After 60 Years, Fans Still "Singin' in the Rain"

In celebration this year of the 60th anniversary of the theatrical release of "Singin' in the Rain", local theaters, in partnership with Turner Classic Movies, held special screenings of the film last night. The movie was preceded by a filmed introduction by TCM's Robert Osborne, including clips of him recently interviewing the charming Debbie Reynolds, as well as interview clips with Donald O'Connor and Gene Kelly's widow and others. The interviews were good and quite interesting, but we were all quite excited when the movie finally started.

The theater was almost full, which was wonderful; hopefully that sets the precedent to screen more great classics. Some of us are young enough to have never seen these films on the big screen, and others are old enough to remember just how thrilling it is to watch a great movie in the theater. They truly don't make them like they used to.

I had forgotten just how great this movie is. I haven't watched "Singin'" in years. In fact, I'm not sure whether I've shown it to any of my children or not. I took my youngest, my 10-year old daughter, with me last night, though, and I intend to show my sons the film soon-- she kept commenting that Cosmo reminded her so much of my 13-year old, Ben (and I agree). 

Cosmo is by far my favorite character in the movie; O'Connor was an adorable mix of a Marx Brother and Danny Kaye (kids, if you don't know who they are, I would happily introduce you to some of their better films... after I stop weeping at your cinematic cultural ignorance...). He choreographed the superbly entertaining "Make 'Em Laugh", throwing in the funny bit with the dummy after his backstage schtick proved hilariously entertaining to the whole crew. He was a master of physical comedy, he was a fantastic singer and dancer, and frankly, he steals every scene he is in. Almost.

Debbie Reynolds at 19 absolutely glows onscreen. She was so beautiful and funny and had such a powerful presence that when she's on, it's hard to look at anyone else! She's wonderful. In the interview before the movie, she told how she had never really danced before-- amazing that she was able to keep up with Donald O'Connor and the great Gene Kelly in this film! She was the perfect choice for the role of Kathy and it was so much fun to watch her on that huge theatrical screen.

Gene Kelly directed this movie, and he certainly had a good eye for what worked well. His show-stopping performance in the title song is amazing- he is the ray of sunshine in that rainstorm. Every time I watch this movie, I want to go find some puddles to dance in. Here in Utah, we never get a downpour like the one in the movie (well, maybe not never, but seldom), so I haven't ever reenacted that scene, but wouldn't that be a joy? He makes it look effortless, though it was actually a lot of very hard work: isn't that what great performers do?

I would be remiss if I didn't mention the perfect performance of Jean Hagen as Lina Lamont. She is so funny and so believable and speaking of scene-stealing, she very nearly steals the whole show.

Rare is the movie that is so perfectly cast that you wouldn't change a single actor for another. "Singin' in the Rain" is that movie. It's often been called the "greatest movie musical of all time" and I'm inclined to agree. It's timeless, it's incredibly funny and heartwarming, the drama doesn't slide into melodramatic... it's a really great time at the movies. I am so glad I went to see it on a movie screen. 

My one complaint about this movie is the gratuitous ballet scene. Ugh. I assume that certain scenes were included to showcase Kelly's dancing ability, as well as Cyd Charisse's, but some of it feels like padding. "Broadway Rhythm" is okay, but way too long, and the whole long white veil duet-dance with the fans blowing the veil hither and thither is artistically lovely and yes, they are amazing dancers, but every time a movie musical goes into anything like that (think the even worse ballet in "Oklahoma" or the excessive "Minstrel" numbers in "White Christmas") I feel yanked out of the story. I love musicals, but I rather prefer song-and-dance that at least loosely relates to the actual storyline of the show. Meh... that's just me. And as I write this, I'm realizing that there are a great many songs in shows that don't relate to the story at all, which I do love, so maybe it's just that I'm nitpicky sometimes. 

If it's been a long time (or not) or you've never watched "Singin' in the Rain" you should really go give it another (or a first) look. It's classic, but timeless, cinema entertainment that the whole family will enjoy. I'll be fast-forwarding the aforementioned white-veil dance sequence when I show it to my boys, but other than that I think they'll love it.

At the Movies

Out here in small-town Utah, we have no giant megaplex-style movie houses. We do, however, have a drive-in, an old two-screen theater and the slightly more modern (I think it was built in the 90's), recently upgraded Cinema 6. Here's what's showing this weekend. I wonder if the movie in theater 6 is a local production...

O Usher, Where Art Thou?

My dad's latest column is about a subject that is very important to me: movie theater etiquette (and the modern lack thereof). I have taken to sitting on the back row of the theater every time I go to the movies. Not just because of the dizziness and nausea I experience if I'm close to the screen. The primary reason is that I have absolutely no tolerance for people's children and tweens and teens kicking and bumping the back of my chair throughout the film-- it's extremely distracting and aggravating.

And there are the issues of late arrivers, and the compulsive talkers who like to either narrate the action or provide constant commentary about the film. (Okay, I must confess, I have been guilty of this, once and only once. I couldn't help myself. It was my third time seeing "Twilight" and that movie is just SO bad. I was stuck in MST3K mode. But I humbly apologize. Also, the theater was nearly empty and I was mostly quiet about it... just... ugh... but I promise never, ever to do it again.)

Oh, and don't forget cell phone users. Really? In a darkened theater? Like no one is going to hear/see/be-driven-to-a-murderous-rage by your can't-wait-another-hour text or call?

Aside from the etiquette topic, the column also discusses the current barrage of advertising at the movies. I hadn't been to the Megaplex in a long time, but my husband and I went to see "The Avengers" for our second time at a Megaplex last weekend, and I was appalled at the number of ads before the lights went down, before the trailers and, horrifyingly, after the trailers! Talk about breaking the spell! I love the tingle of anticipation as the last trailer fades and the movie begins. The jolt of yet another two or three ads was disgusting. Captive audience, indeed. 

Anyway, feel free to comment here about what you read in this great column.

The Hunger Games

Believe it or not, I actually saw a movie in the theater yesterday! My two teenage sons were going to an afternoon show of "The Hunger Games", so I tagged along. It was a "spur of the moment" decision, which is also rare for me, and I'm so glad I went!


It's been a couple of years since I read the books, so my memory wasn't clear on many details. I think that made the movie more enjoyable because I wasn't comparing the two versions. I do think the movie was very true to the emotions and the heart of the book, and the few changes they made story-wise were necessary for the flow of the film. I also thought it was perfectly cast. I was nervous, as the last YA book-to-film I was excited about was woefully miscast and horribly directed and had some jaw-droppingly stupid moments added in. Yep, you know what I'm talking about. It's inevitable that we fans would draw some comparisons between "The Hunger Games" and "Twilight". After all, both books are YA with a leading heroine; both books feature gore and death, though "Hunger Games" is decidedly deathier; and both books have a heart-tugging love triangle. To compare Kristen Stewart and Jennifer Lawrence is terribly unfair. But I'm going to anyway. Stewart looks like a cardboard cutout onscreen, and Lawrence shines. Stewart's attempts at subtle emotional expressions look like she's sulking or simply deadpan, while Lawrence's subtlety is perfect and her face is so expressive, even when it isn't spelled out for the audience, we can tell what she's feeling.


So bear with me a moment as I repeat what everyone is saying: that Jennifer Lawrence is brilliantly well cast as Katniss- authentic, powerful, strong, but still a teenage girl, whose heart doesn't know what it wants. She's pretty, but not distractingly so-- she looks real. Believeable. And compelling-- you can't take her eyes off her.

Liam and his hunky-Thor brother, Chris and Chris' eyes. Yum.

Both the men in her life are also perfectly cast: Liam Hemsworth as Gale (I wanted to see more of him, especially since I have a bit of a crush on his brother. Hopefully we'll get more Gale in the next two films. I don't remember the books well enough to say... 


I especially loved Josh Hutcherson as Peeta. He absolutely broke my heart in Bridge to Terabithia 5 years ago. I could tell he was one to watch. Good looking, talented, and has that elusive presence all screen actors try to capture. He was so good as Peeta-- emotive, adorable, smiling at the crowd, heart-breaking when he talked to Katniss, just wonderful. Exactly what I pictured as I read the books. I do have to say, though, that his hair color doesn't look natural to me. Most likely that's because I know he's really not a blond... but it looked fakey-bad... and they left it dark in the flashback scene where he throws the bread out to Katniss in the rain. Um... poor editing? Just confusing? Yes. But maybe only to me. My boys didn't even notice, or care.

The casting is the biggest difference between HG and Twilight. The Edward of my imagination was good looking, Adonis-like, beautiful and muscular. The Edward of the film looks like a British misfit, bad teeth, worse hair (in the first film, especially), skinny and sick-looking. Not what was in my head at all... but with the casting of HG, they have managed to cast people who look exactly like their fictional counterparts, and who lo-and-behold are actually rather talented actors! 


For the first time in a long time, I'm excited to see the sequel next year... or whenever they release it. I can't remember the last time I was excited for a sequel. Unless you count the Avengers... don't get me started...


UPDATE 3/29/12: My friend Diane brought to my attention that I neglected to mention Woody Harrelson, who is absolutely spot-on as Haymitch. I wasn't sure I would like him; I haven't seen him in anything in so long, but I can't imagine Haymitch being played by anyone else! She also reminded me that I forgot to comment on what I call the "Bourne School of Camera Work" shooting of the fight scenes-- especially the one set on the large, metallic cornucopia. I despise scenes shot up close and with the cameraman doing the disco as he rolls film. There weren't a lot of them in this movie, thank goodness, but it was distracting when they shot like that. Thanks, Diane, for helping my forgetful-prone brain on this one! :)

Mission... IMPOSSIBLE!

Midway through a long day of last-minute Christmas shopping (of which I am so NOT a fan), my husband and I went to see the new "Mission Impossible" movie today. He was happy to be out seeing a movie instead of at work, and I was happy to be seeing Josh Holloway again... at least, I thought I would be happy to see him again... because his name is in the first 10 or so names in the credits... and I stupidly got my hopes up that he would be an actual character of note. Friends of mine (also shameless "Lost" fans) had speculated that maybe he was one of the baddies... which we would have enjoyed. He became my favorite on "Lost", and I was so excited to see him doing something new.  So imagine my disappointment, when he appeared in less than 5 minutes of film. Wha??? I was very disappointed. I won't say more, because I don't want to be the spoiler lady.

As far as the film itself, I liked it. It was exciting, had some breathtaking scenes and was well cast. I'm not a huge Tom Cruise fan, but I like the other members of his team in the film quite a lot. Simon Pegg is excellent, as always, and the casting of Jeremy Renner as Agent Brandt was brilliant. I am giddily awaiting the release of "The Avengers" next year, in which Renner plays "Hawkeye". He had a small part, little more than a cameo, in "Thor", and I liked him then. In "Mission", he's funny, charming and very believable as an ISA agent.

The movie is a little bit Bourne and a little Bond, adventurous, stunt-heavy with a barely believable evil plot to destroy the world. There were some fantastic moments where I cringed, clutched my husband's arm, and held my breath.

I can't bring myself to pay nearly $9 for a movie ticket, so we went to a matinee, and it was a full theater, and we only had a couple of idiots with cell phones. I've learned that if you sit on the back row, energetic tweens won't distract from the movie by kicking your seat the whole time. Unfortunately, so have a lot of other people, so our row was packed, elbow-to-elbow, but it was a fun time.