speedracer5

I Just Watched...

15,752 posts in this topic

The Night Stalker (1972) - Made-for-TV horror from ABC and director John Llewllyn Moxey. Newspaper reporter Carl Kolchak (Darren McGavin) investigates a series of murders that appear to have been committed by a vampire. Also featuring Carol Lynley, Simon Oakland, Ralph Meeker, Claude Akins, Charles McGraw, Kent Smith, Elisha Cook, Virginia Gregg, and Barry Atwater.

From producer Dan Curtis and featuring a screenplay by Richard Matheson, this was a huge ratings hit in its day, leading to a follow-up TV-movie and then a short lived TV series, all of which have proven hugely influential on horror television and film in the years since. McGavin is perfectly cast as the desperate, poorly-dressed Kolchak, and I liked the scenes he shares with fellow former "Mike Hammer" Ralph Meeker. Placing a supernatural vampire in a modern setting like the brightly lit casinos of Las Vegas was unusual, stripping the European Gothic veneer away from the typical vampire tale. It's territory that has been covered ad infinitum since then, though, so I would imagine many modern viewers would fail to see the novelty of it.    (7/10)

MV5BNjM3YjU2NjctYzFjNi00MmU3LTgwZjItYTJk

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Last Outpost (1935) - War-time romance and adventure from Paramount Pictures and directors Charles Barton & Louis J. Gasnier. During WW1, British officer Michael Andrews (Cary Grant) is captured by hostile forces during clashes between British India and Kurdistan. Andrews is rescued by Smith (Claude Rains), a shady secret agent in the British employ. Later, Andrews falls for nurse Rosemary (Gertrude Michael), little knowing that she's in fact Smith's wife. Also featuring Margaret Swope, Jameson Thomas, Kathleen Burke, Billy Bevan, and Akim Tamiroff.

This starts off promisingly, with viewer uncertainty over whether Rains' character is friend or foe. However, things bog down once Grant starts romancing the bland Gertrude Michael, and it falls apart even more in the last act, which is largely made up of stock footage from the 1929 version of The Four Feathers. There's also some footage lifted from Grass (1925). Rains does a good job as the conflicted Smith, while Grant sports one of the few mustaches in his filmography.    (5/10)

MV5BZDI5MjQ2OGEtNGQxZi00OGFhLTk4ZDgtNDA5

 

On a side note, this was the last of Cary Grant's 72 movies that I had not seen. He's now the first studio-era performer whose entire filmography I've seen, out of the 75 or so whose output I'm trying to see all of.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Valmont" - Milos Forman - 1989 -

starring Colin Firth, Annette Bening, Meg Tilly, Fairuza Balk, Sian Phillips, Jeffrey Jones and Henry Thomas -

This film was the second film version of the celebrated French classic, but it was not warmly received at the box office -

the concensus was that the first film version was the better version -

nevertheless, this film is beautifully done and focuses on younger principals as personified by Firth and Bening -

they don't have "the mileage" of the original film's protagonists, but, somehow, they seem more "engaging" , that is, more "human"

Annette Bening gives a great performance as a jaded young woman without a heart -

but who seems like the personification of a well-bred aristocrat who wants the best for everyone -

Colin Firth gives a fine performance, too, as a jaded young man who seems incapable of considering anybody's welfare but his own -

and he pays dearly, too, for his indifference -

the suppporting cast is all first-rate, especially Fairuza Balk and Henry Thomas, who pay a high price for their "innocence"  -

I like the first version and the second one, too -

even though they are very different films -

f5b592e76c06a86430d212fa15c68017.jpg

52b18ed82e5506615df2b41b6826de01.jpg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Mystery of Edwin Drood (1935) - Costume drama from Universal Pictures and director Stuart Walker. Opium-addicted choirmaster John Jasper (Claude Rains) becomes obsessed with Rosa (Heather Angel), the fiancee of his nephew Edwin Drood (David Manners). When Rosa later falls for newcomer Neville (Douglass Montgomery), the romantic entanglements result in tragedy. Also featuring Valerie Hobson, Francis L. Sullivan, Zeffie Tilbury, E.E. Clive, Walter Kingsford, Forrester Harvey, J.M. Kerrigan, Will Geer, and Walter Brennan.

Based on Charles Dickens' last, unfinished novel, this is handsomely mounted effort that proved unsuccessful upon release. Rains is very good as the tortured Jasper, but Montgomery is too dull as the romantic lead. I can't recall very many Hollywood films in the Production Code era that open in an opium den. This was one of the "Shock Theater" package of films Universal sold to television in the 1950's.   (7/10)

The-Mystery-of-Edwin-Drood-1935.jpg

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

The Mystery of Edwin Drood (1935) - Costume drama from Universal Pictures and director Stuart Walker. Opium-addicted choirmaster John Jasper (Claude Rains) becomes obsessed with Rosa (Heather Angel), the fiancee of his nephew Edwin Drood (David Manners). When Rosa later falls for newcomer Neville (Douglass Montgomery), the romantic entanglements result in tragedy. Also featuring Valerie Hobson, Francis L. Sullivan, Zeffie Tilbury, E.E. Clive, Walter Kingsford, Forrester Harvey, J.M. Kerrigan, Will Geer, and Walter Brennan.

Based on Charles Dickens' last, unfinished novel, this is handsomely mounted effort that proved unsuccessful upon release. Rains is very good as the tortured Jasper, but Montgomery is too dull as the romantic lead. I can't recall very many Hollywood films in the Production Code era that open in an opium den. This was one of the "Shock Theater" package of films Universal sold to television in the 1950's.   (7/10)

The-Mystery-of-Edwin-Drood-1935.jpg

PBS in the tri-state area did a very good TV adaptation of the unfinished novel.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, rayban said:

PBS in the tri-state area did a very good TV adaptation of the unfinished novel.

Well, BBC, but yes.  (And, like most Drood adaptations, came up with their own solution, and a plausible enough one.)

At least they didn't try to sell it as "Dracula" because it had Universal and Laemmle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Special Agent (1935) - Crime drama from Warner Brothers and director William Keighley. Newspaperman Bill Bradford (George Brent) is secretly an agent working for the IRS, tasked with taking down notorious gangster Alexander Carston (Ricrado Cortez). Bradford thinks the key may be convincing Carston's bookkeeper Julie Gardner (Bette Davis) to turn state's evidence. Also featuring Jack La Rue, Henry O'Neill, Robert Strange, Joe Sawyer, J. Carrol Naish, Joseph Crehan, William B. Davidson, Robert Barrat, Charles Middleton, and Irving Pichel.

This is a solid if minor programmer, with Brent giving a good turn as the square-jawed hero. Cortez is also good as the Capone-esque gang boss. Davis's role doesn't require much, and she acts accordingly.   (7/10)

220px-SpecialAgent.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Woman in Red (1935) - Mild melodrama from Warner Brothers and director Robert Florey. Champion horsewoman Shelby Barret (Barbara Stanwyck) marries polo player Johnny Wyatt (Gene Raymond), but they quickly run into trouble from his snobbish disapproving family and from Nicko (Genevieve Tobin), a scheming woman who wants Johnny for herself. Also featuring John Eldredge, Phillip Reed, Dorothy Tree, Russell Hicks, Nella Walker, Arthur Treacher, and Edward Van Sloan.

Here's another horse movie, but thankfully they keep the horsing around in the background. Instead, a routine class-clash takes the center stage, before a more sensational finale. I like Stanwyck, and enjoyed the scene where she tells off Tobin, but Raymond is a dull lump. Eldredge, who usually played heels and crooks, gets to be a decent guy for a change.   (5/10)

220px-The_Woman_in_Red_1935.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

The Woman in Red (1935)

Did you call to say you love her?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jan. 5

Mary, Queen of Scots (Focus Features, 2018)
Source: Theater

Mild Spoilers Alert!

Queens of England are way more hip in the entertainment world than kings these days, what with The Favourite and The Crown and I think there's a show about Queen Victoria, the name of which I'm not remembering at the moment. Now we have this movie, in which Elizabeth I figures prominently, though she's not the central character.

So, a brief bit of history. I'll try not to turn this into English Monarchial History 101, but there's a LOT of story setup in this movie. Mary Stuart (Saoirse Ronan) was the daughter of James V of Scotland, and his mother was the sister of Henry VIII, who was Elizabeth I's father. So, Mary and Elizabeth (Margot Robbie) were second cousins or something (that stuff makes my head spin). James V died when Mary was six days old, and being the only legitimate heir, she was named queen of Scotland. However, she was soon sent off to be raised in France, while a succession of regents ruled Scotland in her stead, the last before her return being her illegitimate half-brother, the Earl of Moray (James McArdle). At the age of 16, she married the Dauphin of France, one year younger than herself, who became King Francis II the following year, then died the year after that. And then one year after THAT, Mary returned to Scotland and claimed her throne. This is where the movie begins, after a brief opening scene at the end of her life, where she's about to be beheaded.

Mary faces double jeopardy as both a Catholic ruler in a nation with a strong Protestant opposition, not to mention a powerhouse neighboring country with a Protestant queen, and as a woman, where men in shadowy halls are constantly plotting to either marry her off to a man who will supersede her as the true ruler or depose her altogether. She confides to the handmaidens she's brought with her from France that she only had sex once, on her wedding night with her late husband, and "he was a trembling boy ... it was over before it started".

Being from the Stuart line, Mary believes she has a legitimate claim to the English throne, as well. Henry VIII, in his will, excluded the Stuart line from inheriting the throne, but there was a faction who believed Elizabeth was an illegitimate daughter and that as the senior living descendant of Henry VII, Mary should rightly be queen. Mary seems to know this is not a likely scenario, however; she has enough on her hands just keeping the throne of Scotland. However, wanting to prevent Mary from advancing this claim, Elizabeth, following the advice of her near-lifelong advisor William Cecil, the Baron of Burghley (Guy Pearce), offers Robert Dudley (Joe Alwen), the Earl of Leicester and Elizabeth's secret lover, as a husband for Mary. As Dudley is a Protestant, the hope is this would mute Mary's power and the power of Catholics in general. Mary won't accept Dudley, however, unless Elizabeth names Mary her heir.

While this standoff is going on, Henry Darnley, the Duke of Albany (Jack Lowden), a Catholic, a Stuart and Mary's first cousin, arrives in Scotland with his father, the Earl of Lennox (Brendan Coyle), and woos her. He initially agrees to become only her consort upon marriage and not seek the title of king (similar to Prince Philip and Queen Elizabeth II), though his father has grander ambitions for him. Back in England, the news that Mary will marry a Catholic and presumably one day have Catholic children doesn't go over so well. Mary is eager to produce an heir and also to know what it's like to really be with a man, but she has heartache ahead of her - discovering on her wedding night that Darnley is actually gay, more interested in her male personal secretary than her. Now stuck in this marriage, she has to engage in some serious bedroom psychodynamics to properly motivate Darnley to attempt to impregnate her.

Believe it or not, I've only described about the first third of the movie, and I'll stop giving away plot specifics now. Saiorse Ronan, only 24, is already an Academy darling, having received a Best Supporting Actress nomination at age 13 for Atonement and has now been nominated for Best Actress twice for Brooklyn and Ladybird, and a third nomination certainly seems possible for this film. There is a remarkable resemblance between her face and the face of Mary as it appears in portraits of her time. Though born in the Bronx, she's lived primarily in Ireland since age three, and this movie gives her a chance to speak in something close to her natural accent, although it did occur to me that a young woman who'd been raised in France practically since infancy probably wouldn't speak in a Scottish brogue, but, oh well ...

Margot Robbie is a model-turned actress. Her nude appearance in The Wolf of Wall Street got a lot of attention. If I was writing a Mr. Skin-type book, I would rate it up there with Uma Thurman in Dangerous Liaisons and Mathilda May in Lifeforce as one of the greatest examples of female movie nudity in the last 35 years. She's acknowledged it was something she agreed to do in order to get a foothold in the industry, but she's tried to be taken more seriously as an actress since then, having even gotten an Oscar nomination for I, Tonya, and now playing Elizabeth, who's lovely at the beginning of the movie, but is struck down with smallpox not long after Mary assumes her throne and by the end of the film is appearing in the more familiar red wig and powdered face to hide her pockmarks, akin to Bette Davis playing the role. One of the interesting things about historical movies is they can offer completely different interpretations of the same figures, and Robbie's Elizabeth stands in stark contrast to the one Cate Blanchett played, less activist and more of a nervous wreck (and definitely different from Judi Dench's portrayal in Shakespeare in Love). This is Mary's movie, after all, and she comes across as the stronger, more self-confident queen (though the movie has the same ending as real life). A meeting between the two queens did not happen in real life, though the movie merely posits it MIGHT have happened, as Elizabeth swears Mary to secrecy and assures her she will disavow it ever happened if Mary reveals it. The filmmakers clearly wanted to get the two leading actresses together for a single scene, and I suppose I don't mind this inaccuaracy all that much.

There is a serious amount of what I suspect is revisionism in an attempt to make the cast more multicultural. Almost no scene goes by where there isn't a black, Latino or Asian actor or actress appearing as a character in a position of prominence, a noble or a servant of high position. A black actor named Adrian Derrick-Palmer has a significant role as George Dalgleish, England's ambassador to Scotland. The director of the film defends this casting in the article listed below, saying she comes from the world of theater, where multiracial casting in spite of historical inaccuracies is more common than in movies:

https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2018/12/219005/mary-queen-of-scots-cast-diversity-people-of-color

Total Movies Watched This Year: 5

Saoirse Ronan and Margot Robbie in Mary Queen of Scots (2018)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Occupation (2018) - Australian science fiction dross from Saban Films and writer-director Luke Sparke. An idyllic small-town festival and football match is interrupted by invading aliens, forcing a small band of survivors to hide out in the wilderness. They soon determine to fight back, and form a guerrilla resistance against the occupying alien forces. Featuring Dan Ewing, Stephany Jacobsen, Temuera Morrison, Rhiannon Fish, Charles Mesure, Zac Garred, Izzy Stevens, Charles Terrier, and Jacqueline McKenzie.

This plays out like so many other films and TV series, from WW2-era resistance movies to Red Dawn (1984) to Falling Skies (2011-2015), that not a single moment is unexpected or original. The Australian setting is the only aspect that's unusual, and that only goes so far. This proved a large enough hit in its home country that a sequel is already filming.   (4/10)

220px-Occupation2018poster.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jan 5

A River Runs through It (Columbia, 1992)
Source: Amazon Prime

First of all, the plot description on Amazon Prime is crap. "Two brothers rebel against their stern father and become men in the majesty of the Montana wilderness". The father played by Tom Skeritt has high expectations for his sons, but "stern" is not at all the right word to describe him, given the freedom he allows them to explore the outside world on their own. And what rebellion? The Brad Pitt character slips into a dark, secret life, but there are no scenes of defiance or rebellion against the father. Well, except for the refusal to eat oatmeal scene, and the father caves on that one, so maybe he's not so stern, after all. It appears the Amazon Prime people don't actually watch any of the movies they write plot summaries for any more than the people who write the intros/outros for TCM do!

BUT ... lets' talk about the movie itself. It looked for a moment in time there like Robert Redford was going to have really important, lasting career as a director, maybe to the point where it would rival or exceed his legacy as an actor. For a time, I was mentally comparing him to Clint Eastwood, whom I'm unsure if we're going to remember better as an actor or a director. He won an Oscar right out of the gate for Ordinary People, then The Milagro Beanfield War was interesting if a little meandering, but he was very strong again with Quiz Show and this film. After that, his output as a director just hasn't seemed all that special, in my opinion, and he didn't really stay in the public eye as a director. While he's declared his retirement from acting, he's never said anything about directing, so we'll see if he does any more of that.

It's hard to look at this film in any context without fear of being stampeded by the elephant in the room - the blinding, white-hot ascendancy of Brad Pitt. This movie came one year after his breakout role in Thelma & Louise and was followed by an onslaught of high-profile roles that quickly turned him into one of the most-pursued leading men in Hollywood. He's only the second male lead in this movie behind Craig Sheffer, who's quite good - a solid, earnest leading man who has a bit of comic timing and a bit of romantic longing - but this was the pinnacle of Sheffer's career, and who younger than me has ever even heard of him? I can't even tell you what he did after this movie, while I can probably name at least 15 movies Pitt was in after this one without even having to look them up.

Along those lines, boy, it feels like Emily Lloyd should have been a major star. She is so beautiful in this movie and so emotionally in command of every scene, she's breathtaking. 

So, this is an adaptation of the memoirs of Norman Maclean. I always thought maybe that was him playing himself in the movie's final shot, but I see on Wikipedia that he died two years before the movie came out, so probably not. He's played in the movie's first half hour by newcomer Joseph Gordon-Levitt, the older of two brothers of a Missoula Presbyterian minister and his homemaker wife (Brenda Belthyn) in the 1910s and 20s, where the Lord's teachings, the skills of fly fishing and the ability to express oneself in a concise manner are the three most important elements in their instruction. After this introductory sequence, the rest of the movie is set in the spring and summer of 1926, when Norman, just graduated from Dartmouth, returns home and tries to figure what to do with the rest of his life, while his younger brother Paul (Pitt), has become a newspaper reporter in Helena as well as a transcendent fly fisherman and a troubled gambler whose debts are on the verge of bringing him serious trouble. 

I really like the performance of Nicole Burdette as Pitt's troubled Native American girlfriend Mabel. Taking a quick look at her imdb resume, I see she had small parts in a couple of really big films, Goodfellas and Angel Heart prior to this movie and then was Tony Soprano's "other" sister, Barbara (not Janice, who was featured way more prominently), who appeared in five episodes of The Sopranos. But she's done almost nothing besides that. We get a sad glimpse of what it was probably like to be a Native American in Montana in 1926 living off the reservation; probably not being too much different than being black in the South at the same time. In a pretty short amount of screen time, she adequately expresses her pain and anger, but also girlish joy when Lloyd compliments her hair.

And the actors playing the parents are both tremendous. Skeritt has the showier role, but my gosh, Brenda Blethyn is so great in this movie as a woman with nothing but boundless love for her family who wears her heart on her sleeve. The pain on her face when Pitt excuses himself immediately after dinner to go gamble breaks my heart.

Curious note: having seen this on TCM at least three or four times, I always thought they'd gotten an edited print, because there are two different moments in the film where Pitt can clearly be seen mouthing the F-word, but there are terribly bad and obvious dub-outs where everything goes silent, not just the words coming out of Pitt's mouth but every other sound in the scene as well, so we never hear the dreaded F-bombs. I always thought this was only on the print TCM used, but the F-words aren't there on the Amazon Prime print, either. The movie was rated PG, not PG-13 even, but straight up PG, despite the appearance of a tattooed but otherwise bare female rear end in one scene. I'm thinking now the studio just clumsily edited out those F-bombs altogether to secure the PG rating. This is not a film I saw in the theater, but a film that used the F-word twice and still got a PG rating would be extremely rare, so maybe those words have always been missing in any public release.

Oh, yeah, also one anachronism, when Pitt and Lloyd engage in some Cagney-Robinson gangster movie patois complete with "yeah, see"s. This is 1926, one year before sound movies and several years before those actors became famous for their gangster roles, so there's no way their characters would have known how to talk like that. I do like the Louis Armstrong/Paul Whiteman discussion in another scene, though.

But overall, a very moving and enjoyable movie. This was probably something like my eighth time to watch it, and if I space out my viewings enough, I never tire of it.

Total Movies Watched This Year: 6

 A River Runs Through It (1992) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Vulture (1966) - Unbelievable horror from Paramount Pictures and writer-producer-director Lawrence Huntington. American nuclear scientist Dr. Eric Lutens (Robert Hutton) is visiting the Cornish coast to meet his fiancee's (Diane Clare) family. He ends up investigating reports of a 200-year-old curse dooming her family to die by the talons of a half-man/half-vulture. Also featuring Broderick Crawford, Akim Tamiroff, Philip Friend, Patrick Holt, Annette Carell, and Edward Caddick.

What could have been a silly-yet-fun supernatural tale turns downright ludicrous as Hutton tries to explain things scientifically, and I use that word generously. The mystery of the creature's identity is no mystery, and Crawford's brief role has him looking pained every time Hutton opens his mouth (I can sympathize). As bad as this movie is, it's perfect late-nite theater programming, and I wouldn't mind seeing a quality, remastered print turn up on TCM Underground.   (3/10)

220px-The_Vulture_(1967_film).jpg

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, sewhite2000 said:

He's only the second male lead in this movie behind Craig Sheffer, who's quite good - a solid, earnest leading man who has a bit of comic timing and a bit of romantic longing - but this was the pinnacle of Sheffer's career, and who younger than me has ever even heard of him? I can't even tell you what he did after this movie, while I can probably name at least 15 movies Pitt was in after this one without even having to look them up.

I've known of Craig Sheffer (bottom left) since Some Kind of Wonderful back in 1987. He also made an impression as the star of Nightbreed (1990), a cult horror film based on a Clive Barker novella. After River Runs Through It, he had a memorable role in the alien abduction drama Fire in the Sky (1993) which got a lot of publicity, and he co-starred in the football drama The Program. Since then his career started to dip into the direct-to-video market, and I recently watched him co-star with Steven Seagal in a terrible crime drama named Code of Honor (2016).

a-river-runs-through-it-still2-400px.jpg

 

BTW, sewhite, what's with the giant blocks of blank space at the bottom of your posts? I'm enjoying reading them very much, but the dead space is a bit large.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

I've known of Craig Sheffer (bottom left) since Some Kind of Wonderful back in 1987. He also made an impression as the star of Nightbreed (1990), a cult horror film based on a Clive Barker novella. After River Runs Through It, he had a memorable role in the alien abduction drama Fire in the Sky (1993) which got a lot of publicity, and he co-starred in the football drama The Program. Since then his career started to dip into the direct-to-video market, and I recently watched him co-star with Steven Seagal in a terrible crime drama named Code of Honor (2016).

a-river-runs-through-it-still2-400px.jpg

 

BTW, sewhite, what's with the giant blocks of blank space at the bottom of your posts? I'm enjoying reading them very much, but the dead space is a bit large.

I haven't figured that out! If cut and paste a movie poster image from imdb, it leaves these massive blank spaces at the bottom of my post. I see other people post movie poster images that are much smaller. I don't know if it's possible for me to resize them. I'm not very computer smart! I may just start leaving out those images altogether.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eighth Grade (2018)--I was whining on another thread that the films from 2018 I had seen were pretty so-so...okay...this film is the one I would put in the exceptional category, due largely to the performance of Elsie Fisher.  Evidently, she caught on to Spencer Tracy's secret ("never let them catch you acting") because her completely natural performance is a real joy.  The film is funny, sad, honest, and a little heart breaking...the world seen through the eyes of a shy young woman who posts videos of herself as she wants to be seen, giving advice to others (and her 'future self') about situations she has yet to face.  If you think this is just another teen angst movie that you're too old to enjoy...I bet you'll find out you're wrong.  Gets a big A .  source: Cinema apk

Related image

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Night Strangler (1973) - Made-for-TV horror from writer Richard Matheson and producer-director Dan Curtis. Reporter Carl Kolchak (Darren McGavin), having relocated to Seattle, finds himself employed once again and assigned to investigate a series of murders. He soon pieces together the fact that these murders seem identical to ones committed in the past, every 21 years and going back a hundred years. Also featuring Jo Ann Pflug, Simon Oakland, Scott Brady, Wally Cox, John Carradine, Margaret Hamilton, Al Lewis, Nina Wayne, and Richard Anderson.

This follow-up to the previous year's The Night Stalker follows much the same pattern, with only the setting and many of the characters changed. The antagonist is something different, but also very similar in many ways. It's still an enjoyable watch, and especially good by 70's TV-movie standards. Followed by a short-lived TV series, which itself was "rebooted" into an even shorter-lived TV series in the 2000's.   (7/10)

MV5BYzYxMTk3M2UtYzM2Zi00Zjc5LTg2NjYtN2Jk

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have two questions for you, oh so prolific sewhite:

1. Does this new MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS movie clarify that tangle of history you wrote about? I would love to be able to follow Mary's story, that cast of charactors set in a distant time period, but it just seems so complicated! Is it only complicated reading it and clearer in this movie? In other words, is this new movie easy to follow?

2. Have you ever read A RIVER RUNS THROUGH IT? The parallel between life and fly fishing is very clear, illustrating the brother's different life choices. (very similar symbolism seen in BLACK NARCISSUS) While many find this kind of storytelling heavy handed (as in Capracorn) I find it exhilarating. Robert Redford seems to gravitate to this type of story, also seen in THE HORSE WHISPERER, one of the only "horsey" movies I truly love.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CRAIG SHEFFER Was a regular on ONE TREE HILL which filmed in my hometown for many years.

I recently saw him in a (recent direct to video) film called MERLIN THE RETURN which was featured on RIFFTRAX, He absolutely embarrassed himself beyond words with his performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just tried making it thru LADY FOR A DAY (1933) for (I think) the fourth time. 

No dice. 

If you offered me 100 bucks, I don’t think I could.

I just can’t believe this tedious, tedious film went over gangbusters in such an otherwise incredible year for movies.

i also don’t get FRANK CAPRA.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

I have two questions for you, oh so prolific sewhite:

1. Does this new MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS movie clarify that tangle of history you wrote about? I would love to be able to follow Mary's story, that cast of charactors set in a distant time period, but it just seems so complicated! Is it only complicated reading it and clearer in this movie? In other words, is this new movie easy to follow?

2. Have you ever read A RIVER RUNS THROUGH IT? The parallel between life and fly fishing is very clear, illustrating the brother's different life choices. (very similar symbolism seen in BLACK NARCISSUS) While many find this kind of storytelling heavy handed (as in Capracorn) I find it exhilarating. Robert Redford seems to gravitate to this type of story, also seen in THE HORSE WHISPERER, one of the only "horsey" movies I truly love.

1. I must admit, to get all those characters' names and titles right, I had to hit Wikipedia! There is an overwhelming presentation of characters and situations to kick off the movie, and I felt pretty lost. They don't mess around, either; they get right into it. There are no opening credits - just a couple of paragraphs of text summarizing Mary's life pre-returning to Scotland, and then boom, off we go. But 20 or 30 minutes into the movie, I felt like I was following things pretty well. The movie can be enjoyed without getting as deep into the history as I did, as long as you know 1) Mary and Elizabeth are related; 2) Mary is Scotland, Elizabeth England; 3) Mary is Catholic, Elizabeth Protestant; and 4) A child from either of them could end up ruling both countries. And I think the movie makes all those things pretty clear.

2. I haven't read the book, but Redford himself reads directly from it in a number of voiceover passages, and it sounds like the kind of book I would like to read! I enjoyed the language of those passages very much.

Share this post


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

I just tried making it thru LADY FOR A DAY (1933) for (I think) the fourth time. 

No dice. 

If you offered me 100 bucks, I don’t think I could.

I just can’t believe this tedious, tedious film went over gangbusters in such an otherwise incredible year for movies.

i also don’t get FRANK CAPRA.

I'm harder up than you, I guess! A hundred bucks? I would sit through it!

This is probably not the forum for a debate on Capra's pros and cons. I like a number of his movies, but this isn't one of my favorites. You would probably like his remake, Pocketful of Miracles, even less. It takes the exact same same story and tells it a lot more slowly - its' 40 minutes longer! 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bride Walks Out (1936) - Romantic comedy from RKO and director Leigh Jason. Model Carolyn (Barbara Stanwyck) marries poor truck driver Michael (Gene Raymond), who demands that Carolyn now quit her job. They're soon struggling to make ends meet, but when Carolyn meets oft-inebriated millionaire M. Hugh McKenzie (Robert Young), she may have a new income source. Also featuring Ned Sparks, Helen Broderick, Willie Best, Robert Warwick, Billy Gilbert, Wade Boteler, Ward Bond, Charles Lane, and Hattie McDaniel.

Stanwyck is teamed once again with Gene Raymond, who's a cinematic black hole, sucking all joy and interest off the screen. The rest of the cast is passable, but the script is thin and quickly forgotten.   (5/10)

220px-The_Bride_Walks_Out_1936_Poster.jp

Share this post


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

i also don’t get FRANK CAPRA.

Capra made movie magic with Stanwyck (especially The Miracle Woman). But from the screwball period on I have no use for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

The Bride Walks Out (1936)

. . . Gene Raymond, who's a cinematic black hole, sucking all joy and interest off the screen.

 

Appropriate analogy, Lawrence, except I kind of feel that way about Gene Raymond in any of his films.

Anytime I see the smug, charmless Raymond listed as part of the cast of a film I think, "Couldn't they get Robert Young or Franchot Tone or Rin-Tin-TIn? Did it have to be Raymond?"

The one time I thought that Raymond's casting wasn't bad was in Hitchcock's Mr. and Mrs. Smith. But his character was supposed to be a bit of a stiff in that film. So his lack of charm worked well there, particularly as a contrast to Robert Montgomery.

Speaking of which, when I see Raymond cast in the film, couldn't they have gotten Montgomery?

  • Like 1

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