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

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Hibi said:

What was his motivation anyway?  He likes to disfigure his first dates? The whole sequence was badly filmed and what he does comes out of nowhere.

That's the thing with the scene. It was grotesque, and a long scene to boot. One would imagine that the Liza character would have wanted to get away from him after he wanted her to remove her clothes in a cemetery, that she would be in on the fact that her date was a psycho. By actually staying around him after the graveyard incident, , it makes her character seem a bit dim.  And because we don't know anything else about her "date", we lack any motivation as to why he is what he is.

Incidently, Robert Moore, in addition to being a Broadway director, directed 3 Neal Simon adaptations in the late 70s, Murder by Death, The Cheap Detective, and Chapter Two (where TV's Rhoda, his onetime "date", Valerie Harper, had a supporting part)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I lifted this from the NYT website. I agree with it.

 

Otto Preminger's "Tell Me That You Love Me, Junie Moon," which opened yesterday at the Beekman Theater, is about three gallant, self-styled "freaks" who set up housekeeping together in a broken-down bungalow that comes complete with a banyan tree in the backyard, a hoot owl in the banyan tree, a Peeping Tom next door, and a rich, spooky landlady who dresses like a World War I ace in leather helmet, leather jacket, tinted goggles and long, flowing scarf.Half of the face of Junie Moon (Liza Minnelli) has looked like Lon Chaney's Phantom of the Opera (or, at least, it is supposed to look that way) ever since a traveling salesman topped off their date by knocking Junie Moon into the mud and then pouring battery acid over her. Arthur (Ken Howard) is tall, blond and very handsome, but aside from the fact that he has an occasional seizure and sort of lopes when he walks, you'd hardly know that he suffers from a progressive neurological disorder that is turning his body into mush.In some ways the most pathetic member of the trio, perhaps because he seems the most resolutely self-contained, is Warren (Robert Moore), a red-bearded, barrel-chested homosexual who likes to make brownies and to use words like "divine" to describe things on the order of swimming trunks. Warren has been confined to a wheel-chair ever since he was 17 when, during a hunting trip, he made a pass at a friend who promptly shot him in the spine.In the course of Marjorie Kellog's tiny, moving novel, Junie Moon, Arthur and Warren, abandoned by their families, their friends and, to a large extent, the world, discover self and love so quietly and unobtrusively that the reader feels he has made the discovery himself. In the film, based on a screenplay by Miss Kellogg, there is never any doubt that the process of discovery is being led by Preminger.Much like one of the dispassionate doctors in Junie Moon's state hospital, who displays his patients to visiting medical men without ever listening to the patients' complaints, Preminger displays his characters without ever revealing them, or letting them reveal themselves. In "Junie Moon," the people never seem more important than the things Preminger places around them, like the hoot owl and the scroungy old dog Arthur befriends, or more important than the theatrical lighting, which makes real locations look like studio backdrops, and the clever techniques (flashback scenes are printed from unsqueezed anamorphic footage).This sense of display, which is not to be confused with visual spectacle, works quite well in movies of melodramatic event ("Hurry Sundown," "In Harm's Way," "Anatomy of a Murder"), but it is completely inappropriate for movies dealing with such private emotions as loneliness, embarrassment and suddenly recognized friendship. These things are difficult to see when you look at them directly; they have to be discovered out of the corner of the eye.Preminger doesn't direct movies as much as he makes frontal assaults on them. It's no accident that the most vivid moments in "Junie moon" are either the most cruel or the most bizarre, not because Preminger is cruel and bizarre, but because they fit into his melodramatic view of things. Junie Moon, shivering and feeling slightly silly, being forced to do a strip tease in a cemetery, in the dead of night, for a kinky boyfriend, while the soundtrack alternates between delicate Bach and something that sounds like old Stan Kenton.If anything, however, Preminger has been too sparing of our feelings. Miss Minnelli's Junie Moon is an exuberant, appealing misfit, but she really doesn't look very badly mangled (at one point in the novel Miss Kellogg describes her nose as a trench). Ken Howard's Arthur is so nice and healthy, if a bit shy, I couldn't believe he suffered from anything worse than a bad charley horse. By softening these edges, Preminger has, ironically, denied his characters the terror that is their right, and the affection that is ours.The most appealing person in the film is a beautifully commonplace fishmonger, played by James Coco, an aging bachelor who befriends Junie Moon and her friends and, much to his own surprise, falls in love with the very odd girl. I also liked Moore, who speaks his lines (fast, theatrically) like a director of Broadway comedies, which he is "Promises, Promises," "The Last of the Red Hot Lovers")."Tell Me That You Love Me, Junie Moon" is not an unintelligent film, but it is so cool and ordinary that it almost made me nostalgic for "Skidoo," which was epically bad but the obvious work of a brazenly gifted director.

 
 
 
A version of this article appears in print on July 2, 1970 of the National edition with the headline: Screen: 'Junie Moon' at the Beekman:Liza Minnelli Stars in Preminger Film 3 Self-Styled 'Freaks' Set Up a Home. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe
  •  
  •  
 
 
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CinemaInternational said:

That's the thing with the scene. It was grotesque, and a long scene to boot. One would imagine that the Liza character would have wanted to get away from him after he wanted her to remove her clothes in a cemetery, that she would be in on the fact that her date was a psycho. By actually staying around him after the graveyard incident, , it makes her character seem a bit dim.  And because we don't know anything else about her "date", we lack any motivation as to why he is what he is.

Incidently, Robert Moore, in addition to being a Broadway director, directed 3 Neal Simon adaptations in the late 70s, Murder by Death, The Cheap Detective, and Chapter Two (where TV's Rhoda, his onetime "date", Valerie Harper, had a supporting part)

Yep. The whole thing doesnt make a lot of sense. Liza doesn't even know the guy, yet strips because he asks her to? I don't recall how it was handled in the book, it was probably just mentioned by the character. The Ken Howard flashback is even more bizarre. Too many strange scenes in the film that are just strange to be strange. They dont really add to the film. The whole thing with Ken wandering around was boring and could've been cut or trimmed. Too many long stretches in the film that dont really add anything. Then the film really goes off kilter when they decide to go on vacation! (dont remember if that was in the book or not, but seems very movieish)

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

That's the thing with the scene. It was grotesque, and a long scene to boot. One would imagine that the Liza character would have wanted to get away from him after he wanted her to remove her clothes in a cemetery, that she would be in on the fact that her date was a psycho. By actually staying around him after the graveyard incident, , it makes her character seem a bit dim.  And because we don't know anything else about her "date", we lack any motivation as to why he is what he is.

Incidently, Robert Moore, in addition to being a Broadway director, directed 3 Neal Simon adaptations in the late 70s, Murder by Death, The Cheap Detective, and Chapter Two (where TV's Rhoda, his onetime "date", Valerie Harper, had a supporting part)

Yes, he was a very in demand director on Broadway for many years.......

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with CinemaInternational on this.  I liked "Tell Me You Love Me, Junie Moon", a movie I had not seen till it aired on TCM last night.  I liked Liza Minelli's performance in it and how she eventually gave in to sleep with Ken Howard who loved her despite her appearance.  It helped her get over her fears of not being good enough (or attractive enough) to be loved that deeply.  Robert Moore, the third main character in this saga of misfits, served as a nice counter-balance for Howard and Minelli's characters.  It was nice to see Anne Revere ( a hospital social worker) on the screen too.  I didn't realize until Alicia Malone mentioned it in the movie intro that this was Revere's return to the big screen after a 19-year hiatus, which began with her being black-listed in the Red Scare of the early 50's.  Fred Williamson, like the 3 principle characters, was just beginning his acting career, and I think it's safe to say that few actors could wear painted on pants as well as he could...yikes!  He befriends Moore's character and takes him out for a night of romance on the beach with a couple of interested ladies.  James Coco, who runs a local fish market, hires Howard to work in his shop, but rescinds the job offer after hearing a false rumor about Howard's sexual perversions.  After he helps Minelli find Howard, he's remorseful about what he's done, and begins to take an interest in helping out the three young friends as much as he can.

True, the movie seems a little disjointed at times and might leave the viewer questioning many things about it, including why they tuned into it in the first place!  But, despite the flaws and some of the quirkiness to it, it was an enjoyable way to spend a Tuesday evening.  It had a bummer of an ending, but overall, I'm inclined to give it a 6 out of 10.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Hibi said:

THAT was Kay Thompson????? I missed most of the opening credits so didnt realize that. Or Ann Revere either! (I thought she looked familiar, similar to Colleen Dewhurst, but I knew it wasn't her) Thompson's character was ghastly and should've been cut ENTIRELY! The film could've benefited being cut to 90 mins. Really dragged in spots and the dialogue didn't help.

 

16 hours ago, CinemaInternational said:

I knew that Junie Moon would get a polarized reception here. Its a really bizarre film, but I actually liked it when I saw it 3 years ago though I thought that the flashback to how Liza got scarred was pretty sadistic.

OTTO PREMINGER was always an uneven director, even at his best, but as he got older things got a little out of hand.

(although, please don't hurt me, I like BUNNY LAKE.)

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologize if I wander off the Reservation with this one as I sometimes do when I either REALLY LIKE or REALLY DON'T LIKE something...

My day to day life is often spent dealing  with my manic depression, and as such, I am drawn to the ABSOLUTE BEST and ABSOLUTE WORST of things- music, movies, TV, etc.- and while I have a genuine unforced, completely not-pretentious appreciation for the highbrow (I've read BLEAK HOUSE and OUR MUTUAL FRIEND and DOMBEY AND SON! All the way through too! ) i HAVE AN EQUALLY STRONG FASCINATION WITH THE PRURIENT, THE TRASHY, THE (as HENRY HIGGINS WOULD SAY ) "the delightfully low, the deliciously dirty!"

And on that note, let me tell you about my seeing the 1971 exploitation film I DRINK YOUR BLOOD for the first time last night.

This film was a Goddamned masterpiece.

[I know I usually post images in my reviews, but in this case, there's not a single still I could find on bing that I could in good conscience post here.]

To get what little criticism I have out of the way, THE TITLE HAS NOTHING TO DO THE STORY, and it was called that as a gimmick to put it on a double with with a MUCH TAMER unreleased 1964 horror comedy ZOMBIE, retitled I EAT YOUR SKIN (the latter has been done by Rifftrax and it's pretty funny.)

this film is about a nearly-abandoned, isolated, upstate New York  town, populated by only a handful of stragglers; A MANSON FAMILY-like group of 6 multi-racial hippies decides to crash. they give an old man LSD and, out of revenge, his BILL MUMY-like grandson FEEDS THE HIPPIES MEAT PIES THAT END UP GIVING THEM RABIES.

THE RABID HIPPIES THEN RUN AMOK AND TO DESCRIBE THE HOUR AND TEN MINUTES OF ENSUING MADNESS WOULD BE WITHOUT A POINT. Also without a point would be to deny the ELECTRIC ENERGY this movie takes on, it's one SHOCK after another, just throwing spaghetti at the wall and seeing what sticks. YOU CAN'T LOOK AWAY FROM IT, it GRABS you and SHAKES THE SH!T OUT OF YOU in a VERY REAL way that few movies- good or badly done- can.

this is not a film for everyone, but OH WAS IT EVER A FILM FOR ME!

THIS WAS THE CINEMATIC EQUIVALENT OF ELECTROSHOCK THERAPY!

i will note that the film can be found in full on youtube, but it is EN FRANCAIS, which frankly, sounds like AN EVEN MORE FUN VIEWING EXPERIENCE!

I apparently saw the "full restored version" which included a couple of misfired scenes tacked on at the ending, but they actually didn't hurt the momentum of the rest of the film (because up to then, it's THAT STRONG.)

Also, there is an undeniable link between this film and NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, although I herein note that while NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD is a seminal, highly important film, it's a little lethargic. this movie is ALL ENERGY.

A LOTTA MOUNTAIN DEW AND COCAINE AND ACID WENT DOWN ON THIS SET.

 

PS- RABID HIPPIES would be a much better title for this than I DRINK YOUR BLOOD.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched BILLY ELLIOTT (2000) on HBO last night. I loved this movie. It "shows" you the story rather than "tells" you. The acting across the board was excellent. Lots of good kid acting. I thought the story was heartfelt and authentic. Tremendous building to dramatic conclusions....overcoming obstacles. I was particularly touched by the performance of Gary Lewis as the Dad. I've seen him in only a few films but I always recognize him. He has a pretty good filmography. I also liked a lot of the soundtrack performances of T. Rex tunes. I downloaded a handful this morning.   

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

 

OTTO PREMINGER was always an uneven director, even at his best, but as he got older things got a little out of hand.

(although, please don't hurt me, I like BUNNY LAKE.)

I don't think he can be blamed entirely for the mess of Junie Moon, the script is BAD. Editing choices, YES!

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Hibi said:

I don't think he can be blamed entirely for the mess of Junie Moon, the script is BAD. Editing choices, YES!

Now that I've heard all this about it, I will DEFINITELY try to watch it!

Personally, I have always been REALLY CURIOUS about SKIDOO (1968) which was one of OTTO'S last films; it's legendarily AWFUL.

He should have stuck with playing MR. FREEZE.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

SERIOUSLY THOUGH, even OTTO PREMINGER'S best films have their fair share of "HUH?!" moments, he's one of those who never made a fully satisfying film that I have seen, although I am a HUGE fan of LAURA and would list it among my all-time favorites.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

Now that I've heard all this about it, I will DEFINITELY try to watch it!

Personally, I have always been REALLY CURIOUS about SKIDOO (1968) which was one of OTTO'S last films; it's legendarily AWFUL.

He should have stuck with playing MR. FREEZE.

Yes, I've never seen Skidoo! LOL. I think TCM may have shown it once.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Hibi said:

Yes, I've never seen Skidoo! LOL. I think TCM may have shown it once.

They've shown it 3 times, per MovieCollectorOH's list.  Last time was in 2014.  If you can make it to the end, more power to you!

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, txfilmfan said:

They've shown it 3 times, per MovieCollectorOH's list.  Last time was in 2014.  If you can make it to the end, more power to you!

I wonder if there was any critic anywhere in 1968 who was brave enough to call it "SKIDOO-DOO" in their review.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, txfilmfan said:

They've shown it 3 times, per MovieCollectorOH's list.  Last time was in 2014.  If you can make it to the end, more power to you!

WOW. I may have to record it next round.

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

pretty great choice for underground, maybe a double feature with CANDY (also 1968?)

I've always wanted to see his "Such Good Friends" too. Another one of his that's fallen through the cracks. It actually got some good reviews from N.Y. critics.

I remember adds for Skidoo and it looked SO BAD.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2010 (1984)

I might be in the minority of people who don't care much for Kubrick's 2001 while still appreciating it but always wanted to see the sequel which I'm actually surprised was ever made.  I enjoyed this film but can see why explaining the actions of HAL in the first one might disappoint some.  I liked this film up until the point items were floating around the hospital room.  Think Roy Scheider was great for this film.  John Lithgow, questionable.  The interactions between the US astronauts and the Russian cosmonauts was a highlight light for me.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Another Old Hollywood trying to be hip movie of the 60s.  (Skidoo) The cast and plot alone  would've been enough to keep people away. LOL.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

I wonder if there was any critic anywhere in 1968 who was brave enough to call it "SKIDOO-DOO" in their review.

The reviewers might have been brave enough, but newspaper editors wouldn't have allowed that back in 1968.  The only NY Times review I can find is from March 1969, when it was released to neighborhood theaters, 3 months after its initial release.  I guess the NYT skipped reviewing it when it played at the first-run theaters.  It's not kind, and particularly so to the actors involved.  Here's a sample:

All of this is by way of saying that "Skidoo," the newest Preminger movie that opened yesterday at neighborhood theaters, is something only for Preminger-watchers, or for people whose minds need pressing by a heavy, flat object.  The movie, which has the form of comedy, is 98 minutes of disconnected story-conference ideas about a retired hood (Jackie Gleason) commissioned to dispose of a Valachi type (Mickey Rooney) who's about to tell all to a Senate investigating committee. The cast is large and mostly old (George Raft, Cesar Romero, Peter Lawford, Doro Merande, Burgess Meredith), but Preminger's use of disintegrating faces is more cruel than comic.  Groucho Marx appears briefly as the syndicate boss known as "God," a conceit that's funny for even less time than it takes to report, and Carol Channing, who plays Gleason's wife, is simply a running sight gag.  The movie's almost complete lack of humor, its **** contemporaneousness (much is made of hippies, pot and LSD), its sometimes beautiful and expensive-looking San Francisco locations, and its indomitable denial that disaster is at hand (apparent from almost the opening sequence)—all give the film an undeniable Preminger stamp. So do the imaginative title credits but these—since Preminger is being consistently high-handed with our affections—have been placed at the very end of the movie.

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, txfilmfan said:

The reviewers might have been brave enough, but newspaper editors wouldn't have allowed that back in 1968.  The only NY Times review I can find is from March 1969, when it was released to neighborhood theaters, 3 months after its initial release.  I guess the NYT skipped reviewing it when it played at the first-run theaters.  It's not kind, and particularly so to the actors involved.  Here's a sample:

All of this is by way of saying that "Skidoo," the newest Preminger movie that opened yesterday at neighborhood theaters, is something only for Preminger-watchers, or for people whose minds need pressing by a heavy, flat object.  The movie, which has the form of comedy, is 98 minutes of disconnected story-conference ideas about a retired hood (Jackie Gleason) commissioned to dispose of a Valachi type (Mickey Rooney) who's about to tell all to a Senate investigating committee. The cast is large and mostly old (George Raft, Cesar Romero, Peter Lawford, Doro Merande, Burgess Meredith), but Preminger's use of disintegrating faces is more cruel than comic.  Groucho Marx appears briefly as the syndicate boss known as "God," a conceit that's funny for even less time than it takes to report, and Carol Channing, who plays Gleason's wife, is simply a running sight gag.  The movie's almost complete lack of humor, its **** contemporaneousness (much is made of hippies, pot and LSD), its sometimes beautiful and expensive-looking San Francisco locations, and its indomitable denial that disaster is at hand (apparent from almost the opening sequence)—all give the film an undeniable Preminger stamp. So do the imaginative title credits but these—since Preminger is being consistently high-handed with our affections—have been placed at the very end of the movie.

 

The bleeped-out word in the Times review, in case you're wondering, is a word kids used on the playground back then to say you weren't so smart, and it begins with an R.   So the editors would allow that back then (but not today)!

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, txfilmfan said:

The bleeped-out word in the Times review, in case you're wondering, is a word kids used on the playground back then to say you weren't so smart, and it begins with an R.   So the editors would allow that back then (but not today)!

you mean re tarded?

much like the word q u e e r, i think it was originally not attached to anything negative, but so strong was the association in the pejorative sense that they're both (kinda sorta) verbotten these days....

which is a shame, because their original definitions, meaning (as i RECALL) "an object that is impeded or held back" and "****ing odd" have a lot of applications in real life that are not malicious.

EDIT: NOPE, I LOOKED IT UP AND RE TARDED HAS ALWAYS BEEN A PROBLEMATIC TERM, SORRY FOR THE MISTAKE.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, LornaHansonForbes said:

you mean re tarded?

much like the word q u e e r, i think it was originally not attached to anything negative, but so strong was the association they're both (kinda sorta) verbotten, in certain senses....

which is a shame, because their original definitions, meaning "held back" and "****ing odd" have a lot of applications in real life that are not malicious.

Yes, you got it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On the subject of Such Good Friends, I wish TCM would interview Dyan Cannon. I've always thought she was an underappreciated actress and she's starred in some interesting films and worked with big stars. Would think she'd have some interesting stories to tell.  Wish TCM would revive that show (and not just at the Festival).

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...