MyFavoriteFilms
-
Posts
3,069 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by MyFavoriteFilms
-
-
> What it is is that I find it anachronistically annoying when today's terms are applied to describe movies from Hollywood's classic period, like "chick flick" or "high concept". In the case of the former term, it seems a little disrespectful to label ZG as such.
Any film featuring a female juvenile lead was definitely a chick flick. We can use some of today's terms to better categorize trends in the motion picture industry regardless of what era we're discussing.
-
I agree...I don't like PLEASANTVILLE, it seems contrived and without heart. And I am not a fan of Reese W. She always comes across cold to me.
I think you're right about it fostering stereotypes about the past.
-
> Personally I prefer when a Director puts a stamp on their work.
See, I don't. And the reason I don't is because I like to be surprised. I like MR. & MRS. SMITH because it is a pleasant surprise to find Hitchcock doing a comedy. And in terms of acting, I like Doris Day's dramatic films (JULIE, THE WINNING TEAM, STORM WARNING & THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH) because she surprises me in those films. It's not as predictable as her in a sugary musical.
-
But thematically, all of Wilder's films are very similar (they are usually about unbridled passion or unrestrained corruption).
Because Wise worked with so many writers, he had a greater variety of source material to set his films apart. Sometimes when you watch two Wise films back to back, you can hardly tell they are by the same director. When you watch a Billy Wilder film, you know. Just like Hitchcock...you always know the director of those films even if you happen to come in half way and it's something you've never seen before.
Wise seems to have served the story more than his own ego. The auteur theory faces a serious challenge when it comes to Wise and Arzner.
-
I love this post, hamradio. And what a great picture of the deadly bees.
In fact, I think a remake would be even more spectacular, because like you stated, the bees are more vicious and could maybe outrun the human targets. It would be more of a horror picture. And think of how they could use the technology now in ways they weren't able to in 1978.
-
The Don Knotts slate should've been served up on a Saturday with Ben introducing them. More kids would've watched.
I am sure that a lot of adults who normally look to TCM in primetime for Bette Davis or Cary Grant are going to watch something else tonight.
Don Knotts is not a big movie star. He's a TV star who found some success as a lead in B-pictures, trading on a comic persona he developed on the small screen.
-
What a lovely anecdote.
Another film of hers I like is ESCAPADE IN JAPAN. It aired a few months ago on TCM.
-
I disagree with Frankenheimer. I think it's a prophetic film. If more people had taken the message to heart that the country was always vulnerable to attack, then perhaps homeland security would've been a forethought not an afterthought.
I love it when films predict the future and can serve as warnings to be heeded or ignored. It takes the power of the cinema to another level.
-
Osborne is not the programmer but he clearly has influence and helps get certain titles. I think the original poster was feeling frustration and shifting blame.
They really did not do a good job in selecting and scheduling the Knotts entries. They lead off with a big title (GHOST AND MR. CHICKEN) but the rest of it is really substandard and does not thoroughly do him or his fans justice. We are seeing a pattern of the programmers developing a whole night around one worthwhile title. The other offerings are negligible.
-
LOL...that's great.
I'm surprised Universal has not remade THE SWARM. With a more diverse cast and the usual camp, I think the film could really sell tickets today.
The poster you added with your comment mentions super producer Irwin Allen. He was responsible for many of these kinds of films in the 70s. In the industry, he was referred to as the 'master of disaster.'
-
I agree about SHADOW OF A DOUBT and TCM should've aired it. They should do a SUTS tribute for her next August, so we can see all these great roles of hers. ENCHANTMENT is available at Netflix.
-
Often, billing and screen time match. If a studio is going to shell out the big bucks to get Clark Gable to do a picture, they are going to work him hard and make him carry the picture with as much screen time as possible.
-
Okay, Turo, you have hammered home the point about 'box office duty.' Thanks for introducing that into the discussion. You're right...that is what it is happening with the casting of some of these projects.
But your comment about ZIEGFELD GIRL not being a chick flick is something I will take exception with, most definitely. Women watch that film because they want to see what Judy, Lana and Hedy do...they do not watch it for Jimmy Stewart (he is no Clark Gable). The demographic that this film appeals to most is women, and for them, it's one of their 'chick flicks.' A chick flick can have elements of drama.
-
Well, Dreyfus' participation probably helped get the film made. If it was a cast of unknowns or people who lack box office clout, then it wouldn't get greenlighted...or else, it would have a very tiny budget.
-
I think they did a poor job with that, too. Almost all his movies get two stars on the cable guide, including GHOST AND MR. CHICKEN.
The problem I have with Don Knotts is that he lacks range...he never plays a father in any of his roles, film or television. What he does, in terms of his shtick is very good, but it's overplayed and wears thin in a full-length motion picture.
As for what they have scheduled, yes one of those films is an Andy Griffith picture. If they were intent on airing that one (again), then it should've been first. But the way they have it is they show him in some of his 'big' movies, then they go to that one with him in a lesser role, then it's back to him in a 70s Disney flick. The order they schedule these makes no sense.
Finally, we do know that people are going to jump on you for bashing Robert Osborne. LOL
-
Yes, Robert Wise is the Hollywood jack-of-all-trades. Dorothy Arzner was that way, too. She directed films that usually focused on women but were in a variety of genres (including a WWII spy thriller, her last). Like Bob Wise, she also began as an editor. I think it's the ability to cut and shape a story that made them such great directors. And because they had edited films of so many genres, it was natural for them to direct films of many genres, too.
-
I forgot to mention ARMAGEDDON and THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW. Recent ones that have signaled a revival of the genre.
-
I think we can add Ben Kingsley's portrayal of Mahatma Gandhi to this thread. He's brilliant in GANDHI and it would be nearly impossible to find anyone else half as good.
-
Another flaw with CHRISTY is that the pacing is off. It stars off a bit slow in the office, then it kicks into high gear when she meets MacMurray, then it races along for about twenty or thirty minutes, then slows down again. It never regains its momentum after that. The second half of the film is almost like a different movie, and indeed, the setting has changed again (from Los Angeles to La Jolla). It's an uneven film, but it has a lot of potential. It was executed poorly.
-
SOD also happens to be the acronym for Soap Opera Digest. LOL
-
Obscure means a film has been buried (usually in a vault) for a long time, so long that people forget about it.
There was a thread I created about Fox classics still in the vault. There are hundreds of them that have not been released commercially and do not get aired on FMC or other cable venues. There may be legal issues with some of them, but probably a tiny fraction. I think it's sad that so many films get lost in time like this...all those artists having put so much work into those products and relatives and film buffs who would love to see them. They aren't all going to be great, but they are all part of our history and should no longer be obscured from the viewing public.
-
Poor guy! LOL
-
I'd be curious to see how much time lapses between the two acts. After the intermission, does it pick up the very next day or maybe it's just a few short hours later. If some of the other background guests are still present in the second story, it can't be too much later...unless they live there year-round.
-
Interesting how Warners used George Brent a lot with both ladies, Chatterton and Davis. And they also used him in many pictures with Kay Francis.
When billing doesn't match screen time
in General Discussions
Posted
Right...you are broadening the definition. I did not say only films with female juvenile leads were chick flicks, but all of the ones that star a young Judy Garland, Jane Powell and Debbie Reynolds are told from (and for) the female perspective. Thus, it follows that many of the people who went to see those films were female and probably dragged their boyfriends along. I am sure that if a young guy had the chance to choose between THEY WERE EXPENDABLE and A DATE WITH JUDY, he would pick the John Wayne film. So even back in those days they had chick flicks and buddy action flicks.
The Vincent Sherman-directed melodramas that were done with Bette Davis, Joan Crawford, Ann Sheridan and Virginia Mayo were chick flicks that appealed more to older women. Douglas Sirk and Universal cashed in on this audience in the 50s.