CaveGirl
-
Posts
6,085 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
12
Posts posted by CaveGirl
-
-
25 minutes ago, Brrrcold said:
Duh... WITNESS (1985)
"Witness" eh?
Gee, must be a very obscure movie. Thanks and I hope it warms up where you are.
-
1
-
-
23 minutes ago, TopBilled said:
This 1997 film has become a cult classic. Tim and Kirstie play a big city couple who move to a Pennsylvania farming community populated by Amish. Shades of Green Acres, no doubt!
I'm into "cults" and like "classics" but have never heard of this film, TB.
This might be because I have an aversion to Tim Allen though...
Thanks for a great pick!-
1
-
-
19 hours ago, Dargo said:
Well James, I DO hear another thing that mildly irritates Speedy sometimes is when people finish a sentence with a preposition.
(...oh, wait...that's not Speedy, that's one of MY little irritants...YOU know, like that whole superfluous-u thing)
LOL
Better to end a sentence with a preposition than a proposition, during the MeToo! movement, Dargo.
Such "ardour" can be problematic...
-
1
-
-
On 4/29/2016 at 12:58 PM, LawrenceA said:
I thought I'd start a thread to discuss the title phenomena. New or old, pro or con, anything's up for debate.
I was inspired to create this thread after just reading that Ben Wheatley (High-Rise) is currently writing, with an eye to direct, another remake of Wages of Fear. The original, widely regarded as one of the greatest suspense films ever made, was a French film starring Yves Montand, and released in 1953. It followed a group of desperate characters who are driving trucks laden with volatile nitroglycerin over unpaved roads, where any one of the many bumps or jostles could send the trucks sky high. It was remade by William Friedkin in (mostly) English in 1977, starring Roy Scheider, and renamed Sorcerer. The remake was decent, but not up to the original. As far as the proposed new remake, I don't really see the need. With all of the unproduced screenplays and unadapted great works previously published, I would much rather see something new on screen. I know the usual argument is that studio execs are scared and only want to produce something they "know" is going to work. Obviously, that knowledge only goes so far, as many sure bets flop every year, and there are at least one or two big hits that no one expected. But I don't see there being a big public desire for, or even a recognition of, Wages of Fear, despite it being one of my personal favorites.
I own the original on dvd, and can see right now in my mind that famous scene where he keeps backing the truck up, near a possible disaster and it is spine-tingly, and you are so right that the remake was not up to par!
I think, if one is going to remake something, why not pick a real clunker, and make it better, rather than starting to remake a near perfect film. Isn't that a bit like gilding the lily, or trying to rehab the Taj Mahal?
If "Satan Met a Lady" can get better with a rewrite and refilming, why not something like "Girl in Black Stockings"?-
1
-
-
This may be a short lived post, but I hope a good one.
The Amish may not watch movies, but I'm sure that Hollywood has still used the Amish lifestyle in films, to their detriment probably, and I'm looking to find all such films to review since it will be easier to research than which film noir actresses have ever been in all films extant.
Just as Hollywood loves to use nuns in films, that seem very unlike ones I've known, and I never had a nun who looked like Loretta Young or even Rosalind Russell, I bet they don't portray the Amish reliably either. Now any films about Mennonites will be welcome also. I only know a little about them from the tv show, "Breaking Amish" which is supposedly reality but who knows. I stopped watching after the episode about how the one girl had no teeth and they had to be all replaced with implants.
Extra points for any comedy films featuring Amish humor. I do hope Miss Wonderly participates in this intrigue, though I can understand her antipathy toward Amish posters on our site, trying to usurp our power to talk about films. -
14 hours ago, kingrat said:
I believe that the late Burt Reynolds will diminish to the stature of someone like, say, Dane Clark, and Reynolds was a huge star for a decade or so. Wallace Reid is a great example of a big star who has been more or less forgotten today, even by film buffs. Thanks for that one, Cave Girl. Gloria Swanson is remembered because of Sunset Boulevard; had Mary Pickford taken the role of Norma Desmond, she would now be much better remembered than Swanson.
Even the most ardent film buffs today have to remind themselves that Betty Grable was a top box-office star for about a decade. It's easy to think of many talented and attractive people who seemed on the verge of stardom and then weren't: Matthew Modine, Josh Hartnett, Renee Zellweger, Catherine Zeta-Jones, and Natalie Portman are some of the names that came to mind first. Hilary Swank is already a more obscure two-time Oscar winner than Luise Rainer. I'm not even sure that people like Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence have found a secure niche in film history yet.
I like your post, kingrat! Of course that is probably because you praised me about Wallace Reid and basically seem to be agreeing with my concept...haha!
You make such strong points though, in that even having Oscars to your name does not ensure long lasting fame. I think the people who may be remembered will be iconic in some ways. And your theory about if one ends up in a film which keeps being shown, like Gloria as opposed to Pickford, then the fame will really be more likely, and that might even be about actors who are not that great in themselves.
I'm still gonna stick with the belief that Spielberg will be a forgotten footnote in films in the future. Often the films of someone who seemed to pique the interest of the populace, is often the first one to be downgraded as time goes by. I don't think he has any specific style that makes one know it is a Spielberg movie, as one would see with a John Ford film or one by David Lean, plus he tended often to make blockbusters that seemingly were concocted with only an eye to making money. Even Akira Kurosawa made mention of such leanings in the testimonial dinner arranged for him back in the day by Spielberg and others in the Hollywood community. When Kurosawa got up to speak, he said he'd been asked how was he able to make such great and profound movies, and he said basically that money should not be the motivator and if one was prone to make sequels just to make a buck, that they shouldn't be surprised if their movies do not live on. I still remember the camera on Spielberg's face as this comment was made, and he looked a bit nonplussed.
But I could be wrong, so check back in about forty years... -
21 hours ago, CinemaInternational said:
About current stars that might end up being forgotten, I have a hunch it will happen with many stars who are most famous for playing superheroes. With the exception of a few of them who were already established like Robert Downey Jr, Mark Ruffalo, and Scarlett Johansson, the superhero films are mainly the reason they are famous, and its probably true that audiences go to them more for the comic book connection then for who is actually starring in it.
Brilliant diagnosis, based on a logical synopsis, CI!
-
1
-
-
48 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:
I was at a party many years ago attended mostly by much younger people. I was there to act as an older chaperone of sorts, to make sure none of the youngsters got too smashed and tried to drive home, that sort of thing. Anyway, there were a handful of guys and gals, their ages between 18-22ish, and they were talking about something, and I mentioned Indiana Jones, and they didn't know what I was talking about. One girl said, "That's from a movie, right?", and I was flabbergasted that none had seen any of the Indiana Jones movies. This would have been a while after Last Crusade, but before Crystal Skull. When I voiced my surprise, one of the guys said, "Some of us have more important things to do with our lives than watch old movies." That ended that conversation.
"More important things to do than watch old movies"?
Why, this is sacrilege!
Actually I have often thought that as much as I like, appreciate and enjoy movies, that it can be a trap keeping one from actually living, if one becomes totally addicted. It is a bit like the old skit on SNL, where Shatner was at the Trekkie convention and thought his fans were nuts, asking intense questions about Tribbles and such. Sometimes one can substitute a hobby for actual living of a life. I mean, one spends all their time perhaps buying dvd's or seeking out valuable movie posters for their collection, and lives vicariously through such things. This could become a problem, and I can see why to some a movie is just a sometimes thing to enjoy and eat some popcorn at, and then forget.
To each their own, I guess. I will say watching movies as a hobby could be a good thing, as it is non-hazardous, keeps one usually off the street and will only harm one's pocketbook. One man's meat is another man's poison is still a valid maxim. -
On 9/23/2018 at 2:18 PM, TopBilled said:
The basic idea behind this thread is humorous. However I feel like it plays into the whole mindset of "it's okay to make fun of the younger generation and imply they're dumb" sort of mentality. Which if you think about it is a form of derision.
It did cause me to think about how old I was when I saw my first Charlie Chaplin film. Even though I "caught up" on classics when I went to USC's film school (which was called the USC School of Cinema-Television in the 90s when I attended), I grew up in a very strict home where we didn't have a television until I was in grade school. And we were only allowed to go to the movies maybe once or twice a year. This was in the early 80s before VCRs and VHS movies became popular.
So yes, if someone asked me about Charlie Chaplin, I would have been fairly clueless at that time. I also would have been clueless about other big movies everyone else was going to see brand new in the theaters, because my mother shielded me and my sisters from a lot of that stuff.
I guess what I am trying to say is that I gained knowledge and appreciation for classic film by coming to it on my own when I was older and studying it, which I still do even now. Who's to say the 23 year old yanceycravat spoke with recently won't do the same someday...?
I think you make a good point here, TB about not maligning all members of younger age groups who exist in our society. I remember distinctly, and I think I've told this here before, being outside a movie theatre when I was about 14 years old, and we were all of course acting silly and chatting about the film we'd just seen. An old man [that's what we would have called him since he looked about 95] gave us a disgusted look and then said "You kids are all alike. You don't even know who Audie Murphy is!" To this day I'm glad I had the guts to speak up, even if just to educate him to not judge all people as being alike in an age group, and I said "I know who Audie Murphy is, he was the most decorated soldier in World War II." I gotta say, this man did a double take and then just slunk away. I was glad I showed him that some who are younger are not as dense as one who is older might think and I do not want to become like that fellow. There will always be some who do know and appreciate things from the past as you imply, and we should not put them all in one basket. And...I hate to say it, but as much as I enjoy movie knowledge and lore, I can understand that a person could be a fine person and yet not know or love the films of Jacques Tati, though one would hope they would have at least a smattering of knowledge and know the name, Chaplin.
I agree most heartily with your entire post, TB.-
1
-
-
On 9/23/2018 at 12:28 PM, TomJH said:
I recall once talking to the head of personnel of a small company. He was, at a guess, around 30.
At one point in our conversation I made reference to Captain Bligh.
"Who?" he asked.
"You know," I said, "Captain Bligh. Mutiny on the Bounty."
"Sorry," he replied, "Before my time."
I recall being annoyed by his self satisfied smugness, the arrogant assumption that anything that occurred prior to his birth isn't really worth knowing.
"Well, Abraham Lincoln was before your time, too," I said, "but I assume you've heard of him."
He said nothing but still seemed vaguely amused the I would have expected him to have heard of Captain Bligh, "whoever he was."
That's the irritating thing about a lot of the younger people today (and, at age 30, he was hardly that much of a youth), the assumption that anything worth knowing pretty much had to have happened during their own lifetime. They proudly, arrogantly wallow in their own ignorance.
I could only wish I had been there to see this conversation, Tom.
Maybe I'm weird or something is wrong with me, but I am interested in things that are great, no matter what time period they are from. I look for the best, no matter when it was first made or promoted. I had a decorating book once which said that even if you could not afford the most expensive items for your home, you should go to places which sell them because it will improve your eye and your taste, and then even if you can only buy something less expensive you will be a better judge of it.
I also think both my parents had good taste and were open-minded in things they liked, but they also were open to letting us as kids enjoy music and movies that perhaps they might not have been interested in. But we did get to also see and hear things they liked, which included old movies and music. My dad was a jazz enthusiast and my mother liked classical music but I was never restricted from getting to experience all ages of music and movies which gave me a wide spectrum of things available.
But on my own, I would constantly read books about famous movies that were considered great art, and would find a way to see them, and many were films neither of my parents might have ever seen or pushed on me. One picks their own taste I feel, and many people are satisfied with the lowest common denominator of available sources since they know nothing better. If you've only tasted Ripple you might not appreciate Moet et Chandon.
Some people accept what is pushed on them, and some people seek more for their buck. I remember at sixteen hearing a high school classmate say they didn't want to see some movie, since it had subtitles and I thought that was odd, since no amount of subtitles could keep me from seeing a great movie.
The final testament is...great art is art you want to experience again and maybe again. A movie that is really great, would beg to be seen and enjoyed again, yet a crummy one that people watch just to fill time, would never be viewed again. We live in a throwaway culture where trends are seen as de rigueur items, and dialogue in movies should be at minimum, since many people have probably lost much of the understanding of vocabulary above a second grade reading level, hence they would not get many of the jibes in a film like "All About Eve".
I believe there will always be a contingent, small maybe yes, but some who appreciate great things from the past, and will preserve them for future generations.-
2
-
-
On 9/22/2018 at 9:42 PM, Swithin said:
I wonder if the youths have heard of Chaliapin, the most famous Boris Godunov.
They probably haven't even heard of Boris Badenov from Rocky and Bullwinkle, Swithin!
Of course, I have to admit I did not get that joke and take-off on Godunov, till I was about sixteen years old and was reading about it in some book. Jay Ward must have enjoyed making entertainment that could be enjoyed on two levels for both children and adults.
-
2
-
-
Ever since Eddie G. died in "Little Caesar" I've been enjoying watching death scenes in films. Don't call it morbid glee, since we all know they aren't really dying so this enjoyment of mine is acceptable in polite society. I will say seeing Robinson ask the immortal question, "Is this the end of Rico" did sharpen my critical attitudes about what constitutes a great movie death scene.
Now there are overly melodramatic death scenes in films, but also comic ones too. All can be considered being up for attention here. Due to the legend of the supposed deathbed statement, "Dying is easy, comedy is harder" or whatever has been quoted, we all know that for some actors, maybe they would prefer to be dying in a film. And often, I have seen performances where I hope the character will depart for Elysian Fields sooner rather than later. Whether it was Edmund Gwenn or Edward Keane or someone we've never heard of, the quote lives on, and inspires such take-offs as Art Buchwald's "Dying is easy. Parking is hard."
I love to watch actors expire on screen and have a morbid curiosity on how well they are doing it, so I watch their chest to see if they are really trying to stop breathing in and out, and I check their eyelids just to see if they don't flutter and look for other signs of their attention to detail. The luckiest actors have death scenes like the Wicked Witch of the West in TWOO, who gets to die by just collapsing into a puddle while yelling out "I'm melting!!!!" Lucky girl.
I do appreciate the fine death scene in "Bonnie and Clyde" and think it is well done. A more difficult potential death scene is Scott Carey's in "The Incredible Shrinking Man" because one wonders, how small can he get and still be alive? We never get to see him die, just end up outside the basement window, glad to be rid of that agressive spider fighting him. I will say the spider's death throes were wonderful though, when he got the, I think sewing pin maybe, thrust up into his girth and then there was a lot of creepy aftermath which was impressive. It is hard to make a spider perform a death scene well I would think so kudos to that director, Jack Arnold.
Well, we laugh at death since thanatopsis gets the last laugh, and films prove that over and over. If you have a favorite death scene, that you admire due to the actor's prowess or you are just glad to see this actor dead under any circumstances, please share with us.
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, Vautrin said:
The saccharine quality of some of Dickens' female characters is a criticism that is often made of
his novels and it's certainly true to some extent. Some of the Penguin editions of the novels
contain Dickens' outlines of the novel, which are fairly detailed, though I'm sure there was room
for changes to be made, especially considering the quick pace that serialization demanded. So
he could very well have not decided on the final fate of Little Nell until near the end. I do remember
the Holmes' movie about the bank plates hidden in Johnson's library. I think it was one of the last
of the series. Counterfeiting, the next to last refuge of a scoundrel. Maybe Boswell was up in Scotland
fooling around.
Of course, saying that Little Nell reminded me a bit of a storyline from "Little House on the Prairie" does not mean I negate Dickens' talent. For one thing, in his time period, such tales and attitudes were rampant so I forgive the somewhat icky sweet character, and I love all his serialization type sensational tales and have read most of them. So though I make fun of Little Nell, I also kind of like her, and envision her with long blonde braids and looking a bit like Patty McCormack.
Yes, so glad you remember too the great Basil Rathbone quest for those bank plates!
Thanks, Vautrin.
-
Have fun with altering my post title to your heart's content, MCO!
I did post it that way though since fame is often fleeting and many a giant star could be forgotten in decade.
Look at the career of silent star, Wallace Reid. A matinee idol, adored by millions, starred in hundreds of movies up into the 1920's and then...POOF! Gone due to his substance abuse, and his fame did not live on. Frankly with all the movies I've seen, I've only once had a chance to see one of his pictures and it's not the scarcity of the films that demoted him I believe. Some people just don't wear well to a new generation. I'm sure some people from the Depression years would think George Brent would be more well known now that a character actor like Peter Lorre.But it is hard to predict the future, so I hope I'm still alive in fifty years to see who lasts.
-
23 minutes ago, Dargo said:
No CG, you just need to take a nice little nap like Dana is doing here, that's all...
(...and when you awake, you'll feel like, ahem, a whole new person)
My favorite scene in the movie, when those eyes open and she starts screaming and poor old Kevin McCarthy, with that great bedside manner, goes off running into the highway telling all "They're here!" or whatever it is he says.
Loved the fact he was still running around that highway in the remake with Nimoy and Sutherland.
-
13 minutes ago, TopBilled said:
Perhaps the better question to ask here is why do stars become forgotten?
A film friend of mine once said "The public can only have so many stars in their consciousness" hence some have to be downgraded and forgotten I guess, TB.
Well, that's one theory but it could be wrong also... -
18 minutes ago, HelenBaby2 said:
Spielberg? No he’s made too many touchstone films, whether you like it or not. I will say Francis Ford Coppola though, and he directed two of my top five favorite films. He’s just not that prolific.
Actors? Maybe Goldie Hawn. She was everywhere in the 70’s & 80’s but just quit working. Kevin Costner was huge in the 80’s & 90’s but seems forgotten now (I know he still makes films but is low profile.)
Respectfully, I can't agree since many people in the past made films which might have been seen then to be important or "touchstone" films and they are not remembered now at all. As you know, one man's "prolific" could be another man's "hack" and I think that might be Spielberg's fate. But we'll just have to wait to see if either Spielberg or Coppola lose their allure in the future, Helen but I appreciate your candor.
Times change and I'm putting my money on Spielberg being downgraded drastically as an important film director. Thanks for your decision to put Coppola on the list though, as that is going out on a limb also, and I can dig it.
Good choices also with Goldie and Kevin who could end up forgotten too, or maybe will be bigger stars than ever. It can go both ways as we see often in film history. -
On 8/15/2018 at 11:17 AM, NipkowDisc said:
svengoolie is not funny, clever or anything else. just dumb.
Uh, do you like the way he applies his make-up at least, Nip?
-
1 hour ago, misswonderly3 said:
Yes ! Smart girl, Hibi ! I was thinking the very same thing, but didn't want to add to my already very long post about this film.
But yes, I too thought of Shadow of a Doubt while watching The Stranger. As you say, both films have a small town setting, with friendly ( and rather nosy) citizens. Both seem like "nothing very bad could ever happen", but then "something does". And "someone from outside" brings evil to the little town...
Also: in both films, the protagonist is female. And she's the opposite of a femme fatale, she represents decency and innocence. And each of these protagonists at first utterly loves and trusts the very person who brings evil to their sweet, supposedly safe, home. Both Mary and Charlie realize the terrible nature of their beloved gradually, at first refusing to believe it. And both of them have their lives put in jeopardy when the formerly trusted evil one realizes that the young woman who previously adored him is now on to him.
Of course, there's the difference of Mary's adored trusted villain being her husband, whereas "Charlie"'s is her uncle. So it's kind of worse for Mary, because of what I said earlier about how she has to deal with the fact that she's (presumably) been sexually intimate with this monster. Although the film does somehow get across the idea that their newly-wed sex life might not be so great....
I love the small town setting of Santa Rosa, California, Miss Wonderly, but my sick brain then also remembers that this is the setting for Siegel's "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" and I keep thinking as I watch it, that I am going to see Charlie and her family, all turned into those pod people!
Do I need film therapy or just a break from watching movies?-
2
-
-
Okay, I admit it...the post about some not knowing the name Chaplin, made me think of this topic.
Now in Chaplin's case, I don't think he will really be forgotten universally as have been many former luminaries of the stage and screen. I once heard someone say that even today, if you show footage of Chaplin roller skating around a rink and doing amazing stuntlike work, that people will stop and watch. Sure, maybe some don't know of Chaplin, but his talent still amazes when they get the chance to see his work.
What's different though, is seeing the work of a former actor and not enjoying it at all, in an old movie. We all know of big stars who just seem dated and people now can't relate to them. Or they were overhyped at the time and really not that great anyway. I won't name names but you know of what I speak. I doubt there are any major film revivals of the work of Wanda Hendrix but I might be wrong, as I would go to a Sybil Jason film fest, but to each his own.
But again I've digressed, so I ask just who, actor or director, will be not accorded incredible acclaim in about the next fifty years? I will start and don't hate me, but I shall be honest and say, I think it will be Matthew McConnaughey as an actor who was an AA winner and for director, I will say...Spielberg.
Yes, I went there. So kill me but I'm being honest and you wouldn't want me to lie now would you? Feel free to speak your truth also and I will defend your choices even if they are people I think are magnificent. All opinions are welcome, as any of them could come true. -
I adore Duryea!
He was so slimey and slippery in so many roles, but I still like him best as the ne'er-do-well, Leo in "The Little Foxes". Loved watching his lanky blonde locks keep falling down over his venal face. That role seemed to set his course in later films as being money grubbing, insincere, sniveling and so many other bad habits that probably paid him well in films, since he could do that kind of part better than anybody. Partially I think because he doesn't look tough, unless he is holding a gun or something but he is always so great at being banal yet also crooked.
Interestingly I found an old "Good Housekeeping" magazine from the 1940's at my aunt's recently that had a whole article about what a great family man Duryea was, and so unlike his scummy screen characters. Later in his career, when he played the town drunk in a "Twilight Zone" episode, he was quite memorable too.Wonderful topic and nice tribute to Duryea's acting talents!
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:
Funny but while channel flipping I watched the Andy Williams show and he was doing a duet and I keep it on because it was with Ella. BUT then they announced it was with Pearl.
Pearl is way more likable than Della and was married to Louis Bellson. Ella is probably the best singer of them all but she is also likable especially when she sings songs about tiskets and taskets. Did I mention that Della was kind of a pain, so they say even though she later was associated with all that angel stuff. Pearl was definitely the best talk show guest over both of the other two.
-
4 hours ago, misswonderly3 said:
I can't help but know who he is, Drake is Canadian and so the Canadian media here never shuts up about him.
(Drake seems like a nice man, but his "music" is absolute rubbish.)
C'mon, don't sugarcoat it, Miss W...tell us what you really think about Drake's music!
Thanks for making me have two really enjoyable laughs of the day with your most amusing posts. I dig your style!-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, misswonderly3 said:
Why do we care about any of this, why did we suddenly start talking about the customs and use /lack of use of technologies of the Amish, and why aren't we talking about movies?
There is the "Off Topic" forum for those eager to explore the life style habits of Amish and Mennonite people.
Uh, maybe someone here is hooked on the movie, "Witness"?
Just kidding, Miss Wonderly and I enjoyed reading your wrath about this off-topic issue. I agree, we need no more talk of Amish or Mennonite lack of viewing habits of movies or tv programs. They have made their choice to miss shows like "The Real Housewives of Pennsylvania" and woe be to them.-
1
-
Favorite Amish Movies
in General Discussions
Posted
I had no idea that the Amish had any football players in their fold.
Thanks for opening my eyes, MCO!