Bogie56

HITS & MISSES: Yesterday, Today & Tomorrow on TCM

8,631 posts in this topic

26 minutes ago, lydecker said:

I'm with you on this one.  There's just something about those films based on Hemingway novels that makes them a bit of a slog.

(I think it's the fact that they're based on Hemingway novels.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Hibi said:

I seem to remember Hemingway hated [the film version of FOR WHOM THE BELL TOLLS.........]

He was probably bummed out there wasn't any FFMN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've mentioned elsewhere that i really enjoy 1943 in film a lot, and one interesting thing about it is the slight "yin and yang" quality to the year's overall output- ie many of the films made that year have a companion film from the same year that seems like a mirror image to its story or tone- for THE HUMAN COMEDY there is SHADOW OF A DOUBT, for CASABLANCA there is SAHARA, and for FOR WHOM THE BELL TOLLS there is FIVE GRAVES TO CAIRO, the last example tho is a case where one is superior to the other.

if you're looking for the FUN, WATCHABLE la Resistance! film of 1943 that also features AKIM TAMIROFF, FIVE GRAVES is the one to go with all the way!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

He was probably bummed out there wasn't any FFMN.

FFMN?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hibi said:

FFMN?

Full Frontal Male Nudity is what I am assuming--the acronym seems to be safe.  The full phrase seems forbidden on these boards, lol. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, speedracer5 said:

Full Frontal Male Nudity is what I am assuming--the acronym seems to be safe.  The full phrase seems forbidden on these boards, lol. 

LOL. Ok thanks. Havent had my coffee yet this morning......

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

(I think it's the fact that they're based on Hemingway novels.)

 

Ho, ho.  I was trying to avoid Hemingway bashing but there you go!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, lydecker said:

I'm with you on this one.  There's just something about those films based on Hemingway novels that makes them a bit of a slog.

Have you seen The Breaking Point (a brilliant adaption of To Have and Have Not) or The Macomber Affair? No slog in either of those cases.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, TomJH said:

Have you seen The Breaking Point (a brilliant adaption of To Have and Have Not) or The Macomber Affair? No slog in either of those cases.

The Breaking Point was a great film. Had I not heard prior, I wouldn’t have even known that it and To Have and Have Not w/ Bogie and Bacall were based on the same source material. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, speedracer5 said:

The Breaking Point was a great film. Had I not heard prior, I wouldn’t have even known that it and To Have and Have Not w/ Bogie and Bacall were based on the same source material. 

Howard Hawks bet Hemingway that he could make a film of his "weakest" book but when he filmed it basically just kept the title. The Michael Curtiz adaption, renamed as The Breaking Point, is infinitely closer to Hemingway's novella.

Patricia Neal later said that Hemingway told her it was his favourite film adaption of any of his novels. Since he hated most of them that may not be saying all that much. But, whatever Hemingway thought of the film or not, I agree that The Breaking Point is a great film, the last outstanding one of Curtiz's career.

The final shot in the film (which was Curtiz, not Hemingway) is one of the most poignant closings I've ever seen in a film.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THE BREAKING POINT is a more faithful version of Hemingway's original story (so I'm told since I never read the book).

I love both THE BREAKING POINT and TO HAVE AND HAVE NOT. While the Bogey and Bacall version might not be all that faithful to its source material, the two leads still sizzle and make it very much watchable.

And Garfield was brilliant in THE BREAKING POINT, it would be one of his last starring roles before he would become another victim of the blacklist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bethluvsfilms said:

THE BREAKING POINT is a more faithful version of Hemingway's original story (so I'm told since I never read the book).

I love both THE BREAKING POINT and TO HAVE AND HAVE NOT. While the Bogey and Bacall version might not be all that faithful to its source material, the two leads still sizzle and make it very much watchable.

And Garfield was brilliant in THE BREAKING POINT, it would be one of his last starring roles before he would become another victim of the blacklist.

None of that "sizzle stuff" has anything to do with Hemingway.

The Hawks version works as a breezy, superficial (in the best sense of that word, that's not a knock) adventure romance, with an emphasis upon the screen chemistry between Bogart and Bacall.

The Breaking Point is far darker, delving more into family relationships and desperation, with the main protagonist (John Garfield) decidedly more vulnerable for failure than superhero Bogart in the earlier version, which has shades of Casablanca. Garfield gives the performance of his career, in my opinion, but the entire cast is wonderful, in particular Juano Hernandez as Garfield's ship mate and friend.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TomJH said:

None of that "sizzle stuff" has anything to do with Hemingway.

The Hawks version works as a breezy, superficial (in the best sense of that word, that's not a knock) adventure romance, with an emphasis upon the screen chemistry between Bogart and Bacall.

The Breaking Point is far darker, delving more into family relationships and desperation, with the main protagonist (John Garfield) decidedly more vulnerable for failure than superhero Bogart in the earlier version, which has shades of Casablanca. Garfield gives the performance of his career, in my opinion, but the entire cast is wonderful, in particular Juano Hernandez as Garfield's ship mate and friend.

I like both versions equally well, they both work on their own terms.

I wonder if Bram Stoker and Mary Shelley had lived to have seen what the filmmakers at Universal studios did to their most famous novels, DRACULA and FRANKENSTEIN, what would their reaction have been? I love Lugosi as Drac, and Karloff as the monster, but having read both Stoker's and Shelley's novels, the Universal movies are no more faithful to them than Kubrick's THE SHINING was to Stephen King's book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TomJH said:

Have you seen The Breaking Point (a brilliant adaption of To Have and Have Not) or The Macomber Affair? No slog in either of those cases.

True!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sunday, February 18

normal_coolhandluke16.jpg

“Taking it off here, Boss”

5:30 p.m.  Cool Hand Luke (1967).  With Paul Newman and George Kennedy and a host of great supporting actors.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
None of that "sizzle stuff" has anything to do with Hemingway.

As a writer myself, my take on Hemingway may be different than someone reading his work just for entertainment. Hemingway was technically an incredible writer-his sentence structure, the words he chooses, his story arc & flow are unique & brilliant. His subject matter and cultural mores may be dry or difficult for modern readers to engage. Although Jane Austen seems to touch today's audience just fine.

Stephen King is technically an excellent writer, outstanding actually. I wish (like Poe) he wasn't pidgeon-holed into the horror genre, as he's so much more. I thought Kubrick's THE SHINING was a perfect interpretation of the book. (I must be the only one) A movie by nature is visual, so adding scary imagery (like the elevator blood/twins/guy in bear suit) were perfect directorial choices. Too bad there wasn't enough budget to create scary topiary, but I think the choice to substitute a tall maze was an excellent one. The only flaw in the movie for me was I would have liked to have seen a slower build up to Jack Torrence's madness, to create more self-doubt in Wendy (and the audience) at first. But in a movie, time is limited.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, TikiSoo said:

 

Stephen King is technically an excellent writer, outstanding actually. I wish (like Poe) he wasn't pidgeon-holed into the horror genre, as he's so much more. I thought Kubrick's THE SHINING was a perfect interpretation of the book. (I must be the only one) A movie by nature is visual, so adding scary imagery (like the elevator blood/twins/guy in bear suit) were perfect directorial choices. Too bad there wasn't enough budget to create scary topiary, but I think the choice to substitute a tall maze was an excellent one. The only flaw in the movie for me was I would have liked to have seen a slower build up to Jack Torrence's madness, to create more self-doubt in Wendy (and the audience) at first. But in a movie, time is limited.

Actually I do quite enjoy Kubrick's THE SHINING, always have since I was a kid. It's definitely not the most faithful adaptation of a novel, but that has never stopped me from enjoying the film as a whole, likewise with Universal's DRACULA and FRANKENSTEIN.

I actually don't go into watching a film that is based on a book expecting it to be all literal word-to-word, scene-for-scene from it. There are going to be changes, for better or for worse, and it's different for everyone who views these changes. Some may love them, others can loathe them (King has made no secret of his intense dislike for the way the 1980 THE SHINING film).

For me, I always try to separate the book and the movie it's based on because I expect there to be some changes to the story. Not saying there haven't been times I wish a certain scene or plot twist from the book didn't make it into the movie, but I just go try to go along for the ride. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Bethluvsfilms said:

Actually I do quite enjoy Kubrick's THE SHINING, always have since I was a kid. It's definitely not the most faithful adaptation of a novel, but that has never stopped me from enjoying the film as a whole, likewise with Universal's DRACULA and FRANKENSTEIN.

I actually don't go into watching a film that is based on a book expecting it to be all literal word-to-word, scene-for-scene from it. There are going to be changes, for better or for worse, and it's different for everyone who views these changes. Some may love them, others can loathe them (King has made no secret of his intense dislike for the way the 1980 THE SHINING film).

For me, I always try to separate the book and the movie it's based on because I expect there to be some changes to the story. Not saying there haven't been times I wish a certain scene or plot twist from the book didn't make it into the movie, but I just go try to go along for the ride. 

I always thought it odd how King strongly disliked Kubrick's the Shining but loved some of the adaptations of more "questionable" quality. :unsure::lol: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Gershwin fan said:

I always thought it odd how King strongly disliked Kubrick's the Shining but loved some of the adaptations of more "questionable" quality. :unsure::lol: 

The Shining was a very personal novel for King, and there were a lot of changes, so I understand why he dislikes it. He's not alone, as plenty of others dislike it, from fans of the novel to those who haven't read it but just find the movie boring. There's at least one poster on here who regularly mentions their disdain of the film. 

I personally love it, and rank among my top ten favorite movies of all time. I've read the book as well, and find the movie far, far superior. The movie isn't always easy to digest, and requires the viewer to fill in the spaces (if they even care too), with very little hand-holding as to what is going on and why. As has been discussed in another thread recently, Kubrick often left his films open to interpretation, and perhaps none moreso than The Shining, with the exception of 2001

As for the menacing topiary, the hedge maze is a hundred times more intimidating and visually interesting than the animal bushes were, and when King got his wish for a more literal adaptation of his book with the 1997 miniseries, viewers could see for themselves just how goofy they looked when rendered in a real-world setting. What works on the page doesn't always work on the screen. Doubtless it could look better now with improved technology, but it would still be a bunch of bushes leaping around.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recommendations for Sunday:

I've recommended Johnny Eager recently, so will opt for A Tree Grows in Brooklyn. I avoided this movie for years, assuming it would be sentimental. Um, not exactly. The children grow up with a charming father (James Dunn) who's hopelessly alcoholic and a mother (Dorothy McGuire) who always has to be the bad guy. Joan Blondell, Ruth Nelson, and Lloyd Nolan play characters who bring a little bit of color and kindness into the children's lives.

For the evening, Twelve O'Clock High is a first-rate all-male WWII drama about a commanding officer (Gregory Peck) who has to keep sending pilots on bombing raids even though he knows many of them will not be returning.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Gershwin fan said:

I always thought it odd how King strongly disliked Kubrick's the Shining but loved some of the adaptations of more "questionable" quality. :unsure::lol: 

I find PET SEMETARY to be THE worst film adaptation ever from any of his work. And I loved the book.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Monday, February 19/20

Film_549w_LastPicture_original.jpg

2:15 a.m.  The Last Picture Show (1971).  Still Peter Bogdanovich’s best film.

 
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bogie56 said:

Monday, February 19/20

Film_549w_LastPicture_original.jpg

2:15 a.m.  The Last Picture Show (1971).  Still Peter Bogdanovich’s best film.

 

I agree. Really love this movie. It has that old fashioned quality about it (the B&W quantity certainly helped). 

Also love Ben Johnson in this one, his character leaves the film all too soon in my view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us