misswonderly3

JOEL McCREA ! JOEL McCREA ! Star of the Month ! Get this underway!

I really enjoyed *Lucky Jordon* ! I realized in the first five minutes that it was not to be taken seriously on any level, so I just sat back and enjoyed it. I don't care if the Nazis are coming out of the woodwork, even if it's totally illogical. It was funny and entertaining...I did fall for the gin-drinking "mother" sub-plot, also the long final scene(s) in the botanical gardens. Anyway, I was never bored, and sometimes I think that's ultimately the key to whether I like a movie or not. *Phantom Lady* was pretty good, too, although the plot itself didn't make much sense ( the desperate search for the mysterious lady with the hat was not necessary at all, since at least two witnesses agreed that they'd seen Alan Curtis at the estimated time of murder.) But then, we wouldn't have had Ella Raines enticing Elisha Cook Jr. into a frenzy of percussionistic lust.

> {quote:title=traceyk65 wrote:}{quote} > I didn;t even know there was a boxed set of the Coens! Cool--something else for my Wish list this year...which films are in it (if you don;t mind digressing a bit more?) tracey baby, here it is: "COEN BROTHERS COLLECTION", from Universal/Alliance (it's got a gold cover); includes 6 of their films: *The Big Lebowski, The Man Who Wasn't There, Intolerable Cruelty, No Country for Old Men* *Burn After Reading* (the only one I haven't yet seen), and *A Serious Man*; Looks like there are lots of extra tracks, commentary, etc.

Was that a "band camp" experience? (you'd have to be familiar with dumb teen sex movies to get the reference...)

now that's a short post : "deleted". ( )

I never know whether I'm being pretentious or not when I keep the fork in my left hand. Being quite klutzy and not very dextrous (dexterous?) , I have always found this difficult to do; however, I've always thought people would consider me a boor if I did the knife-fork switch. I decided that the easiest way out was to consume only casseroles, soups, and salads, whereby one doesn't generally need a knife at all. This has solved numerous etiquette dilemmas for me. Edited by: misswonderly on Jan 30, 2011 11:03 PM

Hey, what "long essays"? I try and keep 'em relatively short, usually the longest a few paragraphs. Everbody's posts are long essays compared to yours, financebaby.

> {quote:title=ValentineXavier wrote:}{quote} > Elisha's crazed drumming looks like an outtake from Reefer Madness, I couldn't believe Elisha could look so crazy ! He's supposed to look crazed with lust (for Ella), but he mostly succeeds in looking more scary than lustful. Either way, it's an unforgettable little scene for one of my favourite noir character actors - he should have gotten some special award for it. > One question - did anyone else notice that Ella followed up on all the witnesses, except the cab driver? They even state that there is no one else to be a witness, after two have died, and Estella has skipped town. I wonder if maybe they filmed a follow-up with the cabbie, and it got cut? > > Also, it seems to me that once the hat maker's assistant admitted to making a duplicate hat, and who it was sold to, the actual hat wasn't that important as evidence. Valentine, it's a wonderful fun little noir, I enjoyed it so much, but it did occur to me that some of the plot details don't bear looking at too closely. The "hat" aspect, for one thing; do you remember how the mystery lady, on her mystery date with Alan Curtis, exlaimed when she saw the performer on stage wearing the same hat? She exclaimed "MY Hat !" , as though she was surprised, even though, as we find out later, she had had the hat commissioned to be duplicated for herself, presumeable after having already seen it previously in the same show. She asked the hatmaker to make a copy of the singer's unusual hat, hence why the surprise when she saw it on stage? (I realize this has no bearing on the plot, but still, I noticed the inconsistency.) But what I really wondered about in *Phantom Lady* was the pivotal point upon which the whole plot hinged: the need to find the mystery lady, or at least a witness who would attest that they saw her, for Alan Curtis' alibi? But why? Her testimony should have been unnecessary, since both the bartender and the cab driver readily agreed that they had seen the Alan Curtis character himself. They could testify that they had seen him, the accused, shortly after 8pm, the supposed time of the murder; they did not deny that they'd seen him, therefore what did it matter whether the mystery lady was produced or not? And yes, the taxi driver was never mentioned again...did he meet with an "accident"? Who knows? This all sounds as though I found a lot of fault with *Phantom Lady*, but plot defects are not uncommon in noir, and it really doesn't matter to me all that much, as long as I get that lovely noir atmosphere, and *Phantom Lady* was certainly rich in that. (sorry I'm commenting on this so many days after its tcm screening, but I was unable to post here over the last few days) Edited by: misswonderly on Jan 30, 2011 1:07 PM

"sissies"?... A couple of other good ones are "pansy", and "****-waist".

JOEL McCREA ! JOEL McCREA ! Sullivan's Travels... Give it an "A" !

Rockpile had the wonderful unpretentious rocker Dave Edmunds (biggest hit you probably would have heard of: I Hear You Knocking ), and the irreverent Nick Lowe, who later went on to become...well, Nick Lowe. His biggest hit in North America was probably Cruel to be Kind (1979).

John Lydon had insane eyes. We know something is happening, but we don't know what it is. Do we, Mr. Jones? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjcSjEVndZw

The TCM officials took one look around the vault room where *Beyond the Forest* was being stored and said, "What a dump ! "

What happened to Ava Gardner?

> {quote:title=ValentineXavier wrote:}{quote} > Having seen *Badlands* a few times now, it occurs to me that the Coen Bros. were almost satirizing it in *Raising Arizona*, especially with Nick Cage's v/o narration. Interesting you should say that. I recently received a boxed set of Coen Brothers movies, and am on a bit of a personal Coen Brothers revival. I've also been motivated to dig out a book I have on the Coens, which I must confess I'd never read; do you ever do that, buy a book on impulse ("Hey, this looks interesting..and it's on sale !" ) and then leave it to languish on a shelf, filling you with remorse and guilt every time you glance at its reproachful cover ? Anyway, I'm finally reading that book, and it is reminding me that there are many Coen Brothers movies I have seen only once, and that a long time ago. *Raising Arizona* is one of the above; I've mostly forgotten its details. I'll have to remedy that soon. Sorry, slight digression from thread topic. Carry on, everyone.

Oh yeah, love those Rockpile boys. Here's another song about the obesity problem, as explored by the Kinks. I wanted the original, the studio recording is so catchy and light.I may try posting it anyway, in addition to this live version I found. Put your hands together for Fat Flabby Annie, she's now just Skin and Bone: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7oJZnqafAA Here's an attempt to post the original version, there may be a "rights" block:

Thanks, Kinokima, that makes sense. I guess if I'd looked a little more carefully at the structure of tracey's post, I would have seen what she meant. (sorry, tracey, baby )

> {quote:title=traceyk65 wrote:}{quote} >... I like most of Kate's films, though her 1930's stuff is pretty hit or miss (Alice Adams Holiday or Stage Door vs Mary of Scotland, Morning Glory or (good god) The Little Minister for example) tracey, I'm wondering if I'm misunderstanding you. This thread is all about *Holiday*, the general consensus being that it is quite good, even for luke-warm Hepburn fans. So am I interpreting your post correctly in thinking that you are saying that in a "hit and miss" batch of Hepburn 30s films, *Holiday* is one of the "misses" ? No problem if that's your opinion of it, I just wasn't sure if that's what you meant.

To get back to the thread topic, Cary Grant: I watched that documentary about him, and I was amazed and dismayed to hear that he never received a Best Actor Oscar award. This seems unbelievable; so unfair, such a glaring omission of recognition of one of Hollywood's greats. As the doc pointed out, many seemed to be unaware of what a good actor Grant was because of his charming, urbane "persona". Of course that was partly why he was so good - he could convey all kinds of emotions , all the time maintaining that suave exterior. What a shame he never received a Best Actor Oscar. The "Lifetime Achievement" award was all very well, but hardly compensates for the failure to acknowledge his talent during his prime.

Valentine, *Badlands* is on my list of top 20 favourite films. I love it. I've always tried to analyze why I should care so much about a movie that tells the story of a rather vacuous young girl and her handsome but homicidal boyfriend. It's partly the flawless acting; everyone, and certainly the leads, is dead on . Spacek and Sheen seem to actually become those two people. There's something fascinating about the way those two think, the way the Sheen character sees himself as a grassroots philosopher. I love Sissy Spacek's "true confessions" prose voice-over: "Kit said he shot muh daddy cuz he had to. He said that now we were truly alone in the world..." And the music, Carl Orff's Gassenhauer (the oddly charming "streetsongs" for children) , used so effectively throughout the film, somehow underscores the strangeness and isolation of this couple. I also think the cinematography is perfect, full of unforgettable images. I love the way director Terence Malick doesn't take sides, leaves this story, with its deadly hero and his passive, not overly bright girlfriend, and their actions, to speak for itself. Sometimes the sum is greater than its parts in a film, and this is one of those films. Edited by: misswonderly on Jan 23, 2011 3:30 PM Edited by: misswonderly on Jan 23, 2011 6:17 PM (actually, ValentineX, I see you have made similar comments about the film on another thread.)

Well, basically, I think that is what I said. MFF, I feel I have to handle every post responding to one of yours' with kid gloves; I say this not with aggression or criticism, just as an observation: you seem to be very easily offended. If you like movies with "big production values", so be it. There was absolutely no personal criticism in my mind when I made my comments. There was no personal insult intended whatsoever in what I said about them, it was merely an observation I had made. In a way, it was a compliment: I pay enough attention to what you say in your posts to have noticed that about you. At the risk of stating the obvious, everybody's different, everyone values different things about movies. That is one of the reasons for these boards, is to say what we like or dislike, and why. It would actually get a little dull if everyone agreed about everything. I am always interested to know what people like, and why. The "why" part is what makes discussion lively. Just a theoretical example: if you were to state that you dislike film noir (I'm not saying you do, I'm just picking that because I personally love the genre), but also explained in an articulate (which you are) and civil manner why you dislike it, I would not be in the least offended, I would be happy to hear another point of view. Just because I like it doesn't mean everyone has to. Similarly, if you generally enjoy big budget movies, good for you. I respect that you do, but I see no reason why I should not say that I don't (like them.) If you feel strongly about that topic, I would welcome a thread about "High Production Values" : what does the phrase mean, what are the elements that make up a high production film, why you esteem them. Edited by: misswonderly on Jan 23, 2011 11:21 AM

I still see very little discussion of *Barney's Version*. Has it not yet received general release in the U.S.? It was scheduled for a few selected cities across North America very late in 2010, but it is still a 2010 film, therefore eligible for Oscar nominations. I understand it got some attention at the Golden Globes awards - I believe Paul Giametti was recognized as best actor. It's supposed to be very good, I cannot understand why only one other person on this thread has commented on it. Has no one seen or at least heard of *Barney's Version* ?

I'm just saying, we seem to value different aspects of film. And what's wrong with my saying that I often dislike films with "big production values"? Anyway, I did not say that; I will go so far as to say that "production values" are amongst the last things I notice or care about in a movie; the characters, story, dialogue, acting, cinematography, are all more interesting to me. I suppose we could get into a discussion of what, exactly, constitutes "production values", anyway. That might be interesting. As for my dislike of biopics, again, what's wrong with my stating I dislike them, especially if I say why? I think the discussion of genres in film is an extremely interesting topic, and am more than willing to hear why people like or dislike certain genres. If they want to "tear them apart" , fine, as long as they do it politely and articulately. I still say *Night and Day* was wretched. Edited by: misswonderly on Jan 22, 2011 9:52 PM

At the risk of going off-topic and also repeating myself inappropriately, did anyone click the song I posted , the Kinks tune called "Holiday Romance"? I really do think it's an unusual and charming little tune, an affectionate throwback to 1920s English music hall style. *Holiday* is a delicious little flick - this from a Katharine Hepburn non-fan. But she's perfect in this.

> {quote:title=MyFavoriteFilms wrote:}{quote} > I like the production values of NIGHT AND DAY. It's a slickly polished film from Warners, a studio that did not often glamorize their productions like MGM did. I've noticed that you pay a lot of attention to production values, and that, even if the film is otherwise bad (dull, uninspired dialogue, predictable, unengaging etc.) , if it has slick production values you tend to admire it. To me, that's like assuming that someone in an expensive outfit must be intelligent and interesting, based on their sartorial appearance alone. I submitted myself to the dismal experience of watching *Night and Day* last week, mostly because I almost invariably like Cary Grant, and I admire and enjoy Cole Porter's music. But I'm afraid the film was boring rubbish by any standard, whether we're talking about 1946 viewers or today's. It was one of those over-produced, over-lavish, big fat biopics that were so popular then. Biopics in general are a problematic genre; for one thing, it is impossible to condense a person's life into two hours in any comprehensible and engaging way. They try in vain to stuff 50 years or so into a 90 or 120 minute film. Characters, events, births, deaths, friendships, all come and go at a dizzying and disorienting rate. It's impossible to become engaged in the story, or truly interested in characters who fly by so quickly you have trouble keeping track of who they are. There could have been one saving grace for *Night and Day*; this would have been Cole Porter's superlative song-writing. He's one of the greats, a prolific and inventive composer and lyricist whose cannon of work assuredly belongs in "The Great American Songbook". Two of the hallmarks of Cole Porter's songs were the liveliness of his melodies and the cleverness of his lyrics; even in his moodier compositions (ie Love for Sale or I Concentrate on You ) there is a tension and an intensity that lend them a kind of suppressed excitement uncommon in most popular songs of the time. How could the film go wrong with such great music? Yet it does...it wastes these wonderful, clever songs on uninspired arrangements that flatten them out into almost dull set pieces, almost as though they're merely accessories to the singer's gowns. All the tension and yearning and wit is deleted as much as possible from them, leaving the audience dull performances that simply hold up an already over-long movie. It you didn't know how great Cole Porter's music was, you certainly wouldn't be any the wiser after viewing this wretched dull over-produced affair. Not even the usually charming Grant can save it.