misswonderly3
-
Posts
12,768 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
36
Posts posted by misswonderly3
-
-
*The Freshman* is a 1925 silent starring Harold Lloyd. I suspect that was probably what gagman was talking about.
...although actually, I didn't mind the 1990 *The Freshman*, the " thing with Matthew Broderick and Marlon Brando." I thought it was kind of funny. But I'd bet my entire collection of dvds that gagman meant the former.
-
> {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.)
-
With respect to all those who adore *A Star is Born* , I find this story, in any of its film versions, maudlin and dull. The Judy Garland one is especially wretched, probably because of the excruciatingly long and dull songs on offer. I am at a loss as to understand why people keep wanting to make a movie out of this overly sentimental story.
Unlike many others who've commented on this thread, I like and respect Clint Eastwood's work. But I hope he abandons this project; it's something that just doesn't need to be done.
-
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.
-
> {quote:title=jamesjazzguitar wrote:}{quote}
> As for Alexis Smith; I alway welcome this underused actress. She had a edge that I liked but I like her better when she is bad, like in the Two Miss Carrols.
Predictably, I feel compelled to point out that Alexis Smith was Canadian. Well at least, she was born in Canada.
-
hamradio, are you making Jennifer Lopez the butt of your joke?
-
What's all this about nipples? I didn't know TCM was specializing in mammary glands. Boy, you miss a day of programming and they sneak in a little post-Code nudity. Good thing my sainted mother wasn't watching...
-
Hey, those Yanks don't realize that all Canadian women look like that.
-
What they need, casablanca,baby, is some good music. They should listen to your music posts every day, that would put them in a better mood.
-
Merci, tu es gentille. ( hey, from "vous" to "tu".
) -
cujas has a good point, finance; you can speak a language which is untranslatable in any tongue, although lawyers of all nationalities can probably speak it fluently. It's called "legalese".
-
Almost any character played by ROBERT MITCHUM . (except the evil false preacher in *Night of the Hunter* ). Let's say, "Jeff" from *Out of the Past*.
-
Very nice, tracey. Now I want to see both those Dietrich movies - I've never seen either. (By the way, even if *Song of Songs* is a pre-code, surely it wasn't shown in North America uncut? That nude drawing, the statue - shocking ! Oh wait, I bet if I looked it up I'd discover it's a European film, probably German, right? )
No, I looked it up and it's an American film (Rouben Mamoulien). Still, pre-code or not, did they leave those shots of the statue and drawing unedited?
Edited by: misswonderly on Jan 12, 2011 5:12 PM
misspelt "Dietrich"
Edited by: misswonderly on Jan 12, 2011 5:16 PM
-
I agree, and I'm fairly sure the term noir was originally conceived to refer to films. Although short stories and novels which involved crime, alienation, dangerous women, private detectives, etc, had certainly existed throughout most of the previous century, and many of the movies we think of as film noir were based on some of these literary works, I've never heard of the word being applied to literature before it was applied to film. Labelling noirish literature as "noir" is definitely, I should think, taken from the term film noir. And yes, the visual elements of film noir contribute greatly to the name.
Edited by: misswonderly on Jan 12, 2011 5:20 PM
-
> {quote:title=C.Bogle wrote:}{quote}
> I didn't catch Kiss Me, Stupid, but now I'm interested to see whether it's as good
> or bad, or as in between, as people say, and there's only one way to find out.
Oh, it's bad. It's not even so much that it's tasteless, as someone pointed out. I can handle tasteless, sometimes tasteless is funny. And that's the crux of the problem with *Kiss Me, Stupid* is, it's never funny. ( IMHO, of course, of course.)
)
Ten Actresses I Wish I Could Have Dated.
in General Discussions
Posted
What happened to Ava Gardner?