nightwalker

> {quote:title=CineSage_jr wrote:}{quote} > The only thing wrong with THE BIG SLEEP is that it's neither as good, nor as entertaining as THE MALTESE FALCON I would disagree on both points. I think a good case could be made either way, however. > THE DESPERATE HOURS, '55 version, holds up pretty well, too, but the fact that the crooks actually let Fredric March leave the house & go to work strains credulity. > > I see you've yet to have your family held hostage. And you have? > I also enjoy repeat viewings of THE WINDS OF WAR and WAR AND REMEMBRANCE, the historical portions of which are actually quite (but not 100%) accurate. > > Protagonist Victor "Pug" Henry, the oldest and most somnolent man ever to be stuck at the rank of Commander in the history of the U.S. Navy. Mitchum at his most somnolent still exudes more charm and charisma than most other actors who could have played the part. Besides, the character was only supposed to be around fifty.

Thanks, Bronxie. You might also check out Quarry in DR. PHIBES RISES AGAIN (1972), too, in which he co-stars with Vincent Price.

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote} > There are lots of films that hold up well to repeated viewings... In addition to those you've listed, I'd add others which are personal favorites: NOW VOYAGER, for one. I can't think of any flaws in that one. A quibble would be that Charlotte and Jerry's romance doesn't go through any of the myriad of things that can cause love to die, but that's not really a flaw. THE BIG SLEEP, '46 version, doesn't really have any flaws unless you count the rather labyrinthine nature of the plot. But that doesn't stop me from enjoying it several times a year. Heck, I even enjoy DARK PASSAGE, and that is one farfetched movie! THE DESPERATE HOURS, '55 version, holds up pretty well, too, but the fact that the crooks actually let Fredric March leave the house & go to work strains credulity. I also enjoy repeat viewings of THE WINDS OF WAR and WAR AND REMEMBRANCE, the historical portions of which are actually quite (but not 100%) accurate.

Hi, Martin: Here are some more "King Kong" movies: 1 - SON OF KONG, 1933 - this one really doesn't have Kong himself in it, though; 2 - KING KONG VS. GODZILLA, 1962 - made in Japan; 3 - KING KONG ESCAPES, 1967 - also made in Japan; 4 - KING KONG LIVES, 1986 - this movie was a sequel to the 1976 version; 5 - THE MIGHTY KONG, 1998 - this is a cartoon version. There was also a King Kong Saturday morning cartoon series back in about 1967. Nightwalker

> {quote:title=Bronxgirl48 wrote:}{quote} > I remember William Marshall was very impressive (and scary!) as Blacula. He had an almost Shakespearean presence about him, which made it all the more frightening. Just adding my 2 cents worth. Funny you should say that, Bronxie, as Marshall was a classically trained actor who played Shakespeare on stage many times! In fact, I remember reading that about him in FM when the Blacula movies came out. I'd add my recommendation of these films to the others here, as well as the Count Yorga films and Deathmaster, which was put out on DVD a few years ago by (I believe) Anchor Bay.

> {quote:title=CineSage_jr wrote:}{quote} > We have to remember that films simply weren't made to be viewed over and over, and analyzed for minutiae the way we do now. In its way it's like old special effects that look fine in original 35mm print density, but look painfully obvious when viewed on home video, a medium on which they were never designed to be viewed. CS and Fred: Yes, that's quite true. These are thoughts that have come only on repeat viewings. I well recall the first time I saw this film, which was in the 1980s when it was re-released to theaters. I was so swept up in the atmosphere, the characters, the scenery, the acting and even the plot that it wasn't until after repeat viewings that some of these shortcomings we've discussed presented themselves. As you said, Cine, the whole package was compelling enough. Speaking for myself, I don't generally view a film very "critically" the first time I see it. Naturally, some thoughts will occur, but I don't really view with the idea of dissecting the film. So I would say again regarding VERTIGO that issues such as Elster's shortcomings as an evil genius are probably not likely to occur on a first viewing for most folks, and even despite this flaw, VERTIGO is still a gem, and one that warrants repeat viewings.

> {quote:title=CineSage_jr wrote:}{quote} > No, the biggest flaw by far is that, having killed Madeleine, Elster already has a potential death-sentence hanging over his head if caught, yet he leaves Judy, the only person who can finger him for the crime, alive and living in the same city with Scottie (and lets her keep Carlotta's necklace, to boot). > > Two potential death sentences are no more onerous than one, since the state can only make you suck cyanide once. You're right, of course, but I think this is really the "other side of the same coin" in that Scottie wouldn't have been able to take Judy to these places, thereby risking the discovery and unraveling of Elster's entire plan, if Elster had eliminated her in the first place, as you say.

> {quote:title=judycwrite wrote:}{quote} > This looks like something you'd make with your friends on weekends with your super 8 camera until you get to the stop action couple of monsters. Actually, Judy, that's not too far from the truth. The film was originally made as a student project, but was picked up for release provided some additional footage was added. I have the Criterion edition, and the liner notes, which are excellent, go into this in some detail. Given this background, I thought the film was pretty good, and as I'm an H.P. Lovecraft aficionado, I enjoyed the connection with his writings as well. I believe, but I'm not certain, that MST3K never "did" this one because it's been in rights limbo.

Hi. The film is out now on DVD. You can find copies at Amazon and, probably, e-Bay. I thought the film was lightly entertaining, with Brando and Niven as two gigolos with somewhat contrasting styles. I thought the real eye-opener was Brando, whom one does not readily associate with comedic roles. He's never been a particular favorite of mine, but he shows he can "do" comedy well here. (As a side note, I would also add that I was favorably impressed with his humor and his singing in GUYS AND DOLLS as well.)

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote} > And for Scottie to take Judy -- dressed up and made up to look like Madeleine -- into bars and restaurants where Elster had taken Madeleine -- and where both were well-known -- was just really stupid, especially after everyone who knew Madeleine knew that she was supposed to be dead. I would agree that this is probably the single largest "flaw" in the gem that is VERTIGO. After all, if Scottie noticed the resemblance between the two, someone else might as well. However, I would say that this also is probably not a "flaw" that is readily noticeable when viewing the film for the first time as one becomes caught up in the atmosphere of romantic, possibly deadly obsession. Interestingly, another problem with the film was noted by Dan Auiler in his book Vertigo: the Making of a Hitchcock Classic. There, he notes that Hitchcock was never quite satisfied with the placement in the film (at about the 3/4 point) of the revelatory sequence in which the audience learns of Elster's duplicity and Judy's involvement. Apparently, Hitchcock wavered between placing it where it is now or placing it later in the film, a bit closer to the climax.

The film has been shown on TBN. I think the last time they showed it was during the winter, probably in January.

You are probably thinking of THE ETERNAL SEA, from 1955, starring Sterling Hayden as real-life Rear Admiral John Madison Hoskins.

If you are able to, you might try contacting the City of Chicago Real Estate Tax Assessor's Office. Information as to a property's owner(s) and past owner(s) is generally a matter of public record, so this info shouldn't be too hard to obtain.

> {quote:title=scsu1975 wrote:}{quote} > Let's toss in *Invaders from Mars*. As a kid, this one scared me because the kid in the film could not trust his own parents, and had to trust total strangers. Agreed. Interesting how that element of this film predated INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS by three years. I also agree about Nancy Gates! And Shawn Smith. And Lisa Montell (even though she wore slacks)....

> {quote:title=judycwrite wrote:}{quote} > Tarantula, is that similar to Earth VS the Spider? Great spider! Love your other picks! Yes, like EARTH VS. THE SPIDER, TARANTULA features a giant spider on the loose. Directed by Jack Arnold, who was also responsible for most of the others I listed, and taking place in his favorite setting, the southwestern desert, the film is one of the best and I recommend it heartily.

Jake, you're pretty awesome yourself...

I've always been partial to the Universal-International classics, myself, like the Creature movies, TARANTULA, THIS ISLAND EARTH, IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE, etc. But I really have a lot of other favorites from this era. One example would be WORLD WITHOUT END, with Hugh Marlowe and Rod Taylor. I could take pages just naming them all.

How about THE PLAINSMAN, 1936, with Gary Cooper, at least some of which, including the climax, takes place there, in Deadwood?

Great links, Fred.

THE WOMEN was remade in 1956 as THE OPPOSITE SEX. It wasn't bad, but June Allyson was no Norma Shearer. Joan Collins wasn't too bad as Joan Crawford, though.

Maybe you were conflating two movies in your memory, Judy. There is one with Marshall Thompson called FIRST MAN IN TO SPACE from 1959. Thompson's brother is, indeed, the first man into space, but when he comes back, it's not as a gelatinous blob-like monster, but as a gunk-encrusted blood-sucking creature which is still shaped (and walks like) a human being.

Yeah, I agree. I think that's one of Hammer's very best. There's actually a series of books by Dennis Wheatley featuring Lee's character, the Duc de Richleau but, alas, they are all comfortably ensconced in one of the numerous "to read" piles of books around here.

I always though SCREAM OF FEAR, 1961, was a pretty good little chiller, with an heiress in a wheelchair being terrorized by someone for some reason or other... Christopher Lee was in this one, too.

Mickee, I just spent the last half hour or so reading this thread. I think it's great! I guess what I like about it is that there are obviously all points of view represented here, and yet so far, no meltdowns! I think if we can continue in this spirit of civility and respect, this can be one of the most enjoyable, informative and enlightening threads here. As a conservative myself, I found myself pretty much in agreement with Bob's comments a few posts earlier, but that doesn't mean I haven't enjoyed reading this thread and getting to know where some of my fellow posters are coming from. And given the nature of this subject, some impassioned comments are to be expected, but if we can continue to treat each other with respect and avoid useless speculations as to each others' motives, I'll be honored to be a part of this thread also. For myself, I've always felt that everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt on the issue of motive, unless and until that person himself gives me a solid reason to feel that BOD was misplaced. And that hasn't been happening here. And I think that's true in any subject of debate/discussion, whether the subject be politics, religion or anything else. And CineSage, I mean that (about BOD) for you as much as for anyone else here. If I could extend my hand to you through cyber-space, I would. I have to run, so other posts will have to wait for another time. In the meantime, ladies and gents, I wish you all well, and to all of us, Peace.

Yes, I understand they're going to play two more Sinatra concert shows from the 60s as well, later this month.