misswonderly3

How so? None of the cast members in Saadia are the same as those in Rear Window.

I will. It's the only one of the three John Dahl neo-noirs you mentioned in your write-up that I haven't seen. By the way, although I did like The Last Seduction, I enjoyed Red Rock West more. It will be interesting to see where Kill Me Again fits in this trio. Hey, I just looked up John Dahl. He also made Rounders. Shirley it could be argued that this is at least a semi-neo-noir (too many adjectives going on there.) I always thought it was kind of interesting that this latter day noir director bore the same name as the actor who appeared in a number of classic noirs, notably Gun Crazy. Just one of those interesting random coincidences, I guess. ...ok, so the spelling is different.

Damn, I love Red Rock West ! I remember being absolutely delighted the first time I watched it, and subsequent viewings have not disappointed (well, I think I've seen it a total of 3 times.) It makes me sad to see Nicholas Cage in something like this, when he was still respected and considered a major acting talent in both mainstream and "indie" movies. Now everyone dismisses him at best, outright laughs at him at worst. But his performance in Red Rock West shows Cage when he was still cool. I think he's pretty darn good in the film. I also really enjoy Dennis Hopper here. He could always be counted on to give just the right touch of intensity and maniacal sadism. (Blue Velvet of course being the prime example of this,but he reprised that character many times...) And let's not forget the fine performance from J.T. Walsh, always reliable as a character actor, always memorable. Red Rock West may not have the usual noir setting, filmed as it is in the American South-West ( as you say, cigarjoe), but its plot is classic noir. I enjoyed this film so much I purchased it. In fact, cigarjoe's review has put me in the mood for it, I might just go and throw it on the player tonight. Neo-noir at its best.

?? DGF, I'm not bad at lateral thinking- and "free association" thinking too, for that matter. But for the life of me I can't figure out the connection you made in your mind between Cave Girl's original post and your comment here. Just curious...would it ruin the mystery of your freely associating mind to explain it ?

Thanks, Tom. I actually had meant to say more about the clever dialogue in Don Juan. I did acknowledge it, but only in passing. In this kind of film, good dialogue is important, because it is a way to show the main character's depth ( as well as intelligence and wit.) Otherwise we have nothing but action, and fun though that is, it could wear a little thin. Intelligent and well-written dialogue in an adventure film fills in and complements the action scenes. Come to think of it, often the two are going on at the same time. Think of all the scenes in "swashbucklers" in which the hero is sparring as readily with his wit as with his sword. It's actually quite funny to think of someone in real life having the energy and presence of mind to come up with apt witticisms while simultaneously leaping about and parrying in a dual. But of course it wasn't real life, it was movies. Hugely entertaining ones, at that. You give a good example of Errol Flynn's / Don Juan's cleverness and ready wit. And that's just a taste of the kind of dialogue we get throughout the film. For some reason when you hear Flynn's character speak like that, you forget it's just his character, and attribute such wit to Errol Flynn himself. Something else I'd meant to say about Don Juan. In 2016 we are far more aware of the dignity and rights of people of small stature (ok, dwarfs) than they were in 1948. Yet I felt the depiction of the dwarf character (Don Sebastian, played by Jerry Austin) was done with sensitivity and respect. In fact, Sebastian was essential to Don Juan's success in overthrowing the tyrant Duke de Lorca. Pretty unusual for the time the film was made.

Thanks for the extensive and well-written precis of Philip Seymour Hoffman, Lawrence. I love this actor. He did some of the finest work this side of 1990. Two years after his most untimely death, I'm still sad about it. What an intelligent, versatile, and perceptive actor he was.

Technically I didn't "just watch" this, it was yesterday morning. Still, I think that's recent enough. Anyway - yesterday morning I watched: The Adventures of Don Juan A classic Errol Flynn adventure/romance, Errol swashes and buckles his way with great style through romantic assignations, imprisonment (at least twice !), wicked power-hungry usurpers, and any number of deftly executed sword fights. Although he was pushing forty by the time Don Juan was made, he seems as young and dashing as ever. In fact the extra ten years he's seen since Robin Hood just give him a bit more seasoned maturity, rendering him if anything even more attractive. This is a rich confection of a movie, full of luxurious sets and sumptuous costumes. I think it won the Oscar for best costumes that year. And deservedly; the gorgeous luscious costuming is like a character (s) in itself. The men's just as much as the women's ! Of course it helps that the film is in colour. That unashamedly bright intense colour that you see in big budget historical dramas back then. I love black and white movies, but I can't imagine an exuberant adventure film like this being in anything but that rich Technicolour from that era. The story itself is great fun, with Errol and his loyal sidekick Leporello - amusingly played by Alan Hale, who was perfect for this type of long-suffering good-natured faithful servant role -- fighting off evil-doers, rescuing a gentleman from a (very well supplied) torture chamber, and restoring order and justice.But not before a splendid time has been had by all. I really enjoyed watching Errol Flynn, an actor whom I was not really all that familiar with (sorry, speedy !) except for Robin Hood. I can fully understand why women practically fainted whenever he appeared ( at least in his movies, maybe in real life, too ! ) He was not only wonderfully handsome and charming, he had a warmth - maybe that "star quality" we were talking about recently - that raises him above most other "matinee idols" of the time. He used his eyes very effectively, especially in the scenes where he's trying to express his love for Queen Margaret without actually saying anything. The point of this kind of movie - costume drama action swashbuckler - is to cram as much action, intrigue, romance, and witty dialogue ( let's not forget that last) into two hours or so as possible. When it's done well, it's a delight. I'd certainly be delighted to watch The Adventures of Don Juan again. As I said before, it's a rich cupcake of a movie, made with the finest ingredients and highly consumable.

This gives me chills. Love that reverb guitar. A song like this takes me to a mysterious place outside of time. That Mavis - what intensity. I'm coming home.

Wow, that's one that's escaped me all these years.Never heard it before ( as far as I know.) It had me dancing in my chair.

Reminds me of PeeWee Herman. (whom I like.)

"I'm utterly bewitching and everyone knows it."

I remember seeing Oliver ! as a kid, and really liking it. I also loved the music, I knew all the songs, because my parents bought the soundtrack record. I agree that the kid who played the title role was not memorable, and a bit of a w uss. Maybe this was just due to the way he was directed. And anyway, even in the Dickens novel Oliver is not the hero of his own story (oh wait that's another Dickens novel....) the other characters, especially the "bad" ones, are much more interesting. I remember I had a huge crush on the boy who played the Artful Dodger, Jack Wild. He was so good in Oliver !, but sadly, he came to a terrible end. (I don't want to talk about it, you can look it up if you want.) Other outstanding leads (Oliver ! is kind of a group effort ): Yes, agreed, the woman who played Nancy, Shani Wallis, is very talented. I love her performances of those songs, "It's a Fine Life" and "Oom-pah -pah". She really has style. Ron Moody,who played Fagin. It's always tricky discussing this character, whether depicted in film or the original novel, because of the anti-Semitic element that cannot quite be denied. But Ron Moody makes Fagin very likable. In fact, I've always liked Fagin; Alec Guinness gave us a memorable rendition too. Finally: Yes ! Oliver Reed ! Funny, although I had a crush on Jack Wild when I saw this movie as a young girl, it's Oliver Reed who's the "hot" one when I watch Oliver ! as an adult. He has these menacing good looks, dark haunted-looking eyes ( and he is haunted in the end, by Nancy ....) I think it's that darkness in him that makes him kind of sexy. (I realize that's a very incorrect thing to say, especially considering that his character - SPOILER ! - murders his girlfriend. But I never said I liked or admired Bill Sykes, just that I too find Oliver Reed somewhat attractive.) Sadly, he too came to a tragic end. But at least he was considerably older than Jack Wild when it happened.

She must have been a witch. I'm not surprised.

Here's another song I always thought was kind of sexy, in its own reggae-ish way: That bass line gets in your brain- I wish it was higher in the mix.

Yes, yes, yes (I'm trying to sound like Gollum). "The Look of Love" has to be one of the sexiest songs ever. But then, Dusty was good at picking sexy songs. I've always thought "Son of a Preacher Man" was deliciously sexy, too.

So that explains it ! I was wondering why that rodent was still around !

O, wow, man.

The Moody Blues - they were so serious, so "philosophical". Always singing about the the meaning of life and such. But that was what made them kind of likable: how can you reject a band that's that earnest and sincere? Besides, they were good...their music is really melodic, which is the reason why I like it. Still, because they seem so dead serious, it could be easy to make fun of them. But I won't do that, I still like them, and even saw them live once, long after their earnest, meditative hey-day. Take this one: Such a well-crafted tune, that flamenco-type guitar intro, and then the switch from that to the singer pondering the big question(s). Who can resist?

It's fun when a thread goes into another topic, and it usually happens quite naturally. So I hope no one thinks I have a problem with this tangent into a discussion about Judy Garland, Deanna Durbin, Shirley Temple, and the whole child star to adult star topic. But just to bring it back for a minute to the original topic: I really like what Eugenia says here about the whole mystery of "star power", charisma, "it", whatever you want to call it. I think we can all analyse as much as we want, but ultimately, it's a mysterious indefinable thing. I believe the choice of agents, studios, movies, etc. the stars made only goes so far to explain it. Sometimes you see a star who had "It" in one of their early roles, and even in them, their film persona fairly jumps off the screen. I think it has a lot to do with a kind of energy they had. Some stars whose screen presence just about crackles with that energy: James Cagney, John Garfield, Bette Davis, Joan Crawford, James Dean, Marlon Brando, Marilyn Monroe. They don't have to be "energetic" as such - look at James Dean, he often projects an almost sleepy presence in his films. But he still has that special magnetism that makes him stand out, even when he's just leaning on a car or something. "Star Power" is all about that kind of magnetism. Not many have it, and it can't be acquired. It's elusive and, as I said, almost mysterious.

Rachel and the Stranger is a really good, under-rated little film. Loretta maintains a quiet dignity throughout, and her character is full of surprises. Bonus: double eye candy ! William Holden and Robert Mitchum !

That's a really apt comparison for for this thread topic: Margaret O'Brien and Natalie Wood. They both started in movies as very young children, but you're right, Margaret O'Brien did not make the transition from child to adult star, but Natalie Wood did. Maybe the "'cuter" you are as a child actor, the less the public will accept you as an adult. O'Brien was almost ridiculously cute as a little kid (as in Meet Me in St.Louis,for instance). She had a specific quality to her voice, an exceptional "cute little girl" voice (although I'm pretty sure some people find it cloying and annoying.) Natalie Wood, on the other hand, was a more "ordinary" little kid, almost dislikeable sometimes (like the contemptuous look on her face when she pulls Kris Kringle's beard.) I'm not saying she was not a nice little kid actor, but she didn't kind of specialize in that particular brand of cuteness the way Margaret O'Brien did. So, maybe because she was just a regular little girl, not spectacularly "cute" like Margaret O'Brien, she was better able to make that child - adult transition more smoothly. People didn't expect Wood to always be a funny little kid; but it was sort of Margaret O'Brien's "brand". Also, Natalie Wood, while just regular-looking as a child, grew up to be exceptionally pretty. That must have helped. This is all just theorizing on my part, what the hell do I know?

speedy, I know this question has already been discussed at great length here, by you, Arturo, and especially by markus21. It was markus who pointed out that Judy was a young teenage girl rather than a child when she first started her career, whereas Shirley Temple was at her highest point (as you've said) as a child actor. So I don't really see their careers as comparable. As markus noted, someone whose career was more similar to Judy's was Deanna Durbin's - at least the first few years of it. And like Judy Garland, Deanna was an adolescent (as opposed to a child) when she made her film debut. (By the way, Deanna Durbin was Canadian!) Anyway, just to spell it out a little more obviously than markus did (whose posts here have been wonderfully informative): Everyone thinks of Shirley Temple as a cute little kid. A little kid. She couldn't have been more than six or seven in her most popular movies, and even in Heidi, she's under the age of ten. It was this "cute little kid" quality that was the special thing about her. It was the combination of her very young age and her talent that made her such a star. People talk about how a star (especially a female star) fades a bit as they get older, and often lose some of their glamour. But most movie fans would agree that there isn't that much difference between an adult star at the age of 30 and that same star at 45. Yes, no question they're older and the roles they're offered probably changed. But it's obvious they're the same person. They don't change drastically. But there's a huge difference between a cute little kid - a little kid - and that same person as a young woman. And that's what happened to Shirley Temple. Her unique "niche" in Hollywood was her star quality as a child actor- a very young child. So, sadly, no matter how good an actress she was or tried to be as she matured, she was never going to be adored by the public the way she was when she was a cute little kid.

Poor Alec Guiness ! He planned it all so well, and it still didn't work out for him !

Emily, I'm surprised you didn't mention the Evelyn Waugh novel which is titled, appropriately enough, Decline and Fall .

This has to be one of the most beautiful songs ever. Once I was working in a large workspace , and the radio was always playing (this was in the 80s.) I was getting weary of the barrage of ads and mediocre music I kept hearing, when all of a sudden this song came on. It was like a precious aural jewel had just been offered on the radio.