A hypochondriac misunderstands his doctor and believes he only has days to live. So, he tries to set his wife up with a potential new husband, but along the way she believes he’s having an affair. I know what you’re thinking….another cutesy comedy from Doris Day and Rock Hudson. And, if you’re thinking that, you would be right. But, because Day and Hudson only made three movies together (also Pillow Talk and Lover Come Back), we should savor all of them, especially Send Me No Flowers since it is their last movie together. Unlike their other two screen pairings, here Day and Hudson play a married couple at the beginning of this film, so the love story ending where they come together in mad passion is not there, right? Well, I’ll keep you guessing.
Posts Tagged: marriage
A true, classic tearjerker that makes other melodramas look like cutesy comedies. Cary Grant and Irene Dunne star as young lovers who experience hardship after hardship, usually leaning on the other for support. First, shortly after their honeymoon, Dunne’s character miscarries and finds out she will not be able to get pregnant again. Then, they have a series of adoption disappointments, finally ending with them getting a child. During all of this, Grant’s newspaperman character has occupational/financial ups and downs (mostly downs). Just when the adoption seems to be going through, his career setbacks almost jeopardize the whole thing. And, it does not end there…yes, I know it’s hard to believe but there is even more heartache. Why, you might ask, would I recommend this film? Well, many people love tearjerkers and, like I said, weepers do not get any better than this. And also, it is a good story with two solid performances by Grant and Dunne (who usually work together in romantic comedies…such as My Favorite Wife and The Awful Truth) and directed by legendary filmmaker George Stevens. So, hunker down on the couch with a large box of tissues for this one.
Surprisingly, I didn’t see this one until I was in my 20s. I used to think Bogart was a rough, unappealing creature…that is until I saw 1954’s Sabrina and began to see him as a softer, more compassionate soul. He possesses a knack for charming women off their feet, while being just a bit brash about it. He’s still rough and tough when he needs to be, but he knows when to bring out to tough guy and when to bring out his softer side. In Sabrina, I got a sneak peak at this behavior. In Casablanca, Bogart had it perfected…his character Rick Blaine is the romantic leading man to end all romantic leading men—not because he’s OVERLY sensitive but because he’s JUST sensitive enough. Now for the story…basically it’s about a nightclub owner in Morocco during WWII (Bogart) who reunites with an old flame (Ingrid Bergman, looking her best) that he fell in love with in Paris during the German occupation of France. Complications are plentiful, such as that the “old flame” is married…to a member of the French Underground, no less, which makes him trouble to the Nazis in Casablanca. But…really the details of the plot are pretty irreverent. Why? Well, how come even though the story is rich and filled with subplots and interesting characters, people only remember the relationship between Bergman and Bogart? And even though this film is a WWII intrigue thriller, why is it mostly know for being strictly a timeless “love story?” Rent this one and see if you can put answers to these questions…
The ladies are all back…with their beaus…and they’ve all hit NYC by storm once again. I was never THAT into the show – I had seen an episode here, a clip there – so I was worried if that would effect how I liked the movie. Well, Carrie Bradshaw (Sarah Jessica Parker) does a nice recap in the beginning of the film that pretty much makes sure fans and novices alike are relatively on the same page. And after that, WATCH OUT! It’s a wild ride of emotions, fashion, music, posing, clubbing, love and hate. The major critical complaint about this one has been that it’s too long. But, I would disagree with that, saying that the time passes quickly and there really are never any lulls. Another criticism I’ve heard is that it’s shallow. HELLO! The TV series was shallow! So, did we really expect the movie to become this deep, philosophical study? We would not go see something like that, but we would see this…something fun and light. This is not a heavy movie. It’s a good movie for girlfriends to see together and compare notes about after. It’s not going to come up on Oscar night (except maybe for costumes!). It’s fun. Just like the show was. We really wouldn’t have wanted them to change anything, did we?
Melodrama at its finest! Directed by high-drama master Douglas Sirk, this film will make you run the gamut of all emotions. There is scandal, affairs, wronged love, unabated passions, alcoholism, miscarriages, infertility, guns, murder, etc. Sounds good, right? Well, it is. It’s like one big soap opera, but, don’t worry. It’s a top-notch soap…with Rock Hudson, Lauren Bacall, Kirk Douglas and Dorothy Malone, who won a Supporting Actress Oscar for her role.
A great screwball comedy from one of screwball masters, Howard Hawks. Not as good as Hawks’ 1940 classic His Girl Friday, this one is still better than most. Featuring Marilyn Monroe in one of her big roles, this film, like Friday, also stars screwball master Cary Grant in one of his goofiest roles ever. Parts of this film get way too silly but over-all, the combination of Hawks and Grant is just too much to resist.
The original 1950 version stars a befuddled Spencer Tracy and a sparkling and beautiful Elizabeth Taylor as the beloved daughter of Tracy’s character. The 1991 version with Steve Martin comes close to the original, but even though Martin is a very solid comedian, no one can master comic confusion like Tracy. He was good at it in the film he starred in with Katharine Hepburn, but in this role he seems more irritated and annoyed than ever, mostly because he can’t stand to see his “little girl” walk into the arms of any other man but his.
If you read my annotation on The Birds, you know Tippi Hedren is not my favorite actress. But, compared to her lackluster performance in The Birds, she shines here. It’s the script in Marnie that I have trouble with. When this one came out in 1964, it didn’t do as well as expected and was not raved by the critics. As with Vertigo, both the public opinion but mostly the critical opinion, time has been kind with Marnie. Some critics now hail it as one (with Vertigo) of Hitchcock’s masterpieces. I would not go that far. Yes, Hedren is better, but she’s still not good enough to carry a film. The plus here is that unlike The Birds’ Rod Taylor (who is just so-so), Sean Connery provides a stronger counterpart for Hedren’s weak-ish acting. But, a masterpiece? Have these critics seen Notorious or Shadow of a Doubt? As I said, Marnie’s biggest issue, in my humble opinion, is the script. The screenplay here is lagging considerably, especially in the middle. The film starts off well and moves along at a good pace. Then, somewhere around the time Connery begins helping Hedren with her many problems, the story almost comes to a halt. Hitchcock saves it with a tense ending, but I admit I do expect more from The Master than just a good beginning and ending. So, you might be asking, why do I keep writing reviews for films that I’m not in love with? Well, first of all, I like them. They are great movies. They are just not up to Hitchcock’s usual HIGH standards.
The “wrong man” (or “wronged”) man has always been a running theme in Alfred Hitchcock’s films. From 1935’s classic The 39 Steps right up to Frenzy in 1972, Hitchcock had been thrilling audiences as they follow along a story about a man accused of something he didn’t do. In 1956, Hitchcock made the ultimate “wronged man” movie…giving it a very appropriate title and look. The look was that of a documentary…black and white (but that was still pretty common in the mid-50s), dark, humorless (which none of Hitchcock’s prior films had been), cameo-less (no Hitchcock peeking around a corner in this one), and lacking the fast-pacing of most of Hitchcock’s films up to that point. The director chooses everyman Henry Fonda to play his hero—the “wrong man—this time around. Fonda is perfect in this role since he’s adapt at morphing into any type of persona. Cary Grant, a Hitchcock regular, would have been way to sleek for this role. Jimmy Stewart, even, would have lacked the ability to enter the character with his tall, imposing stance. Fonda has the right look and build to play someone that just might look like the other guy…someone who is the ideal husband and father but could also look slightly sinister in the right light. The film starts off by showing Fonda’s routine…work as a musician in a nightclub until early morning then home where wife (also perfectly played by Vera Miles) is already sleeping…discussion with wife about money problems in morning…etc. Once Fonda finds himself in a mistaken identity mess when he is spotted in an insurance office as a former robber and arrested, Hitchcock mixes the plot with quite a bit of police procedures which offer insight into not only what criminals go through but also how law enforcement officers handle the daily grind. If you want to watch the quintessential Hitchcock film, rent North by Northwest, another “wronged” man film and much more typical of The Master of Suspense’s technique. If you want to watch a good film where Hitchcock experimented with the art of cinema and his own style, watch this one!
In this romantic comedy, directed by Alfred Hitchcock, a married couple find out their marriage was not legitimate and they proceed to go their separate ways, as if they were no longer married. Let me repeat that first part again…in this romantic comedy, directed by Alfred Hitchcock. Yes—THAT Hitchcock. The Master of Suspense known for films filled with murders and intrigue did make ONE romantic comedy. So, even though Mr. and Mrs. Smith is not the best comedy ever made, relish it since it is the one and only romantic comedy directed by Hitchcock.