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

Does anyone here ever watch ?Cassandra Crossing??


FredCDobbs
 Share

Recommended Posts

I saw it when it came out, and suffered through it about a year ago during a bout of insomnia. Richard Harris looks like Buster Brown with that hair-do and Sophia and Ava are in such soft-focus that they practically disappear.

 

One can't help but watch it for laughs these days, but I didn't today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=edonline wrote:}{quote}

> I generally don't like the Hollywood remake machine, but the few times I have seen *Cassandra Crossing*, I've thought the movie could be worth with a redo especially with the special effects and script, it would be MUCH better.

I agree that this film could of been much better and deserves to be remade. Like Roger Corman said, only remake mediocre movies because it is easy to make the remake better than the original.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It might be correct for a remake, but who would replace Burt Lancaster, Sophia Loren, Ava Gardner, Alida Valli, Ingrid Thulin and even Richard Harris? The original has flaws (the husband/wife friction) but it still works rather well for a disaster film. Most of the comments so far, are about when it was made...not the film itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The film is much too long. It?s 129 minutes long. That?s 2 hours and 9 minutes.

 

This film would have been much better at about 1:10 or 1:20 hr/min.

 

Back in the old days, the studios usually made shorter movies and they showed two of them as a double-feature in theaters they owned. The films usually ran from 1 hour and 10 minutes, up about an hour and 20 or 30 minutes. So, that was a 2 hour and 20 minute or a 3 hour presentation, plus a short subject (or a newsreel) and a cartoon. That was another 20 minutes. So the old-time audiences got a variety when they went to movies in the old days.

 

By the ?60s and ?70s, the studios were shooting the long films, and showing them without cartoons, short subjects, or newsreels. That way they could charge more money for these ?epics?, and they could get one or two more showing in a day at each theater. Many of the ?epics? were much too long for the subjects they covered, and they weren?t any good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the sixties, newsreels, cartoons and short features were standard fare on TV, which people could watch when they wanted, and for free..that's why films got longer...and in my opinion, in many cases, better.I agree that a well edited film (with much of the fat removed) is the far better product than what we get today thanks to CGI and the infusion of fat in the form of explosions and gratuitous violence. In the seventies, however we got some excellent two-hour long films.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I respect your own personal opinion, but I stopped going to these kinds of films by the mid-?60s.

 

?Major Dundee? is one of them, at 136 min (2005 restored version), and ?Custer of the West? at 143 minutes, ?Krakatoa: East of Java? at 131 minutes.

 

I prefer great films like ?Three on a Match? at 63 minutes, ?The Petrified Forest? at 82 minutes, ?Of Human Bondage? at 83 minutes, ?Fog over Frisco? at 68 minutes, all with Bette Davis, and all very interesting well-made films.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the film you listed were much too long, relative to the story they were telling. At the same time, however, films like MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS, CHINATOWN, ALICE DOESN'T LIVE HERE, ANYMORE, MR. KLEIN, DAYS OF HEAVEN etc. are very successful at their two-hour length.

I also agree that some short films are successful because of their length (or lack thereof) one in particular...THE OX-BOW INCIDENT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were also more than enough movies longer than two hours that came out in the 30s and before. *Marie Antoinette* and the 1925 version of *Ben-Hur* are both close to 2:30, the cut-down version of *Greed* is about 2:20 (a big relief from the original nine hours!) and several of Lillian Gish's movies (including that made after she left D.W. Griffith) run a good deal over two hours, such as *The White Sister*, which TCM is showing on Wednesday.

 

I think the previous poster is right about TV replacing a lot of what Hollywood did. Shows like *Dragnet* aren't that much different than MGM's Crime Does Not Pay two-reelers, for example. I had never seen the *Dragnet* TV series until recently, but it's on one of the digital sub-channels, and it's not very good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hour movies too long ? Whatever happened to attention span ?

 

This reminds of me of a "critic" who didn't like Papillon (1973), because it was supposedly overly long; but, I ask, how could the movie do justice to such a story unless IT WAS long ?

 

I liked Cassandra Crossing, and wish TCM would show it. Movies were better in the 70's.

Link to comment
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
 Share

© 2022 Turner Classic Movies Inc. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...