JonnyGeetar

movieprofessor wrote: "Mason was without question in Hollywood, living in the house once owned by Buster Keaton. He was currently invovled in television production that had him hosting several dramatic programs." THE THREE: 1.What did he have for breakfast the morning of the premiere? 2.What color socks did he wear that day? (If multiple pairs, please specify.) and 3. Did he mind that you were crouched in his bushes? I'M KIDDING!! I'm totally into the passion in your input, and really appreciate it...But seriously, are you human or, like, some kind of HAL-type thing, like TCM-BOT 2000? Oh, and this is non sequitor as hell, but I LOVE BELLS ARE RINGING! When the heck are they gonna play "The Solid Gold Cadillac," I've never seen it and it's not on DVD. Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Nov 2, 2009 11:24 AM

drednm wrote: "To me, Garland's loss (an utterly superb performance no matter what the film's problems were) ranks with Gloria Swanson's loss to the ho-hum Judy Holliday in 1950 as the biggest Oscar blunders--at least in acting categories." Amen, my brother (sister?) Although I note, the big tragedy about Holliday is that her later work (especially in THE MARRYING KIND) blows what she did in BORN YESTERDAY out of the water, but she was never nominated again. Had to smart. Personally, I rank Luise Rainer beating Garbo, Stanwyck and Dunne (THE three greats of the 30's who NEVER won an oscar) in 1937 to win her second (un-merited) best actress award for her turn as a Viennese-accented Chinese peasant who looks like someone has just stomped on her toes in every scene as the #2 biggest blunder of Oscar, but that's another post. Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Nov 2, 2009 9:11 AM

maybe james mason didn't go to the premiere of "a star is born" but he gave the eulogy for garland at her funeral in 1969. that says something to me.

"1954" judy gave the best performance of that year, and the "country girl" stinks -That's what it's all about. Period.

finance wrote: If Judy [Garland] had won [the 1954 Oscar], do you think she would have gotten a lot of good film offers? (she ended up with virtually none.) (I have no idea how to cut and paste the quotes of others, that's the best I can do.) my reply: Probably not, but there's always hope that in Bizarro world, Judy won the Oscar, managed to hang on to Sid Luft, kept the weight off, kicked the Bennies and went on to triumph after triumph after triumph, eventually netting a second Best Actress award in 1969 for "Hello, Dolly!" (Thereby beating Liza in the process, I know.) There are few books on film that I could recommend more than ALTERNATE OSCARS by a guy named Danny Peary (sic?) It's out of print and my own copy ended up falling apart, but he analyzes the picture, actor, and actress awards from the very start up until 1991 (when it was printed.) He's right on the head nearly every single time. You may be able to find it on amazon, and it is SO worth it for those who get the chance to check it out.

I agree wholeheartedly with your statement with one exception: (in my opinion) Lana Turner gave at least three successful performances in her career: THE BAD AND THE BEAUTIFUL, and (debateably, I admit) THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE and PEYTON PLACE (hey, I buy her in it.) Kelly never once gave a performance that wins me over. And excellent point about the 11 films, pretty paltry, and all the more reason why I rate her Oscar win over Judy Garland as an out-and-out disaster (for all involved.)

that is an excellent point, and one that never occured to me.

A&E did a Bio on KARLOFF: THE UNCANNY a while back, you might like checking it out (it's on DVD and video, heck it may even be on A&E considering the time of year.) He was apparently- by every single account- an absolutely lovely person in real life. Carol Burnett, of all people, has some really nice things to say about him. You should also check out "The Lost Patrol"- it's one of his non-horror roles and he is AMAZING in it. I'd also recommend "Targets," which was on recently and has been discussed and dissected else where in the forums. Avoid anything he ever made in Mexico though. Hoo-Boy! Those had to be a late-in-life regret.

he was probably just self conscious about the fact that she was a foot taller than he was.

"I would love to see Evelyn Ankers as Star of the Month when Universal titles become available to TCM."- Prince Saliano I agree wholeheartedly. Amen, brother, amen.

johnm, dude, you are so totally my 180 that it frightens me. were we ever in the same room, the world would surely end. have you never seen the "born in a trunk" number? "dial m for murder" is dreck, but it's a masterpiece compared to "the country girl"- dear God above me, I LOATHE that film. Check it out when they show it later this month, but stay away from heavy machinery and sharp objects for two weeks afterwards. sidenote: i love audrey hepburn, but "sabrina" was the only time she was nominated for an Oscar that I completely disagree with. it is an unremarkable performance in one of the very few billy wilder movies i don't care for. of course, i would sooner jane wyman have won for "magnificent obsession" than the award going to the pretentious, maudlin, stagey, crapfest that is clifford odet's "country girl." the smoking thing is going iffy. it's going iffy.

it's MST-THREE-K, ya'll.

i hear you loud and clear. i would also note that I would NOT have picked many of the Karloff films that whoever picked today's schedule did. (they're all too similar.) unfortunately, the last few years, the Universal Horror flicks have been on AMC- (they had a HUGE marathon the year before last). and for all the complaining I do about TCM's scheduling, at least they don't show commercials. AMC is essentially a commercial delivery system, if parts of movies happen to get played in between the commercials, okay, but they're not the main objective. Seriously, it took them two and a half hours to show "Frankenstein" from 1931, and it's no more than an hour twenty minutes at most. If you don't have Netflix- GET IT NOW. You can get all the Universal Monster films on DVD and many of them contain more than one film in the series..Of course, all the "Dracula" and "Wolfman" sequels SUCK, so that's a mixed bag, but they've got some other good bonuses on them as well. I've got "Werewolf of London" (1935) on right now.,

It's funny, I actually deleted a sentence where I mentioned that I was stunned at how good Bing Crosby was in the film and that I was totally cool with his Oscar nod- but I felt like it hurt the flow of the rant. For the record, he's the ONLY good thing about that movie.

(Author's note: I am trying to quit smoking and it is rainy and dreary on the East Coast and I am Mr. Supercrankypants this week, so I'm sorry for all the negative posts, for the record, TCM makes lots of programming decisions that I am kosher with, although I will note, I have been more irked than pleased in the last year.) That said: Grace Kelly as star of the month? Why? Now, I admit that the Prince Albert spot they've been airing is very touching and sweet, and there are numerous accounts of what a kind, generous person she became as Princess of Monaco, and I give you: AS A MOVIE STAR SHE IS AN A+, AND AS A BEAUTY SHE IS WITHOUT EQUAL. That said, as an actress, I'd give her no more than a B- at best. (And to note, I have won zero Oscars to date) That ****-elegant, icewater-in-the-veins routine she does just sticks in my craw, and it is to note I would put "High Noon," "High Society," "Rear Window," and "Green Fire" on the list of films TCM just plays too damn much already, oh, "Mogambo" too. And in the case of "High Noon" and "High Society," I would say that she is one of the weakest spots in two films I consider to be weak enough already. In "Society" she picks up on the frostiness of Hepburn in "Philadelphia Story," but doesn't inject the character with any human feeling whatsoever (in my opinion.) And in "High Noon"- a film I find more and more annoying and cliche' every time I see it- she has to be the most immaculately coiffured Quaker in the history of westerns. Every time she has a scene with Gary Cooper, I expect her to tell him, "darling, you simply cahn't stay for a shootout, it would be too, too gauche! Now I'm off to lunch and shopping." I also HATE "The Country Girl," and for the record, her beating Judy Garland for the 1954 Best Actress Oscar for that humdrum little **** is the biggest atrocity in the history of an award that has been given to the wrong people and the wrong films about 90% of the time. There. That's it. I'm sorry for all the kvetching, but I could laundry list the stars (especially supporting and character players) who deserve a month more. Feel free to nominate some alternate stars of the month in your replies and I'm sorry, as always, if I have offended.

Please forgive, did not mean to imply "Targets" was a Corman film in any sense other than his name on a couple of checks, if even that...I was more referring to the story of how Roger agreed to give Bogdanavich a break, but only if he used footage from the mediocre "The Terror" and the services of Karloff for two days (as per Osborne's intro and the imdb trivia section) The end effect kind of reminds me of how they give the designers on "Project Runway" a piece of purple chiffon and some safety pins and say: "now make an evening gown for Camryn Manheim in fifteen minutes" and one of them totally manages to rock it out. ps- maybe I'm reading between the lines here, but I'm glad to see someone else is not a big fan of William Castle, what is UP with the **** TCM has for him this month? But I guess that's another forum topic.

C'mon now! I usually find something to gripe about in every film I see (just check out my post history), but aside from the "Oriental" joke (which could be chalked up to character exposition) I can't think of anything to kvetch about! This film was an out-and-out box of Cracker Jacks from start to finish! I had to run an errand to the drug store after it was over and found myself looking over my shoulder in the parking lot and all along the way there. As an avowed fan of "Mystery Science Theater" I have seen almost all of Roger Corman's GOD AWFUL 1950'S-60'S CRAP, and I would have to say that this is a text book example of turning a sow's ear into a silk purse- the only argument would be whether or not Bogdanavich or Polly Platt deserved the credit...And judging by some of Pete's later work , I think Miss Platt deserves her due. I've only seen this once now, but I have to say it is now one of my favorite films of the 1960's. Just couldn't have been better. Shame though, Karloff more or less got to call this his Swan Song while Lugosi got "Plan 9 from Outer Space"- a masterpiece of a whole other kind. But I guess that's the breaks.

thank you, Mr. Marco...One of my biggest beefs with "Barefoot Countessa" was the scene where Ava Gardner's character testifies for her father in the Spanish Court, and all we see is her lips moving as Bogart talks in voice-over about what a "brilliant performance it was, the best scene any actress ever played." (and i'm paraphrasing that, but that's more or less what he says.) Okay, um, if it was such a brilliant performance, could we have heard some of it??! Gardner was a solid actress (basing that on "Night of the Iguana" and not much else) and if I were her, I would have been FURIOUS that I didn't get a line of dialogue in what should've been the highlight of the film, I mean, she had been nominated for an Oscar the year before for "Mogambo" (even if it was more for her popularity than her art.) Voice-over is a technique that nine times out of ten, shouldn't be used, and this is a PRIME example of why. As far as "Sleuth" goes, I've never seen all of it, but I caught some of it on TCM a coupla' months back and it was so hokey, I had to turn it off, I TOTALLY did not fall for Michael Caine when he's in make-up as the police inspector "arresting" Olivier.

Okay, fine. Still doesn't make me like "Barefoot Countessa." And perhaps the bloom was off the rose by the time Mank and Kate made "Suddenly Last Summer." Surely, we've all heard about the battle royale that that film was. Sorry. I still say he's overrated.

Not meaning to quibble, but that's a tad like saying "Marty" is one of Burt Lancaster's best films.... I was commenting on Mank's work as a director and the whole "package" of his films as they add up in the end (or don't), and i'm starting to regret saying "REALLY" overrated and not just plain overrated in the title of my post...but, if we're gonna consider "woman of the year" a Mank film then I have to tell you: i have serious issues with the end of "woman of the year," i mean, this lady can speak 11 languages but she can't fry an egg or make coffee??! even if making coffee was apparently complicated as hell to make in the 40's, i just don't buy it. Glad to hear you're down with Clarence Brown. Is "Human Comedy" EVER coming out on DVD???

I don't think Mank. had anything to do with "Woman of the Year." That was a George Stevens picture. Ring Lrdner and Michael Kanin (sp?) wrote it.

oh, and if you read my original post, I said "Five Fingers" was fine. I also liked "Mrs. Muir."

alas? why alas? wow. That's a lot to digest at once, all i have time to say right now is that "The Human Comedy" is better than anything of Mankiewicz's that I've seen...And I know I keep misspelling his name, so sorry Joe. Also prefer "National Velvet" and the Garbo films he did- but like I said, Brown's best work was before the 50's, so feel free to strike him from the list. By the way: Have you seen the TCM Bio on DeMille? They kinda' made Mank. out to be, well, less than truthful about some of the goings on in the director's guild during the 50's. Purty interesting. By the way, DeMille is NOT better than Mank, but his films are a hell of a lot funnier!

To note: I think Anne Baxter is too, too, too over the top in the last third of "Eve." She's like, a fourteen where I would've asked to bring it down to a six, or shot her with a mild tranquilizer dart at least. And did you hear what Kate Hepburn thought about him? (It ain't pretty, suffice it to say, I hope he always carried a handkerchief.) Oh, and Otto Preminger and John Huston were better. Forgot them.

don't let the ee cummings-style grammar of my post confuse you, i'd say as i was a pretty intelligent guy. i'd also say i'm a film buff, and i've seen plenty of movies to compare Mank's with. (also, i'm not a drinker and let's leave my medications out of this.) in my opinion: Billy Wilder is better. Ernst Lubitsch (sic, i'm sure) is better. Hitchcock is better. Howard Hawks is waaaaay better. Raoul Walsh is better. Nic Ray is better. John Ford is a thousand times better. Hang on...Lemme think. Oh, Leo McCarey is better, Michael Curtiz is better (although I guess you could say their best work was behind them by the time Mank came along, oh and I guess Lubitsch was dead, but you know what? He was still better director.) Cukor was better, William Wyler was better, Minelli was better, Stanley Donen was better, Kazan was better, George Stevens was better, Richard Brooks was better...David Lean? WAAAAY better. I;m even gonna go out on a limb and say Douglas Sirk was better. Dmytryk was better. Clarence Brown (also not sure if he qualifies as being a contemporary of Mank's) is better. Hell, at least Ed Wood's movies aren't pretentious. Oh, and writers? Trumbo, Lehman, Michael Wilson, Carl Foreman, Bracket and Wilder: all be-heh-heh-heh-etter. Way better. Off to pop some Thorazine, before I go, I'll toss you a bone: "The Late George Apply" also doesn't suck. There, that suit you, Fancy-Pants?