JonnyGeetar

yes, if i had DVR this would all be completely moot. p'raps some day i can afford Tivo and then my library shall be complete. i feel guilty for de-railing the thread, so here goes: I love Powell/Pressberger, but what the hell is up with Peeping Tom ? Man, that is one majorly overrated film. Discuss.

i'm going to make it a point to check out little sheba the foist chance I get. it's been too long since i've seen it to be fair. 'til then I'm witholding any further comment on Miss Booth. and while i'm being a total buttinsky to your question, Red River, if I had to boil my (unsolicited) opinion on Mme. Rainer down to a simple phrase, it'd be: "Mr. Mayer giveth and Mr. Mayer taketh away."

Oh, I have Netflix and adore it completely. I do from time to time peruse the local liberry, but they?re pretty under-stocked (as is often the case.) No, being un filme geek extraordinare, there is a list of titles I?d just like to own a personal copy of to watch whenevs the mood strikes me. It?s not a long list, but there?s a fair share of titles? Above all else though, I am cheap, and fast to call ?shenanigans? when I see anything overpriced? And Criterion is really overpriced (in my opinion) for what you get, and prohibitively so in the case of many titles not available elsewhere.

i respect your view and you surely know more than i when it comes to this sort of thing... i also worry a tad we're getting away from the topic, maybe a whole post titled: "Criterion: yay or nay?" is called for. all that heaven allows was a bad choice to name as it does come with subtitles optional (i think) and some bonuses which i honestly found to be dull and superflous- not worth $32.99 i think it was the friends of eddie coyle that had nothing extra. nada. zip. just the movie and the trailer, no subtitles, no nothing. once again though, i am not completely sure, but i do recall being really underwhelmed. (not by the film itself though.) i own the horse's mouth on dvd as it is one of my faves of all time. i had to ask for it for christmas 'specially one year. all i can say is that for $28 (used)- the extras on that disc ain't worth it by a long shot. there are other films (the lady eve and all that heaven... come to mind) that i would gladly own were they available for a reasonable price...i did just look both up on amazon and there are some import versions of those available for $15.00, which i don't recall there being a year or two back- so maybe the argument is moot. it's when a film is available in no form other than criterion that i have my beef. but i admit there are many Criterion titles I have not checked out. Robinson Crusoe on Mars for example....

very good defense on your part. if you aren't a lawyer, Mamselle Golightly, may I say legal world has lost out on a real talent. where did ye find these $13 titles?! i'm having a hard time recalling specifics, but a lot of the Criterion titles I've netflixed have been really underwhelming in the DVD extras- which I care about a lot more than picture and sound as I have a 13 year old tv and no surround-sound. also, on many of them there have been NO subtitles, which I always use, and on some there are compulsory subtitles, which is silly since for $30.00 a pop, you should be able to watch, lets say All that Heaven Allows in whatever way you see fit. In the end, (to me) Criterion just makes some of the best movies un-affordable for people like me who would otherwise gladly own them.

> {quote:title=HollywoodGolightly wrote:}{quote} > Speaking of The Red Shoes, the Criterion folks have given a strong hint that the restored version of the movie might be among their upcoming releases. Great. That means it'll have all the extras (possibly fewer) than you'd get on a regular DVD, either mandatory (or no) subtitles and cost about $15 more...But I guess that fancypants cover art is worth something. Not a Criterion fan here

i really want to see this Down to Earth thing now! Jennifer Jones, I find, is usually at her best when she was away from Svengali- oh, I mean Selznick. It's funny, I was just thinking two things about The Red Shoes the other day: The first is that I really wish Anton Walbrook had gotten nominated for a Oscar...that scene at the end where he tells the audience that the performance is off is excellent and such a different approach than many other actors would've taken. The second thing, and this is something about the film that really irks me is this: it's a film entirely about the sacrifice one makes for the art of dance, the work it takes to be one of those rare individuals who defy physics and gravity with their bodies...and then in the climactic ballet THEY USE TRICK PHOTOGRAPHY AND EDITING TO HAVE THE DANCERS DO THINGS THAT ARE UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE. It **** me off, for lack of a better way of saying it.

Forgiveness, I am unfamiliar with what this "Programmer Challenge" is all about. If someone wins- does that mean they really get to pick the schedule for a day?

A lot of people have shouted love to Bette Davis in The Little Foxes. I love Bette, I like the film very much, and I think she deserved the nomination...But I do think it is p'raps lacking in dimension a tiny bit, as Bette was prone to do when she was playing veryvery good or veryvery bad. Herbert Marshall gives the great unsung performance in that film. (as he often did)

> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote} > Dred didn't say that Kerr's role was supporting. I did. Forgiveness is begged. JG

Ballsy choices Blu, I agree with many of them. The only thing I feel the need to air out is this: I have always felt Deborah Kerr was really miscast in From Here to Eternity She's fine in the role (which is more of a supporting turn, I agree Dred) but I would have really liked to see Joan Fontaine (who almost did land the role) in it...Failing that, I have to admit it would've been intriguing to see what Joan Crawford (Harry Cohn's first pick) could've done, provided she was able to not be _Joan Crawford_ at that stage of the game and demand re-writes, gowns by Jean Louis and a box of scotch every morning. She made Torch Song instead. Oh well. As for Audrey Hepburn, I've always felt her best work is when she's not playing a wood sprite or princess, as in Two for the Road, Breakfast at Tiffany's and The Nun's Story. It is somewhat astounding that Hepburn had such an awesome career as many who won the little man for their first big, fat, studio lead had a bumpy ride after. I think it is a testament to her talent, beauty, and nature.

Wow...For the record, I did just imdb Shirley Booth...She did all of three features after Little Sheba and some TV. That's it.

That's Mr. G., actually. psst ! be careful some people 'round these parts take their Shirley Booth seriously.

You make good points Dred. Everyone cool with the whole Jane Wyman thing?

there is also, rather clearly, no water in the bucket when he douses Walter Brennan in the opening scene. for the record though, you can be stung by a dead bee.

> {quote:title=lzcutter wrote:}{quote} > Its called hindsight. Some fifty or sixty years later we are able to look at the evolution of various actors careers and lament that certain actors and directors were never honored with Academy Awards while during their lifetimes they were busy putting on screen some great cinematic characters > And whether anyone wants to admit it or not, that can play into it when it comes time to vote. > Did Shirley Booth deserve the Oscar for *Little Sheba*, you bet she did. She was incredible, much more than the *Hazel* you think she was. I know, I know, I know. One of the things I really hate about the awards nowadays is how they rush the whole process...As boring as this might be, we ought to give Oscars to films three years after they came out, when we've had time to digest. in the annals of the academy awards, 1952 is down in my book as one of the biggest "what the hell?" years...along with 47, 56, and 96. Greatest Show is (i think we almost all agree) trash, i don't think cooper in High Noon holds a candle to his best work of a decade earlier, I'm thrilled Gloria Grahame won an Oscar some time in her career, but she does nothing in The Bad and The Beautiful, I know it was supposed to be saluting the fact that she had a hot, hot year, but Lana Turner (for once) gives the best turn in that movie. and yes, I know the blacklist and the HUAC and etc. My selection of Booth had more to do with the fact that Holliday and O'Hara were NOT nominated for what were (in my humble, un-educated and two cent opinion) two of the best turns of the decade. Would it make everyone happier if I struck Shirley Booth from the list and substituted Jane Wyman in Johnny Belinda...or would that just get me in more trouble?

my bad, Susan Hayward was up for With a Song in My Heart that year...

To be fair, it has been ten years (or more) since I saw Little Sheba. I will make it a point to try watching it again the next time it's on...It's just that 50 years later, I'd rather see Maureen O'Hara in The Quiet Man or Judy Holliday in The Marrying Kind win, even Susan Hayward could've won for I'll Cry Tomorrow, thus clearing the path for Roz Russell as Auntie Mame in 1958 I just don't know, when you think of all the greats who never won, who had really significant careers, it just seems glaring (to me) that someone who (I'm sorry) didn't have a MAJOR motion picture career won a best leading award right smack in the middle of the golden age of film acting. I'm sure Shirley Booth was a lovely person though, and the fact that so many have passionately defended her means there's clearly something there. Judy Holliday kicks **** in The Marrying Kind though. If you haven't seen it, CHECK IT OUT!

Liz Taylor was in Suddenly Last Summer with Katharine Hepburn and Hepburn was in The African Queen with you know who... Now try Liberace Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Dec 29, 2009 9:07 PM

I like your style NZ. Thanks for getting things back on track (or making the attempt at least.) The only thing I just have to say is: Midler is _terrific_ in The Rose, but (in my opinion) the film is so bad, it ruined her chances. Please don't hurt me for that.

this one seems tough to me, but it never ceases to amaze me what some people remember... a while back TCM showed a documentary about a director and in the documentary, he says (more or less) that he thought the end to High Noon, and especially the part where the Quaker wife shoots the bad guy was (paraphrasing here) kind of dumb. He said it was the inspiration for a movie he did later on. I cannot recall the director who said this or the film. I really want to say it was John Ford and he maybe he meant Liberty Valance. Anyone know?

GLEN FORD was in 3:10 TO YUMA with VAN HEFLIN Van Heflin was in THE STRANGE LOVE OF MARTHA IVERS with Babs Stanwyck Stanwyck was in THE TWO MRS. CARROLLS with Bogart. Van Heflin is the glue that connects all. Now: EMIL JANNINGS!

And, you know, I was kind of okay with the fork. However, I have to say I am thrilled someone else out there also can't stand Annie Hall. Guess this is what it sounds like when doves cry.

Here's one: Roy Rogers. Bwahahahaha!

i thought we were sticking a fork in it.