ValentineXavier

> {quote:title=SansFin wrote:}{quote} > > It is only passable when the short version is watched on a television while dressed in a bathrobe and eating a pint of chocolate mint ice cream. > Ice cream? There's the problem - you should have been eating your nails instead!

> {quote:title=TopBilled wrote:}{quote} > > Also, I don't know how to say the last name for *Pedro Armendariz.* Is it Ar-men-dar-iz or Ar-mend-a-riz. > Neither. It is Ar-main-da-reez. I believe the accent is on the last syllable. Perhaps Arturo will see this, and correct me, if I am wrong.

> {quote:title=Mr_Blandings wrote:}{quote} > > Whether or not an actor or actress is overrated or underrated, on the other hand, is completely a matter of opinion. That's because there are no hard "facts" concerning performers, as awards won and lists made are all governed by opinion, pure and simple. > > So, if a person loved Katharine Hepburn and thought she was the "bee's knees", then all the accolades she's received would seem rightly deserved to them and they wouldn't even be aware that she was considered "overrated." The reverse is true for those we consider underrated. We love 'em and think they're great and so perhaps can't understand why they haven't gotten the level of recognition we feel they deserve. > This is an important point, which I have made in several previous posts, but deserves your reiteration. This is all totally subjective, a matter of personal opinion. Although I am certainly not shy about proffering my opinion, I do not expect others to bow to it. Fxreyman, I quite agree, the quality of actors should be judged solely on their performances, not on their private lives. I'm afraid that you'll just have to put me down as one who agrees with the Dorothy Parker remark quoted earlier, "Her performance ran the gamut of emotions, from A to B." But, I do not begrudge you, and probably the majority of film fans, from enjoying her work.

I wish Encore Westerns would show *The Appaloosa* letterboxed. They show the P&S version pretty regularly.

I thought this version was great, and you found it terribly disappointing. I'd love to see the version you saw, but if it is that much better than this version, it would probably knock me unconscious! So, do I understand correctly - you confirm that it was both played too fast, and had missing scenes? If so, then certainly the version you saw had a different score. Sadly, it doesn't seem to be on DVD.

Yeah, and she didn't have an orange hourglass on her abdomen, either...

My Variety style description of this film is "double big batch of triple big bunnies go bye-bye in a barbeque."

The Japanese film *Cure* is pretty high on my list: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0123948/

> {quote:title=movieman1957 wrote:}{quote}My take on "roast beast" is anything you can't get in the grocery store. As far as cooking it goes it would probably be slowly and in the yard. Of course if you cut it up and bring it in than follow like it was a steak. Reminds me of a story a close friend told years ago, of showing up a little late to his family's Christmas dinner at Grandma's, out in the farm country of central Michigan. Everyone was just sitting down to dinner, when he walked in. He asked, "Grandma, what's for dinner?" She replied "moose and squirrel." He said. "Oh, Rocky and Bullwinkle!" None of the little kids would eat dinner, after he said that.

The Bonzos were indeed quite funny, but I'd say that Frank Zappa was easily a match for them, if not more. Of course Zappa's humor/satire had a harder bite, much of the time.

From Merriam-Webster: >Definition of CONCENTRATION CAMP >: a camp where persons (as prisoners of war, political prisoners, or refugees) are detained or confined. I think it is accurate to call Manzanar a "concentration camp." There is a fair amount of controversy about it, with proponents on both sides. Wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manzanar#Terminology

Bolesroor, I am not offended. I think we may be talking past each other. Perhaps I misread your post, at least in part. My original disagreement was with Moviemadness, who seemed to me to be saying that Kate couldn't be overrated, because she was so highly rated. My simple thesis is that to be overrated, someone must be highly rated in the first place. Bolesroor wrote: >My thesis statement was simple- and I stand by it. Katharine Hepburn is- unarguably- one of the most lauded, respected actresses in Hollywood history... >...That would be the definition of being HIGHLY RATED. >It is my opinion that she is OVER-RATED: unworthy of all of the praise- formal and critical- that has been laid at her feet over the past century. So, you may not have understood my "gibberish," but we are really making the same argument, and coming to the same conclusion, or as we have both acknowledged, opinion.

> {quote:title=hamradio wrote:}{quote}Saying this is the saddest movie ever made got me interested, I'll record and watch it later Sunday night. I thought "Old Yeller", "The Champ" and "Hachi" were the saddest movies ever made. > If it's sadder than *Old Yeller* and *A Dog of Flanders*, I don't want to see it. I probably wouldn't survive...

> {quote:title=TomJH wrote:}{quote} > > It seems to me that these auteur critics are decidedly inclined towards an elitism, even among the films of their favourites. For example, how many admirers of John Ford ever refer to The Hurricane or, even for that matter, The Grapes of Wrath, compared to almost any of his westerns. Is Rio Grande or She Wore a Yellow Ribbon really that much more worthy of discussion than the other two films by Ford elitists? > I like Ford, but I can't call myself a die-hard Ford fanatic. However. I consider *The Hurricane* and *The Grapes of Wrath* to be two of his greatest films, easily as good as *Rio Grande*, and way better than *She Wore a Yellow Ribbon*. I still remember seeing *The Hurricane* for the first time, in the early 70s, and being stunned at how good a film it was, and for its powerful indictment of racism. I've seen it several times since, and still give it high marks.

> {quote:title=RayFaiola wrote:}{quote}Grampy's tree in the Max Fleischer Color Classic CHRISTMAS COMES BUT ONCE A YEAR. He makes it from umbrellas shoved into each other and sticks it on a victrola turntable. Then the shot changes and it's a three-dimensional tree. > That's a great one, alright, as is Somewhere in Dreamland. The Fleischer Christmas toon I'd really like to see, but haven't in decades is the 1948 Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer.

I would say VERY "good pumpernickel."

I've seen a lot of Japanese films over the years, and I found this to be a truly stunning film. I love experimental avant-garde film, and this is an excellent one. It has touches that I would associate with Maya Deren, Kenneth Anger, and even the Austrian modern a-g filmmakers Gustav Deutsch and Peter Tscherkassky. But of course, they didn't make films until long after this film was made. I'm going to have to watch it a couple of more times! As to the score - it was clearly a modern score, very out-front, and composed to emphasize what we see on the screen. I liked it, but I can understand how some would find it intrusive, and would prefer something more in the background. Running time - I'm getting two different stories, both on line, and from posters here, as to the discrepancies. Obviously, it was shot at 18fps, that was the standard then. A 78m 18fps film would be 58.5m, projected at 24fps. That would obviously account for the difference in running times. If that is so, I'd really like to see the 2007 reconstruction, assuming that is at the correct speed. But, several sources say that about one third of the original film is missing. That would also account for the difference in running times. If 1/3 is missing, *and* it is being shown at the wrong speed, then the original TRT would be about 104m. I can't find any reference claiming it was that long. So, I don't know if there is anything definitive about the running time.

> {quote:title=Bolesroor wrote:}{quote}Jesus H! Arguing is fun, until it becomes absurd. > > Valentine, your responses are bordering on nonsense. Gibberish. Monkey-jabber. Katharine Hepburn is the most Over-Rated Star in Hollywood History *because* she is given MORE credit, accolades, compliments, than she possibly deserves. Was that simple enough for you? I phrased it so nice you can read it twice... > You're the one talking gibberish. I didn't say she was highly overrated "because" of her accolades, rather that she couldn't be highly overrated unless she had received such accolades. Being highly rated doesn't prove her highly overrated. But, simple logic shows that she *couldn't* highly overrated, unless she was highly rated. > This has nothing to do with a poll, or awards, or whether she was "one of us, them, they, those or their's..." She is a crusty, one-note nuisance and inexplicably lauded by one and all- incorrectly- as one of the best actresses/stars in the history of the industry. She is neither. > > I won't argue with those who like her- your personal opinions are your own and always valid- but I stand by the thesis statement of this thread. Even if you think she is Great- she is still over-rated. That is all. Okay, you so much as state that *you* think she was/is highly overrated. So, please explain to me - how could she be highly overrated, if no one rated her highly?

> {quote:title=cinemafan wrote:}{quote}ValX - your thread needs to be updated! Yup. So far, I've found three new ones. maybe I'll add them later.

I don't consider being called a "cartoonist" a slander, but Richie probably does. He shouldn't be mouthing off about animation, because I doubt he knows much about it. I still have respect for him. But, as I implied in my previous post, I have definitely disagreed with him on several occasions.

> {quote:title=MovieMadness wrote:}{quote}She can't be the most over-rated because a poll of her peers places her as the number one legend. If that poll had shown her 50th then yes you could claim she was over-rated as you are, but like my Ali analogy there is nothing there to prove otherwise.. Look, you are assuming that since she was rated #1 by a poll of her peers, she IS the best, and therefore she can't be overrated. I don't accept that assumption. But, I do accept that it is reasonable for you to make and accept that assumption. Of course I cannot prove she wasn't the best, because that is a totally subjective opinion. But, so is the opinion of her peers that she was the best. You, and they, have one opinion, and I, and some others have another. But, I repeat, there is no right and wrong in this situation. I don't mean that I'm right, and you are wrong. All such evaluations are subjective. But, I repeat, in order to be a candidate for being highly overrated, one MUST be highly rated. The salient word is "highly." If you said an actor was mediocre, it would make little sense for me to say you had "highly" overrated them, just because I thought they were less than mediocre. Well, okay, it could be said as an exaggeration, in jest. As to Ali, I repeat, fights are won, or lost, based on objective criteria. Maybe in 20, or 100 years, there will be another fighter who seems as good, but he and Ali won't be able to fight. So, at that point, to decide which is better, there will be opinions, which will be debatable. But if sensible, will still be based on objective criteria. Edited by: ValentineXavier on Dec 14, 2011 3:43 AM Edited by: ValentineXavier on Dec 14, 2011 3:52 AM

> {quote:title=VP19 wrote:}{quote} > You are right...oopsie. Maybe I should have used film noir as an example. Well, actually, the only film I really like her in is a film noir called *Undercurrent*, but I believe it's her only noir.

> {quote:title=Swithin wrote:}{quote}Val, I know it's earlier where you sit, but it's after midnight here in NYC, and your lesson in logic is giving me a headache! :| I'm in the Eastern Time Zone too. But, my normal work shift is 7pm - 5am. And, right now, at the end of term, the library is open 24 hours. So, I'm working crazy shifts - 7pm to 8am - 13 hours. But, when I get off this am, I don't work again until Saturday. But, in terms of my work schedule, right now it's only early afternoon to me. As to my logic, I'll make it really simple. Someone can't be considered "overrated" by anyone, if everyone thinks they're lousy. A substantial number of people, I would say at least a simple majority, have to rate someone rather highly, for anyone to consider them "overrated." Obviously, being highly rated doesn't prove someone is overrated. And, if someone is highly rated by experts in the field, one can certainly consider that to be evidence that those who consider the person "overrated" are wrong. But, as we are really dealing in subjective opinion here, I don't think right and wrong really apply.

No offense to you, or Mr. Jeck, but Donald Richie is considered by many to be the preeminent expert on Japanese film. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Richie But, I will admit that I have found Richie wanting on a few occasions. So, if I knew more of Michael, I might agree that he is better. Anyway, I'm looking forward to this very much. I've never seen it. I'm hoping, well, almost assuming, that it will be the 78m 2007 restoration, not the 59m version.

> {quote:title=MovieMadness wrote:}{quote}Ali is the greatest boxer of all time but this proves he is the most over-rated. > > Are you serious? Uh huh. > So who is better? > > Don't know, all I know is he is the most over-rated. > > Wow, you think so? > Uh huh. > A very poor analogy. Ali won matches, which is pretty much objective. How good, or how great, an actress is, is totally subjective. About the only objective measure you can make of actors is their box office. Look at it this way - if Hepburn had come in 100th, or even 50th, in that ranking, it would be hard to say she was overrated. If one believes she was over-rated, and I do, coming in first is proof of how overrated she is. I do want to make it clear - I don't hate her, as a person, or hold any of her private life against her. I don't want to even attempt to persuade those who love her and enjoy her work that they shouldn't. But, my personal feelings are that I find her style/persona to be extremely annoying, and I find her acting to be rather one dimensional. So, to me, when many find her to be a great actress, I consider her to be overrated. If only a few found her to be a great actress, well, on the whole, I wouldn't find her overrated. It would be totally illogical to find her overrated if a lot of people didn't think she was #1, or at least close.