traceyk65
-
Posts
4,162 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Posts posted by traceyk65
-
-
> {quote:title=SansFin wrote:}{quote}I believe that movies in which story is more important than explosions still have many good supporting roles. A prime example of this is the Harry Potter series. The number of speaking roles is quite high and even the janitor gets into the act.
>
> Pirates of the Caribbean is a series with many supporting roles also. Depp is surrounded with a wide cast each adding their personal marks.
I was just thinking of both those films! Great minds? LOL
The films of the Coen Brothers also seem to have interesting supporting casts. For example, RAISING ARIZONA stars Nicolas Cage and Holly Hunter, but has pretty great supporting roles for John Goodman, William Forsythe and Francis McDormand.
-
I have only seen clips from "Zardoz" but I would like to see the whole movie some time, especially given the OZ allegory explanation. ( In the clips it looked like a darker version of Barbarella, except with a male protagonist. Obviously, those clips were misleading! )
-
-
It really doesn;t matter if two actors like each other does it? I've read that Gable and Leigh weren't too crazy about each other, but their chemistry works just fine (not to detract from my own argument about Bette, but Vivien Leigh was great as Scarlett--I just would like to have seen Bette do it--even a screen test!) And it really doesn't matter if they have a hot affair off the set . I read that Marilyn Monroe and Yves Montand had an affair during the filming of LET'S MAKE LOVE, but supposedly their onscreen chemistry was nil (I don't know for sure, having never managed to see it) Cary Grant and Katharine Hepburn had great chemistry, but they were just good friends. Same with William Powell and Myrna Loy.
I do remember reading somewhere that Bette always wanted to make a movie with Gable--that she had a major crush on him.
-
Every movie good guy needs a villain or else what's the point? Harry Potter needs Lord Voldemort, Robin Hood needs Prince John and Guy of Gisbourne, etc etc. So here's a tribute to villains, especially attractive villains, (BTW, does anone know what movie is shown a 2:10?)
-
-
I came across this page on FB. It's got lots of interesting links to the "odder" elements of old Hollywood, as well as some interesting mainstream links. Though maybe some folks might find it interesting:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Decaying-Hollywood-Mansions/111378268883521
-
> {quote:title=SansFin wrote:}{quote}
> > {quote:title=traceyk65 wrote:}{quote}
> > The original point about the direction was valid, I think I think that it was more than valid: it is definitive. It is as you said that all other factors were equal but the movies are vastly different. It is perhaps the best possible example of a series where each movie had common elements and the only difference was the directors.
> >
> >
> >
> > I tried to think of a classic movie example that fit that well--maybe one of the "series" movies, like the Falcon or Tarzan movies? I'm not a big fan of those, so I can;t really comment...Anyone?
-
> {quote:title=bagladymimi wrote:}{quote}Fred, I agree with you about the kissing. I really can't see them as a couple. They didn't have the right chemistry
>
I'm not sure how we could know about Bette and Gable, because they never did anything together, did they?
-
Fabulous film noir tribute (it's a little long, but worth it):
Ive been having a discussion on another thread about Bette Davis as Scarlett, so here's a JEZEBEL tribute:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqqFF6f6BfM
-
Here's one for Friday! (BTW, if you feel inspried, please do go ahead and post something...)
-
In honor of his birthday, Yul and his Magnificent Chest (You have to love a man who can pull off lines like this. While wearing a skirt.)
Yul with and without hair. I prefer him without...
-
> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote}I just can't imagine Clark Gable kissing Bette Davis.
Errol Flynn kissed her in several movies...
-
I fell in love with Clark Gable at the age of 12. It broke my heart to find he'd been dead since 1960...I also think James Stewart has the sexiest mouth, especially when he was younger. And if I had my choice for a date, I'd go with William Powell. He seems like he'd be a lot of fun! (Or maybe he just had very good script writers...) Or maybe Robert Montgomery, for similar reasons.
-
> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote}
> > Only when she removes these anti-glasses does her "vision" improve and she can now see the world as it is.
> That same thing always happened when Clark Kent removed his glasses.
I always wondered why Clark Kent's "super" eyes didn't melt the glasses with his heat vision.
I like "Now Voyager" but I think "The Letter" or "All About Eve" will always be my favorite Bette.
-
SansFin, fair enough. You have your favorite; I have mine...
The original point about the direction was valid, I think--the two movies are vastly different and the difference lies in the direction, as pretty much everything else was the same--the actors, the writer, the main producer and the soundtrack composer were the same for movies 1-3.
-
> {quote:title=Dargo2 wrote:}{quote}Actually tracey, that IS the very thing that MAKES IT funny....that in this day and age there are STILL people, both men AND women, who think like that, AND who go to the polls in order to elect those very people to those governmental offices of which you speak.
>
> So don't go solely blamin' the people who get elected, my dear.
>
> (...and now after this slight "correction", I think we better move away from this tangent here)
Last word on politics...the fact that so many people agree is what I find so disturbing. They would watch that video and agree heartily. There. Done.
-
-
Over the past few months, my sister and I have been playing around with writing silly captions or quotes on pictures of Classic Actresses, like Dietrich and Davis, sending them to each other, etc. Anyway, I thought you all might appreciate some of them...
-
In honor of John Gilbert's birthday, a couple of clips--one silent from BARDELYS THE MAGNIFICENT and one talkie--DOWNSTAIRS. I like him best in the latter I think...
-
> PS - Davis as Scarlett would have been a grave mistake, imho, throwing the film off-kilter in her direction, as some have mentioned here.
>
> Edited by: Arturo on Jul 9, 2013 8:10 PM
>
> She would have had to have a VERY strong director, to rein her in. Or maybe just acting opposite Gable would have balanced things out? Like putting Marlene Dietrich opposite someone like Gary Cooper or John Wayne or even James Stewart, someone very American, tended to tone down her exoticism a bit.
>
-
You know that video is funny, but it would be funnier if there weren't a bunch of people in govt right now who believe it's true...not that OZ is anti-feminist, but that women need keepers. Yikes.
-
> {quote:title=SansFin wrote:}{quote}
> > {quote:title=traceyk65 wrote:}{quote}
> > The first two movies aren't terrible--they were competent--nothing spectacular or special, no sense of "magic" or of entering another world like you got from reading the books. I am sorry to say that my feelings are not in agreement with yours.
>
> I believe the first movie is the best because it conveyed the innocence of a boy thrust into a new world. I loved that with the exception of the shaft-of-light scene when he was in the wand shop that all of the magic and special effects were subtle and perfectly believable and that this went far to making it a very special world.
Well, we all have our own opinions. I just did not feel like the characters "lived" in that world until I saw the third movie. With the kids especially, it felt to me as though they were just people in costumes and not real people. In the first movie especially, I felt as though the script/director was giving us a tour of Harry Potterland "Oh look, here's the pub where witches hang out...now straight ahead you'll see the magical entrance to Diagon Alley, the magical world's favorite shopping district...on your left you'll see the famous Eyelops Owl Emporium..." I don't know--it seemed very false to me. In the third movie, it felt like everyone was more comfortable with their roles and the language (which they probably were, especially the kids) and the sets didn't feel like sets, they felt like real places that could exist.
The third book was a bit of an anomaly--it's the only one that doesn't feature Voldemort as the bad guy in any form. It does give Harry a sort of inside view to his parents' lives that he didn't have before and really except for exposing Peter Pettigrew and getting Sirius out of prison, it didn;t really advance the story much.
-
OK, it may be completely geeky/childish of me, but I am a big fan of the Harry Potter movies/books as are my kids, so we saw/read them all. Multiple times. I think the difference in quality between the first two and the third lies, in large part, with the director. The first two movies aren't terrible--they were competent--nothing spectacular or special, no sense of "magic" or of entering another world like you got from reading the books. Pretty faithful to the actual text of the books (which is something peoplre always complain about, but it isn't necessarily a virtue) but kind of boring. And, cardinal sin in my book, the script took out much of the humor. What was left, with the exception of a few lines, was obvious, contrived and very slapstick.
Then came the third movie, directed by Alfonso Cuaron, and it was wonderful. It's the only one of the films he directed and is by far, the best. Granted, the kids had become better actors and that helped, but I think the biggest difference was the director (though I could be wrong). The script didn't follow the books exactly, but there were so many added little touches that helped create that sense of entering another world that was so missing from the first two films. The sets were better and more detailed, with all sorts of activity going on behind or around the characters, who are often shown in longer views/shots for just this reason. One scene in particular really worked--near the beginning of the film there's a scene of the boys all sitting in their dorm, wearing pajamas and fooling around eating magic candy. There's no scene like it in the books, but it's funny and intimate and pulls you into the world of the film. But Cuaron doesn't linger on it--after a few seconds he swoops outside into the night, where the dementors (evil, soul-sucking monsters, for non-fans) are waiting, creating a chilling contrast between the warmth and security of the castle and the danger outside. The kids are given little lines and actions that make them seem more like the teenagers they are (like Hermione worrying about the state of her hair when they are in the middle of a crisis). Funny little touches like cheerful waltz music during a scene where Harry turns his evil bitchy Aunt Marge into a human balloon and imbuing the whomping willow (a sentient tree) with a comically nihilistic personality, I could go on and on...Here's one of the scenes I mean--there's no point to it, as far as driving the plot, but it's just another one of those little things that makes the movie enjoyable. It takes place in the wizarding inn called The Leaky Cauldron, where Harry is meeting his friends before going back to school.
or Lupin's boggart class:
Sorry about the length--I do get a bit too enthusiastic at times!
Now, Voyager (1942) Great Film !!
in General Discussions
Posted
> {quote:title=selimsa803 wrote:}{quote}I'm glad we didn't get to see that beauty parlor scene because the "reveal" of the new Charlotte on board the ship is such an iconic moment when she glances up from under that elegant, dashing hat. And yet you still feel her uncertainty, can see the waiting barriers, ready to be put back in place. And there are still moments where that uncertainty lingers, like when her sister-in-law invites her to play bridge and Charlotte hesitantly questions whether she will fit in. And when June asks if she can ever forgive her for being so horrible, Charlotte jokingly replies "Never!" with a fierce hug, but there's a real catch in her voice. It's a great performance.
I read somewhere (I'm always reading something somewhere and can never remember where
) that the butterfly cape Charlotte wears in the dining room scene was symbolic of her transformation. Any thoughts on that?