Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

jamesjazzguitar

Members
  • Content Count

    26,686
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    46

Everything posted by jamesjazzguitar

  1. Thanks for this explanation since I found it hard to believe TCM would show actual "TV movies". Since I didn't know, I didn't wish to get into here since I would have to cry UNCLE due to lack of knowledge.
  2. Some folks may have watched only the first 15 minutes (where it appears this will be a feminist story). But the ending,,,, gag me. Still Ruth Chatterton is worth watching.
  3. Hey, they must have been on the set while Spielberg was filming so they do know what they are talking about. While they claim zero interest, we know otherwise (ha ha).
  4. Even if she was, I say, lets have her on yet again. She had such youthfulness; E.g. When I saw her in the Martin \ Lewis My Friend Irma, I assumed she was in her mid-twenties, but then I saw her in early 30s films, and, well, knew she wasn't 15 in those (born 1916 so 33 in My Friend Irma). While she mostly did comedies, she was also in some first rate dramas, making for a nice day of programming. My line-up would be: The Great Garrick - James Wales directed romantic comedy with Brian Aherne and Olivia DeHavilland. The Invisible Menace - Mystery film with Boris Karloff Fools for Scandal - Carole Lombard comedy The Private Affairs of Bel Ami - George Sanders My Friend Irma and My Friend Irma Goes West Mary Me Again, - Bob Cummings
  5. I'm reading a book about John Huston, Art and Courage and based on what Huston says about the filming and how Mitchum was treated, I find that hard to believe. Huston appeared to view the film as one of his middle-of-the-pack films. I would really like to know what Mitchum said to Osborne, since when it comes to topics like this his more likely response would be "I don't care".
  6. It was a joke. ALL my communication with Nip are a joke. (the reasons should be obvious).
  7. I agree. Very unique. But it appears they weren't always appreciated: "On some occasions film and television producers did have Foster wear contact lenses to lessen what they viewed as the distractive effects of her eyes during screen performances".
  8. I didn't see it because after reading about it, I felt there was no need to see it.
  9. Nice to see that Bogie56 and you agree on something. You should be smiling. I just hope you're not on November 5th!
  10. It does make a difference because, sadly, there are thousands of clueless folks like you, that also think their 'one vote' doesn't count in the battleground states (some where Trump won in 2020 by only a few thousand votes). If you were the only clueless one it wouldn't matter but again, you're not. Instead your just one clueless fish in this school of cluelessness.
  11. Like Joe, I'm really enjoy Cry of the City, and as you note, while nothing very original, it was well done (on all levels; direction, acting, photography, score). I really don't see much of the Manhattan Melodrama aspect since the detective wasn't a big-wig, and they were never in love with the same gal. There is the Dead-End (Bogie, McCrea), connection but mom, doesn't reject her bad-boy until the end so. For me the films takes various themes from prior films and weaves them into a story that, while seen before, keep me interested into what was clearly a forgone conclusion.
  12. The Psycho remake is the only 'true' "remake" I know of since it was done to be as close to the original as possible. So in this specific case that film should have never been made (and I was going to cite that film in my reply because it is always mentioned when one criticizes "remakes", and I find that point irrelevant since it is the exception to my point about adaptations, which again I do NOT define as "remakes"). Anyhow, I see we are still have a vastly different perspective on this topic since you posted this: "I have a feeling that the film will be hurt by the fact it will undoubtedly be done in color,,,,," You still wish to compare a new adaptation to a prior one when my perspective, as stated above was: I recommend one compare each (film) to the source material (instead of comparing films). Note that my perspective comes from that of a jazz musician, where the entire concept of 'remake' doesn't exist. E.g. Cole Porter has written a song (original source material). A group of musicians record the song. Another group does, etc... Just because someone recorded that song FIRST, doesn't make subsequent versions "remakes", just new \ additional adaptations, where each should be judged as stand-alone works of art.
  13. You're in for a treat then. I've seen Juke Girl and Ann is very good in it and gets lead billing over Ronald Reagan (who is fine but someone like John Garfield, who WB had under contract, would have added more juice). As one can see from the promo poster WB didn't really know how to market such a film, where the male stars (expected in the case of Davis), wasn't 'sold' as the main attraction. Sure, she's easy to meet... but try and forget her, and She's a good girl.... For guys to let alone. Those contradict each other! (ha ha).
  14. Bogdanovich was mentored by Orson Welles. Maybe he knows the answer to if Flynn was in The Lady from Shanghai (ha ha). I'm reading the book about John Huston - Art and Courage, and he does mention how close Flynn and Welles (sharing much in common, like boats, drink and drugs during the making of Flynn's last film The Roots of Heaven). So yea, I can see Welles having Flynn is a background shot in that film.
  15. It is a great example of what I was trying to communicate; how enforcement of the "code" impacted the context of a film related to the original source material (a play in this case). And while the 'code' was still being enforced in 1962, topics like homosexuality could be explored more openly in the 60s. E.g. Victim (1961) breaking new ground. I didn't use that as an example of a 'better' film; I like both adaptations and don't feel one is 'better' than the other (but I favor the 1936 one more). (and I do like the casting in These Three more because of Bonita Granville as well as the three stars). In the 1962 version only Shirley MacLanie and studio-era veteran Fay Bainter shine IMO. (Miriam Hopkins is fine in both).
  16. Why assume the extreme? An adaptation not restricted by the Production Code can be more realistic and true to the source material. (E.g. These Three - The Children's Hour ).
  17. I find the fact that a majority of GOP voters in this state would vote for such a politician even more outrageous!!!!
  18. Nothing new. The Farrow family complained to the publisher and they canceled the deal. Woody has a new publisher so the book should be out soon.
  19. I disagree and I'm surprised by such a comment coming from you given your knowledge and respect of cinema from all eras. Typically there is no such concept as a 'remake' of a film but instead another adaptation of the original source material - in this case the 1953 novel by Davis Grubb. Therefore instead of comparing one film adaptation to the next I recommend one compare each to the source material. E.g. how faithful is the film to the book? How are the characters represented by the actors? Etc... Note that the 1941 Huston version of The Maltese Falcon is often referred to as one of the most successful "remakes". The main reason why to me is that it is faithful to the novel in ways the other two prior adaptations were not. The Night of the Hunter is a solid novel. Why shouldn't a new generation take a stab at bringing this to life via the film media.
  20. In case you didn't get the connection to Wild Bill:
  21. Yea, similar things were said about Ransom "Ranse" Stoddard.
  22. Correct. The "workers" she was talking about where these children's parents. Wow, for once you show a degree of understanding and compassion towards a "progressive" politician. Sadly one can't expect that from MM.
  23. Related to making an actor look bigger, my wife and I were watching The Racket (1951) with Robert Mitchum and Robert Ryan. The first scenes only featured Ryan. She commented on how big and tall he was. I said that while he was 6-4, the scene where he goes into the office of the mob's right-hand-man sitting at his desk looks like Ryan is standing on a platform. He looked way too tall. I told her this was done to increase his presence and make him more physically threatening (which was key to the plot). She didn't believe me. Well Mitchum comes into the film and there is a scene with both of them, standing very close together, as well as others (where in those earlier scenes only with Ryan he looked at least a foot taller than anyone else). Mitchum, who was 6-1 and Ryan looked about the same height, and the background guys looked only slightly shorter than the both of them. She said "yea, you were right!". Youtube that initial office scene. Ryan looks somewhat comical, like one of those clowns that are all stretched out!
© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
×
×
  • Create New...