Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Recommended Posts

I think SUDDENLY would've benefited from a rewrite.

the opening scene clunked and could've tied into the final scene more cleverly. The first 20 minutes were too exposition-laden and a couple of good shocks came at the expense of the overall credulity of the story (if the HEAD OF THE SECRET SERVICE AND THE TOWN SHERIFF have been missing since 2:00; and it's 5:00, and there has been a threat against the President who is coming to town, SOMEONE is following up on that PERIOD and THROUGHLY at that- in the film, no one pretty much seems to give a rip. That is a deadly fault in the script that needs to be corrected and I will dig my heels in on that and die on that hill. and a lot of the little issues could've been corrected easily by a rewrite.

*ALSO APPARENTLY THE SECRET SERVICE DIDN'T HAVE A LINE ITEM FOR BINOCULARS IN THE BUDGET.

**In our continuing vein of "I DIDN'T KNOW THEY COULD SAY THAT IN [insert year]!" on NOIR ALLEY: was anyone else stunned to hear the word "r a p e"? I know I was.

The electrified rifle at the end was AWESOME, I give you that, but again- BAD EXPOSITION in the scene where the grandpa and (smoking hot) TV repairman are openly conspiring to electrocute the bad guys in front of them, they may as well have been flashing pitching signals Tommy Lasorda style back and forth.

still, i give it a pass because- again- it was a well-done finale.

i wish that the direction and script of SUDDENLY was on a par with the acting, which was uniformly terrific. Francis Albert, fresh off his Oscar for ETERNITY is taking risks and it's great. I  thought maybe the scenes where he addresses the camera head on would not work, but they did. I sometimes resent the effortless quality of Sinatra's vocals, but with his acting- i think it's a strength. i love the way he charges ahead with a part, no matter what and gets the job done. Sterling Hayden was fine in a terrible part. James Gleason I always like, the female lead was strong and i even liked the kid.

i like David Raksin but I did not really like the score.

i'm sorry. i'm being a picklepuss about this one, i just see so much potential and room for improvement.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure anyone is as nuts as I am about this aspect of the films, but the restored print of Suddenly was really terrific, so thanks to Eddie for giving credit to Serge Bromberg who rescued it from the public domain versions.  For me watching a mint-restored film is like traveling through time, you can see all the details in the buildings and the cars etc. as well as the actors performances.  I think there's a high-def aspect that really enhances the viewing enjoyment, regardless of everything else in the film.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cmovieviewer said:

I'm not sure anyone is as nuts as I am about this aspect of the films, but the restored print of Suddenly was really terrific, so thanks to Eddie for giving credit to Serge Bromberg who rescued it from the public domain versions.  For me watching a mint-restored film is like traveling through time, you can see all the details in the buildings and the cars etc. as well as the actors performances.  I think there's a high-def aspect that really enhances the viewing enjoyment, regardless of everything else in the film.

I LOVED the location shooting, and all the details of what had to have been a real town, not an exterior on a studio lot. The Ford sign in the background, the little rickety malt shop next door to the Bijou which was playing BEACHHEAD, the tiny little hospital at the end.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

from the imdb trivia section for SUDDENLY:

The rifle the gangsters are using is a German Gewehr 43, also known as a G43 or a Gew 43. It is semi-automatic and fires an 8mm cartridge. It is well-suited for the task they are undertaking.

The production company that made the movie was Libra Productions. "Libra" is also the title of a book that is a fictionalized version of the life of Lee Harvey Oswald, also allegedly a presidential assassin.

In the colorized version Frank Sinatra (Ol' Blue Eyes) is given brown eyes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

....

**In our continuing vein of "I DIDN'T KNOW THEY COULD SAY THAT IN [insert year]!" on NOIR ALLEY: was anyone else stunned to hear the word "r a p e"? I know I was.

Yeah, I noticed that. Interesting, the introduction of certain words that  you just know were never said in movies before. Like ( and I think you pointed this one out at the time) the use of the word "pregnant" in "Tomorrow Is Another Day".

And along the same lines - this is kind of trivial, but also kind of funny - at one point the kid says "I have to go to the bathroom", maybe one of the first times in film you see such an acknowledgement that bodily functions exist. I suspect that previously that line of dialogue might have been  "I need a drink of water", a euphemism for "going to the bathroom".

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

the smoking hot tv repairman Jud was played by Irish actor James O'Hara.

76378305_1424759508.jpg

 

I noticed the smoking hot tv repairman too. I looked up James O'Hara, and was interested to find out that he was the brother of Maureen O'Hara ! Which actually, isn't surprising - obviously pulchritude runs in the family.

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

i wish that the direction and script of SUDDENLY was on a par with the acting, which was uniformly terrific. Francis Albert, fresh off his Oscar for ETERNITY is taking risks and it's great. I  thought maybe the scenes where he addresses the camera head on would not work, but they did. I sometimes resent the effortless quality of Sinatra's vocals, but with his acting- i think it's a strength. i love the way he charges ahead with a part, no matter what and gets the job done

Well,we're in agreement about Sinatra's acting - this guy was good. I always enjoy watching him act, whether it's in one of those silly light-weight musicals ( which I do like), or the dramatic stuff like this film or, say "The Man with the Golden Arm".

But what do you mean when you talk about resenting the "effortless quality of Sinatra's vocals"?  Much as I love my rock n roll and all the great music of the latter half of the 20th century, Sinatra was the greatest singer of that century. One of them, anyway, for sure. Nobody could interpret a song, could nail what it was about, the way Frank could. Shirley you weren't saying that you don't like Frank Sinatra's singing, I must be getting something wrong.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe Frankie should have knocked off that annoying junior G-Man kid at the

beginning, but then he would have lost a lot of his leverage. Yes, it was kind of

strange that he had this well-oiled plan to knock off the president, yet he didn't

seem to notice the TV repairman making a connection to the table or good old

pops spilling that water all over the floor so as to complete the portable electric

table. The problem was he was too busy running his yap to pay attention to what

was going on pretty much in front of him. Bad form in a professional hit man. Anyway,

U.S. history shows that when it comes to president assassinations, the loser smuck

gets the job done.  

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, misswonderly3 said:

I noticed the smoking hot tv repairman too. I looked up James O'Hara, and was interested to find out that he was the brother of Maureen O'Hara ! Which actually, isn't surprising - obviously pulchritude runs in the family.

Thank you, I wondered about that! But I figured there was a good chance there was more than one O'Hara family in Ireland so I didn't speculate 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re- Sinatras singing

 Oh no, I think he was one of the great voices of 20th century. There is just such an effortless quality in his style - I think "resent" wasn't the right word to use to describe it... I'm tired and it's late and the only way I can think to say it is Francis made everything look so easy, most of us mortal men can't help but be a little envious. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, you're both right about the way Frank's supposedly tough hit-man character talks too much. My extensive experience with hit men  is the most effective ones tend to say very little.

Still, I enjoyed Frank's blathering. Obviously this is a hit-man who's given to self-reflection. Maybe under different circumstances he'd have been a philosopher or a Buddhist. :blink:  If he hadn't yapped on so much it would have been a less interesting movie.

By the way, apropos of nothing, I loved all the little household details, like the pictures on the wall and the hankies in the drawer, the frilly kitchen curtains, etc. It's something I always look for in old movies, how the place is decorated. There's something fun about that stuff.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the other things about SUDDENLY that worked was the rather cryptic military backstory of Sinatra's character. The idea of a trio of disgruntled vets looking to kill the President works and has great potential- especially with Eisenhower being President at the time (and you wouldn't even have to say his name.)

unfortunately, the trio is styled as classic "hoods" from any number of WB Pictures- right down to the Fedoras and tie pins- of course one of them is spotted the minute he heads into town. think of how much more effective the picture would be if they were sporting Hunter's gear or more casual wear. (as Vautrin rightly said, great as Sinatra is in the part, with that Fedora you do expect him to start singing Witchcraft at any minute.)

also also, the more i think about it, the more i feel like STERLING HAYDEN- wonderful an actor as he was- is ALL WRONG in his part, he is WAAAAAY too imposing a presence to believably be cowed and waylaid by 5'6 Frank and his braintrust on the loan from the Damon Runyon Collection. I think JAMES WHITMORE would've been a better choice in the part.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Sterling just towers over skinny little Frank. Although maybe that's supposed to be tempered by the fact that he's sustained a severe (?) bullet wound to his arm, so he's handicapped and in pain.

Also, one of the interesting chunks of dialogue in "Suddenly" is when Frank /John Baron starts going on about the power of the gun, and how it renders its possessor god-like in its capacity to take life. And all the time he's waving his gun around. And in the end, when he's shot (by the gun that Gramps was hiding in the hanky drawer) and disarmed of his own beloved gun, he whimpers and whines before he dies (making the point that without his gun he's a childish coward.)

This is all by way of saying that Sterling's character had to contend with a seriously injured arm plus the awareness that Baron had a gun and he did not.

But for sure, I can see James Whitmore in the sheriff role. But then, would Ellen have succumbed to his charms the same way?

Related image

"If I'd been the sheriff I'd have counselled that nasty hit man.   I was good at that."

                                                                              

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, misswonderly3 said:

But for sure, I can see James Whitmore in the sheriff role. But then, would Ellen have succumbed to his charms the same way?

well, it would make her repeated turning him down a little more believable.

i mean, really, War Widow with issues or not, it's 1954 and you got six-foot-five-inches of blonde beef knocking on the door- LET HIM IN, GURL.

 

ETA:

73e2065e431bf15c513ca45ce57a6ea9.jpg

  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/8/2018 at 1:37 PM, LornaHansonForbes said:

the smoking hot tv repairman Jud was played by Irish actor James O'Hara.

76378305_1424759508.jpg

 

SMOKING HOT? I have to disagree with you there, Lorna. LOL!

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/9/2018 at 11:15 AM, LornaHansonForbes said:

well, it would make her repeated turning him down a little more believable.

i mean, really, War Widow with issues or not, it's 1954 and you got six-foot-five-inches of blonde beef knocking on the door- LET HIM IN, GURL.

 

ETA:

73e2065e431bf15c513ca45ce57a6ea9.jpg

LOL! Ster was looking a bit paunchy in this one.......

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/8/2018 at 1:30 PM, LornaHansonForbes said:

I think SUDDENLY would've benefited from a rewrite.

the opening scene clunked and could've tied into the final scene more cleverly. The first 20 minutes were too exposition-laden and a couple of good shocks came at the expense of the overall credulity of the story (if the HEAD OF THE SECRET SERVICE AND THE TOWN SHERIFF have been missing since 2:00; and it's 5:00, and there has been a threat against the President who is coming to town, SOMEONE is following up on that PERIOD and THROUGHLY at that- in the film, no one pretty much seems to give a rip. That is a deadly fault in the script that needs to be corrected and I will dig my heels in on that and die on that hill. and a lot of the little issues could've been corrected easily by a rewrite.

*ALSO APPARENTLY THE SECRET SERVICE DIDN'T HAVE A LINE ITEM FOR BINOCULARS IN THE BUDGET.

**In our continuing vein of "I DIDN'T KNOW THEY COULD SAY THAT IN [insert year]!" on NOIR ALLEY: was anyone else stunned to hear the word "r a p e"? I know I was.

The electrified rifle at the end was AWESOME, I give you that, but again- BAD EXPOSITION in the scene where the grandpa and (smoking hot) TV repairman are openly conspiring to electrocute the bad guys in front of them, they may as well have been flashing pitching signals Tommy Lasorda style back and forth.

still, i give it a pass because- again- it was a well-done finale.

i wish that the direction and script of SUDDENLY was on a par with the acting, which was uniformly terrific. Francis Albert, fresh off his Oscar for ETERNITY is taking risks and it's great. I  thought maybe the scenes where he addresses the camera head on would not work, but they did. I sometimes resent the effortless quality of Sinatra's vocals, but with his acting- i think it's a strength. i love the way he charges ahead with a part, no matter what and gets the job done. Sterling Hayden was fine in a terrible part. James Gleason I always like, the female lead was strong and i even liked the kid.

i like David Raksin but I did not really like the score.

i'm sorry. i'm being a picklepuss about this one, i just see so much potential and room for improvement.

LOL. AGREE about the binoculars, but if they had them, it would've been a shorter film (Ditto about the time lapse)

Sorry, but I HATED that kid actor! (rarely do I like them)

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Hibi said:

LOL. AGREE about the binoculars, but if they had them, it would've been a shorter film (Ditto about the time lapse)

Sorry, but I HATED that kid actor! (rarely do I like them)

(I gave the film such a hard time, I figured I'd give the kid a pass.)

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...