Not that I wanted to see it, but if you promise ass-to-mouth, I better get ass to mouth.

Otherwise, after the “shock” wears off the pace slows and plot starts to wear thin. However, they did get the perfect guy to play the maniacal Doctor Heiter. His slow and methodical way of carrying himself is uber creepy.

Meh.

Just a mish-mash of bits-and-pieces of stories Disney has already done, and done better. Unless you’re a fan, or have a child, save your time and pass this one by.

Why did the producers of this album feel the need to duplicate tracks?

Ask yourself, “Have I seen The Exorcist?” If the answer be yes, then you have seen better. Don’t bother. If no, then I suggest you watch that movie instead.

Last episode would have made a better season finale. Instead we get House having a tanturm, again! Very lackluster.

So much Nostalgia. Tex Avery late at night on Cartoon Network. I would sneak and stay up late!

I really found the alcoholic father’s subplot much more interesting than Shearer’s affair with Gable’s gangster persona. I think the portrayal of alcoholism was handled really well, realistically graphic, but not played for laughs or parody. It was a professionally acted and presented portrayal of one man’s descent into alcohol addiction and the tragic repercussions it has. It demostrates how little societal issues have changed over the last 70 years and that our 21st century society isn’t so dissimilar to 1930s America.

I believe that I’m going to develop a love-hate relationship with this film. On the positive its a pretty good Lubitsch musical, far better than the previous The Love Parade or Monte Carlo. For all its “European charm,” its light, cute and basically Hollywood fluff, but it’s worth watching for those who enjoy musicals. Although, I was surprised to find out that there wasn’t too much singing, especially froum Colbert, and thankfully almost none from Hopkins. The sets were detailed and almost unbearably quaint and pretty, with no real life to be seen. But of course this comes with the territory (ie: musicals), doesn’t it? The rest of the movie is fine. The plot plays out quickly and is directed and filmed nicely.

My complaint comes with the ending. Actually, to be more pricise it is the ending. Nikki (Maurice Chevalier) ends up with the Princess!? I mean I this choice of an ending was to honor the sanctity of marriage, I understand that but, not only does Nikki end up with her, but the Princess (Mariam Hopkins) has to change her appearance to do so. She basically becomes a seductress, purchasing revealing clothing, makeup, a stylish haircut and an indifferent attitude to get the man. This is not only sexist, but makes Maurice Chevalier’s Nikki, who was so in love with the violinist Franzi (Claudette Colbert), seem like a dickish womanizer, lured easily away from love by the promise of sex.

And it is sex he is lured away by. Don’t let this film being shot in the 1930s fool you. It was definitely made during the pre-code era, and there are a lot of allusions and innuendos to/of sex. In a period of film history in which female actors were freed from conventional and binding sterotypes, this movie’s disposition on the sexes is unfortunate.

Just watch the original.

Recognize this cartoon? I did, its one of the shorts used to play in the background on various TV sets in the third segment of Twilight Zone: The Movie.