aramis-112-804880

Henry II of England (and most of what we call France) and his erstwhile pal Thomas Becket, become enemies during a squabble between church (in the form of ecclesiastical courts) and state (the mercurial king).

The multitudinous historical errors are too many to list! Foremost among them being, Beckett wasn't a Saxon.

This is no historical treatise. Don't mistake it for one.

It's based on a play depicting two mighty opposites. And it's a great acting contest between two of the best actors of their day, Peter O 'Toole (Henry) and Richard Burton (Becket).

Also in the mix is John Gielgud as the French king. But Gielgud is no match for the O'Toole Burton axis, as King Louis was no match for Henry in real life. No matter who is in this movie, it's basically a two-hander between o'Toole and Burton.

O'Toole returned to the role of Henry in the more fun "Lion in Winter" and he's superb in both. Watch for the acting, not the history.

An unlikely story brings Fred Astaire and Audrey Hepburn together in a Gershwin-oriented musical.

A bookstore employee (Hepburn) is plucked out of obscurity against her will to be the newest fashion model in a big Parisian shoot.

Does that make a lick of sense? No. In fact, the whole movie is kind of on that level of dumb. And I run hot and cold on the Gershwins.

While I'm pontificating, is "The Pajama Game" a study of labor management relations? No. It's about Doris Day belting out good songs. Can you make a movie based on how they do it in "Singin' in the Rain" or a Broadway show based on how they do it in "The Bandwagon"? No. And no. They're just movies, and good ones.

Nevertheless, I'm sick of dingbats who lack the imagination to enjoy movies for what they are. Branagh can't play Hamlet! Only Danes can play Hamlet! We can't watch a movie about the Vikings because they're not talking medieval Scandinavian languages! How dare you make a movie about der Fuhrer when he isn't played by an Austrian speaking German! John Wayne's too old to be a soldier! Well, he's a darn sight better than the children today whose most important roles are pretending they're stars.

This is not a movie about a May/December romance, it's about two movie stars filling roles in a movie. Fred Astaire is one of the greatest movie stars. He didn't dance with Ginger Rogers, but also with Eleanor Powell, Judy Garland, Jane Powell, Joan Fontaine and perhaps his loveliest partners, Cyd Charisse and Rita Hayworth. Why not with Audrey, one of the greatest stars of her time? All I look for in actors hired to fill a role in a movie is: are they any good? What else matters? Astaire plays a fashion photographer. Is he one? No. Therefore, how dare he play one! What a lame way to live.

However, as far as this movie goes, I don't necessarily love the music, the fashion industry makes me yawn (though I once met Cindy Crawford) and despite my love for Fred and for Audrey, I've enjoyed them more.

"Funny Face" has the feel of a cobbled-together flick. Did the plots of all the Astaire/Rogers movies make sense? No, but they were small. This is a big movie made to be impressive but it doesn't impress me enough. These great stars deserved better.

James Stewart and sidekick Millard Mitchell ("Singin' in the Rain") ride into Dodge for a shooting contest for a perfect Winchester '73 rifle (operated by Will Geer playing an overfed Wyatt Earp). The contest becomes a running battle between Stewart and baddie Stephen McNally. But why do they hate each other? That's the movie's primary mystery.

One aspect of the contest is later spoofed in "Support Your Local Sheriff."

Lots of familiar faces in this one for old movie fans, including Charles Drake, Shelly Winters, Jay C. Flippen as a likeable cavalryman and the great Dan Duryea as the worst of western bad men.

Also on the strength are Rock Hudson in an early and fairly meaningless role as an Indian and an invisible Tony Curtis.

It's episodic but it all ties together by the end. Good early western for Stewart, but it's a shame they didn't make it in color.