IN: Review: This is one of the best Fred Astaire-Ginger Rogers films, or at least one of my favorites. Most of the A-R movies feature great dancing but sappy romance stories. This still has the courtship corniness but not as pronounced as the other films.

This movie features not just great dancing but likable characters and a bunch of good songs. The music is the central theme here and what's nice is the addition of a tap solo by Rogers. She not only was a super dancer but a very pretty woman and one with tremendous figure. She dances also with Fred, of course, and they're always a fun pair to watch on the dance floor.

Growing up in the 1950s watching "Ozzie & Harriet" on television, it was a real kick the first time I saw this to see such a young Harriet Hilliard. No surprise than Ozzie fell for this beauty. Although she had that short early '30s hairstyle, I recognized her voice right away. Also in this movie are quick appearances by Betty Grable and Lucille Ball, but I have to admit that I have yet to out Ball. I can't find her, but I know she's in here.

Astaire, except for some obnoxious gum-chewing in the first third of the film, was fun to watch and Randolph Scott - although better in westerns - is likable, too.

This is simply a nice, feel-good film and good one if you want to to enjoy the great talents of Astaire and Rogers.
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: While I watched this movie, I tried to figure out why they bothered making it. Though the main plot of the movie is potentially good, there are all sorts of unrelated/unnecessary subplots. The marketing people in Hollywood must have dictated the multiple bad guys, perpetual double-crosses and the man and woman who get too close and have sex. It's odd that we see more of them having sex than we did of the President and his mistress. The many plots and subplots make the film too broad and none of the characters are properly developed - I really didn't feel like I knew any character, except that everyone is corrupt and evil. The ending is totally incomplete - it left me more than just wanting what might have been, but what was supposed to be. In the end, there is really no explanation of why anyone does what they do, except to serve as additional corrupt characters who commit a double-cross. I'm surprised that so many established (and good) actors agreed to make such a hollow movie. This seemed like a movie made by college students who are working on their 2nd or 3rd project.

Don't waste your time unless you are in a film class and want an example of what not to do when making a movie.
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: It's so sad that Romanian audiences are still populated with vulgar and uneducated individuals who relish this kind of cheap and demonstrative shows, as superficial and brutal as the "Garcea" series or the "Vacanta mare" child-plays... The difference is that Mugur Mihaescu, Doru Octavian Dumitru and other such sub-artisans never presume to claim their shows as "art". Pintilie, who 40 years ago made a very good movie ("Duminica la ora sase") followed by another one, nice enough ("Reconstituirea"), tries to declare his film-lenghts "art works" - but, unfortunately, he masters at a way too limited level the specifically cinematographic means of expression. As such, "Niki Ardelean" offers again a sample of "HOW NOT" - this being about its only merit.
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: A true classic. Beautifully filmed and acted. Reveals an area of Paris which is alive and filled with comedy and tragedy. Although the area of 'Hotel du Nord' and the Hotel itself still exists, it is not as gay (in the original sense of the word) and joyful as it once must have been. The film makes one yearn for the past, which has been lost, with a sigh and bittersweetness.
What is this review like?
OUT:
positive