Q: Prix de Beaute was made on the cusp of the changeover from silence to sound, which came a little later in Europe than in Hollywood. Originally conceived as a silent, it was released with a dubbed soundtrack in France, with a French actress speaking Louise Brooks' lines, but was released as a silent in Italy and other parts of Europe. I was lucky enough to see the Cineteca di Bologna's flawless new restoration of an Italian silent print at the Tribeca Film Festival. I haven't seen the talkie version yet, but I think it's safe to assume the silent version is much more satisfying, since by all reports the dubbing is poorly done (Louise Brooks is clearly speaking English, so there's no way her lips could be matched.) Also, the film is made entirely in the silent style, with few titles and little need for dialogue. Prix de Beaute tells its story visually, with exciting, imaginative camera-work. The opening is instantly kinetic, with rapidly-cut scenes of urban life and swimmers splashing at a public beach. Throughout the film there is an emphasis on visual detail, on clothing, machinery, decoration, and symbolic images such as a caged bird, a heap of torn photographs, a diamond bracelet. This is silent film technique at its pinnacle.

Louise Brooks, of course, is responsible for saving the film from obscurity. Seeing this makes it only more heartbreaking to reflect that this was her last starring role. Lustrously beautiful, she dominates the film with her charisma and also gives a perfectly natural yet highly charged performance. Her role here, more than in the Pabst films for which she's best known, is a woman we can fully understand and sympathize with. She plays Lucienne Garnier, a typist with a possessive fiance, who yearns to get more out of life and secretly enters a beauty contest, with immediate success. She is then torn between the excitement of her glamorous new life and her love for the man who insists she give it all up or lose him. All of the characters are drawn with nuance. The fiance inspires pity and is not merely a brute: he loves Lucienne, but is a limited man who can't cope with her having a life apart from him or attracting the attentions of other men. Even the "other man" in the story is not the simple slimeball we first take him for, though his intentions may be just as possessive as the fiance's.

*************************WARNING: SPOILERS BELOW*****************

The film has many fine set pieces, including Lucienne's triumph in the "Miss Europe" contest, shown through the comic reactions of assorted audience members, who wind up pelting the heroine with flowers; her misery as a housewife, peeling potatoes while the pendulum of the cuckoo clock marks time behind her; a nightmarish trip to a fun-fair (in the silent version, this occurs late in the film, after her marriage) at which Lucienne, crushed among the low-lifes and depressed by her husband's macho antics, decides that she can't go on with her present existence; and especially the final scene in the projection room where she views her talkie screen test. Louise Brooks may never have looked more beautiful than she does here, with the projector's beam flickering on her alabaster profile, her shoulders swathed in white fur, her face incandescent under the black helmet of hair as she watches herself singing on screen. The double shot of her exquisite corpse and her still-living image on the screen is particularly poignant: Louise Brooks' image, like Lucienne's, remains immortal despite her frustratingly aborted film career. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive
Q: Watching Tom Hanks as a hit man for the Irish mob is a little like seeing Jimmy Stewart as a serial rapist it just doesn't work. I had a really hard time accepting this.Not that I don't think Tom can't act he can I've been following his career since Mazes and Monsters but for some reason this fell flat for me. Maybe because I'm such a fan of the graphic novel and at the risk of sounding like a fanboy(the only form of life lower than a fanboy is a cockroach)The movie as a whole fails for me.The additions Jude Law, and the subtractions everything else left me feeling cold and more than a little disappointed. I was expecting a great crime movie more in the vein of Bonnie and Clyde Mendes took all the heart out of the story and left us with nothing but the bare bones. There are things to like in this flick however the cinematography is breathtaking filling the screen with beautiful images Paul Newman is as usual excellent and I really did enjoy the score, But Tom as "the angel of death" Sullivan was completely flat. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: Istanbul is another one of those expatriate films that Errol Flynn was making in the last decade of his life trying to support his family and stay out of trouble with the IRS. It's a remake of the Fred MacMurray- Ava Gardner film Singapore from a decade ago.

Unlike that studio product, Istanbul has the advantage of that great location cinematography right at the sight of the Golden Horn. But Errol Flynn, who was aging exponentially before the camera in every film, was way too old to be playing these action/adventure types any longer. His scenes with Cornell Borchers really do lack conviction.

As for Cornell, she plays Errol's former sweetheart who through the trauma of being saved from a fire now has amnesia. She both doesn't remember Errol and is now married to Torin Thatcher.

But Errol's got some nasty people led by Martin Benson and Werner Klemperer who are after some diamonds which have come into his possession. Got to deal with them too.

Best reason to see Istanbul is to hear Nat King Cole sing and play the piano. Most people today don't realize that Cole was an accomplished jazz pianist, they only think of him as a singer. Actually he was a pianist first, the singing was an afterthought.

Istanbul is a routine action/adventure film for those who are fans of that type of movie. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: The following are some of the most blaring problems with this movie: 1) Cliches abound. Seriously, awful "twists" are everywhere.

2) The narrative jumps around in time, which would be fine if done well, but it's not.

3) Lame characters that don't develop so much as either remain utterly static, or drastically change for no good reason.

4) Big one: HORRIBLE ACTING. Over the top from nearly every person.

The following are some of the best points from the movie: 1) The lead is damn good looking.

As I see it, there are only two kinds of people who would be into this movie: a) People who can sit through 90 minutes of tripe simply because the lead is attractive.

b) People who often think to themselves, "I like Hollywood dreck rife with cliches and overacting, but if only I could watch it in Korean..." There's a lot of good Korean cinema out there, so why waste your time with garbage? OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative