JonnyGeetar
-
Posts
1,118 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by JonnyGeetar
-
-
Believe it or not, I actually watched Gaslight last night, even the intro and outro with the tiresome retread of how it was Lansbury's first film, first Oscar nod, how she was working at an L.A. area department store wrapping packages at the time, how she was only 17, how she was 18 inches taller than Charles Boyer and had to stand in a ditch for their scenes...
(kidding on the last one)
My impression of Gaslight for the 15th time is the same as my impression of it the first: Boyer's is really the best performance in the film and- though stylish- the movie is SERIOUSLY HINDERED by an actionless, anemic finale and not enough of a comeuppance for Boyer's character (which the whole film has been building up to.) Compare it to how a couple other Victorian-era pieces from the same time, the excellent The Lodger and Hangover Square , end- quite literally with a BANG!
As for Lansbury, she's fine- but her role is not a character, it's a question mark. She does the most possible with an ambiguous, potentially thankless role (didn't she always?), but it's not Oscar-caliber- even though she does hold her own with Boyer and Bergman and makes the most of her first go at the races. I think the nomination was its own reward.
I have to admit to being a bit perplexed by the oft-aired bumper wherein Lansbury herself talks of how she was glad she didn't win the award as it would have meant "being put on a shelf." Honey, I love you but:
A. No one was going to beat Ethel Barrymore, dreadful as None but the Lonely Heart is- she had the kind of name cachet (and disdain for Hollywood) that Hollywood just eats up with a spoon.
B. Um, you kind of did end up on a shelf for quite some time. I mean, you made the most out of your eight minutes apiece in State of the Union, National Velvet, Samson and Delilah etc. but it was eight minutes and pretty much the same character each time.
C. (again) the nomination was the reward.
Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Jan 5, 2012 3:43 PM
-
Over der holidaze, I dogsat for two good friends who have a gorgeous big screen TV with surroundsound and 248 channels. Of course, those 248 channels are absolutely nothing anyone would ever want to watch, but unlike everyone else in my area, their cable is actually fast. Most cable in this area (southeastern North Carolina) is sloooooooooooow. You hold the button down for a minute and a half and the channel doesn't change, so you just say "to hell with it" and give up, only to have the TV leap forty channels ahead, and somewhere you catch out of the corner of your eye that Batman: The Animated Series is on HUB, but when you finally get back to it, it's almost over.
Anyhoos, I caught some of whatever network you folks are talking about, with Bensy-Woogums and Cenk Uygar (not a name, but a bad Scrabble hand*) having a tet-a-tet in two cozy chairs in front of a fireplace (likely purloined during the scrap of the set for the failed reboot of At the Movies ).
For what felt like ten minutes**, I watched them congratulate themselves for being such liberal visionaries, for blazing such a trail of truth and rightousness, for having **** that smelled like lilacs, and for their unwavering commitment to their principles of praising their unwavering commitment to their principles.
It reminded me of why I despise Ben so deeply.
Oh, that and he gets paid money to blandly introduce Doctor Zhivago 12 times a year, when said money could be used to restore some deteriorating classic or wrangle the rights to any of the 1,000 other classic films that we never see on TCM because someone, somewhere feels they need to pay someone who has the drawing power, charisma and qualifications of a browning apple to introduce it.
Vicious circle, no?
*- stolen from Tom Servo, Mystery Science Theater 3000, The Touch of Satan
**- It may have only been two minutes, it just felt like ten.
-
> {quote:title=Hibi wrote:}{quote}Yes, she seems to get no respect. She isnt as well known as she should be, sad to say...........RO seems to like her, but TCM doesnt give her the push they do for other stars..........
I presume you're talking about Teresa Wright, right? In which case I agree (sometimes during Oscar month they do show her talking about her experience the year she was double-nominated, but other than that, there isn't much love for Teresa down TCM way.)
There may be rights issues with some of her stuff like The Men and The Little Foxes -the latter title being one that I don't know that I've ever seen on TCM- although it can be seen for free on u-yay ube-tay. Casanova Brown and Pride of the Yankees as well as Shadow of a Doubt, Miniver, and BYOOL do get pretty regular airings though.
Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Jan 5, 2012 10:55 AM
-
> {quote:title=TopBilled wrote:}{quote}Hilarious! Just note that I did not write the word 'soon' in my earlier post. Though you are probably right...the 1000th broadcast of GASLIGHT '44 will air soon enough.
Yes, I admit I modified for comedic effect. For the record, I tried to non-italicize the "soon" but no dice.
A year ago they showed The Murder in Thornton Square aka Gaslight the 1940 (?) version with Anton Walbrook that MGM tried to destroy when they did their version. It's not as good, but it was still a refreshing change of pace.
-
> {quote:title=TopBilled wrote: (soon) }{quote}GASLIGHT will have reached its thousandth airing on TCM.
Tsk, tsk Paul-uh. You are ee-magining theengs again. Zee footsteps in zee attic, zee gas going down, Gaslight being on ev-er-y month for zee last five years. Really Paul-uh, you know eet only shows on occasion. You really are starting to go mad, I think.
Edited by: Sergis Bauer on Jan 2, 2012 10:05 AM
-
In my opinion your opinion is 100% valid. The end of December-into-January schedule was as wacky a line-up as ever we've seen. Fail Safe as an encore for NYE, Night of the Living Dead, shorts galore (many without any discernable theme or reason to be played), Close Encounters and The Searchers BOTH ON TWICE WITHIN FIVE DAYS, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington for the 200th time, The Marx Brothers, some Z-Grade horror and DOA as the first movie of the New Year. And I know I'm forgetting to mention a few other oddballs.
I think the money in the 2011 programming budget just ran out and it was either this or Suck it: 48 Hours of "The Yearling", Whether You Like it or Not.
Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Jan 2, 2012 9:51 AM
-
Must disagree on two big fronts: FEBRUARY is the most depressing month of the year and Lansbury was (is) a terrific actress- p'raps you should have seen some of her film triumphs (like her Oscar-nommed role in The Manchurian Candidate before ye ripped on her so harshly.)
That said, her films are in heavier rotation on TCM than any other star I can think of. Gaslight is in the top ten when it comes to repeat offenders. All Fall Down (which will surely be featured on Malden's month), National Velvet, Dorian Gray, Blue Hawaii and even her less common titles like Mr. Buddwing, Henry Orient and that boring love-triangle thing she did with Peter Finch and Jane Fonda show up constantly throughout the year. There was a period a few years ago when Bedknobs and Broomsticks would show up twice a month, thank GOD it seems to have been put back on the shelf (don't think it's even part of the tribute this month, thank you Film Gods.)
Ev'ry month is Angie's month on TCM and that is why I can't work up much enthusiasm for January.
Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Jan 2, 2012 9:36 AM
-
I have to admit, I've tried to steer clear of the programming kvetch-related threads since everyone is so darn sensitive about the topic (and understandably so on both sides), but it is getting to a point where I'm more *concerned* than *annoyed.*
This has been a month of fast-and-furious repeats, with the (rather dull) TCM Presents: Christmas at the Movies; the various Christmas Carols, some holiday films, and a couple other titles ( The Searchers and Close Encounters) showing twice in a matter of four days- all framed under ostensible theme days. They showed Night of the Living Dead AGAIN the other night (I guess under the premise that it's being restored by the Eastman House and not because, oh, it's in THE PUBLIC DOMAIN AND CAN BE SHOWN FOR FREE) and, oh yay, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington is on in an hour.
Are the programmers trying to tell us something by selecting D.O.A as the first title of the new year?
Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Jan 1, 2012 9:25 AM Putting on the body armor as you read this.
-
Her choices (aside from the rarely screened The Front ) are a trifle uninspired, but nonetheless, she did a fantastic job guest hosting this summer and she's been fantastic thus far tonight- the anecdotes are inspired, her rapport with Os is great and her entusiasm is palpable.
I really wish she was doing The Essentials instead of Drew Poo.
-
> {quote:title=Swithin wrote}{quote}
> I think there is much more subtlety and variety in Hepburn's work than she is given credit for here. She did a considerable amount of Shakespeare. I don't think I can see Stanwyck touring with the Old Vic.
Well yes, but can you see Hepburn in Double Indemnity or Ball of Fire ? Or even Sorry, Wrong Number ?- which is a film whose success is owed in entirety to the fact that Stanwyck is about the only actress who could pull off the mix of being unlikeable and yet compelling that is required. The end to that movie is such a stunner because we don't expect such a thing to happen to Barbara Stanwyck.
Being a smart actor means knowing your limits and what's right (or wrong) for you. And you never know, Stanwyck may well have stunned as Lady Macbeth had she been given the chance, I just don't think she had the interest or thought that sort of thing would be the right fit. (Stanwyck had a very modern appearance and sensibility, in fact I can't think of many period pieces that she did outside of her westerns and Man With a Cloak. )
Stanwyck's decision to play a remorseless cold-blooded murderess in Indeminity, whom we see commiting the act with premeditation and an animal-like hate was really a first in its degree (to me it tops even the eeeeeville Bette Davis does in The Little Foxes ) was a brave choice that rewarded her, gaver her a second persona, broadened her range and inspired a lot of other actresses (Gene Tierney in Leave Her to Heaven comes to mind) to do the same.
-
> {quote:title=JonnyGeetar wrote:}{quote} And it's interesting that for Stanwyck'scomplete lack of misfired performances, she was (IMO) the gutsiest damn actress of the day, taking real risks with her acting in Martha Ivers, Double Indemnity, Miracle Woman, Bitter Tea of General Yen and Walk on the Wild Side each one a bolder, braver turn that anything Bette Davis did (again IMO)
I've been thinking about it, typoes aside, I was _very wrong_ to write this. Bette's work in Human Bondage, Now, Voyager, Juarez, and All About Eve (as well as some others I may neglect to mention) is as gutsy and bold as anything Stanwyck ever did.
All apologies to Bette, (please don't come up out of the grave to get me.)
Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Dec 20, 2011 7:17 PM
-
> {quote:title=Swithin wrote:}{quote}Funny thing about Stanwyck. I love her work, but she didn't really continue to make films that received the same degree of notice that Davis and Hepburn did in their later years. She had no Baby Jane or Sweet Charlotte; or Lion in Winter or Guess Who's Coming to Dinner in her golden years...Maybe she stayed at Paramount too long.
Actually, I think Stanwyck (like Irene Dunne) was more of a freelancer- she worked all over town (WB, Universal, Columbia and Paramount), much to the alleged ire of Bette Davis. And, Like Dunne, I think that goes a good way towards explaining why she never won the Oscar (she never had studio support that a contractee would've.) A lot of people also maybe considered Stanwyck and Dunne's continuing to get good roles independently as their own reward.
Let's also not forget that Baby Jane and Sweet Charlotte were not of the same status or held in the so high a regard as Lion and (undeservedly) Dinner and Hepburn's film career cooled considerably after 1968,+ the Golden Pond+ Oscar being a surprise, but momentary uptick.
I will say this for Stanwyck, I have never seen any performance of hers that I would classify as a failure. Even in her final film, 1964's The Night Walker which is (like everything else William Castle EVER did) a heap of steaming garbage she's solid. Meet John Doe, Christmas in Connecticut, Jeopardy!, The Two Misses Carrolls and Crime of Passion- each has considerable faults, but Stanwyck ain't one of 'em. And it's interesting that for her complete lack of misfired performances, she was (IMO) the gutsiest damn actress of the day, taking real risks with her acting in Martha Ivers, Double Indemnity, Miracle Woman, Bitter Tea of General Yen and Walk on the Wild Side each one a bolder, braver turn that anything Bette Davis did (again IMO)
And on the subject of Bette Davis, I love Bette Davis, but she reached a point of no return with 1956's A Catered Affair wherein she blatantly milked the audience for sympathy in an utterly desperate and pathetic bid for love that the same Bette of ten years before would never have done. She does the same thing in Pocketful of Miracles and Sweet Charlotte- the last film is one I personally consider to be her worst performance. The courage of her 1940's roles is totally gone, replaced with mannerisms and a "LOVE ME!" plea to the audience that makes Shelley Winters at her whimpering worst seem low-key.
ps- I love Shelley too.
Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Dec 20, 2011 6:58 PM
-
> {quote:title=kriegerg69 wrote:}{quote}To me, however, sometimes she seems to be doing the same thing every time...almost "playing herself", so to speak.
Yes, but as Anothony Hopkins says in the tribute that oft airs between films on TCM: "what a personality."
Sydney Greenstreet, Nigel Bruce, Peter Lorre, Gladys George, George Sanders, Cary Grant, Bille Burke- and numerous other classic film actors often played "the same character." Many times we assume that that character is in fact a mirror of the personality of the actor him or herself...But again, what a personality, and what an utter delight to watch.
It's one of the (numerous) things I bemoan about the present state of the film industry- these bobble-headed, vapid lollipops have no personality. I have no interest in watching them play someone else, and I certainly have no interest in watching any of them play themselves.
P'raps what turned off many people then (and turns off many people now) about Hepburn is the aloof, icy, patrician undercurrent to her persona, what many people see as the holier-than-thou New Englander, the Bryn Mawryness of her speech, the occasional feyness that creeps in to her earlier work....I get it, but to those people I recommend Stage Door as a great example of how she was humbly willing to poke fun at what many people percieved her image to be. To a lesser extent she does much of the same in The Philadelphia Story.
Of the numerous Hepburn films that I have seen, the only two performances of hers that I would definitely classify as failures are Morning Glory (for which she oddly enough won the Oscar even though she's utterly stilted and awkward) and Suddenly Last Summer (for which she was undeservedly nominated, and in which she is blown off the screen by Elizabeth Taylor.) To be fair, I have not seen Spitfire (which is her own personal Nell ) or Dragonseed. I understand she may be crummy in both.
Is there the "Hepburn Persona" on display in all her work?, of course. Just as the Stanwyck Persona, the Crawford Persona, and the Davis persona are always lingering in the background in all their films. When you have that large a personality, you can't help but bring it with you. But is there nuance and honesty and emotion accurately portrayed in most (if not all) her work? Absolutely.
And, the ultimate test, is she inn-teresting to watch? For me, ab-so-lutely.
Recommended viewing: The Sea of Grass (1947), Sylvia Scarlett (1935), Long Day's Journey into Night (1962), Holiday (1938), Stage Door (1937), Christopher Strong (1933), Alice Adams (1935)
-
> {quote:title=mrroberts wrote:}{quote}Give it about 25 years, if its still being talked about then it may be considered a classic
Oh, it's happening. I'm positive 25 years from now people will be saying: "wow, do you remember Mission Impossible IV: Ghost Protocol ? That movie totally sucked. "
It's funny, a friend of mine and I were talking yesterday about how much someone would have to pay us to watch MI:IV:GP . I settled on $80.00 because I am superbroke, yet somehow $60.00 just wouldn't be enough for my pain and suffering. My friend, who has a good chunk of change in the bank, said she'd see it for $1,000.
(she can afford to charge the adequate and fair pain and suffering rate.)
Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Dec 17, 2011 3:32 PM
-
> {quote:title=infinite1 wrote:}{quote}
> Very humorous Michael. Of course, as we all know, the labeling of someone as a "TROLL" is purely subjective, in the eye of the beholder, and just as inflamatory. I wonder if there are pictures just as funny to illustrate people who make false accusations of trolling against anyone who has a different or unpopular opinion or perhaps that should be the 19th type of Internet "TROLL". Of course, the ultimate decision regarding who is or is not a "TROLL" falls to you, but I would think that you would want to suggest that people refrain from name calling on either side and defer to your wisdom in such matters.
That's the greatest thing anyone has written on this site in a long time. Amen, heavy clapping, amen, heavy clapping, whistling, amen my brother.
-
I made it about 150ish pages into Our Mutual Friend and I was intrigued, but overwhelmed. I enjoyed the dark tone and dark comedy but following the plot was more energy than I could mentally muster at the time. In many other cases with Dickens I will make it a hundred or two pages into a book and then take an extended break, only to pick it up later and finish it (such was the case with Copperfield. )
I could certainly see with Our Mutual Friend that Dickens was gravitating towards detective fiction. There are elements of mystery in it and Bleak House, but again- I just had to come up for air.
I saw some of the BBC version of Friend, which I had to use as "Cliff's Notes" of a sort to make sure that I was understanding just what in the hell was going on. It was interesting, but I did note that they moved some big elements of the plot forward (the husband and wife who mistakenly marry thinking each is rich when they are dirt poor happens very early in the movie.)
I have to say, I liked the book Bleak House, and made it through in one straight shoot, but also had to check out the 2005(?) BBC version as a kind of flow chart.
I remember reading nothing but critical praise for it. I absolutely could not stand it it was so awful and most of the acting was too, too over-the-top. They guy playing Grandfather Smallweed was waaaaay too young and the worst case of overracting. They cut out some of the funnier, more interesting, elements of the plot and they had this REALLY ANNOYING tendency to do long establishing shots with Matrix -style jump cuts accompanied by the whooshing! sound of an arrow at the start of EVERY scene.
It really got old fast.
Gillian Anderson was, however, beyond fantastic in it. Just about the only thing I liked about the whole damn, dreary affair.
Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Dec 7, 2011 1:26 PM
Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Dec 7, 2011 1:27 PM
Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Dec 7, 2011 1:30 PM
-
well, I mean, we can all be grateful they're not showing the Michael Bay "film" Pearl Harbor, but cheez, FHTE gets the 8:00 p.m. slot? it's such a no-brainer, I have to admit I'm a little stumped as to what else could/should get the 8:00 pm slot on the 70th anniversary but- I mean- s***, isn't there something?
I'd rather watch the footage of the real thing, or a "WWII and Hollywood" documentary, or the John Ford at War footage than From Here to Freakin; Eternity AGAIN. Personally, what I'd love to see are some of the Land of the Rising Sun anti-Japanese propoganda films from the 1941-1944 era...but I'm sure that wouldn't fly.
Shame though, can't even find 'em on youtube.
-
> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote}Really? I would have put "Oliver Twist" as his third best-known work, with "Great Expectations" further down the list. But I'm certainly no literary behemoth.
s'allright. as you said, it's arguable. i was supposed to read Great Expectations for three different classes in college and I never did. I just do not care for it. Love the Lean movie though. I read Oliver Twist in college and kind of sort of liked it, but it has some really big plot holes that detract from the overall impact of the book.
Fast forward many years later and I was living in California. I had quit reading and felt the need to try again as I was struggling with some depression issues.
I recalled my sister telling me how much she loved A Tale of Two Cities, so I picked up a second-hand copy. What a book! One of my best memories of an experience with a book will always be sitting on the Universal lot reading ATOTC on my lunch break, and remembering how much fun it can be to read. Since then I read David Copperfied which I really, really liked; Hard Times which is all right, Pickwick Papers which is very good and in places quite funny and (last winter) Bleak House- which I liked a good deal.
I keep meaning to get another big long Dickens to spend the coming winter with...But I've tried Our Mutual Friend and The Old Curiosity Shop on for size a few times and had a hard time getting "in" to both.
But I do have much love and respect for Chuck D. Does he sometimes go on a little longer than need? P'raps- but he is so eloquent and humorous with such insight on humanity that I personally forgive him for taking three and a half pages to say "Dora went to the market and got some eggs."
Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Dec 7, 2011 8:08 AM
-
> {quote:title=Hibi wrote:}{quote}SPOILER QUESTION.
>
> My cable company decided to run a weather alert when they were opening the crypt.
>
That is way weak. I'm so sorry. If you'd like to catch up pn what you missed, the film is in six parts on youtube.
I like it quite a bit, personally. It has the right (dark) tone and it almost pre-code in its depiction of the opium den, plus a nicely theatrical ending.
-
> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote}What is interesting to me is that film adaptations of, arguably, Dickens' two best-known works, TALE OF TWO CITIES and DAVID COPPERFIELD, were both released by MGM in 1935.
Very arguably. I'd argue his two best known are Great Expectations and Oliver Twist. The 1947 film version of the first is the Dickens adaptation to beat them all. Personally though, I think Copperfield and (especially!) Two Cities are his two finest books. Both of the 1935 MGM adaptations come up a leetle short of the thrill one gets reading them.
-
Maybe it was that terrible hairpiece, but I just didn't completely dig Reginald Owen as Scrooge. Someone else mentioned Ernest Thesinger, that would have been fabby beyond words (of course Ernest Thesinger as anyone in anything would be fabby beyond words.)
Meself, I was thinking KARLOFF: THE UNCANNY would've nailed the role of Scrooge, but I'm sure he never would've gotten that role at that studio at that (or any other?) time. Shame Universal didn't get to the property first (was it in the Public Domain by then?) a version directed by James Whale with Karloff, Thesinger as The Ghost of Christmas Past, and Claude Raines as Jacob Marley would've been something to see.
ps- I also thought the kid playing Tiny Tim in the 1938(?) MGM version looked like Shelley Duvall and the Demon Puppet from Child's Play had some kind of hellish offspring.
Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Dec 6, 2011 5:46 PM
-
> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote}Oh! It's Pearl Harbor Day. THAT"S why FHTE is on again. Any excuse will do. They could have shown TORA TORA TORA.
'cept it's Tora! Tora! Torable!
-
> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote}JEANNE EAGELS... isn't shown frequently on TCM.
Actually, I'd say Eagels shows up quite a bit on the sched. I'm just hypothesizing here, but I'd say it's been on something like six times in the last eighteen months- not a whole lot, but more than I'd say it rates. Pushover would've been a better choice for her entry in Battle of the Blondes, but I'm thankful they didn't put Bell, Book and Candle on for the 15th time this year.
Ps- guess what's coming up at 8:00 pm on December 7th.
-
Miss W., your concept of "mean" and my concept of "mean" are in whole different zip codes they're so far apart. On the kvetch-o-meter this thread rates a three out of ten- but I see your point.
My take on the overly detailed plot synopsiseses is this: you know the scene in In a Lonely Place where Bogie takes the hat check girl home and she's thrilled at the chance to recap the lurid plot of the novel in great detail to someone so important? It's kind of sort of the same deal with the wikipedia/imdb/tcmdb plot synopsi- enthusiastic writers looking to cut their teeth and show their admiration for something by regurging every detail down...It's actually not bad practice for people looking to improve their writing skills (of course, I think of the Capote quote "that's not writing, that's typing" but you gots to start somewheres, no?)
Wikipedia often puts something in bold blue at the top of the article that says (in effect) "YO! THIS PLOT SYNOPSIS MAY BE OVERLY DETAILED AND NEEDS EDITING." Often when I return, it has been. I've also discovered the FAQ section under the TRIVIA entries for films on imdb- sometimes those are done by some folks who it would seem have ample free time on their hands.
This sort of thing goes on in all sorts of different circles though. A year ago, I read the book The Woodlanders by Thomas Hardy. It was excellent- in no small part to the fact that you want to keep reading it to see how it's going to end, and when it does, POW! you really don't see what's coming. I loved it so much, I decided- after I was done- to read the arty little five page foreward they always have some English Lit professor from Harvard or Yale or Cambridge tack on at the very beginning.
The stupid cow not only missed many of the main points of the novel, SHE GAVE AWAY THE ENDING COMPLETELY IN THE FINAL PARAGRAPH OF HER ESSAY! AND the paragraph stood by itself on a page that faced the title page to the book, it would have been rather easy to let one's eyes wander to the left and see the ending right there- thus ruining the whole experience.
So I see where you're coming from.
Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Dec 5, 2011 9:09 AM
Angela Lansbury?!?
in General Discussions
Posted
> {quote:title=Hibi wrote:}{quote} Her nomination for Picture of Dorian Grey is much more deserving. Her performance always leaves me teary eyed. One of those characters that viewers remember long after her exit from the film..........
Absolutely, especially since (forgive me, but it's my opinion) Hurd Hatfield is *so bad* in that movie it's embarassing. The fact that everyone else (not just Lansbury but Sanders and Reed as well) are as good as they are when acting opposite him is a testament to their strengths. Maybe the director told Hatfield to be as bland and plasticene as he could manage, and it's not his fault that it's like watching a blank cassette tape in the role. I know Hatfield and Lansbury became great friends and he appeared a coupla' times on Murder She Wrote, but no matter who was at fault, he is just lousy in a film that in all other respects is aces- so bad the picture goes from an A in my book to a B+
I think had Lansbury had a better actor to work off of (I don't sense chemistry in their scenes, which she excels at in spite of) and had her character not been dismissed within the first third of the movie, she might well have won that time out at the races.
Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Jan 6, 2012 10:10 AM