I Just Watched...

[film lover 293]

"Charlie Chan at the Opera" (1936)--Boris Karloff sings!!  And is the star of this entry in the series, supposedly one of the best.  Warner Oland in the title role is OK, but a few proverbs go a Long way, IMHO.  Oscar Levant composed the opera "Carnival" for this entry in the series.  The music and Karloff are the best things in this short film.  Keye Luke, as Olands' son, and William Demarest, as an offensively Stupid cop, bring the proceedings to a halt whenever they open their mouths.  Because of the music and Karloff, 6/10 stars. 

[NickAndNora34]

Take Me Out to the Ballgame (1949) with Gene Kelly, Esther Williams, Frank Sinatra, Betty Garrett, & Jules Munshin (whom you will recognize as the exasperated waiter in "Easter Parade; 1948"). 

 

I never caught this movie when it aired on TCM, and was dumbfounded to find out it was available on Netflix (that's good news for you folks who haven't seen it). It is basically a typical (but wonderful) MGM movie musical that centers around a baseball team called the Wolves, where Kelly, Sinatra, and Munshin are the star players ("O'Brien to Ryan to Goldberg"). Esther Williams' character becomes suddenly more involved with the team than they'd like, and Betty Garrett's Shirley falls hard for Sinatra's Denny Ryan. 

 

All in all, I thoroughly enjoyed this film, and found myself humming along to the tunes, and chuckling at some of the funny dialogue. Naturally, Esther has a short swimming scene (I expected as much lol), Frank falls for Gene's girl initially and then changes his mind, and Betty Garrett is absolutely adorable.

 

8/10 

[GregoryPeckfan]

SHE (1935):

 

SPOILERS!

 

YET MAYBE NOT SPOILERS AS IN I JUST WATCHED THIS AND IN 20 MINUTES I WILL FORGET THE DETAILS!

 

 

 

.................................................................................................

 

 

This movie stars RANDOLPH SCOTT, NIGEL BRUCE, NINA FOCH an has character actors I don't know the names.

 

 

The movie is called SHE  and yet for the first nine minutes there is no mention of any female even in art form.

 

It takes 37 minutes to see an actual woman in the film and it is called She!

 

 

The movie opens with Bruce and a man we will never see again ever in the film talking about the resemblance between Scott and a painting of John Vincy from 500 years ago who is his ancestor.

 

Scott must go who knows where to find the secret of the flame in a gold female statue.  Why I cannot remember.  It eventually becomes an everlong journey of the flame of life, but we do not know this at first.

 

 

It takes half the movie before we meet the SHE of SHE which in Nina Foch who is immortal and in love .

 

This movie cannot decide what genre it is.

 

Is it adventure?

 

It is about Christianity and Christ's sacrifice?

 

Is it a musical with Walk Like an Egyptian dancing during ritual dancing?

 

Is it a horror  film about human sacrifice?

 

Is it a fantasy like The Wizard of Oz?

 

It cannot decide.

 

 

This is truly a so bad it is good ala Plan 9 From Outerspace.

 

This also seemed at sometimes to be an episode of Star Trek The Original Series.

 

And why is it that Nigel Bruce always seem to be playing an imbecile who writes things down?

 

Many thanks to film lover for recommending this movie.

 

 

The film ends as love conquers all but not immortality.

 

A much better movie to watch would be A Matter of life and Death with David Niven if you want a movie about the sacrifice of love that is excellent.

 

However, if you want to be totally confused and enjoy a satisfaction of being able to say;

 

Yes!  've seen that Marion C. Cooper movie!

 

Then this is the movie for you!

 

Source:

 

Youtube in colour.

 

Probably a once is enough movie.

 

 

[LawrenceA]

Holiday (1930) - (7/10) - Original film version of the Broadway play, more famously remade in '38 with Katharine Hepburn and Cary Grant. In this version, young Julia Seton (Mary Astor) brings home fiance Johnny (Robert Ames) to meet her rich family: sister Linda (Ann Harding), drunken brother Ned (Monroe Owsley), and father Edward (William Holden, the old one). Everyone is charmed by Johnny, but the attitudes change when he reveals that he's a bit of a free spirit who wants to find himself, and doesn't necessarily have the work ethic dad and Julia hoped. Linda sympathizes with Johnny, and things get more tense as the wedding day approaches.

 

Harding earned a Best Actress Oscar nomination, and she's better here than in other things I've seen her in. She had a style that seemed to be out of fashion on screen by the mid-30's. Ames is pretty much a non-entity, especially compared to Cary Grant. Hedda Hopper shows up to play an annoying, loathsome human being. Not much of a stretch for her. Edward Everett Horton plays the same role in both film versions, and he's his usual entertaining self. I felt the best one in the film was Owsley, who I discovered was the only cast member to carry over from the stage production. The film is creaky and stagey, like many early talkies, but it never gets too languid, and it kept my interest. The copy I watched was a bit shabby, with some bad framing issues at times and some too-dark moments. From Pathe.

 

First time watched.   Source: YT

[TomJH]

SHE (1935):

 

 

I gather, GPFan, that you're not a fan of She. A small correction: the title character is played by actress Helen Gahagan. She was married to Melvyn Douglas, would later become a politician and, when running for the Senate in 1950 lose in the race after being branded "the pink lady" (at a time of Communist paranoia) by a young Richard Nixon. It was Gahagan who, in response, gave Nixon the nickname of "Tricky Dick."

 

I quite like She, primarily for its special effects and, by that, I mean minature sets that make it look like a major production, at times. The acting of both a wooden Randolph Scott and a frosty Helen Gahagan leaves much to be desired, and hurts the film. On the other hand, the film has a wonderfully dramatic musical score by Max Steiner.

 

There was a Hammer version, with the beauteous Ursula Andress, of course, in the '60s, which is interesting. (There is also a British made silent version with Betty Blythe on You Tube, a bit of a test to endure, though it runs less than an hour). The definitive screen version of the H. Ryder Haggard novel (which I loved reading when I was a kid) has yet to be made, in my opinion.

[GregoryPeckfan]

Regarding the actress, Tom:  SHE:

 

 

I think you underestimated my literal statement that I could not remember things shortly after they happened.

 

I COULD NOT REMEBER ANY OF THE CAST MEMBERS AS LISTED IN THE CREDITS AND HAD TO GO BY RECOGNITION.

 

She looked like Nina Foch.

 

Don't get me wrong, here.

 

I loved the effects for its era.

 

I love to watch movies that are difficult to find.

 

But as I was watching this film, I became aware of the fact that if I waited until today to write about it, I would not be able to put down any details and being that it was on Youtube rather than on a TV channel  and still see the screen.

 

There are some other things I remember which struck me at the time:

 

 

The special effects were quite spectacular as far as the fire was concerned.

 

But the scene with the iced in 'sabre tooth tiger" looked to me like the head of a puppy dog."

 

I did enjoy the movie.

 

I enjoy Plan 9 From Outer Space.

 

But I don't watch it often.

 

Consider it a film I saw because Film Lover said it had o be seen to be believed and that is totally correct.

 

As for the musical bits, I found myself dancing.

[Bogie56]

Over the last few days I watched five Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde movies.  All but one were quite good and the interpretation by the actors was quite diverse.

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1920).  John Barrymore is excellent.  For me the make-up is a little overdone but there you are.

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931).  Fredric March gives an Oscar winning performance which was well deserved.  The Mr. Hyde in this version is very much like a monkey.  While this may have been shocking to audiences in the early 30's it strains believability to imagine any woman would allow herself to be with such a creature.  Rouben Mamoulian's camera work was certainly daring.

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1941).  Quite similar in screenplay and style to the 1931 version.  Tracy gives a great performance with very little make up in comparison to the earlier versions.  Tracy's sensitive Jekyll and purely evil Hyde are very effective.  Though Ingrid Bergman pulls out all of the stops I didn't really buy into someone so unbelievably beautiful as a lowly London prostitute.

Le Testament de Docteur Cordelier (1959).  Jean Renoir made this for French television and surprisingly it is awful.  The sets are flimsy and Jean-Louis Barrault mime-like monkey Hyde is terrible.  Some critics obviously disagreed with me as they lauded his performance.

The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1968).  A Dan Curtis production for the CBC.  It suffers from the fact that it was shot on video.  The music stings are very repetitive and some may recognize them from Curtis' Dark Shadows movies.  These things aside I think this version is clearly the best.  Jack Palance is just amazing as both Jekyll and Hyde.  After his first transformation with minimal make-up Hyde wows the ladies at a music hall with his fun loving bravado.  That was a nice change and touch.  Denholm Elliott is also fantastic.  Leo Genn and Torin Thatcher give good support and Tessie O'Shea is a hoot as a Music Hall Queen.  The credits said 'and introducing' Billie Whitelaw.  According to the imdb she had made dozens of film appearances before this.  Perhaps they were trying to 'introduce' her to North America?

I know there was a thread not long ago devoted to these different versions.  Sorry I couldn't find it.

 

[LawrenceA]

Over the last few days I watched five Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde movies.  

 

 

What, no Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde (1971)? How about Dr. Heckyl and Mr. Hype (1980)?

 

Jekyll and Hyde...Together Again (1982)

I, Monster (1971)

The Two Faces of Dr. Jekyll (1960)

Edge of Sanity (1989)

Mary Reilly (1996)

Jekyll & Hyde (1990) with Michael Caine

 

 

I hadn't heard of the Renoir version.

[TomJH]

Over the last few days I watched five Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde movies.

 

So, Bogie, do you have a favourite film version if you could have a copy of only one? Likewise, do you have a favourite actor in the role, err, roles?

[Bogie56]

So, Bogie, do you have a favourite film version if you could have a copy of only one? Likewise, do you have a favourite actor in the role, err, roles?

 

I went into the Jekyll Hyde mini fest with the view of comparing the lead performances.  It was a lot tougher than I imagined it was going to be.  Barrymore is terrific but the film is of its time and the style could not be any more different to that of Tracy who as you know internalizes quite a bit.  With Tracy this was quite effective for the contrast between the good and evil was quite pronounced and still not over the top.  His Hyde was done a lot with his voice.  You cannot say that of March's Hyde as he was acting through a huge set of dentures which could not have been easy.  His performance was of course more shocking and 'horrific.'  

With the Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1968) they cut out the fiancé character so Palance plays Jekyll as a lonely bachelor. He adds a great deal of sadness to his Jekyll which is something that is just not there in the other versions.  Shyness and sensitivity is not something you usually associate with Jack Palance so this tv film is certainly one of his best.  And as I briefly mentioned you can almost see why the ladies like his Mr. Hyde for in the beginning he seems intent on just having lots of fun.  And as you know, no one can quite do evil like Jack Palance.  If I had to pick it would be Palance followed by Tracy in a film version.

I saw Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde in the cinema when it was released and was pretty disappointed by it even though it featured Martine Beswick.

[film lover 293]

Don't forget Bugs Bunny's "Hyde and Hare" (1955).

[LornaHansonForbes]

Don't forget Bugs Bunny's "Hyde and Hare" (1955).

God i love that one.

 

Have any of you read the original Robert Louis Stephenson story? I read it when I was about 12, having previously read and really really really disliked " Treasure Island" by the same author.

 

So I did not expect much going into the Strange Case of dr. Jekyll and mr. Hyde...

 

And "not much" pretty much sums up what I got out of it plus what I thought of it.

[Bogie56]

What, no Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde (1971)? How about Dr. Heckyl and Mr. Hype (1980)?

 

Jekyll and Hyde...Together Again (1982)

I, Monster (1971)

The Two Faces of Dr. Jekyll (1960)

Edge of Sanity (1989)

Mary Reilly (1996)

Jekyll & Hyde (1990) with Michael Caine

 

 

I hadn't heard of the Renoir version.

 

I haven't seen Chehre Pe Chehra (1981) either which is an Indian Jekyll and Hyde.  It was brought to my attention by someone posting in your Top Ten thread.  I would be guessing if I said by Sansfin.

[TomJH]

Thanks very much for the analysis of the Jekyll and Hyde films, Bogie.

 

I still like the Mamoulian-March version as the boldest of the various film adaptions.

 

But Jack Palance gives my favourite performance which I primarily recall for his wicked bon vivant portrayal of Mr. Hyde. I will have to take another look at it (in spite of that soft video image). I had forgotten that Palance brings a certain sadness to his Dr. Jekyll portrayal.

 

 

[Bogie56]

Thanks very much for the analysis of the Jekyll and Hyde films, Bogie.

 

I still like the Mamoulian-March version as the boldest of the various film adaptions.

 

But Jack Palance gives my favourite performance which I primarily recall for his wicked bon vivant portrayal of Mr. Hyde. I will have to take another look at it (in spite of that soft video image). I had forgotten that Palance brings a certain sadness to his Dr. Jekyll portrayal.

 

Yes, as a 'film' the Mamoulian version is by far the tops.  Denholm Elliott makes the best best friend and Miriam Hopkins the best tart.

The video image of Strange Case is rather sharp but it is flat flat flat which is the dead giveaway.  I bought a dvd copy on Amazon and it was fairly cheap.

By the way, I am not a fan of Jerry Lewis' The Nutty Professor.

[GregoryPeckfan]

God i love that one.

 

Have any of you read the original Robert Louis Stephenson story? I read it when I was about 12, having previously read and really really really disliked " Treasure Island" by the same author.

 

So I did not expect much going into the Strange Case of dr. Jekyll and mr. Hyde...

 

And "not much" pretty much sums up what I got out of it plus what I thought of it.

 

 

Yes, Lorna;

 

I read the original story by R.L.S. in grade nine and wrote a book report on it.  It was one of a long list of suggested books.  We had to pick one book per term.  This was one of mine.

 

The other two were The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and Catcher in the Rye.

[CaveGirl]

Frank Buck and footage from his "Bring'em Back Alive" stints.''
 

I decided to wear Max Factor Jungle Red lipstick and nail polish while watching as it seemed so appropriate.

It was a walk on the wild side to be sure!

[LawrenceA]

10 to Midnight (1983) - (7/10) - Suspenseful police film starring Charles Bronson as a Homicide Detective on the hunt for a psychotic sex killer (a terrific Gene Davis). Bronson is paired with a naive rookie (Andrew Stevens) who tries to do things by the book, but that may not be so easy when lives are on the line. Also with Wilford Brimley, Lisa Eilbacher, Geoffrey Lewis, Robert F. Lyons, Ola Ray, Kelly Preston, and Jeana Tomasino. This isn't anything new, but it's competently done, and Davis makes a memorable antagonist. There's a lot of violence and nudity, though, so be forewarned. Directed by veteran J. Lee Thompson. From Cannon.

 

 

Rewatch.   Source: DVD.

[film lover 293]

"Fiend Without A Face" (1958)--Horror/anti-nuke film set in Manitoba.  Townspeople are disturbed by a nuclear facility set up for tests when the tests decrease the amount of milk their cows give.  After multiple people die right after these tests, the townsfolk finally get upset and do a 50's variation of the mob scene with villagers who are armed with torches and pitchforks.  Film Finally gets moving in the last half hour.  Certain scene staging is reminiscent of "Night of the Living Dead" (1968).  Interesting 50's curiosity.  Available on YT.  5.8/10 stars.

[LornaHansonForbes]

Yes, Lorna;

 

I read the original story by R.L.S. in grade nine and wrote a book report on it.  It was one of a long list of suggested books.  We had to pick one book per term.  This was one of mine.

 

did you like it?

i cannot bring myself to call it a book. or even a novella...honestly, "short story" seems generous, it's like the outline for something good, but not a lot of "there" there.

[GregoryPeckfan]

did you like it?

i cannot bring myself to call it a book. or even a novella...honestly, "short story" seems generous, it's like the outline for something good, but not a lot of "there" there.

 

 

Yes, I call it a short story too.  But it was part of a list of books/novellas for us.

 

I had grand illusions of being able to write a paper on Wuthering Heights, freaked out, and chose this short story instead.

 

I enjoyed the story more than I enjoy most film adaptations.  In reading it, you can see why it has been adapted so many times.

 

As far as adaptations are concerned, I have the John Barrymore DVD, but have not yet seen it.

 

 

The makeup for me is too much for March, but I see why he won.

 

Tracy is my favourite of the ones I've seen.

 

I love the animated Film.

 

I've never seen a foreign language version.

 

And I was wondering if someone would mention Lewis today.

[LornaHansonForbes]

The Mamoulian version is the best all-around.

 

I disliked the 1941 version the first time i saw it and i've disliked it ever since.

 

Spencer Tracy was a great actor, but I think he had something of a vicious streak that would make Hyde envious...he and (alleged) "best friend" Frederic March had a rivalry and Spencer deliberately set out to do the film to get at March, thereby "one-upping" his (at the time) sole Oscar-winning performance. As a possibly unforeseen result, MGM bought the film from Paramount and proceeded to destroy every reel of the 1932 version they could find. it was, for many years, thought lost.

 

Imagine how that must've felt to March, if he learned it.

 

Not only that, but it seems like they didn't even bother to watch the original because it is a thrillingly efficient, neat little movie that moves as a nice clip, pulls no punches, and isn't weighted down by clunky psuedo-psychological imagery and overthinking.

 

the remake, notsomuch.

[GregoryPeckfan]

I can see that, Lorna.

 

I love Frederic March.

 

If you are looking in terms of the entire movie, then yes I prefer the March movie.  But we were talking about actors in the duel roles, and I prefer the Tracy makeup.

 

I'm guessing here and I am basing this on my knowledge of the actors here, but if I were able to get past the special effects of Barrymore's transformation which include a huge spider across the screen -

 

 

I have mentioned my inability to get through any version of Dracula because of the insects -

 

 

 

That I would prefer the interpretation of John Barrymore.

 

Barrymore was excellent before he became ill with alcoholism.

 

 

But I do own the DVD and it is waiting for me.

[LawrenceA]

Barrymore as Hyde

 

[Bogie56]

The Mamoulian version is the best all-around.

 

I disliked the 1941 version the first time i saw it and i've disliked it ever since.

 

Spencer Tracy was a great actor, but I think he had something of a vicious streak that would make Hyde envious...he and (alleged) "best friend" Frederic March had a rivalry and Spencer deliberately set out to do the film to get at March, thereby "one-upping" his (at the time) sole Oscar-winning performance. As a possibly unforeseen result, MGM bought the film from Paramount and proceeded to destroy every reel of the 1932 version they could find. it was, for many years, thought lost.

 

Imagine how that must've felt to March, if he learned it.

 

Not only that, but it seems like they didn't even bother to watch the original because it is a thrillingly efficient, neat little movie that moves as a nice clip, pulls no punches, and isn't weighted down by clunky psuedo-psychological imagery and overthinking.

 

the remake, notsomuch.

 

They may have said they didn't look at the 1932 version but that is just utter rubbish.  Seen back to back the similarities and copying is extremely lengthy.  There are too many examples to even detail here.  

For instance, the montage when Jekyll turns into Hyde for the very first time is so unique in the 1932 version that the odds of doing that again in the 1942 version without copying would be staggering.

I liked Tracy's performance though.