TopBilled

I'm not, Fred. I don't have much interest in it. They can't make all of us happy.

TCM is losing my business tonight. I am choosing Encore Western's PILLARS OF THE SKY with Jeff Chandler and Dorothy Malone. LOL

Thanks Harry.

>Richard Widmark as Tommy Udo in 'Kiss Of Death' instantly comes to mind. But that's just off the top of my head. I'll have to think more about it. Good example. He was on fire, like Mae West, right out of the box.

I think some of us are adult enough to still appreciate a critic or reviewer even if we don't like what they are saying, as long as they are being constructive and intelligent about it. I do agree that a review should be more than a synopsis of the plot. It needs to be evaluative of the film as a work of art and comment on aspects of performance and have a sense of aesthetic valuing. Anyone can tell us what happened in the story. We need to know how it happened, how successful the artists involved were in translating the story to screen and what sort of entertainment it provides.

I am watching NIGHT AFTER NIGHT, a *George Raft* precode from Paramount, circa 1932. *Mae West* is fourth-billed and this is her first film. She just steals this movie. Have there been other debuts this memorable...?

I think you are being too literal about this. If we do agree that critic means critical, then we can still be critical in a positive way. That is my point here. There are constructive and destructive ways to critique work (not criticize it).

I really love Katina Paxinou. Her performances intrigue me. She is fabulous in UNCLE SILAS, a British production she did in the late 40s. But MOURNING BECOMES ELECTRA is an amazing production due to her considerable skill and the contributions of Roz Russell, Michael Redgrave and Kirk Douglas in an early role.

missw, I think critic does not mean critical. It does not mean put-downs, attacks and mocking which some of these so-called critics do, to try and be clever at the expense of the artists. There is such a thing as constructive criticism, and in my book, that is the only type of criticism that counts. Everything else falls into the cesspool of negativity, and I do not care to waste time on negativity.

Great post. I like Pauline Kael too...she's a class act. By my favorite reviewer/critic is James Agee. Agee and Ebert both wrote screenplays. Truffaut went on to make films. I think it lends more credibility to them if they attempt to fashion a film product, instead of sitting on the sidelines and looking down their noses at others all the time. As for Maltin, he seems like an overgrown kid to me, not a man. He would rate Flubber higher than a Paulette Goddard film. It is like watching movies are a chore for him, that he has bitten off more than he can chew, and he has one more review to write, and so he does, irritably and begrudgingly.

I don't think we should dismiss him on those grounds. He was a very effective, good character actor. Although Gary Cooper is top billed in THE WESTERNER, it is Brennan who really carries that picture and I think he was deserving of his Oscar for that performance. He is also very good in RED RIVER, for which he was not nominated. And I like him in GOODBYE MY LADY. He's an Oscar-caliber performer without a doubt in my mind.

I think he has little tantrums and these come out in his reviews. When he's in a good mood, he's fairer about a film and its performances, even if he doesn't like them. But sometimes, he's immersed in an ugly sort of negativity that makes his writing not fun to read and turns people off. At least that's how I see it.

Interestingly, there was no Golden Globe for Best Picture in 1953. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Globe_Award_for_Best_Motion_Picture_%E2%80%93_Drama#1950s

The Golden Globes seem to have concentrated more on individual artistic skill in the beginning. They did not start recognizing the films until 1950. Not picking Joan Crawford, not picking Loretta Young and not picking Bing Crosby seems like they were not concerned with popular opinion but with technical merit.

***double post****

I do think I need to create some new threads, because some of us compartmentalize information differently. I sincerely believe that there is plenty of room in this forum for different threads to be created and for there to be some slight overlap of subject matter. There is overlap in other forums, where discussion occurs on the same actor or the same film in more than one thread. Take care.

I think you contradicted yourself. First, you say that you don't think the Globes are necessarily relevant to a discussion about the Oscars. Then, you go on to say that the Oscars mirror the Globes which come first each year...so therefore, the Globes would definitely be relevant in a discussion about the Oscars. Verdad? LOL

Yes, he has his own preferences and biases just like the next person. But probably he is not in alignment with most classic film viewers...hardcore noirists would give OUT OF THE PAST four stars. Without question.

Comparing the list of Oscar wins to the Golden Globes, there are a few differences. Ingrid Bergman was honored twice, for GASLIGHT and for THE BELLS OF ST. MARY'S (not Joan Crawford for MILDRED PIERCE). Also, Rosalind Russell was considered best actress two years in a row, for SISTER KENNY in '46 (instead of de Havilland) and in MOURNING BECOMES ELECTRA in '47 (over Young). They honored Wyman in '48 and de Havilland in '49.

I wanted to add a bit more relevant information to this thread: I looked up the Golden Globe winners for this decade to see if there were any differences. Keep in mind the Globes were first handed out in 1943. They have their own unique background/history and probably deserve a separate thread. At any rate, Paul Lukas was the first best actor recipient for his work in WATCH ON THE RHINE, and he also won the Oscar that year. In 1944, it did not go to Bing Crosby who won the Oscar for GOING MY WAY; instead, it was awarded to Alexander Knox for WILSON. In 1945, the same actor who won an Oscar also won a Golden Globe (Ray Milland for THE LOST WEEKEND). But in 1946, the Golden Globe for best actor did not go to Freddie March in THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES, but instead it was given to Greg Peck for THE YEARLING. The next three years-- '47, '48 and '49-- it again mirrored the Oscar wins (Ronald Colman for A DOUBLE LIFE; Laurence Olivier as HAMLET; and Broderick Crawford for ALL THE KING'S MEN). So we have Knox and Peck receiving extra recognition that the Academy did not give them.

I took my own advice yesterday. I rented THE GROOM WORE SPURS from Netflix. I have to say I did not particularly care for the first twenty or thirty minutes, but as I said in this thread about Maltin yesterday, I decided to be patient and watch the whole thing, especially since I'm a major Ginger fan. It did pick up and half-way into it, I was enjoying it and by the end, I didn't want it to be over. I looked up Maltin's review and he said that it had some zesty moments, and I agree. Ginger's feisty attitude and the zesty comic elements do help an otherwise formulaic script. Now if I had expected it to be another MAJOR AND THE MINOR, then I would have been sorely disappointed. What we have in GROOM WORE SPURS is Ginger playing straight lead to Jack Carson who gets to do all the mugging and to Joan Davis clowning around in a supporting role. Ginger is not exactly funny in this movie, but she sets up the gags and punch lines and it works. But I have a feeling she took the role because she plays a high-powered attorney, and there were very few opportunities for actresses to play such strong career women on film. Back to the idea of pre-judging a movie before really watching it and understanding its production. I think that the early scenes in this film were definitely exposition, establishing the characters and putting the plot in motion. But I also think some of the film's early scenes may've been the first ones filmed when the actors were still warming up to each other's individual styles and idiosyncrasies (none of these three had ever worked together on a film before, perhaps on radio, but not previously in a movie). Since it was not a big budget film, there probably wasn't a lot of time to sit around and get to know each other on set or to rehearse parts of the script before committing it to film. So we could complain and say this is Ginger's worst movie (which it is not), and we could say that Carson's career was floundering post-Warners (not exactly true), and we could say that parts were drying up for Davis (possibly) leading her to television. But what we really need to do is look at the film itself and ask if it entertains. And it does. There are some delightfully screwball moments in this picture, and the story is cute and worth recommending.

Tiki, I would to suggest that you and anyone else who is an ardent fan of Maltin not take any of the comments or digs personally. The goal of this thread is to see if he's accurate or if he is truly reflecting the way most people feel about the films he is reviewing. Certainly, he is not infallible. And I will be posting some reviews that I think he does a good job writing. This should not be a thread that bashes or extols the virtues of a reviewer...it should be an objective, unbiased look at the accuracy and effectiveness of these reviews. Again, he is a brand, and probably Bosley Crowther is regarded more highly as is James Agee. Still, it is interesting to see what Maltin says and what others like Roger Ebert say, since like the earlier critics they represent a particular time and approach toward assessing Hollywood product. Thanks.

clore, I am going to disagree with you on this one. I think the use of the exclamation point shows that he is surprised that such a writer of this caliber is associated with what he perceives as inferior product...otherwise, he wouldn't even mention it. It seems derisive to me. I don't think any review should compare actors of different stature (the example of these two leads versus Leigh and Olivier does not fly with me). That would be like comparing everything to CITIZEN KANE. We have to look at the world of the given film and if it meets certain entertainment value and if its artistic merits, which will be of varying degree and success, enhance the entertainment value. Leave the other actors and other films to their individual reviews.

I don't think Garbo was good at Hollywood politics. After all, this was a woman who always ate meals in her dressing room and did not socialize with the rest of the studio personnel.

This is why I usually have TCM playing live even when a DVR recording is set. If something comes on early, I can rewind the live feed and then manually start recording. With these rare showings, you have to monitor the broadcasts more closely. The other film channels have east coast and west coast schedules. It helps if something goes wrong with the east coast feed, then at least there's a second chance to get it on the west coast transmission.