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

The Overplayed and the Underplayed


Recommended Posts

While I like Drew as a public figure (I find her cute and she comes off as very nice),   I do feel she is lacking as a host.  That she really doesn't provide much depth when she talks about films.   But I have seen an improvement this year.    As for the comments of others;  This is a chat site and yea come comments are mean but hey that is what one gets in this type of forum.    Those that can't handle that need to lighten up.

 

As for Broderrick;   his presentation was so bad I can't recall if he provided any useful inslights as it relates to the films being shown.   

To me, Matthew Broderick lacked energy and was very monotonous to listen to.  He also didn't have to seem to have any type of personality.  It reminded me of someone who clams up when forced to give a speech in front of a group of people.  Broderick performs on Broadway, I cannot imagine him having trouble performing in front of a group of people.  I'm sure he was also reading from a teleprompter, so it's not like he had to memorize his intros for the screwball comedies he was introducing (I believe he was presenting a Friday Night Spotlight), and I doubt he really had to have any prior knowledge of the films in the presentation.  His lackluster performance in contrast to the manic nature of the screwball comedies he presented made his performance seem even worse by comparison.  Broderick may just be a really bad host or presenter. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the comments of others;  This is a chat site and yea some comments are mean but hey that is what one gets in this type of forum.    Those that can't handle that need to lighten up.

 

Thanks james. I enlarged the font where I quoted you because this gives me a perfect opportunity to say something I have wanted to say in regards to this.

 

All of us who post here operate in the realm of television (cable) and film criticism. Not all criticism is going to be warm and fuzzy nor is it supposed to be. Look at Bosley Crowther and Judith Crist-- more than one director she attacked in print thought she was a real biotch and she may very well have been.

 

There are plenty of critics who make a career out of snarky critiques. I believe in constructive criticism, no matter how hard or edgy it gets. If people cannot handle it, that is just too bad-- don't read it, read something else. Truth hurts. But we have to say it and improve and move forward.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, Matthew Broderick lacked energy and was very monotonous to listen to.  He also didn't have to seem to have any type of personality.  It reminded me of someone who clams up when forced to give a speech in front of a group of people.  Broderick performs on Broadway, I cannot imagine him having trouble performing in front of a group of people.  I'm sure he was also reading from a teleprompter, so it's not like he had to memorize his intros for the screwball comedies he was introducing (I believe he was presenting a Friday Night Spotlight), and I doubt he really had to have any prior knowledge of the films in the presentation.  His lackluster performance in contrast to the manic nature of the screwball comedies he presented made his performance seem even worse by comparison.  Broderick may just be a really bad host or presenter. 

 

What is stated here is what really confused me.    Broderick is a fine performer on Broadway so his super low key,  no energy delivery was odd especially since he wasn't introducing The Best Years of our Lives but screwball comedies! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuse me for interjecting myself into your discussion with TB here Vertigo, but I just want to say that I read this earlier comment of yours here and I thought it did make good sense in perhaps "clarifying" Drew's use of the word "masculine". And while I admit I missed seeing the exchange between her and Bob on this edition of The Essentials, it seems as if with YOUR use of the phrase "may obviously been referencing (the examples you supplied) films", then perhaps would this NOT be a prime example of Drew's failure to express herself in a more%

Right Dargo-- he's doing the thinking for her and presenting it on her behalf. So when someone like Lorna comes along and says Drew gave a weak reading of THE DIRTY DOZEN, we have to agree. She did not say what Vertigo said to clarify or explain herself. She did not have Vertigo writing her material on the TelePrompTer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would I apologize for someone who received three Oscars. I don't think you understand what apologies are for and why people apologize on these boards. Your reasoning seems backwards. This may be why I always win our arguments. LOL

 

Also I am not the one who mentioned the comment about 'masculine' war movies first. That was Lorna. Take it up with her if you don't like that criticism.

Why would I apologize for someone who received three Oscars. I don't think you understand what apologies are for and why people apologize on these boards. Your reasoning seems backwards. This may be why I always win our arguments. LOL

 

Also I am not the one who mentioned the comment about 'masculine' war movies first. That was Lorna. Take it up with her if you don't like that criticism.

Why would I apologize for someone who received three Oscars. I don't think you understand what apologies are for and why people apologize on these boards. Your reasoning seems backwards. This may be why I always win our arguments. LOL

 

Also I am not the one who mentioned the comment about 'masculine' war movies first. That was Lorna. Take it up with her if you don't like that criticism.

Clearly YOU don't know what apologies are for. They recognize and hope to compensate for acknowledged wrongdoing. One wouldn't need to apologize for Bergman anymore than I would for Drew in acknowledging the correctness of Barrymore's rather apt description of The Dirty Dozen.

And if you think you've won any arguments with me, you're clearly delusional. Your final absurd (illogical and desperately misrepresentative of my statements) post in our lenghty Bergman, Davis, Young, Jones "dust up" was followed by my accurate point by point refutal of your wildly inaccurate and totally false claims against my posts. You naturally and wisely retreated from that with your tail between your legs.

 

PS As you like to seem quite the authority on film criticism here, maybe it's time you stopped using "Oscars" as reliable indicators of any proof of actual talent or merit. Just as many could argue it's all about Hollywood press agentry and certainly not meant to be taken oh, so seriously in film discussions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly YOU don't know what apologies are for. They recognize and hope to compensate for acknowledged wrongdoing. One wouldn't need to apologize for Bergman anymore than I would for Drew in acknowledging the correctness of Barrymore's rather apt description of The Dirty Dozen.

And if you think you've won any arguments with me, you're clearly delusional. Your final absurd (illogical and desperately misrepresentative of my statements) post in our lenghty Bergman, Davis, Young, Jones "dust up" was followed by my accurate point by point refutal of your wildly inaccurate and totally false claims against my posts. You naturally and wisely retreated from that with your tail between your legs.

 

PS As you like to seem quite the authority on film criticism here, maybe it's time you stopped using "Oscars" as reliable indicators of any proof of actual talent or merit. Just as many could argue it's all about Hollywood press agentry and certainly not meant to be taken oh, so seriously in film discussions.

First, I don't get why you quoted the same comment multiple times. That's weird. And second, if you're going to slam any of my Oscar references then you have to start slamming Robert Osborne's many Oscar references in his wraparounds and write-ups since you are saying Oscar-related commentary is meaningless. Again, you seem to be trying to have it both ways to win an argument with me. It just doesn't work, Vertigo, the way you are approaching these debates.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is stated here is what really confused me.    Broderick is a fine performer on Broadway so his super low key,  no energy delivery was odd especially since he wasn't introducing The Best Years of our Lives but screwball comedies! 

I agree.  Maybe his presentation, while it still would have been dull, would have been better suited for melodramas, or some other highly emotional material.  Broderick's Producers co-star Nathan Lane may been better suited for presenting the screwball comedy series.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the multiple quotes within a reply post. I guess I tap the reply post impatiently.

 

If Drew isn't communicating her ideas clearly ( as I interpret them) maybe that's a valid criticism, though I would have thought most of us here might have determined what she was driving at when comparing Dirty Dozen to others in that genre,

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the multiple quotes within a reply post. I guess I tap the reply post impatiently.

 

If Drew isn't communicating her ideas clearly ( as I interpret them) maybe that's a valid criticism, though I would have thought most of us here might have determined what she was driving at when comparing Dirty Dozen to others in that genre,

 

Have you seen Illeana Douglas as a host?     I felt she was great.   She had interesting things to say and a smooth delivery.   Also she has the family creed like Drew  (well not to the same degree of course).    

Link to post
Share on other sites

.

As you like to seem quite the authority on film criticism here, maybe it's time you stopped using "Oscars" as reliable indicators of any proof of actual talent or merit. Just as many could argue it's all about Hollywood press agentry and certainly not meant to be taken oh, so seriously in film discussions.

 

Good point.

In addition, we should all realize that  there is no guarantee that the Academy members have seen all the films or performances in a given category or have even the seen the particular film or performance for which they are casting their vote. 

Last year there was at least one Academy voter who admitted that he or she had voted for a movie that he or she had not seen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

First, I don't get why you quoted the same comment multiple times. That's weird. And second, if you're going to slam any of my Oscar references then you have to start slamming Robert Osborne's many Oscar references in his wraparounds and write-ups since you are saying Oscar-related commentary is meaningless. Again, you seem to be trying to have it both ways to win an argument with me. It just doesn't work, Vertigo, the way you are approaching these debates.

I don't have to "slam" (and you overuse that word) Osborne. I'm not debating with him. Since the Ocars ( and 31 Days of Oscar) are meant to promote and glorify the film industry and clearly used here at TCM to attract viewers, they serve a useful purpose, and are fun for all of us to debate. However your use of the phrase "Oscar winner" to automatically signify proof of talent or accomplishment is rather starryeyed and naive of you.

 

Again you resort to unsubstantiated and entirely false accusations to try to appear that you have the upper hand in our discussions.

How am I "trying to have it both ways to win an argument"? More nonsense from you - throw out false accusations and hope something may stick. Another tired, old debate maneuver.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the multiple quotes within a reply post. I guess I tap the reply post impatiently.

 

If Drew isn't communicating her ideas clearly ( as I interpret them) maybe that's a valid criticism, though I would have thought most of us here might have determined what she was driving at when comparing Dirty Dozen to others in that genre,

 

True, however didn't you earlier state something to the effect that Drew "might entice younger and the less classic film knowledgeable to watch this program"?

 

And so, me thinks THAT demographic probably wouldn't have caught that implied reference without some further explanation and examples of such, right?!

 

(...and so, wouldn't it have been "awesome" IF Drew would have actually NAMED those films you mentioned, and thus given those new younger viewers some addition titles to seek out and enjoy later on???)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point.

In addition, we should all realize that  there is no guarantee that the Academy members have seen all the films or performances in a given category or have even the seen the particular film or performance for which they are casting their vote. 

Last year there was at least one Academy voter who admiited that he or she had voted for a movie that he or she had not seen.

 

I would be surprised if they watch 25% of the nominees movies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have to "slam" (and you overuse that word) Osborne. I'm not debating with him. Since the Ocars ( and 31 Days of Oscar) are meant to promote and glorify the film industry and clearly used here at TCM to attract viewers, they serve a useful purpose

 

 

Sorry Vertigo. I went to the store earlier and got all the baloney I'm going to buy today. Nice try though. LOL

Link to post
Share on other sites

True, however didn't you earlier state something to the effect that Drew "might entice younger and the less classic film knowledgeable to watch this program"?

 

And so, me thinks THAT demographic probably wouldn't have caught that implied reference without some further explanation and examples of such, right?!

 

(...and so, wouldn't it have been "awesome" IF Drew would have actually NAMED those films you mentioned, and thus given those new younger viewers some addition titles to seek out and enjoy later on???)

Good post, Dargo. I like how you are gently weaving reverse psychology into your post to lead Vertigo on to more productive pastures.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Vertigo. I went to the store earlier and got all the baloney I'm going to buy today. Nice try though. LOL

Hilarious - nicely crafted and measured response to my very valid points. Name calling as a response - The last resort of the losing debater who cannot support his own arguments and as usual has distorted or completely fabricated his opponent's case, and when called on it must hastily retreat/call names.

 

And actually Dargo's point is well taken. If Drew wants to distinguish Dozen from other war films, take a moment to make that comparison clear and mention those "less masculine" war films.I am not the one to be the great Drew defender here, though somehow I became that in questioning the necessity of the degree of snarkiness about her in various posts here. (As Topbilled might phrase it "Topbilled and others hate her. They all slammed this sweet, beloved star, maybe best remembered for her role at age 7, in the Oscar nominated classic ET")

 

I have to confess that I rarely watch The Essentials because essentially I've already seen most of them quite often and/or have them in my

collection. The few times ( maybe three or four) that I did catch Drew and Osborne discussing a movie, I thought she was sweet, genially enthused about the classic of the moment and seemed to find aspects to like about the films that Robert hadn't considered. As Jack Nicholson's character asks of Helen Hunt's near the end of "As Good As It Gets". "Is that someone it's hard for you to be around?". Now I don't know if it's true - it's said she doesn't know her film history, some have complained, but isn't that why Robert is there?" She provides a fresh point of view on classic films from a well liked personality. I probably should bow out here, as I can't fairly defend or support her here.

 

As for the

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks james. I enlarged the font where I quoted you because this gives me a perfect opportunity to say something I have wanted to say in regards to this.

 

All of us who post here operate in the realm of television (cable) and film criticism. Not all criticism is going to be warm and fuzzy nor is it supposed to be. Look at Bosley Crowther and Judith Crist-- more than one director she attacked in print thought she was a real biotch and she may very well have been.

 

There are plenty of critics who make a career out of snarky critiques. I believe in constructive criticism, no matter how hard or edgy it gets. If people cannot handle it, that is just too bad-- don't read it, read something else. Truth hurts. But we have to say it and improve and move forward.

I think the word hypocrite is screaming to be heard here, Topbilled.You howled like a wounded dog because I dared use the phrase, "those esteemed judges of great acting, Loretta Young and Jennifer Jones" a comment meant more to mock you then tomdenigrate them. Oh, but then your reaction - - "I hated them. I slammed two Oscar winners! blah blah blah so get off your high horse about "If people can not handle it, that is just too bad - etc."

 

On the comments re:Barrymore, mimicking her mild lisp, for example were, I thought, too petty to not challenge. I certainly don't whine when I am attacked (or run whimpering to the board moderator), which is not to say I won't vigorously defend my positions. People are free to be as nasty as they want to be when they discuss performers, just as I am free , James, to take issues with their nastiness if I choose. If my comments in that arena bore you, skip them. I may or may not choose to ignore boorish remarks as I see them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the word hypocrite is screaming to be heard here, Topbilled.You howled like a wounded dog because I dared use the phrase, "those esteemed judges of great acting, Loretta Young and Jennifer Jones" a comment meant more to mock you then tomdenigrate them. Oh, but then your reaction - - "I hated them. I slammed two Oscar winners! blah blah blah so get off your high horse about "If people can not handle it, that is just too bad - etc."

 

On the comments re:Barrymore, mimicking her mild lisp, for example were, I thought, too petty to not challenge. I certainly don't whine when I am attacked (or run whimpering to the board moderator), which is not to say I won't vigorously defend my positions. People are free to be as nasty as they want to be when they discuss performers, just as I am free , James, to take issues with their nastiness if I choose. If my comments in that arena bore you, skip them. I may or may not choose to ignore boorish remarks as I see them.

This comment shows how you make mistakes. First, I am not James. I think you are confusing me with jamesjazzguitar. And as for the comment about Barrymore's lisp, you seem to be attributing that to me. I never even noticed her mispronouncing the word 'masculine.' I think Lorna made that comment. I wish you would stop making these mistakes and stop writing such confusing posts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This comment shows how you make mistakes. First, I am not James. I think you are confusing me with jamesjazzguitar. And as for the comment about Barrymore's lisp, you seem to be attributing that to me. I never even noticed her mispronouncing the word 'masculine.' I think Lorna made that comment. I wish you would stop making these mistakes and stop writing such confusing posts.

Hello TopB - sorry once again you're a careless reader. Clearly YOU strongly agreed with James as you quoted/ enlarged his remark, which in fact, made you a hypocrite as my example indicated. So the FIRST paragraph was directed to you. I never said you made the lisp comment, just that you were in on the piling on.

 

Clearly the SECOND paragraph, where I addressed JAMES directly in the paragraph, was directed to HIM. Very confusing, I know. Poor Topbilled.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello TopB - sorry once again you're a careless reader. Clearly YOU strongly agreed with James as you quoted/ enlarged his remark, which in fact, made you a hypocrite as my example indicated. So the FIRST paragraph was directed to you. I never said you made the lisp comment, just that you were in on the piling on.

 

Clearly the SECOND paragraph, where I addressed JAMES directly in the paragraph, was directed to HIM. Very confusing, I know. Poor Topbilled.

You're becoming increasingly rude because you don't like to be corrected when you are wrong. In the second paragraph you were addressing the lisp comment then went right into the part about James (in the same paragraph). So your formatting and your erratic writing style is making things very confusing. You're funny though-- you keep digging yourself in deeper and providing me with a few chuckles. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're becoming increasingly rude because you don't like to be corrected when you are wrong. In the second paragraph you were addressing the lisp comment then went right into the part about James (in the same paragraph). So your formatting and your erratic writing style is making things very confusing. You're funny though-- you keep digging yourself in deeper and providing me with a few chuckles.

 

Well, we're even then. I'm amused by your watery arguments and lack of self recognition. (Hmm - let's see "you're becoming increasingly rude because you don't like being corrected when you're wrong." (Right - Topbilled is never rude when he is corrected for being wrong. As if.)

Since I was not "wrong" (about what?) I don't like being corrected when I'm right. The "lisp comment" was relevant to James' position that the board is tough and get over it. I simply stated that I can react to snarky comments If I choose.

I think it was very clear what was meant for you and what was addressed to James, and what may have been relevant to you AND James.

 

Obviously, once again it's not the facts you address, it's the writer's style (" Oh, it's so confusing!") or his level of courtesy towards you. But as you have shown repeatèdly here on the board, you like to toss little matches here and there, and then are astonished if you are burned. And then you run crying to Mama. I only know this from numerous comments about you from others. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, we're even then. I'm amused by your watery arguments and lack of self recognition. (Hmm - let's see "you're becoming increasingly rude because you don't like being corrected when you're wrong." (Right - Topbilled is never rude when he is corrected for being wrong. As if.)

Since I was not "wrong" (about what?) I don't like being corrected when I'm right. The "lisp comment" was relevant to James' position that the board is tough and get over it. I simply stated that I can react to snarky comments If I choose.

I think it was very clear what was meant for you and what was addressed to James, and what may have been relevant to you AND James.

 

Obviously, once again it's not the facts you address, it's the writer's style (" Oh, it's so confusing!") or his level of courtesy towards you. But as you have shown repeatèdly here on the board, you like to toss little matches here and there, and then are astonished if you are burned. And then you run crying to Mama. I only know this from numerous comments about you from others. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

I seriously am chuckling. I wish I could be mad at you, but I am just grinning so much because this is all so funny. Nothing was clear in your earlier posts and just because you say so doesn't make it so. Thanks for such stupendous message board comedy.

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I seriously am chuckling. I wish I could be mad at you, but I am just grinning so much because this is all so funny. Nothing was clear in your earlier posts and just because you say so doesn't make it so. Stifling some more guffaws. Rolling on the floor. Thanks for such stupendous message board comedy.

:)

Happy to supply you with belly laughs. . However, I think your feigned confusion is another of your convenient dodges

since you have no valid arguments to make, and OK, I must admit our silly banter makes me laugh too, (and of course, it is so much fun poking a gas bag!) though our equal stubborness is probably a little dismaying (and tedious) to others here on the board.

 

"Just because you say so doesn't make it so." Indeed!

  • 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...