Tikisoo
-
Posts
9,238 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6
Posts posted by Tikisoo
-
-
I recently saw FOLLOW THE BOYS (1944) with my film club and was surprised to see how good of a dancer George Raft was. Everyone ELSE knew he was a dancer but me, who only thought of him as a gangster tough guy.
Also was surprised to see how light on his feet beefy charactor actor Alan Hale was! Don't recall the movie, but Hale was surprisingly graceful!
-
>First off, unlike most modern films, nothing blew up...but it has this going for it: A Plot, Good Actors, Good Dialog. These days, that's more than enough for me!
Very nicely said!
I'm sure I'll enjoy it when I finally see it for exactly the reasons you state. I really like when a movie is better than I'm expecting, re: Tim Burton's films.
>well, at least I'll bet a certain family in Buena Park always thought very highly of the guy, anyway...
Heh Dargo, I lived in Orlando 1970-1972 and had to do the same "schlepping" of visitors to the park. I am amazed at how the entire area has changed because of the mega-park.
I used to ride horses through the orange groves in Sanford before it was even a community, only 40 years ago.
Ah, the smell of the orange juice factories!
-
>I just got (that) "Never Say Goodbye" and "Four's a Crowd" from the Warner Bros Archives. I liked seeing Errol in a Thin-Man esque role.
Those are the only two "non weaponry" movies I've seen Flynn in and I didn't like either. Flynn was just fine (as is yummy Eleanor Parker in NSG) but the stories fell flat.
But thanks for the suggestions....I'll keep trying to find FOOTSTEPS IN THE DARK.
-
I'm an Errol Flynn fan too-and especially like him paired with Bette Davis. Anyone want to suggest a great movie with him not shooting arrows or wielding a sword? Most just don't gel well. I'm hoping I like THE SISTERS.
Just a side note:
We visited an 88 year old member of our film group who has been confined to his apartment the last month or so. He was all excited about BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN & Dr JEKYLL & MR HYDE being on TCM after we left.(I asked which version-he said who cares?)
And he said, "Tomorrow night is IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT, ARSENIC & OLD LACE then LADY FOR A DAY! Wow-I'm gonna have fun!"
Now this is a guy who has seen everything and I suspect seen everything several times, he was quoting the scripts. HE certainly wasn't complaining about "the same movies shown over & over" like we do on this forum.
It was a revelation.
-
>I'm surprised nobody's mentioned A Stolen Life.
Not mentioned, but in the memory bank as a great Dane Clark role. I thought he played very well paired with Bette.
>Really liked the first film, though the end was a bit over the top. Embraceable You, the plot was hard to swallow, but once I got beyond that enjoyed that too
You know this got me thinking....
Over-the-top actors like Cagney, Bette Davis & Claude Rains just flourished at WB studios. Maybe the writing, plot lines were so unbelievable, "big & dramatic" acting styles worked well for them.
Maybe more subtle actors like Dane Clark just didn't burst across the screen as well and that's why he's delegated to "supporting" roles.
What do you think?
-
Thanks for that great story, Vertigo. I wouldn't be surprised if the positive incidents at The Frolics influenced your sister to go into the field. It's also great to hear good things about an entertainer. Sounds as if Frankie's a friendly & generous guy.
I've been a driver, guide & guard to contemporary "stars" and many are just miserable.
These days you can't offer stars homemade treats, I've seen them toss gifts right in the can. Well, unless they are labeled "speshel" brownies. ;-)
As for the old people in teen movies....my first thought is they may have been crew members just used as extras, like the set decorator, the gaffer, etc.
-
>Meryl Streep calls out Walt Disney as sexist, anti-Semitic
This shows how ONE incident can be isolated, then blown out of proportion, then repeated as an all encompassing absolute fact.
Maybe Disney was sexist & anti-Semitic by today's standards, but consider the circumstances of his lifetime.
It was acceptable (by white men) to stereotype women and almost all ethnic groups. Many comedians like El Brendel, Fanny Brice or Chico Marx created their entire routine on stereotyping an ethnicity.
Disney employed women as painters & inkers. This was mostly because he could get them cheaper than men. (women weren't the head of households back then) He didn't treat ANY of his employees with respect, they were just workers.
Disney's most often cited anti-Semitic incident came after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Within hours 700 soldiers moved in & occupied the Disney Studio as a defense station to protect the neighboring Lockheed Aircraft plant.
Walt was incensed & raved that no other studio had been shut down and occupied; not Columbia, not MGM, not Paramount, only _his_ studio. He ranted "No one touches the Jew studios!
I'm not defending Disney, he wasn't the greatest guy in Hollywood. But he was a man driven to create an artistic product for the masses for which he mostly succeeded. But I think it's kind of a knee-jerk reaction to "label" him by today's standards.
-
I've always been a Dane Clark fan only wish he had done more films, although according to his imdb page, he did a lot of TV.
Glad they show I WON'T PLAY a lot as a filler on TCM. I especially enjoy him playing with Bette Davis, there aren't many who can hold their own with her.
And I've always preferred his real name, Bernard Zanville to Dane Clark.
Wow-here's the imdb picture of him-he certainly aged well!
-
>Now there's a film I've never seen or want to see. Slasher films, not for me.
I once met the guy who did the special effects for that movie. (heh back then it was one guy and his staff of three-nowadays it's PAGES of names working in a big company) and said almost the same thing to him.
He told me to rent the video (haha) and watch the entire thing with the sound off. He was right- I got to see the "special effects" very well and was not upset by what I saw at all. It just became people pretending, acting, very illogical.
For example; Kevin is laying in a bunk. Someone shoves an arrow from underneath up through his body. He writhes & screams and looks at the arrow without touching it, for "horror" effect.
Real life, you would arch your back and jump up if you felt anything shoved into you, not just lay there and scream.
SPOILER: The best effect is when Lilly Palmer gets her head lopped off with an ax. They cover her head in a black bag (visible) put her against a black back round and have her hands grasp for the missing head. Riiight. If your head is chopped off, your body drops.
The old slasher films are pretty low tech. To this day, if I ever borrow a newer "horror" film and it gets too intense for me, I just turn the sound off & watch the artistry of the effect. You soon find out there's zero plot.
-
>Please, please, please proofread your posts. It shows consideration to the people you would like to dialog with to make intelligible posts.
Indeed. I wish more people WOULD proof their zero punctuation run on posts. Apparently they do not realize readers can't comprehend their posts and it definitely shuts the door on any meaningful "conversation".
>Please, please, please proofread your grammar
Now that's just nit-picky.
I said "conversation" but I understand "dialogue" too.
But what the hex is this?:
>Under a Texas Moon 1930.Although Paramount now owns it legally they could allow t.cm to premier it, John Gilbert's first talkie,His glorious night, plus many 10o more that Time Warner is sitting on that have no copyright problems, through the economics of title switching,They could become more open too and explore the bad side of film history equally ,besides t own countries heritage ,But no just continued over exposed popular hits with only occasional introduction to a obscured classic .
(I just assume English may be their second language...I don't know if I could fare much better posting in French)
-
>lavender said: Rich, I also like Kevin Bacon very much, and what you is very true. Nothing special in using Kevin as an example for that algorithm.
I agree, especially when working in a limited pool such as "Hollywood".
But I use the "6 Degrees of Kevin Bacon" to illustrate in counseling that "we're all related and in this (life) together". It's a great pop culture reference that even kids can grasp the concept.
And I too am very impressed every time I see Kevin Bacon in a movie. I recently saw TREMORS on the big screen at a horror festival and although a very silly story, I completely believed Bacon.
He is an example of good acting elevating an otherwise bad movie.
-
>slaytonf wrote: Beauty and the Beast is definitely, definitely essential.
>jakeem wrote: Excuse my French, but you are absolutely correct! They should pair Jean Cocteau's 1946 fantasy film "La Belle et la B?te" with his equally dazzling 1950 drama "Orph?e" ("Orpheus").
Are you saying Cocteau's BEAUTY & THE BEAST is a 1946 film?
Wow. I saw Cocteau's B&TB once maybe 30 years ago and my memory of it must be kind of dim. I remember it all grainy and contrast-y and thought it was a very early movie, made like in the 1920's-30's.
Just goes to show how fallible memory is! Well, at least I remember enjoying & being impressed by it.
-
I love this idea too-it makes perfect sense because while these actors don't "star" in a film, their support often makes the film "gell" and I think that takes lots of talent.
As is with any subject here on the message board, I have to put in my 2? opinion- while you list many deserving charactor actors, a few in there I consider "stars", like Lionel Barrymore, Judith Anderson & Rosaland Russell.
I'd rather see days filled with actors that never had top billing, that were truly supporting the cast & story. Some, like Thomas Mitchell support quietly, while others like SZ Sakall almost steal the show. I really enjoy Ann Revere's understated contributions to film stories too.
My favorite charactor actor of all time is James Gleason. I recently viewed the 2.5 hour Criterion NIGHT OF THE HUNTER bonus disk of outtakes. It was amazing to see the first chosen actor do the part, then James Gleason came in as replacement. It was if Gleason WAS the guy in the movie, you just could not see him "acting" but instead recognised the entire back story of this charactor.
And don't forget Eve Arden!
-
I've seen those old photos of Robert Osborne before....I think he looks the same-the only thing that's changed is the color of his hair and he's gotten just a bit thicker (as we all have or will do)
I completely recognize him.
-
>LOST HORIZON the Musical Never thought this would work because, come on, sounds weird on its own, but I actually LOVED it!
Oh no. This is on my "pile" from my movie buddy and I keep taking ANYTHING else but that one. Guess I'll have to give it a try, but loathe the idea of it.
I have learned not to judge a film before seeing it since I was a teen and friends dragged me to CLASH OF THE TITANS (what's this about, a football game?) Loved it!
If asked to go to a theater, 99% of the time I'll go just to be along with friends.
Although I've seen KING KONG a zillion times, it was an entirely different experience seeing it in a theater with an audience. Same with the absurd THE GIANT CLAW which was a riot with a crowd. Even Abbot & Costello movies work really well in a theater setting while if on TV I'd never watch it.
I will however, decline seeing any "franchise" movie.
I often see "modern" films from library borrowing. Generally, if the movie was really popular, there is some reason. CLUELESS, LEGALLY BLONDE were both fun and enjoyable and for me fall within the same category as the old MAISIE movies and screwball B pictures of the 30's & 40's. Not every movie has to be a blockbuster.
I was very pleasantly surprised at two Tim Burton films, since generally I find his work under-whelming and trite.
I enjoyed ALICE IN WONDERLAND although thought the cgi enhancements were overdone & unnecessary.
I was really surprised at how much I liked DARK SHADOWS, because braced to hate it. Again, it was only marred by the attempts at silly humor, otherwise a pretty good movie.
-
>And for some (perhaps newer, younger viewers) a film like SUNSET BOULEVARD does get underrated when compared to MISSION IMPOSSIBLE or X-MEN.
For some, maybe...but not a "film buff". Our kid absolutely loved SUNSET BLVD at 15 and was bored by those other two mentioned.
>The one I liken to is the poster who brought up that the '50's, movie wise, didn't really start until the middle of the decade. Pretty much like music.
And fashion, popular colors, architecture or anything else. Most cultural trends are defined by the half decade like 1955 to 65 or 1965 to 75.
>Yes, wait till we get to the underrated 60s, 70, 80s, 90s and 2000s.I do want to go back and look at the years of the 1930s, leading up to '39.
And that's really what it comes down to; this is a vanity thread for one poster to continually post one opinion for all to see, not a "general discussion" at all.
-
I am confused...
The title of this thread is "The Underrated Fifties". Then, lists of terrific films MADE in the 50's have been listed.
I think films like SUSET BLVD, ALL ABOUT EVE & BORN YESTERDAY are all pretty highly lauded by film buffs & critics.
Why would anyone think the films of the 50's have been underrated? And who in particular scoffs at films made in the 50's?
-
>where I spotted a man furiously talking to "someone" into the reciever part of an old, pink toy telephone
That would be me!
Actually, back in the early days of those "brick" mobile phones, I had the handset from a 50's turquoise desk phone in my car with the curley cord going into the dashboard.
I can't tell you how many strange looks, then laughs I got at red lights repeating "blah, blah, blah" into it.
-
Good job shutting down spam or threads gone nasty. Only wish you'd "move" threads to their appropriate category like every other message board.
I am tired of threads about a film in particular (ie REBECCA) in *General Discussions* instead of *Films & Filmmakers*
and
inquiries (ie Please ID This Film) in *General Discussions* instead of *Information, Please.*
It leaves less room for true "Gerneral Discussions" that often fall to back pages rather than gaining participation as they should.
(and finance, I had no idea you spun....I'm assuming wool, not the dancing variety)
-
Thanks for the thoughtful response, reyman. I'm glad we can both HAVE and respect opposing opinions. I know many people think Hank's is the bees knees and I usually just "eye roll" (always gets a laugh from the kid)
Wow do I love THIS line of yours!
>he has carved out a nice career where mediocrity has been accepted.
...and this:
>He just happened to come along at the right time and appear in a lot of very popular films.
I guess that's what really sticks in my craw about Hanks....I don't really hate him I just think he's over-rated. He often seems to be sleepwalking through his roles.
>For some reason in Hollywood he is likened to Jimmy Stewart, but he is in no way any equal to Stewart.
I think that's Hank's publicist's doing.
LIFE magazine did a cover story "Hollywood 1939*1989 Today's Stars Meet The Screen Legends". It compares Tom Hanks to Jimmy Stewart by saying he's "America's everyman".
But what sets Stewart above is whenever you see him in a movie, you are always aware you are watching Jimmy Stewart. His ACTING pulls you through the story anyway, making you believe all that is really happening to him. His acting is greater than his persona.
When I see Tom Hanks "acting" I see disbelief in his own eyes, as if he's the Emperor in New Clothes trying to convince us when he doesn't believe it himself!
I can find other actors wooden, like Joel McCrea or Gary Cooper, but they believe in their acting and their "style" is just underplaying.
(BTW, in that issue Kevin Costner is compared to Joel McCrea!)
And as you said, it's just my opinion....but look at how easily that is twisted into "hatred" on a message board.
Thanks for allowing me to explain.
-
>However as much as you seem to dislike him, he has appeared in several very well made films over the years.
And that's the point fx -Hanks does not have enough talent (or maybe he just has given up trying) to elevate a not-so-good film, but a well made film elevates his performance.
Wasn't he in SPLASH too? He was pretty lovable in that one. But again, when you're young & cute, a pouty lip & puzzled expression may be all you need to get by on screen.
I hated SLEEPLESS IN SEATTLE and hated GUMP even more and it was then I realized Hank's lacking acting ability and started avoiding anything (avoid, not refuse!) where he is the principle lead.
Gawd just sit through THE DIVINCI CODE and you'll see what I'm talking about.
As for "Oscar talk" don't you realize it's just another promotional tool?
But I will see "Banks" when it comes to my library on DVD a year from now, only because I am fascinated by Disney, the man. And boy, will I be thrilled if it brings this old, often told story to life.
-
I just love that Addams Family card....I have a "My Crowd" book by Addams of his strips & they are just wonderful-classic!
Krampus removed all kids that were "bad" while St Nick brought presents to "good" kids-a kiddie version of heaven & hell for teaching purposes.
And like all good US religions, decided to simply eliminate any ideas of "demons" by just focusing on PRESENTS!
As someone who collects devil images, it's frustrating trying to find any scary devil in US stores even at Halloween time. Thanks for the 2 postcards!
A movie fan sent me THIS card last year:
Made a great desktop picture for December.
-
I just wanted to share a card I received for the "holiday"-
If you don't recognise the drawing, it's Peter Cushing & Veronica Carlson from FRANKENSTEIN MUST BE DESTROYED!
Thought other film buffs here might get a kick out of it!
-
>You never did explain your militant dislike of this man, Tiki.
I have, but I suppose too long ago for most to remember. I used to feel exactly the same way about Kevin Costner and would be blasted for it until others kind of realized it too.
Tom Hanks started out as a "cute guy", and generally likable when the writing and directing carried the film. Well, now he's not so cute and he truly needs better support to make his acting successful.
A perfect example is APOLLO 13 where everyone else's acting completely outshines Hanks, and believe you me, I never would have thought I'd be impressed with Kevin Bacon, but I am.
I know people who have worked with Hanks on films, and they all see it too. In fact, they have extremely unflattering things to say about his acting, but it's not really fair to repeat.
I just find him wooden and not believable. Everyone relates to actors that emphasize their role by using facial expressions, their body and voice. Hanks just seems to stand there, seemingly resting on his past laurels and it just doesn't work for me.
Best movie set in your state...
in General Discussions
Posted
New York is just as easy as Texas....unless you separate NYC out of it (which most upstaters do)
I've never seen DRUMS ALONG THE MOHAWK, but A PLACE IN THE SUN is supposed to take place in the same general area of the state.
My favorite is IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE. If you ever make it to Seneca Falls (home of women's rights!) you'd recognise it as Bedford Falls. Most small towns along the Barge Canal have that caught-in-a time-warp sort of feeling.
And speedracer, Oregon is my favorite state and I love visiting or working there. I noticed a lot of moisture in the forests, like moss or lichens on the trees. I think it's due to lack of sunlight rather than rainfall, not unlike Syracuse (Dreary-cuse) Coffee & movies are big in these unsunny states.