Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

nightwalker

Members
  • Posts

    997
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by nightwalker

  1. Yes, and it's even more interesting when you realize that Connery was just coming off a very successful run as James Bond when he made this picture, having completed what he thought at the time would be his last Bond picture Diamonds Are Forever the year before.

     

    Although Connery's Bond could on occasion be something of an old-school bully-boy, one can find hints that a truly fine actor is attempting to rise to the surface in Connery's Bond films (and, indeed, this was perhaps the major reason Connery never wanted to be typecast as Bond, even after his initial success in the part in 1963's DR. NO).

     

    For more good, serious Connery, check out THE NAME OF THE ROSE and THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER.

  2. Interestingly, some of these themes would be revisited in 1972 by Lumet & Connery in THE OFFENCE.

     

    Here, Connery, on the side of "authority" rather than "disobedient", is forced to confront the fact that his years as a police officer and dealing with innumerable rapes, robberies, murders, etc. have taken their toll and left their mark on him. As with the guards doing time as much as the prisoners in THE HILL, Connery learns in THE OFFENCE that he has reached a point where there is little difference between himself and the scum of society with which he deals.

     

    And though the film shares this similarity with ON DANGEROUS GROUND and Robert Ryan's harrowing portrayal of police detective Jim Wilson, for Connery there is no redemption and no hope as in that film, for his pent-up frustration and anger cause him to beat a suspected child molester to death during an interrogation.

     

    It's interesting to see the other side of the coin in a comparison of the two films.

  3. Can't agree with you about this one, Bronxie. It may not be one of the Duke's all-time best, but I've always enjoyed it.

     

    Interesting comment about the film's period setting. Did you know that was the decision of the screenplay writers? The original novel is set in contemporary times (the 1930s and 1940s).

     

    Costume drama or not, Luther Adler is great as Sydneye here. His anguished comment at the end concerning Wayne ("No, no, he mustn't be in trouble") tells a lot more about the character and his need for the challenges Ralls presents to him than the words themselves do.

     

    Agree about Wayne & Russell: they make a nice couple. It's too bad that this and ANGEL & THE BADMAN were their only pictures together.

     

    Duke, miscast? Not with great lines like the following:

     

    Grant Withers: What's your name?

     

    Duke: Ralls.

     

    Withers: Your full name!

     

    Duke: Captain Ralls!

     

    I'll take this over REAP THE WILD WIND any day, with its sappy subplot involving Ray Milland, which totally ruins that movie for me, although it's still worth seeing for the rest of the cast and the spectacular scenes at sea.

  4. In Vertigo: The Making of a Hitchcock Classic by Dan Auiler, the author says that during the making of the film, there was some uncertainty as to exactly when to place the "revelation" scene where James Stewart discovers he's been had, and that Hitch was not entirely satisfied with its location in the film, but couldn't quite decide on what might be a better spot for it.

  5. Interesting.

     

    I read or heard somewhere that Jolson was somehow able to "cut" Jessel out of the part in THE JAZZZ SINGER. I'm not sure how true that is, however.

     

    Agree that the scenes of Jolson entertaining troops in JOLSON SINGS AGAIN are among the film's dramatic high points (possibly the only ones!), but as the film was released in 1949, these scenes take place during WWII, not Korea. Jolson did make it to Korea in 1950, though, not long before his death.

  6. I'm not certain that I agree about Kerr's "fall" being precipitated by her realization that she is no better than the others in this film.

     

    Unless I missed something, it seems to me that she "fell" because she was manipulated by Seberg into believing that Niven had been unfaithful to her. I also did not consider her a "prig" and felt that she was the only major character to have had any kind of a moral compass at all. I think this is what makes her end all the more tragic, in that Seberg didn't intend to cause her death, only her departure from their lives.

     

    I agree that the film was beautifully decorated and photographed and, for me, was something of a surprise coming from Preminger, so it did serve to "open my eyes" on that score.

  7. I suspect that, like most newspapers, these companies have someone on staff who does these ratings, consequently, they're really nothing more than a matter of opinion. I, too, do not always agree with how my own cable company's guide rates films.

     

    As I said, it's kind of like whoever might review movies for your local newspaper. Some time ago, it was a local joke in my area that if the paper's reviewer liked a movie, it was terrible, and if she dissed a movie, it was probably worth seeing.

     

    I recall that when PLACES IN THE HEART came out, this individual didn't much care for Sally Field's performance, but when she won the Oscar, the reviewer was struck by amnesia and couldn't praise Field's acting enough, totally forgetting how much she had disliked it when the film was first released months earlier!

© 2022 Turner Classic Movies Inc. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...