We're excited to present a great new set of boards to classic movie fans with tons of new features, stability, and performance.

If you’re new to the message boards, please “Register” to get started. If you want to learn more about the new boards, visit our FAQ.

Register

If you're a returning member, start by resetting your password to claim your old display name using your email address.

Re-Register

Thanks for your continued support of the TCM Message Boards.

X

Kyle Kersten was a true friend of TCM. One of the first and most active participants of the Message Boards, “Kyle in Hollywood” (aka, hlywdkjk) demonstrated a depth of knowledge and largesse of spirit that made him one of the most popular and respected voices in these forums. This thread is a living memorial to his life and love of movies, which remain with us still.

X

Jump to content


Photo

I Just Watched...


  • Please log in to reply
7577 replies to this topic

#1 TikiSoo

TikiSoo

    sprockethole

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,851 posts
  • LocationSyracuse, NY

Posted Today, 05:36 AM

cmovieviewer said: I’m struck by what to me is a lack of basic information about who the characters are.

 

Way back in my schooling, we were taught Hitchcock learned from this experience and purposely introduced all the charactors & the situation in the first 20 minutes of the movie.

 

I think the idea goes, "If you don't hook the viewer in the first reel, they will lose interest."

 

Re: RICHEST GIRL IN THE WORLD-thanks for your impressions-I recorded this one, as I'm a big Hopkins fan & never saw this one before.



#2 kingrat

kingrat

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,960 posts

Posted Yesterday, 10:56 PM

She's not bald but wearing a blonde wig probably, below a cropped image. See what you think.

 

a6DZwQq.jpg

Dang, cigarjoe, she really does look like Kathryn Leigh Scott. And am I proud that some of you remember her!



#3 rosebette

rosebette

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 691 posts
  • LocationNew England

Posted Yesterday, 08:45 PM

With the ongoing Hitchcock series currently running on TCM, I decided to rewatch Stage Fright (1950).  The DVD I have has a fairly nice featurette on the movie, and includes a few brief on-screen comments from Robert Osborne - always nice to see our dear old friend again.

The movie is OK, not one of the greatest Hitchcock films but still good enough.  While watching the beginning, though, I’m struck by what to me is a lack of basic information about who the characters are.  To get things started Hitch throws us into the middle of the action as the Jane Wyman and Richard Todd characters are driving out of London to escape the authorities.  Through a flashback sequence we can derive that Todd’s character (Jonathan Cooper) is intimate with an actress played by Marlene Dietrich, and these two become the main suspects in the murder of the actress’s husband.

Who is this Jonathan Cooper?  I don’t think we know anything about what he does or how he came to know Marlene Dietrich’s character in the first place, and how does he know Jane Wyman’s character (Eve Gill)?  I can see that Cooper must know the theater crowd, but when he wants to avoid the authorities, somehow he decides to call Eve’s home to see if she can help him.  When Eve’s mother answers he seems clueless as to what Eve is doing and where she might be. Somehow he knows an acting student (Eve) well enough to ask her for help but not well enough to know what she is doing or where she might be.  (By the way, she’s supposed to already have a big crush on him as well.)

From the featurette, there are comments that the opening flashback sequence is problematic for reasons I won’t spoil here, but it is said that Hitch didn’t realize the problem until he saw the assembled film and by then it was too late to change.  Perhaps this would also explain my problem with the beginning of the film.  Of course as things get going you just accept who these characters are and move on.  I just wish there had been a bit more details of the connection between the main characters in the opening to get us into the flow.  Perhaps Hitch is being intentionally brief so he can get to the parts of the story he wants to tell, but for me this translates into a lack of empathy for the characters and then it’s just going through the motions through the end of the film.

I had never seen Stage Fright so decided to tune in last night.  It was a bit talky for a HItchcock film, but I liked it.  I was surprised at how English it was in sensibility and sense of humor.  Perhaps a lesser Hitchcock effort, but if it were on PBS as one of the Mystery series it might do very nicely.  Love the doll scene, Alistair Sim, and Marlene.  Michael WIlding's toupee very distracting, though.



#4 cigarjoe

cigarjoe

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,009 posts
  • LocationNY

Posted Yesterday, 07:10 PM

I dug the Naked Kiss but mostly because of the chick's bald head. I'm now trying to imagine a  Kathryn Leigh Scott lookalike bald but I keep seeing Barnabas instead.

She's not bald but wearing a blonde wig probably, below a cropped image. See what you think.

 

a6DZwQq.jpg



#5 RipMurdock

RipMurdock

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 395 posts

Posted Yesterday, 03:11 PM

 

Some Like It Violent (1968) Comparatively, an Exploitation "Roughie" Masterpiece
 
Poster%2BSLIV.jpg
 
When the "B's" went out of production low budget guerrilla Exploitation Grindhouse "C through Z's" took over. I can count probably just using the fingers of both hands how many of them are worth a look. Some Like It Violent is one of them.
 
The film stars Bob O'Connell as Johnny Scaro, Sharon Kent (who looks a bit like Kathryn Leigh Scott in a blonde wig) as Dolores, and Natara as prostitute Zelda. Scaro's blonde hooker uncredited starred in producer Barry Mahon's (Hot Skin, Cold Cash (1965)).  That's it, the rest of the cast is lost to history and they probably didn't use their real names anyway.
 
O'Connell is a blast to watch, bug-eyed, and channeling Cagney in his his crazed monologues about making on his own it in the streets. The opening sequence of Scaro with a machete chopping up the mannequins is reminiscent of Sam Fuller's intense opening sequence for The Naked Kiss. As with most all of these cheapy productions, the whole range of acting ability and lack of it is apparent and, of course, the requisite T&A is displayed.
 
These bottom of the budget barrel exploitation films bridge some of the the gaps between poverty row B production Noirs and the Hollywood output of Neo Noirs that picked up again in the 70's. Needs a good restoration, worth seeking out, more than just a "skin flick" 6-7/10.
 
Full review in Film Noir/Gangster board,

 

I dug the Naked Kiss but mostly because of the chick's bald head. I'm now trying to imagine a  Kathryn Leigh Scott lookalike bald but I keep seeing Barnabas instead.


  • RipMurdock likes this

#6 RipMurdock

RipMurdock

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 395 posts

Posted Yesterday, 02:47 PM

good call film lover.  I got caught up in it too ;)

didn't realize this was a Premiere 'til I checked MC's data :)

(neither online or NPG indicates)

 

frombeyondthegrave.jpg

This is one Amicus that I must have missed during my drive-in days. At least I think it was Amicus and definitely not Hammer but whoever did it, did a marvelous job stirring up the chills. Great acting and great visuals made it a joy to watch amidst all the other fine horrors that day like Horror Hotel and so on.


  • mr6666 likes this

#7 jamesjazzguitar

jamesjazzguitar

    There is nothing as bad as something not so bad

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 17,403 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted Yesterday, 01:45 PM

The Richest Girl in the World:   Nice 1934 film (but released after the Code was being enforced), with Miriam Hopkins and Joel McCrea written by Norman Krasna  who was nominated for Best Story.

 

This film reminded me how unique an actress Hopkins was.    Just so interesting and different in her approach.    She is funny and moving in this film (and also annoying but just at the right moments).

 

McCrea and Hopkins have great chemistry and their initial scenes playing pool and getting drunk are great.    Fray Wray and Reginald Denny are also cast as close friends of Hopkins.

 

The only issue I have with the film is the ending but that type of unlikely, but you know it will occur, happy ending was very typical for films from the era.    Still well worth watching. 


  • TikiSoo and cmovieviewer like this

#8 Sepiatone

Sepiatone

    Enhanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 11,471 posts
  • LocationLincoln Park, MI

Posted Yesterday, 06:55 AM

With the ongoing Hitchcock series currently running on TCM, I decided to rewatch Stage Fright (1950).  The DVD I have has a fairly nice featurette on the movie, and includes a few brief on-screen comments from Robert Osborne - always nice to see our dear old friend again.

The movie is OK, not one of the greatest Hitchcock films but still good enough. 
 

 

Reminded me of an old skit I saw recently on those CAROL BURNETT reruns they show on MeTV.

 

RICH LITTLE, spoofing Hitch, invites the viewers to "See my latest motion picture.  It has many elements from my previous  motion picture.  In fact, MANY of my previous motion pictures have elements of my previous motion pictures."  ;)

 

 

Sepiatone


  • cmovieviewer likes this

I started out with NOTHING...and still have most of it left!


#9 cigarjoe

cigarjoe

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,009 posts
  • LocationNY

Posted Yesterday, 05:39 AM

Rage (El mal) (1966) Mexican Film Soleil Neo Noir
 
MPW-19865.jpg
 
Director Gilberto Gazcón fashions an interesting Neo Noir that feels like a Western, is part Inferno, Wages of Fear and Guilty Bystander mixed with a bit of the anxiety of both Panic In The Streets and The Killer That Stalked New York.
 
The film's vivid color palette gives it a pulp-ish paperback cover look, it's similar in that respect to the color Noir Slightly Scarlet (1956).
 
Glenn Ford is compelling as the weathered Doc Reuben even though haunted by his failure to save his wife and child and drinking himself to death he can still keep his skills sharp and show compassion and kindness towards Maria. Stella Stevens at 30 is at the height of her beauty, she is the proverbial hooker with a heart of gold looking for a way out of the life. She is sexy, sassy, and sweet. David Reynoso is great as Pancho he holds his own with Ford and displays his acting chops. The rest of the cast is very good and the landscapes around Durango are beautiful. Very entertaining, but this film needs a good restoration. Café con leche noir. 7/10
 
Full review in Film Noir/Gangster and with more screencaps here: http://noirsville.bl...ilm-soleil.html

  • cmovieviewer and RipMurdock like this

#10 cmovieviewer

cmovieviewer

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 295 posts

Posted 19 July 2017 - 09:27 PM

With the ongoing Hitchcock series currently running on TCM, I decided to rewatch Stage Fright (1950).  The DVD I have has a fairly nice featurette on the movie, and includes a few brief on-screen comments from Robert Osborne - always nice to see our dear old friend again.

The movie is OK, not one of the greatest Hitchcock films but still good enough.  While watching the beginning, though, I’m struck by what to me is a lack of basic information about who the characters are.  To get things started Hitch throws us into the middle of the action as the Jane Wyman and Richard Todd characters are driving out of London to escape the authorities.  Through a flashback sequence we can derive that Todd’s character (Jonathan Cooper) is intimate with an actress played by Marlene Dietrich, and these two become the main suspects in the murder of the actress’s husband.

Who is this Jonathan Cooper?  I don’t think we know anything about what he does or how he came to know Marlene Dietrich’s character in the first place, and how does he know Jane Wyman’s character (Eve Gill)?  I can see that Cooper must know the theater crowd, but when he wants to avoid the authorities, somehow he decides to call Eve’s home to see if she can help him.  When Eve’s mother answers he seems clueless as to what Eve is doing and where she might be. Somehow he knows an acting student (Eve) well enough to ask her for help but not well enough to know what she is doing or where she might be.  (By the way, she’s supposed to already have a big crush on him as well.)

From the featurette, there are comments that the opening flashback sequence is problematic for reasons I won’t spoil here, but it is said that Hitch didn’t realize the problem until he saw the assembled film and by then it was too late to change.  Perhaps this would also explain my problem with the beginning of the film.  Of course as things get going you just accept who these characters are and move on.  I just wish there had been a bit more details of the connection between the main characters in the opening to get us into the flow.  Perhaps Hitch is being intentionally brief so he can get to the parts of the story he wants to tell, but for me this translates into a lack of empathy for the characters and then it’s just going through the motions through the end of the film.


  • mr6666 and LornaHansonForbes like this

#11 im4cinema2

im4cinema2

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts

Posted 19 July 2017 - 09:12 PM

To Sepiatone,  Most movies my mother let me see when I was very young were Walt Disney pictures , musicals and romances like Love Is A Very Splendored  Thing  or Love Affair which as a kid I didn''t like much.  Westerns, gangster pictures and war movies were out.  I got to see all those later when I grew up.



#12 Hibi

Hibi

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 20,668 posts
  • LocationOhio

Posted 19 July 2017 - 08:35 AM

 

I just watched a TCM recorded double feature starting with WHAT'S THE MATTER WITH HELEN? '71

 

Another "classic Hollywood actress" exploitation film-big on talent, small in story sort of movie. I'm sure for audiences of 1971, it was great seeing how adorable Debbie Reynolds still was and shocking how quickly Shelly Winters had turned into a frump. Winters' whiney voice certainly didn't help her screen likability and in this movie she constantly whined.

The lighting, costumes and sets were exceptional -of course- the 70's was the beginning of the fascination with classic movies, and especially the depression era. There was never any shocking scares-not even much psychological tension in this predictable yarn. A novelty movie you don't need to watch twice.

 

MY NAME IS JULIA ROSS '45 was the second feature. At 67 minutes, this was a horror/suspense movie at it's best. Starring the gorgeous Nina Foch as a young girl struggling to make ends meet, she thinks her new job as personal secretary is going to be easy street. The audience knows there's something afoot, and both Dame May Whitty's and  George Macready's performance are pitch perfect. 

 

This story is succinctly & perfectly told with simple scenes, moody lighting and fantastic acting all around. (reminds me of PSYCHO in it's creative simplicity) Wow!

 

 

 

Yes. Helen was a big disappointment to me as well. Great production values, but lacking a good script. Tried to cash in on the Baby Jane genre and failed miserably. Way too many scenes of Debbie with her dance classes!



#13 Sepiatone

Sepiatone

    Enhanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 11,471 posts
  • LocationLincoln Park, MI

Posted 19 July 2017 - 07:49 AM

Wow.....

 

You took me back TIKI.

 

Saw "Helen" at a drive-in on the same bill with LET'S SCARE JESSICA TO DEATH.  Which actually SHOULD have been called...

 

LET'S BORE MOVIEGOERS TO DEATH!

 

"Helen" in this case, was the "better" movie, which in looking back, is like saying a sharp stick in the eye is better than a hatchet to the skull.

 

 

Sepiatone


I started out with NOTHING...and still have most of it left!


#14 TikiSoo

TikiSoo

    sprockethole

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,851 posts
  • LocationSyracuse, NY

Posted 19 July 2017 - 06:04 AM

I just watched a TCM recorded double feature starting with WHAT'S THE MATTER WITH HELEN? '71

 

Another "classic Hollywood actress" exploitation film-big on talent, small in story sort of movie. I'm sure for audiences of 1971, it was great seeing how adorable Debbie Reynolds still was and shocking how quickly Shelly Winters had turned into a frump. Winters' whiney voice certainly didn't help her screen likability and in this movie she constantly whined.

The lighting, costumes and sets were exceptional -of course- the 70's was the beginning of the fascination with classic movies, and especially the depression era. There was never any shocking scares-not even much psychological tension in this predictable yarn. A novelty movie you don't need to watch twice.

 

MY NAME IS JULIA ROSS '45 was the second feature. At 67 minutes, this was a horror/suspense movie at it's best. Starring the gorgeous Nina Foch as a young girl struggling to make ends meet, she thinks her new job as personal secretary is going to be easy street. The audience knows there's something afoot, and both Dame May Whitty's and  George Macready's performance are pitch perfect. 

 

This story is succinctly & perfectly told with simple scenes, moody lighting and fantastic acting all around. (reminds me of PSYCHO in it's creative simplicity) Wow!


  • speedracer5, LawrenceA and film lover 293 like this

#15 mr6666

mr6666

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18,599 posts

Posted 18 July 2017 - 06:17 PM

good call film lover.  I got caught up in it too ;)

didn't realize this was a Premiere 'til I checked MC's data :)

(neither online or NPG indicates)

 

frombeyondthegrave.jpg

 

 


  • film lover 293 likes this

"A small elephant is not a rabbit."


#16 film lover 293

film lover 293

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,705 posts

Posted 18 July 2017 - 05:33 PM

"From Beyond the Grave" (1973)--Starring Peter Cushing and Diana Dors.

 

Capital  four part British anthology horror film from Amicus Films.  Peter Cushing is a antique store owner, and he sells items to four very unhappy customers.

 

First tale is about a nightstand with a huge mirror.  The buyer holds a seance, and tale develops into an inhuman, serious riff on "Little Shop of Horrors" (1960).

 

Second story is about a child with terrible parents and what happens to them.

 

Third story is about getting rid of an "elemental".  Things don't go as planned, and a clairvoyants' warning is ignored, with predictable results.  

 

Fourth tale is about a man who buys an elaborately carved door that is connected to an evil that is centuries old.

 

There is a fifth story that takes about 5-7 minutes, and it ends the film with a nasty little twist that spells out the theme, if the viewer hasn't already guessed it.

 

This is one of the better horror anthology films I've seen; there's not a boring story in the film.  3.2/4.

 

Source--TCM.


  • TikiSoo, mr6666, LornaHansonForbes and 1 other like this

#17 Vautrin

Vautrin

    Quel siecle a mains!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,811 posts
  • LocationNorth Carolina

Posted 18 July 2017 - 04:00 PM

How to Murder a Rich Uncle (1957). Charles Coburn, Nigel Patrick, Wendy

Hiller. British black comedy of the unintended consequences variety.  Land

rich, wallet poor gentry are enthused when they hear their uncle George, who

has spent thirty years in America, will be returning home to England. The old

boy made quite a bundle when oil was found on his land, a la Jed Clampett.

The patriarch of the clan, Nigel Patrick, plans to knock off Uncle George so

the family can inherit his money. But alas, every time he plans with other

members of the family to kill George, played by Charles Coburn, that member

of the family ends up dead. With few members of the family left, George decides

to return to America with Katie Johnson (from The Ladykillers), wondering why

Patrick didn't just ask him for the money. Stiff upper lip pride no doubt. At

least George introduced the family to a few American novelties--teabags,

martinis, and scrambled eggs. Coburn is his usual imperturbable self, going

about his business completely unaware that his family to trying to get rid

of him. And the family, headed by murder "mastermind" Patrick, take their

setbacks most calmly. After the first member of the family dies, how the

rest of the movie will turn out is pretty obvious, but the understated reactions of

one and all keep things entertaining. Michael Caine has a small part in the

film and Nigel Patrick also directed, keeping things moving along at a good

pace. 


Curse Sir Walter Raleigh, he was such a stupid get.


#18 Fedya

Fedya

    Crotchety blankety-blank

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,333 posts

Posted 18 July 2017 - 02:44 PM

On an ironic note, Kipling's own son, John, was killed in WWI. John's eyesight was so poor he was rejected for service, and Kipling had to use his influence to get him into the military. An excellent British TV production, My Son John, with Daniel Radcliffe, tells this story, a real heartbreaker.


Not to be confused with the Robert Walker movie.
  • rosebette likes this

#19 rosebette

rosebette

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 691 posts
  • LocationNew England

Posted 18 July 2017 - 01:29 PM

rosebette, those were the exact same reservations I had with TLTF. Yes, so many plot points were not only anachronistic in the thing, but also and regardless of looking at it through modern eyes or not, some just did not make sense.

 

For instance, I first got the sense that Colman's character was never supposed to me "admirable" and a thought reinforced by Huston's character constantly berating him in a brotherly fashion. However, the manner in which Colman played him seemed to suggest to me as if one was supposed to feel his character WAS admirable or at least very likable from the start and despite many of the thoughtless or almost cruel things he said and did throughout the course of the film.

 

I don't know if my wording here made any sense or not, but hopefully you caught my meaning. 

 

(...and, while I know this film was made years before the practice of trip-wiring was banned, I also winched every time those poor horses were brought down by it in this film...perhaps you did too?)

You noticed the way the horses fell, too?  As I watched the battle scenes, I thought about the ones in Charge of the Light Brigade, and wondered whether trip-wiring was still in use.  Speaking of Charge, I think I enjoyed that film more, perhaps because I was aware that it was a completely fictionalized version of the events of the Crimean War, and I really didn't expect anything other than a good action picture.  



#20 Dargo

Dargo

    An "Acquired Taste"

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 12,701 posts
  • LocationSedona, Arizona

Posted 18 July 2017 - 12:08 PM

rosebette, those were the exact same reservations I had with TLTF. Yes, so many plot points were not only anachronistic in the thing, but also and regardless of looking at it through modern eyes or not, some just did not make sense.

 

For instance, I first got the sense that Colman's character was never supposed to me "admirable" and a thought reinforced by Huston's character constantly berating him in a brotherly fashion. However, the manner in which Colman played him seemed to suggest to me as if one was supposed to feel his character WAS admirable or at least very likable from the start and despite many of the thoughtless or almost cruel things he said and did throughout the course of the film.

 

I don't know if my wording here made any sense or not, but hopefully you caught my meaning. 

 

(...and, while I know this film was made years before the practice of trip-wiring was banned, I also winched every time those poor horses were brought down by it in this film...perhaps you did too?)






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users