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

Recommended Posts

49 minutes ago, CallMeTim said:

MeTV has showing clips from the old Ed Sullivan Show on Sunday evenings.   I've started recording them; they often show scenes from Broadway shows.   

It’s  kind of an enjoyable time capsule of the 1960s/ early 1970s.

You might want to check it out if you get MeTV in your area…...   

 

47 minutes ago, txfilmfan said:

Decades also runs the old Sullivan show every weekday.  It's a sister channel to MeTV.

On YouTube as well, The Ed Sullivan Show has their own channel on it and they put up clips of whatever entertainer from whatever year and its cool to watch as I was born after the Sullivan show went off the air. Although I noticed a lot of clips from Petula Clark on it, which I have no issues with at all as I like her very much!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

this is an interesting article i came across online RIPPING THE FILM SHREK TO BITS ON ITS 20TH ANNIVERSARY, i share it because I admire the Hell out of a contrarian viewpoint (also, I didn't think SHREK was "all that" either)

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2021/may/17/shrek-20-unfunny-overrated-low-blockbuster?utm_source=pocket-newtab

Like Galileo, I was once pilloried and excommunicated by other '01 animation fans for my heretical belief that Shrek was not only horribly sitcom-unfunny, but that Jeff Katzenberg's bile rancor to his old boss was like watching ninety minutes of a disgruntled fired middle-manager trash his boss's office, without the ability to call Security.

But then, in the last days of the Save-Disney-dot-com "Eisner wars", that was the whole draw of the movie--Audiences LITERALLY thought any joke about fairytales was a "well-deserved slam at Disney", end of story.  ("Oh, man, there's a Three Bears joke, that's a total rip on Disney's Three Bea...wait a second.")  When Disney's "Lilo & Stitch" came out in '02, with teaser trailers about Stitch crashing the classic Disney movies, fans' rabid wishful-thinking thought that was the actual plot of the movie, and that Disney "trashing its own legacy" meant they had "finally listened to the fans, and learned the lesson of Shrek!"  Yep, that's what things were really like, back in the dark ages before John Lasseter...Scary, huh?   😨

I will say, however, that the first Shrek, as opposed to the sequels, was co-written by one of the writers of the fractured-fairytale "ALFTales" series, arguably the hippest cartoon on 80's Saturday-morning. 😎 There are gags in the first movie that are timed as if they were ripped STRAIGHT out of a classic ALFTales cartoon.

 U4eBu-aI4axme5MqYuIm3UGpXXvmQsZ0QfQ4GCKc

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Had CHAPLIN (1992) in my DVR queue since it showed for the first time on TCM recently. I saw it when it came out and not since. It was very well done and I admired a couple of early performances by David Duchovny, Moira Kelly, Paul Rhys and Marissa Tomei. Of course, Robert Downey Jr. deserved his Oscar nomination. Also, excellent makeup, set design and costumes. I really...reliked it.

But...for the life of me how did Dan Ackroyd get so many meaningful acting roles? Is it me? I think he's a terrible actor. Great on SNL...but. He was fine for what was asked of him in GHOSTBUSTERS but man, this one and DRIVING MISS DAISY drove me crazy. Was it just name recognition that the producers wanted his name in the cast? Has it ever been explained?

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, MrMagoo said:

Had CHAPLIN (1992) in my DVR queue since it showed for the first time on TCM recently. I saw it when it came out and not since. It was very well done and I admired a couple of early performances by David Duchovny, Moira Kelly, Paul Rhys and Marissa Tomei. Of course, Robert Downey Jr. deserved his Oscar nomination. Also, excellent makeup, set design and costumes. I really...reliked it.

But...for the life of me how did Dan Ackroyd get so many meaningful acting roles? Is it me? I think he's a terrible actor. Great on SNL...but. He was fine for what was asked of him in GHOSTBUSTERS but man, this one and DRIVING MISS DAISY drove me crazy. Was it just name recognition that the producers wanted his name in the cast? Has it ever been explained?

 

Need to pull out my Chaplin DVD again as its been a few years.  I remember being somewhat disappointed by it and I believe I read that the director, Richard Attenborough, has also expressed how he wishes he could go back and make this film again.  I personally would rather see a film adaptation of Buster Keaton's life get made.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MrMagoo said:

But...for the life of me how did Dan Ackroyd get so many meaningful acting roles? Is it me? I think he's a terrible actor. Great on SNL...but. He was fine for what was asked of him in GHOSTBUSTERS but man, this one and DRIVING MISS DAISY drove me crazy. Was it just name recognition that the producers wanted his name in the cast? Has it ever been explained?

Aykroyd was...not too bad of a straight actor, Driving Miss Daisy included.  He admitted he didn't have much of an act without John Belushi, and his own strange comedy scripts never quite lived up to Ghostbusters, so it made sense as a career move.

There's a whole CATEGORY of ex-SNL comics who were never funny as comics, but make pretty darn good straight character actors, if you've seen Mike Myers in "54", Chris Kataan in the 90's "House on Haunted Hill", or, lord help us, Kevin Nealon in a few cable series.  Think Will Ferrell even did a few straight roles in the 00's.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Rounding out my Walter Matthau double feature, I just watched THE FORTUNE COOKIE '66.

225px-The_Fortune_Cookie_(1966)_poster.j

This is first & foremost a billy Wilder film, it has all the hallmarks-great script,  great cast, great editing, the story just flows along at a perfect pace. This apparently was the first pairing of Lemmon/Matthau with both leads playing it straight & therefore riotously funny. Lemmon's charactor Harry Hinkle is injured when broadcasting a football game when players explode onto the sidelines. Love the huge camera he's holding on his shoulder-I'm sure it was the sweetest nut in '66.

Matthau is his brother-in-law Bill "Whiplash Willy" an ambulance chasing lawyer who sees a big opportunity to sue every big corporation involved. When the story is focused on this, it works great. When any of the side stories, like Hinkle's ex-wife comes back, or the football player who feels incredible guilt over the accident, the humor falls a bit. I did enjoy the slapstick of the two surveillance charactors, one played by recognizable charactor actor Cliff Osmond.

The two leads are so strong comedically though, all others are just relief to somewhat ground the story. I loved the ending, although wholly predictable. This movie pales a bit only when compared to other Wilder films-and only because they are so brilliant & stellar-but this is a fun movie anyone can enjoy.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Shank Asu said:

Need to pull out my Chaplin DVD again as its been a few years.  I remember being somewhat disappointed by it and I believe I read that the director, Richard Attenborough, has also expressed how he wishes he could go back and make this film again.  I personally would rather see a film adaptation of Buster Keaton's life get made.

Chaplin had some parts that were not so good. However, the film "looked" nice; cinematography, sets, costumes, editing. I thought, in general, Downey, Jr. looked too young in many scenes as Chaplin aged. I found the James Woods courtroom scenes about the paternity suit strained and unauthentic, but maybe that was intentional. Ackroyd's performance, for me, was amateurish especially when he shared scenes/dialog with real actors. I loved THE BLUES BROTHERS and Ackroyd is an engaging personality who earned everything he achieved....nevertheless.

Overall, the acting was above average and I could see where the script could've been better. 

I still would give it a B+.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD last night. I truly love this movie and the book. Having recently read FURIOUS HOURS  by Casey Cep I watched with a slightly different perspective.  Nelle Harper Lee was an interesting person and a bit of an enigma to even those that knew her well.  If you are a fan of TKAM I highly recommend that you read FURIOUS HOURS.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Polly of the Precodes for alerting me in re: THE KISS BEFORE THE MIRROR (1932)

See the source image

 

 

This was a JAMES WHALE JOINT for UNIVERSAL, and even then, in the glory days of LAEMMLE, their motto was: "reduce, re-use, recycle"- only this is not a bad thing here as some of the TOWER SETS from FRANKENSTEIN are curiously and noticeably used again, as is the MITTEL-EUROPEAN VILLAGE SQUARE that we would see later in THE MYSTERY OF EDWIN DROOD (which would make a great double bill with this film) and, of course, THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN.

As with many JAMES WHALE films, this story seems to take place  in A ENGLISH VILLAGE situated for some reason in CENTRAL EUROPE where it's 1890 but people drive 1930's cars and wear 1930's fashions and they all have GERMAN NAMES and TITLES but nearly everyone speaks in a British or Transatlantic accent and it's never explained WHY, but the direction is so confident you just roll with it.

The movie starts out tediously, but about 20 minutes in, the story reveals itself, and it is QUITE THE INTRIGUIN PREMISE, one that I think NABOKOV himself would have admired.

A man [PAUL LUKAS, "woddling in his grandvodders voodschtoppes" EVEN MORE THAN HE USUALLY IS) MURDERS  his cheating wife (the enchanting GLORIA STUART)  in a jealous rage [as i recall it, he shoots her in the back] and is represented at trial by THAT OLD KANSAS MAN himself, FRANK MORGAN- a hotshot defense attorney whose wife (the equally enchanting NANCY CARROLL) is also running around on him. In a MIRROR IMAGE SCENARIO, it turns out MORGAN is planning getting LUKAS acquitted for his "crime of passion" thus establishing a LEGAL PRECEDENT so that HE HIMSELF can  MURDER his OWN philandering wife- to be honest with you, this is the exact kind of s*** a lawyer would think of and- I have to say- if THE SUPREME COURT tilts any further to the right in the coming years, I can honestly at least see arguments being heard. 

it's some pretty clever filmmaking for a little bit, UNTIL....

the final act, set in a courtroom, where IN HIS OPENING ARGUMENT  TO THE JURY, MORGAN [again- the ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENSE] CROSS EXAMINES HIS OWN CLIENT AND GETS HIM TO ADMIT [in open court!] TO KILLING HIS WIFE IN A CRIME OF PASSION BECAUSE HE HATED HER FOR CHEATING ON HIM then (get this) HE TURNS TO THE JURY AND INFORMS THEM THAT THE PENALTY FOR THIS CRIME IS DEATH, AND UNLESS THEY CAN WORK UP THE SAME INTENSE LEVEL OF PASSION AND HATRED IN THEIR OWN HEARTS FOR HIS CLIENT (LUKAS) THAT HE HAD FOR HIS WIFE WHEN HE (checks notes) MURDERED HER IN  (checks notes again) A FIT OF JEALOUS RAGE- then they should ACQUIT HIM.

WARNING: I AM GOING ALL IN WITH THE SPOILERS ON THIS, BUT HONESTLY, IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE FILM, I THINK KNOWING WHAT TO EXPECT WILL HELP YOU APPRECIATE IT ALL THE MORE.

THE JURY IS ONLY OUT FOR FIVE MINUTES AND JESUS CHRIST ON A CRACKER, THEY ACQUIT THE GUY OF ALL CHARGES!!!!!!

^&*%&^$%$&^%&*^*(&(*)(*%&^$

it's really something to see; i am going to go out on a limb here and say NO ONE CONSULTED WITH A LAWYER DURING THE MAKING OF THIS FILM.

this is from a non-lawyer here, but I dare to say that IN THE WORLD THAT IS NOT 1930's HOLLYWOOD, if a defense attorney in a murder trial tried to pull this crap, The Prosecution would ask for- and receive immediately- a COMPLETE MISTRIAL; and then the JUDGE would kindly (or not) request that the COUNSEL FOR DEFENSE contact THE STATE BAR and inform them that he will be surrendering his law license IMMEDIATELY...and also not to speak- at least for the rest of his time in the courtroom on that day, but preferably ever- unless he wants to spend time in the county jail.

EDIT- OF COURSE, I don't know what the laws or the court system were like in BRITISHSLOVAKIA of 1932...

  • Like 5
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

it's some pretty clever filmmaking for a little bit, UNTIL....

the final act, set in a courtroom, where IN HIS OPENING ARGUMENT  TO THE JURY, MORGAN [again- the ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENSE] CROSS EXAMINES HIS OWN CLIENT AND GETS HIM TO ADMIT [in open court!] TO KILLING HIS WIFE IN A CRIME OF PASSION BECAUSE HE HATED HER FOR CHEATING ON HIM then (get this) HE TURNS TO THE JURY AND INFORMS THEM THAT THE PENALTY FOR THIS CRIME IS DEATH, AND UNLESS THEY CAN WORK UP THE SAME INTENSE LEVEL OF PASSION AND HATRED IN THEIR OWN HEARTS FOR HIS CLIENT (LUKAS) THAT HE HAD FOR HIS WIFE WHEN HE (checks notes) MURDERED HER IN  (checks notes again) A FIT OF JEALOUS RAGE- then they should ACQUIT HIM.

WARNING: I AM GOING ALL IN WITH THE SPOILERS ON THIS, BUT HONESTLY, IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE FILM, I THINK KNOWING WHAT TO EXPECT WILL HELP YOU APPRECIATE IT ALL THE MORE.

THE JURY IS ONLY OUT FOR FIVE MINUTES AND JESUS CHRIST ON A CRACKER, THEY ACQUIT THE GUY OF ALL CHARGES!!!!!!

^&*%&^$%$&^%&*^*(&(*)(*%&^$

it's really something to see; i am going to go out on a limb here and say NO ONE CONSULTED WITH A LAWYER DURING THE MAKING OF THIS FILM.

this is from a non-lawyer here, but I dare to say that IN THE WORLD THAT IS NOT 1930's HOLLYWOOD, if a defense attorney in a murder trial tried to pull this crap, The Prosecution would ask for- and receive immediately- a COMPLETE MISTRIAL; and then the JUDGE would kindly (or not) request that the COUNSEL FOR DEFENSE contact THE STATE BAR and inform them that he will be surrendering his law license IMMEDIATELY...and also not to speak- at least for the rest of his time in the courtroom on that day, but preferably ever- unless he wants to spend time in the county jail.

EDIT- OF COURSE, I don't know what the laws or the court system were like in BRITISHSLOVAKIA of 1932...

I have to wonder how you feel about the courtroom scene and verdict in: How to Murder Your Wife (1965). 
 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

Never seen it! 
(I Have missed out on a lot of mid to late sixties titles)

It is available for viewing for free on: TubiTV. https://tubitv.com/movies/577680?utm_source=justwatch-feed&tracking=justwatch-feed

It is the simple tale of a man who has his life ruined by his wife and so he carefully plots her demise so that he may be free. Of particular interest are: the diamond heist, Terry-Thomas and the gloppitta-gloppitta machine. The courtroom action is quite intense. The spectators' reaction to the jury verdict might be seen as slightly ambiguous.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, MrMagoo said:

Had CHAPLIN (1992) in my DVR queue since it showed for the first time on TCM recently. I saw it when it came out and not since. It was very well done and I admired a couple of early performances by David Duchovny, Moira Kelly, Paul Rhys and Marissa Tomei. Of course, Robert Downey Jr. deserved his Oscar nomination. Also, excellent makeup, set design and costumes. I really...reliked it.

But...for the life of me how did Dan Ackroyd get so many meaningful acting roles? Is it me? I think he's a terrible actor. Great on SNL...but. He was fine for what was asked of him in GHOSTBUSTERS but man, this one and DRIVING MISS DAISY drove me crazy. Was it just name recognition that the producers wanted his name in the cast? Has it ever been explained?

 

In those days, having Dan Ackroyd as part of the cast would have drawn moviegoers to go see that particular movie. I too enjoyed Chaplin and was surprised to see my ex father in law as part of the cast. I think Downey did a very nice job as Chaplin and 1992 would have been a good time to remind current movie watchers what an essential part of the movie industry Chaplin was.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, SansFin said:

It is available for viewing for free on: TubiTV. https://tubitv.com/movies/577680?utm_source=justwatch-feed&tracking=justwatch-feed

It is the simple tale of a man who has his life ruined by his wife and so he carefully plots her demise so that he may be free. Of particular interest are: the diamond heist, Terry-Thomas and the gloppitta-gloppitta machine. The courtroom action is quite intense. The spectators' reaction to the jury verdict might be seen as slightly ambiguous.

TUBI- commercials aside- has become a really good source for movies....

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Watched Nomadland last night.  Thought it was shot beautifully but otherwise just didn't care for it.  Frances McDormand seems to be a favorite of the Academy in recent years but i think her performance was taken way too seriously.  Maybe i'm just not seeing or getting something.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

Thank you Polly of the Precodes for alerting me in re: THE KISS BEFORE THE MIRROR (1932)

See the source image

 

 

This was a JAMES WHALE JOINT for UNIVERSAL, and even then, in the glory days of LAEMMLE, their motto was: "reduce, re-use, recycle"- only this is not a bad thing here as some of the TOWER SETS from FRANKENSTEIN are curiously and noticeably used again, as is the MITTEL-EUROPEAN VILLAGE SQUARE that we would see later in THE MYSTERY OF EDWIN DROOD (which would make a great double bill with this film) and, of course, THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN.

As with many JAMES WHALE films, this story seems to take place  in A ENGLISH VILLAGE situated for some reason in CENTRAL EUROPE where it's 1890 but people drive 1930's cars and wear 1930's fashions and they all have GERMAN NAMES and TITLES but nearly everyone speaks in a British or Transatlantic accent and it's never explained WHY, but the direction is so confident you just roll with it.

The movie starts out tediously, but about 20 minutes in, the story reveals itself, and it is QUITE THE INTRIGUIN PREMISE, one that I think NABOKOV himself would have admired.

A man [PAUL LUKAS, "woddling in his grandvodders voodschtoppes" EVEN MORE THAN HE USUALLY IS) MURDERS  his cheating wife (the enchanting GLORIA STUART)  in a jealous rage [as i recall it, he shoots her in the back] and is represented at trial by THAT OLD KANSAS MAN himself, FRANK MORGAN- a hotshot defense attorney whose wife (the equally enchanting NANCY CARROLL) is also running around on him. In a MIRROR IMAGE SCENARIO, it turns out MORGAN is planning getting LUKAS acquitted for his "crime of passion" thus establishing a LEGAL PRECEDENT so that HE HIMSELF can  MURDER his OWN philandering wife- to be honest with you, this is the exact kind of s*** a lawyer would think of and- I have to say- if THE SUPREME COURT tilts any further to the right in the coming years, I can honestly at least see arguments being heard. 

it's some pretty clever filmmaking for a little bit, UNTIL....

the final act, set in a courtroom, where IN HIS OPENING ARGUMENT  TO THE JURY, MORGAN [again- the ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENSE] CROSS EXAMINES HIS OWN CLIENT AND GETS HIM TO ADMIT [in open court!] TO KILLING HIS WIFE IN A CRIME OF PASSION BECAUSE HE HATED HER FOR CHEATING ON HIM then (get this) HE TURNS TO THE JURY AND INFORMS THEM THAT THE PENALTY FOR THIS CRIME IS DEATH, AND UNLESS THEY CAN WORK UP THE SAME INTENSE LEVEL OF PASSION AND HATRED IN THEIR OWN HEARTS FOR HIS CLIENT (LUKAS) THAT HE HAD FOR HIS WIFE WHEN HE (checks notes) MURDERED HER IN  (checks notes again) A FIT OF JEALOUS RAGE- then they should ACQUIT HIM.

WARNING: I AM GOING ALL IN WITH THE SPOILERS ON THIS, BUT HONESTLY, IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE FILM, I THINK KNOWING WHAT TO EXPECT WILL HELP YOU APPRECIATE IT ALL THE MORE.

THE JURY IS ONLY OUT FOR FIVE MINUTES AND JESUS CHRIST ON A CRACKER, THEY ACQUIT THE GUY OF ALL CHARGES!!!!!!

^&*%&^$%$&^%&*^*(&(*)(*%&^$

it's really something to see; i am going to go out on a limb here and say NO ONE CONSULTED WITH A LAWYER DURING THE MAKING OF THIS FILM.

this is from a non-lawyer here, but I dare to say that IN THE WORLD THAT IS NOT 1930's HOLLYWOOD, if a defense attorney in a murder trial tried to pull this crap, The Prosecution would ask for- and receive immediately- a COMPLETE MISTRIAL; and then the JUDGE would kindly (or not) request that the COUNSEL FOR DEFENSE contact THE STATE BAR and inform them that he will be surrendering his law license IMMEDIATELY...and also not to speak- at least for the rest of his time in the courtroom on that day, but preferably ever- unless he wants to spend time in the county jail.

EDIT- OF COURSE, I don't know what the laws or the court system were like in BRITISHSLOVAKIA of 1932...

As I was watching The Kiss Before the Mirror, I had the feeling I had seen this story before, and I had.  Have you seen the remake, Wives Under Suspicion (1938)?  It's slightly different, lower budget, and more believable.  (Whale himself was apparently disatisfied with the ending of THe Kiss Before the Mirror).  Warren William is the attorney, but now the attorney for the prosecution.  He is his usually sleazy-charming Warren William self, rather than the overly emotional Frank Morgan.  Also, William is a workaholic, so his wife may even have motive for being unfaithful (although in this version, she's innocent).   Strange coincidence, Ralph Morgan (Frank Morgan's brother) plays the murderer.    The charmingly sarcastic Gail Patrick is William's wife.
 

I thought the atmosphere of The Kiss Before the Mirror was better than the remake (also interesting to see Walter Pidgeon and Gloria Stuart in early roles),  but the remake was more believable.   

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, rosebette said:

As I was watching The Kiss Before the Mirror, I had the feeling I had seen this story before, and I had.  Have you seen the remake, Wives Under Suspicion (1938)?  It's slightly different, lower budget, and more believable.  (Whale himself was apparently disatisfied with the ending of THe Kiss Before the Mirror).  Warren William is the attorney, but now the attorney for the prosecution.  He is his usually sleazy-charming Warren William self, rather than the overly emotional Frank Morgan.  Also, William is a workaholic, so his wife may even have motive for being unfaithful (although in this version, she's innocent).   Strange coincidence, Ralph Morgan (Frank Morgan's brother) plays the murderer.    The charmingly sarcastic Gail Patrick is William's wife.
 

I thought the atmosphere of The Kiss Before the Mirror was better than the remake (also interesting to see Walter Pidgeon and Gloria Stuart in early roles),  but the remake was more believable.   

 

i have not seen the remake, but i did read about it. it came all of eight years (or so) later and would had to have been one of WHALE'S last films. .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yesterday it was Pajama Party, one of the few AIP Beach Party films i hadn't seen yet.  I like these films.  Silly but fun and often great music cameos.  Believe this is the first film in the series that features Buster Keaton and he's one of my all-time favorites.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Who Killed Doc Robbin? (1948)

 

Children gatecrash a murder trial. Their testimony prompts the prosecuting attorney to charge their adult friend with the crime.

This is an: "Our Gang" movie with a new set of children.  It is in color with: George Zucco and: Grant Mitchell. I feel that little else may be said of it. I am not overly familiar with Hal Roach-type comedies but I must feel this is one of the less successful efforts. The gags and slapstick seem dated for the time. 

I found it sufficiently amusing and interesting to watch it to the end and to mention it here. 

To address woke culture: Rene Beard and Donald King play: Dis and Dat as stereotypical children of colour. That does not set them apart as every character in the movie is a blatant two-dimensional stereotype. The tall and freckled white boy is a hopeless coward. The boy with glasses is a genius. The littlest girl has a smart mouth. Etc. 

5/10

 

 

The Ghost Walks (1934)

 

A theatrical producer who specializes in tragedy and horror and his recently-fired secretary are thrust into the middle of a real life horror-mystery. Except that it is not. Except that it is.

This movie works on several levels. It is a quite acceptable little comedy. It is fine as a horror-mystery of the time. It is something of a parody/send-up of mystery movies. I did not find it an exceptional work of any of those genres but it is a very nice blending of them. 

When it is: 8:20p.m. and a clock begins to chime:
Producer: Was tha - was that the clock?
Secretary: Ye - yes, I - I - I guess so. I - I - I think so. It must have been. But it's a union clock.
Producer: What do you mean?
Secretary: Well, it strikes any old time.

6.4/10

 

Both movies may be available for viewing for free on a streaming service but I have found my usual resources to be inaccurate/inconsistent as to which. I watched them both via: Amazon Prime Video but there are indications they may not be available there in the near future.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The other night on the Movies! channel I saw "Who is Harry Kellerman and Why is He Saying Those Terrible Things About Me?" from 1970 or so.

I'm really not sure what to say about it, other than I found it interesting on its own terms, and as a nostalgia piece. It is not one of Hoffman's better known movies - wiki doesn't even list it in his filmography. I have been aware of it's existence since my grade school days when my sister and I saw the first few scenes one night at the drive-in. It was the third movie on the bill and by the time it came on we were both ready to just go home and go to bed, so we left soon after it began.

Dustin plays Georgie Soloway, a sort Bob Dylan type character who is struggling with thoughts of suicide, though we never learn exactly why. I assume he finds success hard to deal with, I don't know, but for whatever reason he is shown in many scenes standing on ledges or about to jump off balconies, only to land on his psychiatrist's sofa.  Along the way we are shown vignettes of his life, some comic (the scene with his parents at the dinner table is hilarious) some more dramatic, some just ... odd.  Roger Ebert in his review praised Barbara Harris's scenes, and she was very sympathetic. As we meet more and more of the people in Georgie's life it becomes obvious who Harry Kellerman is, even if we don't learn why he is saying such terrible things. 

Screenplay by Herb Gardner, who wrote "A Thousand Clowns" (another personal favorite) with music by Shel Silverstein, who makes an appearance in some mock concert footage along with Dustin and members of Dr. Hook.

I'd say it is flawed, but worthwhile. 

11712939%5D,sizedata%5B850x600%5D&call=u

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, LuckyDan said:

The other night on the Movies! channel I saw "Who is Harry Kellerman and Why is He Saying Those Terrible Things About Me?" from 1970 or so.

  Roger Ebert in his review praised Barbara Harris's scenes, and she was very sympathetic.

Screenplay by Herb Gardner, who wrote "A Thousand Clowns" (another personal favorite) with music by Shel Silverstein, who makes an appearance in some mock concert footage along with Dustin and members of Dr. Hook.

 

you might know this already but, BARBARA HARRIS got an Oscar nomination for BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS for WHO IS HARRY KELLERMAN...? but lost to CLORIS LEACHMAN in THE LAST PICTURE SHOW and SHEL SILVERSTEIN would later on got an Oscar nomination for writing the original song I'M CHECKIN OUT from POSTCARDS FROM THE EDGE.

  • Like 3
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
© 2022 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...