. No spoilers except to say the elderly man finds out what has truly happened to the youth he loved, and still does. The film itself is finely directed and I cannot single out one of the cast above another. In my opinion a faultless cast in a faultless film. I cried. I cried seeing how much people have to lie to themselves, and are they cowards to do so ? The end of the film gives an answer to this and I wholly endorsed the ending. A film everyone should see.

I have seen this film several times. And each time I wonder why this is arguably Marlon Brando's best performance. I would rate his greatest to be the lesser known ' The Men ' and ' A Streetcar Named Desire. ' As for the film itself it is basically about a young man who is brave enough to question the violence and murder of a young man thrown to his death off a rooftop. No spoilers except that it is also about giving testimony against others. Elia Kazan directed, arguably exonerating himself from doing the same thing and the film has its sanctimonious moments about goodness. That I do not buy this approach is perhaps my fault. Eva Marie Saint ( whom I normally admire ) gives a dull rendering of the murdered man's sister. Visually it is drab and no better than a hundred other ' thrillers ' for that is what it is. Finally I feel that it is Marlon Brando playing Marlon Brando.

I am not a thick skinned Western Film lover ( I like more softer edges ) and because of this - dare I say? - sensitivity I deplore the consistent man on man violence in this short and bitter tale of returning Confederates to Texas. It starts off gently enough with three men considering what ' defeat ' means to them, and two are brothers played well by Robert Ryan and Rock Hudson. Hudson wants to return to being a Rancher and Ryan, who basically hates himself and others, wants to be rich and literally stinking rich and pay back at life for making him bitter. Violent scene after violent scene shows how he goes about it, combating equally violent men as himself. No spoilers but the film falls into concentrating on him and his attempt to ' get there. ' Julia Adams is his love interest and she is also as money seeking as him. A fine actor she has few scenes and Rock Hudson falls into the side lines. A brutal film for those who like brutality, and my only recommendation is that it is all well directed, has fine Technicolour and there is not one bad frame in the film. But is this enough ? For some it will be.

Way back in the dark ages of ' Gay ' cinema there was a film called ' The Gay Deceivers ' about guys pretending to be gay so that they would not be drafted into the army. In 2004 the dark shadow of that film looms over this one, except in the most crass way it tries to show that Gay men and Lesbians are really just like everyone else, except that they are not. Boy kisses girl at the end and that is not a spoiler it is an indictment of this film trying to have it all and hoping an LGBT audience would respond to such patronage. Hard to say no spoilers but I will try not to give away the plot. In simple, and I do mean simple terms a young man pretends to be gay as the desired girl will only go out with him if he is!!! And eventually the heterosexual couple see that cupid sends the right arrow into the right heterosexual place. Along with this a few predatory bisexual Lesbians have fun, and one nice young man eventually does find out he is gay, but the ending says it all. Exploitation of so-called gay politics with an elderly gay man getting sentimental about Stonewall, and how he was there. As for the film itself it wallows in crudity and the acting leaves a lot to be desired. I am happy that LGBT cinema has moved forward into its deserved maturity, and hoping that it will look back in bewilderment at films like this.

One good thing is the few scenes that Ruth Roman is in ( a great underestimated actor in my opinion; ) two the use of colour which is excellent down to every detail and three the debatable way guns dominate so much of the fiction and non-fiction of the history of America. As for the story the Colt.45 gun falls out of the ' good ' hands of Randolph Scott into the over the top acting hands of Zachary Scott. Native Americans quite rightly get tired of being shot at and at least in one scene Randolph Scott is nice enough to save one. Fast paced it is directed at full force and I must confess I am fascinated by the Western genre. This may have been an A feature in 1950 but it is not in the same league of Westerns like ' Shane, ' ' Tension at Table Rock ' or the almost unknown ' Fury at Showdown. ' And all made by Anthony Mann. But this is a film worth watching despite the far too many ' easy ' deaths by gunshot and the saddening normality of it.

My only criticism of this fine film is that I would have liked it to be longer. And to my knowledge it has not been seen in the UK. If that is true I apologise for the country I live in. First the acting. Faultless, and sometimes blisteringly moving. I thought of ' Rebel Without A Cause ' and the conflicts between families and their children in that film. ' Aus der Haut ' holds the same balance of generational difference and hazardous reconciliations. Merlin Rose plays the troubled son, both ferocious and gentle as a 17 year old who realises he is gay. Expressing his desire for a school companion played beautifully by Leonard Proxouf,( the young actor who was so good in Michael Haneke's ' The White Ribbon ' ) he misjudges his timing to show his sexual need and his world becomes literally askew. He nearly loses his life in a suicidal accident and after that loses his respect for his emotional and sexual needs by going with an older man. The sexual scene between them is clearly more abusive than emotional, and is saddening to watch. Counterbalancing this aspect of the film is the relationship between his mother again excellently played by Claudia Michelsen and his father played by Johann von Bulow, and there is a scene where the father cries that somehow echoes his son's sensitivity. This emotional outcry of pain need not have been there, and was there due to perfect acting and perfect direction and scenario writing. No more spoilers but I would like to point out that this is not your usual coming out film, but an exploration of mainly four people torturing themselves and each other by misunderstandings, homophobia and their needs for a sexual and emotional life that can work in a semi-broken world around them. I had no idea that this was a television film, and I hope it was well received. For me it was a perfect film that deserved an award for its complexity, and the inner truths that are so hard to express whatever age you are.

Rarely have I seen a film so well acted, and it would be unfair to single out one of the actors. Having said that Laetitia Casta excels and I can think of none of her contemporaries who could have carried the full and long length of this saga which crosses over the last third of the 20thc into the first disillusioning first years of the 21st. The scenario depicting the social and political upheavals of France during this period of time is conveyed well, if sometimes formulaic. The events of ' 68 were too self-conscious for my liking, but then the directors of the film were not there to see it. I was, and it was confused, unglamorous and to many people in Paris itself it was just a brutal inconvenience. This part of the film, in my opinion needed a bit more roughening up and perhaps shot in black and white. The hippie period that follows was overcooked literally by too many flowers and nudity and what was called at the time polymorphous perversity ( quaint that as in the film it is totally heterosexual and brief moments of Lesbianism as long as one man or two were there. ) As for the second half the homosexual perspective comes into gruelling perspective with HIV and full blown AIDS. There is a death scene that I had to leave the room it was so graphic and no doubt necessary but for those who are traumatised by the reality of dying could be a nightmare to watch. No more spoilers, but to say that this is arguably a near masterpiece and despite certain contrivances it in the main works. A final encounter at the end of the film rang very true, and an ending becomes an uncertain beginning into the future that is already upon us. To sum up a film that should be seen and without prejudice of any kind.

For the second time in my life I have watched this supposed Noir/horror/ standard Western. I have given it 4 for the Film Noir scenes and the excellent colour. I do not see the Oregon scenery to be that outstanding, and the acting I find mediocre. Susan Hayward who is engaged to a gambler is not at her best, and most of the time I barely noticed her. Dana Andrews is Dana Andrews and clearly a crowd puller, but his acting is in my opinion plain boring. Patricia Roc is not often seen although billed highly and frankly she was better on home ground in the UK. I am not American so I probably miss out on the details that viewers seem to urge other viewers to see again. The film has a plot, but no spoilers as I got lost in it except for the fact that a nasty man has assaulted a Native American woman, and that in response to that there is a massacre of a homestead family. The horror scene is the dragging a woman screaming into the bushes where the Native Americans kill her. It is a nasty scene and sticks in the mind. Lovers change lovers and there are the usual fist fights. Technically the film is perfect, but the content borders on the dull with a number of scenes that seemed to me to be just killing time. Jacques Tourneur was an excellent director, but this is not his finest hour. I understand that others will disagree and I respect that.

Looking at this film closely I guessed the film was set in the town of Brighton on the South Coast of England. The seediness of the housing in the 1950's reminded me of ' Brighton Rock ' made a few years earlier. Different plot, but a similar hardness in the atmosphere caused by Post War austerity. A woman of shall we say doubtful ' morals ' is murdered, and the main thrust of the film is the viewpoints of the various people in her life. Jean Kent plays the part of the woman in question to the limit, but sometimes in her hard acting she borders on melodrama. Dirk Bogarde is an American who is more interested in the woman's sister played excellently by Susan Shaw, an actor who far surpasses the others in acting ability. Bogarde is hopeless as an American, and he could have tried harder or been left as English. No spoilers as to who killed the woman and her most tender scene is when she worries about her pet budgerigar, but even that has a dark edge. I give it a 3 for Susan Shaw and the depiction of a town still suffering from WW2 blues.

This is an uneven film, but worth seeing with all its faults. Filmed partly on location the mountain itself is Mont Blanc, and in a village near to Chamonix. Two brothers live there and one is an elderly looking Spencer Tracy and the other played by Robert Wagner. Based on a French novel everyone speaks English, and Wagner's surly, thick American accent jars. Only Claire Trevor looks and sounds as if she lives there, but her part is so small ( she is in love with Tracy ) that I commend her for taking the role. Most of the action takes place to reach the plane that has crashed there, apparently killing all of the passengers. No spoilers but the film really comes alive during the last half hour of the film, and a lot of the time is spent bickering between the two brothers who go on a search party of their own to reach the crash. The message and I think there is one is that even if one brother behaves abominably badly the other brother will not betray him. This message must have been apparent during the troubled Hollywood years of the 1950's. Beautifully filmed and well directed, the mountain is the star along with the performance of Spencer Tracy.

I watched this film and began to wonder why it was not working for me. I found it depressing and the more the film entered into the domain of hanging and murder, and the dark side of Fernando Lamas's relationship with a Native American woman and its terrible consequences I sort of turned off. I liked the film years ago and I am still enchanted by Ann Blyth's performance. Howard Keel less so and comparing his performance in ' Calamity Jane, ' which is a masterpiece of film making, I found him too overbearing and heavy. Fernando Lamas I liked, but even he had lost something of his blatant charm. I finally decided it was Mervyn LeRoy ( fine for his gangster films like ' Little Caesar ' ) but not for musicals. As the first Cinemascope film musical and despite its success I found it lacking in that light touch that the genre needs. One example and no spoilers the Busby Berkeley seemed loaded with threat towards the woman involved, and for me it left a nasty taste in the mouth of female exploitation and a sort of prelude to the violence to come. I am fully aware it must have been thrilling to watch in 1954 as many in the audience would have been old enough to see it in two previous versions. That said it is worth seeing, but in my opinion the dark taste remains.