HollywoodGolightly

One Million Years B.C. nw: yeoman

Elmer Gantry

Rutland, Sir William - Cary Grant in Walk, Don't Run

I checked with my mom, she did watch Funny Girl earlier tonight. As for The Bandwagon, I think it's one of the all-time greats and certainly one of the top musicals of the 50s. Vincente Minnelli was definitely at the top of his game, as were all the leads. Here is the "That's Entertainment!" number: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QchIcfz_-mw The one with the triplets is also pretty cute. I also love when Fred and Cyd dance in the park, it is very romantic. :x

A Letter to Three Wives - three letters, guaranteed!! Next: Alice in Wonderland

My mom is a huge Streisand fan, I think she was going to watch it but I'm not sure if she did. I do, however, look forward to The Bandwagon on Sunday morning, the dance sequences are sublime. Their rendition of "That's Entertainment!" is very catchy, and I never get tired of listening to it.

> {quote:title=CineSage_jr wrote:}{quote} > That's certainly true in the case of T.E. Lawrence: at the end of LAWRENCE OF ARABIA you really don't know any more about why he did the things he did than you knew before the film began but, as the saying goes, it's all about the journey (which all dramatic stories are, after all), and not the destination. I don't know about that, CineSage. After watching Lawrence dozens of times, including many 70mm engagements, I think I have a pretty good idea why he did the things he did. But to try to put it into words could take me ages.

Hi Sam! Try this:

Rest in Peace.

Red River - not _that_ red! :0 Next: Danton

Powell, Harry - Robert Mitchum in The Night of the Hunter

James Garner was in The Americanization of Emily with Julie Andrews.

Hi BigIrish, and welcome to the forums I believe the article that was quoted in the OP says the complete version is about 192 minutes, so you VHS copy could be considered "complete" in terms of running time. I think the complete version was only released on VHS and laserdisc; the DVD is most certainly the shorter version.

> {quote:title=TikiSoo wrote:}{quote} > The biggest limitation for modern films being enjoyable for "ANYone" is usually the language or violence. Thank goodness Disney & Pixar make films almost everyone can enjoy, even though they are labeled "kids movies". I think the Dreamworks animated movies have been getting better of late, even if they are arguably not quite near as good as Pixar's. Probably the biggest problem as far as Hollywood is concerned is that they continue to think in terms of quadrants. It's not going to be easy to make that mentality go away: how do you get major corporations to change the corporate mentality? And in an age where everything - from magazines to TV channels - is increasingly niche-focused, how do you try to move in the opposite direction? The idea of a nation where most people watched the 3 major networks and where a magazine like LIFE could appeal to a wide segment of the population has never seemed more quaint, I think.

> {quote:title=CineSage_jr wrote:}{quote} > My personal choice to direct the film would have been Fred Zinnemann (informally retired for years by then, or William Wyler, but he'd been dead for several years); either man would've made the unsparing, unsentimental film the subject matter demanded and deserved. I would agree that the material probably demanded and deserved an unsparing and unsentimental film. However, just to play devil's advocate, if making it a little lighter and more comforting for the viewer helps it to reach a wider audience, has the cause of shining light on the subject been better served? And ultimately I think that if you want to see a movie that is truly shallow and manipulative in its treatment of the Holocaust, you would have to watch a much more recent movie that also happens to star Ralph Fiennes - The Reader.

> {quote:title=Terrence1 wrote:}{quote} > And since when does a movie have to be a box office success to qualify for an Oscar nomination? That just is not fair! Any opinions on that? > > Terrence. I don't know if the unwritten rules of the Oscars were the same back then as they are today. Nowadays it certainly helps to have done reasonably well at the box-office, but doing TOO well can be a bad thing, too. Acting awards nowadays occasionally going to modest hits, like Kate Winslet in The Reader, if I remember correctly. So I take it that Sirk's remake is your favorite version of Madame X, then?

> {quote:title=joefilmone wrote:}{quote} > I was excited when I saw the first trailer last year- but will live up to the hype?! joe, you may want to take a quick look at the Variety review, which I hope is reasonably accurate. It doesn't contain major spoilers, I think, if you already know who plays the villain in the movie. If you don't know and don't want to find out until you watch it, you had better avert your eyes.

I actually like the pace of One, Two, Three and admire Wilder for pulling it off, but of course such pace would not work for every film. Now, I don't know if it was Truffaut or Hitchcock who said it, but someone who was a very well-known director once said that for those in this profession, there's simply a very high burn-out rate, for whatever reason(s), and I think it is not always possible for every director to remain at the top of their game, especially once they're in their 60s. Of course, some directors are able to pull it off, but a lot really seem burned out creatively by their mid-50s or early 60's.

Lost Horizon A Christmas Story or Christmas in Connecticut ?

Neff, Walter - Fred MacMurray in Double Indemnity

Who's Been Sleeping in My Bed? nw: negligence

Charles Ruggles was in A Stolen Life with Walter Brennan

I also have mixed feelings about Wilder's post-1961 films, and certainly all of my favorite ones are the ones he'd made by then, capped by One, Two, Three. But there is something quite interesting even about the ones that aren't completely successful, especially The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes.

Hair nw: prognostication

Larrabee, Linus - Humphrey Bogart in Sabrina (1954)