JonnyGeetar

> {quote:title=rosebette wrote: }{quote}There's a natural coldness to Boyer that I find difficult to relate to. Check him out in 1946's Cluny Brown , directed by Lubitsch. It is pure delight from start to finish and he is _fantastic_ in a real one-of-a-kind role, utterly different from anything else he ever did. Cluny , alas, is not on DVD, but can be seen (at least the last I checked) on youtube. It is also the best Jennifer Jones ever was in a film.

Yes, yes: Gail PATRICK. I don't know why I always say RUSSELL when I mean PATRICK. I do the same thing for They Live by Night / They Drive by Night. Major props to both of you for knowing who I meant to say. Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Sep 29, 2011 1:42 PM

Alexis Smith was the real surprise to me, I found her very effective in the thankless "Gail Russell role." It's funny that someone mentioned The Major and the Minor . One of the best jokes in that movie is when someone is reading the article "Charles Boyer on why He Hates Women" in Photoplay. I kept thinking of that while watching last night.

> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote}I was looking forward to this film. However, I found the first part a bit disappointing, It got better in the second half- really, it was like two different movies to be honest with you. For the whole first half, I thought the film was a period piece, set maybe in the late 1800's- then 45 minutes into it, Charles Coburn and Alexis Smith pull up in a 40's model automobile and the costumes and sets automatically become current, and the action moves to England. It was like some French Leiutenant's Woman kind of s*** or something. The second half was much more standard, WB's "women's pictures" stuff: the grand, sweeping staircase; the frosty wife who resents the ingenue (although I could see why!); the music- and nearly all the players from the first half vanish for good, replaced by Coburn, Smith, and Whitty. Kind of uneven and strange, but still inn-teresting, Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Sep 29, 2011 10:46 AM

> {quote:title=ugaarte wrote:}{quote} > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are there any movies where (Joan Fontaine) comes off with 'bravada' or 'in you face' kind of acting ... a 'bad girl' so to speak ??It would be interesting to know. She wasn't really an "in your face" kind of actress, which I like. Someone mentioned Born to Be Bad (1950) which apparently is coming to TCM next week (don't worry if you miss it: it's on a lot ) Sadly, even with Nicolas Ray directing, it's a pretty mundane and crummy picture. Fontaine did a film for Universal in 1947(?) called Ivy with Patric Knowles. In it, she's an outright villainess (and murderer), although the acting is subtle (she reminds me of Joan Greenwood in Kind Hearts and Coronets ). Great ending too. It is (or was last I checked) available in full on youtube. (As is the radio version.) Fontaine herself always rued the fact that she lost the Deborah Kerr "misunderstood ****" role in From Here to Eternity She blamed the downturn of her career on this and felt the picture would've helped turn the tide. I agree- she would've been perfect. I would've preferred seeing her in the role over Kerr- who in spite of being good, was really, really miscast. Olivia was (debateably) the better actress, but Joan was sexier-no question about it. Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Sep 29, 2011 10:38 AM

Or it would make a good "unrequited love" bill with All This and Heaven Too , Letter From and Unknown Woman and In Name Only You know, the schedule tonight has me thinking: Baby Face could perhaps more accurately be called The Constant Nymph and vice-versa. Based on their titles alone, each could so easily be mistaken for being another sort of story altogether.

Tres dramatique. But interesting.

> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote}Life is bologna without Winona. That's beautiful man. You should turn it into a haiku. I third the motion: I think Winona was terrific, although I like her better without the bangs.

To be fair, I think there's good ham and there's bad ham, there's giving people their two bits worth and there's devouring something alive and/.or outight ruining it. I guess it's a matter of debate as to who belongs in the "good ham" category (although I think most would agree John Barrymore deserves a place of honor.) But when it comes to bad ham, the worst is Rod Steiger. There is this gesture that he actually makes in several of his movies ( The Big Knife and Al Capone among them): He's stooped over, snarling, sticking his lower jaw out, and his right hand is raised in front of him with clenched fingers. THAT is a gesture that NO ACTOR should EVER make in ANYTHING, EVER , unless of course he is playing a hopelessly untalented HAM ACTOR. And Steiger had one of the most woreful post-Oscar careers of any actor before Cuba Gooding Jr,- some of his eighties and nineties B-projects are an utter embarassment (see: Modern Vampires and especially The Specialist ) Bad, salty, stinky, fist-clenhing H-A-M.

I think the roles in Liberty Valance and Hunchback demand a little theatricality, so I let him off for this (besides, it is ASTOUNDING how young and innocent he looks in Hunchback utterly different from how he looked the rest of his career, always throws me off a little.) Come to think of it, the same is true for Liberty Valance - he really becomes that character and I always forget that it's him or that he was even in the movie and I've seen it several times now (a backhanded compliment I know.) I've never seen Seven Days in May but it is interesting to note that he was the only member of the cast who was nominated for an Oscar that year (Best Supporting Actor, 1964). I'm not saying the AMPAS is right and you're wrong, just pointing it out is all. I also think he's fine in The Killers It's an understated performance and the whole, heavy film rests squarely on the shoulders of his character. But The Barefoot Contessa ? That film is a veritable buffet of pretentious, loathsome characters, ham acting, and clunktacular dialogue. O'Brien is awful, Gardner stinks, and even Bogie can't make it work (a rare instance.) O'Brien was a fine actor (IMO) but yeah, his work in that film is one of the worst performances to ever win an Academy Award. There are times where I find it unwatchable. (At least to me.) Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Sep 28, 2011 5:16 PM Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Sep 28, 2011 5:17 PM

It could be worse. They could've hired (shudder!) Rex Reed.

> {quote:title=clore wrote:}{quote}Lee J. Cobb has to be in the running. Absolutely. If only for Golden Boy (1939) and nothing else.

> {quote:title=Swithin wrote: }{quote}Is there any...more delightful performance than Mr. Joyboy in The Loved One ? On my own personal "delightability" scale Steiger's performance in The Loved One rates slightly higher than Dane Cook in Good Luck Chuck and just below Sofia Coppola in The Godfather Part III

> {quote:title=cody1949 wrote:}{quote}Not in every movie of his, but in quite a few. I would have to say, Rod Steiger. I heartily agree, Steiger is the hammiest of hams in everything I've ever seen him in. (I have not seen The Pawnbroker , people always say he's great in that, but I dunno. He'd have to be pretty effing _great_ to atone for for some of his sins- especially The Big Knife. .) Funny though: almost every time I've seen any actor talking about working with Steiger they've always said almost the _exact_ same thing: "it was like going to acting school all over again" and/or "I learned so much" which I can only hope was code for: "Man alive!, this S.O.B. is impossible to work with" and "he taught me how to get bits of drywall out of my back molars he chewed the scenery so bad."

I would imagine you can view it on youtube. You can see pretty much everything else there.

Not an easy question. In fact if I were pressed to name a favorite film genre, I would say "Warner Bros. movies of the 1940's." MGM was THE studio of the 20's and 30's, but WB was THE studio of the 40's, AND the is the only one of the great studios that has continued to make good product, remain relevant and WISELY MANAGE THEIR CLASSIC FILM CATALOGUE. In fact, WB has even acquired other titles like The Wizard of Oz and (I believe) Gone with the Wind and developed lucrative merchandising around them. ' (I could be wrong about all sorts of things in that last paragraph, but I'm sure someone'll stick their head in to correct me.) If you asked me to cite an example of how good Warner's 40's product was, I would pick 1949's Flamingo Road - kind of a B-project for all involved, and yet the script moves, it wastes no time, it's stylish, it's compelling, it totters on the brink of being a film noir (though never goes completely over the edge.) The score- a piecemeal of other WB properties including If I Could be with You (One Hour Tonite) which shows up like an old friend in numerous other WB films- is compelling, well-done, evocative of the mood. Most of all: no one in it seems to stop moving for a second, as if they don't want to take the time to consider that maybe this isn't exactly Casablanca they're working on. Bold, fast direction by Curtiz, a fearless, very natural performance from a too-old (but still great) Joan Crawford and WONDERFUL support from a cadre of terrific supporting players: Gladys George, David Brian, Sydney Greenstreet and numerous others whose names elude me, but their faces remain in my mind, Plus it has those fabulous sets. I've said it before: you watch a Fox film, and you get the feeling the cieling was eight feet overhead. There were no cielings at Warner's.

> {quote:title=Swithin wrote:}{quote}I like all of the Universal Frankenstein sequels, especially *Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman*. Lots of interesting elements in that fine film, not least of which is the operetta sequence -- "Festival of the New Wine."I just can never understand how Mme. Ouspenskaya and Mr. Talbot got from Wales (or wherever in the UK they are) to Vasaria with a horse and buggy without crossing the Channel! I cannot tell you how many times I have gone around singing to myself "To-nite we sing our song to you: fah-lo-la-la-lo-dee!" since I first saw that movie at eight years old. What I don't get about FvsW is what exactly happens to Ouspenskaya at the end. Presumeably she is still in the castle when it is washed away by the breaking of the dam in the town of Vasaria..er Frankenstein...er, whatever.

> {quote:title=darkblue wrote:}{quote}Son of Dracula is my second favorite Universal horror of the 40's...Chaney conveys danger far better than Carradine. To each their own. Personally, what Chaney conveys to me is: "I'm so sorry folks. They're _making me do this_. I told them to get Bela: they said 'we don't want Bela. We'll slap a mustache and a cape on you, throw some 30-weight on the hair, and you'll be fine.' I got house payments and kids who like to eat, and they got me under contract. So "Bleh!" "Ooogie Boogie!" I'm Dracula. I'm so sorry. Enjoy the second half of the bill and look for me in House of Frankenstein coming next year. Thank you and again, I am so sorry for this. " But with a subtle actor like Chaney Jr. so much is left to interpretation...

> {quote:title=slaytonf wrote:}{quote}There are a lot of things that can be said about The Red Shoes. It's a great movie. It's gorgeously shot. It's well-edited, the production values are ace. The performances of Moira Shearer (such accomplished work for a first-time actress!) and Anton Walbrook (who was robbed of an Oscar nomination) are fantastic. I'm a little iffy on the guy who plays Julian Krasner (sic?),,,but that's okay as I think he's right for the role. But you know what I really don't like about The Red Shoes ? The whole movie is about the art of dance, the sacrifices dancers make, the awe-inspiring feats they contour their bodies to perform, and then in the big ballet scene: THEY USE TRICK PHOTOGRAPHY AND FREEZE FRAMES TO EMBELLISH ON THOSE FEATS OF BRILLIANCE!! It's a cheat and I hate that the filmakers do that, it negates (to me) the central idea of the film and (again, in my opinion) takes my personal rating for the film from four star flawless to three stars. It reminds me a little of the Busby Berkely musical Dames where we are ostensibly viewing a STAGE musical, which then all of a sudden unfolds on a grand, cinematic, thoroughly un-stagebound production. To me, it shatters the realism: that, yes, it is a movie, but it's a movie about the stage. The ballet we see in the film could never be done except with cinematic trickery. It's a prime example of how one little thing can really effect the end product when it comes to film. Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Sep 18, 2011 10:15 PM

> {quote:title=Capuchin wrote:}{quote}The same could be said of virtually every tv series -- which stupid disguise is Lucy going to put on this week while wrecking everything? > > > > I'll gladly support their showing Tarzan movies until 2037 Well, just because someone else is unoriginal doesn't mean it's okay. Also film and television are different mediums with different time restraints. And I might add, you are ostensibly asking people to pay to see a movie, and said people are damn right to expect more. It is entirely possible the Tarzan movies may go in to 2037 and beyond. My God, there's been one on every effin' Saturday since APRIL! Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Sep 17, 2011 4:35 PM

I also also also will toss in that one big thing that seems to have improved is TCM's old policy of showing good stuff at the asscrack of dawn. I've noticed a definite shift towards showing "Usual Suspects" (by that I mean the titles in heavy rotation, not the 1995 movie) after 10:00 pm. VERY grateful for that. Now please do something about your weekend programming: it sucks. God, HOW MANY DAMN TARZAN movies were there??!! (Besides, they really do seem to all be the SAME MOVIE: some trappers/poachers run afoul of Tarzan, thanks- we get it.) Anyone else remember the Saturday monster classics on AMC? Sigh

You know, there is something to be said for the fact that people start a thread about Ronald Colman being a total dreamboat, or the films of Kay Francis, or special discussions of Susan Slept Here and you get zip, nuthin, no action. Crickets chirping. You start a thread b***ing about why the same s*** is always on or calling Mankiewicz a putz and it gets 700 hits and 47 replies the first day...until it get locked and/or removed from the board in the case of the latter. It's good to give people something to talk about 'round these parts. ps- I reiterate that I personally think the programming on TCM has greatly improved of late, and +I+ am quite persnickety about the line-up. pss- I just don't get the Cult of Shirley "Don't You DARE Call her Hazel!" Booth. Spooky. psss-Maltin does in fact describe Hot Spell as "Hazel on speed" in his review. What a maroon.

> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote}Could ACE IN THE HOLE be the most cynical film ever made? Can you think of another film as cynical or more so? Network (1976) is at least as cynical. Jadore Ace in the Hole , jadore Douglas in it and jadore Jan Sterling. Both were _robbed_ of Oscar nominations (although I think Sterling did win Best Actress from the National Board of Review)

Just looked at the schedule entry for Billy Wilder's 1951 borderline- noir masterpiece Ace in the Hole aka The Big Carnival which is coming on tonight (9/13/2011) at 10:00, I think it's a rare showing, and if ye have not seen it: do not miss it. It is a four star movie, pretty much flawless (and believe me, I am as nit-picky as they come) Maltin gives it three stars. Same as Roger Corman's The Undead The man is a MORON Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Sep 13, 2011 4:20 PM to add even more contempt for what a f***ing moron, stooge Leonard Maltin is.

> {quote:title=misswonderly wrote:}{quote} > As for *Dead of Night*, all I can say is *AAAARRRGGGHHH ! ! !* > That's an exclamation of horror, all right, but not in response to the movie ! It's because, residing in Canada as I do, this film I 've wanted to see all my life is denied me ! The wretched and ongoing "rights" issue rears its ugly infuriating head again ! Well, (if it means anything to you) you can watch Dead of Night (1945) in its entirety in ten parts on youtube, which is something I used to turn my nose up at, but I've found that watching something on your PC screen is better than not being able to see it at all. ps- you're not really missing all that much in regards to Dead of Night , IMO. the ending is great, but of a couple of the stories are weak- 'specially the one about the eeevil dummy Hugo.