TopBilled
-
Posts
154,044 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
376
Posts posted by TopBilled
-
-
>I hope TCM can obtain more Fox films for us to enjoy.
I think most people hope for that. However, I do not think that is the point. The point is that people want a slightly better presentation of the Fox film collection from the 30s. I do not think it is a criticism of TCM in this case, but in the way the film has been preserved or restored.
-
According to wiki, this film holds the record for time between sequels (thirty years) while featuring the original stars:
-
Biggest gaps between an original film and its sequel...?
-
I would like to see THE GIRL IN THE KREMLIN.
-
>So for those people complaining about the quality of this film-hey be happy we still have it available to watch.
Sorry, that doesn't work for me. It's like saying to people be glad that you can get a hand with four fingers instead of no hand at all. Some people will continue to insist on a hand with five fingers. Imagine that!
Edited by: TopBilled on Feb 9, 2012 8:46 PM
-
*RED RIVER (1948)*
From Agee on October 11, 1948:
When people discuss the real artists in picture-making, they seldom get around to mentioning Howard Hawks. Yet Hawks is one of the most individual and independent directors in the business. Even when he has a vapid chore to do, he gives it character. And when a picture really interests him, he gives it enough character to blast you out of your seat. RED RIVER, which Hawks produced and directed, clearly interested him a lot. It is a rattling good outdoor adventure movie.
It is a yarn about the first cattle drive over the Chisholm trail, from deep Texas into Abiline, Kansas, soon after the Civil War. It is also the story of the fierce character duel which develops along the way between the tyrannical boss cattleman (John Wayne) and his foster son (Montgomery Clift). Mr. Clift takes time out for a little romance with a dancing girl (Joanne Dru), but essentially this is a movie about men, and for men.
Hawks obviously likes and understands men, grand enterprise, hardship, courage and magnificent landscape. The greatest satisfaction of this picture is continuous and unobtrusive. It is the constancy with which all outdoors, and all human endurance of it and effort to conquer it, keeps bulging the screen full of honest and beautiful vitality, like a steady wind against a well-trimmed sail.
-
*TROY DONAHUE*
VOICE IN THE MIRROR (1958) with Richard Egan, Julie London & Walter Matthau
A DISTANT TRUMPET (1964) with Suzanne Pleshette & Diane McBain
MY BLOOD RUNS COLD (1965) with Joey Heatherton & Barry Sullivan
COME SPY WITH ME (1967) with Andrea Dromm & Albert Dekker
THOSE FANTASTIC FLYING FOOLS (1967) with Burl Ives
-
I agree that the picture quality is not very good. I love the 1945 version so I am biased. But I was expecting this one to be a bit better.
-
Hackman is stellar in 1970's I NEVER SANG FOR MY FATHER, with Melvyn Douglas.
-
*BRIDE BY MISTAKE (1944)*
From Agee on November 4, 1944:
BRIDE BY MISTAKE is more nearly a comedy of manners. It is about an heiress who wants to be sure she is loved for herself alone. Lines and characters are often almost human. I thought that Laraine Day, whom I have not seen play comedy before, was attractive both in person and performance. I would like to see what Ernst Lubitsch could do for her.
-
*BETTY HUTTON*
THE FLEET'S IN (1942) with Dorothy Lamour, William Holden & Eddie Bracken
LET'S FACE IT (1943) with Bob Hope
HAPPY GO LUCKY (1943) with Mary Martin, Dick Powell, Eddie Bracken & Rudy Vallee
HERE COME THE WAVES (1944) with Bing Crosby & Sonny Tufts
AND THE ANGELS SING (1944) with Dorothy Lamour, Fred MacMurray & Diana Lynn
DUFFY'S TAVERN (1945) with Bing Crosby & Paulette Goddard
CROSS MY HEART (1946) with Sonny Tufts
DREAM GIRL (1948) with MacDonald Carey & Patric Knowles
LET'S DANCE (1950) with Fred Astaire, Roland Young & Ruth Warrick
SOMEBODY LOVES ME (1952) with Ralph Meeker
SPRING REUNION (1957) with Dana Andrews & Jean Hagen
-
Sigrid Gurie seems hit or miss in her film roles. I wonder if I would like VOICES better if the print was all cleaned up. But as you said, the story seems a bit weak and some of the parts are either miscast or executed poorly.
-
>I agree with you here; This is why I wish TCM would change it's name to TSEM; Turner Studio Era Movies.
I like your idea very much. It makes sense.
But I think we are stuck with the term 'classic.'
-
I agree about Warren Oates...he should at least get a SUTS tribute. He's deserving of that much.
-
Probably of the ones I mentioned Redford would be most likely due to his iconic status.
Others could include: Faye Dunaway, Barbra Streisand, Gene Hackman, Steve McQueen, Dustin Hoffman, Jane Fonda, Warren Beatty, Charles Bronson & John Travolta since their careers were all hot in the 1970s.
-
*JIM BANNON AS RED RYDER*
ROLL THUNDER ROLL! (1949) with Little Brown Jug, Emmet Lynn & Marin Sais
THE FIGHTING REDHEAD (1949) with Little Brown Jug, Emmet Lynn & Marin Sais
RIDE, RYDER, RIDE! (1949) with Little Brown Jug, Emmet Lynn & Marin Sais
THE COWBOY AND THE PRIZEFIGHTER (1949) with Little Brown Jug, Emmet Lynn & Marin Sais
-
*BREAK THE NEWS (1945)*
From Agee on March 17, 1945:
BREAK THE NEWS was made in England by Rene Clair with Jack Buchanan and Maurice Chevalier. It isn't at all on the level with those Clair films of which the mere recall can bring me tears of admiration or of a detached sort of pride. But it is full of ease and fun and extravagant but unstrained irony. It is worth watching, because it clearly indicates that, though England is not a good place for Clair to work, it is not, like this country, a hell on earth.
-
I think TCM's programmers should push the boundaries a bit and select a SOTM who was at the height of popularity in the 1970s.
My choices for this:
Men: Burt Reynolds, Ryan O'Neal, Robert Redford or James Caan
Women: Goldie Hawn, Diane Keaton, Candice Bergen or Liza Minnelli
-
I do remember seeing TITANIC (97) twice in theatres because it was held over for so long. I ordinarily do not go see the same film more than once. I also saw DANCES WITH WOLVES three times, because again, it was in theatres a long time.
So I guess we can say I liked both those titles, but I do not have the same fervor for them now as I did when I first viewed them.
On the other hand, there is something like MR. AND MRS. BRIDGE that seems more potent with each subsequent viewing.
-
I don't know how I feel about TITANIC (1997). I do know that I much prefer the '53 version from Fox though it's certainly dated.
I think Cameron's version was definitely over-hyped and over-marketed and over-blown. But at the time, it did seem like a big event and a sudden classic. Can we say that it holds up fifteen years later? Probably not.
-
When quoting me, please do not edit out certain things I have said and replace it with ellipses. It deliberately takes what I have said out of context and that is surely misleading. I don't think that's an honest way of responding. Thanks.
-
I was looking forward to VOICE IN THE WIND, because it seemed interesting. But when I watched it this afternoon, I came to the conclusion that it was pure junk. Shot in thirteen days and it shows. I am sure there was very little rehearsal time. It does not seem like they had much opportunity to really hone it and put their best work into it.
VOICE is sort of a time capsule, showing what a group of artists managed to produce in under two weeks, and here we are decades later watching that document but it is not a classic document. It is rather frayed around the proverbial edges, all scratched up and about to disintegrate in our very hands.
-
Of course. I did not say all new films were classics, but I did say that all new films become older, and eventually are seen as old films, and does that make them all classic?
'Serving as a standard of excellence' seems like the best definition. However, due to the political nature of the Academy voting process, I do not think we can say that the Oscar contest necessarily ensures that all recipients are actually upholding a standard of excellence.
-
Yes, thank you for stating that. It helps explain my approach to this subject.
I think we need to re-evaluate a lot of the films we watch and really ask if they are classic or if we have been led into thinking they are classic because of the hype and marketing that surrounds a lot of these films.
Once we have done that, then I think what we call classic will stand the test of time.
State Fair
in General Discussions
Posted
I am not complaining about TCM or about Fox. I am addressing the circumstance(s) that the film fell into the condition it did, either because of a series of unfortunate incidents or because of someone's careless handling of it years ago.
My philosophy is that we should all be able to offer feedback (within reason) and that tolerance needs to be exercised by those that disagree or have a different point of view.