Tikisoo
-
Posts
9,238 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6
Posts posted by Tikisoo
-
-
Omigod, if you DIDN'T think it was funny, Spielberg would cry.
I've seen this movie upteen times, at the theater first and several times home viewing. And yup, watched it again last night.
It's a fun story full of fantasy, adventure and suspense. The special effects are transporting and the acting superb.
My only gripe is Schpielberg's manipulation of the audience.
Roy's charactor could have easily wheeled the wheelbarrow into the house via the garage, but no...he had to overdramatize the scene by having the charactor throw bushes & shovelfulls of dirt through the highest, smallest window of the house.
This film is FULL of that kind of schlock.
I feel sorry for Francois having to stand there making those stupid hand gestures to coincide with the 5 tones. What is THAT about?
The "jazz" conversation between the big flat panel (us) and the spaceship (aliens) that petered out with deep base tones. A cool effect that evokes emotion in the viewer....just don't THINK about it too much or you'll realize it's pap.
I know, I know, it's only a movie and supposed to be fun. It IS fun and Spielberg knows just how to make us enjoy the movie experience.
I did however really enjoy the music this time around. I'm not a fan of Williams, I generally think he's a hack too. But I really enjoyed his "themes" this time around.
And speaking of the spaceship leaving the musical conversation in bass tones....wasn't that a reprise of the JAWS theme?
-
Uh oh, a three way (argument) rising...
fxreyman:
>We have had these conversations before in other forums and threads. And this discussion is fine. But please do me a favor...... don't label every film made after 1960 as garbage.
You're right. There's always a "good" film around. But "great" films are few & far between. Maybe it was always that way except for 1939.
But when I look at your very thoughtful lists of what you consider good to excellent, I notice the closer we get to 2011, the fewer "excellent". Your 2003 choices, although likeable, not ONE of those is a well rounded _great_ film. And I realize that is only my opinion.
dredmn:
>And there are still some good films made (released around award season), but the majority are fueled by comic books, fantasy, cartoons and special effects.
fxreyman:
>That last part where he writes about the decline of films because of comic books, fantasy, cartoon, and special effects is just just plain wrong.
He's not saying BECAUSE of that, he's just noting that's a factor.
For me, the best movies are those with the best STORY. The base. Although I didn't care for The DiVinci Code, it was a popular book made into a popular movie. Same with Harry Potter, The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, etc. I'm only sorry the production values & bad acting sunk those.
It seems to me lacking "source" material is a huge factor in the decline of newer films.
Woody Allen is an anomaly in that he writes his own stories to become the movie. I wish there were more like that. Billy Wilder & Frank Capra (to a lesser degree) come to mind in the classic era.
But because the demographics are gearing towards younger set (esp boys) comics, cartoons, retro TV shows, gore all with special effects have become typical "source" material. Not exclusively, but typical.
Oh, and then there's Jane Austen & Alcott classics (and classic films) for "the girls". How polarizing!
Was that any different than the tons of Andy Hardy, Tarzan serials, Dead End Kids stuff we deem classic?
Only in numbers.
The "kids" films of the past were low budget KIDS films for the most part. The odd big budget "kid's" movies like Thief of Bagdad, Wizard of Oz were not what the studio was banking on like today. The "adult" films were the prestigious ones and money makers.
Now, kid's films are the focus and adult films are fewer & farther between. I work in a Mall right next to the theater & it's full of kids. I've noticed adults wait until a movie comes to the second run theaters.
And sometimes the movie is so loud, thumping music & explosions, I have to leave work!
-
> It's absolutely true that the majority of films in the 1920s, in any past era, were as much "junk" as what we have today.
While I agree with you there...I do not agree with-
> Trite romance and the stupidest kind of orientalism aren't any better than "toilet humor and sex jokes"
I think this is the biggest reason I don't see many newer movies these days. I can sit through a silly Astaire/Rodgers pap and still be entertained while angry after sitting through some nasty "dating" film.
Today's films turn me off for several reasons; dizzying cgi effects & dark lighting, poor writing & editing but mainly the language & violence. For some odd reason, my family does not find the f word, vomiting or objectifying body parts funny. I'm also turned off at the idea of using cheesy Jurassic rock on soundtracks rather than real music made for the film.
The last film we saw together (Water For Elephants) the entire plot just thudded with an unnecessary sex scene, the discomfort in the theater was palpable. While I wanted to like Harry Potter, it was too dark to see the special effects and the charactors had zero personality.
Since classic film is our "hobby", 14 y/o TikiKid is exposed to old films while I'm exposed to new ones. This is good because she won't "get" From Here To Eternity while I won't "get" Coraline, while we both enjoy some like Legally Blonde and Singin' In The Rain. We respect each others vastly different opinion.
I was very surprised to hear her observation that almost every cartoon & newer movie "cheats" (her words) by putting in iconic images from old films like "Top Of The World, Ma!" and the villian fighting off planes from the top of a building like King Kong.
"Why can't they make up their OWN jokes?"
-
I agree, it was really special to have all those films shown in a row. The quality of these films is pretty impressive but I can't quite put my finger on it. Can we start calling it the "Korda Touch"?
Thankfully, I had seen most of these before, so catching bits & pieces in between family activities was ok. But I wisely recorded the gorgeous Thief Of Bagdad for later viewing.
When I later checked my recorder to see if it worked ok, I was astounded by the gorgeous imagery/sets/costumes. We'll be saving this one for "family night" viewing together.
Thanks, TCM. This day made up for your New Years scheduling blunder.
-
>I don't know why people think The African Queen, Roman Holiday, Sabrina, and Double Indemnity are rare features on TCM.
I agree with you slatonf. They are broadcast for awhile, then drop off the face of TCM awhile. It must be a broadcast rights limitation.
My brother can't get TCM, so I'll often record a movie I think he'd enjoy to share. Double Indemnity, All The Fine Young Cannibals, Desk Set are a few that used to play often, but of course once +I+ want them cease rotation!
This is why I never really complain about TCM "repeating" the same film. But Since You Went Away twice in one week was a bit much. Sheesh.
-
>Paramount is very lucky to have original negative materials on this film.
Yeas, I just saw a 35mm screening of this last week at the Capitol Theater in Rome NY and it was crisp, beautifully balanced and very three dimensional looking. I felt sucked into Bedford Falls!
(and we were just in Seneca Falls the week prior for the It's A Wonderful Life night marathon. Carolyn Grimes starts the race with "Teacher says... gets his wings")
-
>Daytime on New Year's Eve is all about the Marx Bros!!!
Well I for one am disappointed in this scheduling choice.
In years past when throwing my big New Years Eve party, I've had TCM on all night. Usually by 10pm or so, people have gathered around the TV laughing & enjoying the old movies. I was even surprised the jaded 40-50 somethings were completely rapt with the Astaire/Rodgers flicks that showed one year.
These marathons were PERFECT for the classic movie fan entertainment; hour after hour of "light" comedies that are often visual and not too complicated.
Lousy choice this year TCM programmer.
-
>That quote from Peter Fonda is pretty amazing. What's even loopier is that he fancies that Easy Rider had something to do with stopping the war in Vietnam!
It just goes to show you how different people's perspectives are.
Remember, the Fonda kids were brought up in a Hollywood household where they were born famous and the public sees their work, compared to UNI where no one gives a damn about what we say, do or how we live.
My brother has a gov't job in a financially healthy city and lives in a resort town. I live in a downtrodden rustbelt city where the only work available are minimum wage jobs.
We argue about politics a LOT.
-
I was pleasantly surprised at "Jane" day because I not only enjoyed a few movies (Spirits of the Dead especially) but enjoyed the Robert Osborne interview later in the day.
Remember, Jane was married to the founder of the channel, it makes sense she'd be honored in some way. When she spoke of her film experiences I realized she's had quite the impressive career-evolving and developing as an actress in unusual, varied roles.
I'm getting a little annoyed at all the posters judgement of actors/actresses personal lives. If Jane spoke out politically, can't you just have a different opinion? If Jane has a "chip on her shoulder", that effects you how exactly? If Katherine Hepburn had a long term affair with Spencer Tracy, that effects your life somehow? Walter Brennan the racist instantly becomes a lousy actor in a role?
Their personal choices effect THEIR lives, not yours. Haven't we all made mistakes? Does it effect your job performance?
Sometimes I think viewers connect with film and take them too personally. Please put it in perspective - I may hate violence, guns, bullying but I can watch the Godfather, it's a movie.
-
InFlynn, YES it is the correct location.
The exhibit is there until Feb, I believe. Hope you get to see it as there is a Flynn costume from The Adventures of Don Juan. What a tall beautifully proportioned physique he had according to the costume.
Thanks to all for the clarification of MM's gold lam? dress!
Sorry no schedule Dobbs.
We were driving through Doylestown PA last summer & happened upon this SAME exhibit at the Michener Museum. It was 15 minutes before closing & we were refused entry!
I actually cried with disappointment right there on the sidewalk.
-
I wanted to be done with this thread....then I read the excellent post from JonnyGeetar-thank you for making so many valid points-
>It's one of the (numerous) things I bemoan about the present state of the film industry- these bobble-headed, vapid lollipops have no personality. I have no interest in watching them play someone else, and I certainly have no interest in watching any of them play themselves.
I agree 100%.
It's the era of the Big Zero.
>When you have that large a personality, you can't help but bring it with you. But is there nuance and honesty and emotion accurately portrayed in most (if not all) her work? Absolutely.
There just aren't many people around with "big" personalities any more, actors or not. Even Marty Scorcese (& parents!) & Woody Allen have big personalities.
>P'raps what turned off many people then (and turns off many people now) about Hepburn is the aloof, icy, patrician undercurrent to her persona
Yeah, and too bad for them. If you grew up knowing people like that (or ARE like that, ahem) you see the humor rather than being turned off by it.
The only modern actor I can think of with a "big" personality these days is Nathan Lane. Maybe the only place you can still find this sort of person is NYC.
-
>I wonder if the exhibit will travel around, and I wonder if TCM will have access to it for their film festival next April. Were you allowed to take photos?
No, no photos & they had guards everywhere, so no "stealthy non flash" attempts even. This is terrible since I have a faulty memory and will soon forget everything I had seen. I would have happily purchased a booklet of photos.
It was especially nice because next to the mannequins were photos, drawings & movie stills depicting the costumes.
As for TCM having the exhibit, I think a portion of it is currently at Grauman's Chinese Theater. Totally worth the $6 admission that funds the show (I've done my share of museum exhibits-they cost a TON!) and any pieces you may want are up for sale to benefit charities.
-
I was lucky enough to see an exhibit of this collection last night (after a 35mm screening of It's A Wonderful Life) at our local Casino. (believe me, I'd never set foot in there otherwise)
This was an amazing collection and fascinating to see the actual sizes of our favorite stars. Grace Kelly's beaded dress form had no buttocks because there WAS no mannequin small enough! She strikes me as so stately & tall, apparently not.
Some of the designs & workmanship was incredible, while others were obviously "sewn on" and had muslin backs, like a beaded Betty Hutton suit dress from Perils Of Pauline.
It was thrilling to see the ACTUAL dress Rita wore in Gilda, and Scarlett's "portiere" dress. (which the attendant said was incredibly heavy, even the hat!) And especially (one of) Judy's gingham dresses from The Wizard of Oz, which was all sewn as one piece.
My only question is Marilyn's gold lam? dress, purported to be from Gentlemen Prefer Blondes. I do NOT remember her wearing that dress in that film. It seems to me to have been worn just in photos.
Can anyone confirm?
That dress was so beautifully designed, it would flatter just about any decent figure! If you get a chance...SEE this exhibit!
-
>It looks sailorish. Is there anything that would indicate that it did come from a movie?
Well no, but it certainly is a "dancing" costume.
The back has a stamp that says it's from 1934. Looking at Nixon's films from that year on IMDB:
Sweepstakes Annie
By Your Leave
Embarrassing Moments
Once to Every Bachelor
We're Rich Again
Strictly Dynamite
The Line Up
..only Strictly Dynamite sounds like a musical by the title.
And the year before, her roles were as miniscule as
"telephone operator".
Any guesses?
-
>Followed by one of my faves, THIRTEEN WOMEN (1932), a bizaree, eerie, mysterious flick
I love when you describe what you like about a movie...it helps persuade me to watch it if I've never heard of it before...
>Peg Enwhistle, who, just days after completing shooting on this flick, committed suicide by jumping off the "H" in the Hollywoodland sign!
Interesting trivia too!
>Tuesday night, TCM takes us Christmas shopping, kicking it off with a flick I've not seen before, GOOD SAM (1948), with Coop, the lovely Ann Sheridan, Edmund Lowe, and Ruth Roman!! Looking forward to that!
Me too! I have the half sheet bought on the strength of the leads. Hope Sheridan is nicer than in The Man Who Came To Dinner. Will the poster be worthy of framing & displaying? Hope so.
In that same "lot" purchase, I bought the half sheet for Task Force, also with Coop. It showed last week, but I had a DVR malfunction-still never seen this film!
I'm going to record Happened on 5th Ave because I love it & my Mom's never seen it. I think it's an adorable film, perfect for Christmas.
Thanks mark!
-
>anyone who watches the first three Hepburn-Grant movies that TCM has been showing tonight
I caught these and thought of this thread....you know, I think Kate was beautiful too.
I've defended her as an actress but kind of conceded that she was not all that attractive. Seeing these early films reminded me how pretty she really was. Not "anorexic" as Dobbsey stated, but certainly she had a chiseled face.
Just about any woman who is healthy and fit is extremely slender in her 20's, pretty much "boyish" with gentle curves. Most women "thicken" a bit in their 30's and even more so when they have children. Kate is no "skinnier" than Audrey, Babs or Ginger.
It was discussed during the Essentials that Kate was coached in comedy for that film. She obviously had talent or she wouldn't have pulled it off.
"Overrated"? I don't give a whit about "lists" or "polls". All I know is there are a lot of admirers of Kate's while there's a lot of people who just really don't care for her, for whatever reasons.
It's an interesting discussion if you can persuade people to see both sides, but for the most part, I think it's just personal taste.
-
>And regarding the above listed titles, actually I'd seen three of them before (two on the "big screen" in 35mm) and liked them all.
With me sitting nearby most likely.
Films like these are often better appreciated in a theater setting with an audience, rather than on TV, no matter how sophisticated the home set up.
In any case, they are treasures and deserve preservation if only for historical appreciation.
I'll never forget being wholly entertained by only fragments of a film preserved, a wild fantasy with Edward Everett Horton. Hopefully someday the rest of it will be found.
-
>I found Laughton way too creepy and turned it off. Poor man, only 32 and he was that homely?
It's just that fat cured ham shining through his face.
-
I thought the "giveaway" was the beauty mark on her chin, but guess that's a spot on the photo. The real "giveaway" would be her figure-teeny tiny body, no Marlene Deitrich curves.
She does photograph resembling Deitrich, look at this photo of Nixon:
But this photo of Nixon looks like the girl in my picture:
Now the only thing left is to figure out what movie she may have worn that crazy outfit in. If she was a dancer, then I'd be certain it was her. In many older photos she's brunette!
-
Having grown up in Rochester I'm just nutty about old b&w photography. Last Sunday, I scored big time finding some really nice old sepia Hollywood photos...first attracted by a picture of a guy on a rearing horse (Gene Raymond) I picked up two really nice 8x10 Bogarts and a nice Warren William with Asta (the dog) although it doesn't really look like WW it's marked on the back.
Anyway, here's one I bought because I loved the costume, figuring this gal was in the type of films I like. Just don't know the girl....anyone?
Very Identifiable Warren William:
Great Pola Negri:
-
I took my afternoon shift off to watch this, since it's the only title broadcast today I had never seen before.
Good decision.
It was trippy in the same way Busby Berkeley dance sequences are trippy. Incredible lighting, photography & special effects.
I found it very surprising there were no subtitles, but I figured out what was going on nonetheless. And if I missed on something, the visuals filled in.
Thank you Eastman House for preserving that.
-
I completely understand some film lovers just not liking Hepburn while others love her-that's just opinion. I can't stand Dick Powell and realize it's just my personal feeling (reminds me of my smug ex-husband) but can usually tolerate watching him in a movie.
Why? Because I can separate my personal feelings from watching a STORY played out with ACTORS.
But still, I understand those with negative feelings about Hepburn or any others really.
And if you want a really good gauge as to whether Kate's a good actress or not, just watch The Philadelphia Story and compare it to High Society. Grace Kelly has ALL of those same qualities; "Above the ordinary, haughtiness, irritating voice, cold stiff ice queen", but with added stunning beauty!
In HS, the charactor falls flat, whereas in TPS, you actually can laugh at her crazy haughtiness and her desire to be treated like an "ordinary" person. Kate can somehow evoke sympathy in us, especially when she gushes over herself at the end.
-
Skewer me, but I love Kate....& Mae & Bette Davis (and to a lesser degree Ava Gardner) I enjoy them ALL.
In Woman of The Year Kate gets her comeuppance from Tracy for being a "cold, self absorbed feminist" when he takes away her adopted child. Nothing is funnier than the scene where she desperately tries making Tracy breakfast and makes a mess of the kitchen. She also is pretty humbled and vulnerable in Sylvia Scarlett, trying to pretend she's more elegant than she is.
What I love about Kate is that there is no one quite like her-especially considering how unpopular her attitude and demeaner was for her day. While her cup runneth over with confidence, she never quite fit in and was emotionally rejected, even today! Who can't identify with THAT?
Taking Ava, who is beautiful & desirable by most, I like her opposite type of vulnerability. She knew she was gorgeous but wanted people to look past that and get to know HER. The only thing that assists a woman like Ava is getting older and growing out of the sex symbol phase. (& I think many women identify with that too)
-
Katherine Hepburn
Diane Keaton
ALERT: Rarely shown classic on right now on TCM-"The Heiress"(1949)
in General Discussions
Posted
>...rarely shown classic