Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Jlewis

Members
  • Content Count

    2,335
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Jlewis

  1. The only reason why I remembered that the story does not take place in Georgia even though it was filmed there was on account of that sly critical comment about the state spoken by a major character on screen. However it is an easy scene to forget and, therefore, you are never sure exactly where this whole story takes place, except "somewhere" in The South. Yet I feel like the critical remark is a bit like biting the hand that feeds you, since the Georgia residents were agreeable to supply the filming locations. As to why it wasn't filmed in Alabama instead, well... that is Hollywood for you.
  2. Although the location of the primary buildings used for filming is in rural Georgia, not far from Atlanta, the movie (not the book apparently) is pretty hazy about its own setting. In one brief scene, Grady (Gary Basaraba) makes a derogatory comment about police investigators coming from Georgia, a next-door state. This rules Georgia out, but makes Alabama, Tennessee, Florida and both Carolinas all candidates since they all touch Georgia. Perhaps there was some attempt not to upset modern day citizens of each state of their not-so-racially-accepting history? Granted, we see the modern day sett
  3. Are these buddy movies really movies about LGBT characters? Or are they mostly straight but made to be read in other ways by different audiences? One can debate this, but this is my take. This movie reminded me a lot of EASY RIDER with Dennis Hopper and Peter Fonda in that its makers took the "easy" way out by answering that question right away. Early on, we get the two "ladies of the evening" entertaining our fellows, although curiously Thunderbolt doesn't seem as enthusiastic about the one he is presented with as Lightfoot is with his. None-the-less it is implied that, like the so
  4. It is hinted that the robot itself kills Katharine Ross' character, but I do think that the concept of the story is better than the execution. It is a parody after all, not to be taken as seriously as the way it was ultimately presented in mystery-thriller form. The leader of the men's group owns a chemical medical company, which suggests a more believable plot i.e. drugs causing robotic behavior and the husbands spiking their wives' food. We also have the lady psychiatrist offering pills to calm our heroine down as if she may be in on the set-up. You think initially that this is the directi
  5. Some of these YouTube videos I stumble upon are only indirectly connected to these reviews, but they do provide fascinating topics for commentary such as... what makes a convincing love story on screen and which performers do it best, regardless of whether or not there's any chemistry once the cameras stop rolling. This particular one makes no mention of ROMEO & JULIET '68 (and I wish it had, since it does include two other sixties titles in the mix), but it does cover R&J '96 as well as WEST SIDE STORY and TITANIC. These are all observations of an acting coach. A couple comments
  6. Regarding the "plot holes". Funny thing... I was never bothered about the star crossed lovers not meeting each other beforehand since there can be all kinds of reasons, but more about the whole love at first sight business and the ridiculous faking of Juliet's death. Granted, I am sure such outlandish stunts were done in historical times. Since medieval societies pretty much kept the teenage girls hostage until they were married off, it is easy to guess why Juliet did not get out much before her 16th birthday. I think R&J '68 did a good job showing just how smothered she was by her family,
  7. Not to jump too far ahead, but I have always enjoyed it in my three or so viewings over the decades. It has its story-line flaws (for example, I find it strange that the kids aren't as observant of "something strange going on" as Mommy is), but it is such a fun relic of seventies cinema. Today the whole happy housewife premise may seem quaint since so much has changed in the world, especially now that we have a female vice president, but it reminds me a lot (as I will mention in my own comments) of INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS. Both share a phobia about the dangers of conformity: people in a
  8. It appears that UCLA may have a copy in their archives but I don't know what the fees are to obtaining a digital transfer. https://www.worldcat.org/title/state-trooper/oclc/423531825&referer=brief_results https://www.cinema.ucla.edu/directory
  9. Two little tidbits... Love the publicity shot of Buddy Hackett in his Nehru jacket. That is one of those short-lived fashion statements that is so easily dated to a specific year since hardly anybody was sporting them before and after. For the earlier in '68 opening of ROMEO & JULIET (which we may tackle again despite you already reviewing it earlier), it appeared as if attending celebrity Richard Chamberlain couldn't decide whether he wanted to wear one of those or one of the 19th century frilly shirt and vest combos that another Richard, Richard Harris, was making fashionable about
  10. It is difficult to profile just one True-Life Adventure without commenting on multiple others. I really love that series, flaws included. This is a nice video talk fest on the series (and the "People & Places" travelogues) that was uploaded on YouTube 11 months ago but dated 2016. No clue how long these videos will stay uploaded due to copyright reasons and so forth. However they are so old and vintage that I doubt the Disney corporation fusses much over them. After all, they promote these old movies on Disney Plus and other money making outlets. Although the Milot
  11. This is not as good as having the View-Master reel set itself but, if you have glasses with a magenta/red lens covering your left eye and a green lens covering your right, you can get the full 3-D effect. It may also work if you have that special virtual reality lens many use with their iPhones to see 3-D material. The earlier TruVue 3-D renditions of several characters, including Bambi at the 4:30 mark.
  12. Jlewis

    Gays on the Tube

    Which reminds me of their suburban neighbors, the Gravitzes. There wasn't much chemistry between George Tobias' Abner and the two Gladys actresses Alice Pearce and Sandra Gould so it was sometimes hard to believe they were a married couple. In addition, George remained a bachelor all of his off screen life and that often has raised speculations, although he was at least buddy buddy with actress Milicent Patrick for decades. Abner was the one who was never concerned about what was going on in the Stephens household, suggesting that he had already seen it all and... maybe... even done in it all.
  13. Jlewis

    Gays on the Tube

    A lot of fun TV shows are covered by Matt Baume from an LGBT perspective. My only complaint about his take on BEWITCHED is that he uses colorized, rather than original black & white, excerpts from the earliest episode profiled. Running from 1964 through 1972, the series switched to filmed color in '66 when all three major networks (ABC being BEWITCHED's) offered the first all "in living color" Prime-Time line-up. That was the same year that GILLIGAN'S ISLAND, LOST IN SPACE, I DREAM OF JEANNIE, THE FUGITIVE and several others made the switch as well. They did air the B&W episodes f
  14. "In this remake of the well-known German original, the lead character is played by David Wayne and his name is changed to the more American-sounding Martin W. Meaning that our thirteenth letter could also signify his first initial." It suddenly dawned on me that a W can become an M when you flip it over.
  15. Eventually I got around to seeing the '26 version and I do consider it a better production in a number of areas. Not to pooh-pooh Colleen Moore, but Gish clearly is more motivated in her role here and this can be credited, in part, to the great Swedish directorial import, Victor Sjöström, now billed as Seastrom, at the helm. Although Hendrik Sartov is credited for cinematography and mighty Metro's Cedric Gibbons dominates the set direction (along with Sidney Ullman), this is essentially Seastrom's film in both look and style. However I should add that the well written title cards, with their r
  16. Good that you clarified that Eleanor was Gil's sister-in-law instead of his sister. I wasn't sure when watching it. Just knew she was "aunt" to the girls.
  17. As always, there is so much to learn about these old shows and their casts and you provided great material here. Interesting situation with Eric Fleming and Clint Eastwood. I do wonder... just wonder since I think about such things... because Eric died so suddenly in 1966, if he did see just how successful his co star was becoming. My guess is that they were pretty much on equal footing at that particular moment in time, career wise. Hard to tell. Those spaghetti westerns were more cult like in their following than they were international blockbusters. In fact, I think the third one did not m
  18. There are a few resemblances. Both are involved in advertising to some degree. Work in the Big Apple and live in the suburbs. Both have secrets in their past that they don't reveal to their wives... namely other wives. Both are war veterans witnessing fellow soldiers getting killed, although Don served in Korea. Tom doesn't change his name and identity though. I think Betty Draper has even more in common with Betsy despite different hair color, both frustrated as housewives and being quite b*tchy.
  19. A great many, but sadly not all, of the Vitaphone shorties have made the DVD cut, thanks to the Warner Archive. A copy may exit somewhere, so it is good that you mentioned it for all eyes to see. Could not find it in UCLA's archive: https://www.cinema.ucla.edu/search/node Vitaphone Project does a lot of research, but their site may be a little old: http://www.picking.com/vitaphone.html Better yet, comment on it on the Vitaphone Project Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/groups/vitaphoneproject/
  20. The British Film Institute has an interesting YouTube video titled After Wolfenden: LGBTIQ+ lives on UK screens that includes your previously mentioned The L-Shaped Room and various TV shows from the late fifties through seventies, if not this specific one. The Play For Today series is fleetingly referenced, however. It could be linked here, but it is easy to find online. Unfortunately, YouTube has that ridiculous age restriction warning on it... which makes absolutely no sense at all since there are no clips of nudity (OK... there is one dimly lit bare behind exposed... big deal) but I think
  21. Although the structure in its editing was occasionally confusing, if also quite innovative and cinematic-ally fascinating as well, there was a wonderful way of "dating" each scene despite it not being chronological. For example, popular music of the US and UK charts is used to good effect: Joan Weber's "Let Me Go Lover!" was a mammoth hit in late 1954, matching scenes when Keith and Viv became a couple. Canadian crooner Paul Anka's "Diana" was also covered during the early years of their marriage with children in 1957. I guess their first car after the big win was, in fact, a 1962 Chevrolet I
  22. I enjoyed this one even though it may require a second viewing later due to the fast dialogue, strong Brit accents and, more importantly, unorthodox story telling. Since it is all done with flashbacks and “flashforwards” (similar to the editing style of both CITIZEN KANE and ABC's landmark TV series LOST), it is a bit confusing to follow. I did like how the scene of Keith's death is shown simultaneous with that moment of jubilation a few years earlier when he discovers they hit it big in the sports lottery jackpot... the greatest high and low in life. Good that you mentioned Viv Nicholson
  23. I have to bring up another remake to compare and contrast here: Peter Jackson's KING KONG. Yes, I know... how dare me! While it is true that it took more liberties with the original source than this film did, it too was built along similar intentions and with Universal again backing it. KING KONG 2005 was lucky in that there was already a "sacrificial lamb" previous: KING KONG 1976 also followed the same story as the 1933 original but substituted the Twin Towers for the Empire State. It was booed by the critics although it did very well at the box office at the time. Therefore, Jackson kn
  24. Pulling this over from the thread on Warner Brothers shorties. It is a fun one to watch, a great parody of a classic feature. The one girl in the picnic scene that I noticed does look like a lot like Bette Davis. Now... if it actually was her, what was she doing in New York making a short when the studio had her busy making features in Burbank/Hollywood? One possibility is that the film incorporates a stock shot lifted from an earlier Bette Davis feature, since it was not uncommon for short films to borrow clips from other features and shorts bankrolled by the same studio to economize.
  25. Not sure if I was looking at the right girl in the clips that I saw, but there are so many familiar faces in many old shorts that anything is possible. This one was filmed in New York instead of California, but that is where many soon-to-be stars worked. As mentioned in the thread for A Shortie Checklist: BFA and Phoenix Films, Bernard Wilets was featuring quite a number of familiar TV and movie performers in his shorts of the 1970s and agreeing to the Screen Actors' Guild to not using screen credits, a rather curious situation at that time. Different than the '30s, of course, but with a simil
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...