AddisonDeWitless
-
Posts
1,672 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by AddisonDeWitless
-
-
> {quote:title=Arturo wrote}{quote}And ....It is called "Summer under the STARS"...not "Summer under the ACTORS".... Elvis was a MOVIE STAR, and that is why he is featured.
Very astute write-up, but (if I may) the way I see it, Elvis was a MUSIC STAR and a film personality.+ One could even term him an "anomale" in the world of films and acting. Was he a bad actor? I don't know, I think given the chance, he could've tapped in to the personal tragedy in his life and knocked a role out of the park, but we'll never know. His movies (at least all the ones I've seen in part or whole) are awful.+ And not even entertainingly awful or fun to watch because he's so bad or anything like that, they're just a showcase for his personality. Honestly, it's like they're not even movies. And they feature some awful acting from some otherwise sturdy actors (Ann-Margret and Angela Lansbury come to mind.)
I just cringe every time I see one of his titles on the schedle (someone in the programming department really seems to like Clambake) but I get over it quickly enough. It's when a whole day, or even weekend, is dedicated to nothing but Elvis films that I cry foul, as I do in this case.
-
{quote:title=Dargo2 wrote: }{quote}while I might agree with you that Crosby didn't deserve his Oscar for for his rather sappy portrayal of a priest in *Going My Way*... I believe his turn as the alcohlic husband of Grace Kelly in *The Country Girl *proved why he was not only one of the top box office "stars" of the '40s and '50s for whatever reason, BUT that he COULD be a pretty darn good actor when called upon.
Agreed. The Country Girl is proof positive that Der Bingle had "the stuff", because he is *excellent* in a tough role in a thoroughly dreadful movie with a dreadful script by Clifford Odets and has to act opposite the woefully out-of-her-league, (but hey, she's wearing glasses and no make-up so it must be method) Grace Kelly.
I despise everything about that movie but Crosby, and he's not one of my favorite actors (always seems a little "too cool for the room" to the point where it gets insufferable, see all the Road movies, Going My Way, and (especially) High Society.)
-
> {quote:title=jamesjazzguitar wrote:}{quote}
> Anyhow, that just makes my point stronger that SOTM is a higher honor than SUTS.
Absolutely. I'll also point out that SUTS is a great venue for some names that don't (or can't quite) rate a whole month's salute with their titles- from Marion Davies to Elvis (who I don't think is even appropriate for SUTS, but that's another thread I guess) to Weissmuller to Freddie Bartholomew and (yes) even Warren William and Joan Blondell.
A whole month of Freddie Bartholemew would get ooooooooooooold fast.
Edited by: AddisonDeWitless on Aug 18, 2012 9:22 PM
-
> {quote:title=Lazyking wrote:}{quote}And I don't have problem with modern actors on TCM but I'd rather it be someone like Pacino then Caan..
You might not, but I dare say most major actors still getting work in Hollywood today (ie Hoffman, Streep, Sally Field, Harrison Ford, DeNiro, Jessica Lange and others who would technically rate a day on TCM) would *SOONER DIE* than be labeled as "classic" and put in the same company as some long departed names...even if said names eclipse the wattage of those working today.
-
> {quote:title=jamesjazzguitar wrote:}{quote}
> There are only 12 SOTM per year and Powell was one of those 12. To me that is a higher honor than 1 in 31.
Actually, try (at most) *ten* SOTMs per year, as there is no SOTM during 31 Days of Oscar and Summer Under the Stars AND I believe every now and then they feature a director or producer as SOTM, but I could be wrong about that.
-
Noice! And you took the time to alphabetize too!
I could've sworn *Karloff: The Uncanny* had had a SUTS day somewhere along the way, did I just miss the name? (Out of all the SUTS days ever, the one that really sticks in my mind as a great day was Peter Lorre day two years ago.)
I have to say the line-up this year is *much less impressive,creative and diverse than the SUTS parade last year*, which kicked off what has been (IMO) a serious uptick in the quality of the programming on TCM. The only creative moments in this year's line-up have fallen flat as a latke -did Weissmuller, Elvis and Freddie Bartholemew day set anyone's world on fire?
I understand why Marilyn Monroe, Dana Andrews, and some other Fox stars have gotten little love in August as we all know that the business relations between TCM and FOX are only now defrosting (and thank heavens for it!)
I'm with everyone else, scratching me head on the James Caan choice of years ago, someone on the net seems to really like Rollerball, that's the only reason I can think of.
And as for the repeat performers: stop it. *NO one* (not even MY favorites) should have a repeat performance on SUTS 2 years in a row, much less in some cases 3-5 years in a row! I like Katharine Hepburn very much, but even I rolled my eyes at her inclusion this year and am beginning to understand where some of the rancour for her on these boards comes from.
I think a lot of their selections are, sadly, dictated by business (ie, we've got North by Northwest just laying around, and it's been a whole two months since we showed Grand Prix on a weekend afternoon, three since we showed All Fall Down: ergo: Eva Marie Saint day!)
I am also not nuts about TCM's 8:00 prime time (for those of us with no DVRs) selections, in nearly every case the film shown in that slot has not been one I would have chosen for any number of reasons. (ie Christopher Strong, which is an inn-teresting film was shown at SIX IN THE MORNING while that night we had YET ANOTHER SHOWING OF Guess Who's Coming to....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. ...
(Snort) Whah? Oh, sorry, fell asleep. The mere mention of that movie brings out the naroleptic in me.
oh, and I think a half-hearted attempt at being "diverse" as well as their penchant for showing Dinner and To Sir With Love at any and every chance they get, is the only reason why Poitier has been on the list *four times* (about three too many for my taste.)
Edited by: AddisonDeWitless on Aug 18, 2012 3:22 PM
-
This is a title I have always been slightly curious about, but knew very little on. It was on Sunday Afternoon for the Ginger Rogers SUTS day.. I am up to my eyeballs in work right now, but when I read the write-up on the schedule:(something like) *"a girl from a family of prostitutes is determined not to follow in their profession"* I cancelled my 2:30.
It doesn't seem like it airs much, am I right/ wrong?
Anyhoo, it was a terribly inn-teresting film for a variety of reasons:
1. *Marjorie Rambeau.* The film was hers. She was amazing. She was nominated for a richly deserved Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress. I have now seen all five of those nominees from 1940 and I have to say it was one hell of a year for that category, I agree with all five choices: Rambeau, Jane Darwell (the winner) in Grapes of Wrath, Ruth Hussey in The Philadelphia Story, Barbara O'Neil (sic?) in All This and Heaven Too and Judith "would you like to see her underwear?" Anderson in Rebecca : (not nominated but deserving would be Mary Boland and Edna May Oliver in Pride and Prejudice ) Any one of those women gave a performance that would've been a winner in a less astounding year, which brings me to:
2. *1940.* It's getting to be my official favorite year for films. 1939 is great, but there's a slight assembly line quality to the stuff, 1940 is magic. The Thief of Bagdad, The Bank Dick (a worthy companion film to this one), Pride and Prejudice, Pinnochio, The Sea Hawk, His Girl Friday, Foreign Correspondent, All This and Heaven Too, The Letter- the year is a box of Cracker Jacks. This film was not a four star film, and it was pretty downbeat save a (much needed) happy turn at the end, but it was still really inn-teresting, intelligent and honest.
3. *Joel Macrea (sic?)* Terrific, natural, just being Joel Macrea.
4. *The Hooker Angle:* Yes, the mother is a hooker. No doubt. No stating it outright either, but no doubt about it. It was amazing that Hollywood in 1940 was doing this; and even more amazing that *IT WAS A GREAT ROLE.* Smart, sympathetic, real. I guess Hollywood has always had something of a soft spot for the oldest profession. A few weeks ago, I jokingly suggested a film festival dedicated to Hookers. Now, I think it would be quite inn-teresting and this film deserves a prominent, 8:00 pm slot for that night, no doubt.
When Tennessee Williams saw this, it was like when Truffaut saw Citizen Kane for the first time.
5. *Ginger Rogers* Just amazing. Not as good as she is in Kitty Foyle, but another bold, sharp as nails turn. Again playing younger than she was, I am stunned at what a *courageous* actress she was, taking on some less risky than this, but nonetheless pretty risque for the time stuff in Bachelor Mother, Kitty Foyle, The Major and the Minor, Storm Warning and making it work like no other actress, save maybe Stanwyck, could.
*6. Gregory La Cava* The man was a genious at bringing us disfunctional families. He also directed Stage Door and My Man Godfrey, two of the best films of the thirties. His films move, and as downbeat as this thing was, it had a syncopated rythm that kept you watching.
Anyone else see it?
(I have to go to work and I am sure I am leaving this post a mess of typoes, non sequitors and things I forgot to mention about the film.)
Edited by: AddisonDeWitless on Aug 13, 2012 9:58 AM
Edited by: AddisonDeWitless on Aug 13, 2012 10:02 AM Wait, no, not "Storm Warning"- that's with Bette Davis. Which is the one where she and Reagan take on The Klan?
-
Anyone else noticed how The Making of Ryan's Daughter featurette shows up as odd, decidedly non sequitor filler material suspiciously often, as does the Making of Dr. Zhivago featurette?
Both often show in the evenings and recieve placement on the schedule, even though the films shown that night are neither Zhivago nor Daughter nor are they films by David Lean, nor do they feature any of the same actors, or even have the same settings, below-the-line-crew, or fit into any theme that could be stretched to validate their presence in the line-up in any way shape or form.
But I'll take 'em over Pete Smith's Wonderful World of Smarm any day.
-
Amen to just about everything you wrote, especially the Gable-storyline points, and I also wondered how the hell Maltin had seen Night Flight. Although he did make a great point about how nearly all the principles have no scenes together.
The thing was strung together like a cranberry-popcorn Christmas Tree garland at an Asylum for the Mentally Ill.
The "Big Board" bugged me because it didn't ring true and just smacked of big *HOLLYWOOD* avarice. Granted I was not in the home office of a busy, South American Air Mail delivery firm during the late-twenties (when it seemed like the film was set, yes?) but I just so doubt they had a TWENTY-FOOT, expensive and kind of unnecessary map of South America plastered across a floodlit wall.
I couldn'a help but think of Dr. Strangelove.
Edited by: AddisonDeWitless on Aug 11, 2012 11:34 AM
-
(I feel so guilty for this.)
First off: *thank you TCM for continuing to unearth these rarities for us, I know you guys work hard at what you do, and I know it can't be easy with no ad revenue. It's awesome that you guys have been doing these fast and furious premieres of obscure and/or heretofore unseen on the network titles in the past year especially and we REALLY APPRECIATE IT,* It was great to see Osborne practically giddy with enthusiasm as he introduced it, and the sell he gave it, I made it a point to sit up and smack meself to keep awake. (As he talked about how the TCMinions have worked for some 18 years to free the rights, I had a vision of the slave galley scene from Ben-Hur, only with a row of lawyers chained to their desks and writing an endless chain of polite letters to the St-Expuary (sic?) estate.)
All that said: *WOOF! THIS THING WAS A DOG!*
An unfocused, bloated and THOROUGHLY UNREALISTIC MESS! A series of random scenes abutting one another in the hopes that somehow, a movie would be come out of them in the end. Nothing real, nothing buyable, from the GIANT wall map of South America in Barrymore's office, to the glossy flyboy headshot of Gable on the mantle to Montgomery flying in his tuxedo - this thing was so far from what I presume was the truth, it was almost as bad as a movie made today. That looooong rambling prologue was stupid, it was like they had no faith that an audience in 1933(?) had any intelligence whatsoever. I love Clarence Brown. The Human Comedy is one of my favorite movies of all time, but I think a lot of the blame lands for this lands squarely in his lap.
I can see why the author hated this.
The aerial scenes were great, but their impact was dimmed considerably by the interspersed shots of the actors sitting on a soundstage in front of a projection screen as a couple of stagehands shook the model plane in which they sat (or did they snatch one of those deals from in front of the A&P where you insert a quarter?)
*And all those wipes* were very distracting and outre, pure visual flash with no service paid to the story: the scenes to an ensemble thing like this needed to blend in with one another, not practically scream "AND NOW SCENE FIVE!!" It was like something out of a Flash Gordon serial.
The acting was pretty bad all around, with both Barrymores at their most overwrought and Helen Hayes shouting to the folks in the cheap seats, but I have to give the "worst" honors to Montgomery (who was a terrific actor but who STANK in this! that FAKE LAUGH he kept breaking out in, *UGH!* )
Awful, awful, awful.
But thanks nonetheless, TCM, even bad blood that's new blood is something.
Edited by: AddisonDeWitless on Aug 11, 2012 8:15 AM
-
OOOOOOOOOOOOh, okay.
In my mind's eye, things often look different. I remembered the bra/coat hangar-apparatussy thing as looking *much more bizarre than that*. Now that I see it before me, yeah, I see what's going on.
So, Bel Geddes was some kind of Consumer Reports researcher on bras in the movie, I 'spose?
Being 34, I was about six when VCR's first came along. I remember how excited my parents were to be able to show us Gone With the Wind, Jaws, and any number of other classics in our home for the first time. My sister and I particularly enjoyed Rear Window and Vertigo and often watched them as kids. Part of me remembers being a very confused little boy in regard to that "brassiere."
In fact, I used to often ask my mother what a brassiere was, she told me at first, but then she would get mad, thinking I was being prurient or pervvy, but not, I was just genuinely confused thanks to this scene in Vertigo.
Edited by: AddisonDeWitless on Aug 11, 2012 7:50 AM
Edited by: AddisonDeWitless on Aug 11, 2012 7:52 AM
-
*THIS JUST OCCURRED TO ME OUT OF NOWHERE:*
Can SOMEONE please explain to me what the hell that thing in her apartment is that Barbara Bel Geddes's character says is a brassiere, but is so not a brassiere in one of the earliest scenes of the movie??
What the hell IS IT? A spy sattelite? Chastity belt? Pop Art? Ladies? Miss Wonderly? Hibi? Gentlemen? Finance, I'm sure you unhooked a few back in the day, you EVER see one like THAT? Anyone?
Or did they really make bras like that back in the Fifties?
Because if they did, I feel even more for womankind than I already did (and BELIEVE ME, you already have my sympathies when it comes to the whole menstruation/chldbirth/menopause thing. )
Edited by: AddisonDeWitless on Aug 10, 2012 8:25 PM
-
There has also been, I've noticed for *my* posts at least, QUITE a delay before they show up on the boards. I posted something in the Borgnine gets a whole day, really? thread in "hot" topics ten minutes ago and it still has not shown up, even though it lists mine as the most recent contribution to the board.
I was starting to wonder if p'raps someone decided they needed to approve me posts before they're foisted on the general public, which is a shame, as I have tried to watch me language, play nice with the other kids, and I haven't brought up the topic of you-know-who for a while.
(And Lord knows, it hasn't been easy.)
-
> {quote:title=}{quote}
> > {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote}Since Dean only made 3 movies, that's not necessarily saying much. I didn't like ANY of Dean's 3 movies.
> {quote:title=CountessDracula wrote: }{quote}For me, "East of Eden" is far and away the best of the bunch. I can never seem to sit through "Giant", try as I may. And I have started and stopped watching "Rebel without a Cause" more times than I can count. Dean, IMO, is a legend simply because of how tragically he died. There are definitely signs he could have been a good actor but sadly we will never know.
I see where you're both coming from....For me, I really really reaaaally relate to Dean, as offbeat as his performance in East of Eden is and as difficult a film as Rebel can be to watch- it reminds me very, very much of my youth and my relationship with my parents- a shock I know, but I have always been something off an off-beat, oddball outcast meself.
What he did in those films is really like nothing else any actor at that time was doing (with the exception of Monty Clift), and yes, that totally includes Brando (who was a great actor, but who I just get tired of so quickly.)
Dean *rings true* - with me at least, and the Lord above knows I am not an easy person to please.
As for the three films, Jadore Rebel, but I admit it's not one I just love to sit and watch. East of Eden is inn-teresting, but it has some weiiiiird moments, some oddball dialogue, some supporting characters who are not fully utilized, hints at storylines that are never revealed, some overheated moments, a less-than-great turn by Dick Davalos, and if you've read the book: well, it ain't got nothing on that (plus, I dunno, I am kinds 50/50 on Jo Van Fleet's performance, although she was a fantastic actress no doubt, I'd've rather she won the Oscar for I'll Cry Tomorrow as she has more of a presence in that film.)
Giant is SUCH A BORE! It makes the George Stevenites mad on these messageboards when you say that, but Lord love a duck is it a snoozer! Although in between the loads of styrofoam packaging peanuts disguised as story development, it does contain a great performance from Elizabeth Taylor and a really wonderful one (IMO) by Dean, although his is definitely a supporting role. Had he been nominated in that category in 1956, he might well've won.
I spent more time on this than I meant to. Hope someone reads it.
Edited by: AddisonDeWitless on Aug 9, 2012 8:37 PM
-
> {quote:title=kriegerg69 wrote:}{quote} I saw the Capote movie INFAMOUS with Toby Jones as Truman, and thought he was much better.
Dude, we are *SO SIMPATICO* on SO MANY THINGS it ain't even funny.
-
s'allright. I'm crank(ier than usual) today.
I think it was probably wrong (and a trifle tacky) of me to risk derailing a thread about how a genuinely good actor is not doing well health-wise and being forced to quit doing something that I imagine he loves doing (or at least is very good at) by laundry-listing some of the current "personalities" that I find to be loathesome.
I just get so genuinely sad when I see all those wonderful faces and genuine personalities dying/retiring/fading into the night and I look around and don't see *anyone, anywhere* who can pick up the mantle.
I'd parse with you over the names you defend, but I think I'd risk derailing, heck even locking, the thread (NOT due to any actions on YOUR part, believe me) and I'd hate to think I'd contribute to that when this isn't about anyone but Hoskins.
ps- Okay, one *FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION:* *PHILLIP SEYMOUR HOFFMAN* presents *PHILLIP SEYMOUR HOFFMAN* in *UNDTE FILME DU PHILLIP SEYMOUR HOFFMAN: THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT PHILLIP SEYMOUR HOFFMAN. *(Directed by *PHILLIP SEYMOUR HOFFMAN,* written by: *PHILLIP SEYMOUR HOFFMAN* based on an idea by *PHILLIP SEYMOUR HOFFMAN* and produced by *PHILLIP SEYMOUR HOFFMAN. (Mr. Hoffman* appears courtesty of *PHILLIP SEYMOUR HOFFMAN.)*
pss- he's a BIG, SALTY HAM and he SUCKED as Capote.
-
Yes, what wonderful news this morning! (Sarcasm)
Dane Cook, Sarah Silverman, Adam Sandler, the entire cast of SNL, Tom Cruise, Katharine Heigl, Ashton Kutcher, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Natalie Portman, Keanu Reeves, Paltrow, Vin Diesel, Queen Latifah, Jimmies Fallon and Kimmel, Aaron Sorkin, George Lucas, Michael Bay, Paul Thomas Anderson- all alive and in perfectly fine health (as far as I know)- still working hard, making money ruining movies and TV shows that were already pretty bad to begin with.
Excellent, inn-teresting and gifted character actor Bob Hoskins (often the best part of some bad movies): sick with a chronic condition and retiring.
The Lord does work in such mysterious ways, doesn't He/She?
ps- Bob, you really don't have to go, unless you're sick to death of the business (which I understand completely as evidenced by the buffet of loathsomeness detailed in the main paragraph.)
-
> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote}Felicia Farr was married to Jack Lemmon. Leona's husband was probably a plumber or something.
I figgered that too, and I know Lemmon had done some films at Columbia...In his intro Osborne took the time to note that this was Felicia Farr "some seven months before she became Mrs. Jack Lemmon," but I guess strings could still have been pulled.
It got to me a little that Os took the time to mention Farr in the intro, as well as (obviously) Heflin and Ford, but not a word about Dana...The film has been shown numerous times in primetime and weekend afternoons, and I think it was one of Baldwin's Essentials picks, maybe they took the time to give a shout-out not just to Dana, but to the other very good supporting players in it.
If Farr was such a fave of the director's and a Columbia contractree and had such a boost behind her, I really wonder why they didn't give her the far juicier role of the wife. Maybe she wanted the "sexier" role, maybe someone didn't think she had "the stuff."
-
> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote}...and Shriver had about as much charisma as George Brent's rear end.
I dunno, judging by the nearly 600 posts on the thread about George Brent's ample tuckus in this very same forum, I'd say it's garnered far more interest that Shriver ever did.
-
> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote} Also, Nixon was running against one of the least magnetic tickets ever, which itself was besmirched by the bungled Eagleton vice-presidential selection.
Not looking to further derail things, but really?
I'd rate McGovern/Eagleton pretty high on the magnetism scale when compared to Adlai Stevenson (both times), Dukakis and whoever it was he ran with, Dole/Kemp, Kerry/Edwards (face it: it's true), Bush/Quayle, the four guys who ran against FDR, Tom Dewey, Carter/Mondale, and Romney and whoever the dart lands on this go-round.
Compared to all them, McGovern/Eagleton are Superman/Batman in 1972.
-
Thank you both, Valeska and Clore.
Even though I've seen it first hand, I often forget about the bizness side of the b****goddess that is the HOLLYWOOD machine.
Part of me just really wanted to give a shout-out to Miss Dana, as I really thought she was splendid- her character in 3:10 is what Grace Kelly's "Oh, you simply mustn't go to the shoot out, it would be too, too dreadfully gauche " out-of-place-in-every-aspect character in High Noon should've been.
Kelly is a big reason why High Noon doesn't work for me, Dana is a BIG reason why 3:10 did work (for me.)
As for Farr, I will forever hold Kiss Me Stupid against her, which is maybe wrong, because I don't hold it against Kim Novak...although I really should. I can only pity Novak for The Legend of Lylah Clare.
I do reiterate though that it is VERY distracting to have someone billed on the same card as the two stars who are in 90% of the picture when they are in it for, oh, 5% or so.
It was like billing the murdered restaraunt hostess in A Lonely Place immediately under Bogart and Grahame.
ps- nice pun in the title of your Reply, Mr. Clore
Edited by: AddisonDeWitless on Aug 7, 2012 10:16 AM
-
No, it's not on that it's on TCM too much.
No, it's not that it's bad (in fact, it's excellent; very well shot, a little slow in the beginning, but the ending is makes up for it; Heflin as usual is terrific and I don't find Glenn Ford as un-interesting as I usually do, it's like a more interesting, more expertly filmed High Noon without the wooden acting and clunky moralizing)
No, my complaint is this: WHY ON EARTH IS FELICIA FARR THIRD BILLED, RIGHT BELOW FORD AND HEFLIN ON THE MAIN TITLE CARD WHEN SHE IS IN THE FILM FOR MAYBE ALL OF 8 MINUTES AND HER CHARACTER HAS (frankly) VERY LITTLE IMPACT ON THE STORY AT ALL ???? (And I didn't find her performance to be all that inn-teresting or memorable to be honest.)
The actress who played Heflin's wife was named *Leora Dana*. She was a major presence in the story, she was onscreen at least twice the time of Farr, most importantly: she was *excellent* and *SHE DESERVED THIRD BILLING*.She also deserved a supporting nomination, IMO.
It was disrespectful to her and her performance, and frankly did Farr no service either. "And...Felicia Farr as Emmy" at the end of the cast list would've done just fine, and quite frankly been more than her presence in the movie merited.
Guess it's who you know.
Edited by: AddisonDeWitless on Aug 6, 2012 9:45 PM
-
The following post is irrelevant for a couple reasons: one being that this poll we're talking about was not done by the AFI; two being that it's mostly my cranky opinion....but
For the hecks of it, I checked out the AFI list of The 100 Greatest "American" Movies of all time: one version from 2000 and another from 2007 when for some reason, they decided to redo it and make it f'reals this time (for the record, they did cut a lot of the styoopider selections from the first list on the second go-round.)
*I have to say: the following titles just outright have NO place on a list of THE 100 GREATEST MOVIES EVER EVER (AMERICAN OR OTHERWISE)*: Frankenstein (1931), Ben Hur (admit it, c'mon), Fargo, Annie Hall, High Noon, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, Bridge on the River Kwai, Titanic, Forrest Gump, the first Lord of the Rings movie, Giant, Rocky, From Here to Eternity, and All About Eve.
Then, nearly done with the list, I got to the ultimate slap in the face: THE SIXTH SENSE.
Yes, The Sixth F***ing Sense, from the jackass who brought you the aliens who melt in water and the entirety of The Happening. One of *The GREATEST Films EVUH.* (as per the AFI circa 2007)
FU with something hard and sandpapery, AFI.
ps- I hate Star Wars, but I think it (and moreso Empire Strikes Back) deserves its place for a multitude of reasons.
pss- Zhivago, The Third Man and (yes) Lawrence of Arabia do NOT belong on a list of the greatest *AMERICAN* films of all time.
psss- I like Frankenstein, Kwai, and the first Rings movie but come on.
Edited by: AddisonDeWitless on Aug 6, 2012 6:57 PM
-
> {quote:title=wouldbestar wrote:}{quote}
> > {quote:title=misswonderly wrote:}{quote}
> >
> > Now what we need is for someone to discover a long-forgotten biopic about Andrew Jackson,
> >
> The biopic is called *The President's Lady* and stars Charlton Heston as Jackson and Susan Hayward as his wife,. It's not bad.
It was on recently, 31 Days of Oscar maybe? I'll second the "not bad" vote, it's pretty fun to see Susan Hayward in her standard, thoroughly modern, and thoroughly Susan Haywardesque "who the hell do you think you are to stand in my way? " mode.
I don't think anyone on set told her it was a period film. I think they were all a little too scared. (which I understand.)
A North by Northwest suggestion
in General Discussions
Posted
No, it has nothing to do with the frequency that it's played on TCM, because, you know what? Like a lot of the other oft-served chestnuts ( Casablanca, The Third Man and Mildred Pierce come to mind) it's got such a watchable quality, I often sit and check it out at least half the times that it airs each year (which means after about 8 years of steady TCM watching, I've probably seen it, oh, let's just estimate generously and say 30 or so times.)
Sadly, like Some Like it Hot, it is one of those films that, as a result of its frequent play, little faults and flaws I'd otherwise let slide have become kind of obvious to me. As I watched it last night, the likelihood of Grant so skillfully eluding the cops with the clever disguise of a pair of sunglasses and the pretty impressive coincidence that he just happens to sneak on to *the one train in the middle of Grand Central Station* that just happens to have a woman on it who is deeply involved in the whole mess he is caught up in is, um, well kind of a long shot, but hey "it's only a moo-vie."
My suggestion for the film (which I admit I am going around the elbow to make) is this: very early on, it is revealed that Kaplan is a dummy agent invented by the government in a scene in a government office in Washington DC. Later on, after he is deliberately arrested after making trouble at the auction, the same man from the scene in DC shows up and goes through the whole "Kaplan was a dummy agent" spiel again. In fact, they even set the scene on a airport runway and have a propeller fire up and drown out most of the exposition, since we have heard it already after all.
My suggestion: cut the first "Kaplan is a dummy" exposition scene and save the reveal for the later scene, after the auction in the airport. *I don't think it would hurt a thing about the story, in fact, it would help it quite a bit, and amp up the mystery.* I also have to say that the first "Kaplan is a dummy agent" scene doesn't quite ring true, since about 95% of the film is from Grant's POV, taking it away from him and this enigma in which he is embroiled doesn't feel right to me.
Anyone else agree? Disagree? Have a reason why it needed to be done the way it was done? Think the film should be played even more than it already is? Know why they did it the way the did? Find anything else wrong with the film that I missed on viewing number 31?