Formal Review of "The Producers"

                Mel Brooks’ classic film The Producers is a grand look at various stereotypes with a comedic flair. When washed up Broadway star, Max Bialypstock, meets Leo Bloom, an extremely nervous accountant, the two work together to swindle money from innocent old women by having them invest money in a sure-fire flop play. They choose to produce a guaranteed failure of a play titled, “Springtime for Hitler: a Gay Romp with Adolf and Eva at Berchtesgaden,” which was written by Franz Liebkind, an undercover Nazi, to extol the virtues of Hitler. To further guarantee that the play is a failure, Max also employs the worst director he can find, an eccentric man of questionable sexual orientation named Roger De Bris. The group thinks they have a sure-fire flop on their hands when they hire a local hippy, LSD, to play the main role of Hitler. However, things go awry when LSD’s performance turns the play from an uncomfortable praise of Hitler to a successful spoof of all things German. In one last, mad attempt to save themselves from prison, Max and Leo team up with Franz, who is extremely upset with the mockery made of his play, to blow up the theater that is hosting their play. In the end, all three of them end up in court. By far, the most enjoyable part of The Producers is Mel Brooks’ take on several classic stereotypes. Three of the most masterful of these stereotypical characters are Max, Franz, and LSD.

                Max Bialystock, played by Zero Mostel, is your stereotypical sleeze-ball, complete with New York accent, rumpled clothing, greasy hair, and questionable hygiene skills. Not only does he look like a greasy con-man, he acts like one as well by lying, manipulating, scheming, and being a general cheapskate. From the very beginning of the film we see Max lie to and manipulate other people. He has sex with little old ladies so that they will give him money to produce terrible plays, but lies to them about both the plays and his intentions toward them. Max even goes so far as to hide and switch out photographs of the old women, depending which one is coming over next. Later, Max manipulates Leo into helping him carry out the money-swindling scheme that Leo accidentally came up with. Max tells Leo how easy it would be to get away with, makes him think he’s on the bottom and deserves to be treated better, and that the two of them are friends. Throughout the film, Max also demonstrates just how cheap he is. He lives in a rundown apartment, which he avoids paying for, wears a cardboards belt, buys the cheapest food possible when he takes Leo out to lunch, and is even willing to destroy public property and kill innocent people in order to avoid paying money. It is quite likely that Max Bialypstock is the finest example of human scum to ever grace the film industry.

Franz Liebkin, played by Kenneth Mars, is the poster child for the German Nazi stereotype. One of Franz’s most notable features, besides his outrageous German accent, is his helmet. Regardless of the situation or the attire required, Franz keeps his military helmet firmly atop his head at all times. In addition to his war-time head gear, Franz remains ready for war by caring for messenger pigeons, which he uses to send messages back to his home country. Despite his clearly Germanic allegiance, Franz does his best to seem like an America-loving citizen. Any momentary slip-ups that may reveal his true allegiance are quickly smothered out by Franz’s recitation of notably “American” pieces such as The Pledge of Allegiance and Yankee Doodle Dandy. If all of this didn’t put the icing on the proverbial German chocolate cake, even Franz’s play is full to the brim with even more German Nazi stereotypes. In the show’s opening number we see men wearing lederhosen and women wearing milk maid costumes; scantily clad women sporting symbols such as beer, pretzels, medals, and ravens; mentions of the “master race,” and Düsseldorf; men and women in Nazi uniforms saluting Hitler, dodging pretend bullets, listening for bombs, and forming a giant swastika together; and to end the number a giant picture of Hitler is lowered, Nazi party flags are brought on stage, and fake cannons are shot. Absolutely everything about Franz Liebkin screams Nazi Germany and it is absolutely wonderful.

Lastly, we have my favorite character in the film: Lorenzo St. DuBois, better known as LSD, played by Dick Shawn. LSD is the film’s token hippy stereotype. With The Producers being released in the late sixties, it’s no wonder that this particular stereotype found its way into the film. Just as he did with his role as Sylvester Marcus in It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World, Dick Shawn does a wonderful job portraying a smooth, sixties beatnik. Even if LSD never said a word throughout the entire film, you would still be able to tell that he is a hippy. Everything about his appearance screams “flower child” from his outfit, which consists of a black shirt, a pair of striped pants, and thigh-high boots, to the Campbell’s Soup can he has strung around his neck, and to the bouquet daisies he carries into his audition. Fortunately for the audience, LSD has plenty to say… Once he is able to remember his name that is. From here LSD not only spouts plenty of sixties lingo in an incredibly laid back manner, but he actually sings a song for his audition entitled, “Love Power,” in which he states that, “Love power will rule the earth and there will be a great rebirth,” and that, “If everybody in the world today had a flower instead of a gun, there would be no wars.” Throughout his audition he shows off some strange interpretative dancing and throws flowers at the director, his assistant, and the producers. After he is hired to play the role of Hitler in “Springtime for Hitler,” LSD singlehandedly ensures that the play is a success as his “groovy” tendencies cause him to portray Hitler, the ruthless dictator that he was, as a silly, incompetent fool. For his downright silliness and his cleverly given acronym, LSD, Lorenzo St. Dubois is one of the best stereotypes present in The Producers and my favorite character in the entire film.

Although there were definitely things about The Producers that I didn’t enjoy such as an overabundance of sexual innuendos, I found most of the film (especially the second half) to be thoroughly enjoyable. As usual, Mel Brook’s humor is genius, the performances of actors such as Dick Shawn and Gene Wilder (though I did not talk about his character in this review) were wonderful, the original songs were extremely well written, and, of course, Mel Brook’s ability to poke fun at different stereotypes is fantastic. While it wasn’t one of my favorite films, I would definitely recommend The Producers to anyone who enjoys great humor and doesn’t mind a little crude humor. Personally, if I were to watch it again I would likely skip to a point further into the movie after most of the crude humor is done with.

Informal Review of "The Breakfast Club"

                The Breakfast Club is not only a classic part of film history, but also an insight into the idea that, at the base of it all, we are all the same. When five seemingly different teenagers are stuck in detention together under the watch of a vicious assistant principle, the tension within the group quickly comes to a boil. Spurred on by local bad boy and trouble maker, John Bender, the group sways between constant bickering and goofing off together. Eventually, the group comes to understand that, despite the differences in their social circles and socioeconomic statuses, they aren’t so different from each other after all. While the outer layer of The Breakfast Club (and the source of most of the movie’s fun) is simply a bunch of bored teenagers doing bored teenager things, at its core the movie is about the realization that all people can relate to one another in some way and that social status and images should not really matter.

                If The Breakfast Club simply blasted its message at every possible moment, it would have been far less effective as a film. Comedy was essential in keeping the film from getting too heavy. This light heartedness is also what gave us some of the film’s most iconic scenes and lines. “Did I stutter?” Most importantly, however, these scenes made the characters more relatable. The members of the club acted like teenagers, making it easier for teenaged viewers to empathize with them. The fact that, even today, most young people can still relate to these characters shows the effectiveness of the The Breakfast Club’s writing. By making the characters so relatable, the audience actually cares about what each member is going through. Each teen’s struggle and how each member of the group relates and interacts with the others is the main crux of the film. All of them have their own problems, usually stemming from their parents. Looking deeper into the film, it may not be too far-fetched to say that the main theme of the film (aside from judging people based on stereotypes) is the group’s shared fear of becoming like their parents or other adults in general. At the end of the film, the group seems to have come to terms with each other and have decided to be friends, despite not being from the same social circles. It’s possible that they may have even decided to be different than the majority of the adults they knew. This is further substantiated by the nastiness displayed by assistant principle Vernon throughout the film. Later in the film, Vernon has the following conversation with the school janitor, the only adult not portrayed as completely venomous during the course of the film:

Vernon: You think about this: when you get old, these kids- when I get old- they’re going to be running the country.

Janitor: Yeah.

Vernon: Now this is the thought that wakes me up in the middle of the night. That when I get older, these kids are going to take care of me.

Janitor: I wouldn’t count on it.

The members of The Breakfast Club had never been given any reason to see adults as people who had a positive influence on their lives. Perhaps, in the end, The Breakfast Club was about a film not only about forgoing social norms, but about the characters deciding not to make the same mistakes as their parents.

                Our class viewing of The Breakfast Club was not my first viewing of the film, but it was the first time I actually paid attention to the unedited version. Although I was aware of the amount of language and some of the innuendo in the film, I never paid enough attention to the unedited version before to notice some of the more distasteful scenes. Frankly, the film could have held its own just as well without a panty shot of Molly Ringwald. However, despite its more disgusting downfalls, The Breakfast Club was a groundbreaking film and I would highly recommend the TV edit to audience members old enough to handle it.

Formal Review of "How to Train Your Dragon 2"

                How to Train Your Dragon 2 picks up five years after the events of the first film. Hiccup and the gang are now in their early twenties, the cohabitation between dragons and the Vikings of Berk is flourishing, and Stoic has named Hiccup his official heir. However, things go awry when the gang stumbles across a group of dragon catchers who say they are helping a man called Drago Bludvist, who is building an army of dragons. Things get even more interesting when Hiccup finds his long lost mother, Valka, who rejoins her family in order to thwart Drago and save the dragons.

How to Train Your Dragon 2, much like many of Dreamworks’ better films, does a fantastic job of creating and maintaining a world and telling a story about the strength of a family.

                The world and characters that were presented in How to Train Your Dragon have not only been preserved, but expanded upon. The village of Berk has been modified to accommodate the dragons by installing perches for the dragons to land on, strategically placed pipes and water buckets to put out accidental fires, the conversion of the forge into a saddle making shop, and even the introduction of a new sport called dragon racing. After the world is reestablished, it is revealed that not only has Hiccup continued to invent dragon inspired creations, such as a flight suit and a flame sword, but he has been exploring the areas surrounding Berk in search of new islands and different dragons to study. Not only that, but it is also revealed that both Drago and Valka train dragons using techniques similar to those used by Hiccup, and that Valka has discovered even more about dragons than Hiccup has. How to Train Your Dragon 2 makes more use of Norse traditions than the first film did; the most notable of which was Stoic’s burial at sea. After Stoic is accidentally killed by Toothless, his body is set placed in a boat, which is then pushed out to sea and set on fire

                Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron, The Croods, and the first How to Train Your Dragon, are all films that showcase what Dreamworks does best: telling stories about strong familial bonds and friendships. In How to Train Your Dragon 2 we see two very strong families: the Isle of Berk, led by Hiccup’s father, Stoic, and the dragons’ nest, which is watched over by Valka. Both leaders have a strong sense of preservation and are willing to take care of the ones they love at any cost. This resolve only grows stronger when the two finally reunite. In fact, the relationship between Hiccup’s parents may have been the best part of the film. When Stoic first approaches Valka after twenty years she expects him to yell and be angry with her for letting him think she was dead all that time. However, instead of chastising her, Stoic gently embraces her and gives her a kiss. After he woos her by singing their song, which was an extremely fun and touching scene, Valka agrees to rejoin Stoic and Hiccup and be a family again. Soon after they wage war against Drago in order to protect both the dragons and the inhabitants of Berk. Even after Stoic’s death Valka continues to encourage and guide Hiccup. She is able not only to help Hiccup overcome Drago and his alpha dragon, but to help Hiccup forgive Toothess for killing Stoic against his will. The first How to Train Your Dragon Film focused on the forming of the bond between Hiccup and Toothless, but How to Train Your Dragon 2 shows us how that friendship has grown and how it is being maintained against all odds.

                Although I was initially concerned that How to Train Your Dragon 2 would suffer the same fate as most sequels, I am overjoyed to report that it did not. Instead of trying to give fans more of the first film by telling the same story, the creators of the film told a different story about the same characters in the same setting with the same lore. This film expanded on what we already knew form the first film and took it to new and exciting places. It didn’t hesitate to pull out all the stops by expanding its lore, creating new dynamics between characters, killing off some old ones, and upping the stakes for our heroes and their home. How to Train Your Dragon 2 simultaneously shares enough differences from and similarities to the film that came before it, making it a much more powerful film than your average sequel. I highly recommend How to Train Your Dragon 2, especially if you loved the original How to Train Your Dragon movie.

Informal Review of "Interstellar"

                Interstellar documents the journey of the crew of the Lazarus as they journey through space to find a habitable planet for the human race to live on. After various diseases began destroying crops all over the world, the Earth was in need of a much larger supply of farmers, leading men like Cooper, a former astronaut and our main character, to leave their former professions in order take up farming and increase the food supply. It is also revealed that, due to some unexplained series of events, the public opinion of space travel has decreased so immensely that schools have begun to teach children that the landing of the Apollo 13 was nothing but propaganda meant to bankrupt Russia. When Cooper’s daughter Murph, named after Murphy’s Law, discovers an anomaly in her bedroom that provides Cooper with a set of coordinates, the two end up following them and finding NASA, which went underground and is continuing its research in secret. From here, Cooper is chosen to lead a team into space and through a wormhole to another galaxy in search of a new home for the human race in order to save them from extinction.

Not only was Interstellar’s use of story, special effects, and sound dynamic, but it was also an homage to Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: a Space Odyssey.

                Interstellar did everything right in terms of dynamics. Not only was the plot a fresh take on the “find a new home for the humans” scenario, but it used plot twists and emotionally charged scenes to its full advantage. This film takes every possible chance to rip out your heart strings and dance on them in the most satisfying way possible. There isn’t much to say about the film’s special effects as they are very much the same quality as the numerous other films out right now. However, that doesn't make them any less special. The special effects were most impressive when they were used to create the extremely believable worlds that the crew visited, when they traveled through the wormhole, and during other key moments in the film, which I won’t spoil for those reading this post from my blog who may not have seen the film yet. Lastly, the film is accompanied by an absolutely gorgeous score, which accents the mood of the film beautifully. In addition to its stunning musical score, Interstellar makes great use of non-digetic sounds. The best example being the use of rhythmic, clock-like tones to subtly remind viewers that Cooper’s crew have only so much time to spare in any given situation.

                Interstellar very clearly took inspiration from 2001: a Space Odyssey. First, the film made direct nods to Kubrick’s work by using slow build ups, shots showcasing the various pieces of spacecraft floating through space (though without the classical music), and even going so far as to reference the plot of 2001 itself when one of the ship’s robots, TARS, jokes about killing off the crew, a nod to HAL’s actions in 2001. Second, it also took techniques that were used in 2001 and used them much more effectively thank Kubrick did. It used the same slow buildups, but it spread them out evenly throughout the film as opposed to using them for 90% of it as 2001 did. More importantly, it did so without the use of the vomit-inducing, seizure-causing flashes of color and light that accompanied many of the scenes in 2001. While Kubrick’s long, silent montages are enough to drive one to complete and utter boredom, Interstellar spaces these moments out perfectly so that you have time to digest the plot and appreciate the moment that the slower scenes were building up to.

                While I suspect Interstellar will be met in much the same way as 2001: a Space Odyssey was, with some believing it to be a modern classic and with others dismissing it for its admitted strangeness, I firmly believe that Interstellar will be one of the films my generation will be remembered for. Personally, I loved this film and would highly recommend it not only to sci-fi fans, but to movie lovers in general.

Informal Review of "The Son's Room" ("la stanza del figlio")

                The Son’s Room is an Italian film that, if it is not already a realist piece reminiscent of Italian Neorealism, contains many elements of realism. The film focuses on the Sermonti family, which consists of Giovanni, a psychiatrist, Irene, his wife, and their teenaged children Paola and Andrea. When Andrea dies in a tragic scuba diving accident, the remaining family members are devastated. Each family member grieves in their own way, often causing tension within the family. However, some amount relief is given to the Sermontis when Arianna, Andrea’s secret girlfriend who had been corresponding with him through letters, visits the family, bringing with her some pictures Andrea had taken of himself in his room and sent to her. Being a more realistic film, The Son’s Room portrays grief in a very accurate way, leaving the film with an ending that is not necessarily happy, but one that is more true to real life experiences.

                The Son’s Room shows us how different people react to grief by focusing on the reactions of the different members of the Sermonti family. Paola spends most of her time out of the house after the accident, says that she feels distant from her parents, and even breaks up with her boyfriend, who she had seemed perfectly happy to be with before Andrea’s death. Irene spends most of her time crying or lying silently in bed, which she seems unwilling to share with her husband as he appears to be sleeping on the couch, she is upset with how Giovanni is handling his grief, and she seems to stake most of her personal recovery on meeting Arianna. However, it is Giovanni’s reaction that is the most intense. He blames himself for Andrea’s death and we see him go through most of the five stages of grief. First, he denies that the accident was Andrea’s fault and, instead, researches air tanks and insists that Andrea’s must have been defective. He also tries to continue life as normal immediately after his son’s funeral by going to a carnival, a place that is usually fun and exciting, but he is unable to experience any emotion even there. Giovanni even returns to his work only a day or two after Andrea’s funeral, which his wife tells him was too soon. Next, we see Giovanni experience anger. He becomes intolerant and snippy toward his patients and family, and even yells and breaks things around his house because a sermon he heard at church had upset him. We also see what may be a form of bargaining throughout the film as Giovanni imagines what would have happened if he had kept his son from going out with his friends on the day that he died. Finally, we see Giovanni become depressed. He spends much of his time sadly wandering around on his own, trying to feel better. Eventually, he even dismisses all of his patients indefinitely because he can no longer handle their emotions in addition to his. It is unclear whether or not Giovanni ever experiences acceptance during the course of the film, but it is possible that Arianna’s visit and their subsequent road trip provided the whole family with some sense of relief.

                While walking to my car last night, I heard several of my classmates complaining that there was no closure and that not enough was explained in The Son’s Room. Please understand that I am in no way putting them down for seeing the film in a different light than I did, but that I, instead, only want to share what I took from the film as it contrasts to their views. Most movies do end with some sort of closure, but, as this film focused on realism, it had little to no closure because closure does not always happen in real life. Most of the time, the pain of grief simply dulls over time and you return to normalcy without even realizing that you are feeling better. There is no immediate ending to grief in real life. While a sudden answer, complete with closure, makes for an entertaining film, it just isn’t realistic. I believe that this film was giving us a realistic view of grief and how it affects people. The Son’s Room is, in my opinion, the kind of film that you really have to think about in order to gain its full meaning and that you will probably get more out of it if you have experienced a type of loss that is similar to that of the Sermontis’.

                While The Son’s Room is not the happiest, most exciting, or easiest film to watch, it is a very powerful one. If you enjoy dramatic films or trying to understand how people think, then you may be interested in this film. Although it was extremely sad, I still highly recommend this film.

Informal Review of Tim Burton's "The Corpse Bride" [animation]

                Tim Burton’s The Corpse Bride tells the story of an awkward young man, named Victor, who is about to enter into an arranged marriage with a young woman, named Victoria, from a (supposedly) well off family. Things go awry, however, when Victor, unable to successfully say his wedding vows, runs out of on the wedding rehearsal. He flees to the woods where he practices his wedding vows and finishes by accidentally placing Victoria’s wedding ring onto the bony hand of Emily, a young bride who was killed just before her wedding. With Emily thinking he has married her, Victor must choose between escaping from the land of the dead and going back to Victoria or staying below with the very sweet, but very dead, Emily. Meanwhile, with Victor missing, Victoria parents enter her into another arranged marriage to a seemingly wealthy stranger, who wants nothing more than to take advantage of her supposed wealth.

The Corpse Bride not only tells a wonderful story using incredibly stylistic visuals, but with an impressive use of stop motion animation reminiscent of many of the films I used to watch as a child.

Growing up I was naturally drawn to stop motion animation. Every Christmas I looked forward to discovering and watching new Rankin Bass Christmas specials, and today I own almost the entire collection. I also have several fond memories of watching James and the Giant Peach and a few slightly disturbing memories of some Gumby movie that was made in the sixties. During my early teens I discovered more of Tim Burton’s films and, once I got used to his darker style, his animated films became some of my favorites. Needless to say, out in-class viewing of The Corpse Bride was not my first. It was, however, my first time viewing it specifically to study its animation. Compared to the old Rankin Bass films and even compared to the old Rankin Bass films and even compared to Burton’s earlier film The Nightmare Before Christmas, The Corpse Bride has come leaps and bounds in terms of animation. Every model moved fluidly, without any notable breaks and every character had their own specific way of moving. However, no medium is without flaws and stop motion animation is no exception. Much like very early stop motion, there are certain elements that will continue to look and move as if they are “heavy” because of the material used to make them. This is most notable in objects such liquids, hair, and some fabrics. One of the most obvious examples of an unnaturally heavy object seen in the film was Emily’s wedding veil. While it has proper physics most of the time, there are instances when it doesn’t move quite as it should.

                Regardless of its very few and minor flaws in animation, I found Tim Burton’s The Corpse Bride to be a wonderfully creative with a unique story, memorable songs, and stunning visuals. It is one of my favorite Tim Burton films to date and I am sorry that I don’t get more opportunities to watch it than I do. I would highly recommend this film to any lovers of Tim Burton or Tim Burton-esque films, stop motion animation, or untraditional musicals.

"Bringing up Baby" Review

                Charming. That’s the word that comes to mind when I think of Bring up Baby. This classic film was released in 1938 and stars Cary Grant and Katharine Hepburn. While playing golf with the lawyer of a potential patron who is considering donating one million dollars to the museum where he works, David Huxley (Grant), an uptight paleontologist, encounters an exceedingly odd woman named Susan Vance (Hepburn). From this point on, Susan causes David trouble by dragging him into various situations that he just doesn’t know how to handle. When Susan reveals that her aunt, Elizabeth Random, is the would-be patron of the museum, David allows Susan, who has begun to develop feelings for him, to try to patch things up between him and the lawyer, Mr. Peabody (or as Susan calls him, “Boopy”). However, when Susan accidentally hits Mr. Peabody in the face with a handful of rocks while trying to wake him up by pelting pebbles at his bedroom window late at night, David parts company with Susan, stating that he never wants to see her again. Not one to give up, Susan calls David the very next day to ask him to help her move her newly acquired pet Leopard, named Baby, to her farm in Connecticut. As Susan tries to keep David near her and away from his fiancé in new York she draws him into another series of sticky situations including chasing after Susan’s dog, George, who has stolen David’s rare dinosaur bone, hunting for the escaped Baby, and ending up in jail, masquerading as a convicted gang and coming toe to toe with another Leopard that has escaped from a nearby circus. However, all ends as it should with Susan giving the museum the one-million dollars and with Susan and David finally ending up together. The delightful combination of what would now be considered a “family friendly” film and Katharine Hepburn’s joyful portrayal of Susan is what brings Bringing up Baby its charm.

                Bringing up Baby has everything I think of when I think of older classic films: it’s in black and white, the credits are at the beginning, it relies a lot on visual gags and simple humor, it’s exceedingly clean, and everyone has that certain, indescribable way of talking that was very much present in the 20s and 30s. At its release, Bringing up Baby was a film that anyone would willingly go see, it was the norm, and many adult viewers still enjoy this classic film today. However, were the film released today with no changes it would likely have been marketed to a very different group: children. What was once considered the norm of entertainment for both young and old has now been downgraded to the term, “family friendly” because it is considered to be relatively “clean.” In fact, the most “risqué” scene in Bringing up Baby was a bit between David and Susan where he accidentally rips her dress in the back, revealing her slip. Thinking further on the subject of the film’s “cleanliness,” I can’t even remember there being any foul language or sexual insinuations used. Bringing up Baby and films like it were (and are) enjoyable for people of all ages, so it is a complete shame that similar films being made today are seen as childish, in part, because they are “clean.”

                The other aspect that gave a sense of charm to Bringing up Baby was Katharine Hepburn’s portrayal of the whimsical and ever absent-minded Susan. Indeed, most of the film’s comedy is a direct or indirect result of Susan’s actions. Directly, we have the character of Susan herself. She is driven, often acts before she thinks, is easily distracted, and has her own, odd way of doing things. For instance, when Susan’s heel breaks while searching for Baby she is instantly distracted by the way the absence of one heel makes her walk. Susan then begins marching back and forth, pretending to be a solider, and repeating the line, “I was born on a hill.” Indirectly, Susan’s attempts to keep David nearby by saying whatever pops into her head often leads to comical moments for others. For example, when David accidentally meets Aunt Elizabeth while wearing a frilly bathrobe, Susan creates a cover story for David (without telling him its exact details), leading Aunt Elizabeth to believe that David’s name is Mr. Bone, that he is suffering from a nervous breakdown, and that he is a big game hunter. Not only does this series of lies result in many comical moments between David and the other characters, it also drives much of the plot forward. Along with displaying fantastic comedic timing, Hepburn also displays a wonderful array of emotions from a dreamy-eyed, love struck Susan, who is playing “He Loves Me, He Loves Me Not” with her toes, to a completely distraught Susan, who is bawling her eyes out because she thinks David doesn’t want her around anymore. While the film’s story, dialogue, and cast were all grand, it was Hepburn’s performance that shone the most in Bringing up Baby.

                Bringing up Baby is an absolutely delightful film and I wish I had discovered it sooner. I found its clean story and comedy, which appeals to both young and old alike, to be refreshing and extremely appealing. However, Katharine Hepburn’s charming performance as Susan proved to be the icing on the cake, turning a good movie into a great one. I strongly recommend this film to lovers of old classics, good clean humor, or traditionally “family friendly” films.