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

What romances do you just hate?


Recommended Posts

On 7/3/2021 at 9:44 AM, TopBilled said:

Whenever Audrey Hepburn is paired with a guy old enough to be her father.

With Bogart in SABRINA (she has more chemistry with William Holden).

With Gary Cooper in LOVE IN THE AFTERNOON (a major mismatch).

With Rex Harrison in MY FAIR LADY (another unconvincing pairing).

I don’t have a problem with age differences. My guy is 22 years older than I and we’ve been together over 10 years. I suppose it helps that I’m an old soul and he’s remained young at heart.  

I’ve never been much of an Audrey Hepburn fan, although I do like “Sabrina”.  I have always envisioned Holden’s character as an incurable philanderer, and that Sabrina dodged a bullet there. I believe Cooper was miscast in LITA no matter who his leading lady was. Can’t say that I’m all that wild about Rex Harrison in anything.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/14/2021 at 10:22 AM, chaya bat woof woof said:

Speaking of Cary Grant, Stewart won the Oscar for The Philadelphia Story because he lost out the previous year, but I liked Grant's performance.  No chemistry between Hepburn and the man whom she plans to marry.  Didn't feel chemistry between Ruth Hussey (sp?) and Stewart either.

 

If I had my druthers, Hussey and Grant’s characters would have ended up together.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LoyFan said:

If I had my druthers, Hussey and Grant’s characters would have ended up together.

Hussey's character was matter-of-fact, practical, while Stewart's was more idealistic and romantic.   Seems like they wouldn't have meshed, but there's that old saying that opposites attract...

I always thought the 2nd go-round for Hepburn/Grant wouldn't stick either.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's move from movie to comic books.  In the eighties, Marvel as part of its "illusion of change" decided to marry off first two of its second rank heroes (Hawkeye and Cyclops in 1983), and then three of its major heroes (the Hulk, the Human Torch and Spider-Man) in 1986-1987).  Then, over time, it dissolved those marriages one by one.  Two of these dissolutions are particularly objectionable to me.  One is Bruce Banner's marriage to his longtime paramour Betty Ross, a relationship that went back to the very first issue of the Hulk.   An attempted marriage early in the run failed when a long-time villain caused Banner to transform into the Hulk.  This led Betty to spend the better part of a decade marrying someone else, divorcing that person, and with that man eventually dying.  In the first two decades of her existence Betty was not a particularly interesting woman, often under the shadow of her father, a general who devoted much of his time and energy trying to destroy the Hulk.  In 1982, Betty's relationship with Banner, who at the time had managed to control himself when he became the Hulk ended.  Over the next three years, Banner (a) slowly lost control over his Hulk persona (b) the Hulk became a rampaging monster again who had to be banished from earth. 

In 1985 the Hulk was accidentally brought back to Earth, and an old comrade of his, Doc Samson was able to subdue him.  Realizing that the Hulk had much more mass than Banner, he found a way to physically separate the Hulk from Banner.  This did not last long, but Betty realized Banner was alive, and was by his side when he woke up from his coma.  He proposed to her, she accepted, and they were married.  (But not before her now disgraced father shot and seriously wounded the best man).  From 1987 to 1998, the Hulk was written by Peter David, who devoted more attention to fleshing out her character.  His run was also notable for reintroducing the Grey Hulk (the Hulk's original color).  Instead of being the Savage Hulk who was green and had the mind of a four year old child, the Grey Hulk was cunning, and also selfish and amoral and it usually took him a long time to do the right thing.  After working on various combinations for about a decade, David was asked by the editor whether he could kill off Betty.  David, who was going through a divorce of his long-lasting marriage at this point agreed, and wrote a story in which Betty was fatally poisoned by her husband's radioactivity.   In retrospect, David regretted this, and indeed soon stopped writing for the book, but because higher ups wanted a return to the Savage Hulk.  (Fans had intermittently wanted this, but once it went into effect, sales soon slumped.)

The problem with this was that it took away the one thing of hope that Banner had to live for.  Which meant whatever happened to him, he would always be miserable, even when, about a decade later, Marvel resurrected Betty. 

257589-57044-betty-ross.jpg

Hulk07.png?resize=350,522

8b0f652c00b08c91a7d63970abddf32009d69ed6

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, txfilmfan said:

Hussey's character was matter-of-fact, practical, while Stewart's was more idealistic and romantic.   Seems like they wouldn't have meshed, but there's that old saying that opposites attract...

I always thought the 2nd go-round for Hepburn/Grant wouldn't stick either.

I think Tracy and Dexter will make it work the second time around....Tracy had learned by then that expecting human perfection in everyone wasn't very realistic and it's actually better to have feet of clay, will make you a much better and  more understanding human being all around.

As for Liz and Mike, I'm not sure on that one. Mike could be every bit as opinionated as Tracy, only to the other extreme. He thought rich people were insufferable snobs, but having spent some time with Tracy, he learned that wasn't the case at all. I think he got that lesson from Dexter as well....that the idle rich can actually be pretty nice folks.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just me, but Depardieu and Javier Bardem are two of the biggest Sluggo, leading men. They can act, but man, what do women see in these guys? Of course, my wife thinks my crushes on Bernadette Peters and Valerie Perrine are way off base. So it goes.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, txfilmfan said:

They weren't on a cruise - they were on a liner on an Atlantic crossing.  There's nothing to do except whatever's on board (no intermediate port stops), and a lot of activities were organized activities that encouraged passenger mingling.    Also, liners back then held fewer passengers than cruise ships today (the Constitution held 1000 passengers at that time), and people became friendly with one another (especially those in the same class of passage).  They had 7 or 8 days of being together.

The Cary Grant character was a well-known international playboy, so it would be the same today if a celebrity were on board (though today the celebrity would likely be sequestered and never seen).

I agree the Empire State Building meet-up is contrived. 

Actually they did have a port stop. That is where Grant went to visit his grandmother. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/27/2021 at 1:31 AM, skimpole said:

I do not think Russell Crowe has chemistry with anyone in Gladiator.  Indeed, it could be argued that he does not have chemistry with anyone in any movie.

This is a bit catty, reflecting more my view of Gladiator and A Beautiful Mind.  Conceivably, one could imagine Crowe's talents being used to make a successful romance.  But the appeal of William Hurt completely escapes me.  There's a lot wrong with Gorky Park, but there's nothing about the love scene that shows any emotional weight.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Returning to comic books, after twenty years (1987-2007) of being married, Peter Parker (Spider-Man) and Mary Jane Watson had their marriage literally annulled.   The Marvel comics equivalent of the devil literally erased their marriage from history, in a literal deal with him to save Peter's aunt after she had been shot.  There were no shortage of reasons why Marvel sachems decided to make this move.  That doesn't mean they were good ones.  One thing is that the current series of movies about Spider-Man viewed him as a teenager, even though in the comic book entered university about three years after his initial appearance in 1962.  In the comic book world Peter had aged at least a decade, so there was a commercial reason for wishing he was younger.  And the fact that there were two more Spider-man film series with the same teenager focus, meant that the comics had a reason to keep this up, even though most readers clearly disliked the move, and several decades of readers had moved on from him being a teenager.. 

Another reason was that Peter's appeal was that he lived an ordinary, rather difficult life, and many thought that being married to a beautiful, vivacious, funny, brave and resilient woman was too good to be true.  It's odd that part of the problem is that she was simply too interesting, and therefore too popular.  There were ways of getting around this (she would be very rich, and then lose the money, horrible things would happen to the two of them).  But there was clearly a faction who wanted to get rid of her.   One idea in the mid-nineties was to argue that Peter was actually a clone, and the person he thought was a clone was the real Spider-Man.  Peter and Mary Jane could then leave the series altogether and have a family, while the "real" spider-Man could take his place.  Except that the "real" Spider-Man did not share his appearance, have any of his relationships or even have the same name, so the idea he was "real" was never going to convince readers.  A few years later there was an ill-conceived plan to kill Mary Jane in a plane explosion.  But third's time the charm...

Except there were no shortage of problems with the new status quo.   (1) Imagine graduating college and then being told you had to repeat the eleventh grade indefinitely.   That was basically the position the retconned Peter found himself in.  He could now be somewhat younger and have all kind of brief relationships.  Except when he had been in that position in the past, he had never really been all that interested in the dating scene and had either been unsuccessful or looking for a serious relationship.  It also meant all that he learned over a quarter-century had to be relearned again.  (2) In looking for a romantic relationship, it wasn't clear whether it would be more plausible,  through someone less interesting than his former wife, or just have him unhappy with no relationship at all.  As a result the love interests who did arise could never compete with Mary Jane in popularity.  (3) To make things even more complicated Mary Jane eventually returned to the series , which meant that a lot of effort had to be made to keep them apart.  At the same time there were several other series, placed in alternate realities where Peter and Mary Jane were together.   And a final problem was that there were writers that actually liked the marriage and which did a good job of believing it should work.  Some of these scenes are simply heartbreaking:

straczynskispiderman1a.jpg

DkN187PUYAAQqza.jpg

ASM50v2_04.jpg

 

EcM8AyeXgAEzMH1.jpg

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any time one or both of the characters in a love pairing is presented as irresistably appealing, and the actor and/or actress just doesn't have the looks, charm, and/or age to sell it, it's something I have to fight to suspend that disbelief throughout the movie. Mismatches in "leagues" are not believable, and shame on them for that . I can buy into it, though, if the set up is the fact that there is a mismatch and the point being made is that 'there's no accounting for taste' and 'you like what you like'.......but you can only stretch that point so far, and they still have to sell it enough where we can imagine it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Does anyone have strong opinions on The Accidental Tourist?  Because I remember this caustic review by Stuart Klawans in The Nation:  "He [William Hurt] has chosen a new life with Geena Davis.  But does he love her?  Is he full of joy and Desire?  No.  He merely accepts her, as if life went around hanging out Geena Davises on every corner.  Don't expect to want other people: just make do with them.  That's the real moral of The Accidental Tourist, a film that uses mature resignation as a mask for self-satisfaction."

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/27/2021 at 2:31 AM, skimpole said:

I do not think Russell Crowe has chemistry with anyone in Gladiator.  Indeed, it could be argued that he does not have chemistry with anyone in any movie.

I love Gladiator, but I do not like Russell Crowe in it.  He seems too wooden.  Like, he knows his character is supposed to be tough, but his acting seems forced.  I see him as an actor in a movie rather than a character in a movie, if that makes any sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes to movie romances, (the plot), I would have to go with "The Sheik" (1921) and "The Son of the Sheik" (1926).  I would never fall in love with my rapist if that ever happened to me.

When it comes to the actors chemistry with each other, I think I will have to go with Gene Kelly and Debbie Reynolds for "Singing in the Rain".  I can't imagine who could possibly replace Gene Kelly for the role.  He was so perfect for it.  I LOVE Debbie Reynolds in it too.  The age gap was just too much though.  I kinda don't see how Gene Kelly's character was so popular with all the women in the movie.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
On 9/28/2021 at 9:14 PM, Katie_G said:

Have to say, I hated the "romance" between Daniel Craig and Rhys Ifans in Enduring Love.  Spoiler: it didn't end well. 😉

 

 

I haven't seen the movie or read the Ian MacEwan novel, but I doubt audiences would want them to be together either.

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...