Jump to content

Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About MiddleGround17

  • Rank
  • Birthday 06/17/1994

Profile Information

  • Location
  1. Stewart, perhaps, could entirely be out of context. That one is based on claims from two people who were impacted by or claimed to have experienced that behavior, so entirely possible. But on the other hand, he was on the record back in the day in interviews describing 'dusky housekeepers' and complaining that movies were catering too much to 'colored people'; and even his friend Leonard Gershe said: "I don't think there's any question that Jimmy was uncomfortable with black people." So, ultimately, I think he did harbor some racist tendencies. Which was common of the time, sadly, but disappoints me when it comes to Jimmy. I still love his work, but it does make me a little sad. Wayne, I'm less willing to give the benefit of the doubt. If it was just one or two comments, maybe, but the whole Playboy interview was just one thing after another. I know his son claims it was taken out of context and everything, but there's enough racism, homophobia and everything else in that single interview (and also a couple of others) to make me think that was just the kind of guy he was.
  2. I remember being very, very disappointed after reading about James Stewart's on-set racism toward Hal Williams and Woody Strode. His personal politics aside, I would have expected much better from America's 'most-decent' man. I can't say I ever particularly cared for John Wayne (Outside of maybe two movies, I always found him quite boring to watch, honestly), but his vile 'white supremacism is great' Playboy interview just gave me another reason to dislike him. To me, an actor's politics or personal life is irrelevant unless it's deliberately causing hurt or harm to others. That's when it makes me dislike them. Mel Gibson and Russell Crowe are two more modern actors whom I now look at and think 'no, thanks.'
  3. As a born-and-bred Brit, I have no idea what sacred-cow-tipping is but for some reason, I feel it's a good description of the BBC... Anyway, I don't care if they do the gender-flip thing as long as it works for and doesn't change the fundamentals of the story (that is: as long as they spend more time dealing with aliens than forcing some other plot in there for the characters, and as long as it doesn't change an iconic character -- e.g. Bond is a woman; Dorothy is a man). I would much, much prefer they spend time creating new material designed for these actors instead of doing yet another WotW, but if we're going to just remake everything until we run out of stuff, I'd rather them do something radically different than just rehashing the exact same plot and characters for the hundred and third time.
  4. I'm also on-board for another go-round, even if I did find the revival to be incredibly frustrating and ultimately a little disappointing (I guess I just don't much care for extended sequences of characters driving in silence). I don't see that 2020 launch date, though. Given how long it took to produce the last season, I'd be surprised if it was that quick.
  5. Especially since she had to film all of her Essential wraparounds in one day because of her schedule, instead of the typical 3/4 days of filming. The Netflix series probably took months and months and months of work, and I imagine the actual subject of that show is more significant to her. Definitely not comparable.
  6. I know a lot of people here are bored or frustrated with The Essentials, and having read your posts, I completely get why. But I also think, speaking as a millennial who is (fairly) new to classic film, The Essentials is perfect for someone like me. In fact, looking through previous lists, there are a LOT of movies that I imagine people here would say are overplayed that I haven't yet seen and I'd love for an Essentials to be able to introduce me to those films and have a discussion about why they're so important or significant. So I understand why people are so 'ugh' about this still being a regular feature on the network, but I think you have to look at it from the perspective of someone who is still new to 'classic cinema'. It's nice to have a curated collection of 'essential' films rather than waiting until that one movie happens to show up on the schedule. That said, I'm also not a fan of Ava's picks and I think the list is kind of strange as a whole. Personally, I don't care if it's a subtitled or foreign film, nor do I care what race or nationality the actors or director is as long as it's a good movie. But the list is just odd. While some of the choices can be argued as true essentials (I personally think Rashomon is absolutely an 'essential', for example), a lot of them do feel better suited to a Spotlight on African-American cinema rather than being presented as an 'Essential'.
  7. I'm also not a fan of Moore's Bond. I like a sense of humor, but those movies test my tolerance quite a bit. Especially once you get to the whole 'Bond goes to space' thing. I also don't mind Brosnan, and think he could have been a terrific 007 if he had better scripts to work with. The Brosnan era is sadly like a masterclass in how NOT to do Bond.
  8. It's really the only solution to the problem, but it's a disappointing one. And even if it happened, you'd get the same bizarre choices you see at the Golden Globes with light-hearted dramas being 'marketed' as comedies. I completely understand that it's hard to put a comedy and a drama together in a category, because they're completely different, tonally. But if there's a comedy that has a great story, is excellently put together and says something (e.g. Annie Hall or Tootsie, both of which were nominated for Best Picture), I don't see any reason why it should not be in the running alongside all of the weepies. But, honestly, I welcome any solution to the pretentious "Comedy is Lowbrow" idea that so many members of the Academy seem to have. They need to sit down, watch Sullivan's Travels and understand (just as Joel McCrea does) that people need to laugh.
  9. I see it as nothing more than a pretentious, nonsense belief -- "Comedy is not worthy of such a prestigious award." Comedy takes MUCH more technical skill, across all levels, to work than a Drama does. The Academy Awards have largely become a contest of 'who can cry the hardest?', as opposed to 'whose work was truly worthy?' Even comedy-dramas get pushed out unless it's almost entirely drama, like Up in the Air or any of Alexander Payne's movies. I think it's easy to suggest just separating the categories, but that just strengthens the idea of there being a segregation within the Academy Awards. Comedy is my favorite genre, so this is a particularly sore point for me. Ryan Gosling SHOULD be nominated next year for his pitch perfect Stan Laurel-esque performance in The Nice Guys, but we all know it will instead be someone in a true story biopic about someone famous with a serious illness struggling in a very bad time of history that gets through it with Hollywood movies. The Academy will eat it up, but it'll be forgotten in a few years.
  10. I saw the first two episodes, and laughed more than I care to admit. It caught me by surprise a few times. Haven't gone out of my way to see any more though. I might eventually get around to it. It's not a bad Brit-com, but it's not Catastrophe -- which I guess is the gold standard for British comedies right now.
  11. FilmStruck confirmed on their twitter account that the service would not overlap with the TCM network/on-demand service, so I'm 95% sure it will be almost entirely titles from the Criterion collection. There may be the occasional Warner movie, but I'd expect it to be almost entirely Criterion. The thing I'm completely confused about is that they're apparently going to offer an additional 'Criterion' tier which costs more? So I don't actually understand what kind of titles the main service will actually feature. It's all very confusing.
  12. According to the Criterion site (https://www.criterion.com/current/posts/4032-introducing-filmstruck), Criterion will still be on Hulu "into the month of November". No idea when Filmstruck actually launches.
  13. The film reminds me of those old Bugs Bunny cartoons where it just becomes a complete game of one-upmanship and humiliation in creative ways. The questions it raises for me are all about what happened before and after, rather than understanding what is happening now -- why did this start? What will happen next? Who will win? From a structural perspective, it's a simple, brief story: the set-up (man waters plants with hose), the revelation/potential for conflict (a boy arrives), the conflict (boy messes with hose), and the aftermath (sprays man in face, gets chased). Who'd have thought three years of narrative studies would come in handy for a 45-second movie about a man spraying himself in the face? Looking forward to the next.
  14. I remember seeing the remake first, and being downright terrified by the sight of the pod shells and just the whole final scene. But I agree, both are as good as one another. I remember having to watch the original movie multiple times to analyse the story in my film class. Despite the production code stuff, I still had nightmares about pod people for at least a week.
  15. I watched Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein. I have the pleasure of saying it was the first time I ever watched a Boris Karloff movie (yes, really) and I thought both were fantastic -- with the exception of the tacked-on happy endings.
© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
  • Create New...