Strong and Moving!

Really Surprised!

Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

Is difficult to imagine is that comedy so at ease, without the exaggerated facial expressions and movements jokingly, completely just script operation, distinctive characters show and the storyline of the conflicting collision out a very exciting laugh, or a fine sense of humor and amusing humor. Let me think later "La Grande Vadrouille" in the group play interspersed and coincidence echoes. As amazing actor, hapless Colonel, loyal soldiers, war machine heartbeat.Revisit the classic comedy, from beginning to end immersed in the plot to create out of the atmosphere of joy, the director of the comedy elements with effortless, structure, lines, performing, narrative and music and drama are called perfect, textbook style comedy film.

An enthralling and ebullient double bill of two versions of TO BE OR NOT TO BE, Lubitsch's Black & White masterpiece, also famous for being Carole Lombard's swan song before a plane crash brought her away from this world at the prime age of 33, and Mel Brooks' (almost) faithful color remade (although the director title falls on the head of his longtime collaborator Alan Johnson) starring him and his wife Ms. Bancroft. It is the same story being transcribed under two different palettes, the remake owes its tongue-in-cheek drollness greatly to the screenwriter Edwin Justus Mayer of the 1942 version since many one-liners are copied verbatim, both versions are abounding with witty caricatures of Hitler and his Nazi regime, embellishes a tall order in the wartime Warsaw with conspicuous burlesque, a Polish acting troupe's collective endeavour to hunt down a German spy and a subsequent flee from war zone to England, during which a crucial tool is that our hero, the ham actor Joseph Tura (Benny) / Frederick Bronski (Brooks), has to playact different characters, from the spy professor, a Nazi colonel and even Hitler himself (in the remake), to bluff his way out; meanwhile he is also vexed by the budding romance between his actor wife Maria (Lombard) / Anna (Bancroft) and a young aviator Lt. Sobieski (Stack) / Lt. Sobinski (Matheson). But there are also apparent differences which can bear out why Lubitsch's original is a much better piece of work, taking the opening sequences for example, Lubitsch starts with a voice-over narrating an unusual happening in Warsaw before WWII, Adolf Hitler is spotted on the street, then a following revelation reveals that it is after all an act, Hitler is played by a character actor who tries to test his resemblance by walking among the mass, what a pleasant surprise! But in the remake, Mel Brooks doesn't adopt this route, instead, he opens with a vaudeville number SWEET GEORGIA BROWN with Bancroft, a fairly impressive stunt but fails to match Lubitsch's ingenious gambit, later audience will discover, one main reason behind this alteration is that there is no role of the character actor who resembles Hitler in this version, as Brooks himself will disguise as Hitler in the final escape scam, so probably it is a sacrifice to fulfil Brooks' own ego to enlarge his part as the star.For most part, the silver-screen magnetism of the original is beguilingly outstrips the remake's more mundane touch, and being a well-intended fairytale, the mundane touch is unfortunately an impediment particularly in the elongated escape plan, the entire operation feels preposterous with the all the chase (don't let me start on the doggie Mutki's eleventh- hour jump) and what happens to the real Hitler in the theatre, he doesn't feel absurd when clearly no actors are on the stage to perform? In the original, this passage is fast-paced with a whimsical take of the fake Hitler ordering two pilots to jump off the plane without parachutes, to mock Nazi's blind obedience.With all my respect to Brooks and Bancroft, but in the remake, they are just too old for their roles, egregiously jarring is Brooks as young Hamlet in his ridicule titular monologue, seriously? I don't consider myself as an ageist, but this is more than a farce to swallow. Bancroft is two-and-a-half decades past her prime as a seductress in THE GRADUATE (1967, 8/10), her comedic bent can never pass beyond the slinky postures. OK. we get it, it is a family business, let the profit kept within one's own turf. However, a big thumb-up for the remake to introduce an openly gay character Sasha (Haake), Anna's dresser, into the plot, in order to carry through the side-splitting wisecrack "how can a theatre survive without Jews, gays and gypsies?". Also Charles Durning usurps an Oscar-nomination for the remake as Col. Erhardt, but having watched the original first, his farcical rendition feels a shade forced compared with Sig Ruman's effortless spontaneity.In the original, the Lombard-and-Benny pair forms a more organic liaison thanks a lot to the retro flair, she is a classic lady with glamour and dignity, he is somewhat childlike but self- consciously over-proud of his acting, their bickering is crammed with spark and tease, even Robert Stack's handsome pilot is dreamier in the vintage silhouette. All in all, it might be unfair for the remake to be viewed immediately after the original, but also the double-bill viewing is a telling corroboration of why vintage classics can obtain their timeless appeal, nostalgia aside, they are absolutely one-of-a-kind in their visual tactility, their characters' mannerism and the streamlined narrative tactics, if you are into it, you cannot get enough of it, as for the remake, maybe it is just not vintage enough, nothing we can do about that, as least for now.

"To Be or Not to Be" is one of a very small number of films that are genuine satire. Of course, satire is comedy and humor. But it can also be dramatic, action-filled, pathos, empathy and mystery or intrigue. It is most often a combination of these. The comedy is often the release or relief from what the story would be without it. The genius of comedy- satire is its ability to make audiences laugh by its treatment of a subject that most often is not otherwise very funny. Satire can cover any and all aspects of life, but the very best – and that with unquestionably wide appeal – is political satire. That's what we have in "To Be or Not to Be."I recall the first time I saw this movie – how I was gripped by the humor, then by the intrigue about what came next, then by concern that Carol Lombard would be found out, and then back to the humor again. This film has considerable darting between its emotion-inducing scenes. That makes it all the more a great satire and comedy. Of course, I knew it was to be a comedy. What else could it be with Jack Benny and Carole Lombard? Still, a somewhat zany story, with great screen writing and equally great direction by Ernst Lubitsch, was able to hold sway over my viewing. Then we add superb acting all around. Carol Lombard is excellent in her role as Maria Tura. Her humorous lines are very good, but as in many other films, her "straight man" role plays perfectly with Jack Benny's Joseph Tura. His are the exaggerated blown-up lines, side glances, smirks and assorted facial expressions that ignite our uproarious laughter. Since my first viewing, I now watch this film for the pure humor and satire, and I watch for the many little subtleties that I often miss in such clever films on first viewing. And, they're not all by the main stars. The movie has several top-flight supporting actors of its day. They are the source of many of the laughs. Most are members of the Polish theater group. Felix Bressart plays Greenberg, Tom Dugan plays Bronski, Charles Halton plays Producer Dobosh, and Lionel Atwill plays Rawitch. Viewers knew for sure that the role of SS Col. Ehrhardt would not be too stern or serious – with Sig Ruman in the role. Robert Stack is very good in his role as Polish pilot, Lt. Stanislav Sobinski, and Stanley Ridges does well in the straightest role of the film, as Professor Siletsky.This film is a must for any movie library. It may not be as funny to younger audiences who haven't yet studied the history of the World War II period. The film was made in 1941, before the U.S. entered the war. Because America was still neutral, this movie was considered too controversial so it was held back. It was finally scheduled for release in March, 1942, Then a sad event preceded its opening when Carol Lombard was killed in a plane crash in January. She was just 33 years old.One oddity I found in this film occurred in a scene after Tura (playing Siletsky) leaves Col. Erhardt's office. The camera then pans to Erhardt's appointments calendar next to his name plaque on his desk. The top of the page is dated in large letters: "1941, Tuesday, December 16." That seemed like a huge jump in time in the film – more than two years. The movie opens on Aug. 31, 1939, the day before Germany invades Poland. Are we to think that it was more than two years later that the rest of the events transpire? The U.S. would have been at war after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, and surely there would have been some mention of that in the film. I think this was a slight oversight from the movie being filmed in late 1941 – before Pearl Harbor. Then, when the film's release was held back because the U.S. was not yet at war, this scene wasn't re-shot. The calendar most likely should have read 1939 or 1940 in the first place. Another little oddity appears on the calendar. It is filled in with appointments at 15-minute intervals. The 10:30 slot lists Maria Tura. And, at 10:45, a single name is listed: "Schindler." Might that be a reference to Oskar Schindler, whose story is told in the 1993 blockbuster film, "Schindler's List?" If so, it would be ironic because people in 1941 (including Hollywood movie makers) would have known of Schindler only as an exploiter of Jewish labor for his wartime industrial plant in Krakow, Poland. Only after the war were Schindler's efforts made known – how he saved the lives of hundreds of Jews. Some of the lines in this film are riotously funny. Here are a couple samples. Tura/Siletsky says, "I didn't like the way Capt. Schulz shifted the responsibility back to you." Col. Erhardt, "Neither did I. You know there's always something wrong with a man who doesn't drink, doesn't smoke, doesn't eat meat…" Tura/Siletsky, "You mean our Führer?" Erhardt, "Oh, no. Please, professor, I hope you won't …"Before he leaves Erhardt's office, Tura (playing the fake Siletsky) asks if Erhardt had heard of that great, great Polish actor Joseph Tura. Erhardt says, "Oh, yes. As a matter of fact, I saw him on stage when I was in Warsaw once before the war." Tura/Siletsky says, rhetorically, "Really?" And Erhardt replies, "What he did to Shakespeare we are doing now to Poland."

It's 1939. Husband and wife, Joseph (Jack Benny) and Maria Tura (Carole Lombard), are theater stars. He's a self-obsessed diva and she has an admirer in bomber pilot Lieut. Stanislav Sobinski (Robert Stack). After the German invasion, Sobinski is in England. He meets Professor Siletsky who is going back to Poland. Everybody gives him family and friends names to send greetings to. Sobinski is suspicious when he doesn't know who Maria Tura is. Before Sobinski could tell the higher ups, he's gone back and Sobinski is sent after him.This is a suspenseful thriller with some jokes thrown in. The remake is funnier and jokier. This one still has the funniest line "Heil myself". Mel Brooks makes walking out on "To be or not to be" much funnier than Jack Benny. Jack is less outrageous than Mel. This one is just more of a spy action movie being shown right in the middle of the war. It does struggle with the tone as it keeps going back to the big laughs with Jack Benny. It's a battle between the dark serious subject matter and Jack Benny trying to ham it up.