Filmgoddess

I think it was widely thought at the time that Rosalind Russell was going to get the Oscar for MOURNING BECOMES ELECTRA and the papers even predicted it so it was a shock when the Oscar that year went to (insert big laughs here) Loretta Young for that awful FARMER'S DAUGHTER.

I'm glad you like John Garfield. He was a fine actor but not, IMHO, a great one. He was a "one note" performer, not versatile like the truly great actors and stars. It's nice that Joanne Woodward likes him but it's just one opinion and doesn't have any more weight than my opinion. I'm sure I disagree with a lot of "Academy Award winning actresses." So what? I don't think you "disrespect" someone by giving your opinion on their acting skills. Afterall, it's not like I said he was a two-timing "pig" who died while engaging in sex with a woman that wasn't his wife but was someone else's? I mean, c'mon. I can't believe how easily some get their feathers ruffled when someone expresses an opinion that disagrees with theirs. If you didn't care for a performer that I loved it wouldn't bother me in the least. Sorry if you were offended.

This is one of those categories that has endless possibilities. But let's just take a look at Best Actor 1965. These were the nominees: Laurence Olivier, Othello Rod Steiger, The Pawnbroker Oskar Werner, Ship of Fools Richard Burton, The Spy Who Came in from the Cold Lee Marvin, Cat Ballou 4 of those of monumentally great performances that define the actor giving them. And which of those 4 won? None, it went to Lee Marvin for an over-the-top performance in a forgettable film. Go figure.

Well, I think the reason given for Garfield's not winning an Oscar for those roles is simply nonsense. The films mentioned below simply were not considered "major" films and not the sort of thing the Academy was honoring in those days. That's the answer. Pure and simple. There was no "conspiracy." Also, I'm guessing plenty of people thought he wasn't that great of an actor and that's another reason. And with all due respect to Mr. Garfield, when people think of POSTMAN it's not him they're thinking of, it's Lana Turner.

Wish they had scheduled it for the 1st instead when they're showing the 400th viewing of such films as 42nd Street, Annie Get Your Gun, Seven Brides for Seven Brothers, On the Town, and The Music Man. Who doesn't have those on DVD anyway?

Finance: I agree with you on that one. The thing that baffled me was that neither Olivia de Havilland or Lana Turner were even ON that list and Bacall was? That made no sense to me. Both de Havilland and Turner had far more spectacular careers and made better films (especially Olivia). I just don't get it.

Darn, while I appreciate the tribute to Ms. Rutherford, I was really looking forward to the NINE (9) George Sanders films I had never seen before that day. I had already circled them in the guide to DVR next month. Especially the Saint and Falcon films. Hopefully, they'll get re-scheduled.

I agree with your second point completely. I'm just saying that in the case of SABOTEUR the answer is: not much. They're not ordinary, they're dull. The film needed something more that they couldn't provide.

It really isn't. You won't find a single film historian or critic who would make the argument that Robert Cummings and Priscilla Lane even occupied the same rarified space as Stanwyck or McCrea. Seriously.

Just have to agree to disagree and I think the vast critical opinion of this film is on my side. Lane basically disappears and doesn't register at all. Cummings is so light -- and so darned jumpy and over eager -- that after a few minutes he makes you want to punch him in the nose. Hitchcock himself was VERY disappointed that he was "stuck with those two." McCrea and Stanwyck were, of course, far superior actors (and I can't imagine anyone would argue against that one) and would have brought more gravitas and seriousness to the film which is needed. It's a shame, really, because the film contains some of Hitchcock's great set pieces but the leads spoil the film.

This post should probably be removed as it is a copyright violation and the LA Times could file a complaint. You can link to the story or quote from it but you can't reprint it in its entirety anywhere without their permission.

I couldn't help but think, as I watched it last week, how much better SABOTEUR would be without Priscilla Lane and Robert Cummings. Hitchcock's original choices, Joel McCrea and Barbara Stanwyck, would have been far better and the film would now be a classic instead of "lesser" Hitchcock.

Anne Jeffreys is reporting that her good friend, actress Ann Rutherford, died Monday night at the age of 94. Rest in Peace.

To be honest, I would rather not watch the movies at all if they're going to have commercials. I won't even watch "regular" TV anymore if there are commercials. I wait until they show up on WEB-DL and watch without commercials. I simply can't watch that kind of junk anymore. It's too offensive and obtrusive.

Her role in MISERY lasts less than 5 minutes.

You got there first. I thought the same thing. Not only did she not make very many films but she made very few films of good/great quality. For a "classic" film star her reputation falls on a select group of movies and one could argue that if you left Bogart out you wouldn't have enough good films of hers to fill an afternoon. I couldn't sit through her only Oscar-nominated performance again because it would mean I'd have to watch 2 hours of Barbra Streisand filmed through vaseline giving her usual mannered, over-the-top performance. I'm sure I'd prefer to watch paint dry.

Huh? Since your response was to me you might think about responding to what I actually said and not what you imagined I said. I don't think people should change to suit my or anyone else's taste. I was making an impiracle statement that I believe that people can change in response to someone who said that people can't change. I don't believe in that. I believe that a healthy questioning of all things is good; cynicism is just bad. It just contributes to more unpleasantness in the world. It's not about good or evil.

A shame to be so cynical. I sincerely believe that people CAN change.

The one that immediately comes to mind is SUSPICION. Really great film with an ending that, in a word, sucks.

It's been so great to read all the experiences so many people had there. It makes one wish one had been there, too. Alas, TCM makes it far too expensive for the average person (who doesn't have money to spare for 3 days of films) to attend .... I suppose it's the only way to pay for it but one does wish it were less expensive than $500 just for the films.

I can't imagine any sane, rational human being wanting to see that Three Stooges movie. The trailer was just awful.

Those kinds of muscles can be a turn off for some but a nice, fit body is always a plus.

I loved Denby's review of INCEPTION. The whole first paragraph went something like this (and his writing is vastly superior to my paraphrase): "It has the most amazing special effects, the CGI, the .... (you get the point as he waxed lyrical about how amazing the film looked) .... but to what effect? The film has no soul" was basically his point. It was a devastating put-down and 100% accurate, I might add!

The ALL THE KING'S MEN remake was awful. But MYSTIC RIVER is one of the finest American films of the past decade. There isn't a false performance in it. Penn is chilling. It was a richly deserved Oscar for him.

I find Sean Penn one of the most obnoxious and reprehensible people in Hollywood. His embrace of certain evil dictators makes my sin crawl. It would never keep me from seeing his films. Vanessa Redgrave is someone I wouldn't want to sit down to dinner with but I think she's one of the greatest actresses of my lifetime. I simply can't imagine people who won't go see someone's films because they disagree with them politically.