MovieChat Forums > The 5,000 Fingers of Dr. T. (1953) Discussion > Fateful first review from way back then

Fateful first review from way back then

posted 11 years ago by virgiltx
6 replies | jump to latest

The possibly fate-sealing review below was published immediately after the June 20 1953 early release in NYC's Criterion theater. (Note: You may need to reload the page a few times; there's something funky about the link.)
http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9D03E4D8163DE23BBC4851DFB0668388649EDE

The reviewer apparently did not understand several things, for one thing, the Happy Fingers beanie.

Also, regarding: "Director Roy Rowland staged it in Technicolor for sheer spectacle."
A puzzling criticism. Is Crowther implying it shouldn't really have been in color?

Another puzzling criticism was that all the main cast members were "...largely mechanical portrayals of boneless and bloodless characters in a theatrical dream." No mention of Hans Conried's spirited performance. And how does "boneless" go with "mechanical"?

Furthermore, Crowther does not understand the banished non-piano players and their musical-instrument-motif dance number. He refers to them as "satanic goons", rather than prisoners.

Was the critic just not paying attention, or was it the movie's fault for not being clear? In the latter case it would be fair to say there was reason to watch the movie a second time. But that can be a tough sell proposition with many moviegoers.
____________________
The story is king.

[–] whosit 9 years ago

Thanks for your post. That link is now outdated, here's one that works as of this date:

http://www.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9D03E4D8163DE23BBC4851DFB06683 88649EDE

I scanned some of his other reviews and came away with the impression that he had a propensity towards the negative. His imagery tends to be cumbersome with convoluted comparisons that miss their mark. If there was such a device as a Pomposity Meter, his comments would violently peg the needle causing it to shear off with an explosion of sound and fury (signifying nothing).

Charlie Townsend would never have hired this particular Bosley!

[–] tgemberl 9 years ago

Yes, a really bad review. Some people seem to get a charge out of panning movies.

I still don't understand why the movie didn't do better at the box office. It is so much fun. As I said in another thread, it seems a lot like "The Wizard of Oz," and I'd expect it to have similar commercial success.

Oh well, a lot of times it's the success of something later that counts, not how it did at the time. I think this has become a kind of cult film.

I particularly don't understand Crowther's lack of enthusiasm for the musical numbers. They are hilarious and sometimes really catchy. It's some of the best music in any film, for my taste. My favorites are the dance number with Conreid, Lind-Hayes, and Mary Healy and the goofy "we are victorious" song near the end, sung by Dr. Terwilliker's minions. That song is hilarious.

I wonder if one thing that kept the film from being seen as of the same caliber as "The Wizard of Oz" is that it doesn't take itself very seriously. I think it is somewhat self-satirical. I wonder if America was ready for that kind of film in 1953.

As I said on that other thread, one interesting thing it does is make light of the nuclear scare. I assume that could've been comic relief in the age when people were scared to death of nuclear war, but it's possible it was offensive to some people. But I'm sure lots of kids, like Bart, had fantasies about atomic bombs.

"Extremism in the pursuit of moderation is no vice."

[–] grizzledgeezer 9 years ago

I grew up with Gilbert & Sullivan, so my standards for comic songs are very high.

The music for the "5KFoDT" songs was written by Fredric Hollander, a talented composer who was supposedly Marlene Dietrich's favorite. You'd never know it from the (mostly) dull-as-dishwater songs. It's hard to imagine they came from the man who wrote "See What the Boys in the Back Room Will Have".

[–] virgiltx 9 years ago

Here's some interesting critiquing of Bosley Crowther by none other than Roger Ebert:
http://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/bonnie-clyde-and-the-critics

Apparently Bonnie and Clyde (1967) was Crowther's downfall.

____________________
The story is king.

[–] tgemberl 9 years ago

Thanks. That was real interesting and funny.

"Extremism in the pursuit of moderation is no vice."

[–] grizzledgeezer 9 years ago

Roger Ebert remains one of the great film critics. But, like any critic, he's not perfect.

He occasionally makes mistakes about a film's factual elements. And he has blind spots, especially satirical and off-the-wall comedies, which he has trouble grasping. Worst of all, he's too quick to grant the movie maker the benefit of the doubt.

Ebert's real strength lay in helping you understand a film, whether or not you agreed with his opinion.

By the way, I find myself in broad agreement with most of Crowther's views. I don't think he lost his job with the Times for blasting Bonnie and Clyde, but for doing it three times.