FirstWitch A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Ogosmith Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Hattie I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

Isbel A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

mark.waltz First of all, Fred Astaire is far too American to be believable as a Russian dancer named "Petrov", and the squabbling he goes through with Ginger Rogers (as an off-key star of musical revues) is a repeat of everything that they've done in their movies up until now. But when you've got Edward Everett Horton, Eric Blore and RKO's top art decco set directors, that's enough to distract you from the silliness of the plot. Add on songs by the Gershwins (the first of two films where they collaborated together) and all those reluctant complaints seem redundant.The basic plot has Astaire and Rogers being mistaken in the press as married, and before you know it, they're hotter than Brad and Angelina. Ginger wants no part of this, but Freddie has a few tricks up his sleeve to win her for good. Thanks to George and Ira's music (some of George's last), it works. Fred woos her to "They Can't Take That Away From Me" (which he would repeat 12 years later in "The Barkleys of Broadway") and even has a bunch of dancers with Ginger masks prancing around him in the title number. What tough Broadway star wouldn't fall for that? The lyrics for Ira are very clever too, particularly in "They All Laughed" and "Let's Call the Whole Thing Off". As visually exciting as the ship set song "Let Yourself Go" is, what boiler room looks like a Broadway set? Horton & Blore provide droll humor, and exchange some great lines. All they are missing is Franklin Pangborn.

Chris_Docker In recent years, the title of this film has become overshadowed by two modern movies of the same name: a superb Japanese movie and its American remake, respectively entitled Shall We Dansu? and Shall We Dance. Yet this 1937 classic is worth revisiting not only for its famous Gershwin numbers, but as the last of a series of classic-format films between Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers. Deeply flawed, yet the tremendous effort poured into its production is evident. And, when viewed as part of a series, touchingly beautiful.Utilising talent from their earlier films, Shall We Dance pushes the established formula of light romantic farce coupled with stunning dance routines. But here are many innovations and subtle references to delight fans. At the end of their previous film together (Swing Time), Fred serenaded Ginger with the song Never Gonna Dance, so Shall We Dance? suggests a delightful comeback through association. Their respective characters have grown through successive films, as has their on screen relationship. Now, for the first time, both play fully fledged divas in their own right. Fred is Petrov, a Russian ballet star, and Ginger is Linda, a celebrated jazz dancer. Many of the gags involve rumours about the characters being secretly married or having children. By way of a complex plot, half conducted on a transatlantic liner, the couple do actually get married for the first time in their films together. Copy pictureThe star personas of both Astaire and Rogers have been carefully managed by the studios since their debut together in Flying Down to Rio (1933). Fred woos her with increasing conviction or intensity in each successive movie. To suspend disbelief effectively, the audience has to be thoroughly confused for a while about the nature of their relationship (in real life, both Astaire and Rogers are married to other people at this time). The on screen characters are not married at the start of the story – Fred is pursuing Ginger, as usual. But an offhand comment by Petrov to an over-persistent admirer (to the effect that he and Linda are secretly married) is blown up by the newspapers in the story. The only way they can dispel rumours is to get a divorce – which means they first have to get married.In terms of dance routines, most things had been done already, so Shall We Dance has to come up with something new. One idea is a duet on roller skates. Depending on which account we read, it took filming up to fifty takes to complete (unusually, as Fred would mostly insist on a single one). It's filmed in Central Park, and the idea is to make it look like something people would naturally be doing. It's also the longest dance Fred and Ginger have together in the film, and is made even more enjoyable by their singing Let's Call the Whole Thing Off.Another innovation is the way the story line is tied up. (Note – a light spoiler follows, but I think it's worth knowing what is coming in this case, so as not to miss the full effect). Petrov, now distraught that Linda won't dance with him, has a choreographed scene where he serenades with numerous showgirls who wear Linda masks. This in itself recalls earlier scenes involving a dummy positioned next to a sleeping Petrov, to 'prove' in the tabloids that they are married; and also in a flick-book he has that creates moving images of Linda. Unbeknown to Petrov, Linda yearns for them to be together. She insists on being taken backstage. Petrov's dance involves unmasking the lookalikes only to find that none are the real Linda. When he touches the real Linda's chin, he finds it is not a mask but really her. She extends her hand and, whoever the 'real' Petrov and Linda have been (they both have several identities even within the film), the audience is satisfied that the real living couple finally have a dance of love. Almost all the emotion of the film has been saved for this moment.Shall We Dance not only reprises two established stars; it examines the real life pressures and glare of publicity facing them. They were both under pressure: during filming, Ginger Rogers received a real-life extortion notice and a death threat to her mother. The movie's final dance scene maybe hints at something that is beyond words, beyond the glare of the limelight, and something eternally personal – as the song implies: "They Can't Take That Away from Me."The film's weaknesses include living up to expectations when a formula has peaked. In earlier pairings, Fred's character woos Ginger through dance rather than words. Here, they enjoy some comedy together but there are maybe one too many dance solos. The plot and characterisation has weaknesses too – Astaire is a very accomplished dancer performing balletic moves, but he was the first to admit he is no ballet star. Dance fans may feel unconvinced (similarly, the songs have been covered by much more competent singers). One of the main dance routines sees Harriet Hoctor, not Ginger, imported to dance with Fred – largely on account of her ability to tap through remarkable back-bends. Shall We Dance lacks much of the natural dance chemistry between Fred and Ginger displayed in earlier films, but it is an outstanding piece of their film history that should not be missed.

Bill Slocum The big takeaway on Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers is how well they danced together. My big takeaway from "Shall We Dance" is how well they acted.It's one thing to give a good performance in a musical like "Carousel" or "Singing In The Rain", and quite another to deliver amid the creaky jokes, plummy patter, and contrived plot twists that make up "Shall We Dance". But they do, and thanks to them, the show turns out not only okay but rather fine.Astaire is a faux-Russian ballet dancer, Petrov, who dreams of pairing up with celebrated tap dancer Linda Keene (Rogers) both on-stage and off. Linda just wants to retire, but Petrov's earnestness begins to win her over - until she is led to believe he is using her. She leaves him just as word spreads that the two are married (and really spreads, in the form of front-page news stories and radio flashes), forcing them to face a surreal prospect."We're the only people in the world who don't think we're married!" Linda exclaims.People watching "Shall We Dance" for the first time need patience. Astaire and Rogers don't dance for an hour, their one musical moment all that time involving walking a dog around a ship in time to a musical theme (provided by one George Gershwin, who did the score with his lyricist brother Ira). Matters are too often dominated by Edward Everett Horton's over-the-top eye rolls and leaden asides as Petrov's snooty, disapproving manager. Later on William Brisbane arrives as Linda's rich-guy suitor, adding more overbaked ham to the menu.But Astaire keeps his end up, dancing to a skipping record or later overplaying a mock Russian accent in his first face-to-face with Linda. "You don't want to dance with the great Petrov," he declares, playing up a Slavic superiority trip. "Don't be a silly horse." The way he elongates that last "o" is positively indecent.Some reviewers here say Rogers seems bored in this film. She's playing a withdrawn character, though, and does give off passion when called upon. A big musical moment between her and Astaire, when he declares "They Can't Take That Away From Me", is a remarkable duet despite the fact she doesn't sing a note, just looks off with tear-filled eyes. Yet she gets the song's one close-up, and rightly so. When they have their first performance in front of an audience and he dances up a storm by way of an introduction, the look on her face is priceless. "What am I supposed to do?" she deadpans.Give director Mark Sandrich credit for keeping things light. Too light at times, like when Linda's manager somehow gets a photo of the couple in bed together by using a manikin of her he just happens to have in his closet (better I guess we don't know why he does). Sandrich does make the good scenes better with doses of gentle humor, like the capper to a roller-skating dance that is the movie's best moment. There are some nice dissolves from scene to scene, like a flip-book view of Linda dancing that melts into the real thing.Watching this the first time, the minutes stretched like rubber. The second time things flew much faster, because I knew what I wanted to see and could look forward to its arrival. I guess audiences of the 1930s had that expectation built in, one reason perhaps why these movies were so popular and no one cared when they were a bit inane.

tedg Its fun walking through movies from an era where the stage had not yet migrated away from the screen. It was possible, for instance for Fred Astair to be in the funky bowels of a coal- fired ship and have us presented with a polished floor and musically clanking stage engine parts. This sort of stage/reality merger is not possible today, even in "musicals" and its quite a cinematic jolt, even though expected.But supposing you aren't tuned the way I am, there are still three very nice things here. In the order they appear:— The story is about a man (a dancer) who sees a picture of a woman (who happens to also be a dancer) and falls in love with her. But her appeal should be something to do with how she dances, right? And pictures don't dance. Ah, but they do; we are shown a flip book, consisting of photos from a film. Flip the pages and you see her dance. Stare a moment and the flipbook seamlessly transforms into the film of her dancing. Its a film within that could as easily from that point be the guy's fantasy. This ability to play fast and loose with reality, film and show is unique, I think, to the 30s.— We've come to see Fred and Ginger dance. But we've seen them before, and the truth is that no matter how talented they are, its much the same from one film to the next. So what to do? Well, you add two gimmicks. One is not interesting to me: Fred "mixes" ballet and tap. The other is pretty amazing: Fred and Ginger dancing as a couple on roller skates! Now this is pretty darn amazin'. They both seem to completely understand gravity as visionary mystics. That's what its all about, is transcendence. Its what makes her sexy as heck and he classy.— The final big number has two devices that impressed. The first and most visually cinematic is the set. It is a huge cylinder with many vertical doors behind which dancing girls appear and vanish. This is expertly designed and photographed, the only thing here that is. The other device is that the scores of girls wear Ginger masks. She has left him and re-appears behind one of the masks. Oh, you should know that the story, thin as it is, is based on false presentations like this.Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.