Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews12
jescue's rating
a really fun movie. lots of stuff going on in each scene. a joy to watch. very good pacing. tight script.
joan is really really excellent in this comedic role. i am a fan of joan crawford (i like her more with more study) but not a huge fan relative to some other classic stars. so in other words she stands out more then usual in this role. very sexy looking in some of the gowns also as a bonus.
melvyn douglas is also a hoot in this.
the banter between douglas and crawford is believable and a LOT OF FUN. it has a touch of the screwball comedy mixed in with plenty of other comedy.
an acting and comedic tour de force.
supporting cast is quite solid, the story a lot of fun.
worth your time to seek out.
regards, jsq
joan is really really excellent in this comedic role. i am a fan of joan crawford (i like her more with more study) but not a huge fan relative to some other classic stars. so in other words she stands out more then usual in this role. very sexy looking in some of the gowns also as a bonus.
melvyn douglas is also a hoot in this.
the banter between douglas and crawford is believable and a LOT OF FUN. it has a touch of the screwball comedy mixed in with plenty of other comedy.
an acting and comedic tour de force.
supporting cast is quite solid, the story a lot of fun.
worth your time to seek out.
regards, jsq
the movie WOULD have been a 9 out of 10, like the 2 earlier titles from this series.
i am not sure if they ran over budget and hired a 12 year old "in heat" or if they got a teenager with a jiggle cam.
robert ludlum should raise the cameraman's salary?? did he pay them with a burger and fries? was this guy a real professional camera man?
the story, characters, action scenes (what you could see of them without all the constant wiggling of the camera and darkness) were otherwise well done.
did some amateur "auteur" think using a hand-held camera and constantly moving it, even on stills and close ups of characters in non action settings has something to do with movie making.
the camera technique used on this film was really hot stuff in the mid 70's for low budget porno movies when the first hand held cameras came out and it was exciting and new to see a scene shot differently, at least in the 70's it was realized that wiggling a camera constantly detracted from a movie, not enhanced it.
also the lighting, small tip for the movie staff, when the sun goes down you need to remember that one single candle is not enough light for a modern movie. once again, spend a few dollars on a technology called a light bulb, they were invented about a 130 years ago but i guess your staff might not have heard of the technology yet. also works well in dark rooms.
once again, 9 out of 10 for the first two movies from this series, this only gets a 5 due to the terrible film and lighting work.
i am not sure if they ran over budget and hired a 12 year old "in heat" or if they got a teenager with a jiggle cam.
robert ludlum should raise the cameraman's salary?? did he pay them with a burger and fries? was this guy a real professional camera man?
the story, characters, action scenes (what you could see of them without all the constant wiggling of the camera and darkness) were otherwise well done.
did some amateur "auteur" think using a hand-held camera and constantly moving it, even on stills and close ups of characters in non action settings has something to do with movie making.
the camera technique used on this film was really hot stuff in the mid 70's for low budget porno movies when the first hand held cameras came out and it was exciting and new to see a scene shot differently, at least in the 70's it was realized that wiggling a camera constantly detracted from a movie, not enhanced it.
also the lighting, small tip for the movie staff, when the sun goes down you need to remember that one single candle is not enough light for a modern movie. once again, spend a few dollars on a technology called a light bulb, they were invented about a 130 years ago but i guess your staff might not have heard of the technology yet. also works well in dark rooms.
once again, 9 out of 10 for the first two movies from this series, this only gets a 5 due to the terrible film and lighting work.
this movie is a romantic romp. eve Arden, Audrey long, Robert benchley and Phillip terry (joan Crawford's 4th husband) star in this romance set in various tropical settings. the best part is discovering b movie actress Audrey long. Audrey married Leslie charteris (author of the Simon templar "the saint" novels) in the early 1950's and evidently retired after a successful, approximately 10 year, career as a lead in mostly b movies. Audrey really shines in this movie and it really gives pause as to why she did not prosper in the film industry. like most actors and actresses, never getting the one great breakout role prevents them from stardom. she was a total babe. the rest of the cast is doing a very good job and the movie has a nice and varied Latin setting to complement the stars of the film. also look for Jane Greer in her first film role, in a small part.