input: I will admit that I did not give this movie much of a chance. I decided pretty early on that this just wasn't my kind of movie.

For the most part, it has an excellent look in terms of its cinematography. The scenes of early 70's Manhattan look very good, as does the lead actress. It is a very crisp black and white, which could almost make the movie feel undated and fresh. However, some of the other techniques the filmmakers employ shoot that prospect all to hell. The disjointed editing is VERY late-60's, somewhere between surrealism and new wave. The story also feels like it came from a very specific time, somewhere between free love idealism and artsy experimentation.

The film follows a young girl around the city as she looks for a man who she had anonymous phone sex with. As she meets other odd characters, she reveals her quirks and they reveal theirs. The movie seems to be meant as an off-the-wall, irreverent comedy, but adds an avant-garde feel. I would expect that if you like Andy Warhol movies, you would be very excited to discover The Telephone Book.

Some problems I had: Near the end of the movie, one character tells a rambling anecdote that lasts over twelve minutes-brutal to sit through. Also, there is a very explicit animation sequence that I found gross and juvenile that serves as the film's climax. I did laugh out loud four or five times, and I liked the ending (minus the flat-out disgusting animation). And when the film switched to color for the final phone-booth-at-night sequence, I actually liked the way it looked even better. It ended up being one of those experiences where I felt like I could have really liked it if it been a little different. But this is what the filmmakers gave us. It is obscure, artsy, and way left of the dial, but none of those are reasons to recommend it on their own. I didn't find it to be unique or creative so much as forced and pretentious.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: Etienne Girardot is just a character actor--the sort of person people almost never would know by name. However, he once again plays the coroner--one of the only actors in the Philo Vance films that played his role more than once. I've already seen him two other times and loved him every time because he was so funny and a breath of fresh air. This film also is great to watch because in addition to Girardot, there are many other wonderful character actors along for the ride--including Grant Mitchell, Gene Lockhart, Henry Walthal, Kent Smith, H.B. Warner and Nat Pendleton. This is quite an impressive cast, and they sure made the job easier for leading man and woman Edmund Lowe and Virginia Bruce.

These great character actors are one of the big reasons I love these old B-movies. While the mystery itself is rarely that terrific, because of the breezy writing and acting, the films really satisfy. As for this film, Vance is played wonderfully by Lowe but, like I said, the mystery itself is only an after-thought--with a silly plot involving hypnosis and suicides. Unfortunately, you cannot hypnotize anyone to do anything of the sort--I have training in clinical hypnosis and if I COULD do anything like the evil guy could do in the film, I would have done it! Used car salesmen and a few of my old bosses would have been obvious targets!!

Overall, while not the best Philo Vance film, it was very good and it's a darn shame Lowe only played this role once. In fact, aside from William Powell (who played Vance five times), the series was hindered by a long, long succession of actors such as Basil Rathbone, Wilfred Hyde-White and Warren William (and many others) playing Vance. This is a similar problem that also plagued the Bulldog Drummond series--just too many different actors playing the leading man.

Well worth seeing and exciting--though also quite impossible.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: people claim its edited funny but they had to cut it down substantially in post production. i have harry as a professor right now at ucsd, and honestly its one of the best classes I've had, its rather funny to here about what happened in making the film cause harry is so animated. i originally watched "joy of life" for another class where harry did a voice over in the film, and started watching this film after i started the class. Harry originally did some performance work, and is really genuine about creating moments that move you, especially when you have to re edit things until you hit on that moment, but its something you see in this film.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: The movie is more about Pony than Grey Owl. It's also about aboriginals, Canada, the English, Grey Owl's aunts and the North Bay Nugget. Excellent story.

This is an excellent movie, more like a book, that raises interesting questions about cultural identity and values. The key scene is Grey Owl admitting his imposture to Pony and her reaction.

A few observations on the user ratings. Note that the user ratings are bi-polar clustering at 5 and 7; it's not for everyone, but has a strong following. This movie is underrated and overlooked but will be noticed for years to come. Also, few women have watched the movie but they rate it more highly than men. Has it been marketed properly?

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
positive