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

What causes you to delay watching a classic film that everyone else has seen?


Recommended Posts

Interesting that a few of Michael Cimino's films have been mentioned.

I think he's a fantastic director, who somehow became maligned when it was fashionable to malign certain people in Hollywood.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Great question!  I delay watching a classic film that everyone else has seen so I can be sure to have a good viewing experience.  In other words, no commercials or editing.  Really good films are aired on AMC but they are so chopped up by so many annoying commercials that I avoid watching movies on this channel.  I don't prefer watching movies on a computer either.  My computer screen is not that big.  The best possible situation is to see the classic movie at a theater where you are able to view the entire horizontal image, have good sound and the excitement of watching a film in the dark with an audience.  Here in Chicago, there is a wonderful historic movie theater "The Music Box" which is a treasure because they play classic movies and even silent movies with live musical accompaniment.  I saw the film "Vertigo" (directed by Alfred Hitchcock) again at The Music Box and it was like seeing a whole new movie.  I'll try almost any genre of movie if it's really good with the exception of particularly violent horror films which I don't like.

Music Box Theatre · Neighborhoods · Open House Chicago  image.jpeg.152b7f77abe7ddbafdf464c622c636bf.jpeg  image.jpeg.79ddc3d37bca8f48d09446b66c27c8b5.jpeg

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, rosebette said:

I'm going to watch Tokyo Story On Demand this week-end.

I hope you don't get the introduction with Eddie Muller. A propos to the discussion about how much to know prior to viewing a movie, I have decided to chuck Tokyo Story because Muller said entirely too much about it. He gave away an important thread to the story that is something that the viewer should be permitted to come to discover him/her - self.  I came here with the idea of issuing a Spoiler Alert and spilling it to better prove my point but now I won't, not only because someone here (rosebette) has announced an intention to view it but because I won't engage in the outrage. If I'm a real movie enthusiasts I might decide to view anyway but maybe I'm not and besides it's TWO AND HALF HOURS LONG and the I know too much before even starting. My own fault. I normally and assiduously eschew intros altogether but I was so surprised to see Eddie Muller that I found myself listening. Too bad. Well, at least I have 2 1/2 hours freer space on the DVR.

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, laffite said:

I hope you don't get the introduction with Eddie Muller. A propos to the discussion about how much to know prior to viewing a movie, I have decided to chuck Tokyo Story because Muller said entirely too much about it. He gave away an important thread to the story that is something that the viewer should be permitted to come to discover him/her - self.  I came here with the idea of issuing a Spoiler Alert and spilling it to better prove my point but now I won't, not only because someone here (rosebette) has announced an intention to view it but because I won't engage in the outrage. If I'm a real movie enthusiasts I might decide to view anyway but maybe I'm not and besides it's TWO AND HALF HOURS LONG and the I know too much before even starting. My own fault. I normally and assiduously eschew intros altogether but I was so surprised to see Eddie Muller that I found myself listening. Too bad. Well, at least I have 2 1/2 hours freer space on the DVR.

Perhaps you would still enjoy it. Give the movie a try (if you haven't already deleted it).

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TopBilled said:

Perhaps you would still enjoy it. Give the movie a try (if you haven't already deleted it).

Maybe later sometime. If it was Kurosawa I would for sure, but I wouldn't be less annoyed, maybe even more.

***

NEW RULE

No more intros. Just start the movie. Let the host/hostess do an outro. Then they can say whatever they damn well please.

:lol:

***

 

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, laffite said:

NEW RULE

No more intros. Just start the movie. Let the host/hostess do an outro. Then they can say whatever they damn well please.

That is never, ever going to happen. I would advise you to turn on your TV at three minutes past the scheduled start time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, sewhite2000 said:

That is never, ever going to happen. I would advise you to turn on your TV at three minutes past the scheduled start time.

Of course It's never going to happen. Didn't you notice I was cracking up about it?

No need on the three minutes, they gab longer than that anyway. I usually just fast forward through it (I had a lapse this time, to my chagrin). I never watching anything in real time. I record it first.

...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, LsDoorMat said:

I've never seen American in Paris. All of the trailers make it look so completely artsy and boring. 

I think that's what critics and audiences felt about Gene Kelly's later ballet musical INVITATION TO THE DANCE (1956). It led to the end of his contract at Metro.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, TopBilled said:

Interesting that a few of Michael Cimino's films have been mentioned.

I think he's a fantastic director, who somehow became maligned when it was fashionable to malign certain people in Hollywood.

I don't think it's always a matter of it being "fashionable" to malign Cimino.  I think he's a good director too.  He just needs to hire an editor.  Or at least a better one.  ;) 

4 minutes ago, LsDoorMat said:

I've never seen American in Paris. All of the trailers make it look so completely artsy and boring. 

It can be if you're expecting a film that has anything to do with George Gershwin.  But other than that it's a pretty good flick.  ;) 

Sepiatone

Link to post
Share on other sites

A few years ago, I saw the stage version of An American in Paris - quite different from the movie, which is alright, and Oscar Levant is the best part of the film with me (along with Gershwin music).  What really differentiated the movie from the stage version was the fact that many of the individuals involved were Holocaust survivors.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, LsDoorMat said:

I've never seen American in Paris. All of the trailers make it look so completely artsy and boring. 

It's only the extended ballet piece that takes up almost all of the last 25-30 minutes of the movie that is intended to have this effect (well, not to be boring, but ...). The rest of it is your pretty standard MGM love triangle/quadrangle musical romance with some nice dance numbers, songs and comic asides with Oscar Levant that just happens to be set in Paris. Full confession: I almost always turn my TV off when the extended dance piece begins, but I'm fine with the rest of the movie.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sewhite2000 said:

It's only the extended ballet piece that takes up almost all of the last 25-30 minutes of the movie that is intended to have this effect (well, not to be boring, but ...). The rest of it is your pretty standard MGM love triangle/quadrangle musical romance with some nice dance numbers, songs and comic asides with Oscar Levant that just happens to be set in Paris. Full confession: I almost always turn my TV off when the extended dance piece begins, but I'm fine with the rest of the movie.

Then maybe I'll give it a chance. I had the impression that practically the entire film is  a ballet. I have no problem if Kelly wants to go all artsy in one number like "The Broadway Melody" number in Singin in the Rain. But lots of his schtick wears out its welcome in a hurry as far as I'm concerned. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, chaya bat woof woof said:

I love extended dance pieces, especially in The Red Shoes.  For short dance pieces (ballet variety), The Turning Point is great.  It also has one of the best catfights between Shirley Mac. and Anne Bancroft.

I'm a fan of THE TURNING POINT (1977) as well. Though it lost in every single category where it was nominated for an Oscar, totally shut-out by the Academy.

It's too bad MacLaine and Bancroft didn't team up for another film in a different genre. But I read somewhere that they didn't exactly get along.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LsDoorMat said:

I have no problem if Kelly wants to go all artsy in one number like "The Broadway Melody" number in Singin in the Rain.

Yeah, I've always assumed that number got greenlit after the success of the first film.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shirley seems to have a history of not getting along with a lot of her co-stars. Clint Eastwood, Anne Bancroft, Debra Winger....

The only co-stars that I can think of that she MIGHT have had a good off-screen rapport with is her co-stars from THE APARTMENT (Jack Lemmon) and TERMS OF ENDEARMENT's Jack Nicholson.

It might have been a matter of egos between her and brother Warren, though between the two of them I think Warren might have the bigger one though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bethluvsfilms said:

Shirley seems to have a history of not getting along with a lot of her co-stars. Clint Eastwood, Anne Bancroft, Debra Winger....

The only co-stars that I can think of that she MIGHT have had a good off-screen rapport with is her co-stars from THE APARTMENT (Jack Lemmon) and TERMS OF ENDEARMENT's Jack Nicholson.

It might have been a matter of egos between her and brother Warren, though between the two of them I think Warren might have the bigger one though.

Of course, which one was/is the bigger star?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Warren Beatty's only been in 23 movies in 60 years.  Seems like he was in more movies than that, but he hasn't been.  Just twenty-three films since 1961, the last being RULES DON'T APPLY (2016).  

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Mr. Gorman said:

Warren Beatty's only been in 23 movies in 60 years.  Seems like he was in more movies than that, but he hasn't been.  Just twenty-three films since 1961, the last being RULES DON'T APPLY (2016).  

And the majority of them were early on, during the first half of his career.

I think we can say he's semi-retired now. RULES DON'T APPLY was a misfire. Unlike Harrison Ford who keeps going on and going, Beatty's best years are behind him.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've gotta say I wouldn't mind seeing Warren Beatty's 'Directors Cut' of DICK TRACY (1990).  It runs 30 minutes longer than the theatrical version and he's got a copy of it.  But I don't recall this version ever being released to homevideo or having a latter-day theatrical screening. 

Warren only appeared in 2 movies released in the entirety of the '80s:  REDS (1981) and ISHTAR (1987). 

  • Like 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...