misswonderly3

I have never wanted to watch On the Beach. Not because I don't believe it's a good movie; I've always heard it is, quite good. But I cannot bear to watch a story about the aftermath of nuclear war, and the inevitability of death for everyone, even those who would survive the initial horrific mushroom cloud blast. I have a childish (maybe not so childish) fear of nuclear war, and try not to think about it and the very real, terrifying possibility that it might actually happen some time. So I avoid any books or movies that even fictitiously depict or even speculate about such a despairing horror. Except for Dr. Strangelove; but even that I can find disturbing and hard to take - as well as incredibly funny and clever and entertaining, of course. Sorry if this sounds depressing and too personal. I don't want to be a Debby Downer about your very well-written and intelligent post about On the Beach. But the film then was a warning (like Dr. Strangelove and The Day the Earth Stood Still and several others around that time) about the unthinkable and final horror nuclear weapons could wreak upon our planet and all who inhabit it. The scary and awful thing is, such warnings seem to remain unheeded.

Why do I think you mean Henry James when you say "the Master" ? Or maybe you're referring to the Master and Margarita.

I didn't know Ronald Reagan was given to winking.

Oh My God is right. When will high schools learn to stop ruining great books by forcing them on adolescent kids who are too young to enjoy them? Of course you found it boring; Great Expectations is about a thousand pages long, very complicated plot-wise, and very Dickensian in its writing style. I wish high schools would realize that Dickens and Shakespeare and their ilk are not appropriate for teenagers, and that making them read these books will just put the kids off for life from ever wanting to read them again. "That said", Dickens is difficult to read for anyone, at any age. His Victorian writing style is very wordy, and he's just not what you could call an easy read. But even people who like reading ( like yourself and many others here) would find Dickens a bit of a slog. Novels have changed a lot since the 1800s, and it's not many who still have the time to invest in a thousand page novel. The David Lean movie made from G.E. is pretty darn good, though. Of course, he leaves out a lot that's in the book, but he would have had to. They didn't have those 10 part Brit lit series back then.

I don't know about the "spiritual", but two of the scariest "supernatural" movies I've ever seen are ghost stories: The Innocents and The Haunting. I'm surprised they've not yet been mentioned on this thread. I agree with TikiSoo. I love ghost stories, movies that make the hair on the back of my neck stand up; but I dislike "horror" movies, which to me are not at all the same thing as ghost story films. The two I mentioned above have to be among the most chilling, frightening, eerie movies I've ever seen. Everyone knows The Haunting is incredibly scary ( of course I'm talking about the original 1963 version). But for some reason The Innocents, (based on a novella by Henry James, )gets short shrift. Spoiler ahead: I get kind of annoyed when people want to explain away the ghosts in this movie; "Oh, the Deborah Kerr character is psychologically unstable, it's all in her mind, blah blah..." Why? Why is it so hard to accept that the governess, the children, and in fact the entire estate where they are living is haunted by the ghosts - the malevolent ghosts - of Peter Quint and his lover, the former governess? This is a very well-done, uncanny, ghost story, and I do not understand why it is not more well-known.

Yes, lav, I agree. I love the snooty way Estella complains about Pip - what a "poor" boy he is, how crude his manners are, etc. Jean Simmons nails her character. And I almost get chills, thinking of the implied significance with which Miss Havisham tells her, "You can break his heart". Miss H. and her charge deliberately set about to do just that, and the ensuing story is unforgettable. Great Expecations is regarded by many literary critics as Dickens' greatest novel.

Thanks, Vautrin. It's a relief to me to know that one of my favourite classic movie stars was not a racist. I've heard that story before - not the one tell above, but the "corrupted " version, in which Mitchum refuses to co-star with a black actor. In fact, the place where I first heard that was this very TCM forum. I was hugely disappointed in Mitch, and it just didn't seem to fit with what I knew about him. I don't usually reject an actor I like because of his personal behaviour or beliefs off-screen, but that story about Mitch - which seemingly just won't go away - was very disillusioning to me. I'm glad you reported the real reason why he turned down that role in The Defiant Ones.

Well, it's not really fair of me to use this as an example from film, since it's based on a very famous book; but there's Great Expectations. For some reason I love that scene, near the beginning of the film, when Pip meets Estella at Miss Havisham's gothic, decaying estate. Estella (delightfully personified by a very young Jean Simmons) complains to her guardian that Pip is shabby and uncouth, whereupon Miss Havisham murmurs to her, "Well...You can break his heart." I am of course talking about the David Lean version of this story, none of the subsequent remakes even coming close.

I knew someone would point that out. Note, I used the word "comparatively". And innocence can be about more than sexual inexperience.

And not forgetting The Strange Love of Martha Ivers, in which Lizabeth plays -uncharacteristically - a comparatively sweet and innocent young woman who falls for Van Heflin. In this film, she's a standup kind of woman. (Hmm, now I have a mental image of one of those life-sized cardboard cut-outs that used to grace the lobbies of movie theatres.) Also, Dead Reckoning. Now in this one she really is a classic femme fatale.

Poor little GregoryPeckFan...Why do you construe everything I post to you as an insult? As darkblue said, I was genuinely trying to ascertain the difference between "movies new to me and new to me films". I thought perhaps I'd missed something. I truly did not think what you wrote was the result of a typing error. Typos ( and for that matter, spellos) are mistakes I make here quite often; I harbour no disdainful feelings towards others who also make them. Sometimes I even suffer from brainos.

Whaddya talking about? Is this not the man who graced us with The Thing with Two Heads ?

What's the difference ?

I'll have to give it another shot, casa baby. All I could think the whole time I was watching it was, "Oh, for heaven's sake, jump into bed or go into those woods or wherever and have sex and be done with it." Also, whenever I think of A Summer Place I think of another movie, Diner, and of how Mickey Rourke 's character kind of "pops out" of the popcorn box he's sharing with his date while he's watching Sandra Dee. Again - second time I've said this tonight - I have not seen A Summer Place for quite a while. And now that I've read your insightful comments on it, I'm willing to give it another chance.

True. Plus, you can count on his hair looking good.

Tom, I know you were asking Eugenia, not me, about Black Narcissus, but I'm going to jump in anyway. Black Narcissus seems to be one of those movies that everyone here loves except me. Some of my favourite posters - including you and Eugenia, along with several others, seem to really admire this movie. I don't get it. I didn't like it. I did not find it atmospheric and mystical and darkly erotic and all that, I was kind of bored. And also vaguely depressed - that is, I found the film kind of depressing, but not in a good way - - you know, a film that makes you feel sad or even kind of awful, but it's worth it because it also moved you and made you think. Nope, all I could think was how dreary it was, and how silly whasisname looked in those shorts - not sexy at all ! - and how dull everything seemed to be. I know this film is supposed to be charged with suppressed eroticism and hidden desperation and secrets and all that, but I just didn't want to be there. A completely irrational and not always consistent "test" I have of whether I love a movie or not is whether I'd like to be in the "world" of that movie, and in the case of Black Narcissus I just couldn't wait to get out of that world - all 99 minutes of it. I even really like Deborah Kerr, and even she wasn't enough to make me enjoy the dreary and at the same time over-wrought atmosphere of that Tibetan convent. Now, having said all that: I only ever saw the film once, and sometimes once is just not enough to properly judge or understand a movie. So many people here whom I respect like it that maybe I should keep an open mind and give it another chance - next time it's on TCM. Sorry if I kind of derailed things a bit here with my rant. It's a great thread idea, putting aside my aversion to Black Narcissus, let's carry on.

Aw, ain't nuthin' wrong with recycling your own posts once in a while; you said it so well the first time, might as well re-post it. Gawd knows I've done it here a few times. Anyway, I agree, Dead of Night is a great film, and definitely an eerie one. Some of its stories give me chills, especially the mirror and the dummy ones.

TO HAVE AND HAVE NOT the remake (alternative title: SHAMING THE ONE PER CENT) A deep sea fishing boat owner is asked to help transport a heroic social justice fighter and his beautiful wife to safety. He says he'll think it over, but wants big bucks for his trouble. A flirtatious singer who's started a whistling contest with the man reminds him that the 99 per cent are counting on him to do the right thing and put his greed aside, but the businessman in him keeps thinking about how charging double the normal price for use of his boat will put him in the 1 per cent. "How can you ask for that much money? It's not as though they're going to occupy your boat for very long..." "Baby, there's the haves, and then there's the have-nots. I want to be in the first category."

I thought Cusack was just as good as the older Brian as Paul Dano was as the younger. I didn't even know he'd had cosmetic surgery ! I am disappointed in him. Love and Mercy is a good film; I saw it when it came out last summer, and I'm sorry I somehow missed the earlier discussion about it. However, I do think someone who didn't already know the history of this great songwriter would be a bit baffled and probably not enjoy it as much as a fan would.

Wowee Kazowee, B.B. was what they used to call luscious ! (Is that politically incorrect now? ) A cute sexy little song; there seemed to be a lot of those French "sex kitten" songs back then. Here's another. The infamous Je T'aime. So shamelessly sleezy and cheesy, it's almost funny. Yet in its own way, it's kind of good. Something I don't get, though, is, the literal translation after she breathes, "je t'aime" ("I love you") is "moi non plus" which means "me neither". That's not very romantic ! It must be some translation thing; I figure what he's actually saying is "me too", but the nuances of the French language escape me. Not too hard to misinterpret the sighs, moans, and groans, though. I wonder of moderator 1 will delete this post?

I'd better say my prayers, then.

I don't know what it is lately, but this is the second coincidence I've encountered on this thread in a couple of days. Just today I was thinking of a song that gets played repeatedly in Stranger Than Paradise; I was listening to another recording of the song, and it reminded me of the first time I heard it, the original version - which was when I first saw this '80s indie film. Listening to this song did remind me of this early Jim Jarmusch movie, and I started thinking about the film in a way I haven't for years. (It is, in fact, years and years since I saw Stranger Than Paradise. ) It's true, there are many scenes where the three characters are just sort of hanging around, being bored. But for some reason, I didn't find the movie itself boring; in fact, I thought it was kind of funny, and I've been a fan of Jim Jarmusch ever since. I will say, though, he's an acquired taste; his movies are definitely not for everybody. By the way, kind of a funny story: The first time I saw Stranger Than Paradise, it was being screened at my local library.I went with a friend. But the thing is, it was a mistake. The library had publicized that they would be showing Strangers on a Train ! When the movie began, and it became immediately apparent that this was not the Hitchcock film we were all expecting, my friend got mad and wanted to leave. But I stayed and watched it, and am really glad I did. ps: In case anyone's interested, the song I was thinking about that set off this memory of Stranger Than Paradise was "I Put a Spell on You", by Screamin' Jay Hawkins. I have no idea how it's supposed to connect to the story of the film. If at all. What the hell, here it is:

Arturo, I thought your post was so informative and interesting (from your personal memories of Mexican movies ), that I thought it was worth quoting so everyone could read it again. Many thanks for sharing what you know about the films of Mexico. I'm sorry to say, I did not even realize there was a "Golden Age of Mexican Cinema"; that's so interesting that it paralled the Hollywood / American "Golden Age". Would you consider listing maybe 10 of Mexico's greatest movies (of all time, I mean?) I don't usually go for lists, but in this case, a beginner like me could really benefit from such a list. It would maybe give us a starting place for exploring this wealth of movies I hardly know anything about.

It may have disappeared down the rabbit hole, but another one has emerged to take its place: I'm trying to remember why I used to think this guy was a nerd.

How come you think John Cusack is "icky"? I've always liked him. Ok, he's been in some clunkers, like 2012 and Hot Tub Time Machine (actually, you have to hand it to whoever titled that last one), but he's also been in some very good movies, and he always comes across to me as likable and smart. I, too, saw Love and Mercy. I should have mentioned it in my post about Paul Dano. But I thought both actors were good in their different-but-related roles, Dano as the young Brian Wilson and Cusack as the elder (and messed up) one. Seriously, TikiSoo baby, I respect your opinion and would love to know why you don't like John Cusack. (Apart, maybe, from Hot Tub Time Machine.)