Rating: 
Summary: The Cat's Meow: A Can't Miss
Review: I had the pleasure of viewing this film with the director present at the DC film festival. After enjoying this delightful, almost nostalgic work, Peter Bogdanovich answered questions and offered his thoughts and initial ambitions for making the film. I was particularly taken by the film's energy, and its ability to remove the audience from their own individual worlds, and place them on William Randolph Hearst's yacht for a weekend trip in the late 1920's. The movement and dialogue in the film personify the internal hopes and mind sets of the major characters, each drastically different.
It seems that a viewer of the film should not search for some deep meaning or reflection on society, rather they should be interested in its portrayal of a blanketed mystery that took place years ago and is embedded in irony and revenge, comedy and heartbreak.
Bogdanovich claims to have learned about the story from the nephew of Marion Davies, (Hearst's famous faithful mistress) who told him the mysterious story of a death on the famous print media editor's yacht during a short trip down the coast of California. The story interested Bogdonovich, and later on an urge from a famous film critic, he was inspired to bring the tale to life after he found a screenplay of just this subject in his daily pile of scripts he recieved from writers. The result is a success, a film that effectively portrays the heart wrenching deceit, and jealous revenge that consumed the media lords' world on this extraordinary weekend in 1929.
The characters are magnificent, and in some cases brilliently acted. My personal favorites are Eddie Izzard's (choice British performer), role as Charlie Chaplain, the talented comedien and and writer who's love for Hearst's mistress Marion, tears the proper manner and aristocratic tranquility of the film apart. Joanna Lumley's job as the famous west coast reporter, Elinor Glyn, is charming (i'm a big ab fab fan, she's patsy).
The film is intriquing and enjoyable, beginning and ending in black and white while the characters attend a very mysterious funeral. The black and white scenes illustrate well the reality that the upper class members must face, while the beautifly matstered colored scenes on the yatch portray the fast-paced blur that seemed to be this particular boat tour.
I recommend catching this film if you have the means, and please take time to enjoy Izzard's performance, he's one i'll be watching out for from now on.
Rating: 
Summary: A DVD at it's Best
Review: I loved this movie the first time that I viewed it on television. As has been mentioned here in previous reviews, the plot is derived from the infamous and mysterious incident that occurred upon a yacht owned by Randolf Hearst in 1924. The movie especially draws it's strength from the ensemble cast, powerful performances and intriguing charector insight. Also, the experience is made more than complete by the wonderful set design and costumes. I knew what I was getting when I ordered the DVD.What was unexpected and a delightful surprise was the special features on this DVD. Several special features include an excellent Charlie Chaplin movie short, a Sundance Film feature entitled Anatomy of a Scene, and a very informative featurette about the making of The Cat's Meow. All of these special features were very entertaining and enlightening. Watching them heightened my appreciation for the movie. This DVD has doubled it's value in the special features offered, and represents all the advantages to owning a DVD over a video tape.
Rating:
Summary: As facile as this movie may have been,
Review: I nonetheless enjoyed it as a whole, and those not familiar at all with who W.R. Hearst was will hopefully be compelled to do some more digging into the odd fellow. An interesting story...the movie is a fun peek into the semi-decadence of people who have ascended the mountain of success and have nothing to do at the top but be amused and glib about the suffering of others, and play fast and loose with conventional morality, it having no use in such financial stratospheres. And yet, the power serves them insidiously when something truly foul happens-it can be made to disappear in such a way that ordinary folks could not. But this story doesn't have a big fat moral-really, you're watching Joanna Lumley, Edward Herrmann, Eddie Izzard and Kirsten Dunst impress you by filling their characters' shoes effectively, with wit and whimsy amongst the lavish backdrop of Twenties affluence in spite of sobriety. It's worth a look.
Rating:
Summary: Everybody Charleston!
Review: I saw this movie knowing only of Charlie Chaplin in the beginning of my old movie days. I like Kirsten Dunst and Cary Elwes. After seeing it, I was entertained by the Charleston scenes and not much else. Then, as I began to get more and more interested in the time period, I realized what an excellent movie this is. The story is very much like an old movie so it suits the time period in that way. It also was costumed brilliantly and casted well. Eddie Izzard might not look like Chaplin, but he plays him as if he knew the man. Some of the things in the movie that are mentioned are about things going on at the time period, like the fact that Chaplin got his young co-star of The Gold Rush (Lita Grey) pregnant. He eventually married her.
The extra features are great. The restored Chaplin short is funny and appropirate to the DVD. The interviews with the stars of the movie show that they thought about their characters. I love that Kirsten Dunst decided not to (falsely) portray Marion Davies as she was in Citizen Kane. I wouldn't have known about Marion if it weren't for this movie and the same goes for Thomas Ince. It is a great example of the efforts of wonderful people trying to revive a beautiful time period that will possibly be lost to the world.
Rating:
Summary: The Whisper
Review: I wanted this movie because I have been interested in Marion Davies and William Randolph Hearst for years. I have read several books about them, and I knew about the big rumor surrounding the cruise WR, Marion and gang took in 1924. Marion states in her book that Tom Ince got a severe case of indigestion, was taken off the boat and later died. Well, in the 1920s, people knew as much about heart disease as they did the space program - non-existent. Its common knowledge now that many people mistake a heart attack for indigestion or heart burn. Marion said the rumor about a murder taking place on Hearst's yacht was ridiculous. I believe her, because something like that would not stay secret forever (remember Watergate), but still I enjoyed this movie for what it is - "the whisper told most often." I do have a few negative comments. Edward Herrmann was mis-cast as William Randolph Hearst. He did not capture the essence of Hearst at all. From everything I have read, Hearst could be a very intimidating man. He supposedly had a stare that could scare even the bravest man. Herrmann came across as more of a wimp. The only way he was right for the part was his size. Also, in this film, Marion calls Hearst "Willie." Maybe Marion did call Hearst "Willie" in the 1920s, but in her autobiography, "The Times We Had," she calls him "WR." Lots of people called him "WR," so the "Willie" thing was strange. She also called him "Pops." I thought Kirsten Dunst was charming as Marion. I thought she captured her essence as good as can be expected. Eddie Izzard did a good job as Charlie Chaplin, as did Jennifer Tilly as Louella Parsons. Many people believed the rumor of a murder on the yacht because supposedly Louella suddenly got more power as a columnist for one of Hearst's papers. The truth is probably much less dramatic, but in the 1920s, just as damning. Anyone who has trouble believing the love between Marion and Hearst, I can understand from just watching this movie. The way Herrmann played him, I wouldn't understand either. But they were together for approximately 30 years until his death in 1951.
Rating: 
Summary: The Dog's Bow-Wow
Review: In one or the other of David Niven's autobiographies ("The Moon's a Balloon" or "Bring on the Empty Horses"), he included a brief item about the strange hold Louella Parsons seemed to have over her employer, William Randolph Hearst. Niven hinted that Louella had witnessed a murder years before on Hearst's yacht, and that the payoff was a job for life. I remembered that anecdote when I saw the coming attractions for "The Cat's Meow", Peter Bogdanovich's treatment of that very same story. Well, after having seen the movie the other day, I can tell you that the difference between Niven's story and Bogdanovich's is that Niven was a good storyteller and they who are responsible for this movie are not. I felt that Edward Herrmann's Hearst was all alone in this movie, since nobody else was a good actor. No one appeared really to BE the person we were told they were: Charlie Chaplin was extremely un-funny, Louella Parsons was some sort of hideous drag queen depiction, and Marion Davies was totally unconvincing. I didn't believe she was in an affair for the past seven years with Hearst; I didn't believe she had witnessed a murder; I didn't believe she was familiar with anyone else in the movie, lover or otherwise. Bad casting, bad directing because none of the actors were being made to relate to the other in an appropriate fashion. Although the picture might look good on the surface, I even take exception to a VERY small detail. There's a scene when Marion is opening the door to her cabin very slowly, so slowly that I had time to contemplate the detailing on the door. What I plainly saw was the joint where two pieces of wood had been stuck together. What that demonstrates to me is shoddy workmanship, the kind of shoddy workmanship that frankly would NEVER have been tolerated in the rarefied environment of a passionate art collector/lover like Hearst. He never would have okayed such a thing. But the fact that the director and everyone else didn't have the sensibility to understand that minor detail is very telling. They don't understand Hearst et alia AT ALL, and that's why this movie falls flat. No, this movie isn't the cat's meow or even the cat's pajamas. Want to see a movie about the immoral rich? Catch "Gosford Park" instead.
Rating:
Summary: The Cat's Meow is The Cat's Pajamas!
Review: Let me start by saying that I very rarely give a movie five stars. This movie is one of those notable exceptions. The Cat's Meow is one of those movies that didn't get nearly as much recognition as it should have. Peter Bogdanovich's directing is beautifully understated, as is the cinematography by Bruno Delbonnel (Amelie). The script is fabulous, the art direction is flawless, and the acting is, without exception, wonderful. Kirsten Dunst shows her capacity to play more than the brainless cheerleader in this movie -- her down-to-earth nature enhances Marion Davies' obvious internal struggle. Edward Herrmann is incredible as William Randolph Hearst. He brings a touching level of humanity to a character who is truly unlikable. Joanna Lumley and Jennifer Tilly as Elinor Glyn and Louella Parsons, respectively, play off each other perfectly. Lumley is witty and sophisticated, while Tilly is bright-eyed and annoying. In a good way. Cary Elwes, to whom I have a particular emotional attachment because of Robin Hood: Men In Tights and The Princess Bride, plays a man whose dignity is slowly crumbling away. His performance, like those of the rest of the cast, shows Thomas Ince to be a character who is far from a good person. But you can understand why. Although the entire ensemble cast delivers thoroughly satisfying performances, one stands out: Eddie Izzard. I have been a fan of his stand-up for many years (and for those of you who haven't seen or heard it, do so immediately), however, when I heard he was playing Charlie Chaplin, I really couldn't envision it. He doesn't look anything like Chaplin, who was slight, in his facial features as well as his physique. Within five minutes of the movie, I had totally forgotten that this was a transvestite stand-up comic who rattles on about everything from evil ducks to Star Trek. The twinkle in Izzard's eye carries over perfectly to Chaplin, the epitome of playfulness. He captures Chaplin's personality and makes it his own so much that after watching the movie, you will have a hard time believing that Chaplin is Chaplin.
Rating: 
Summary: Kirsten Dunst is No Marion Davies
Review: Norma Desmond was right: they really DID have faces then.And Marion Davies' was one of them.
Part of the reason this film doesn't work is that Dunst doesn't have the screen prescence of any of her co-stars [Joanna Lumley as Elinor Glinn and Jennifer Tilley as Louella Parsons steal it].
That leaves a big cipher in the middle of the film. There is no electricity between Davies and Herrmann [his retro rich industrialist/politician/stock broker fill in the blank ,is just useful here as Hearst.He's done it over and over again to the point of self parody...is that Roosevelt this time?]nor Davies and Chaplin.
The movie is beautifully photographed, but the lack of a real central prescence as the catalyst for the obsession and passion and resulting tragedy made it disappointing and irritating.
Marion Davies was alive on film,interesting and funny and loyal in real life, not this dreary dish water dull [imitation is not the word, I doubt Dunst even knew who she was]thumbnail sketch of Marion Davies as "interpreted" by Kirsten Dunst.
What a dud. Glad I didn't got to the theatre to see it.Really infuriating because it had such potential.
Rating:
Summary: Sail of the season...
Review: Normally period pieces and whodunits are relegated to gather dust in the drama section at your video store, but this sleeper by Bogdonovich is one is done with great writing and character study that it might be worth at least a rent. Told as a possible story as what might have happened to Thomas Ince one fateful night on Hearst's boat, we see a deeper story about morality and power during the Hearst and Davies years.
Dunst is absolutely terrific as Marion Davies - an actress whose own talents were equally electrifying on screen if given the proper vehicle. Unfortunately for Davies, Hearst didn't see her as a comedianne and some of this struggle comes across in the film. Also worth seeing in these rolls is the befuddled Jennifer Tilly as Louella Parsons and Eddie Izzard as the amorous (or heartbreakingly lecherous) Charlie Chaplin.
Rating:
Summary: An interesting theory of a mystery
Review: Not much is really known about that cruise in 1924 on the yacht of William Randolph Hearst. All we know for sure is that Thomas Ince died just days after the trip ended. None of the passengers on the boat were willing to concede any details, in fact, stories from the different passengers conflicted greatly. The trip is really a pleasure cruise for Hearst (played very well by Edward Herrmann), Marion Davies (Kirsten Dunst), and a few of Hollywood's elite. The main focus for the group is trying to keep up with the seemingly imminent love affair between Davies and the devilish Charlie Chaplin (wickedly played by Eddie Izzard) Chaplin has just gotten his 16 year old co star pregnant and now has designs on Davies. She resists for a while, but eventually falls prey to his charms. The film is an interesting character study. Herrmann shows us a Hearst who despite his riches, realizes that he is much older and less attractive than the wolves who are pursuing his girl. One particularly sad scene is when the band strikes up the Charleston, and Hearst is able to participate only for a few seconds before sitting the rest out. He watches as Marion has a blast with Charlie and the others on the floor. Ince(played by Cary Elwes) spends the movie hooking up with his mistress and trying to gain information about other people to benefit himself. He was a powerful name in the movies at one time, and now is trying to get back to where he was. He snoops in rooms looking for information, and when he has put the pieces together, disaster strikes in the form of a gun shot. What is interesting is Hearst's reaction to the shooting of Ince. Immediately this man who has spent the movie looking weak and helpless springs into action with a pack of lies, trying to cover up what has happened, even calling Ince's wife and making up a despicable story. We will never know the truth, but this is not only a credible guess at the events, but also a very good film which shows us a different angle of the characters involved.
|
